The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2019 was +0.44 deg. C, up from the March, 2019 value of +0.34 deg. C:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.06 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52
2018 02 +0.25 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.21 +0.35
2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.10 -0.14 +0.06 +1.01 +0.84
2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.01 +1.90 +0.13 -0.24
2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.10 +0.76 -0.41
2018 07 +0.30 +0.37 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49
2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.10 +0.37
2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.22 +0.28
2018 10 +0.20 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43
2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.28 +0.45 -1.16 +0.67 +0.55
2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.15 +0.30 +0.24 +0.69 +1.21
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.06
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.59
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91
The UAH LT global anomaly image for April, 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
OMG whatever happened to the global cooling that Dr. Roy and his minions have been predicting?
I’ll agree on the “minions” (at least the usual suspects) but I haven’t seen Dr. Spencer claiming we were in a cooling period. His opinions are much more “mainstream” than what goes on in the comments.
What part of El Nino do you fail to comprehend?
1982-83 Very Strong El Nino
2019 Weak El Nino
Yet the temperature anomaly of weak El Nino in 2019 are greater than a Very Strong El Nino in the 1982. That’s called warming.
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Comparing El Niños is just another numbers game.
My little hidden area got almost 7″ more rain that average, for April. That’s reality.
Good point JD, perhaps the ENSO is irrelevant.
Perhaps the ENSO, PDO and the AMO have no internal combustion.
Perhaps they are just oscillations.
Perhaps you need to look at the long term:
https://tinyurl.com/y6b5ttyw
Savante,
Humans go back further than your graph plots.
Yes the temperature rise is astonishing, so is the accuracy and the data points. That is not enough to debunk the results but factor it in.
Yes the temperature went up. Mother nature is chaotic.
Kind regards
Yes DREMT, climate has always changed.
Doesn’t mean it’s suitable for us now.
Svante, please stop trolling.
And we shouldn’t accept the risk just because it is natural.
“Yes DREMT…”
Svante, please stop trolling.
DREMT says:
“Humans go back further than your graph plots.”
Yes DREMT, perhaps we can learn from the Neanderthals:
https://tinyurl.com/y5lwgxmh
Snape, please stop trolling.
“The prevailing Eemian climate was, on average, around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) warmer than that of the Holocene. However, due to global warming, the past few July global temperatures likely surpassed the (long-term average) July temperatures of the Eemian period.”
“Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today”
https://tinyurl.com/y34rrsz6
OK Snape.
The 1980-2019 intermediate trend is higher based on the pair of el ninos just described. The short term trend is lower.
2017 El nino 3.4 region temperature is lower than 2018 yet global temperatures are also lower.
So currently we are in a clear up trend from 1980, but, the trend is in danger of ending. I wish we had UAH data from 1940-1980. I think the LONG term cycle would be clear.
“The short term trend is lower.”
How short do You want it, will 10 years do?
Well, then You have 0,292 C/decade
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
The down trend is very new. Just started in 2016. We just made the 3rd lower high on the UAH data. Too soon to call the intermediate trend broken. If the next data point is higher, the intermediate term trend is validated again. If we drop and make another lower low, I think that will be enough to raise some eyebrows finally. The north Atlantic is rolling over and broke it’s trend line multiple times in the last 10 years. (intermediate trend is down or sideways) El Nino is from low trade wind speeds and a weakening sun. This is a temporary warm up before we crash lower. Who knows how long it will take for the lack of upwelling to catch up with us. Could be another 10 years. I really don’t care. The sea level rise is linear. Co2 is parabolic. Sea level would have gone up in this fashion with or without us because the heat content of the ocean is increasing at a steady rate due to us being in an interglacial caused by the earths now almost perfectly round orbit. Don’t ignore the Holocene proxy data that shows temps can crash and deserts flood within a human lifetime even though we are living in this VERY favorable period. Lucky us the wind is at our backs and we will be able to grow food.
Scott…”The down trend is very new. Just started in 2016″
What!!???
The uptrend began in 2015 following 18 years of a flat trend, 15 of those years verified by the IPCC. The 2015 uptrend was obviously the beginning of the major 2016 El Nino which peaked in early 2016. Since that peak, the trend has been negative.
Gordon,
Identifying the trend is a difficult job, we all have to be careful not to allow our biases to influence us when we pick time frames to focus in on. I can totally see how you see it as a flat trend for 18 years followed by the start of a new up trend. The trend / time frame depends on what data you grab. My personal opinion is that we never left the 1980-2016 up trend. I say this because while temperatures were flat, the pacific ocean stayed in a perfect channel and for me that is a key piece of data. (HADSST3) The reason I feel so strongly that we are running an energy deficit right now is that since 2010, the sea level in New York (which I consider a good proxy data for the world) has dropped by more than 200mm. I feel sea level is a good proxy for true ocean heat content. Have we departed the 1850-2019 linear sea level channel? Absolutely not. This is good news. We do not want to depart from that. I’m very worried that the magnetic field / solar min could drop / flood us similar to what we see in the Holocene proxy data. Volcanism / increased cloud cover could definitely overpower the wonderfully circular orbit we are enjoying right now for the rest of our lives which honestly is my biggest climate worry right now. At the end of the day, I feel is the biggest climate forcer based on the linear sea level rise is our currently circular orbit. I believe our orbit is adding energy to the earth every year at a steady linear pace. Lucky us, we can grow food!
You have to be careful with any one El Nino. The El Chichon Volcano erupted April 1982 suppressing temperatures for most of the year.
The general trend is clear. The One Nino Index 1979 to present has a flat trend while the UAH TLT trend is upward 0.13 C per decade. If you detrend the temperature data it follows the rhythms of the El Nino/la Nina cycle, even during the “pause”. That suggests the warming trend hasn’t slowed. Let’s see what happens after a couple of la Ninas as strong as in 2008 or 2011.
The effect of El Chichon on global temperatures wasn’t felt until the following year.
“The effect of El Chichon on global temperatures wasn’t felt until the following year.”
Look at the UAH lower stratosphere data. You can see two big spikes in stratospheric temperature. The first peak at Nov 1982 is from El Chichon. The second, bigger spike at Oct 1991 is Pinatubo.
I would have thought it was obvious that when I referred to “global temperatures”, I was talking about what was happening down here on the ground.
The stratosphere shows little impact from the ENSO cycle but dramatically warms with spikes of sulfur dioxide so it’s the best data source to spot volcanic activity that affects climate. The warming corresponds to cooling “down here on the ground.”
I know you’re not talking about stratosphere temperatures but didn’t know if you were talking TLT or ground data. I assumed TLT because the warming in ground data is crystal clear.
I was referring to surface data.
I just plugged the UAH TLT numbers in Excel. The deepest La Nina drops send us about -0.4C below the linear regression trendline. Assuming the next La Nina is as deep as 2008 and 2012 then this would yield a UAH TLT anomaly of about -0.1C. Based on that, and only that, one could conclude that we still have the potential of seeing negative anomalies in the UAH TLT record for several more years. But, is the 2/2012 low of -0.22C still realistic? Meh…maybe not. At the very least you could argue that we’re going to need a very strong La Nina and a larger drop than has been seen in the UAH record thusfar for that happen.
test
I should probably point out that a VEI 6 eruption timed with a La Nina would almost certainly plunge us well into the negative territory. Pinatubo sent us about -0.4C from the LR trend and that was timed with a strong El Nino.
In another decade or so, that will be the only way of getting a negative anomaly.
@Bobdesbond
Sure, just like we now have almost no snowfall during winter!
Oh, wait…
A Nino on the same strength as the two recent Ninas
And what part of the El Nino phenomenon did You not comprehend?
The 98 and 16 Ninos had anomalies above 2C for several months, this Nino is hardly a Nino at all, with no months above 1C. And since the 16 Nino we have gone trough two Ninas of the same amplitude as this Nino.
Rune, the two La Nina events you referenced were insignificant. In one of them the Nina 1.2 area was almost +2 C at the end of the La Nina. Hence, we were not seeing the normal cold water upwelling that leads to cooling.
If you want to claim the current El Nino is not a factor then you will need to admit the cooling that will follow is natural. You won’t do that. We saw this same behavior from alarmists during the 2016 El Nino. They claimed it was climate change until the cooling started and then they immediately started claiming skeptics were cherry picking. If your fellow alarmists would quit lying then we might be able to hold a discussion.
The only way to really understand the underlying climate is to completely remove the noisy data (mainly ENSO but also major volcanoes). When I did this I found a warming trend of around .06 C / decade since 1980. Since there was no warming between 1940 and 1980 we are left we a trend of .03 C / decade over the past 80 years. This is close to the trend from the depths of the LIA. Nothing unusual is happening.
Richard M says:
You can say that again. Here’s the volcano impact:
https://tinyurl.com/yy3jhbka
Svante, please stop trolling.
I’ve never predicted global cooling.
Yet you never attack the people who do, despite the fact that their predictions deviate from yours by significantly more than do those of mainstream science, which you readily attack.
Gimme a break.
What do you see as the issue with my comment?
It’s idiotic. Noboby has time to attack all the bozos of the Internet. It’s also untrue, so you are just wasting your time.
bobdes…”Yet you never attack the people who do, despite the fact that their predictions deviate from yours by significantly more than do those of mainstream science, which you readily attack”.
Why would a guy with a degree in meteorology rule out the possibility of cooling in the future? Meteorology is not based on crystal ball gazing as is the case with the climate model social science.
I would venture, based on my experience reading Roy’s article and comments, that he goes by the data, in the moment, and not by some convoluted consensus.
The comprehension issue arises yet again.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
Bob,
“Yet you never attack the people who do”
You, sir, either are very new to this site or a liar.
Which is it?
Dr Spencer routinely argues against those predicting global cooling based on junk science. He has banned several parasites for doing so.
If only the mainstream warming crowd were as vocal about stamping out their non-science doomsayers.
Has Gavin Schmidt and other warmist scientists bothered to stamp down the “Globe will end in 10 years” nonsense?
Salvatore has been the main speaker for cooling, and he has not been banned. Nor am I expecting him to be banned. Which of these people has he banned? And how many articles has he dedicated to challenging the cooling nonsense?
And yes, Guy McPherson is routinely referred to as a denier by mainstream climate scientists. I personally also regularly attack his nonsense. Not him directly, because he is a coward who ghost-blocks dissenting comments on his YouTube channel, but his ovine supporters.
I would think that a scientist who is motivated by science alone would dedicate equal time to challenging all dissenting arguments, and not be afraid to attack one side with as much vehemence as the other just because they happen to share his political views.
Darren,
“Dr Spencer routinely argues against those predicting global cooling based on junk science. He has banned several parasites for doing so.”
I have not observed Dr. Spencer to argue against those predicting global cooling. He’s argued with those claiming the GHE is not valid, but this not the same thing. As best I know, Dr. Spencer does NOT think the science rules out coming global cooling; only that he is not predicting it (or warming for that matter).
Warning – full blown Climate Derangement Syndrome on display !!!
Bobdesbond, I tire of repeating myself. I’ve said before that I think gradual warming will probably continue. I don’t “attack” people for having views I don’t agree with unless they are pretty clearly wrong on some point of basic science, and then I will call them out on it. Even then, so many people repeat the same nonsense over and over, I can’t spend all my time trying to correct them. So, what’s my option? Stop allowing comments altogether? I’ve already tried that. If someone predicts cooling, I might think they are wrong, but we really won’t know until years down the road, will we?
It was Salvatore that predicted cooling — not Roy. Despite my and others telling him there was no way to know what the climate would do, warm or cool (or stay about the same). We haven’t seen him post in a while, so maybe he’s come to the realization that his prediction was wrong.
No one knows what’s going to happen going forward. It see equal chance of cooling as I do warming, but wouldn’t bet on either.
“No one knows what’s going to happen going forward. It see equal chance of cooling as I do warming”
I disagree bigly , The climate reacts to the major temperature drivers very slowly , if you actually understand how climate works you can make reasonable predictions on temperature direction 10 – 30 years ahead, possibly longer but that is rather redundant and useless as most of us will be dead by then.
“…if you actually understand how climate works…”
If only there were a group of scientists that studied climate for the last 50 plus years, maybe they could help.
You are mixing studying and understand as if it was the same.
The so called experts constructed a hundred models predicting anything from 1 to ten degrees of warming , why a hundred ? if they actually knew they would have only one,
Eben, it’s a learning process. No one lays the golden egg on the first attempt. In fact, no model will ever be perfect. That doesn’t mean we can’t build a useful model though. And our understanding is increasing every year. Improvements and understanding are incremental.
“You are mixing studying and understand as if it was the same.”
As in they study but don’t understand while you understand without studying the actual atmosphere firsthand?
As early as the 30’s physical scientists were measuring and calculating the radiative equilibrium of the atmosphere. In 1956 Hans Suess found that the ratio of C14 to C12 of atmospheric CO2 was dropping because of fossil fuel use. In 1965 Eisenhower received Restoring the quality of our environment. Report United States from his science committee. It had a chapter on the problems anticipated by the increase in CO2 including ocean acidification, longwave radiative feedback and sea level rise. What they didn’t have was the data and models to say how much the change would be.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4116127;view=1up;seq=133
Data and observations have been collected for decades. Models tested against the data and rewritten. As usual scientist have argued about each minor point of the theories around climate change. It’s all based on physics and observation. Anyone wanting their opinion respected can’t just wave all of that research off as ignorance and lies.
bdgwx, Craig T, please stop trolling.
–Eben says:
May 1, 2019 at 12:50 PM
No one knows what’s going to happen going forward. It see equal chance of cooling as I do warming
I disagree bigly , The climate reacts to the major temperature drivers very slowly , if you actually understand how climate works you can make reasonable predictions on temperature direction 10 30 years ahead, possibly longer but that is rather redundant and useless as most of us will be dead by then.–
I would say 10 -30 years is not even global climate or global warming.Though such time periods does give possible clues regarding global warming.
Over last hundred years one can say we have had global warming as compared to the Little Ice Age. And it’s particularly true if talking about warming of Northern Hemisphere. And northern is rather important regarding general issue of “global warming” or “global cooling”
Re: “It see equal chance of cooling as I do warming”
In last 100 years we had a cooling period but overall 100 year trend is upwards.
So if equal chance applies to idea of having cooling period in the future similar to what have had- something like a decade of cooling. I would agree about a “equal chance”.
But if global warming is thought correctly, something which require long period of time, I don’t think there is 50% chance of 100 years of cooling or 100 year reversal comparable to last 100 years of warming.
But perhaps what is meant by cooling is further continuation of “the Pause” or continuation of the model projections failing to be correct. That in my opinion is a better chance than 50%.
Or perhaps cooling is simply what in the record, short periods [several years] of dipping down and quick recovery [which could call long forecasts of global weather].
What I think is that higher CO2 levels cause some warming and as every year that goes by increases the chance of getting a good guess of how much. And my range is doubling of CO2 levels could cause 0 to .5 C of increase in global temperature. But I mean in the short term and short term is about 100 years.
Predicting a longer term effect of CO2, over period of 1000 years seems to difficult to me.
And I am not sure we going to double CO2 levels- ie, 280 to 560 ppm within the next 100 years.
I am pretty certain about is that all governmental actions to lower CO2 levels have not lowered CO2. And it seems governmental intended to lower CO2, has added rather subtracted.
So governmental action to lower CO2 has cost the public more than trillion dollars. Depending how want choose to count the cost, it could exceed 5 trillion dollars. But conservative or at least “x amount”, has been more than 1 trillion dollars of lost wealth with no favorable result. Or NET loss/cost of 1 trillion dollars.
Such damage as loss opportunity costs, waste the public attention, etc, etc could equal or excess the cost of Cold War- damage to the world caused by the Soviet Union from 1950 to 1990.
The cost of Soviet Union from 1950 to 1990 seems like damage the soviet people the most and cost continues to the present time.
Though some imagine there some positive aspects of Soviet Union, and it might possible indicate such things as compared to the actions of doing something about reducing global CO2 levels.
The only plus, related to CO2 reduction, has also been greatest cause of increased CO2 level by China emissions- though it’s fair to give a lot blame to Nixon’s China policy. Nixon started it, and it was made worst by efforts to do something to reduce CO2 emission {and involves large corporations and globalism].
So one has the big pluses of increase of wealth by China and cheap consumer products for it’s people and the people of the world.
The only thing which has lower CO2 emission has been nuclear power. Which globally is about 14% of electrical power. But it seems it will take a while before efforts to reduce CO2 will favor more nuclear power, and to date, the effort to reduce CO2 emission have been opposed to and have thwarted increasing Nuclear power generation. Though places with air pollution problems have to date been more eager to use nuclear energy to solve their air pollution problems.
Where is Salvatore? He assured us this would be the year the temperatures would drop back below average.
Well actually he predicted last year, or was it the year before, or the year before that . . .
GK
The 13 month sunspot average, which is used to quantify the timing and strength of the solar cycle, just increased for the first time since the last solar maximum. It bottomed out at about 2.5 times the average for the last solar minimum. It will most likely fall again, but is extremely unlikely to go anywhere near as low as last time. So Salvatore’s prediction of a Maunder-like minimum is standing on very shaky ground. That is what most likely explains his absence. But don’t worry – he will be back with his ridiculous predictions of a new ice age, just delayed by another 11 years.
Who expletive cares where is Salvatore?
“OMG whatever happened to the global cooling that Dr. Roy and his minions have been predicting?” He didn’t. However, it will be hard to convince everyone that a fraction of a degree increase over 100 years is causing catastrophic changes that are destroying the ecosystem. Graphs can make small changes seem large. Also, it simply isn’t possible to know what the temperature change would have been over the last century if humans weren’t on the planet.
With advancements in technology and depletion of fossil fuels, humanity will eventually be moving to new sources of energy to satisfy our needs. Given how rapid technology has been increasing — just think of everything that has changed in the last fifty years — it probably won’t be long before this happens. What is clear is that the climate across the earth has never remained static.
“He didn’t.”
Others did.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347590
CraigT, please stop trolling.
doc…”OMG whatever happened to the global cooling that Dr. Roy and his minions have been predicting?”
Another desperate alarmist clinging to a brief uptick in the global average while completely ignoring the negative trend since 2016.
Another desperate denier clinging to a brief downturn in the global average, while completely ignoring the fact that any negative trend is caused by choosing a time interval so short that ENSO effects easily dominate the slowly rising trend.
Bobdesbond – the key is sea level. It is a good proxy data for the heat content of the earth. If we truly are going into a 1000 / 12000 year type of event, you will see the linear trends end. I don’t think a 400 year type solar event will reverse these trends, but my confidence is not good. That said, I believe we should be on alert regarding the changes in the magnetic field and the sun. Volcanism can obviously change these trends over night. The relationship between cosmic rays, volcanism, solar min has not been studied to my satisfaction. There are some VERY strange events in the Holocene proxy data occurring during a human life time. Should we ignore this? Many data sets have their maximums set prior to 2016:
NOAA tide gage New York max March 2010 (1/2 way between rising and sinking areas)
HADSST3 North Atlantic departure 2012
HADSST3 southern ocean 1985 (5 year MA)
Pacific trade wind speed 2011
UAH SH 1998
UAH tropics 1998
UAH sopol 1996
UAH USA48 2012
AUST 2002
UAH Globe April 1998
UAH Globe May 1998
UAH Globe June 1998
UAH Globe July 1998
UAH Globe Aug 1998
So at the end of the day, I still think the earth is warming, but there are definitely some divergences here / and reasons for concern. Cold crop losses are certainly possible. Honestly, with me living in Michigan where 87% of the proxy data from the last 1 million years has me under a mile of ice, I’m more worried about global cooling than global warming, but I’m not afraid to admit to having that bias.
Sea level change has not been linear.
And all you are doing with that list is displaying the fact that over the short term, variability swamps the trend.
And don’t know what “Aust2002” refers to. Is it temperature?
Show me proof that sea level rise has not been linear using the same methodology throughout the entire chart. It can not be done. I’ve gone through great lengths to try to find evidence of a rate change in sea level and have found nothing, 0, zilch, nada.
What I’ve shown you is that even though UAH global maximum occurred in 2016, there are several other data sets that did not hit maximums in 2016. It means there are factors cooling us, and factors warming us. The factors are offsetting when you look at the global picture with the warm side winning right now. There is no guarantee the winning will continue for the warm side.
AUST2002 I was referring to the Australia UAH temperature record. The max was in 2002.
I find it extremely interesting that northern summer is diverging on a global scale. That will obviously make the ice at the artic harder to melt away in a very short summer season. So much for the arctic warming twice as fast as anywhere else. Please note that if we DO go into the ice age, it will be because the precession of the earth doesn’t allow the ice at the north pole to melt, which will increase albedo, and start a major cooling cycle. It won’t be due to the orbit. That is nice and friendly right now and won’t be changing any time soon. That’s all VERY long term analysis. In the human life time scale, we don’t have to worry about such things. We do have to worry about events similar to what we see in the Holocene proxy data. The 1000 year type ups and downs that seem random to my eye, along with the 400 year / 100 year solar cycles.
The 12 oldest tide gauges that are still operating have an average acceleration of 0.6 mm/yr/century.
Australian UAH annual averages:
2002: +0.47
2005: +0.50
2013: +0.49
2016: +0.59
2017: +0.71
2018: +0.51
The major Milankovitch cycle is variation in axial tilt, followed by eccentricity. Axial and apsidal precession are only minor components that affect only the strength and timing of a glacial period, not whether we get one.
Please provide the location of the acc. sea level data, links. Thank you!
As for Australia… The point was that the maximum was set long ago and was not taken out during the 2016 El Nino. This is a divergence. You said the trends were all recent. Any data set not making a higher high in 2016 should be looked at.
30 years ago the experts made prediction about today’s temperature
OMG whatever happened to the global warming that Hansen and his minions have been predicting?
https://i.postimg.cc/4GjbRGgs/predictions.png
Given that the original graph uses 5-year means, and the mean of the last 5 years of UAH data is 0.48C above the mean of the first 5 years of UAH data (which is centred on mid-1981, right where your red graph starts), please explain why your current temperature is less than 0.4C above the start of the red.
Secondly, explain how you can compare low troposphere temps with surface temps.
Thirdly, explain why you chose UAH as the representative satellite record.
Finally, note that the zero-emission scenario actually shows rising temps in this model. That is because at that time, solar intensity was increasing, and they assumed it would continue to do so because there was no way of predicting that. The actual zero-emission scenario over that time is for decreasing temperatures, given the gradually falling solar intensity. Try subtracting the zero-emission trend instead of adding it, and tell me how accurate the emission-only component of the projection is.
The other things to consider with Hansen’s work is that this was the era in which global circulation models were still cutting their teeth. I mean this is 30+ year old technology and understanding that we’re talking about here. Also consider that the business-as-usual scenario 1) underestimated aerosol emissions (Pinatubo), 2) overestimated GHG/CFC emissions (Montreal Protocol) and 3) overestimated solar forcing so the scenario that actually played out was somewhere between B and C. And as bobdesbond already pointed out the red line does not represent what actually happened according to a wide sampling of conventional and reanalysis datasets that publish a surface temperature.
OMG, Hansen didn’t make any predictions of what the satellite data would be.
You could plot the GISS met station data that Hansen was predicting on your graph, but then you would have to say OMG Hansen was right.
“whatever happened to the global warming that Hansen and his minions have been predicting?”
No doubt you will be back to qualify that impoverished statement when it is pointed out that global warming happened after the 1988 paper, as can be seen even on the graph you provide.
And should you do that, we then move on to how the forcings scenarios in the paper have played out differently in real life, so then you have to account for that to get a better of how well the models did.
The red arrow saying ‘you should be here’ is just wrong. Given 3 choices, whoever made that graph didn’t investigate what Hansen said (“Scenario B is most likely”), or investigate which of the 3 scenarios most closely matched the actual emissions since the paper, which is somewhere between B and C.
BS is so cheap to construct. Truth in science takes work. And honesty.
barry, please stop trolling.
I’m surprised to see USA48 so high. At least for Detroit Michigan we had a -0.3 deg F month.
That said, this data point makes perfect sense. We now have a perfect down trend line with +0.86 deg C Feb 2016, +0.64 deg C Oct 2017, and +0.44 deg c for April 2019.
Look at how the data perfectly matches El nino spikes on a 4-6 month delay:
3.1 October 2015
0.8 April 2017
1.3 Nov 2018
The next point SHOULD be a drop. Trade winds are leading this process on an inconsistent delay. Dec / Jan max Sun, Trade wind, El Nino, Global temps. It’s simple right? lol
Mr Spencer indicated a year ago that what happens in the troposphere above the US has little connection to temperatures at ground level.
Thank you Dr. Spencer for publishing these results within a few hours of the end of the month
To be fair, Dr Spencer is a lukewarmist. The minions, however, are a seething mess of scientifically illiterate opinions masquerading as objective truth.
Thank God you’re here, Joel, to inform all of us ignorant slobs.
Well, if Dr. Spencer is a lukewarmist, then I’m an extreme lukewarmist. I think the basic physics of the GHE and enhanced warming from added GHGs via it is *probably* correct, but I have serious doubts that the anthropogenic influence is actually net warming.
Here’s to your ‘serious doubts’ RW:
http://www.Bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Pravda is funnier and scientifically less biased towards world communism lead by Yury Andropov.
Joel…”To be fair, Dr Spencer is a lukewarmist. The minions, however, are a seething mess of scientifically illiterate opinions masquerading as objective truth.”
Joel Shore I presume, the uber-alarmist.
The minions are the alarmists and you are one of the leaders of that rat-pack. None of you have science to offer that matches the facts garnered over the centuries in physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Everything you preach is based purely on consensus.
“Everything you preach is based purely on consensus.”
Yes, a consensus of Physicists and chemists studying data for decades. Like physicist Hans Suess, who studied levels of carbon-14 and tritium in the air and water. His “facts garnered” included discovering in the 50’s the dilution of atmospheric C14 by the burning of carbon fuel.
Or geophysicists Fritz Möller and Syukuro Manabe, who worked together in the 60’s to calculate the warming caused by doubling CO2, including both convection and radiative forcing. While Möller thought warming would be no more than 1.5 C and Manabe expected 2.4 C, both agreed on the physics involved in the calculation.
You aren’t going deep enough into past studies to know why the consensus is what it is. You assume you understand physics enough to decide on your own without looking at the work of previous scientists.
craig….”You arent going deep enough into past studies to know why the consensus is what it is”
Did any of your learned scientists predict catastrophic warming and climate change from an increase of atmospheric CO2 amounting to about 0.01%, if that?
“Did any of your learned scientists predict catastrophic warming and climate change from an increase of atmospheric CO2 amounting to about 0.01%, if that?”
Mauna Loa data from May 1 2018 showed CO2 at 409.14 ppm. Yesterday’s CO2 measurement was 414.88 ppm, an increase of 1.4%.
So no, no one has predicted catastrophic warming or climate change from a 0.01% increase in CO2.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Is just the super El Nino dead cat bounce, started going back down today already
“Is just the super El Nino dead cat bounce, started going back down today already”
This must be the son of Salvatore.
No, I do predict cooling also, but verifiable withing the period of next ten years , not ten month
Then You must be hoping for a new Pinatubo and statistically that’s due.
But regarding the carbon devil, Dr. Spencer have not given You any relief soon.
Wrong again , although I predict cooling I actually hope there was more warming as I believe several degrees warmer would be overwhelmingly beneficial.
OHC keeps increasing by about ~10e21 joules/year which equates to about a +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance on the planet. That’s a pretty stout positive radiative forcing the atmosphere is going to have to fight against to cool. Will a monthly anomaly be lower than it is today? Almost certainly. But will the trend wane? Meh…you’re going to need a VEI 6+ eruption or two to get us back to mid-1990’s levels IMHO. Nevermind that those mid-1990’s levels were in part due to the Pinatubo eruption of 1991 so…
“dead cat bounce”
Thus speak the skeptics.
barry, please stop trolling.
Dr. Mark, what do you think the effect of +0.44 deg C will be? The melting of the Greenland ice sheet and a 100+ foot sea level rise?
I often tell my warmunist friends to be grateful for this mild Interglacial Period we are living in. If we were living in a Glacial Period, that would be a hard life!
Many thanks should go to Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy for their tireless efforts to monitor global temperature. There was a time in recent history when the work done by these two great geo-scientists was appreciated by NASA. But when these scientists decided NOT to hop on board the human-caused global warming bandwagon, they have been maligned and harshly criticized by the politically correct class.
Can you believe that John Cook and his “skeptical science” site is quoted as a reputable source to “falsify” the work of Spencer and Christy? That alone should tell you how low our scientific standards are. It is high time for those of us who work in the field of Meteorology to speak out in support of the truly valid climate research done at UAH!
Rob,
“I often tell my warmunist friends to be grateful for this mild Interglacial Period we are living in. If we were living in a Glacial Period, that would be a hard life!”
Yes, cooling is what should be feared (and has always been feared), and for good reason. As Ian Plimer has said, this is the first generation of humans that has ever feared a warmer climate.
We should be embracing and enjoying the warmth while it lasts and embrace the increased fertilization of plants from the added CO2. The warming contribution is likely much smaller and less significant than these benefits.
Rob…”I often tell my warmunist friends to be grateful for this mild Interglacial Period we are living in. If we were living in a Glacial Period, that would be a hard life!”
And if we are unfortunate enough to live under such conditions, and a leader suggested cutting back on fossil fuels, he/she would be assassinated.
I have heard Dogger Bank is pretty nice during a glaciation, lots of big juicy things to eat, but kinda hard to breath there now.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Not trolling, just pointing out that even during a glaciation there would be plenty of food to eat.
You on the other hand are nothing but a troll.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
At +0.44C it looks like this is the 3rd warmest April in the UAH dataset behind 1998 and 2016. Using the ONI 1998 ENSO peaked at 2.4 in December and had a Feb-Mar-Apr value of 1.4. 2016 ENSO peaked at 2.6 in December and had a Feb-Mar-Apr value of 1.7. So far 2019 ENSO peaked in November and although we won’t have the Feb-Mar-Apr value for a few more weeks I’d imagine it is probably going to be close to 0.7.
Who cares?
These are spectacularly small changes and differences.
There is always a delay between peak El Nino and global temperatures. It is usually about 4-6 months. The only thing that is clear is that the sun warms the earth more when it’s closer – like in January. This causes the trade winds to pick up. That slowly causes El nino to end. When the trade winds die in the middle of the nh summer, El nino starts to be recharged for the next season. Global temperatures without a doubt are tied to El nino (on a delay) more than co2. You have delay on top of delay mucking this up but the relationship is there if you are willing to look.
“The only thing that is clear is that the sun warms the earth more when its closer like in January. ”
These numbers are anomalies. Global March 2019 is 0.44 C warmer than the 1981-2010 average March. Changes in season or Earth/Sun distance don’t affect the results. El Ninos and la Ninas usually start in the summer or fall – not January. Temperature changes from the ENSO cycle over time is a draw – no warming or cooling on the 30 year scale.
I’m referring to the fact that the earth is actually closest to the sun in January. So energy from the sun is maximized at that time. Check the trade winds… see how they have an annual cycle? See how they are at max in the NH winter? The trade winds are SUN powered. El nino is on a delay to the trade winds. The strong winds lead us out of El Nino. The weak winds in NH summer lead us back INTO el nino. And the cycle repeats again and again and again every year. Sometimes we make it to official El Nino / La Nina, sometimes not. The UAH temperatures are on a delay to El Nino. There are 2 delays here to consider.
The difference in radiation from perihelion vs aphelion caused by orbital eccentricity is small compared to the difference from summer vs winter solstices caused by axial tilt. Solar radiation is significantly reduced in the NH winter vs summer overall as a result. Winds typically pick up in NH winter due to differential heating between low and high latitudes; not because solar insolation is greater. It is still correct say that they are “Sun powered”, but it’s not because of perihelion. It’s because of the winter solstice.
bdgwx, you have been well indoctrinated in pseudoscience, but that leaves you seriously handicapped when dealing with reality.
Earth’s seasonal tilt does not change the solar energy impacting the planet. The orbit causes a change of about 90 W/m^2.
Learn some physics, or at least quit spouting such nonsense.
Earth’s seasonal tilt does not change the solar energy impacting the planet. The orbit causes a change of about 90 W/m^2
Here’s a link to a graph of the total solar irradiance data from NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment. From 2004 to 2019 it shows less than 2 watts variation in measurements. The annual variation is only a few tenths of a watt.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
JD,
I did not say the axial tilt affects the amount of radiation impacting the planet. I said it lowers the amount in the NH during the winter by an amount larger than the gain in radiation due to eccentricity. Axial tilt is why we have seasons. It is why winter is colder than summer.
Anyway, the change in differential heating between high and low latitudes is the dominating factor in determining the magnitude of wind velocities averaged over seasonal periods; not the change in radiation itself. Remember, eccentricity changes in radiation are independent of latitude so every latitude experiences the same increase/decrease and thus there is no change in differential heating induced…mostly anyway. There are actually two really subtle and nuanced caveats with that last statement. Neither dominate the differential heating effect or are actually a result of the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit. The eccentricity just magnifies the effect. No axial tilt…no change in differential heating. And, of course, no hemispherical seasons either.
But you are correct that the orbital differences account for about a 90 W/m^2 change in TSI.
CT,
Your link appears completely pointless. Why did you bother? Stupidity or ignorance?
Cheers.
bdgwx, I’ll let you argue with yourself:
“I did not say the axial tilt affects the amount of radiation impacting the planet.”
“The difference in radiation from perihelion vs aphelion caused by orbital eccentricity is small compared to the difference from summer vs winter solstices caused by axial tilt.”
CraigT believes: “The annual variation is only a few tenths of a watt.”
Craig, this is another perfect example of how easily you can be fooled. Earth’s elliptical orbit changes the distance to the Sun by about 5 million kilometers, annually. If you knew the relevant physics, then you would know that change in distance changes the solar flux arriving Earth.
The annual variation is about 90 Watts/m^2. (Also, flux has units of “Watts/m^2”, not “Watts”.)
Learn some physics.
Occasionally there is a glitch in the Matrix, and JD gets one right…the 90 W/m2 annual variation in solar flux..
“Your link appears completely pointless. Why did you bother? Stupidity or ignorance?”
I’m an eternal optimist.
In this case I didn’t know that the data is adjusted for changes in the distance between the Earth and the Sun. And JD is correct, I left off the per meter squared part of the units.
Interesting debate guys… I’m positive the net trade wind speed probably includes many factors – not just the earth’s position in the orbit. Like elevation, more land in the NH, having Antarctica vs arctic ocean. I’m interested in the summation of all of these forcers and it’s impact on the trade wind speeds and El Nino because that is what is driving the climate.
My worry is that the 1850-2011 or so ocean heat content uptrend (caused by our circular orbit) has been interrupted. I believe the tide gage in an average location like New York (1/2 way between sinking Louisiana and rising northern Canada) makes good proxy data. I don’t feel ice melting or freezing makes any difference to this linear up trend other than bouncing between the channel lines. New York is DOWN more than 200mm since 2010. At the same time we have a potential magnetic reversal and most definitely the sun is going into a quiet phase. I think there is a lot we don’t know about these phase changes and their links to volcanism which obviously has a huge impact on climate if it increases.
This is why I joined this conversation.
Yes. There’s absolutely a link between ENSO phase and global TLT temperatures. The link is both in terms of timing and magnitude of the TLT changes. Scientists have been aware of this link for a long time. You don’t have to look very hard at all actually. What is a little more difficult to spot is the long term warming signal sans periodic natural cycles.
Dr Roy didn’t predict global cooling explicitly.
But he does give voice to the worst of the global cooling hacks. He also frequently features cold weather episodes on the blog but not warm weather events, presumably to add confusion to the issue.
Then there was the “polynomial fit” era where he overlayed a curve on temperatures that implied predicted cooling in the future.
Uh no.
a polynomial fit to the data, like a linear fit, doesn’t imply anything about the future (or the past). It’s just a best fit to the observations given certain assumptions.
Then why did you include it? You did it exactly because it implicitly suggested cooling ahead. You do cheap stuff like this all the time and then complain you don’t get respect from the scientific community.
So there.
Dr. Spencer should also receive respect for allowing such nasty comments of him personally be put open on his blog. Not all climate blog owners would accept that.
Rune…”Dr. Spencer should also receive respect for allowing such nasty comments of him personally be put open on his blog. Not all climate blog owners would accept that.”
I second that.
s svoboda…”Then why did you include it?”
Why shouldn’t he? All the alarmist idiots out there are spreading so much propaganda about anthropogenic warming you could shovel it.
IMHO, Roy has been admirably restrained with his commentaries, especially considering the way he has been maligned by alarmist hacks. He even supports the notion that ACO2 is producing warming, he has simply refrained from stating how much.
I think Roy is a good ambassador for science whereas the alarmist clowns pushing catastrophic AGW are deeply immersed in pseudo-science and consensus.
SS,
Why did you bother commenting? You did it exactly because you are exceptionally stupid, ignorant, and mentally challenged!
So there!
Cheers.
Milton…”Dr Roy didnt predict global cooling explicitly.
But he does give voice to the worst of the global cooling hacks”.
There is no scientific reason to presume there won’t be cooling in the future. In the UAH 33 year report, the movement of temperature anomalies above the baseline was described as ‘true warming’. That journey into the +ve anomaly region coincided with a major El Nino.
There was another significant EN in 2010 and another major one in early 2016. Despite those major natural events, the IPCC declared the period from 1998, when the major EN occurred, till 2012, as having no significant warming.
It seems obvious that the cause of the +ve anomalies are natural forces like ENs and have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2.
In 2008, a major La Nina drove temperatures briefly below the baseline. We are overdue for another major La Nina and if it occurs on top of reduced solar radiation, we may be in for an uncomfortably long cooling spell.
“In 2008, a major La Nina drove temperatures briefly below the baseline. We are overdue for another major La Nina and if it occurs on top of reduced solar radiation, we may be in for an uncomfortably long cooling spell.”
The 2008 La Nina occurred very close to a solar minimum. During that time the oceans took up +100e21 joules of heat. In fact, the oceans have been taking up heat at a rate of about +10e21 joules/year since the late 80’s. Almost every year now OHC breaks the record from the previous year. And we know it takes a decade or two for the ocean and atmosphere to equilibriate. So if we’re due for an uncomfortably long cooling spell then the ocean needed to have received that memo a long time ago. How are you thinking this long cooling era is going to happen while the imbalance on the planet is still topping +0.6 W/m^2?
b,
You are spouting nonsense again.
Kiel and Trenberth are fools. Talk of energy imbalance in terms of power is not necessarily related to temperature. Ice can emit in excess of 300 W/m^2, and can heat nothing above 0 C! So much for your stupid +0.6 W/m^2!
Your imaginary energy imbalance is just more meaningless climatological pseudoscience.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years – hence liquid water covering most of the Earth’s surface. Antarctica is largely covered by frozen water, even. Keep your pseudoscientific gibberish generator cranked up. Maybe it could even produce a useful description of the GHE by some yet unknown mechanism, but I’d be prepared to bet against such an unlikely occurrence!
No CO2 or H2O heating. Take up astrology if you want to peer into the future – it might suit you better.
Cheers.
bdgwx. there is NO imbalance. You still don’t understand that the “energy balance” is bogus.
bdg…”During that time the oceans took up +100e21 joules of heat. In fact, the oceans have been taking up heat at a rate of about +10e21 joules/year since the late 80s”.
Trenberth’s pseudo-science has no impact on me. He dreamed up that nonsense about the oceans concealing warming after he was caught in the Climategate email scandal admitting the warming had stopped and that it was a travesty that no one knew why.
It was non-alarmed people who first said quick warming is impossible because of the ocean heat capacity. Yes, the oceans could be warming, and we’d notice nothing without some extremely accurate measurements.
Tell China to panic. Because I won’t.
“Trenberth’s pseudo-science has no impact on me. He dreamed up that nonsense about the oceans concealing warming after he was caught in the Climategate email scandal admitting the warming had stopped and that it was a travesty that no one knew why.”
Then I’m impressed by Trenberth’s preparedness. Here’s a paper on ocean heat content published 6 years before Climategate:
Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature,and thermosteric expansion on global scales
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2003JC002260
Another link you can’t understand, huh Craig?
Funny.
Temperatures have risen and we are half-way through a doubling of co2 and yet still no increase in the strength and frequency of hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods or wildfires and unprecedented sea-level rise. Therefore, no man caused catastrophic climate change is imminent! Facts matter!!!
Correction: “or unprecedented sea-level rise”
Pleace define “unprecedented sea-level rise”
Is 3,4 meters in a millennia “precedented?”
R,
Is your comment a subtle attempt at a gotcha, or are you truly ignorant?
Marine fossils are found at altitudes over 6000 m. Have sea levels really dropped by over 6000 m since these fossils were formed?
On the other hand, coal and oil of land based organic origin are found at depths of over 10000 m. Have sea levels risen by more than 10000 m after the deposits were formed?
It seems that sea levels have fluctuated by at least 16000 m if you believe the pseudoscientific climatological nonsense spouted about sea levels!
Does this answer your question about “precedented” sea level rises? Or has your gotcha mis-fired?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
I am talking about a time span of thousand of years, not hundred of millions.
After the HTO about 7 – 8000 years ago, the sea level has not fluctuated nearly 3 mm/y. And with more carbon in the air the coming decades there is scientific reason to predict even higher rates of sea level rise. You will probably deny that, but time will tell.
“Marine fossils are found at altitudes over 6000 m. Have sea levels really dropped by over 6000 m since these fossils ”
Mike is ignorant about so much, its hard to keep up. Now its geology.
“Marine fossils are found at altitudes over 6000 m. Have sea levels really dropped by over 6000 m since these fossils were formed?”
“It seems that sea levels have fluctuated by at least 16000 m if you believe the pseudoscientific climatological nonsense spouted about sea levels!”
“The sea level has varied by at least 10,000 m in the past. Do you have a point?”
Mike, are you saying sea level has been 10,000 m higher or that it would be ridiculous to believe sea level was ever that high?
trolling again
Yes, precedented it is, and also much hyped, so much I don’t take it seriously.
Dr. Spencer,
I believe there is an urgent need for a paper or book with a title “Where, When and If Climate Change is Occurring in Your Area”. Because of your experience and expertise you are the most qualified to write it. I would like to try but am unqualified and old.
The reason this is urgently needed is that almost daily there are articles in the press attributing negative things to “global warming”. A cursory check of NOAA data shows that there has not been a significant change in that area. Not one of the laymen I interface with are aware that most experienced and projected warming is on Tmin not Tmax, or that it is more in winter and near the poles and less the tropics.
I think such a book would help subdue the hysteria leading to squandering world resources by making people aware that in their area even the questionable climate change forecanted would lead to beneficial changes. These benefits include warmer winter nights, frost belt further north, increased crop yield, etc.
Please, do the world a favor and write such a book.
Jimmie…”I believe there is an urgent need for a paper or book with a title Where, When and If Climate Change is Occurring in Your Area”.
I agree. UAH already has excellent global contour temperature maps that show what you are talking about.
Dig through the following site and you will see areas of warming and cooling moving around from month to month and great areas of the globe with no warming at all.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
For Match 2019 it is apparent that the North Pole area has cooled, with spots of warming around it. Check the past contours and you will see those hot spots moving month by month.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/march2019/201903_map.png
Here’s March 2018
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/march2018/MARCH%202018%20map.png
And March 2017
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/march/MARCH_2017_map.png
Anthropogenic gases could not have such an affect.
This confirms for me that the global average is nothing more than a number. Here is Canada, especially on the West Coast, where were normally have mild winters and springs, this year has been an exception.
I cannot remember a consistently colder and more miserable winter in recent memory and by winter I am talking about late fall into early spring. April has been unusually cold on the West Coast. We have set records for cold temperatures across Canada and parts of the US yet here is the global average showing a warming.
I am guessing that a global average of 0.44C is about warming in the South Pacific. The UAH graph shows similar warming spikes in 2007 and 2013, outside of official El Nino years and the 2007 spike was followed by a strong La Nina.
There is no evidence of anthropogenic warming in this data and most of the past 20 years has shown a flat trend, 15 of those years confirmed by the IPCC as showing no significant warming.
As I have inferred in the past, I think NOAA is fiddling with the satellite data before handing it over to UAH.
Ignoring your attempt, yet again, to extrapolate local effects, i.e., a cold patch covering less than 2% of the Earth’s surface, to be demonstrative of the global climate state, I wanted to point out that the monster El Nino of 2015-16, which you ignored, was not followed by a strong La Nina. You should adjust your skirt; your confirmation bias is showing.
S,
There is no “global climate state”. You can’t even define the “Californian climate state”, can you?
Maybe you could concentrate on devising a useful GHE description (unless you already agree that it is impossible).
Cheers.
slipstick….”Ignoring your attempt, yet again, to extrapolate local effects, i.e., a cold patch covering less than 2% of the Earths surface,”
Allow me to be more succinct. If AGW theory was anywhere close to correct, we would not be having such cold spells 30 years after the dire predictions of catastrophic warming were announced by Hansen in 1988. Within 10 years, he admitted he had erred but he blamed it on his computer. The media has carried that nonsense ever since.
It’s blatantly obvious to anyone who wants to see that the Sun disappears from the Arctic each year for several months, and for an even longer period it is low in the sky, offering barely any warming. When the Sun stops heating the Arctic, it gets damned cold up there and that air flows down into Canada and the US.
CO2 can do nothing about warming that cold. The warming seen in spots of the Arctic move around month to month and the obvious cause is ocean and wind currents.
I don’t give a hoot what the temperature is elsewhere in the world, I just wish it would warm up locally, but it’s not.
“This confirms for me that the global average is nothing more than a number. Here is Canada, especially on the West Coast, where were normally have mild winters and springs, this year has been an exception.”
Look at the map for TLT March 2019 you posted. There is a swath of land from US west coast to Canada east coast that had temperatures between 1.5 C and 0.5 C below average. Around Vancouver the temperature was average, then up the Canadian west cost heading toward Alaska the anomaly climbs to over 5 C above average. Find yourself on the map.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/march2019/201903_map.png
The whole idea of an average is to look for trends in variation. Each location had warmer and cooler days during March. Nearby areas were grouped and averaged. If you downloaded the full data and used the right software you could find the data for a 50 – 100 km area that includes where you live.
craig…”The whole idea of an average is to look for trends in variation”.
Why bother with trends when it’s obvious the Earth has been re-warming from the Little Ice Age since 1850. Why do we need all this bs about anthropenic warming?
The Arctic was just as warm in the early 1920s.
What’s your source on that? What I find shows 1920’s as a cooler period for the Arctic.
craig…”What’s your source on that? What I find shows 1920’s as a cooler period for the Arctic”.
” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/ “
craig…if you are using NOAA data as a source, you should know they have re-written the historical record to show cooling. It seems to have irked the alarmists that the 1930s were as hot or hotter than today and that the 1920s in the Arctic were similar.
NOAA solution: re-write the historical record.
GR, pay particular attention to figure 2B on pg 1470.
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf
bdgwx, even if you believe such nonsense, what do you make of it?
Do you believe the invention of television causes “global warming”?
UFOs?
Keyboards?
Enjoy your pseudoscience.
I think bdgwx’s point was that if NOAA only adjusted data to get the desired result it would not raise the temperature from 1880 to 1940.
Yep. That was definitely my point.
Craig and bdgwx, obviously you can’t understand figure 2B.
You can’t understand your own links.
Nothing new.
I’ll bite. What did we not understand about figure 2b?
Mitre Corporation Report on NOAA and Karl 2015 Paper:
“Finding 1: After carefully reviewing internal NOAA email correspondence, the MITRE Committee found no evidence that the Karl Study falsified, or intentionally distorted climate
data. The Karl Study data were subsequently used in multiple peer-reviewed scientific
publications.
Finding 7: At the time of publication, the Karl Study data were available to the public and were
in full compliance with Science and community standards.
Finding 8: The Science peer review was thorough, not expedited, and exceeded the average
Science review time.
Finding 9: After review of the evidence, the MITRE Committee found the Administration did
not apply pressure on the Karl Study team, or on NOAA, to influence national and international
deliberations on climate policy.”
Looks like all the conspiracy theories about this paper were just theories.
Craig T, Nate, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
“…I am guessing that a global average of 0.44C is about warming in the South Pacific. …”
It appears to be southern hemisphere: “+0.51 C”
Global: “+0.44 C” with N hemisphere being “+0.38 C”
So as southern hem is entering winter it warmer than “normal”
Normally s Hem is about 1 C cooler than N Hem and S Hem is probably still cooler than N Hem, but perhaps with less of difference, then “normal”.
As general matter, there has to be “reasons” why S hem is colder than N Hem.
A typical reason is S Hem has mechanisms which warm N Hem. S Hem has net loss of heat to N Hem.
As general matter the Southern Hemisphere “should be” warmer than Northern Hemisphere [but it isn’t]. Or what constitutes global temperature is mostly ocean area and southern hemisphere has more ocean area than the northern hemisphere.
But also one has the Antarctic which dominate factor in terms of global temperature and more dominate factor in regards just the southern hemisphere.
But anyhow, as said the dominate factor of global temperature is the surface temperature of the ocean, and whether your region or entire north America is colder or warmer in time period of year or two doesn’t indicate global warming or cooling. Though region is colder or warmer for +10 years it has possible indication it might have something to with warming or cooling global temperature.
As I said before, what is global temperature is the average temperature of the entire ocean- the entire volume average temperature which is currently about 3.5 C.
And global average temperature we are measuring in terms of global air temperature is the thin temperature layer of the surface of the ocean.
Anyhow, what seems to affect weather in northern hemisphere seems to have some relation to Solar min and Max, and that you having cold winter, is not too surprising as we are in a solar min.
What affect solar min or Max have on global temperature is at best uncertain. But in terms of short term effect, it seems solar min or Max does not have much effect upon the average volume temperature of the entire ocean. Or nothing has much effect upon this temperature in the short term of less than a decade.
Nor does average temperature of this month or few years of average global temperatures have any known effect upon it.
But a century of warming should be having effect which could be measured, and some think that about 1/3 of sea level rise is a measurement of the entire ocean warming a bit.
Or it’s like expecting your cold weather over last few months to have some effect upon global sea level rise [if want to assume it has something to do with actual global temperatures].
gbaikie…”As general matter, there has to be reasons why S hem is colder than N Hem. A typical reason is S Hem has mechanisms which warm N Hem. S Hem has net loss of heat to N Hem.”
Another reason is that the largest expanse of ocean is in the Southern Hemisphere. There are expanses of the southern Pacific that extend for 10,000 miles or more and much of that is in Tropical/Sub-Tropical zones where it can absorb heat from solar energy.
gbaikie…”Or its like expecting your cold weather over last few months to have some effect upon global sea level rise ”
I am well-aware that locality has little to do with the global average. The point I am trying to make is that the global average has no meaning for me here in the Pacific Northwest enduring a colder than normal autumn/winter/spring after AGW predicting it should have warmed by now..
It certainly must be warmer somewhere in the world, which affects the statistic we call the global average. The warming is just not happening in my environment and CO2 is having no effect on us. The evidence locally and across Canada and parts of the US for the past winter is that global warming as described by AGW is not happening.
In fact, the global average has no real meaning for anyone. Alarmists like to point out that parts of the Arctic are up to 5C above normal, which is 5C above -50C. The global average has risen only a fraction of a degree C over the UAH record and in order for that to occur, there must be parts of the planet nearly 5C below normal.
And there are such regions, in Antarctica. The signal here is not one of anthropogenic warming it is one of natural variations over the entire planet.
I think much of that has to do with the tilt of the Earth on it’s axis. That tilt robs both the Arctic and the Antarctic of solar energy for a good portion of the year but the effects are half a year apart. That has to set up some kind of oscillation between the alternate heating and cooling of each pole.
If you throw in variations in solar energy over the centuries it quite possible to have Little Ice Ages and subsequent re-warming from them over a century or more.
Weather and climate are far too complex to blame on a trace gas.
One month its someone taking a jab, where’s the warming, next month, where’s the cooling. How about all of you get back to me in about 15 years. That’ll be 50 years + 5 on the satellite and explicitly beyond the predictive timespan of some up and coming political prophets.
Allowing for skeptical opinion is imperative. It’s not traitorous to any cause or any people.
argus…”Allowing for skeptical opinion is imperative. Its not traitorous to any cause or any people”.
I agree. However, you don’t need to wait 15 years, you can simply go back 20 years to 1998. The IPCC admitted there was no significant warming over the 15 year span from 1998 – 2012. The UAH records have expanded that to 18 years.
It has only been in the past 3 years, since early 2016, that any warming took place and that was due to a super El Nino. Since early 2016, we have been slowly falling back to that flat trend average.
There was no significant warming in the troposphere. Everyone agrees. However, it is important to note that 1998 was a strong El Nino and 2012 was a strong La Nina. Also, OHC continued to march higher. The geosphere as a whole did not stop warming during this time.
bdgwx, OHC is NOT “continuing to march higher”. You just can’t swallow enough of the pseudoscience.
Do you not question anything put out by mainstream pseudoscience?
Are you unable to think for yourself?
Nah, I’m not Joel Shore.
Your wild guess regarding my surname is a nice metaphor for your crackpot ideas about the greenhouse effect.
Joel
The more ignorant people are, the more quicky they pretend, discredit, denigrate… and lie.
Among all of them, the fake-named ‘Gordon Robertson’ certainly is the ugliest one on this blog.
He insults everybody whose meaning he either doesn’t accept or can’t manage to understand.
He never would have enough courage to post his paranoid nonsense e.g. at WUWT: Watts would ban him within a day. Even Jo Postma would!
B,
Another pointless and cowardly ad hom?
Begone troll!
binny…”He insults everybody whose meaning he either doesnt accept or cant manage to understand”.
No…I save my insults for number crunchers who falsify comparisons between UAH and NOAA data sets.
J,
I presume the the greenhouse effect to which you refer is the greenhouse effect that you cannot actually describe? You must adhere to the crackpot idea that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter! How much crackpottery would that take?
Go on, tell me how increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Your particular brand of crackpot magic hasn’t seem to have worked too well for the last four and a half billion years or so, has it?
Maybe you need to chant the sacred Manntras more stridently, do you think? Nature doesn’t seem to be overly impressed with your particular crackpot ideas. Thermometers respond to heat. Burning lots of stuff to produce CO2 and H2O creates lots of heat. I suppose this amazes you to the point where you start believing that thermometers are responding to CO2 and H2O!
What a crackpot notion.
Cheers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
CT,
Have you linked to something irrelevant on purpose, or are you just naturally stupid and ignorant?
The internet is rife with supposed explanations for things which don’t actually exist. Try providing a useful description of the GHE, from which a testable GHE hypothesis may be derived!
You definitely cannot provide a link to such a thing, so you will have to make it up for yourself. How hard can it be?
Good luck.
Cheers.
“Another pointless and cowardly ad hom?”
“I presume the the greenhouse effect to which you refer is the greenhouse effect that you cannot actually describe?”
“Have you linked to something irrelevant on purpose, or are you just naturally stupid and ignorant?”
As I said earlier, I’m an eternal optimist. In this case I keep hoping you will see that the greenhouse effect has been repeatedly described. In Dr. Spencer’s words:
“The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earths surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation.”
That is a useful description that is testable and verified. Spencer also has an answer to your criticisms.
“What those people need to do is go read a book on atmospheric radiation, say Grant Petty’s A First Course In Atmospheric Radiation. I know Grant, and he is a brilliant and careful scientist. If you disagree with him (and the many other experts who agree with him), you’d better have some pretty good evidence to back your case up.”
That or stick to pointless and cowardly ad homs.
Craig T, you have a history of incompetence related to physics.
Now, you appear to be clinging to Dr. Spencer’s shoe string.
Is that all you have?
Do you not understand that Dr. Spencer has established himself as a scientist? He has admitted he does not understand the physics, and he fully accepted the GHE nonsense, at one time. But after his research, he is now questioning what he has been taught.
That brings ridicule from his “peers”.
He is thinking for himself. You should try it.
joel…”Nah, Im not Joel Shore.”
I’ll give you points for that. Now, if we could just get some sense into you and convert you into a skeptic. ☺
I have been working on binny but he’s an incurable Teutonic sourpuss.
Here is the top25 list of an ascending sort of the monthly averages of temperature anomalies (wrt the mean of 1981-2010), out of all the 1253 GHCN daily stations located in British Columbia, Canada:
1950 1 -14.28
1936 2 -12.85
1969 1 -11.95
1916 1 -11.11
1887 2 -9.95
1907 1 -9.56
1909 1 -9.47
1930 1 -8.87
1888 1 -8.55
1890 1 -8.28
1883 2 -8.26
1896 11 -8.04
1985 11 -7.80
1922 2 -7.74
1911 1 -7.71
1884 2 -7.69
1957 1 -7.48
1955 11 -7.24
1972 1 -7.22
1954 1 -7.11
1933 12 -7.09
1982 1 -7.07
2019 2 -6.82
1917 12 -6.77
1979 1 -6.68
But on the other hand, we see that in the sort of the coldest days for BC, CA we have
CA001181508 BC CHETWYND: 2019 2 4 -43.0
at position 1935 in a list starting after all with
CA001197530 BC SMITH RIVER: 1947 1 30 -57.2
2019 was a rather hard winter edition in most parts of Canada, Alaska and Northern CONUS, due to a strong polar vortex anomaly.
But it was nothing unusual.
Western Europe experienced during the last two years nearly as much exceeding warmth as Northern America did experience exceeding cold.
B,
Presumably this has something to do with the crackpot idea that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter? Only a lunatic GHE fanatic would believe such nonsense!
You still havent managed to find a useful description of this GHE that you worship so blindly, have you? Sounds more like cultism to me – you just accept whatever nonsense you are fed by the cult leaders!
Have you tried thinking for yourself? I know it’s hard, but you might find it is quite satisfying. Give it a try.
Cheers.
Mike, I have one for You. When a dog feels to warm he will find a cooler spot, let’s say 15 C. Only a denier of the greenhouse effect would find a warmer spot and explain his choice “since my body heat is 37 C, it does not matter if i cool my self in surroundings of 32 C or 15 C.”
Rune, I have one for you (and all other GHE believers). When you feel too cold, in your room, you would bring in a large block of ice. Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2. If the block of ice does not warm you enough, being a GHE believer, you would bring in another large block of ice. Because GHE believers believe radiative fluxes simply add. So now, you believe you have 600 Watts/m^2. If you’re still too cold, you would bring in more ice. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over, hoping for different results.
You’ve never heard Einstein’s definiton of insanity.
Nor do you understand the relevant physics….
There is still a small sect of GHE deniers who do not understand that the greenhouse effect does not heat the surface itself, but reduces the surface’s ability to cool, and that it will be even more slowed down by putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
But I’m afraid You can’t be helped. Our host has been more than willing to help you time and again. And yet you keep telling him he’s not understanding physics, and he’s a lunatic GHE fanatic.And it’s enjoyable that Dr. Spencer is referred to as the cult leader!
Who’s the crackpot here?
Rune, I never said any such things about Dr. Spencer. You got caught with your failed pseudoscience and all you can do is lash out with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
“When you feel too cold, in your room, you would bring in a large block of ice. Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2.”
Well, lets see, my walls @ 20 C, are already emitting 418 W/m2.
Why would I want to block those walls with something emitting 300 W/m2, to warm up?
Pretty dumb idea, JD.
And forgetting all about Net flux as usual.
Now Nate, are you backing away from your own pseudoscience? What happened to adding 418 W/m^2 to 300 W/m^2? That’s what your pseudoscience claims.
418 + 300 = 718, then add some more ice and, voila, 1018 W/m^2!
Pretty soon, your room is hotter than any place on Earth!
Don’t you just love pseudoscience?
Nope JD, no one ever claimed that flux and blocked flux add.
That was always your strawman idea.
rune…”There is still a small sect of GHE deniers who do not understand that the greenhouse effect does not heat the surface itself, but reduces the surfaces ability to cool”
Alarmists like you who use that analogy refuse to get it that the rate of surface cooling has nothing to do with the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The rate of surface cooling is dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere touching the surface and that atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
It is also in thermal equilibrium with the surface and gets progressively cooler with altitude. That means the atmosphere can never transfer heat to the surface that heated it. There may be a mechanism by which atmospheric gases, all of them, can absorb incoming solar energy and re-transmit it to the surface and heating it. There is no way GHGs heated by the surface can transfer heat back to the surface.
In fact, it is convection produced by air heated at the surface rising and the cooler air rushing in to take its place that cools the surface.
Joe Postma stated it well when he claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. Although you claim otherwise, the greenhouse effect is modeled on the action of the glass in a real greenhouse. It is theorized (by alarmists) that the glass blocks infrared radiation but they have not explained how blocking IR can raise the temperature of the 99% mixture of nitrogen and oxygen making up the air in the greenhouse.
That was explained by R. W. Wood an expert on CO2 radiation. He claimed CO2 could not warm a greenhouse and that the warming was a result of solar energy heating the soil and structure of the GH, which warmed the air in the GH, then the glass trapped the heated air molecules as they tried to rise.
Your explanation is a second had offering built on the failure of the first explanation, the so-called trapping of IR. A real greenhouse does trap heat as molecules of air. There is no mechanism in the atmosphere that can do the same and certainly no mechanism related to GHGs that can change the rate of cooling of the surface.
nate…”Well, lets see, my walls @ 20 C, are already emitting 418 W/m2.
Why would I want to block those walls with something emitting 300 W/m2, to warm up?
You are still missing the point. Heat cannot be transferred from a colder body (ice) to a warmer body (a human with a body temperature of 37C). Radiation from the walls won’t warm a human body.
Even the hot air from a furnace at 25C won’t warm a human body. The human body is a self-contained unit that produces its own heat and maintains its temperature at 37C or so as long as it is supplied with fuel and healthy.
That 37C is the temperature of an internal orifice, the mouth. I’d be curious as to the actual skin temperature.
Room temperature is defined at 20C. That temperature wont prevent a human body from cooling but it’s apparently enough to prevent the human body from transferring heat to the surroundings via conduction, convection, and radiation and too fast a rate.
The rate of cooling of the human body is one of heat in versus heat out. Heat in comes from the food we eat and the rate of heat out depends on the clothing we wear and the ambient temperature of a room.
Your walls at 20C are not independent radiators. Their temperature depends on the outside temperature and/or heating from a heat source internally. You won’t get any warming of a human body from walls at 20C but the walls will help maintain the room temperature at 20C once they have warmed to that temperature.
Same with ice, it won’t warm anything that is warmer than it.
As usual, Gordon has more patience to explain the obvious to the clowns than me.
I just enjoy the humor from their ignorance.
‘Why would I want to block those walls with something emitting 300 W/m2, to warm up?’
G: ‘You are still missing the point.’
Honestly, Gordon, would you feel warmer in a house with walls at 20C or walls of ice at 0C?
How bout walls @ 3 K, the temperature of space? Would you feel warmer, cooler, or the same?
Would your body lose heat at the same rate with walls @ 0 C? How bout with walls @ 3 K?
Nate continues to back away from his own pseudoscience. It’s fun to watch.
418 + 300 = 718 Watts/m^2.
Add more ice, 1018 Watts/m^2.
Heck, let’s warm the shack up! 1000 blocks of ice.
30,418 Watts/m^2.
That’s some REAL “global warming”.
(Clowns actually believe such nonsense.)
‘418 + 300 = 718 Watts/m^2.’
No, JD. Not all fluxes get summed.
Here’s a clue for the perpetually confused:
If I earn $100 from one job and $100 from another job then I earned $200 total. They sum.
If I earn $100 and Jim-Bob in Boise earns a $100, then I didn’t earn $200 total. They don’t sum.
You see the difference?
Good, now see if you can figure out when to sum flux and when not to sum it.
Nate, as I indicated, clowns believe fluxes add. They actually believe flux from the atmosphere adds to solar flux. So, it’s funny to see you attempt to back away from the pseudoscience. Obviously you can’t warm your room with ice cubes, just as you can’t warm Earth’s surface with 14.7 μ photons.
Now, watch for some clown jump in to point out you can warm the room if it is below the temperature of ice. Of course they conviently forget Earth’s average temperature is 288K (15 C, 59 F).
They are so desperate….
Nate
I see you are attempting to reason with the blog troll. I would encourage you to NOT FEED THE TROLL. This one does not care how intelligent or science based your posts are. They may even know you are correct, they will troll anyway trying to annoy you to get continued responses. I do not think this troll is one individual. Others have pointed out the troll posting times and it would probably be a group of them taking turns posting and annoying what could be good conversations and discussions. If you keep feeding this troll we will have to continue to see the troll posts continue. Let it go, you will find an improvement in mood!
Norman, I don’t know which is funnier: Your childish obsession with personalities, or your pathetic attempts to pervert physics.
“Nate, as I indicated, clowns believe fluxes add’
Yes, even when we give you the right formulas, when you put in the wrong numbers, you still manage to f*k it up.
You need to drop the class.
Nate, please stop trolling.
RV,
Are you actually disagreeing with something I wrote, or just making irrelevant comments because you are stupid and ignorant?
Dogs? Deniers? Greenhouse effect? You must be mad, or at least suffering from some form of delusional psychosis.
Provide a useful description of this “greenhouse effect” to which you refer, and then at least there might be something to examine. Of course you can’t, so you are reduced to making pointless and irrelevant comments.
Keep it up. At least, it costs you little, and provides endless amusement to others.
Cheers.
“Unprecedented sea level rise”. I was referring to the fact that sea levels have been rising for 120 years at a fairly constant rate. Therefore, the cause can not be laid at the feet of anthropogenic climate change
From 1870 to 2001 sea levels rose less than 20 cm. Before 1930 the rate was less than 1 mm per year. From 1993 to present the rate is over 3 mm per year.
CT,
What is your point? Is this your bizarre way of trying to claim that increasing the amount of CO2 and H2O between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, or are you just making random and irrelevant assertions due to some psychotic compulsion?
You really have no clue, have you?
Cheers.
“… or are you just making random and irrelevant assertions due to some psychotic compulsion?”
You got me. I have a psychotic compulsion to interject observations and data into this conversation and steer away from ad homs. I know it is irrelevant to you that what I posted shows the sea level rise has not stayed constant over the last 120 years. No, the rising water will not get between the Sun and a thermometer and make it warmer.
CT,
The sea level has varied by at least 10,000 m in the past. Do you have a point?
Unless you have awesome superpowers, you have no idea of the rate of vertical or lateral tectonic plate displacement, above or below the ocean surface, the effect of the resultant changed shape of the ocean containment, or indeed many other relevant factors.
You obviously don’t need to pretend to be a fool.
By the way, the primary greenhouse gas according to Wikipedia is stated to have the chemical composition H2O. I agree with you that increasing the amount between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter.
I assume you misspoke, in a feeble attempt at sarcasm. Have you inadvertently been hoist with your own petard?
Cheers.
Mike, I’m glad you didn’t inform poor Craig T that marine fossils have been found on many mountain peaks, including Mt. Everest.
It’s funnier to just let them bask in their ignorance.
“The sea level has varied by at least 10,000 m in the past.”
“Mike, I’m glad you didn’t inform poor Craig T that marine fossils have been found on many mountain peaks, including Mt. Everest.”
Yes, Mt Everest is almost 9000 m high. Yes, marine fossils have been found on Mt. Everest. No, the ocean wasn’t 10,000 m above the current sea level when those fossils were trapped in rock.
And yes, water vapor is the greenhouse gas that affects temperature the most. But I don’t think you suddenly realized the greenhouse effect is real.
And no, I’m not going to return the insults.
But did you learn anything, poor Craig?
I learned a lot more reading Mike and your defense of Tesla’s claim that the Moon doesn’t rotate. I did learn that Mike thinks the ocean was deep enough at one time to cover Mt. Everest. Not sure if you agree with him.
Mainly, my judgement that no amount of evidence will ever change either of your opinions has been confirmed. My goal is more to post an opposing view for other readers. Now I’m reconsidering. There may be only a dozen people that read the comments, most of those convinced they understand science better than anyone that spends a career studying a discipline.
Craig, you haven’t presented any evidence of the Moon rotating on its axis. It is a well known fact that Institutionalized Pseudoscience supports such nonsense. So, linking to IP means nothing. The actual physics, and simple experiments, indicates the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Some folks just can’t think for themselves.
The same applies to AGW.
craig…”From 1870 to 2001 sea levels rose less than 20 cm. Before 1930 the rate was less than 1 mm per year. From 1993 to present the rate is over 3 mm per year”.
Where’s the proof? We don’t have the telemetry today to accurately measure the ocean levels, so how the heck did they measure ocean level rises prior to 1930?
Try this one:
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/5946.abstract
Still at a fairly constant rate the last 120 years?
RV,
Some people will believe anything, if they are gullible enough.
If you are trying an appeal to authority, you might choose one that doesn’t include –
“reconciles observational GMSL estimates with the sum of individually modeled contributions from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 database for the entire 20th century.”
Reconciles “estimates” with the “sum” of “models”? Really? Who is more delusional – the authors or you? If you believe this is science, good for you!
Try another gotcha – maybe somebody even more stupid and ignorant than you will applaud loudly. Good luck.
Cheers.
Rune
Someone here defines bad science as anything which challenges his world view, and I’m not referring to you.
B,
I am glad you are not referring to me. Thanks.
Here is a definition of science –
“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
Have you a definition of “bad” science? No? Just stringing random words together as usual?
On the other hand, here is a definition of pseudoscience –
“a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method”
I suppose you believe in a GHE which you cannot even describe. You might even believe that increasing the amount of CO2 and H2O between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
Belief in such things is obviously pseudoscience, rather than science. Carry on believing.
Cheers.
rune…from the article at your link…
“The rate at which global mean sea level (GMSL) rose during the 20th century is uncertain, with little consensus between various reconstructions that indicate rates of rise ranging from 1.3 to 2 mm⋅y−1. Here we present a 20th-century GMSL reconstruction computed using an area-weighting technique…”
They claim the level of the oceans us uncertain then add more uncertainty using a model.
Using an area-weighting technique is still working with data not a model. Rune’s paper actually talks about problems with sea level models. “Particularly striking is a significant mismatch of observed and modeled GMSL between the 1930s and the 1970s, in which the models generally suggest lower rates than observations.”
Earlier you asked me “Where’s the proof?” The paper tells where they got their data. “Our tide gauge selection is based on the data set described in ref. 16, consisting of 322 stations (Fig. S1A), for which VLM corrections with uncertainties of less than 0.7 mmy^−1 are available.”
Craig T, please stop trolling.
steve…”sea levels have been rising for 120 years at a fairly constant rate. Therefore, the cause can not be laid at the feet of anthropogenic climate change….”
I was reading a book on a Shackleton expedition to Antarctica. One of the crew was a geologist who specialized in glaciers. He pointed out, even back in 1910, or so, that glaciers have been melting for thousands of years. They have been melting long before anthropogenic propaganda.
That means the Earth has been warming for a long time as well. We are making way too much out of a degree C warming after 400 years of the Little Ice Age where temps were 1C to 2C below normal.
What evidence shows that glaciers have been melting for thousands of years.
Gordon has none whatsoever.
It’s just another immoral, snake pit lie.
DA: read this as an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnidejoch
I do not think that the current increase would be unexpected. I try to approximate the _red_ line in the graph (after detrending) with a sinus function with periode 3.6 years and the approximation is heuristically quite good for the whole range of the graph. The last minimum of the red line was expected in March 2018 and now it is expected to grow again for some time. The approximation function is
T = A * sin(B * t + C) + E * t + F
where
A=0.147177254326263
B=1.74532925199433
C=6.92793623087502
E=0.0127217002387231
F=-25.3918796086528
I do not dare to guess where 3.6 years comes from.
Both “t” (time) and “T” (temperature departure) is extracted from the graph
Variations from the trend are NOT periodic.
A hint of periodicity is visible from the graph on the first glance. I only tried to quantify it. Not speaking of the fact that periodicity 3.6 years has already been mentioned in relation to El Nino before.
Aperiodic variation with an average turnaround time of 3.6 years will come out as a period of 3.6 years when you try to force a sine curve to the data.
To see how good such a model is, you need to form the model using half the date set only (ie. first half or last half), then see how well it does at predicting the other half. I guarantee it will do a poor job.
At the level where I intended to show the periodicity the dividing of the interval is maybe a too sofisticated step. Just look at the image (I changed the colors slightly so as not to be confused with the original graph) where I plot in red the sinus curve – it is obvious that an increase is about to come but not exactly when:
https://udoli.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/heuristic.gif
There are lots of places where your curve doesn’t align with the data. And the only way it will continue to go close to lining with with new data is if you keep adjusting the parameters as the data comes in.
And it is called a “sine curve” or a “sinusoidal curve”, never a “sinus curve” (at least not in English).
bobdes…”To see how good such a model is, you need to form the model using half the date set only ”
Better still Bob, just look at the entire UAH curve and put your number crunching aside. Follow the red curve, which obviously smooths out the monthly averages. If you look at it visually between 1998 and 2015, you can see it forms close to a flat trend without doing any calculations.
bohous…”Just look at the image”
At first appearances, it looks like your sine waves are simply following a straight line trend. Forget the straight line trend and look at the reality represented by the red running average.
The IPCC admitted in 2013, following AR5, that no significant warming occurred between 1998 – 2012. Based on the error margin supplied there could have been a warming of 0.05C/decade over that range or a cooling.
The trend was flat for 15 years between 1998 – 2012 according to the IPCC and if you look at the UAH graph it’s around 18 years. Then there is a positive slope around 2015 as the super El Nino of early 2016 approached.
How about we take a 5-year running average instead of just 13 months. What do you think you will see then?
Gordon Robertson says:
Better still Bob, just look at the entire UAH curve and put your number crunching aside. Follow the red curve, which obviously smooths out the monthly averages. If you look at it visually between 1998 and 2015, you can see it forms close to a flat trend without doing any calculations.
Pure idiocy.
Don’t prove anything mathematically — just eyeball it!
As if routinely lying wasn’t already bad enough, Gordon also shows he is stupid.
David, please stop trolling.
bobdes…”Variations from the trend are NOT periodic”.
Take a look at the red running average curve on Roy’s graph then tell me it’s not periodic.
A trend is an average as is the red running AVERAGE. I think the red curve tells us a whole lot more about the real trend than a straight line averaged between end points.
Apparently you believe that the only requirement for periodicity is that the curve goes up and down.
+1
bobdes…”Apparently you believe that the only requirement for periodicity is that the curve goes up and down.”
I am talking about averages which you and others fail to equate with trends. A trend does not have to be a straight
line.
Roy’s red line is referred to as a moving average in the following article. It smooths the data but it also represents trends within trends.
http://www.simafore.com/blog/bid/205162/6-trend-analyses-to-consider-prior-to-time-series-forecasting
The red running average in Roy’s graph shows you a running average for the the data and if you look at it visually between 1998 – 2015 you see a flat trend overall trend.
You can beat statistics to death with every such theory while the data is glaring at you and telling you something else. Then again, I was taught probability and statistics from the POV of an engineer where we don’t have time to mess around with pure theory. We have to understand the physical aspects, otherwise things blow up and/or fall down.
Part of my training in engineering was engineering drawing, an art in which you learn to draw what you intend to work out mathematically. In exam questions we had to draw a fairly complex drawing just to get an idea of what we were asked in the problem.
It seems to me, you and others are content to number crunch the data without having the slightest idea what the numbers mean.
On the UAH graph, there are semblances of sine and cosine waves in the red curve. An immediate glance tells you the average is zero with such a shape representing data.
It’s not rocket science, look at the cosine wave between 2007 and 2011 and it tells you the average between 2007 and 2011 was roughly flat. Now average the sine-like ripples between 2002 and 2007….flat again.
From the 0.2C mark in 1998 till 2002, you have a distorted sine wave. The front part is narrow with a peak of 0.45C and the back part distended with a high of about 0.2C. I would say you could roughly make that a straight line (flat) average.
Guess what? The IPCC found a flat trend from 1998 – 2012.
I have asked several times, how do you explain that flat 15 to 18 years flat trend with a stated trend of 0.12C per decade?
You don’t. The UAH trend cannot be explained adequately with a number-crunched trend from 1970 – present. You can do it if you want but it means dick-all. There is a rewarming trend from 1979 – 1997 then a 15 – 18 year flat trend from 1998 – roughly 2015.
DA…”+1″
If you had a clue what you are talking about your aping might have significance. As it stands, you are simply butt-kissing to someone else who has no idea what he’s talking about.
Says the liar.
A man with fewer morals than a worm.
Than a cockroach.
Than lice.
I have asked several times, how do you explain that flat 15 to 18 years flat trend with a stated trend of 0.12C per decade?
Explain why you think this violates AGW.
Gordon makes a claim
“Guess what? The IPCC found a flat trend from 1998 – 2012.”
Nope, they found a flat or cooling trend with an uncertainty so high that the measured range also includes a high warming trend.
The lesson to be learned is that you can’t make predictions based on short periods of noisy data.
David, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Bohous great work… very interesting. I found that the El Nino peaks proceed the UAH temperature spikes by 4-6 months… but if you apply a 5 year MA to el nino, it really starts to look like the 11 year period solar cycle on an offset. Take 3.6 years and multiply by 3. Solar cycle! So you have found a sub cycle that I had not considered. I will most definitely be looking into this some more. Thanks so much!
How does it happen that the 11 year period is divided by 3? Is it the 3-rd harmonic frequency? It would expect a force that is not strong enough to cause the oscillation and needs a resonance. For example (just dreaming) Earth with the continuous belt of oceans – Arctic Ocean, Pacific, Southern Ocean, Atlantic rotating as a conductive loop in the variable solar magnetic field, the warm water (with higher conductivity) being pushed against the rotation the more the stronger is the magnetic field.
Bohous yes I was thinking some kind of 3rd harmonic frequency, but why it breaks down this way, I’m completely stumped right now. At the same time completely not surprised since nature loves harmonics, fibonacci retracements. I never noticed this relationship before. I am willing to say that the 2016 El Nino maximum qualifies as the obvious down beat to this 3.6 x 3 wave pattern. If true, there is 1 more down wave coming in temperature. So the 2018 lows will get taken out before the 2016 highs. It should be a substantial smashing, because in order for my theory to be right, the 5 year MA on el nino has to not only roll over and reverse, it still has to plummet based on the TSI lows of the current minimum that we are still enjoying. Basically the 5 year MA on El Nino is a lagging indicator to TSI and the 3.6 year pattern.
scott…”Bohous yes I was thinking some kind of 3rd harmonic frequency…”
Please remember that your reference to a 3rd harmonic is statistical jargon until you find evidence of a resonant condition in reality.
In the field of electronics, or the electrical field, you can measure and see 3rd harmonic frequencies on an oscilloscope. They are representations of electrical alternating currents therefore what you see on the scope waveform are electrons being perturbed by interfering forces.
If you could prove the same perturbations in the real world, related to ocean and atmospheric phenomena, you’d be onto something.
I am trying to say that statistics can be interesting but entirely misleading, unless you verify and understand the contexts from which the data was acquired.
bohous…”For example (just dreaming) Earth with the continuous belt of oceans Arctic Ocean, Pacific, Southern Ocean, Atlantic rotating as a conductive loop in the variable solar magnetic field, the warm water (with higher conductivity) being pushed against the rotation the more the stronger is the magnetic field”.
I don’t think you are dreaming. Tsonis et al have already looked into such cycles over a century and found a positive correlation between the ocean oscillations and warming/cooling.
With regard to resonance, look at the response (on the UAg graph on this site) following the 1998 El Nino. It dissipated below the baseline till mid 2000 then suddenly rose 0.2C, where it leveled off for a decade or more. A similar phenomenon occurred in 1977 and was not explained till 15 years later as being caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
In my naivete, I am visualizing the 1998 EN as setting off an oscillation which produced a warming effect that sustained itself for another 15 years.
Gordon R wrote:
In my naivete….
You got that right.
DA…”Gordon R wrote:
In my naivete.
You got that right.”
At least I am willing to acknowledge my understanding of atmospheric processes is naive. You, on the other hand, are willing to bs your way through everything you encounter.
You have still not worked out how heat is transferred from the Sun to the Earth when heat cannot flow through the vacuum of space.
Gordon, you are a bald-faced liar.
Lying doesn’t even phase you anymore.
You aren’t ashamed of lying. You’ve done it for several years now.
What kind of moral person keeps lying time and time and time again?
No one, that’s who.
Shame on you.
But heat and energy are the same thing.
If you say the sun doesn’t heat the earth you are being willfully obtuse.
David, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Scott R says:
I found that the El Nino peaks proceed the UAH temperature spikes by 4-6 months but if you apply a 5 year MA to el nino, it really starts to look like the 11 year period solar cycle on an offset. Take 3.6 years and multiply by 3. Solar cycle!
This is called…numerology.
David, please stop trolling.
Sinusoidal curve-fitting to aperiodic data seems always attractive– when the record is relatively short. With longer records, it invariably proves inadequate. At the very least, the cross-correlation with the original data should be displayed. It’s never high enough to be really attractive.
I do not think it’s appropriate to assign the sin curve long term. The sun is not on a timer. It’s 11 year solar cycles vary in intensity and duration. The longer the data table, the more random drift will sum up. I therefore contend that the exact mathematical equation need not apply. Every cycle will be different. Other than major volcanic eruptions, the relation between El Nio and temperature is very clear. As solar cycle 25 starts, winds will pick up. This will bury the warm surface water we currently enjoy. As La Nia gets going, the globe cools. When cycle 25 ends, winds will die, El Nio begins again. Within this 11 year cycle it now looks like we have a 3.6 year cycle and obviously the yearly cycle that increases wind intensity in the winter.
These temperatures look like a perfect leading diagonal lower from the 2016 peak. I do not think it’s been 3.6 years yet though. I won’t be surprised if it goes higher first, then drops.
What is spell check doing to my El Nio and La Nia? Lol must be an apple phone issue.
On this site, the tilde does not work. You can use “Nino”, without the tilde.
If you prefer using the tilde, you must use HTML codes.
scott…”the relation between El Nio and temperature is very clear. As solar cycle 25 starts, winds will pick up. This will bury the warm surface water we currently enjoy. As La Nia gets going, the globe cools. When cycle 25 ends, winds will die, El Nio begins again.”
One problem. The solar cycles are 22 years between max/min and the ENSO cycles are much shorter, measured in a few years. If you tried to relate solar cycles to the PDO or AMO, you might have something, since the PDO is related to ENSO, and all the oscillations are related as Tsonis et al discovered.
Gordon… take the El Nino data and put a 5 year moving average on it. You will see the 11 year solar cycle.
What we have here is a 11 year cycle plus a 3.6 year cycle plus a 1 year cycle. That 3.6 year cycle is honestly a HUGE discovery. Has anyone made this connection before?
Because the 3.6 year cycle is not timed to the same down beat as the seasonal 1 year cycle, it creates data chaos. You might have La Nina in the winter. You might have El Nino in the summer. It depends on how the harmonic cancels the other 2 factors out (or not).
bohous you did well… really well.
Perhaps Dr Spencer would comment on this because I think this is an important discovery.
Oh I forgot to mention that El nino is tied to the 11 year sun spot cycle / TSI… not the 22 year magnetic reversal within the sun… although I admit I haven’t studied the effect of the 22 year magnetic cycle.
What’s the evidence that sunspots determine El Ninos?
What’s the causal mechanism?
DA,
What’s the evidence that you are not quite deluded, and living in a fantasy world?
Cheers.
scott…”Gordon take the El Nino data and put a 5 year moving average on it. You will see the 11 year solar cycle”.
It would be interesting if that’s the case. I have read that the PDO affects ENSO and if what you say has merit then it should be easy to predict ENSO events by solar cycles.
I have read that the PDO affects ENSO and if what you say has merit then it should be easy to predict ENSO events by solar cycles.
Huh????
Please show us how “easy” this is.
David, please stop trolling.
Scott R says:
These temperatures look like a perfect leading diagonal lower from the 2016 peak. I do not think its been 3.6 years yet though. I wont be surprised if it goes higher first, then drops.
Ever hear of Elliott Wave Theory?
DA,
Are you really a dimwitted troll, or are you just pretending?
Cheers.
David Appell,
Yes I have actually. I’ve actually traded it in the stock market. Basically, I’ve been looking at data my whole life with my day job, stock trading, and climate. I often used divergences in my trading and analytics… and the divergences proved quite telling on many occasions.
Why do you dismiss the data showing the same 11 year cycle on El Nino so easily? How would putting a 5 year MA on a data set like this automatically produce an 11 year cycle? It is there. And now the argument for El Nino controlled by the sun looks even stronger because there is a clear harmonic at 3.6 years as well.
We know that a stronger sun creates stronger trade winds. We see that every year. If there are 3.6 year, 11 year solar cycles, these will either enhance or scale back the yearly trade wind cycle. When the wind speed picks up, the upwelling will increase.
Scott, here’s something you should look at. Pacific trade winds blow from east to west. During an El Nino those trade winds weaken and even reverse. During an la Nina trade winds are stronger than normal.
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/enso_patterns
The trade winds drive ocean currents that bring cold water up in the east and force warmer water down in the west. Those currents weaken or stop during El Ninos, allowing the heat to stay at the surface of the ocean.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap12/trade_enso.html
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/walker-circulation-ensos-atmospheric-buddy
Craig T yep. The wind speed picks up AS the sun’s energy increases which cools the planet. Think of the sun as a trickle charger for the system. The energy is released by the oceans when the sun shuts down. This is why the solar cycle is offset from El Nio. The deeper mins with all that uncirculated surface water is cooling the planet long term. If the yearly cycle is on a delay, and the 3.6 year cycle is on a delay, and the 11 year cycle is on a delay, what will the 100/400 year cycle be on? Delay of course.
Apologies Scott. I thought you said stronger trade winds produced El Ninos. I just reread some of your posts and you knew strong trade winds lead to la Ninas.
Have you read any of the papers written by more traditional scientists talking about their ENSO models?
Betting against a warming trend since the 1600’s, to reverse, at any particular moment, is a poor bet, but generally speaking, I AGREE the Solar minimum effect is expected soon: personally I didn’t expect to see effects for years. my expectation is that it’ll be yet another downturn within a generally warming cycle, like the 1940-1970 cooling Period NASA/NOAA censored…. if there’s no additional ‘pause’ or cooling trend in about 2025, I’ll be curious/ suprised, but Climate / weather is like that: if it doesn’t happen in 2025, that doesn’t say anything about 2026-2050. Look at all this freezing temperatures Into Spring, yet UAH record doesn’t seem impressed – go figure.
I AGREE the Solar minimum effect is expected soon….
It’s always juuuuuuust around the corner, isn’t it?
How many years of bad predictions do you need to admit your idea is wrong?
DA…”How many years of bad predictions do you need to admit your idea is wrong?”
You have not applied that to the AGW theory, for which there is no evidence, yet it is always just around the corner. It has been 30 years since Hansen predicted gloom and doom yet nothing has happened.
We do have evidence of the effect of prolonged low sun spot counts like the Maunder and Dalton minimums. The Little Ice Age coincided with them. Do you think that was a coincidence?
Gordon R wrote:
You have not applied that to the AGW theory, for which there is no evidence
Like a mangy dog, gordon lies again.
I don’t think gordon is too stupid to understand the evidence for AGW. I think he’s too immoral to admit it.
He’s an immoral, unethical liar in any case.
Begone, pointless troll.
GR: I reside in the UK and yes, it’s about 31 years since the IPCC was formed, and no doomsday yet – just weather variation from year to year, now touted as ‘climate change’ and ‘extreme events.’
Winter gales for example, a normal part of our weather, are these days given names by the Met Office, as if there were something unusual about them.
We see billions of dollars and pounds (or name your preferred currency) wasted on ‘mitigating climate change’ – money which would be far better spent on health care, policing, education, social care and much more.
Let’s see what idiocy the UK government will come up with next now that the baying mob outside Parliament has persuaded them to declare a ‘planetary emergency’!
“U.S. had its coldest April in more than 20 years”, this is not reflected in the so called satellite data. Snow falls in Western Australias Stirling Ranges in April for the first time in 49 years also suggesting that this was not a warm April in the Southern Hemisphere either… I am not convinced that your “corrected” satellite data reflects the reality of what has been observed on the ground. Furthermore if your data is correct and the earth has warmed in April in the midst of very low sunspot activity, this then contradicts the theory of additional cloud created by cosmic rays. The spate of flooding world wide over the past months indicates in fact that there has been more cloud and consequent precipitation. We are not all climate scientists but when the data does not conform to what is being observed, then we suspect that this is yet more corruption, the kind of which we have had a belly full.
Lawrence…”We are not all climate scientists but when the data does not conform to what is being observed, then we suspect that this is yet more corruption…”
That may not be up to UAH. As I have claimed, NOAA is known for fudging data and the UAH sat data comes from NOAA. UAH can only deal with the data they receive.
What you say about a colder than normal April is interesting, and possibly a cooler April in Australia. I have commented on cooler conditions on the west coast of Canada that do not coincide with the global average.
Gordon is lying. He has never provided evidence that NOAA “fudges data.”
He’s been asked for a long time for such evidence. Crickets.
Gordon lacks morals.
Begone, foolish troll.
Gordon has no such evidence.
Gordon is the kind of man who lies willfully and repeatedly.
David, please stop trolling.
Yeah, whenever Gordon sees a result he doesn’t like, it’s automatically data fraud. If the result conforms to his beliefs, the data is always sound.
Gordon is the exact opposite of a skeptic.
That’s right. Gordon isn’t even an ideologue — he’s a drone. He sees no reason to think.
barry, David, please stop trolling.
Lawrence,
We have not even started the cooling cycle yet for this solar minimum. The El nino cycle (which is controlled by the sun) is on a delay. You may want to check the conversation we had earlier in this thread. Once SC 25 starts, the warm water will be buried as the wind speeds pick up, the ice cold water underneath the surface will emerge and the temperature will plummet. In about 1 1/2 years expect negative departures for the global temperature.
What’s the evidence that the sun controls El Ninos?
Scott R says:
“In about 1 1/2 years expect negative departures for the global temperature.”
It’s curious how cooling is always JUST around the corner….
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/04/abdussamatovs-prediction-of-solar.html
Funny David… Do you see how the arctic is cooling twice as fast as everywhere else now? What part of the main stream global warming…no no no… main stream “climate change” model was that a part of? Isn’t it like 99 out of 100 of the traditional co2 based climate models have failed?
Talk about people in glass houses.
It’s hilarious. We are all no better than a weather man. What do we have, 0.44 deg C during an El Nino? Isn’t that about as expected as one can get? To be fair, I just joined the group. I just started making cooling predictions recently.
Based on my analysis of the 3.6 year harmonic, 11 year cycle, we are about to drop. We will probably be at baseline just in time for the elections which would be hilarious wouldn’t it?
Scott R says:
Funny David Do you see how the arctic is cooling twice as fast as everywhere else now?
Show me the data.
Scott again: whats the evidence that the sun controls El Ninos?
Scott, I took sunspot data and graphed it against the Multivariate ENSO Index for 1950 – 2018. I can’t see any relationship between the solar cycle and El Nino/Southern Oscillation.
https://i.imgur.com/Ws7wWm3.jpg
David Appell,
The data is right here in the UAH.
NoPol Jan 2016 = +2.46 deg C
NoPol April 2019 = +0.92 deg C
Drop = -1.54 deg C
Globe Feb 2016 = +.86 deg C
Globe April 2019 = +0.44 deg C
Drop = -0.42
Or you could look at the 12 month moving averages and see the same thing.
Either way, the same people that have been saying look at the arctic, it’s warming twice as fast as everywhere else need to see that the arctic swings around wildly. It’s now cooling twice as fast as everywhere else.
Sorry Craig T I couldn’t open that link. Maybe it’s being blocked for some reason.
In order to see the link, you have to apply a 5 year moving average to the El nino data. Then overlay the TSI departure from 1361 W/M^2.
If you do that, you will see that as TSI picks up and El Nino ends. El Nino drops off after TSI declines.
It may seem like it contradicts my theory that the sun is powering this cycle, but you just have to realize this isn’t a simple hot sun, hot ocean, hot land direct link. When the TSI is the highest, that is when we cool down short term because the cold water is being drawn up by the trade winds. When the TSI stays low and we get lots of El Ninos, the warm surface water is not buried which allows the ice cold Antarctic waters to build up without mixing with that warm tropical surface water. So this is a short term gain, but a long term loss. You can see the connection to the Antarctic flow by plotting the HADSTT3 southern ocean data also on a 5 year MA. Both the southern ocean, and El Nino seem tied to the solar cycle.
I will work on a way to post links to my charts here when I have time. I’ve been spoiled by facebook just taking snap shots of my charts and posting. Also, do you guys get notifications from this? I haven’t been.
If ENSO cycles are driven by the solar cycle I expect the formula describing it to be complicated. Here’s links to a paper and presentation on the subject:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008GL034831
https://www.agci.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/lib/main/10S1_0613_JMeehl.pdf
“Either way, the same people that have been saying look at the arctic, its warming twice as fast as everywhere else need to see that the arctic swings around wildly. Its now cooling twice as fast as everywhere else.”
Yes, the Arctic anomaly went down 1.54 C in the last 40 months, but the 40 months before that it went up 2.19 C. Starting or ending on a 40 year high makes short term trends untrustworthy. I don’t expect the longer term warming trend to stop.
Craig T thanks for the links to the papers. I just did a quick skim for now and noticed they also have that 3.6 harmonic along with a 2.2 year harmonic. Isn’t it wonderful how complex our climate is? I’ll have to look for that 2.2 year as well.
Craig T agreed. It should be a 2-way street. I’d honestly like to see them completely adjust El Nino / La Nina forcing out of the temperature data before giving it to the public. The public will take the peak numbers and run with it. I estimate the actual departure to be something like 0.25 deg C right now. Unfortunately, due to the delay / complexity of the El nino forcing, that will never happen. You will continue to have left wing media in Louisiana checking sea level, and right wingers in Norway. You will have right wingers taking the 2016 high and abusing that on the way down… same as we saw left wing media abusing it on the way up. Science has gotten far to political / biased. As far as the intermediate trend, it is still UP. I do see some cracks in the trend developing. I find it extremely interesting that the UAH summer data is diverging and not hitting new maximums. El nino is very biased to winter forcing as you know. If El Nino is caused by a weak sun in the short term, than eventually the cooling summers will win as the northern ice gets more and more stubborn. We have already seen that in Greenland recently. More northern ice will reflect away more heat and we COULD in theory go into another 400 year low similar to the mini ice age of 1600. For now, I’m looking at the sun data that is in, and I see we have a 1970s type cool down coming. The prediction for the lower SC25 is PRETTY main stream I’d say. The disagreement is only on the forcing. That’s really what this is all about. Splitting the climate changes we see into the various forcers and isolating the man made effects. Perhaps the sun will prove to be the biggest forcer when it’s all said and done. That doesn’t mean we have a go ahead to trash the planet… but if Co2 isn’t as important, we can worry about other things. That being said, being open to a cooler earth seems wise.
I think you guys are on to something. Just yesterday, I had to put a sweater over my polo. Its May, for heavens sake! And not just me, my wife noticed the chill as well. Brrrr…
+1
Lawrence
…this is not reflected in the so called satellite data..
Its reassuring to see not everyone has been fooled my NASA. Satellites are a major con job, but I guess youve already figured that out:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IFd-ttWUmJ4
Also, the human species is a hoax.
Begone troll.
!988 was the year
https://i.postimg.cc/4GjbRGgs/predictions.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazGXAqgkds
So instead of addressing my response the first time you posted this, you post it again and ignore the issues.
Where is RSS on your graph?
And did scenario A actually happen?
PS: *NO* scenario ever exactly happens.
Fixed it.
https://i.imgur.com/iFlnbkm.jpg
Look at Dr. Spencer’s next post about AIRS satellite data. It’s surface data matches GISTEMP and troposphere data matches UAH and RSS. Since we live on the surface we should use surface temperature data.
Even NOAA themselves Admit the land data is junk showing false warming
https://bit.ly/2DOmBua
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JAMC-D-19-0002.1
How could a bunch of thermometers concentrated around major populated areas ever stack up in accuracy against a complete sweep of the whole planet with a satellite sensor ?
It does however offer a great opportunity to the few who compile it to massage and fiddle with it any way they want.
That why the divergence from the two – that is the man made part
Satellite data has to be massaged a whole not more than thermometer readings to get anything meaningful out of them. Case in point – UAH adjusted the numbers from a cooling trend to a warming trend in 1998. Not because Dr. Spencer was suddenly in league with the Warmist data doctors but a clear cause of error was found.
Look at the next blog post about AIRS satellite data. The ground data lines up well with GISTEMP and troposphere temps line up with RSS and UAH. The divergence seems to not be an error of measurement but an accurate measurement of different parts of the atmosphere.
You are trying so hard you are giving away that you paycheck depends on propagating the global warming scam.
Financial disclosure: I receive no payments or incentives from the Global Warming Scam or subsidiaries thereof. I do benefit from the continuation of sound science practices.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Eben,
I did a full analysis of various cities vs small weather stations in Michigan and found a stronger linear warming trend in the larger cities. There is definitely a heat island / cutting trees down component to global warming. It is probably more significant than Co2, but not as significant as the ocean heat content… which in my opinion is completely natural. (linear sea rise)
Figure 2 on page 289 of AR5 suggests sea level rise of 3 mm in the 1930s.
You mean from about 1915 to 1930, don’t you?
And you’re picking out one reconstruction in particular, and ignoring the other two that show less SLR?
And you’re ignoring the uncertainty? I calculate the rise to be about (3.0 +/- 1.3) mm at the 90% C.L.
DA…”You mean from about 1915 to 1930, dont you?”
No…he said 3 mm in the 1930s. All of it from melting ice as the planet re-warmed from the Little Ice Age and beyond.
“Nohe said 3 mm in the 1930s.”
And he was wrong.
Look before you leap, liar.
Gordon, where is your evidence that NOAA “fudges” numbers?
DA,
Where is your evidence that you do not suffer from delusional psychosis?
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson says:
Nohe said 3 mm in the 1930s.
But that’s not what happened. Look at the graph.
All of it from melting ice as the planet re-warmed from the LittlevIce Age and beyond.
Wrong. A warmer world also causes an expansion of oceanic water.
Where’s your proof that NOAA “fudges data??”
David, please stop trolling.
This figure?
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGI_AR5_Fig13-7-718×1024.jpg
The green, blue, and purple lines are three different tidal gauge studies. The rate of sea level rise for the purple study (Jevrejeva 2008) jumps more than the other two between 1920 and 1970. Together they show the rate for 1930 between 0.5 to 2 mm per year. For 2000 the rate is 2 to 3.5 mm per year.
No, figure 2 on page 289 of AR5 WG1.
(As the OP wrote.)
Every time I tried to download the full report the download failed. Chapter 13 covers sea level change so I thought it might have been the same figure.
OK, I’m literally on the same page.
It’s the 3 same studies as in the graphic I linked, but harder to read. The study with the most variation for rate of sea level rise is Jevrejeva 2008 “Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2008GL033611
Figure 3 of Jevrejeva 2008 shows the rate of sea level rise for 1700 to 2000. It yo-yos but clearly goes up over time.
craig…”This figure?”
The three top figures are marked ‘observed and modeled’ whereas the bottom figure is observed. The observed shows about 6 cm (about 2″) since 1992.
There are wide error bands around the curve and I would guess the 6 cms falls within the overall error category considering the inaccuracy of trying to cover all the oceans with tidal gauges.
Considering the Mickey Mouse aspects of these graphs I say the evidence of sea level rise is inconclusive. More alarmist bs.
Off course, that bs is David Appell’s religion.
The error bands are a bit wide. The sea level in 1900 could have been anywhere from 120 to 180 mm lower than the 2000 sea level altimeter measurement. That’s a rate between 1.2 to 1.8 mm per year.
Of course the altimeter data is a lot more accurate. It shows sea level went up 33 mm between 2000 and 2010. That’s a rate of 3.3 mm per year. That makes it somewhere between a 185% to 275% higher rate of sea level rise than the past century average.
Craig, if there were no humans on Earth, sea levels would be rising. Do you know why?
CT,
You wrote –
“I did learn that Mike thinks the ocean was deep enough at one time to cover Mt. Everest.”,
– thereby demonstrating that you should ask for a full refund of your mindreading course fees. Thinking that you can read my mind by means of your own unassisted mental powers, indicates that you are suffering from delusions of grandeur, or you may be undergoing a psychotic episode, wherein you truly believe you have psychic powers.
Marine fossils by definition occur in marine environments.
One definition of the sea level from the Cambridge dictionary is –
“the average height of the sea where it meets the land:”
example:
“The top of Mount Everest is 8,848 m above sea level.”
Think about the implications at your leisure, if you feel like it.
Maybe you could quote me exactly next time. Just making stuff up, so that you can be ridiculed for arguing with yourself is your choice, of course.
Still no GHE, is there? No CO2 or H2O heating either. Facts make no difference to the beliefs of pseudoscientific climate cultists, but that’s the nature of the ignorant, stupid, and extremely suggestible followers of foolishness.
Cheers.
The sea level has varied by at least 10,000 m in the past.
When you wrote that did you mean it?
CT,
If that’s an attempt at some sort of gotcha, it’s pretty poor.
If it’s not, what would prompt you to ask such a pointless and irrelevant question?
I assume you heeded my invitation to think about the implications of what I wrote. What conclusions did you reach, if any?
Cheers.
You wrote that sea level had been 10,000 m higher in the past. When I said you believed the ocean covered Mt. Everest at one time you got upset.
It nay be “pointless and irrelevant” to ask if something you wrote is really what you believe. You may be trolling instead of trying to make a logical argument.
CT,
You are a strange fellow. You make the assertion that I “got upset” without providing any reason for your bizarre and unwarranted assertion. You certainly didn’t ask me whether I was upset, so you must have reached into your fantasy world and asked yourself.
I usually decline to become upset, annoyed, or to take offence without some good reason. You provide no compelling cause why I should make an exception in your case. You might have a higher sense of your importance to me than I do. Why should I value your opinion?
You may state what you believe to your heart’s content. Pseudoscientific climate cultists do it all the time – facts don’t seem to get in the way of their beliefs. If you choose to believe that marine fossils originated outside a marine environment, by all means do so. If you choose to believe that marine fossils have been transported by magic to current altitudes in excess of 6000 m, go your hardest.
The crust is in constant motion, both vertically and laterally. Liquid water accumulates in the ocean basins as Nature decrees. Change the shape of the basin, and the water level may fall, rise, or stay the same. Change the quantity of liquid available, and the level may change.
Depending on the location, the ocean surface experiences level variations due to tides. Unfortunately, the Newtonian picture of tidal bulges is incorrect. For example, in the North Sea, there is always a high tide somewhere, at any given time of day. In addition, tidal range is inconsistent, and highly variable. Anyone claiming to be able to establish any reasonably accurate average global sea level or some such is quite clearly misguided at best, and deluded at worst.
Just more pseudoscientific climate cultism, with wishful thinking masquerading as science. As one senior researcher said ” The global mean sea level results of the satellite altimeter are unfortunately never validated computations, not certainly very accurate measurements.”
Bearing in mind that some people believe purported satellite altimetry readings to 0.1 mm, I might just point out that 0.1 mm is roughly 0.004 inches, or about the thickness of a fine human hair. If you choose to believe that this level of accuracy is achievable when supposedly measuring average global sea levels, you are a good candidate for joining the pseudoscientific climate cult. Go for it! I promise I won’t get upset.
Cheers.
Finally…
“If you choose to believe that marine fossils have been transported by magic to current altitudes in excess of 6000 m, go your hardest.”
Not magic, continental drift.
Magic would be sedimentary rocks being laid down angled and folded, they way they are found on Mt. Everest. Those fossils were laid down at the bottom of the Tethys Ocean 60,000 years ago. As the India plate pushed northward, most of the sea floor was subducted under the Eurasian plate. Some was pushed up between the two plates to form the Tibetan Plateau.
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap3-Plate-Margins/Convergent/Continental-Collision
Craig T, please stop trolling.
CT,
You provided the following as a useful description (well, some sort of description, I suppose) of the GHE –
“The greenhouse effect usually refers to a net increase in the Earths surface temperature due to the fact that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation.
Nope. “Usually”? And when it doesn’t, what then?
As to the rest, try figuring out what a “net increase in Earth’s surface temperature” is. The statement that the atmosphere both absorbs and emits infrared radiation is meaningless in this context. The surface also both absorbs and emits infrared radiation, and so do bananas!
Not as easy as you think, is it? Carry on.
Cheers.
Flynn, all you are proving is that you don’t understand what the words usually, net, and bananas mean.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
JD and Mike, as you were.
Gee the arrogant prick is back.
You know I missed you.
Craig T, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The enhanced greenhouse effect is easy to put into a shot sentence.
The surface becomes warmer if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, because they absorb more upwelling infrared, thereby slowing down the rate of heat loss from the surface to space.
These are all observed in the lab and the atmosphere. Interannual variability from factors that have a larger annual effect than the 0.015 C/year of enhanced GHGs (ENSO can have an annual effect of 0.6 C), can swamp the long term trend for many years, but after a couple of decades and more, the warming signal becomes apparent.
The empirical facts are these:
CO2 and other GHGs absorb far more outgoing infrared infrared than incoming sunlight.
In the lab this causes warming of a medium in which GHGs accumulate before an infrared heat source.
We see the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
We measure increased downwelling radiation in the CO2 spectra, and less emission to space in the CO2 spectra.
The globe is warming long term, and periods of nno-warming have gotten shorter as the CO2 increase accelerates.
We have a physical mechanism that explains what is happening, and we have observations to corroborate.
We also have observations of other factors that could contribute to warming but are not.
The sun has not gotten warmer for 60 years while the global temps has increased.
The oceans are not yielding their heat up to the atmosphere – the oceans are also getting warmer.
Volcanic activity has not noticeably decreased to account for clearer skies.
The empirical evidence is abundant for the warming of the surface from increased GHGs in the atmos. It’s not much abundant for warming from other sources.
This for those who claims there is no ‘evidence’. (One wonders if they no the meaning of that word)
Wrong, barry.
The surface does not become warmer with more CO2 in the atmosphere. There is NO “slowing down of heat loss”. What confuses you is that the surface warms the atmosphere. That does not then mean the atmosphere can warm the surface.
“CO2 and other GHGs absorb far more outgoing infrared infrared than incoming sunlight.”
Correct, but that is, again, the surface warming the atmosphere.
“In the lab this causes warming of a medium in which GHGs accumulate before an infrared heat source.”
Correct, the surface warms the atmosphere.
“We measure increased downwelling radiation in the CO2 spectra, and less emission to space in the CO2 spectra.”
Correct, the surface is warming the atmosphere.
“The oceans are not yielding their heat up to the atmosphere – the oceans are also getting warmer.
Wrong. El Niños are obvious proof the oceans can warm the atmosphere.
“The empirical evidence is abundant for the warming of the surface from increased GHGs in the atmos. It’s not much abundant for warming from other sources.”
Wrong. The atmosphere can NOT warm the surface. Again, you are confusing DWIR with “warming the surface”. A 14.7 μ photon can NOT warm the average surface temperature. Two such photons can not do it. Two bazillion, bazillion such photons cannot do it. You just don’t understand the relevant physics. All you understand is your agenda, which takes you away from reality.
But the oceans are warming at the same time as the atmosphere. They are not the source of the energy.
Craig, if you are admitting the Sun is the source of energy, then you finally got something right.
Yes, and the energy from the the Sun has not increased between 1979 and the present (excluding orbital variation in the distance to the Sun.)
The annual average is fairly constant.
That’s why it’s called the “Solar Constant”.
Yep. This is key. If the atmosphere were warming due to heat transferring from one medium to another than you would expect the source temperature to decrease. But what is actually observed is that the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, land, etc. are all warming. Everything under the tropopause is warming. And it is happening during a period in which solar radiation has been declining.
It’s not unlike the temperature in your home. An 60,000 btu furnace in combination with great insulation we yield a higher equilibrium temperature than say an 80,000 btu furnace with little insulation. It’s a testament to the fact that even a decrease in source energy can still yield a higher equilibrium temperature if the insulation effect increases more than the decrease in source energy.
That is what is happening on Earth today. GHGs are slowing the rate of heat loss which causes the equilibrium temperature to increase even when solar radiation has been declining.
bdgwx, do you have no respect for truth?
Many of your sentences contain errors, but the winner is the very last one: “GHGs are slowing the rate of heat loss which causes the equilibrium temperature to increase even when solar radiation has been declining.”
1) Solar radiation has NOT been declining, in any meaningful way.
2) GHGs are NOT “slowing the rate of heat loss”.
You are obsessed with the GHE nonsense. Do you even understand it? Do you know where the “33K” comes from?
El Ninos provide temporary surface warming, la Ninas, temporary cooling.
The oceans are gaining heat over the long term. They cannot be responsible for long term warming of the atmosphere, otherwise they should be losing heat energy of the long term.
My blanket is colder than me on a Winter’s night. The fact that I get warmer from covering myself with it is that it slows the rate at which heat escapes from my skin to the cold night air. If I put more blankets on, I get even warmer. 2nd Law not violated.
That is a convective result. in the atmosphere, a thicker blanket of GHGs slows the escape of thermal radiation to space from the surface. This, too, results in warming at the surface.
It is easy to construct experiments (as Roy and others here have done) to demonstrate this effect. It is also not an ‘alarmist’ misapprehension of physics, as Roy, John Christie, Kristian at this site, Anthony Watts, most people at his website, and every skeptic scientist who is qualified on the matter (like Richard Lindzen) also agree with what is occurring.
No, the enhanced GHE is not a bogus idea that warmistas thought up. Rejection of this basic physics is the province of a small subset of the skeptic milieu, of which you are a representative.
barry, you can’t really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isn’t complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you don’t know what is causing it. All of your “facts” are just based on your beliefs.
When you imply that a cold blanket somehow proves “cold” can warm “hot”, that just proves you do not understand thermodynamics.
As stated many times, atmospheric CO2 can NOT warm the surface. Your lack of knowledge of physics, and your misguided beliefs keep you making the same mistakes, over and over.
And like others, you try to hide behind Dr. Spencer. But, you really don’t like the fact that Dr. Spencer is slowing moving away from his training in the GHE. He calls himself a “Lukewarmer”, explaining that he doesn’t believe CO2 can warm the planet as much as the Alarmists claim. You don’t like the fact that he is thinking for himself. When he is attacked, as on this very monthly report, you didn’t defend him. Not one Alarmist defended him. It was only the Skeptics that defended Dr. Spencer. You’re willing to use him, but not stand up for him.
The enhanced GHE is most definitely a bogus idea that warmistas thought up. And if you believe the “basic physics” supports such nonsense, I would be happy to educate you otherwise.
–JDHuffman says:
May 4, 2019 at 5:11 PM
barry, you cant really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isnt complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you dont know what is causing it. All of your facts are just based on your beliefs.–
The ocean are not warming up very much, and it would require magic for ocean to warm quickly [a 1 C increase in less than 100 years, would warming extremely fast]
But there is evidence of about 7 inch rise in sea level over last 100 years, and somehere around 1 or 2 inch of the rise is due to heating of ocean causing thermal expansion is plausible.
It also plausible that falling sea levels during the Little Ice Age had some component of thermal contraction of the ocean [entire ocean cooling].
The average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C and amount warming is hundredths/thousandths of a degree or increase and decrease of this average temperature.
One also has the warming in first couple hundred meters of ocean waters- particularly in regards to the tropical ocean. And it this variation [warming or cooling] which is largely causing the monthly and yearly changing measured air temperature.
Or the changing global temperature over last 50 years, is largely about the slab of surface ocean waters absorbing or releasing heat.
Or heating and cooling of the surface slab of ocean water, is changing global weather and what we calling global temperature changes.
“The average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C and amount warming is hundredths/thousandths of a degree or increase and decrease of this average temperature.”
That’s not the relevant metric.
The relevant metric is the amount of heat going into the ocean.
David, please stop trolling.
JD,
I feel the sea level in New York (1/2 way between rising land and sinking land) is good proxy data for the heat content of the ocean. What I find when studying the data is that the trend has been a linear up trend since the mid 1800s. So the heat content in the ocean IS increasing. You can not deny that. The question is why. I believe if we were contributing to that, you would see the sea level in New York rising faster and faster because we are adding Co2 and other forcers (in theory) at a faster and faster rate. Because you don’t see this in the tide data, I believe that the earth was NOT in equilibrium prior to Co2 being introduced. So before we even started taking these readings, sea level was rising at this rate. I believe we are in a 400 year warming cycle that may possibly be ending soon. It may take a while for the sea level trend to roll over. It is also possible that the 400 year cycle does not break that trend at all, and you would need a larger period cycle to break it. I have no idea to be honest what cycle we are entering. A 1970s type mid-century cool down is a given. The next cycle will determine if we have a 100 year type cool down. I have a lot of worries right now… the magnetic field… our dependency on the grid… CMEs… cold weather crop losses… floods. It makes VERY good sense to have an open mind to a cooler earth and to get prepared. The global warming alarmists will all look like flat earthers within I’d say about 13 more years as we drop BELOW the UAH baseline, and return to the late 1800s temperatures that are probably the real baseline considering the 1600 lows and the 2016 highs. That said, just like picking tops in the stock market, we may be early. Watch the sea level in New York. If the intermediate up trend breaks, we are in trouble I’d say. I worry not about a warmer earth and co2. My plants love the Co2, and a few degrees warmer doesn’t bother me. Like I said, there is NO proof Co2 is speeding up sea level rise at all.
Scott, ocean warming can cause sea level rise. Some 10,000 thermal vents on ocean floors can’t be dismissed. The only thing certain is that atmospheric CO2 is NOT warming the oceans.
One thing that perturbs the extremists is the fact that sea levels would be rising, even it there were no humans on the planet, due to the continual erosion of land masses.
Huffman wrote:
“barry, you cant really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isnt complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you dont know what is causing it. All of your “facts” are just based on your beliefs.”
In science all that matters is evidence. For the warming of the oceans the evidence is ample and has several different lines. Rising global average sea level is one of them – been happening for over a century. Direct measurements of the oceans depths has been going on for a century, with coverage and sampling increasing over time.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey_Mishonov/publication/257853181_World_Ocean_Database_2005/links/0deec5270070a583e5000000.pdf
As for the cause/s, that too is a matter of evidence, not of belief.
As you never provide evidence for your comments, it is you who are bandying beliefs (and rhetoric), and projecting your intellectual habits onto others. If you can’t make a scientific argument with references to the scientific literature backing it up, then your argument is worthless.
barry, I repeat: “you can’t really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isn’t complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you don’t know what is causing it. All of your “facts” are just based on your beliefs.”
I’ll be happy to repeat it again, if necessary.
And, I noticed you didn’t offer any of your “basic physics”. You must have been too busy running down more of your distracting pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
Yes, that’s right. You just repeat the same old stuff over and over and never back it up. You blow smoke. You get asked for evidence and you never provide. You just mouth off, uninterested in the way science is conducted and completely uninterested in having any substance to what you spout.
For anyone who values evidence and facts more than you, here is a brace of papers on ocean heat content:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/papers-on-ocean-temperature/
And sea level change:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/papers-on-global-sea-level/
Evidence is what matters. Not belief. Not opinion. Not tribal affiliation.
barry, as I stated, I’m willing to repeat it for you again, this time with bold for emphasis:
“…you can’t really be sure the oceans are gaining heat. The data just isn’t complete enough. And even if there is a heat gain, you don’t know what is causing it. All of your “facts” are just based on your beliefs.’
And, you still haven’t presented your “basic physics” for the GHE. Do you even understand your pseudoscience. For example, do you know where the “33K” comes from?
JD I agree erosion is definitely a factor, along with geological processes. It is honestly amazing to me how perfect the linear trend is. We have all these forces so which one is causing the perfect linear sea level uptrend? I think we can agree it’s not co2. The grand solar min provides us an excellent opportunity for study in any case.
–barry says:
May 4, 2019 at 4:35 PM
El Ninos provide temporary surface warming, la Ninas, temporary cooling.
The oceans are gaining heat over the long term. They cannot be responsible for long term warming of the atmosphere, otherwise they should be losing heat energy of the long term.–
The oceans are responsible for long term warming of the atmosphere.
The tropical ocean [not tropics in general] is the heat engine of the world.
The Gulf stream warms Europe [by about 10 C].
And what you seems to be missing is the ocean warms the world by evaporation of surface water, and losing heat via ocean evaporation is NOT heat loss going directly to space. Nor can you have convectional loss going into space- only radiant energy loses heat to the space environment.
As said the average volume temperature of the ocean determines global climatic temperature.
Ocean average temperature of 1 to 2 C is glacial period.
Ocean average temperature of 1 to 5 C defines the Ice Age we are living in.
Earth has had ocean average temperature of 10 to 15 C, and when Earth has average temperature of +10 C, it’s not in an Ice Age. It can’t have permanent ice caps and can’t have periodic glaciation periods with ice sheets covering land or have polar sea ice.
Whenever the average volume temperature of the ocean is 15 C or warmer, Earth has to be in a Hothouse global climate.
Earth has had many hothouse global climates in it’s history. And they are common discussion of the Alarmists.
A less common topic of discussion is the so called, Snowball Earth. And this is myth as far as I am concerned. But it seems that the snowball myth would have to have average ocean temperature of less than 1 C.
Or your current ice age has had ocean temperature of 1 C, and no one claims it as being a snowball Earth, hence a “snowball earth” must be as cold or colder.
–My blanket is colder than me on a Winters night. The fact that I get warmer from covering myself with it is that it slows the rate at which heat escapes from my skin to the cold night air. If I put more blankets on, I get even warmer. 2nd Law not violated.
That is a convective result. in the atmosphere, a thicker blanket of GHGs slows the escape of thermal radiation to space from the surface. This, too, results in warming at the surface.–
A huge “blanket” 20 feet above your head is not going to do much warming.
Blankets reduce evaporational and convectional heat losses. And human body largely controls it’s temperature by evaporational heat loss.
A problem with the GHE pseudoscience is the claim that bulk of atmosphere does not have “global warming effect”. But obviously it does. Or one could say the greenhouse gases are additives.
So it’s like analogy of additive of gasoline making gasoline perform better and “forgetting” that the gasoline still does most of the work.
Or take away the gasoline and keep the small quantity of the additives, and they don’t get you to the corner store.
Likewise if you remove all the nitrogen, oxygen, argon from the atmosphere. Or remove 99% of Earth atmosphere, then you don’t get a greenhouse effect. Or more correctly, you don’t get an atmospheric greenhouse effect [the ocean still causes planet earth to to be warmer, as compared to having, no ocean].
“It is easy to construct experiments (as Roy and others here have done) to demonstrate this effect. It is also not an alarmist misapprehension of physics, as Roy, John Christie, Kristian at this site, Anthony Watts, most people at his website, and every skeptic scientist who is qualified on the matter (like Richard Lindzen) also agree with what is occurring.”
Yeah, but how much.
We also also demonstrate warming effect of Urban Heat islands.
And there are lots of warming and cooling effects.
One thing you can say, is that in our time, or in our Ice Age, there very large cooling effects.
And in our age, there large factor which control how warm it gets and how cool it gets. And these have nothing to do with CO2.
The people above and no one I know, can not rule out the warming effect of CO2. But also no one know how much, the best they can do is estimate the upper limit of how much warming effect is possible.
Now, one could say that the warming effect of CO2, has already mostly already occurred. Some of the people above have mentioned this, and many of the alarmists are also claiming it. As in: it’s already too late, we are already doomed. And they also foam at that the mouth about all the damage the warming has already done.
I also tend to think most of warming from CO2 has already occurred, but I think in the future we will have better chance to actually measure the amount warming that is caused by CO2.
And I also would say that no damage has been caused from the warming effect of CO2. Or I obviously don’t think warming effect is the same thing as “weather effects” or “climate change”. Weather has always and will always cause damage. Weather pretty important, it’s decided outcomes of wars, and had large effect upon civilizations in the past. Farmers have always been dependent upon “good and bad” weather.
Of course one most known large effect of weather, had to do with the Dust Bowl. And we can also say that the dust bowl had nothing to do with CO2, though if had been more CO2 at the time, and having more CO2 would have made plants more drought tolerant, more CO2 could/might have reduced the effect from the drought.
But of course most agree that it was related to poor farming practicing which had largest negative effect caused by degree that humans had on effect upon this large event.
As you pointed out to Huffman, gbakie, sea level has risen over the long term, which is consonant with thermal expansion of the oceans. This corroborates what temperature measurements at depth find.
And what you seems to be missing is the ocean warms the world by evaporation of surface water, and losing heat via ocean evaporation is NOT heat loss going directly to space.
What you seem to be missing is that the oceans are gaining heat over the long term. With the mechanism you are describing, oceans should be losing heat long-term. Or the sea surface should be losing heat. But they are not.
And if something is making the oceans warmer for the last 50 years, what is it? It’s not the sun, because that has been stable or even become slightly less intense during that period.
The rest of your comments are extraneous to my point. Which is that the GH effect is not difficult to explain, and that more GHGs reduce the rate at which energy is lost from the surface to space. The result is that the surface warms, all else being equal. Yes, a thousand other things happen, but none of them change the physical premise.
Do try to understand what premise is being spoken of here, and constrain your reply to that.
barry continues with his pseudoscience: “…more GHGs reduce the rate at which energy is lost from the surface to space.”
barry, just claiming the same thing over and over does not make it true. It just indicates your ignorance of the relevant physics, and your unwillingness/inability to learn.
–“And what you seems to be missing is the ocean warms the world by evaporation of surface water, and losing heat via ocean evaporation is NOT heat loss going directly to space.”
What you seem to be missing is that the oceans are gaining heat over the long term. With the mechanism you are describing, oceans should be losing heat long-term. Or the sea surface should be losing heat. But they are not.”
The ocean both gains heat and loses it. Both occur at same time and varying amounts. And you are claiming there is net gain in adding heat in the oceans.
It is possible/likely. And it is possible it will continue [for centuries].
But all we have measuring is change surface temperature of the ocean and that effect of the net warming of surface- the warmed surface temperature of the ocean effect upon the increasing land surface temperatures.
Plus other warming effects upon land surface air temperatures which cause increase in the centuries long measured average temperature of land surface air temperature [which is the longest measured record which we have available- unless you want to use less accurate and other proxy of global temperature increase [or other proxies {ie ocean floor sediment} for ocean temperatures]. And of course ice cores of changes in polar regions and/or ice cores of glaciers in temperate and/or tropical zone.
But generally, it seems using thermometers is the better way to measure the actual temperature. And the recent satellite temperature record [40 years] is the best way.
–And if something is making the oceans warmer for the last 50 years, what is it? It’s not the sun, because that has been stable or even become slightly less intense during that period.–
I think Richard Lindzen has some general replies for this question.
To roughly summarize, there are lots of big cycles.
I think the many ocean cycles, are the most significant. But these are also many occurring in the atmosphere.
Dr Lindzen will talk of analogy of music harmonics and of natural variability- which he will stress should not be underestimated.
in attempt to stress their significant, I will say the natural variabilities cause glacial and interglacial periods.
And I don’t think anyone serious on topic of global climate, disagrees.
Or “the IPCC” agrees.
The IPCC says it’s confident more 1/2 of recent warming due to CO2.
And I am not confident that CO2 has had such large effect.
In regards to the stable sun. The sun is not stable. Plus Earth gets closer and further away from the sun.
The Sun is big. And the wild and vast action of the sun can be averaged in the mind of humans.
But as Dr Lindzen says, even if you allow for a constant sun, one still would have “natural variability” on Earth, as a small pot of water boils has variability and addition of vast scale of Earth increases such effects. Particularly when you add time.
gabakie,
And you are claiming there is net gain in adding heat in the oceans
It’s not my ‘claim’, it is the result of observation found in reams of peer-reviewed research. I don’t form my opinion based on what I prefer to think, but on what the evidence demonstrates.
If you are unsure that there is a long term gain in ocean heat content and would like to see the evidence for it, all you have to do is ask. That’s what I would do. Are you not interested in the evidence? How else do you form a useful opinion?
But all we have measuring is change surface temperature of the ocean
Have you so soon forgotten that you argued that sea level rise is an indicator of warming oceans? You said that only a few hours ago.
It’s not just sea level and SSTs, we have measurements of oceans at depths going back nearly a hundred years, increasing in coverage and sampling rates over the years. Here is a reference paper on the kinds of measurements we have, how long they go back for, and what kind of instruments make them.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey_Mishonov/publication/257853181_World_Ocean_Database_2005/links/0deec5270070a583e5000000.pdf
If you are not familiarising yourself with the observational part of the science, how on Earth do you think you can comment on the “measurements?”
Here are a brace of studies on ocean heat content.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/papers-on-ocean-temperature/
You clearly are not up to date on this.
The oceans have been warming over at least the last 5 decades. There is variation, but the rise is fairly consistent. ENSO changes are the short term fluctuations. The oceans are not yielding up their heat over the long term to the atmosphere. Both have been warming.
The enhanced GHG effect is a strong candidate. The sun is not, as it has not increased in intensity over the same period.
Wrong barry, the Sun is definitely a “strong candidate” for any ocean warming. It is well known that high energy photons from the Sun can penetrate to depths of over 200 feet. The atmosphere can not compete.
But the thousands of underwater volcanoes, lava vents, and thermal vents can defintely compete with the Sun.
It’s too bad you don’t know any thermodynamics, I could explain about the massive energy available in the super-critical pressures of thermal vents.
Is the ocean warming from the bottom up?
Which would be indicated by warmer water at the bottom, which is not the case because the water gets colder with depth. Only slightly warmer near the vents, and although 10,000 seems like a large number, because the mid-ocean ridges are so long, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans as far as warming the ocean.
The heat from below is measured in the milli-watts per square meter, unlike the solar and down-welling IR.
Better take those physics classes over, your retention seems marginal.
bob, you never get anything right. Maybe you would like to try to explain the “33K”?
It seems bdgwx, barry, et al, are having trouble with their pseudoscience.
It would be funny to see your derivation, since the “33K” is the crux of the GHE nonsense.
Barry says: May 4, 2019 at 9:14 PM
“…sea level has risen over the long term, which is consonant with thermal expansion of the oceans.
Thermal expansion is a local phenomenon. Local may be the tropical pacific, but the level only goes up where the warming of the water has occurred. If the Pacific warmed up degree is that going to make sea level go up in New York?
This corroborates what temperature measurements at depth find.
Is the ocean warming up below the thermocline?
The IPCC’s AR5 report tells us in FAQ 3.1:
Is the Ocean Warming?:
“In the upper 75 m of the ocean, the global average warming trend has been 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13]°C per decade over this time [1971-2010]. That trend generally lessens from the surface to mid-depth, reducing to about 0.04°C per decade by 200 m, and to less than 0.02°C per decade by 500 m.”
I’ve run the numbers on that and it comes to 50mm (2.0) inches per century.
Don’t try to change the subject JD,
the subject is how much the mid ocean smokers are warming the ocean.
The pseudo-science majority says not much
b,
You wrote –
“the subject is how much the mid ocean smokers are warming the ocean.”
Really? Who set the subject? You?
Why should anybody take any notice of you declaring what the subject is? Do you think others may have different ideas about why the oceans are not frozen through (nor any other deep body of water, for that matter)?
You go on to write –
“The pseudo-science majority says not much”.
Which majority is that? Can you name one, at least? How are you defining “not much”? Maybe you won’t convince too many people about the power of your “pseudo-science” without specifying what you are talking about.
I might point out that a majority, or even a consensus, belief is not necessarily a good basis for establishing fact. Fools like you might believe so – or you might even choose to believe that CO2 and H2O have miraculous heating properties, because some person claiming to be a “scientist” says so! What lunacy!
Cheers.
bob says: “The pseudo-science majority says not much”
And your pseudoscience “majority” is wrong, again.
Nothing new.
Flynn,
I have actually measured the magical heating properties of CO2 and H2O in a lab, so I am not believing what others have done.
I know CO2 and H2O abzorb and emit infrared radiation because I have measured it, and they do it better than the other gases in the atmosphere, so don’t give me your all matter emits infrared bullshit because all matter doesn’t do it equally well.
JD,
Since you know where the 33 K comes from perhaps you can provide a cite for this
“But the thousands of underwater volcanoes, lava vents, and thermal vents can defintely compete with the Sun.”
It’s about 100 mwatts per meter squared.
That can sure compete with the in warming the ocean.
bob, your crude estimate is likely low by a factor of 10. But, even using that figure yields about 10^21 Joules annually into the oceans. That competes very well with solar, and dwarfs any CO2 contribution.
Now, try a better estimate….
I may have been off by about 8%
The total heat from the earth is 47 Terrawatts and Solar is 173,000 Terrawatts.
The surface of the earth is 510 trillion meters squared.
You do the math and see if that squares with the industrial strength pseudoscience.
And that’s an American trillion, not to be confused with the British variant.
So which one heats the ocean more better?
bob, you seem to be arguing with yourself, again.
My point is that all of the energy entering the ocean floor will have some minuscule, yet measurable, effect on ocean temps.
You seem to be proving that the Sun is warming the planet, as opposed to your other side, which claims CO2 is the cause.
I agree with your proof that “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
So I can take that as a walk back from competing with solar.
I don’t think the heating effect of the earth’s heat flux can be measured as an increase in the temperature of the ocean, global instead of local.
But that 33 K you were referring to, that would be the amount all greenhouse gases are heating the surface of the earth.
If your handheld gizmo measured the temperature of space, that would be an indication that there was no greenhouse effect.
Instead you actually measured the greenhouse effect.
HA HA HA!
Every sentence is wrong, bob.
Nothing new.
Gotcha JD!
JD,
Thanks for confirming the existence of the greenhouse efect.
Now can you provide a cite that shows the hot thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean increase the average temperature of the ocean?
Didn’t think so eh?
bob,
Thanks for confirming you have no concept of reality.
JD,
We owe you thanks for demonstrating the greenhouse effect and reporting your data back to us.
It’s a marvel what an amateur scientist can do with a few bucks worth of instruments.
bob, it must be difficult for you to make each comment stupider than your last.
But somehow, you manage….
Well JD,
You keep screwing up the science and I’ll keep posting stupid comments.
Works for me.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
b,
You wrote –
“The enhanced greenhouse effect is easy to put into a shot sentence.
The surface becomes warmer if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, because they absorb more upwelling infrared, thereby slowing down the rate of heat loss from the surface to space.”
Unfortunately, what you have written is nonsensical. Not only do surface temperatures fall at night, the history of the Earth shows that over the longest term possible, even average daylight temperatures have fallen.
There is no greenhouse effect, let alone an enhanced greenhouse effect. Reduction in the rate of cooling is still cooling. The mythical greenhouse effect supposedly results in increased global temperatures – possibly even resulting in Antarctica reverting to its previous ice-free status, in some pseudoscientific climate cultist’s vivid imagination!
Nobody has ever made a thermometer hotter by reducing the amount of radiation reaching it. The pseudoscientific GHE believers even demonstrate that CO2 blocks portions of the light spectrum, preventing it from reaching a thermometer, and crow that this shows the existence of the GHE! What a pack of deluded fools!
Carry on dreaming – maybe the power of prayer can change the laws of physics, but I don’t think so.
Cheers.
Temperatures falling at night do not trouble the enhanced GH explanation, which is that more GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface. This happens by day and by night. The diurnal temperature cycle also continues as the world rotates.
“There is no greenhouse effect”
There is no discussing things with a fool. The rest of your post is just incoherent.
barry continues, almost word for word, his pseudoscience: “…more GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface.”
barry, being consistently wrong does not add to your credibility. But, you likely already knew that, hence your belligerence.
Let’s back that up with some data.
We seem to agree that there’s a 5 -6 month delay between what happens on the ground and TLT temperatures. Below is a link to a graph of 1979 – 2019 UAH TLT anomalies and outgoing longwave radiation measured by the NOAA polar orbiting spacecraft. OLR data is shifted right 6 months to align with corresponding TLT.
https://i.imgur.com/U6pH4Dz.jpg
The data almost mirror each other. When OLR went down TLT temperatures went up and TLT down when OLR went up.
The laws of thermodynamics say objects emit more longwave radiation as they warm so why is the Earth losing less OLR to space while it warms? GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface.
CT,
You wrote –
“The laws of thermodynamics say objects emit more longwave radiation as they warm so why is the Earth losing less OLR to space while it warms?”
That is is a silly statement, or an even sillier gotcha. Over the last four and a half billion years. the Earth obviously lost far more energy than it than it received from the Sun. All the considerable energy from radiogenic sources has declined logarithmically since the creation of the Earth.
You seem to believe that an object left on the surface will increase its temperature year by year, owing to the presence of GHGs such as CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere! Unfortunately, all of the Sun’s energy received during the day is radiated away at night, as Baron Fourier pointed out a couple of hundred years ago.
Maybe you could describe the GHE in such a way that a testable GHE hypothesis may be proposed. Only joking, of course, as neither you nor anybody else can achieve such a miraculous outcome. That is why you cannot find anything even claiming to be a GHE or AGW “theory” in any reputable publication.
Just insisting that the GHE is real does not make it so. That is not science, that is just being silly.
Cheers.
“Over the last four and a half billion years. the Earth obviously lost far more energy than it than it received from the Sun.”
I’m looking at data for the last few decades. When the TLT warmed less OLR left the Earth. If there were no GHE this would make no sense.
“Maybe you could describe the GHE in such a way that a testable GHE hypothesis may be proposed.”
Increases in greenhouse gasses should reduce outgoing longwave radiation and make the Earth warmer than it would be without the GHE. This could be tested by comparing the temperature anomaly to OLR data. Since atmospheric water vapor is a greenhouse gas and increases with temperature, OLR should go down during El Ninos and up during la Ninas.
Craig, you’re confused, again.
There is no reliable, meaningful meaure of “OLR”. It is all done with modeling. You are confusing estimates from pseudoscience with facts.
“There is no reliable, meaningful meaure of ‘OLR’. It is all done with modeling.”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/global_precip/html/wpage.olr.html
As indicated, there are no reliable, meaningful measure of OLR.
(But, flux “anomalies” make your pseudoscience even funnier.)
“As indicated,…”
The only thing indicated is that you will deny anything is real that shows you’re wrong.
Sorry Craig, but it’s your pseudoscience that is wrong. Your believe in your pseudoscience, coupled with your lack of understanding of physics and your aversion to reality, identifies you as just another “camp-follower”.
CT,
You wrote –
“Increases in greenhouse gasses should reduce outgoing longwave radiation and make the Earth warmer than it would be without the GHE. This could be tested by comparing the temperature anomaly to OLR data. Since atmospheric water vapor is a greenhouse gas and increases with temperature, OLR should go down during El Ninos and up during la Ninas.”
Or you could just measure the temperature of an object before and after increasing the amount of CO2 between the heat source and the object. The reason pseudoscientific climate cultists avoid this at all costs, is that the more obstruction between a heat source and a thermometer, the colder the thermometer gets! No GHE, rather, the complete opposite!
Nope. Reducing the amount of heat reaching a thermometer makes it colder, not hotter. Some pseudoscientific cultists believe that “warmer than it otherwise would be” is the same as “the temperature has increased”, which is nonsense. Hot soup in a vacuum flask is “warmer than it otherwise would be”, (compared with a lack of insulation), but its temperature still drops!
If you are stupid enough to truly believe that increasing the amount of CO2 or H2O between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, why not just say so? Why beat around the bush and launch into sciencey sounding nonsense which completely avoids what it is you are trying to say?
Even the quite foolish non-scientist Gavin Schmidt said “Hottest year EVAH!”, not “The much warmer than it otherwise would have been year!”, which even sounds ridiculous, as well being ridiculously incorrect.
Carry on. You might even convince yourself if you try hard enough.
Cheers.
MF, As usual, you incorrectly state the basics of the situation, writing:
If the “hot soup” you describe is heated by an external energy source, (as is the surface of the Earth by the Sun’s energy), then increasing the insulating effect of the Dewar flask compared with a glass jar, will cause the soup’s temperature to increase toward some steady state temperature. The Greenhouse Effect in the atmosphere will cause the surface temperature to rise in a similar fashion as more CO2 accumulates in the air above. The CO2 acts like a thermal “radiation shield”, the effects of which are well known in physics and engineering. Your continued rants just display your ignorance of physics for all to see.
Swanson, I see you still don’t understand thermodynamics.
Nothing new.
ES,
You wrote –
“If the hot soup you describe is heated by an external energy source, (as is the surface of the Earth by the Suns energy), then increasing the insulating effect of the Dewar flask compared with a glass jar,”
Unfortunately, trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask results in less rapid heating – just as the Earth’s surface heats more slowly, and reaches lower maximum temperatures compared with the less insulated airless Moon. Nothing to do with the words of mine, which you correctly quoted, at all. Cooling more slowly is still cooling, isn’t it?
You may not be aware that the highest surface temperatures on Earth are found in arid tropical deserts – less, rather than more, GHGs in the atmosphere.
Maybe you could try to describe the GHE? No? That’s because it’s impossible! Carry on trying to avoid this basic step in applying the scientific method. Pseudoscience obviously suits you much better.
Cheers,
Mikey still can’t grasp the reality of the problem. He wrote:
Flat out wrong. Adding energy (heating) into a Dewar flask filled with a liquid like soup, compared to doing the same using a glass jar, the result will be that the steady state temperature within the Dewar will be greater than that within the jar. Both jars end up transferring energy outwards at the same rate. That’s basic engineering heat transfer.
Your reference to the Moon’s heating by the Sun’s energy fails to take into account the other side of the equation, that of the energy loss during the Lunar night. One must consider the average temperature, not the maximum, which is also true for desert situations on Earth. In the Dewar/glass jar comparison, the temperature doesn’t drop, after steady state is achieved. In that situation, the minimum will be the maximum, as long as the external energy supply continues.
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
b,
I suppose you deny the Earth’s surface is no longer molten? No, I guess you don’t. That comes about as a result of cooling, not heating.
No heating. No GHE. No magical properties for CO2 or H2O. So sad, too bad.
Maybe you could start rambling about blankets, overcoats, bank accounts or toothpicks – anything to help you deny, divert, and confuse.
You could even claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! If you put your fingers in your ears, you won’t even hear the derisive laughter from rational people.
Off you go – give it a try, why don’t you?
Cheers.
I suppose you deny the Earth’s surface is no longer molten?
I actually point out that the Earth’s surface was 1000C near its formation. But I state that fact with some sarcasm, as it is quite irrelevant to the current situation. You, however, repeat this fact with all seriousness, as if it is somehow self-evidentially meaningful.
As I said, no discussing things with a fool. You just repeat yourself, never progressing beyond the loop you are trapped in, forever immune to rational discussion.
barry, people have to keep repeating things to you because you just don’t get it.
Mike’s point is there is nothing un-natural occurring with Earth’s temperatures.
You have been duped, and are unable to process facts and logic.
barry, and all GHE addicts, I just did another check with my handheld IR thermometer.
Overhead, blue sky, -15.5F
Ground 81.8F
Ground, in the shade 78.6F
Low cloud 60.4F
It seems it’s just another day with the surface warming the atmosphere.
Nothing new.
b,
You wrote –
“I actually point out that the Earths surface was 1000C near its formation. But I state that fact with some sarcasm, as it is quite irrelevant to the current situation.”
In other words, the surface has cooled – no GHE until the present, or if you say there was, it resulted in cooling. The current situation seems to be that the surface is much cooler than it was in the past. In the case of continents such as Antarctica, very much so.
It appears your indescribable GHE has magically sprung into existence due to some recent change to the natural physical laws of the universe. At the behest of a ragtag capering assortment of second-rate self proclaimed “climate experts”, perhaps? Worship as you will – if you try to convince followers of the scientific method that faith is superior to fact, you might face disappointment.
Try if you wish. Good luck.
Cheers.
“Overhead, blue sky, -15.5F.”
Thankfully we have the relatively warm sky above us to keep us warmer!
Much better than space @ -290 C!
Well Nate, without the Sun, both Earth and your “warm” sky would be about 3K, -270C.
If you knew any physics, you would know that -290 C is impossible.
Thankfully, you’re too obsessed with your pseudoscience to be anything but just another clown.
Ouch! You got me there. -290c.
Any case, good to have a warm sky, raining ir photons down on us and your detector, allowing it to warm and measure temp way up there.
Poor Nate. He must believe a -15.5 F sky is warming the 80 F IR thermometer. Just as he must believe the same sky is warming the planet. And, he must also believe ice cubes can warm his cup of coffee.
Funny.
I wonder how your room temp detector can dectect photons from the -15 F sky without absorbing them?
Maybe your “wonder” will make you curious enough to learn some physics.
But be careful. Just as curiosity killed the cat, learning will kill pseudoscience.
JD,
Just as we learned last month, your ‘physics’ doesnt work in the real world.
It doesnt allow heaters to heat.
Now, it doesn’t allow IR sensors to sense.
If you think otherwise, pls explain how your sensor works without absorbing photons from a colder source.
Nate says:
“JD, […] It doesn’t allow heaters to heat.”
In other words he invented a heater that is not hot.
Should be a popular product if he could attract some investors.
Svante and Nate, your futile efforts to misrepresent me just further indicate your deficiencies in the relevant physics.
Please continue, if only for the benefit of comedy.
Make a fortune short selling sun parasols, they have no cooling effect whatsoever.
‘pls explain how your sensor works without absorbing photons from a colder source.’
Obviously you can’t, JD.
But thats ok because you’re just here to troll.
Nate, you have never demonstrated a responsible attempt to learn. Consequently, don’t expect me to waste time helping you, until you show a sincere interest.
‘Nate, you have never demonstrated a responsible attempt to learn.’
Why would someone trained in real physics want to learn fake physics?
You also fail to understand humans.
Nate, please stop trolling.
barry…”Temperatures falling at night do not trouble the enhanced GH explanation, which is that more GHGs reduce the rate of heat loss to space from the surface. This happens by day and by night. The diurnal temperature cycle also continues as the world rotates”.
It’s not clear where this propaganda comes from.
GHGs, at an average of 0.30% over the entire atmosphere, don’t have the capability of influencing the rate of heat dissipation from the surface. That is controlled by the air temperature immediately at the surface and the temperature of that air is governed by nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the mass of air.
With N2/O2 accounting for 99% of the heat that sets the temperature how the heck can GHGs, with a total % mass of around 0.3% for the entire atmosphere possibly affect atmospheric temperature at the surface?
It’s plain that the theory is wrong. Alarmists have not explained how GHGs, as trace gases, can possibly affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
Maybe, but scientists have explained how greenhouse gasses reduce the loss of outgoing longwave radiation to space.
Here’s an example. During an El Nino lots of water vapor is added to the atmosphere from the warming seas. Water vapor is a GHG so outgoing longwave radiation is reduced during El Ninos.
https://i.imgur.com/U6pH4Dz.jpg
If there was no Greenhouse Effect you would expect more OLR when the surface and atmosphere warmed.
“…but pseudoscientists have explained how greenhouse gasses…”
Much better, Craig.
Also, that is not “outgoing long wave radiation”. It is some IP version involving modeling, estimates, and pseudoscience.
If you knew some physics, you would be able to quickly spot things wrong with flux “anomalies”.
That’s direct measurements of OLR from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer.
“The AVHRR/3 scans the Earth surface in six spectral bands in the range of 0.58 – 12.5 microns. It provides day and night imaging of land, water and clouds, measures sea surface temperature, ice, snow and vegetation cover.
The AVHRR/3 is a six-channel imaging radiometer that detects energy in the visible and infrared (IR) portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. The instrument measures reflected solar (visible and near-IR) energy and radiated thermal energy from land, sea, clouds, and the intervening atmosphere. The instrument has an instantaneous field-of-view (IFOV) of 1.3 milliradians providing a nominal spatial resolution of 1.1 km (0.69 mi) at nadir.”
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Meteorological_missions/MetOp/About_AVHRR_3
Craig, as usual, there are so many things wrong with your pseudoscience, that it would take weeks to correct them all. I’ll just pick out the most blatant errors:
1) A flux anomaly is meaningless.
2) The Earth does NOT emit visible light. The visible light measured would be reflected photons. Reflected light does not relate to El Niño, except in pseudoscience.
3) Random samplings of IR from the surface cannot be extrapolated into a global average.
4) The only meaningful way to compare fluxes from different sources is by the spectra. And even then, you have to know what you’re doing.
(That’s all I have time for today, but keep finding more things that prove you don’t understand the relevant physics.)
Here is more about the AVHRR available products:
“The AVHRR/3, a six channel scanning radiometer, provides three solar channels in the visible-near infrared region and three thermal infrared channels. The instrument utilises an 8-inch diameter-collecting telescope of the reflective Mersenne type. Cross-track scanning is accomplished by a continuously rotating mirror direct driven by a hysteresis synchronous motor. The three thermal infrared detectors are cooled to 105K by a two-stage passive radiant cooler.”
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Meteorological_missions/MetOp/Scanning_mechanism
Craig, do you even have a high school diploma?
You keep linking to stuff you don’t understand. You have no clue how stupid you make yourself.
Obviously, you don’t realize the CO2 14.7 μ is not included in the 6 channels.
Along with all your other fumbles.
No, but 0.58 12.5 microns covers a large area absorbed by water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas. I wouldn’t expect any sudden changes in 14.7 µm absorрtion because CO2 level show a steady rise.
Craig, you have the ability to pound out something on your keyboard that makes no sense: “I wouldn’t expect any sudden changes in 14.7 μm absorрtion because CO2 level show a steady rise.”
I’ve seen this sort of talent with other typists….
That was a little incoherent. That’s what I get for rushing.
“Obviously, you don’t realize the CO2 14.7 µ is not included in the 6 channels.”
No, but the 0.58 µm to 12.5 µm range of IR measured by AVHHR covers a good deal of radiation absorbed by water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas. I wouldn’t expect any sudden changes in 14.7 µm radiation because CO2 levels show a steady rise.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
bobdroege wrote –
“But heat and energy are the same thing.
If you say the sun doesn’t heat the earth you are being willfully obtuse.”
A candle flame reaches about 1000 C. Try warming yourself with the heat of a candle on a cold night, and you may be unhappy.
A cubic kilometre of ice contains a very large amount of heat energy, but cannot make a drop of water hotter.
Unless you specify some quantities, people might believe you are not trying to be deceptive – as pseudoscientific climate cultists often are.
The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earth’s surface from cooling from the molten state, or even from preventing Antarctica from being buried under kilometres of ice.
Are you wilfully obtuse, or just stupid, ignorant and gullible? Carry on.
Cheers.
You know if you are traveling in the winter in a car you should have a blanket and a candle in your car because that is enough to keep you warm in case your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere.
The inuit build houses of snow blocks and once inside a properly built one their body heat is enough to keep them warm.
Now who is being willfully obtuse?
b,
Are you actually able to disagree with something I wrote? No?
Can you actually bring yourself to directly quote me? No?
What a pity! What a fool! With a great deal of effort, you may yet aspire to becoming even more wilfully obtuse than you appear to be at present! Onwards and upwards, eh?
Cheers.
You said “try warming yourself with the heat of a candle on a cold night”
I suggested a time when that might be a good idea.
So what if I wasn’t quoting you.
But then I just did.
Has the earth been cooling at a steady rate since it was molten?
Or have parts been solid for 4.4 billion years?
Or are you just blathering nonsense for which you have no evidence.
b,
Are you disagreeing with what I wrote, as you quoted, or just being really silly? Were you happy trying to warm yourself with a candle on a cold night?
Of course, you don’t have to quote me.You can make up as much nonsense as you like, and argue with yourself till the cows come home.
You wrote –
“Has the earth been cooling at a steady rate since it was molten?”
Why are you asking me? What efforts have you made to find out for yourself? You see, if you could bring yourself to quote what I said, and then provide some reason for disagreeing with me, then people might pay some attention.
Otherwise, people might just come to the same valid conclusion as myself – you are just posing asinine and puerile gotchas because your pseudoscientific climate cult beliefs have nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with faith.
I’m happy enough to let others decide for themselves. You?
Cheers.
I asked you because I wondered what you thought.
I believe you have said that the earth has cooled since it was molten and hasn’t warmed since.
Which I have researched and know to be complete bollocks.
b,
You wrote –
“I believe you have said that the earth has cooled since it was molten and hasnt warmed since.”
Maybe you could directly quote something with which you disagree, rather than just assuming that what you believe” is fact.
I believe you are stupid and ignorant, mainly because you cannot demonstrate otherwise. Carry on.
Cheers
Flynn,
Here is an accurate quote of what you said, maybe you could clarify what you meant.
“The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state,”
Did you mean that the earth has cooled at a constant rate since it was molten, or are you supporting Lord Kelvins ridiculous estimate of the age of the earth?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d …”The inuit build houses of snow blocks and once inside a properly built one their body heat is enough to keep them warm.”
They don’t sit around inside the igloo in t-shirts and shorts. Thy are dressed in furs from animals. They sleep on furs and under them while wearing furs.
They also need calories of heat from the foods they consume.
Humans can survive -60C temps if sheltered from the wind, slow heat loss due to conduction, convection and radiation, and have an adequate caloric intake.
bobdroege wrote
“But heat and energy are the same thing.”
Yes, of course.
Chaps,
I disagree, of course.
According to Einstein, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
Mass may be at absolute zero, but have energy without having heat (not hot at all) – if you accept a definition of heat such as –
“Heat – noun
1.the quality of being hot; high temperature.
“the fierce heat of the sun””
You are using pseudoscientific climate cult concepts. Calling energy heat does not help to create a GHE.
Try some more silly redefinitions – maybe you could claim reducing the rate of cooling is really heating!
Cheers.
Heat is thermal energy, a subset of energy.
The thermodynamic definition of “heat” involves “transfer”. If you are talking about “heat” in an object, you should use “internal energy”, or “enthalpy”. An object does not contain “heat”, if you want to use the correct definition.
–barry says:
May 5, 2019 at 7:29 AM
gabakie,
And you are claiming there is net gain in adding heat in the oceans
It’s not my ‘claim’, it is the result of observation found in reams of peer-reviewed research. I don’t form my opinion based on what I prefer to think, but on what the evidence demonstrates.–
I form my opinion on what I prefer to think.
–If you are unsure that there is a long term gain in ocean heat content and would like to see the evidence for it, all you have to do is ask. That’s what I would do. Are you not interested in the evidence? How else do you form a useful opinion?–
Long term in terms of the ocean is a long time.
It seems the ocean has been cooling for thousands of years.
–But all we have measuring is change surface temperature of the ocean
Have you so soon forgotten that you argued that sea level rise is an indicator of warming oceans? You said that only a few hours ago.–
Warmed a bit recently seems very likely.
–It’s not just sea level and SSTs, we have measurements of oceans at depths going back nearly a hundred years, increasing in coverage and sampling rates over the years. Here is a reference paper on the kinds of measurements we have, how long they go back for, and what kind of instruments make them.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexey_Mishonov/publication/257853181_World_Ocean_Database_2005/links/0deec5270070a583e5000000.pdf —
That could quite interesting.
–If you are not familiarising yourself with the observational part of the science, how on Earth do you think you can comment on the “measurements?”
Here are a brace of studies on ocean heat content.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/papers-on-ocean-temperature/
You clearly are not up to date on this.–
Probably not.
I tend say the ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C, but perhaps there is newer information that indicates a more precise number?
–The oceans have been warming over at least the last 5 decades. There is variation, but the rise is fairly consistent. ENSO changes are the short term fluctuations. The oceans are not yielding up their heat over the long term to the atmosphere. Both have been warming.–
Obviously there is also colder water added, and so, ocean does not need to give up heat, to cool.
Obviously the ocean gains and loses heat but in terms of comparison to the vast amount of heat in the entire ocean, the loss [or gain] in the short term [less than 50 years] could/would be insignificant in terms of the ocean, but important in terms hundredths of degrees difference of atmosphere which we all seem to be discussing.
–The enhanced GHG effect is a strong candidate. The sun is not, as it has not increased in intensity over the same period.–
There also a massive amount the volcanic activity on the ocean floor. Though in terms of history of thousands of years, at the present time, it could be more or less now as compared to periods hundreds and thousands of years ago.
g,
The climate cultists live in denial of reality. Molten magma is continuously being forced through the crust under the oceans –
“The production of new seafloor results from mantle upwelling in response to plate spreading; this isentropic upwelling solid mantle material eventually exceeds the solidus and melts. The buoyant melt rises as magma at a linear weakness in the oceanic crust, and emerges as lava, creating new crust upon cooling. A mid-ocean ridge demarcates the boundary between two tectonic plates, and consequently is termed a divergent plate boundary.”
If you look at the mid-ocean ridges, you will notice they join up in such a way as to divide the crust into two distinct “halves”. A little reflection shows that this process must continue until the crust has become far thicker than it is presently. Some hundreds of millions of years, perhaps?
Nobody can quantify the amount of energy released into the oceans by the molten magma along the ridges, and the totally unknown number of hydrothermal vents on the seafloor. Of course, there are undersea volcanoes and so forth, not associated with the mid-ocean ridges. Even more heat.
Idiot pseudoscientific climate cultists refuse to accept that less dense water rises to overlay more dense colder water. They cannot understand that chaotic convective processes in water require heat from the bottom, not from the top! They have some bizarre fantasy that the energy from the Sun penetrates into the ocean depths beyond the aphotic zone, and somehow it warms water which either sinks, or stays where it is – not cooling. Unfortunately, some of these deluded fantasists are employed by organisations such as NASA, NOAA, the NSF and other organisations which should know better.
The fools who claim that the GHE adds heat to the oceans, raising their temperature year on year, are the same fools who cannot even describe this supposed GHE, much less devise a testable GHE hypothesis!
And still the incompetent fumbling bumblers proclaim impending doom – as if they can prevent the weather (and hence the climate) from changing! A grand collection of pseudoscientific clowns – not first class mind among them. Just wannabes and second raters, unable to achieve recognition in any recognised academic discipline.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, pseudoscientific fantasies, and all teh rest.
Cheers.
I tend say the ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C, but perhaps there is newer information that indicates a more precise number?
The average number isn’t very meaningful. The temperature change is very little at the bottom (<~0.01 C) but significantly larger in the top 10s of meters (~1 C).
DA,
I thought pseudoscientific climate cultists were besotted with averages?
In any case, are you unaware that warmer less dense water makes its way to the surface? You are also wrong about temperatures at the ocean bottom. Standardised values range from 1.67 – 2.78 C, rather more than the 0.01 C to which you refer. Of course, water in contact with molten magma gets much hotter than this, and even the water in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents can exceed 400 C without vaporising, due to the extreme pressure.
Maybe you could try accepting reality, for a change. Or just ask more witless gotchas, demanding references, and generally be petulant. Have you tried flapping irrelevant spectrographic charts in peoples’ faces while crying “Evidence, evidence!”?
Are you still denying that bananas both absorb and emit infrared radiation, like CO2, H2O, and everything else with a temperature, in the known universe?
Have you figured out how photons of light pass through transparent matter without being absorbed?
Carry on being deluded. It suits you – you demonstrate your form of mental impairment so nicely.
Cheers.
“Standardised values range from 1.67 – 2.78 C, rather more than the 0.01 C to which you refer.”
You mis-interpret what David said.
David is referring to changes in TIME, not in LOCATION.
* At a given moment, there will be significant changes in temperature from one spot to another. Something on the order of 1 C (your number) sounds about right.
* At a given location, there will be tiny changes from one year to the next. Something on the order of 0.01 C (David’s number) sounds about right.
You are each right in your own way!
TF,
You dont appear to be satisfied with reading minds one at a time. You move the game up a notch, and now claim you can read minds two at a time! Well done!
As to your rather bizarre assertion about 0.01 C sounding about right, maybe you could back it up with some measured date – over a year, say. If you cannot find any measurements to back up your opinion, why should anybody take any notice of of your opinion? Because it “sounds about right to you perhaps?
As to your determination “You are each right in your own way!, oh goody! You are beginning to see the light, in my case at least. David is a fool of the pseudoscientific climate cultist variety, and wrong, so you are 50% correct.
Cheers.
Mike, No mind-reading needed; only basic reading and logic skills.
If only you spent as mush effort on critical thinking as you do on complaining! We all notice that you didn’t actually disagree with anything I said — you just ranted about it.
TF,
You wrote –
“If only you spent as mush effort on critical thinking as you do on complaining! We all notice that you didnt actually disagree with anything I said you just ranted about it.”
Maybe you could quote where I complained? Only joking, of course you can’t!
Does this “sound about right” to you? Obviously, you don’t like facts – otherwise you would use them instead your pointless opinions. What basic reading and logic skills are you referring to? Are they related to basic writing skills, or did you really mean to write “mush” instead of “much”?
Carry on denying, diverting, and confusing at your leisure. You may get something right by accident. Good luck.
Cheers.
“David Appell says:
May 5, 2019 at 6:14 PM
I tend say the ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C, but perhaps there is newer information that indicates a more precise number?
The average number isn’t very meaningful.”
Do, you think we could in an interglacial period if the ocean average temperature was 3.0 C ?
If average ocean temperature increases or decrease by 1 C would it effect global sea level?
How much?
As I said before I think average volume temperature of the ocean determines whether you are in an Ice Age, not in Ice Age, or in hothouse global climate.
And our cold ocean prevents Earth becoming like Venus.
Yes, I know that you don’t think there is any possibility that Earth could become like Venus. But there a small number of people who have such a crazy delusions. And for them, they should realize our cold ocean prevents this from happening.
Yes, there lot other reason why it will not happen, but it is simple factor which prevents it.
gbaikie, can you use quotation marks, blockquotes or something to help show when you are quoting another post and you’re making your own point?
gbakie
“I form my opinion on what I prefer to think.”
You form your opinion on scientific matters based on what you’d prefer to believe? Or was that meant to be a joke?
“That [study describing the many ways ocean temps are measured at depth] could quite interesting.”
Is the reason you will not inform yourself on a point you yourself brought up because you form your opinion on what you “prefer to think?”
barry: “You clearly are not up to date on this.”
gbakie: “Probably not. I tend say the ocean average temperature is….”
Did someone hijack your account in order to make it seem like you prefer to have uninformed opinions?
“…ocean does not need to give up heat, to cool…
…the loss [or gain] in the short term [less than 50 years] could/would be insignificant in terms of the ocean, but important in terms hundredths of degrees difference of atmosphere which we all seem to be discussing…
…a massive amount the volcanic activity on the ocean floor… could be more or less now as compared to periods hundreds and thousands of years ago.”
There is a wealth of research material on these questions. You can educate yourself, and turn the “coulds” and “woulds” into something a little more concrete.
Instead, you are taking a position – something you “prefer to think” – and arguing its merits based on speculation, avoiding, it would seem, any fact-based material that would interfere with your preferences.
This I already knew, but you’ve been unusually candid here. Thank you for that.
b,
You wrote –
“You form your opinion on scientific matters based on what you’d prefer to believe? Or was that meant to be a joke?”
Belief is for pseudoscientists, and other faith based groups.
You may believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist as he claims. You may believe that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize. You may even believe that the GHE exists, and has been described.
You may believe any stupid and nonsensical thing you wish. It’s a free world (to a degree).
You might fantasise that increasing the amount of CO2 and H2O between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter! It obviously hasn’t for four and a half billion years, each winter, or at night, in the shade and so on, but I’ll take a wild guess that your beliefs are not easily challenged by facts.
What a fool. At least religious belief holds out the promise of reward – your belief holds only the promise of mockery and derision. Carry on believing.
Cheers.
“You may believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist as he claims.”
How are we defining “climate scientist”? Is it based on degree or field of research? While working on his PhD in the Department of Mathematics at University College London he published papers on Kelvin and Rossby waves, a climate topic. All of his research has been climate related.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Even the dimmest fool should be able to read what I wrote and understand I am critical of opinion of science that is based on belief, preference or faith. Factual evidence is all that matters.
Your posts are reflexive, knee-jerk repetitions of a couple of very dull themes. Over and over and over again you post the same spam, usually completely disconnected to what you are replying to, as in this case, where your reply is based on something diametrically opposite to what I actually wrote.
Troll, begone.
barry claims “Even the dimmest fool should be able to read what I wrote and understand I am critical of opinion of science that is based on belief, preference or faith.”
barry, the incorrect solution to the “plates” is based on belief, preference, or faith. When are you going to be critical of your own opinions?
–barry says:
May 7, 2019 at 3:02 AM
gbakie
“I form my opinion on what I prefer to think.”
You form your opinion on scientific matters based on what you’d prefer to believe? Or was that meant to be a joke?–
Are asking “what I prefer to think” is the same as what “I prefer to believe”?
It might be possible as a general matter.
But I prefer to say, I think that God exists. Rather than I prefer to say, I believe God exist.
In my opinion, there is a quite difference between “think” and “believe” and that is why I prefer to say, I think God exists.
On topic of scientific matters, regarding global climate.
As far as I am aware the average temperature of the Earth’s ocean is presently about 3.5 C.
It seems there wide agreement that we are presently in Ice Age.
And this Ice Age has going on for more than million years- some place it at 2.6 million years.
But there have been millions of years of declining global temperature and the coldest the average temperature of ocean has become is around 1 C
-and this was during glacial periods.
In terms of recently [within last million years] I assume the warmest the average ocean temperature has become is around 5 C
In terms of our present Holocene, the last several thousand years has had downward cooling trend. And our recent Little Ice Age was one of coldest periods in thousands of years.
Apropos of the non-existent GHE –
“”Plate tectonics is a relatively benign way for Earth to lose heat, said Peter Cawood, an Earth scientist at Monash University in Australia.”
Losing heat is called cooling, unless you are a pseudoscientific climate cultist. I assume that an Earth scientist might know as much about Earth science as an undistinguished mathematician, or other self proclaimed climate scientist, even one who falsely claimed a Nobel Prize!
Who knows?
Cheers.
Plate tectonics is also a great way to move marine fossils from the ocean floor to the top of the highest mountain.
More correctly, plate tectonics is a way to raise mountains.
CT,
Neither you, nor anyone else, has the faintest idea of the sea level impact of raising Mount Everest from beneath the ocean to its present location, with respect to a fixed datum such as the centre of the Earth.
After the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau achieved their present altitude, do you think sea levels before this –
1. Were higher?
2. Were the same? or
3. Were lower?
One problem is that the Earth is a wrinkly, crinkled, asymmetrical oblate spheroid, whose interior and crust are in chaotic unpredictable motion in three dimensions. The geoid (nominal sea level) changes constantly. The difference between geoid anomalies is presently around 190 m – that is based on measurement compared to the theoretical geoid.
Are you still so confident that the pseudoscientific climatologists can measure global sea levels to less than the thickness of a human hair? Really?
Cheers.
“Professor Peter Cawood, president of the Geological Society of Australia, says the EarthTrek project will be recording the changing environment for an ongoing period.
‘The negative effects of climate change are creating stress and gravestones are recording that stress in a sense,’ Professor Cawood told ABC News Online.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-21/graveyards-may-hold-key-to-climate-change/1362076
CT,
And your point?
The climate has been changing ever since the atmosphere existed!
Is this news to you? Of course the environment has been changing. Why would it not?
Try something sillier, and even more meaningless, if you can.
Cheers.
I am still in my quite zone since all the arguments have been made pro/con for global warming and the climate is still stuck in neutral.
Until the climate makes a move in either direction there really is nothing much to say other then make the same arguments.
So it is wait and see for now.
Your prediction of UAH global TLT temps hitting the zero line in 2017, and then 2018, were wrong.
You staked your opinion on that prediction. And when it didn’t come about, you conveniently forgot what you staked on the results.
You were asked to bank your opinion on predicting correctly. You promised to do so. You broke that promise.
Never mind that you were wrong. You have no integrity.
Being wrong is nothing. Having integrity is all.
barry, your own integrity would be helped if you applied your judgments equally to Warmists.
“If there was no Greenhouse Effect you would expect more OLR when the surface and atmosphere warmed.”
OLR data shifted +6 months….
Lol nothing like manipulating the data to confuse cause and effect lol….
There is a delay before ground conditions change troposphere temperatures and some people on here think UAH data is the only trustworthy temperature source. I’ll redo the graphic with surface data and no delay.
CT,
As to “There is a delay before ground conditions change troposphere temperatures”, I trust you will ensure that you will redo your graphic to take into account low level inversions, where the atmosphere actually increases in temperature with altitude, and is actually hotter than the surface beneath, even though both are cooling at the same time, albeit at different rates.
Do you believe the GHE is responsible for the creation of temperature inversions? Maybe you could include this observable and measurable behaviour into the description of the GHE which you seem to have conveniently lost for the moment. Good luck.
Cheers,
I think this is what you’re asking about:
“Specifically, we find that the cold layers close to the surface in Arctic winter, where most of the warming takes place, hardly contribute to the infrared radiation that goes out to space. Instead, the additional radiation that is generated by the warming of these layers is directed downwards, and thus amplifies the warming. We conclude that the predominant Arctic wintertime temperature inversion damps infrared cooling of the system, and thus constitutes a positive warming feedback.”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R_Bintanja/publication/232796146_Arctic_winter_warming_amplified_by_the_thermal_inversion_and_consequent_low_infrared_cooling_to_space/links/0deec517c435a01d2c000000.pdf
CT,
No, that wasn’t what I was talking about at all. I’m not sure why you linked to such a nonsensical paper, but you can provide a reason if you wish. It should be good for a laugh, if nothing else. “Amplifies the warming”? Really?
I was referring to observed fact. From Britannica –
“A ground inversion develops when air is cooled by contact with a colder surface until it becomes cooler than the overlying atmosphere; this occurs most often on clear nights, when the ground cools off rapidly by radiation.”
This is more or less correct, but you can sort out the actual mechanism for yourself. The Wikipedia explanation is defective, obviously.
Cheers.
OK, here is the OLR data against GISTEMP monthly land and ocean temperature anomolies. Both measurements from the same months.
https://i.imgur.com/Wwp5mSj.jpg
There’s a feedback mechanism. More warming creates more atmospheric water vapor allowing less longwave radiation to excape the Earth. Less outgoing LR means less cooling, raising the temperature of the surface and atmosphere. So one doesn’t cause the other, they develop together.
CT,
You wrote –
“Theres a feedback mechanism. More warming creates more atmospheric water vapor allowing less longwave radiation to excape the Earth. Less outgoing LR means less cooling, raising the temperature of the surface and atmosphere.”
That does not seem right. The hottest areas of the surface are arid tropical deserts, and of course they have the least amount of water vapour in their atmospheres. I don’t believe you know what you are talking about.
“Less cooling” means less cooling to normal people. I know pseudoscientific climate cultists claim “less cooling” really means “increased temperatures”, but this is just fantasy. I can understand why you won’t say that less outgoing LR means increased heating (raised temperatures), directly, because you would be saying something really, really, stupid.
No GHE, and the more sciencey sounding nonsense, of the “feedback mechanism, sort you try, the sillier you appear. Try describing the GHE first, and make sure it fits with observed fact. Otherwise, you are just preaching pseudoscientific climate cultism, based on devout belief rather than fact. Attracting more fools to your cause might make you feel better, but it won’t change physical law.
Cheers.
“I know pseudoscientific climate cultists claim less cooling really means increased temperatures, but this is just fantasy.”
Lets say something is being warmed at a set value of watts per square meter without any cooling and at the end of that time it is X degrees warmer. If that same thing is being warmed with the same watts per square meter for the same time but is also cooling during that time it will be less than X degrees warmer at the end.
CT,
You wrote –
“Lets say something is being warmed at a set value of watts per square meter without any cooling and at the end of that time it is X degrees warmer. If that same thing is being warmed with the same watts per square meter for the same time but is also cooling during that time it will be less than X degrees warmer at the end.”
Let’s say Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate. Or let’s not.
But what the hell. Just for fun, let’s just say I have an object emitting around 300 W/m2, and an object emitting 40 W/m2. Which one is hotter? You might suspect a gotcha, and you would be right. It doesn’t matter what answer you give, it will be wrong. You see the trouble you can get into, putting your trust in pseudoscientific climatological nonsense.
Watts per square meter is meaningless without further information. An object emitting 300 W/m2 may be hotter than one emitting 40 W/m2, or vice versa.
Don’t assume I am a willing participant in your fantasy.
Just try describing the GHE in a useful way, and it can be examined. Otherwise you are just another delsuional pseudoscientific fantasist.
Cheers.
“But what the hell. Just for fun, lets just say I have an object emitting around 300 W/m2, and an object emitting 40 W/m2. Which one is hotter? … Watts per square meter is meaningless without further information. An object emitting 300 W/m2 may be hotter than one emitting 40 W/m2, or vice versa.”
That’s actually my point. You can’t judge the temperature of an object by how many watts per square meter are going in or out. You can use that information to determine how much it is warming or cooling. The total solar irradiance is essentially constant. How much the Earth warms or cools depends on the energy lost into space.
Craig, not only are you ignorant of the relevant physics, but you can’t think logically. Here’s an example:
Your statement: “How much the Earth warms or cools depends on the energy lost into space.”
Your poor “physics”: “CO2 prevents energy moving to space”.
Your poor “logic”: “Since energy cannot move to space, the surface is warming.”
Likely you will never be able to learn.
“Your poor ‘logic’: ‘Since energy cannot move to space, the surface is warming.'”
Here’s my logic: Since satellites show outgoing longwave radiation going down while satellites and ground observations show temperatures going up, there must be more affecting the amount of longwave radiation that leaves the Earth than temperature alone.
Now I don’t think the up and down of OLR emissions between 1975 to present is caused by CO2. More likely it’s the changes in water vapor that accompany El Ninos and la Ninas.
“Since satellites show outgoing longwave radiation going down…”
WRONG. Satellites do not show such a thing. You are willingly deceived.
craig t…”there must be more affecting the amount of longwave radiation that leaves the Earth than temperature alone”.
Temperature is a human invention. As such, it affects nothing. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms, which is also the definition of heat. Temperature is a measure of the relative levels of heat.
How is heat related to long wave emissions (IR)? The heat of a body is ultimately related to the energy levels of the electrons in each atom. When the body is heated, the electrons of each atom rise to higher energy levels and that condition is described as a higher level of heat or a higher temperature.
Kinetic, as applied to energy, means only that the energy is in motion. Electrons orbiting a nucleii have energy that is kinetic since the electrons are constantly in motion. The KE of the electron changes with it’s orbital energy level, increasing as the electrons move to higher energy levels. So does the temperature.
That KE is not to be confused with the KE due to the linear motion of atoms in a gas. In a solid, atoms are bound in a lattice and the lattice structure is formed by electron bonds or the charges produced by electrons. When a solid is heated, the electrons absorb the energy and move to higher orbital energy levels which increases the vibration of the inter-atomic bonds.
Therefore, the IR emitted at the surface is dependent on the energy state of the electrons in the various elements making up the surface. Those electrons will radiate at a rate dependent on the temperature conditions surrounding the surface which can only be the atmosphere.
It is the temperature of the atmosphere immediately in contact with the surface elements that controls the rate of heat loss at the surface. However, radiation is not the governing factor with surface heat loss, it is conduction directly to the gases in contact with the surface.
That problem was addressed by R. W. Wood, an expert on CO2 emission. He argued that CO2 could not possibly warm the atmosphere and that the more likely cause was the transfer of heat directly to the atmosphere.
Wood further explained that radiation would dissipate within a few feet of the surface due to the inverse square law. If you are talking about surface radiation, there would not be enough after a few feet to affect GHGs.
Gordon
“That problem was addressed by R. W. Wood, an expert on CO2 emission. He argued that CO2 could not possibly warm the atmosphere and that the more likely cause was the transfer of heat directly to the atmosphere.”
First, Wood literally tested if a greenhouse warms by trapping longwave radiation. You should consider the last line of his paper. “I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.”
Wood wrote “This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection,” and I completely agree. I don’t see where Wood talks about the dissipation of radiation. Because the Earth is completely surrounded by its atmosphere dissipation is not a factor.
Charles Greeley Abbot, who was director of the Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory, wrote a rebuttal to Wood directly addressing greenhouse gasses and climate. He writes “Remembering that the Earth is mainly water covered, it must be almost ‘perfectly black’ for long-wave rays.” Even in 1909 it was known that warm objects absorbing longwave radiation did not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
http://boole.stanford.edu/wood/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Craig wallows in his pseudoscience: “Less outgoing LR [sic] means less cooling, raising the temperature of the surface and atmosphere.”
WRONG, Craig. You make one mistake after another, presumably hoping all your mistakes will somehow cancel. But, they don’t cancel, they add.
If you believe in “less outgoing ‘LR’ means less cooling”, then that would mean less photons are emitted to space. And, if less photons are emitted to space, then less photons are emitted back to the surface. So, if less photons arrive the surface, there is less chance of warming the surface, even disregarding the fact that absorp.tion is not guaranteed.
You’re terribly lost in your pseudoscience.
But, I’m having a blast!
“And, if less photons are emitted to space, then less photons are emitted back to the surface.”
Any photon that clears the atmosphere heading outward isn’t coming back.
Duh.
CT,
And cooling results when energy is lost to space. Not heating.
Are you quite mad, or just pretending?
Cheers.
JD
A warmer surface means more longwave photons emitted from the surface. The graph I posted shows fewer longwave photons leaving the Earth when the surface is warmer. So the energy carried by those photons is still inside the atmosphere.
Mike
It’s clear from the graph that the loss of energy to space is not constant. Longwave radiation loss has been going up and down and is lower during an El Nino. We know the Earth warms during an El Nino because the ocean is warming the Atmosphere.
So during an El Nino not only is the surface warming more but the Earth is cooling less. What is the cause of this reduction in cooling?
Craig, the graph does NOT show fewer longwave photons leaving the Earth when the surface is warmer.
1) The graph is bogus, as explained above.
2) You can’t even interpret the bogus graph.
It’s pure pseudoscience, and you’re 100% onboard–not a doubt in your mind.
If you have not predicted global cooling yet this is the time to do it and put yourself on the record, turning the coat after it is obvious will get you no glory no Nobel prize.
The claim of CO2 causing the recent warming up is completely delusional, the evidence the sun did it all is there to see if you only look .
This video contains the predictions but I will not tell you where , watch the whole thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazGXAqgkds
If you want to go in the history as one of the blind cult followers of preacher Gore keep believing CO2 is the earth temperature control knob.
Do you have a written version of this prediction? I hate watching “Youtube-splaining”. JD says the Sun is maintaining its solar constant so I don’t know if to believe him or you.
Now if you want Al Gore, here’s a link to South Park’s Man-Bear-Pig.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuKjwWYyfkw
CT,
You may believe whom you like. It makes no difference at all to the facts, does it?
You may even believe the deluded Schmidt, or the even more deluded Mann. You may even believe the idiotic Gore, with his belief that the interior of the Earth had a temperature of millions of degrees. What a pseudoscientific fool!
Carry on believing. It costs you nothing.
Cheers.
I’m in full agreement that Gore has said a lot of stupid things not backed by science.
bobdroege wrote –
“I have actually measured the magical heating properties of CO2 and H2O in a lab, so I am not believing what others have done.”
And I am sure that anybody who is likely to believe that is even more stupid and ignorant than bobdroege. I don’t believe I’ll hold my breath waiting for the commercial version of the “bobdroege CO2 and H2O powered heater”. I don’t think even the most idiotic GHE cultist will, either.
The mad capering of the pseudoscientific climatological cultists continues unabated.
What a pack of delusional fools!
Cheers.
CO2 lasers are already on the market, you can use them to cut steel.
Or maybe you want some skin resurfacing to get rid of some age spots.
Warmists usually go to the CO2 laser as “proof” that CO2 is warming the planet.
Their misunderstanding of the science is always amusing.
No, it’s proof that nothing in physics prevents a 10µm photon from passing it’s energy to an object warmer than 16°C.
See.
craig…”its proof that nothing in physics prevents a 10m photon from passing its energy to an object warmer than 16C”.
There is one very import ‘thing’ in physics that governs whether a photon passes its energy to an atom (or molecule). It’s called an electron, one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe.
In order for a photon to be absorbed by an electron the energy and frequency of the photon must be precise and match the frequency of the electron and the orbital energy level difference in eV through which the electron must transition after absorbing the photon’s energy. E = hf.
It is not possible for an electron existing in the energy context of a higher temperature to absorb the lower frequency/lower energy offerings of a photon from a colder source. The photon must supply energy to raise an electron in that context to an even higher energy level and a photon from a cooler source lacks the required energy and frequency.
That’s why photons from a block of ice cannot be absorbed by the electrons in water at a temperature above the temperature of ice. It is certainly not possible for photons from ice to be absorbed in the hot water of coffee so as to raise it’s temperature, or to slow its rate of cooling.
Look at this another way. If you put ice in water, does the water warm? Radiation must obey the same 2lot that conduction and convection obey.
Gordon
If “It is not possible for an electron existing in the energy context of a higher temperature to absorb the lower frequency/lower energy offerings of a photon from a colder source,” how can 10µm photons from a CO2 laser burn skin?
Radiation does obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics as conduction and convection. In the formulas for conduction and convection both the temperature of the cooler and warmer objects are factors. Why would this be different for radiative heat transfer?
Gordo, As I demonstrated last month, photons from ice can be absorbed by a heated metal plate, exhibiting a warming much like other materials. This effect is called a “radiation shield” for those who don’t know engineering…
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
JD,
No you misunderstand as you usually do
It is evidence that infrared radiation from a CO2 molecules can be abzorbed by something warmer than the Wien’s law temperature correlating to 10 um.
Which totally debunks the intelligent photon theory you are so wedded to.
bob, from your level, photons probably appear fairly intelligent. But then so do rocks, bricks, and dead fish.
Nothing new.
Maybe it’s not the photon. All matter might have its own Maxwell’s demon assigned to it to work as a bouncer. Photons get shown the door if the energy they carry is below the matter’s peak wavelength.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR23aMjIHIY
Reversing Entropy with Maxwell’s Demon
JD,
except you are the one espousing the intelligent photon theory, that photons know the temperature of the body or molecule they were emitted from.
Hint, they don’t.
boob, some may think your continuing effort to misrepresent me is just pathetic. But, I think it is both pathetic and humorous.
Please keep it up.
JD,
Is it true that you are saying down-welling photons from CO2 don’t heat the earth because they are not abzorbed, because they come from a colder object.
If that is not true then I have misrepresented you and you can accept my apologies.
But then on the other hand you would have to admit that the down-welling photons from CO2 are abzorbed by the earth and do in fact heat the earth.
So what’s it gonna be?
Do you feel lucky?
More pathetic and humorous attempts to misrepresent me.
Nothing new.
PhilJ:
Here is the OLR data against GISTEMP monthly land and ocean temperature anomolies. Both measurements from the same months.
https://i.imgur.com/Wwp5mSj.jpg
Again Craig, that is NOT the “outgoing long wave radiation”. It is some concocted, rigged, series of “anomalies”. Radiative flux “anomalies” from different surfaces/temperatures are meaningless.
You keep doing the same thing, over and over, hoping for different results.
Craig, this is really interesting. It definitely demonstrates that there is a correlation between OLR and surface temperature.
Even more when you look on the graph at 1991, the year that Mt. Pinatubo erupted. It’s the one time both OLR and surface temperature go in the same direction – down.
What is really interesting is that Craig believes ice cubes can warm his cup of lukewarm coffee: “…it’s proof that nothing in physics prevents a 10 μm photon from passing its [sic] energy to an object warmer than 16 °C.”
Obviously poor Craig doesn’t know a 10.7 μ photon occurs at WDL peak for ice at 270 K.
Nothing new.
“a 10.7 μ photon occurs at WDL peak for ice at 270 K.”
And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.
nate…”And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.”
Absorp-tion of IR has nothing to do with the IR, it’s all about the mechanics of electrons and their transitions. If the IR lacks the energy intensity and frequency to excite an electron, it is not absorbed.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/its-vs-its/
bdg…”Craig, this is really interesting. It definitely demonstrates that there is a correlation between OLR and surface temperature”.
All it proves is that you are not aware of the chicanery of GISS and how they offer a brand of science that has no application on this planet.
For all your claims of chicanery, AIRS lines up close to GISS data on the ground and UAH data in the troposphere. It looks like the temperatures are real. The drops in OLR during El Ninos also line up with UAH data.
https://i.imgur.com/U6pH4Dz.jpg
I’d encourage you to explore the development of the science between R. W. Wood and the present. You’ll find it more rooted in reality than you currently believe.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
craig…”Here is the OLR data against GISTEMP monthly land and ocean temperature anomolies. Both measurements from the same months.”
GISTEMP has proved themselves corrupt. They claimed 2014 the hottest year ever based on a 38% likelihood they were telling the truth. They back up the lies out of NOAA which lead them to rewrite the historical temperature record to reflect AGW.
Take a look at your graph. GISS has a positive trend (blue curve) that never goes below the baseline while over the same period, UAH shows about half the trend below the baseline.
GISS shows a true warming since 1975 of nearly a full degree C whereas UAH shows a flat trend for 18 years from 1998 – 2015 and a slight trend from 2015 onward due to the extreme 2016 El Nino. The IPCC agreed with 15 years of that flat trend yet GISS shows no flat trend.
And would someone explain the orange curve? How can you have an out-going surface IR that varies around a baseline with no trend?
GISSTEMP are bs artists of the worst kind. They should all be in jail for contempt of truth and science.
“Take a look at your graph. GISS has a positive trend (blue curve) that never goes below the baseline while over the same period, UAH shows about half the trend below the baseline”
UAH data starts in 1979 and currently uses 1981 to 2010 as a comparison for anomalies. GISS data runs back to 1880 and uses the 1951 to 1980 average to measure the anomalies. That’s why UAH data crosses 0 around 2000 and GISS data crosses 0 a little after 1980. GISS has a faster warming rate, but so does all surface data.
“GISS shows a true warming since 1975 of nearly a full degree C whereas UAH shows a flat trend for 18 years from 1998 2015 and a slight trend from 2015 onward due to the extreme 2016 El Nino.”
The TLT shows a larger increase in temperature than the surface during a strong El Nino and more of a drop during a strong la Nina. Since 1998 was the strongest El Nino of the satellite data and 2008 and 2011 were strong la Nina years, the trend during that time is flat for the troposphere while still slightly rising for surface data.
“How can you have an out-going surface IR that varies around a baseline with no trend?”
That IR being measured is what left the atmosphere, not surface IR. The variation (I think) is because of the water vapor level in the atmosphere. Specific humidity goes up during an El Nino and down for la Ninas. El Nino/la Nina is a cycle with no trend over time. Water is the most important greenhouse gas.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Are you saying I believe a box made of ice would slow the cooling of a cup of 80° C lukewarm coffee floating in space? The coffee would radiate 560 W/m^2 and the ice 300 W/m^2. With only a net loss of 260 W/m^2 the coffee in an ice box cools at half the rate of being exposed to space.
Let’s assume the cup is spherical …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
If the cup had a surface area of 1 square meter and a 500 watt heater inside, the coffee would slowly cool in open space. Put that spherical cup in a box made of ice and the coffee will warm. Still the ice isn’t warming my coffee. It just slows the cooling of my coffee.
craig…”Put that spherical cup in a box made of ice and the coffee will warm. Still the ice isnt warming my coffee. It just slows the cooling of my coffee”.
You guys offer some ludicrous thought experiments.
First of all, you claim: “The coffee would radiate 560 W/m^2 and the ice 300 W/m^2. With only a net loss of 260 W/m^2 the coffee in an ice box cools at half the rate of being exposed to space”.
A net loss of what? You have not specified the energy. In this case were are talking about a HEAT TRANSFER not electromagnetic energy. With a heat transfer there can be not net loss unless you specify the heat sources.
With EM, there is not net energy. That notion is a fallacy based on a misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that EM energies radiated from bodies of different temperatures can produce a net heat transfer. That is sheer nonsense.
Ice is not a heat source for anything hotter than ice. If you want to talk net heat loss then you must calculate the expected rate of heat loss from the coffee by itself and compare that rate to the rate it would cool if it was warmed at the same time by a heat source HOTTER than the coffee. If that hotter source was warm enough you could maintain the coffee at a constant temperature where it would lose no heat at all.
Where you guys get this pseudo-science, that EM from a cooler body can transfer heat to a hotter body, escapes me.
Gordon,
Just let me ask you what prevents EM from transferring energy from a cold object to a hot object?
Light is emitted from a cold object and hits a hot object which has the capacity to abzorb the light, what prevents it?
bob, the reason that some photons aren’t absorbed is typically due to wavelength. But, you have already demonstrated an inability to learn.
Nothing new.
JD,
So now it’s wavelength?
I thought it was due to a 2nd law violation in that you think photon can’t transfer energy from cold to hot.
You know the wavelength of a photon from a CO2 molecule is not determined by the temperature of the gas cloud that CO2 molecule is in.
So now you’re backing away from the “intelligent photon” misrepresentation, and moving to “2LoT” misrepresentation?
Pathetic and humorous.
I can’t wait for your next effort.
No,
I’ve pinned them both on you.
Learn some correct science for pete’s sake.
bob continues with his usual pathetic and humorous comments.
Nothing new.
“bob, the reason that some photons arent absorbed is typically due to wavelength.”
True, but water soaks up longwave radiation like a sponge. Look at this graph of IR absorρtion of water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_infrared_absorp.tion_coefficient_large.gif (remove “.” from the forbidden word.)
Ice, Liquid water, and water vapor are all happy to soak up radiation with wavelengths as long as 100 µm. The WDL peak for 100 µm is -244° C.
“Obviously poor Craig doesnt know a 10.7 µ photon occurs at WDL peak for ice at 270 K.”
Nate said it best:
“And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.”
Craig T, please stop trolling.
bob d…”Just let me ask you what prevents EM from transferring energy from a cold object to a hot object?
Light is emitted from a cold object and hits a hot object which has the capacity to abzorb the light, what prevents it?”
********
EM emission and absorp-tion is based on electrons in atoms. There is no other particle in an atom capable of emitting or absorbing EM under normal circumstances.
The electron has a negative charge and when it moves, it generates an electric and magnetic field. That’s your EM. The positive protons in the nucleus are relatively stationary in solids and liquids and only move in gases.
However, EM is associated with the movement of electrons in their orbits and the transitions between energy levels in the atom. When an electron falls from a higher energy level to a lower energy level it emits a quanta of EM described by E = hf, where E is the potential between energy levels in eV.
The f refers to the frequency of the electron in an orbit and it is based on the angular velocity of the electron. Each energy orbital forces a difference frequency. When the electron emits a quanta of EM it transfers that frequency to the quanta.
When electrons move in a conductor, they produce a magnetic field and an electric field around the conductor. The EM field is called near-field EM, like the EM field around a coil or a motor. At higher frequencies, that field can leave the conductor(s) to travel through space and is called far-field EM. All our communications is based on far-field radiation produced by electrons moving in conductors (antennas).
According to Bohr, circa 1913, and upheld by Schrodinger et al, in order for an electron to absorb a quanta of EM, that quanta must meet the stringent requirements of E = hf. If that EM quanta originated from a cooler body, it lacks the requirements both in intensity and frequency, therefore it cannot be absorbed.
A cooler body has lower electron energy levels and the potential between levels in eV is less than the difference in hotter bodies. When a cooler body emits EM, the E in E = hf is lower and the frequency is lower too. It is not a match for absorp-tion in the electrons of a hotter body.
Who said that ‘light’ from a cooler body is absorbed by another body that is hotter? What is the major source of light? The Sun, right? At night, with no solar light, you can’t see any cooler body emitting light and having it absorbed by a hotter body.
Everything we see in daytime is reflected solar energy. No ordinary body emits EM in the visible spectrum. It has to be heated to a temperature high enough to emit ‘light’. Therefore, the light ‘apparently’ emitted by ordinary bodies does not come from them, it comes from a very high temperature source. They absorb some of the solar energy spectrum and reflect the rest.
Even a candle flame is a relatively high temperature. The blue inner flame is about 1400C while the yellow part is 1200C.
Gordon, you are missing a whole lot of physics and get almost everything in your post incomplete if not out right wrong
You say this
“EM emission and absorp-tion is based on electrons in atoms. There is no other particle in an atom capable of emitting or absorbing EM under normal circumstances.”
But then you say this
“All our communications is based on far-field radiation produced by electrons moving in conductors (antennas).”
So I get it that electrons can abzorb and emit radiation if they are moving in conductors as well as being bound in atoms.
So if you have a free electron in a solid, then it is capable of abzorbing a photon, right?
But then you go off the rails with this
“The f refers to the frequency of the electron in an orbit and it is based on the angular velocity of the electron. Each energy orbital forces a difference frequency. When the electron emits a quanta of EM it transfers that frequency to the quanta.”
Bound electrons don’t orbit and the frequency is due to the difference in the energy levels that the electron is transitioning to and from.
This part is basically true
“According to Bohr, circa 1913, and upheld by Schrodinger et al, in order for an electron to absorb a quanta of EM, that quanta must meet the stringent requirements of E = hf.”
But you mention Schrodinger and you might want to look up solution to any of the Schrodinger equations and see that for some of them, the energy levels E=hf are quite low. Say for solids and crystals, which quite easily abzorb low energy radiation. And crystals, I mean like sand and rocks and such.
However this part is just made up
“A cooler body has lower electron energy levels and the potential between levels in eV is less than the difference in hotter bodies. When a cooler body emits EM, the E in E = hf is lower and the frequency is lower too.”
Temperature has nothing to do with the electronic energy levels available, it has to do with how they are populated. Or should i say the energy levels in a substance, molecule or atom are not determined by the temperature but by the nature of the substance.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“You guys offer some ludicrous thought experiments.”
After too many “pathetic and humorous attempts to misrepresent me” by JD I decided if he felt I said something about ice and coffee I should at least make the physics in it correct.
“In this case were are talking about a HEAT TRANSFER not electromagnetic energy.”
In a vacuum the only type of heat transfer is in the form of electromagnetic energy.
craig…”In a vacuum the only type of heat transfer is in the form of electromagnetic energy”.
*********
True. There are things to note about that ‘apparent’ transfer.
-When the heated object emits EM, it cools. Heat is lost in proportion to the EM emitted even though there is a conversion of energy from heat to EM.
-it is important to note that heat is lost and it is not sent to a cooler body via EM, which cannot transport heat. The transfer is apparent. If that emitted EM from a hotter body reaches a cooler body, it is absorbed and the cooler body gets hotter.
That is your heat transfer, which is a misnomer. It is actually a transfer of energy involving a two step conversion form heat to EM and back to heat.
-that conversion from hot to cold is not reversible. 2nd law.
-In order for that emitter to maintain it’s temperature, without external heating, it would have to be subjected to a source of heat hotter than itself. EM from a cooler body cannot be converted back to heat in a hotter body.
-The heated body cools due to what you have described, conduction, convection, and radiation. It will reach a temperature that satisfies the heat input minus the heat dissipation.
The second you interfere with a means of dissipation, the body will warm naturally toward the temperature it would be if it could not dissipate heat.
-It’s important to understand, that such warming has nothing whatsoever to do with EM from a cooler body.
“That is your heat transfer, which is a misnomer. It is actually a transfer of energy involving a two step conversion form heat to EM and back to heat.”
You don’t consider that a transfer of heat? Would you rather call it a transfer of energy?
“The heated body cools due to what you have described, conduction, convection, and radiation. It will reach a temperature that satisfies the heat input minus the heat dissipation.”
Yes, but that includes any EM that came to the body and was converted back to heat. Spectrography shows matter absorbs a wide range of wavelengths. Liquid water has been experimentally measured absorbing wavelengths as long as 90 µm.
https://omlc.org/spectra/water/data/hale73.txt
G. M. Hale, M. R. Querry, “Optical constants of water in the 200 nm to 200 µm wavelength region,” Appl. Opt.,12, 555-563 (1973).
Craig T, please stop trolling.
craig t …”Lets say something is being warmed at a set value of watts per square meter without any cooling and at the end of that time it is X degrees warmer. If that same thing is being warmed with the same watts per square meter for the same time but is also cooling during that time it will be less than X degrees warmer at the end”.
OK. Now take the temperature of the body under the conditions that it cannot dissipate heat and call that temperature its natural temperature. Now allow it to dissipate heat by radiation, conduction, and convection, calling that temperature its ambient temperature.
If you do anything to interfere with the body’s ability to radiate, conduct, or convect heat away from itself, Tambient will rise toward Tnatural.
I have been trying to explain that to swannie, who thinks he has proved heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. Heat is not being transferred cold to hot, the experiments he set up have managed to interfere with the bodies ability to dissipate heat.
It’s the same with your thought experiment with a sphere of coffee inside an ice container in space. If that coffee warms under such conditions, which is extremely unlikely, it’s because the ice shell is blocking radiation from the coffee.
Simply by blocking the coffee container’s ability to radiate, its temperature will rise. The temperature you measured would be its ambient temperature after it had reached an equilibrium state of heat in = heat out. Stifle heat out and the temperature rises.
Gordo writes:
There is no such thing in engineering or science called “natural temperature”. Your claim that such exists as the result of “no dissipation” (i.e., with perfect insulation) ignores the fact that any energy added to said body would cause it’s temperature to rise and there’s no upper temperature limit as more energy is added, except as a phase change as the body melts or vaporizes.
Furthermore, when you write:
Gordo seems to think that all he has to do is assert some grand physical mechanism without proof and it thus becomes reality. He has never provided any supporting evidence for his delusional physics, such as “blocking” a body’s “ability to radiate”.
ES,
What has any of this to do with the non-existent GHE? There is no such thing in engineering or science. No description, no physical basis, no nothing.
Neither CO2 nor H2O have any heating abilities.
Science relies on the scientific method, which involves things such as hypotheses, theories and experiments. Pseudoscientific climatology, on the other hand, relies on strident assertions from self appointed experts – a ragtag mob of second raters. Frauds, fools, and incompetent wannabes, unable to succeed in any field of real scientific endeavour!
You can’t even properly describe this GHE, can you? How hard can it be to copy and paste a useful scientific description? Only joking, I know you are likely to claim that the concept can only be understood by top-level cultists with secret knowledge – the likes of Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and Hansen. Fools or frauds, all of them!
Cheers.
Mike…”You [swannie] cant even properly describe this GHE, can you? ”
*******
Oh, but he’s trying. Unfortunately, he has amended science, like his fellow alarmists, to a false theory.
His authority figures at NOAA and NASA have gone so far as to re-write the data to make it better fit the false theory.
“…misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows.”
Bill Shakespeare
swannie…”There is no such thing in engineering or science called natural temperature.
Of course not, I coined the term and indicated that. I was trying to describe the temperature a body would reach if you heated it electrically and prevented as much heat dissipation as possible.
You do understand, hopefully, that if I have 1 amp of current running through a semiconductor that the semiconductor will reach a certain temperature. You can find the temperature maximum in the literature as well as the heat dissipation. The temperatures are rated at room temperature. You could run the same device hotter outside in a cold winter’s day.
If you mount that semiconductor on a heat sink and blow air over the heat sink with a fan, the semiconductor gets cooler. Remove the fan, and it warms up. Remove the heat sink and it warms more.
It’s obvious that the heat in the semiconductor comes from the electrical current and the cooling comes from the rate at which heat can be removed via straight air, a heat sink plus air, or a heat sink plus forced air.
The ‘heat in’ from the electrical source will produce the maximum temperature for the body which I call it’s natural temperature based on the electrical heating. Any means of dissipation provided will lower that temperature.
That’s what you fail to understand, in your experiments you have interfered with the ability of the body to dissipate heat naturally and the body has heated naturally toward it’s natural temperature.
You have reached the wrong conclusion that the body is heating due to back-radiation from a surrounding object, which is only serving to block its ability to dissipate heat.
*********
“Gordo seems to think that all he has to do is assert some grand physical mechanism without proof and it thus becomes reality”.
Oh, but I have proof. It’s called the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are the outlier here, claiming the 2nd law is wrong.
‘ Now take the temperature of the body under the conditions that it cannot dissipate heat and call that temperature its natural temperature. ‘
If there is power input to a device, at a steady temperature, and it is NOT dissipating heat…
.. then 1LOT will get very angry at you Gordon.
Nate, please stop trolling.
barry…”Your prediction of UAH global TLT temps hitting the zero line in 2017, and then 2018, were wrong”.
So, what??? The entire AGW theory has been wrong. Hansen went on national TV, in 1988, enabled by his buddy Al Gore, and made stupid statements about dire consequences if we did not cut back on CO2 emissions immediately.
Fast forward, 30+ years and nothing has happened. No sea level rises of note, no insect infestations, no climate change…nothing…nada.
Even the global average has not risen noticeably over the past 20 years.
Bob,
“Just let me ask you what prevents EM from transferring energy from a cold object to a hot object?”
What prevents my arm from transferring energy to a swing that is oscillating at the same frequency but a higher amplitude than my arm?
PhilJ,
You ought to have kids, take them to a park with a swing-set and find out.
Or I can tell you.
Nothing
bob,
I have 6 kids and have pushed many swings. And so i can tell you with confidence that trying to push a swing that is moving away from you faster than your arm is moving doesn’t work 😉
This is no surprise… you see if your arm and the swing are oscillating at the same frequency then as the amplitude of the swing approaches the amplitude of your arm , the amount of energy transferred from your arm to the swing approaches zero…
Then how do you make the swing go higher by pushing with your arm?
The swing and your arm have the same frequency as they are attached while you are pushing on it, but the swing may have a higher amplitude, or lower at the start.
The thing is that you try to increase the frequency of your arm while it is in contact with the swing, but it cant, so you exert a force on the swing which makes the amplitude of the swing go higher.
‘ And so i can tell you with confidence that trying to push a swing that is moving away from you faster than your arm is moving doesnt work’
If you go try it, you will see that your push is most effective when applied just after it reaches its maximum height, and it is moving slowly away from you.
This is a typical resonance effect, where a small driving force gives a large amplitude response.
nate…”your push is most effective when applied just after it reaches its maximum height, and it is moving slowly away from you.
This is a typical resonance effect, where a small driving force gives a large amplitude response”.
*********
Not really a resonant effect although a swing is an example of simple harmonic motion. Like any pendulum, as the swing reaches it’s highest point, it stops due to the effect of gravity then slowly accelerates as you claim. If you can add to that acceleration with a force it will speed up the swing’s motion.
I think Phil is getting at more of a resonant situation but he is describing a form of damped oscillation with an impulse of energy designed to maintain the oscillation.
That’s how oscillators work in electronics. A tank circuit, an inductor and capacitor in parallel, is excited by a pulse and it begins to oscillate naturally as the capacitor and inductor exchange energy. The oscillation would be damped eventually by resistance in the circuit but if you supply a brief pulse from the power supply every cycle the oscillation is maintained.
In an atom, say hydrogen with 1 electron and 1 proton in the nucleus, the electron will orbit at a ground state until it is excited, say by absorbing EM. It will then jump to a higher energy orbital where its frequency will change due to a different angular velocity.
If you could project the orbital motion of an electron onto an axis, allowing the projection to extend with time, it would form a sine wave with a frequency equivalent to the angular velocity of the electron in its orbit.
No one knows if such orbitals exist or why the electron transitions when excited. The transition is claimed to lack a time component, it happens without time passing. I guess that’s why they came up with the word quantum because even instantaneous infers time.
With regard to resonance, I regard the electron in it’s orbit as a resonant situation. However, the electron does not change it frequency due to a damped oscillation. In order to excite it at a certain frequency it would be necessary to have an excitation in phase with the electron frequency.
That’s what the applicable formula says, E = hf. In order to supply the E, which is the potential the electron must climb to get to a higher orbital level, it requires the frequency of the EM, f, to exactly match the frequency of the electron.
Otherwise, as in any resonant situation, the energy is not absorbed. We depend on that in electronics for filters and bandpass requirements. Without that resonance electronic communications would not be possible.
‘Not really a resonant effect’
Actually it really is a resonance effect.
Nate, please stop trolling.
+1 Bobd
-1 PhilJ for self goal.
PhilJ
Here is the OLR data against GISTEMP monthly land and ocean temperature anomolies. Both measurements from the same months.
https://i.imgur.com/Wwp5mSj.jpg
Nate, Craig T, please stop trolling.
bobdroege wrote –
“You know the wavelength of a photon from a CO2 molecule is not determined by the temperature of the gas cloud that CO2 molecule is in.”
– which shows that bobdroege does not have the faintest idea what he is talking about.
As an example, bobdroege might care to explain what wavelengths are emitted by a sample of 100 percent CO2 at 500 C. Now compare this with the wavelengths of photons emitted by CO2 at 20 C. How is bobdroege’s intital witless pronouncement looking now?
bobdroege cannot even explain how CO2 may be heated by compression, without reverting to stupidities involving molecules “colliding” (they don’t), or molecules “bouncing” off walls (they don’t). These analogies are the sorts of facile lies told to children by teachers who do not understand physics sufficiently well to impart facts.
bobdroege is a fool. Anyone is free to believe what he says, exactly as one is free to believe the statements of one’s favourite politician or cult leader. Assertions are one thing, facts may be quite another.
bobdroege is confused. He does not understand physics well enough to realise that the CO2 in a CO2 laser is merely a means to convert the electrical power supplied to the device into another more useable form. The CO2 provides no heat at all.
bobdroege cannot even explain why the lens used to focus the CO2 laser beam is largely unaffected by the beam, as its purpose is most definitely to absorb as little of the energy as possible.
bobdroege makes many stupid and unsupported assertions, in common with pseudoscientific climate cultists.
What a silly person!
Cheers.
Flynn,
The spectrum of CO2 at 500 C shows peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, and the spectrum of CO2 at 20 C show the same 3 peaks at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns.
The spectrum doesn’t change too much with that temperature change because CO2 only emits and abzorbs at certain wavelengths.
Try to learn something about the behavior of gases, try this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases
The kinetic theory of gases describes a gas as a large number of submicroscopic particles (atoms or molecules), all of which are in constant, rapid, random motion. The randomness arises from the particles’ many collisions with each other and with the walls of the container.
bobdroege,
Well done. You have proved my point.
Cheers.
Mike…
“bobdroege wrote
You know the wavelength of a photon from a CO2 molecule is not determined by the temperature of the gas cloud that CO2 molecule is in.
Bon Droege replied…”The spectrum of CO2 at 500 C shows peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, and the spectrum of CO2 at 20 C show the same 3 peaks at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns”.
***********
I don’t see how that’s possible. Take a look at this fudged, modeled CO2 absorp-tion spectrum laid over a set of blackbody curves representing a range of temperatures.
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/screen-shot-2017-10-21-at-14-09-51.png
The first thing to note is how the peaks of the BB curves move to the right in wavelength as the temperature is decreased, The red curve shows the expected radiation at 300k while the lowest, light blue curve shows the expected BB radiation at 220K.
If BB curves change centre frequencies as T drops, why should a CO2 notches remain stationary at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns? Those values represent electron transitions between different orbital energy levels. We know they will change with temperature since the orbital levels will change.
As shown, the fudged, modeled dark blue curve (why can they not supply curves from real data???) remains stationary at a certain T while the BB curves move. The dark blue curve is supposed to represent surface radiation and who knows what temperature.
The first lie in the diagram is the lack of a temperature for the dark blue curve or the amount of radiation generated.
The second lie is that the vertical axis is in W/m^2 whereas the CO2 notches should be in milliwatts/m^2. Alarmists do their best to totally exaggerate the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“I don’t see how thats possible. Take a look at this fudged, modeled CO2 absorp-tion spectrum laid over a set of blackbody curves representing a range of temperatures.”
Did you see the paper that goes with that link?
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/infrared-absor.ption-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/ (remove “.”
Here is the source for that spectrum:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
It uses the 1986 HITRAN database for the spectral data. A paper on the database says “These values were determined at equally spaced wavenumber intervals from room-temperature laboratory spectra (Massie et al. 1985) and are included as a separate file in the 1986 HITRAN database.” The Modtran page allows you to choose between summer or winter and between tropical, midlatitude and subarctic numbers.
“If BB curves change centre frequencies as T drops, why should a CO2 notches remain stationary at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns?”
I’ll look for a paper that clearly shows how absorρtion changes as CO2 temp changes.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
bobdroege also wrote –
“Just let me ask you what prevents EM from transferring energy from a cold object to a hot object?”
The idiot gotcha appears yet again. Ask away bobdroege – after you show me some evidence that you have made a sincere effort to find the facts for yourself, I will be glad to help.
Give some thought to the fact that there are infinite numbers of photons travelling through your body at any given time, and yet you don’t seem to be bursting into flame. Your body doesn’t seem to be absorbing many photons, does it? How can this be? Why do visible light photons pass through glass without being absorbed? Why is gaseous iodine purple, and ozone blue?
Questions, questions! All bobdroege has are witless gotchas. Pity.
Cheers.
Flynn,
You don’t seem to understand what the word infinite means.
“Give some thought to the fact that there are infinite numbers of photons travelling through your body at any given time, and yet you dont seem to be bursting into flame.”
No there are not an infinite number of photons travelling anywhere at any time.
You are pretty much a clueless twat.
Now for this question
“Why do visible light photons pass through glass without being absorbed?”
Because, you scientific illiterate, there are no electronic transitions available in the silicon dioxide matrix that is glass, that match the energy available in each photon of visible light.
for the rest of your questions you can do your own research if you can find the library.
bobdroege,
I believe that I do understand the meaning of the word infinite. More on that later. Your opinion is meaningless without some fact to back it up.
Photons are bosons, and the exclusion principle does not apply to them. Theoretically, there is no limit on the number of photons which can simultaneously occupy any given space, although this may seem counter intuitive on the macro level. Some theorise that a black hole will result if a particular theoretical energy density is exceeded, but others disagree about the details.
Maybe you are unaware that there are an infinite set of infinities? Anyone who is interested can examine Georg Cantors proof, and decide for themselves whether you, bobdroege, can be considered a definitive source for the definition of infinity.
If you can prove that the universe is not infinite, go your hardest. I accept that it is, subject to cogent argument that it isn’t.
As to your comment about transparency, you might have difficulty in then explaining how a prism manages to split white light into a spectrum including infrared (which is how Herschel discovered it in sunlight), let alone the phenomenon of total internal reflection, where photons appear to be totally reflected from that same glass with which you claim they do not interact.
Others can decide who is correct. Are you sure that you can describe the GHE, or are you just pretending it exists?
Cheers.
Flynn,
Either the universe is infinite or the universe is expanding, I consider those two to be contradictory.
I see you are not 100% sure on the universe being infinite, so you have the same position as Einstein.
Yes I am familiar with Cantor and can reproduce some of his proofs from memory, such that I can prove that the number of integers is the same as the number of rational numbers.
Which is also the same as the number of primes. I can prove the number of primes is infinite as well.
I told you why glass doesn’t abzorb photons, now you want to know about refraction, maybe you should do your own research.
You might want to review what I posted, I said photons don’t get abzorbed by glass, I didn’t say there was no interaction.
bob d…”Either the universe is infinite or the universe is expanding, I consider those two to be contradictory.”
Who knows where the boundaries of the universe lie, or if there are any? And how do we know the universe is expanding if we have no idea where its boundaries lie?
All we have is Doppler shifts of EM in stellar spectra. It appears some stars are moving away from us while other are moving toward us. Sorry, but that is hardly evidence of a Big Bang from which the universe is supposedly expanding.
Can you seriously not see the ludicrous implication in the Big Bang, that one instant there was nothing and the next there was enough mass to account for the universe today?
The same nutjobs who readily subscribe to this theory laugh at the notion that someone created this universe. I am not religious but I prefer the creation theory to the absurdity that something as vast as our universe appeared out of nothing.
Just because our limited minds cannot conceive of an intelligence with the power to create such vastness does not mean it is not so. It seems unlikely but no more unlikely than the universe appearing out of nothing in a billionth of a second.
“Give some thought to the fact that there are infinite numbers of photons travelling through your body at any given time, and yet you dont seem to be bursting into flame.”
Photons that are not absorbed keep their energy.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Craig T wrote –
“So during an El Nino not only is the surface warming more but the Earth is cooling less. What is the cause of this reduction in cooling?”
Two things are apparent. CT does not understand that El Ninos, heat waves, summer, and so on do not add heat to the Earth.
Anyone who writes ” . . . the Earth is cooling less.”, and then implies that this results in thermometers becoming hotter, has obviously either taken leave of their senses, or is a pseudoscientific climate cultist who has redefined “cooling less” to mean “increasing in temperature”. This sort of loony then starts to provide pointless and irrelevant analogies involving heat sources, insulation, blankets, bank accounts and all sorts of other nonsense.
Craig T might think his stupid and pointless gotchas will make people think that the fact that Craig T cannot describe the GHE is irrelevant. If Craig T took the time to learn some physics, he might realise just how stupid and ignorant he appears to real scientists, who might well mock and ridicule his pseudoscientific pretensions.
Cheers.
“Two things are apparent. CT does not understand that El Ninos, heat waves, summer, and so on do not add heat to the Earth.”
If an increase in the temperature anomaly is not warming what word would you use to describe it?
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Nate wrote –
“And so what? The 10.7 micron photon cares not a bit where it came from, or if its at a peak. It just gets absrbed.”
Well, unless it doesn’t, of course. For example, if it goes through something transparent, gets reflected or scattered. How about refraction or diffraction?
Of course, your average pseudoscientific climate cultist ignores such inconvenient facts. They just keep blathering about a GHE which they can’t even describe.
Just more strident pseudoscientific climate cultism – with no testable hypothesis, no theory, no nothing.
Neither CO2 nor H2O heat anything. All nonsense, just like the non-existent GHE.
Cheers
Well stated, Mike.
Clowns like bobdroege, Nate, Swanson, Craig T, and several others, do not understand the relevant physics. One of their continuing misconceptions is that “all photons are always absorbed”. This is egregiously incorrect, yet forms a cornerstone of the GHE pseudoscience.
Atmospheric CO2 emits mainly 14.7 μ photons. A 14.7 μ photon corresponds to a WDL temperature of 197 K (-76 C, -105 F). For someone that has even a basic knowledge of physics, such a low-energy photon has NO ability to “heat” anything of significance, even if it gets absorbed.
But, to be absorbed, it must pass a major test. Such a photon impacting a molecule MUST exactly match the difference in energy levels of the molecule.
As an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand. The sand has a temperature of 40 C, 104 F. A wise person would not bet on the photon being absorbed. But pseudoscience clowns believe the “cold” photon can warm the sand. That’s why you see such ridiculous responses as “Well, where does the energy go then?”
The clowns have never studied quantum physics, but even if the photon somehow got absorbed, that still does not quarantee an increase in temperature of the absorbing mass. If the average vibrational frequency of the mass is higher than the photon’s frequency, then the temperature of the mass would not increase. That would be true if the mass somehow absorbed millions of the lower frequency photons.
But, we can’t expect clowns to understand quantum physics. They believe a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, as it runs an oval track.
You can’t help people that are “stuck on stupid”.
” to be absorbed, it must pass a major test. Such a photon impacting a molecule MUST exactly match the difference in energy levels of the molecule.”
No, village idiots.
Most condensed materials like water, your coffee, soil, etc absorb well over a broad range of IR. They are grey bodies.
Look up emissivities, and use Kirchoffs Law. IOW, learn some physics!
Nate
The troll just makes up this goofy false brand of unsupported physics and thinks he is brilliant. It is total crap and has not rational support. This troll really does not know any physics but he is able to fool a couple people on this blog who also don’t know any real or valid physics. Ask the “boy wonder” what is his support for his nonsense and you will never get any. Just makes it up, things he got from skeptic blogs by other people making up things. That is all this one does.
Oops! I left poor Norman off the list. He hasn’t been commenting lately, and he’s so easily forgotten.
Let me fix it:
“Clowns like bobdroege, Nate, Swanson, Craig T, Norman, and several others, do not understand the relevant physics.”
There, all fixed!
norman…”The troll just makes up this goofy false brand of unsupported physics and thinks he is brilliant”.
If JD is a troll and goofy then so are the majority of physicists who espouse the same theories.
Energy cannot be transferred from a state of low potential energy to a state of high potential energy by its own means. That is essentially what JD is getting at and that statement would be supported by any physicist worth his/her salt.
You have yet to prove that statement is not true. The truth has been well established and requires no further proof.
Nate spouts: “Look up emissivities, and use Kirchoffs [sic] Law.”
“Emissivity” is the flux adjustment, as related to a black body at the same temperature. A photon must have the same energy as the difference in energy levels of the molecule, for both absorb.tion and emission. That is the essence of Kirchhoff’s Law.
Nate spouts: “IOW, learn some physics!”
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
“photon must have the same energy as the difference in energy levels of the molecule, for both absorb.tion and emission. That is the essence of Kirchhoff’s Law.”
More hilarity. Keep it up JD.
I feel like saying, ‘You can’t make this stuff up’.
But clearly Just Dumb keeps right on doing it.
Here’s some more physics for the clowns to ignore:
Absorbed or emitted photon’s energy = hf.
Molecule’s difference in energy levels = (E2 – E1)
hf must equal (E2 – E1)
“Molecule’s difference in energy levels = (E2 – E1)
hf must equal (E2 – E1)”
Yes, for isolated molecules, not for condensed matter.
‘As an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand. The sand has a temperature of 40 C, 104 F. A wise person would not bet on the photon being absorbed.’
I would. Here is emissivity spectrum for quartz.
http://tes.asu.edu/MARS_SURVEYOR/MGSTES/qtzemis.gif
The photon has a better than 90% chance of being absorbed.
BTW for the other common sand mineral, Feldspar, even more likely.
* 70 F is less than half of 104 F
* The large changes in emissivity squashes the concept that “all photons are always absorbed”.
* The large changes in emissivity verify that absorbed photons must match the required energy level of the molecule.
It’s humorous when you link to things you don’t understand.
‘Its humorous when you link to things you dont understand.’
Its humorous that you never find links that support your declarations.
Pls do show us how emissivity changes in Quartz with temperature!
Or just continue maing up BS, as we have come to expect.
Nate, I’m just offering easy ways to understand basic physics. You don’t want to learn. You want me to waste time trying to find some link that you can also deny.
Your own link offers plenty of material for you to deny. The huge changes in emissivity should prove to you that “all photons are not always absorbed”. But, you don’t want to know that. You likely understand that if “all photons are not always absorbed”, that’s just another nail in the coffin for the GHE pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
JD,
This is a perfect demonstration of you just making stuff up when you clearly cannot or will not find the actual facts.
In that case, why should anyone believe you?
Why don’t you use your IR sensor and measure the IR temp of sand heated to 104 F.
If you are correct that the emissivity of sand at thermal wavelengths is low at this temperature, then you will not find an IR temp close to 104 F, but much much lower.
Well Nate, when you start the false accusations and misrepresentations, that’s the signal you realize you’ve lost again.
Nothing new.
‘false accusations and misrepresentations’
is now your goto response when you have no answers JD. It no longer has credibility.
Why keep posting things that you cannot support with evidence?
‘all photons are always absorbed’, no one has said that, except for black bodies.
I have lways said most photons in a broad range of IR, which is true here.
‘The large changes in emissivity verify that absorbed photons must match the required energy level of the molecule.’
If the emissivity reaches a low of
0.6 in a narrow range, and is 0.9 or more everywhere else, then there is >> 60 % chance of a thermal photon being absorbed.
At your favorite 14 microns, the chance is > 90%.
So I call BS.
Even after 3 desperate comments, Nate fails to make a relevant point, again.
Nothing new.
The ‘relevant point’ JD is that because, as I originally stated, sand and many other materials on the surface of Earth, absorb broadly in the IR.
That means most photons in the range 10-20 microns will be absorbed, regardless of their origin.
This is just an empirical fact, and there is no declaring or hand-waving you can do that will change this fact.
Nate, when you can raise the temperature of 40 C desert sand with ice cubes (10 μ photons), let me know.
Otherwise, you’re just pathetically desperate.
nate…”Molecule’s difference in energy levels = (E2 – E1)
hf must equal (E2 – E1)
Yes, for isolated molecules, not for condensed matter. ”
**********
Condensed matter only radiates from its surface layer. It’s surface layer is made of atoms with electrons and the electrons absorb and emit the energy. Therefore E = hf applies to each electron.
In your diagram at the link you provided, the emissivity spectrum for quartz has nothing to do with the absorp-tion of EM. The diagram tells us the quartz is at 70F (about 21C) and it will only absorb EM from a source hotter than 21C. If you surround the quartz with ice, it won’t absorb any EM from the ice.
Please note as well the very low radiation intensity of quartz, peaking at 150 MILLIwatts at 21C.
Let’s move to the Sahara desert which is made up of sand, with quartz being a key component. Consider that each grain of sand on the surface is comprised of bazillions of atoms with electrons emmiting EM. Now compare the number of CO2 molecules with electrons in the atmosphere, at a concentration of 0.04% and figure out how much of that 150 milliwatt radiation from the sand that the CO2 can absorb.
And please don’t tell me that same CO2 can radiate enough of the trivial amount of EM it absorb back to the sand to increase its temperature.
“The diagram tells us the quartz is at 70F (about 21C) and it will only absorb EM from a source hotter than 21C.”
Nope, doesnt say that, and weird.
All it says is what wavelengths it emits or absorbs well.
If a cold object emits those WL, then quartz will absorb them well.
Just an empirical fact.
‘Nate, when you can raise the temperature of 40 C desert sand with ice cubes (10 μ photons), let me know.’
Recall, JD, I said heating things with ice was ‘a dumb idea’
You’ve lost the argument on the fundamentals.
What you got left?
Trashing ideas that nobody except you has ever suggested.
Nate, please stop trolling.
nate…”Look up emissivities, and use Kirchoffs Law. IOW, learn some physics!”
Kircheoff’s law applies only at thermal equilibrium, a condition in which heat cannot be transferred.
Kirchoffs law only applies when no heat is transferred??
Ugggh, then it is useless..
Where do you get this BS from?
Nate, please stop trolling.
“If the average vibrational frequency of the mass is higher than the photons frequency, then the temperature of the mass would not increase. That would be true if the mass somehow absorbed millions of the lower frequency photons.”
OMG, where do you get this BS?
Hint: not from real physics!
A simple example would be 3 similar molecules, in an enclosure. The molecules have vibrational frequencies of 9, 10, and 11. The average is 10, and corresponds to a temperature “T”.
Now, add a 4th molecule, vibrating at 9. The average is now 9.75. The lowering of the average vibration lowers the original “T”.
Don’t fret if you still don’t get it, Nate. At least you know how to type….
Your model is faulty,
Temperature is both internal energy levels and translational velocity.
And maybe since you are discussing energy, perhaps an average other than the strict mathematical mean would be more appropriate.
bob, maybe you should look up the definitions of “average” and “mean”.
Too bad there isn’t a way to delete you stupid comment, huh?
JD,
since you totally botched the temperature calculation by neglecting to determine or even specify the average kinetic energy of your molecules, I don’t need to remind you that average kinetic energy is not the same as average speed.
bob, if you’re sincerely trying to understand this “simple example”, you can neglect the molecules translational motion.
But, if you’re trying to avoid reality, best of luck.
Then it doesn’t make any sense.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“That would be true if the mass somehow absorbed millions of the lower frequency photons.
Thus the energy in these million absorbed photons went where?
It vanished apparently.
“That’s why you see such ridiculous responses as ‘Well, where does the energy go then?'”
Now we’ve switched from adding photons to adding molecules?
Hilarious, JD. Stick to comedy.
Nate’s insults, false accusations and mis-representations fail him, again.
So now, the desperation sets in.
It’s delightful to watch.
N,
You wrote –
“Now weve switched from adding photons to adding molecules?”
Why have you switched from adding photons to adding molecules? Who is we?
You and some mysterious invisible playmate?
Maybe he’s the one who has hidden your GHE description. You might need more photons or molecules, but more wisdom and knowledge would probably help to alleviate your current levels of stupidity and ignorance.
What do you think?
Cheers.
Mike, if you can’t follow a discussion, no one can help you, maybe just go play in traffic.
Nothing false or misrepresented here, JD.
Just your idiotic posts.
They make it crystal clear for all to see that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you just make it up.
Whats next? How bout ‘Your Mama’ jokes.
Like: Your mama’s so fat she can’t absorb energy from photons!
Frustrated and desperate, poor Nate now babbles incoherently.
It’s delightful to watch.
Nate
All you said about the troll JDHuffman is correct. He knows no real physics, he will never ever support any of his nonsense made up BS (because he can’t). He pretends to be an expert by coming up with some words he looked up on the Internet like Poynting Vectors. He is clueless of what it means or how it is used but uses it to impress a couple gullible people.
He is unable to understand that at room temperature most molecules in a solid are in ground states. You can’t reason with him since he is only trolling and trying to annoy.
He is incapable of understanding the Quantum Physics he pretends he knows. He would realize if water can emit a 14.7 micron (which is obvious from an emission spectrum of water) it will also be able to absorb one. If most molecules are in ground state at room temperature than the chance for a successful absorbing photon is very high.
You can’t reason with JDHuffman. I think it is a group of trolls posting as one.
I think Mike Flynn is a bot. He shows zero signs of thought process and rarely interacts with a post in a rational way. Mostly repeating stuff and using a few words from a post to make it look human. This bot has never passed my test of linking once to an internet site. I Roy Spencer set up the Bot test “Are you Human”, some scrambled letters or identify items in a photo, Mike Flynn would not be posting on this blog.
No rational human would continue posting thousands of times that the Earth was molten billions of years ago and think it means something. Yet the bot does so over and over. Thousands of posts. I would not get mad at this one, it is not a human or even a troll. JDHuffman is a troll and probably multiple people.
Another long typing exercise from Norman, containing nothing of substance, but continuing with his adolescent obsession with personalities.
Nothing new.
nate…”If the average vibrational frequency of the mass is higher than the photons frequency, then the temperature of the mass would not increase”.
“OMG, where do you get this BS?”
From quantum theory. The vibrational mass is an infinite number of electrons changing energy levels while they oscillate at a frequency dependent on their particular orbit. The energy orbit is dependent on the temperature.
We know that as temperature is lowered toward 0K that atoms stop vibrating. Conversely, as you heat a substance beyond its normal range the atoms begin to vibrate madly.
The vibration is a result of the bonding electrons between atoms getting more energetic, causing the atomic structure to vibrate harder.
Internally, in the atom, I prefer the word resonance, as related to the electron orbiting at a certain energy level. In order for an electron in a resonant condition to absorb energy, the energy must have the same frequency.
The related formula E = hf tells you that. EM from a colder body will have a lower frequency hence it cannot be absorbed.
Gordon, all of that is neither nor there if 1LOT is violated.
Its very simple, and you guys are determined to make it complicated.
If photons are of a wavelength that is readily absorbed by a material, a measurable fact, then they will be.
If they are absorbed, they must add energy.
Now, if other photons are emitted, they subtract energy.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Chaps,
I will be happy to learn your type of physics as soon as you can tell me how many cubic kilometres of ice, (emitting IR at 300W/m2), you would need to raise the temperature of one small drop of water?
If it is easier, maybe you could substitute frozen CO2 instead of H2O, if you believe it emits more suitable thermal IR wavelengths.
Feel free to suggest concentrating the IR using a lens, parabolic mirror, or such. I believe you are deluded if you think you can raise the temperature of water using either frozen water or carbon dioxide, but there are some fools who believe that temperature is irrelevant, as CO2 and H2O can only absorb and emit certain frequency photons.
I’d prefer a useful description of the GHE, but learning how to heat water using ice would be handy.
I await your advice.
Cheers.
Well, you’re the red herring specialist, Mike. How do you get that rotting fish smell off?
N,
I see that you cannot justify your silly assertion that 300W/m2 of IR can be used to heat a drop of water, no matter how many billions of such Watts you can gather together! What a surprise – not.
I suppose the best a stupid and ignorant chap such as yourself can do is to attempt to deny, divert and confuse with pointless and irrelevant ad hom comments.
Carry on your fanatical belief in the pseudoscientific climate cultist fantasy.
Cheers.
Mike,
Backasswards, you are the ‘pointless and irrelevant ad hom’ expert!
Like this one:
‘The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state’
What point or relevance does this have to today’s world?? None.
Your ill-logic seems to be: X happened in the distant past, therefore Y can’t be happening today.
So: dinosaurs roamed the Earth long ago, therefore today there are no giraffes.
Brilliant!
N,
Thanks for quoting me, and not disagreeing that what I presented is fact.
No GHE to be seen preventing the Earth cooling for four and half billion years – at least until today, which is demonstrably cooler than when the surface was molten As you cannot even describe the GHE in any meaningful way, you might have a hard time convincing anybody that the laws of physics have changed, and the Earth is about to stop cooling for no particular reason that you can state.
Carry on with your pointless dinosaurs and giraffes.
Unless you can actually describe the mythical GHE which you worship, you are no better than a pseudoscientific climate cultist – afflicted with some form of delusional psychosis.
Cheers
“not disagreeing that what I presented is fact.”
True, and keep those pointless and irrelevant facts coming.
Personally I’d prefer to hear more about Wombats or Wallabies.
Nate,
You remind me of my favorite 8th grade algebra problem.
If one wombat can dig a tunnel in 4 hours, and another wombat can dig a tunnel in three hours,
How long will it take both of them to dig a tunnel if they start from opposite ends?
Ha! Somehow wombats are always humorous..
Nate, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
JD,
I just have to say your knowledge is incomplete.
You say
“But, to be absorbed, it must pass a major test. Such a photon impacting a molecule MUST exactly match the difference in energy levels of the molecule.”
and then you add
“As an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand.”
In a crystal, which a grain of sand is, has plenty of vibrational energy levels that match the energy of infrared photons from CO2.
This you would know if you had studied Quantum Physics, which I have, although it was called Quantum Mechanics, a required course for a degree in Chemistry.
I though you only got through the introductory physics classes to almost get you minor in Physics. There are usually more prerequisites than that to take Quantum Physics.
bob, all you need to do is look at the link provided by Nate. If you can understand it, you will see that you are wrong, again.
“Quantum mechanics” typically deals with quantum numbers. “Quantum physics” is a more complete study, involving photon absorp.tion and emission. It’s somewhat similar to “mechanics” being a subset of “physics”. What probably confuses you is that the two terms are often used interchangeably.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
There is no difference between Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics.
“the branch of mechanics that deals with the mathematical description of the motion and interaction of subatomic particles, incorporating the concepts of quantization of energy, wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, and the correspondence principle.”
Google either one and you go to Quantum Mechanics.
But then I’m a chemist, so I obviously prefer the one term over the other.
Whenever some clown claims to be a chemist, and then tells me I don’t know what I am talking about, then I know I’ve got everything right.
You can’t get much better quality control than that….
At least I can claim to have received a passing grade in a class called Quantum Mechanics and not be lying.
Tell us the truth now, JD, you have never studied either Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics.
bob, I can work the eigenvalues for Hamilton and dot the o in Schrodinder before you can recognize reality.
It’s Hamiltonian if you are referring to the equation.
And you just proved my point.
Sir William Rowan Hamilton MRIA (4 August 1805 2 September 1865)
b,
You wrote –
“At least I can claim to have received a passing grade in a class called Quantum Mechanics and not be lying.”
Oooooh! Appeal to your own authority! How impressive!
It goes to show you can pass a course of completely unstated content, from an unidentified educational institution, apparently without gaining any understanding of the subject matter whatever. Carry on being a legend in your own lunchbox.
Cheers
Mike if you want the details
University of Illinois
Chem 442 Physical Chemistry I
Lectures and problems focusing on microscopic properties. CHEM 442 and CHEM 444 constitute a year-long study of chemical principles. CHEM 442 focuses on quantum chemistry, atomic and molecular structure, spectroscopy and dynamics. 4 undergraduate hours.
I’ll leave it to you to look up how they rank for Chemistry.
But I’ll say they are not too shabby.
Ahhh, fond memories of Urbana, Illinois and the Sweet Corn Festival, and cows with windows on the side…
Bob” In a crystal, which a grain of sand is, has plenty of vibrational energy levels that match the energy of infrared photons from CO2.”
JD “bob, all you need to do is look at the link provided by Nate. If you can understand it, you will see that you are wrong, again.”
The link CLEARLY shows that there are many available WL that IR photons could be absorbed.
Bob was right.
Just demented, JD. Why keep posting things that are glaringly opposite to the facts?
b,
You wrote –
“At least I can claim to have received a passing grade in a class called Quantum Mechanics and not be lying.”
Maybe you provided the wrong link, or the syllabus has changed. I cannot see a reference to a class or course referred to as Quantum Mechanics.
I would have expected Quantum Mechanics to be associated with physics, although I appreciate that the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics can be used to explain every physical phenomena in the known universe, with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes.
It doesn’t matter, I suppose. Many courses contain a lecture or two on the quantum world. Some of them are pretty dreadful, and many students mange to pass without actually understanding QED. Many lecturers are similarly deficient in their understanding, but the syllabus requires at least lip service to the subject.
Cheers.
I didn’t say the syllabus called it Quantum Mechanics, but the students did and the textbook was called Molecular Quantum Mechanics, by P.W. Adkins.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d …”This you would know if you had studied Quantum Physics, which I have, although it was called Quantum Mechanics, a required course for a degree in Chemistry.”
You can thank Linus Pauling for that, he introduced quantum theory to chemistry in North America well before anyone else. In fact, he consulted with Schrodinger et al then taught them a few things about how molecules form.
Some were quite impressed. Till then, they had only worked with the simple hydrogen model but Pauling knew a few things about the shapes of molecules due to work with x-rays. He was able to modify Schrodinger’s math to fit the shape of molecules.
You might look deeper into QM theory to see exactly how EM is absorbed and emitted by atoms. As a chemist, you should know how important electrons are in forming atomic bonds and the role they play in absorp-tion/emission.
Hybrid bonds and electronegativity, yeah, I’ve heard of that guy.
How does hybrid bonding affect how compounds interact with radiation?
CO2 has hybrid bonds, did you know that?
HMMMMMM
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Dr Empty,
Please join the conversation if you have something useful to say.
The “conversations” have already all been had.. You lost. Yet you are still here, lying for money, like a pathetic piece of human faeces. Hence I will continue to say the only thing worth saying at this stage in the proceedings:
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Don’t know why Huffingman keeps referring to “a 14.7 μ photon”. The dominant wave number for CO2 in the 15 micron complex is 667.38 cm^-1 , for a wavelength of 14.984 μm. Curious lack of precision from one so well versed in physics.
Swanson, I have no problem with using 15μ for CO2. It doesn’t change much. CO2 is still unable to heat the planet.
Have you been studying thermodynamics enough to learn what a fool you made of yourself with the plates nonsense?
Huffingman, I studied thermodynamics enough to earn 2 mechanical engineering degrees. Besides, the problem isn’t one of thermodynamics, it’s a classic heat transfer situation. I’m not surprised that you don’t know the difference..
Swanson, I’m sorry you got taught such pseudoscience. Maybe it’s not too late for you to request a refund.
The plates “incorrect solution” violates the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously that is over your head. But that is just more justification for demanding a refund from your useless institution.
ES,
As the holder of 2 mechanical engineering degrees, you can no doubt explain how CO2 emitting photons equivalent to a blackbody with a temperature of around -80 C, can warm water of any temperature at all.
I find it hard to believe, but maybe you can show this phenomenon by means of experiment. Dropping some water on dry ice should fulfil the conditions. Are you really sure that the water will warm up as a result of absorbing photons from the colder body?
You don’t even need to have a high temperature heat source around, either. If you find that the surrounding environment is keeping the water, (in contact with the dry ice), from freezing, I suggest that you use a large block of dry ice, drill a suitable clearance hole to the centre, and drop the water down the hole.
Seems pretty simple. I predict that the 15 micron photons, no matter how many, will be unable to keep the temperature of the water above freezing. If it turns out that you can heat water with the radiation from dry ice, I will have to revise my thinking.
Stupid fantasy “thought experiments” involving your usual deceptions and hidden high temperature heat sources are not acceptable. Let me know how you get on.
Cheers.
MF,
Infrared radiation emitted from CO2 will not warm a colder body on its own. But, it will slow down the rate of heat loss from that colder body thus augmenting another heat source’s ability to warm that object.
Just dropping water on dry ice by itself isn’t representative or analogous to the GHE as it occurs in the atmosphere. The GHE works because the Sun is doing the heating. The CO2 layer is just augmenting it by acting as insulation that inhibits heat loss.
And although the fundamental processes are different this is conceptually the same as how the insulation and furnace work together to increase the equilibrium temperature relative to what it would be without the insulation. So despite this being very different than the GHE at a fundamental level it still makes this everyday experiment more relevant to the GHE than does your dry ice and water drop experiment.
Wrong bdgwx. CO2 does not insulate. You could claim that O2 and N2 are insulators, but CO2 is a radiator.
swannie…”Huffingman, I studied thermodynamics enough to earn 2 mechanical engineering degrees. Besides, the problem isnt one of thermodynamics, its a classic heat transfer situation”.
Come on, swannie, you are digging yourself a hole.
“…the problem isnt one of thermodynamics, its a classic heat transfer situation”.
Are you serious??? Thermodynamics is the study of all heat transfer situations and the 2nd law tells us heat can NEVER be transferred cold to hot by its own means. Classic heat transfer is thermodynamics.
You are confusing electromagnetic energy with thermal energy. They have nothing in common with the exception that electrons can convert one form to the other.
All forms of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation, are governed by the 2nd law.
b,
Nope, that won’t work either. Putting more insulation between the heat source and the target actually reduces the amount of energy reaching the target, lowering its temperature.
This is why firefighters, as an example, wear thick insulating clothing, and desert Berbers wear thick black woollen robes to keep cool in some of the hottest regions on Earth. Yes, peer reviewed research in Nature indicates why.
It is no good claiming that CO2 and H2O have magical one way insulating properties – they don’t.
Stupid analogies are the refuge of pseudoscientific types – blathering about furnaces, equilibrium temperatures and “what it would be without” are pointless. Completely pointless if you cannot relate them to a GHE which can be usefully described – and you cannot describe any such thing, because it doesn’t exist.
Maybe you could quote me, and provide some facts to back up any disagreement you might have. I think it more likely that you can produce a flying pig, but I am willing to be shown to be wrong.
Cheers.
bdg….”Infrared radiation emitted from CO2 will not warm a colder body on its own. But, it will slow down the rate of heat loss from that colder body”
Not possible, the rate of heat loss is dependent only on temperature difference. There is no way CO2 by itself, as a particle, can slow the rate of heat dissipation. If you had a heated body inside an enclosure of 100% CO2 at a high enough concentration it might have an effect.
However, in the atmosphere, the temperature is governed by nitrogen and oxygen, that make up 99% of the atmosphere. CO2 at 0.04% would have little or no impact.
Looks like I tweaked the collective sock puppet denialist minds around here. Glad I didn’t try, yet again, to point out that the Moon rotates as it orbits the Earth. Hey, Huffingboy, since you missed the Kentucky Derby, have you tried attaching a compass on your hobbyhorse and recording it’s gyrations as you “ride” around a table? Without doubt, it would show 1 revolution per circuit around the table.
Yes Swanson, you also got the Moon rotation wrong. Thanks for the reminder.
That makes you a three-time loser. You got the Moon rotation wrong, you got the “plates” wrong, and you got the CO2 nonsense wrong. You don’t know orbital physics, and you don’t know radiative physics or thermodynamics.
No wonder you’re so insecure. You’re wrong too much….
Funny how everything you say applies to yourself.
Funny how Svante is never able to offer anything except back-stabbing.
But, as in many false religions, he believes it will get him to heaven. Just like any depraved terrorist.
Funny how Joseph Postma threw JD under the bus by declaring the moon does indeed rotate about its own axis.
LMAO.
Speaking of depraved terrorists….
JD, You guessed right. I’m going to ask the question.
If a 14.7 um photon travels toward the Earth and the Earth does not absorb it then when does it and its energy go?
bmgwx, visible light travels all the way from the Sun to Earth. Yet, some of it is reflected. That’s why you can see things outdoors, if you ever venture there.
Where does that energy go?
If you have a radiometer observing the photons coming from an object it won’t know if they were emitted vs reflected. If the emitted flux is E and the reflected flux is R then the radiometer will see a flux of E+R. The temperature of the object as seen by the radiometer will be a function of E+R. This is a clue that something isn’t right with a model that claims photons are simply reflected. And this is ignoring the lack of a fundamental process for which these photons could be reflected anyway.
Shiny materials/metals often make good infrared reflectors. They don’t generate heat on their own, but if you wear a coat or blanket lined with such an IR reflecting material you can reduce the rate at which heat is lost thus keeping you warmer than you would have been otherwise even with the same coat sans the IR reflecting material.
b,
You wrote,
“They dont generate heat on their own, but if you wear a coat or blanket lined with such an IR reflecting material you can reduce the rate at which heat is lost thus keeping you warmer than you would have been otherwise even with the same coat sans the IR reflecting material.”
A good bit of misdirection of the pseudoscientific climate cultist variety. True, but irrelevant and meaningless.
An IR reflecting material will not warm a corpse. If the corpse is left in the Sun, for example, surrounded by IR reflecting material, it will not get as hot as an uninsulated corpse, either. Sad but true.
The Earth is like a cooling corpse. Internal heat sources are unable to sustain its previous temperature, and the Sun can do no more than slow the cooling which has taken place over the last four and a half billion years or so.
You can see why nobody can actually describe the amazing missing GHE in any way that will stand up to scrutiny. GHE true believers are fanatical nutters who deny observed reality.
But carry on believing that CO2 can make thermometers hotter. Ah, the wondrous power of magical thinking – never let fact get in the way of a good delusion, eh?
Cheers.
bdg…”If you have a radiometer observing the photons coming from an object it wont know if they were emitted vs reflected”
It doesn’t care, it’s not measuring heat, it is measuring the frequency of IR emitted by the CO2 molecules. A handheld radiometer is calibrated in a lab to measure the frequency of IR then convert it to a known temperature for that wavelength of IR.
MF,
A corpse does not generate heat like a living person would. Coats and blankets lined with an IR reflecting material won’t have the same effect on a corpse as they would on a living person because there is a source of energy involved with the living person. Earth is not like a cooling corpse. It is provided with a steady supply of energy from the Sun.
You are right though. That coat/blanket won’t warm a corpse. It also won’t lead to a scenario where the corpse gets warmer than it would have been without the same coat/blanket. But, it will slow the rate at which heat is lost. Now with a living person in which a source of heat is in play that person will get warmer with the IR reflecting material than without it. Similarly on Earth without the Sun the CO2 layer cannot induce the GHE. All it can do without a source of energy is reduce the rate at which heat is lost. Add the Sun back in and the CO2 layer leads to a scenario in which the equilibrium temperature is higher than it would be otherwise. Again, at a conceptual level this is the same effect the insulation in your home causes. CO2 does not warm the Earth by itself no more than the insulation warms your home. But they both augment an existing source of heat to yield a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise be possible.
b,
You wrote –
“Earth is not like a cooling corpse. It is provided with a steady supply of energy from the Sun.”
And so is a corpse on the Earth’s surface, surrounded by an insulating blanket. It still won’t get as hot as it would without the insulation. Look at the temperature range on the Moon, if you don’t believe me.
Maybe if you could actually state a description of the GHE, (including furnaces, homes, and insulation if you wish), then others might be able to figure out where the magic of CO2 being able to ” . . . augment an existing source of heat . . . actually occurs.
Cheers
GR wrote…”It doesn’t care, it’s not measuring heat, it is measuring the frequency of IR emitted by the CO2 molecules. A handheld radiometer is calibrated in a lab to measure the frequency of IR then convert it to a known temperature for that wavelength of IR.”
You may be thinking of a spectrometer here. Those measure frequency. For IR active materials this is typically referred to as infrared spectroscopy. It’s one way in which scientists know that CO2 is IR active in some channels.
Handheld infrared thermometers typically use a series of IR active lens to focus the “light” on a thermopile. It responds to heat and turns it into an electrical signal.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
b,
What a stupid attempt at a gotcha. You have made precisely no effort to find an answer to your question, have you?
Are you really as dim as you appear, or just pretending?
Demonstrate you made a reasonable effort to at least acquaint yourself with the interaction between light and matter. If you are too stupid to understand basic physics, no one can help you. If it is purely a matter of ignorance, I may be able to assist, by pointing you to some reasonable sources, and explaining what you are unable to comprehend.
Pleas let me know if you require assistance. I’m here to help.
Cheers.
“But, we cant expect clowns to understand quantum physics. They believe a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, as it runs an oval track.”
That reminds me. I need to shoot a video showing the Moon does not gallop around the Earth on a track.
Craig, don’t forget to include in your video all of your failings in physics, as displayed in your comments here.
You are going for a comedy video, right?
Craig T, NASA has already provided a video which proves that the Moon rotates as it orbits the Earth. Of course, the local troll population apparently lives in a fantasy universe which says otherwise. Not unlike the Flat Earth people and some religious fundamentalist who claim that the Earth is less then 10k years old.
Swanson, DA also had a NASA link he kept using. He eventually realized how stupid it made him look.
It took a long time….
If Huffingboy had any brains, he would realize that arguing with NASA about space issues is a losing proposition. DA probably got tired of holding Huffingboy’s hand while leading him to understanding.
I have seen a couple of instances where DA was able to get something right. Although he is confused a lot, he still has some limited use of his brain. Most of the clowns here no longer are able to think for themselves.
An easy test, to see if your brain stilll works, is the racehorse. Is a racehorse “rotating on its own axis” as if runs an oval track?
Typically, clowns answer “yes”, because they know they have to match with Institutionalized Pseudoscience. The correct answer, if one were able to think for himself, is “no”. The racehorse has the same motion as the Moon–orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis.
And when it does?
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html
“Of course, your average pseudoscientific climate cultist ignores such inconvenient facts.”
The absorρtion spectrum of water is a fact. Liquid water absorbs light from 1000 nm to at least 600 µm. (WDL peak -268° C)
Could you please move on to better arguments?
Craig, look at the graph labeled, “Absorbance of gaseous, liquid and solid water; mouse over for LDL and HDL”.
What is the absorbance for a 14.7 μ, impacting 25 C liquid water?
Hint: It’s off the scale.
You need to scroll down and look at the right chart.
The absorbance you want is not on that chart, but if you look at the right chart you find that liquid water is quite good at abzorbing 14.7 um photons.
That chart is for bending, stretching, and twisting.
Just twisting is at a lower energy level, so it is off of that chart.
b,
You appear to be bending, stretching and twisting, if you are claiming that liquid water will increase its temperature by being exposed to photons of roughly the same frequency as those naturally emitted by frozen CO2 – dry ice.
Maybe you face reality rather than becoming mentally bent, stretched, twisted, and confused by looking at documents you clearly do not understand. You might need to reconsider the unstated and misleading assumptions implied in your link. A thing can be true, but completely irrelevant, depending on circumstances.
Still no GHE. No heating by CO2 or H2O.
Carry on appearing as stupid and ignorant if you wish. Many otherwise intelligent and well-educated people share the same magical and delusional thinking.
Cheers.
Flynn you have to be smart enough to understand the chart we are talking about.
b,
I am smart to know that you are not disagreeing with anything I wrote. Carry on.
Cheers.
Oh, but I am!
The radiation from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere does add energy to the surface of the earth and this is what is called the greenhouse effect.
Even though it’s not like a greenhouse.
b,
What is it you are disagreeing with me about? If you believe a greenhouse effect exists, maybe you would care to describe in such a way that it might be examined scientifically.
You claim –
“The radiation from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere does add energy to the surface of the earth and this is what is called the greenhouse effect.”
Of course, this is complete and utter nonsense, if you are claiming that higher surface temperatures result, as in “Hottest year EVAH!”. Even where air temperatures are higher than surface temperatures (during observed low level surface inversions), the surface temperature still falls. Ask any meteorologist. Or citrus farmer, if you want a view on the practical effects of radiative cooling.
At night, during winter, indoors, when it is cloudy, raining, snowing, or cold, your supposed description seems to show an effect which has no effect whatever. It is hard to observe and measure such an effect, surely?
Unfortunately, just making an assertion does not actually qualify as a useful description.
Nope. Only stupid pseudoscientific climate nutters believe that Wattmeters are thermometers. Radiative fluxes are meaningless without qualification. People like Trenberth etc. are deluded.
Believe all you want. If you want to prefer fantasy to fact, that is your choice.
Cheers.
Here Mike for all that straw
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Corona-MA60042-22-Machete/38445649?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227026403777&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=59503282689&wl4=pla-92850441129&wl5=9022811&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=online&wl12=38445649&wl13=&veh=sem&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1MSImrKN4gIVhobACh352Q1GEAQYAiABEgIdafD_BwE
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“What is the absorbance for a 14.7 µ, impacting 25 C liquid water?”
I guess it is off the scale, because the graph you’re talking about only goes to 2800 cm^-1 (3.5 µm). Let’s go down to “The visible and UV spectra of liquid water” graph.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/water_spectrum_2.gif
It shows the absorρtion coefficient of 14.7 µm as around 10^3 cm^-1. That means a 14.7 µm photon has less than 3% chance to penetrate water 0.01 mm deep before being absorbed.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/water_spectrum_2.gif
Craig, 14.7 μ photons are not included in “The visible and UV spectra”.
Sorry. You might want to try your pseudoscience again.
JD,
You might want to look at the scale at the bottom of the chart and see if you can determine if it covers the 14.7 um wavelength.
14.7 being between 10 and 100, can you see it?
b,
You might want to learn physics related to reality. Or you might not – the choice is yours.
Cheers.
One more time, just for you bob: 14.7 μ photons are not included in “The visible and UV spectra”.
You are right that 14.7 um photons are not in the UV or Visible range
But they are on the chart and you can read the abzorbativity of them on the chart.
“Craig, 14.7 µ photons are not included in ‘The visible and UV spectra’.”
No, but that’s the chart that shows 14.7 µm is labeled. And here’s the data used to make the chart.
https://omlc.org/spectra/water/data/hale73.txt
Craig, that link indicates 15000nm corresponds to 3368.0 1/cm.
What do you believe that means?
It means the 15000 nm photons are abzorbed quite easily.
The ducks here seem to making an unusual argument.
Usually ducks argue that the IR photons are abzorbed in the first few micrometers of the ocean, and thus don’t heat the ocean, because it only increases the evaporation rate thus cooling the ocean.
“Craig, that link indicates 15000nm corresponds to 3368.0 1/cm.
What do you believe that means?”
It means that only 1 in 10 ^3368 of the 15 µm photons entering will make it through 1 cm of water. The rest will be absorbed.
And how did they arrive at that figure (3368), Craig?
“By use of a wedge-shaped cell providing an absorbing layer tapering in thickness from less than one wavelength of visible light at one end to approximately 20 µm at the other end, we have measured the Lambert absorρtion coefficient for water in the spectral region between 4000 and 288 cm^−1. After proper initial alignment of the cell windows had been established by the observation of interference fringes in the visible, we measured film thicknesses at various positions along the wedge by interferometric methods, employing convenient wavelengths in the infrared. We present the results of the study in graphical and tabular form.
And how did they arrive at that figure (3368), Craig?
Also, the “3368” has units of “cm^-1”. But, you are using it as an exponent. When did exponents acquire units?
Or, you could just admit you don’t know what the crap you’re talking about.
We both know that won’t happen….
“Also, the ‘3368’ has units of ‘cm^-1’. But, you are using it as an exponent. When did exponents acquire units?”
It appears Mike wants another physics lesson.
Maybe I can find time this afternoon or evening.
No, that is a horrible way to treat anyone.
Absorbance is the common log of the intensity of light entering matter divided by light passing through. The numbers were per centimeter of penetration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbance#Absorbance
Craig, you are WAY over your head. You don’t know crap. You just keep linking to things you don’t understand.
You are confusing “absorbance” with “absorp.tance”.
Your first clue should have been the exponent with units. Exponents don’t have units. “Absorp.tance” doesn’t have units; “absorbance” has units, “cm^-1”
Learn some physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorp.tance
(To make the link work, remove the “.” in “Absorp.tance”.)
JD, says: “Also, the 3368 has units of cm^-1. But, you are using it as an exponent. When did exponents acquire units?”
The attenuation of light (or pretty much anything) can often be expressed accurately as:
I(x) = I(0) e^(-kx)
where I(x) is the intensity at some distance, x, into the absorbing material.
The exponent “kx” must be dimensionless, as you noted above. However, since “x” has units of length (eg centimeters), then “k” must have units of 1/length (eg 1/cm).
Tim, you’re not adding clarity. You’re adding confusion.
Either you are incompetent, or knowingly trying to pervert reality.
“Attentuation” is not the same as “absorp.tance”.
“Craig, you are WAY over your head. You dont know crap. You just keep linking to things you dont understand.
You are confusing ‘absorbance’ with ‘absorp.tance’.”
As your Wiki link says, Asorρtance is a ratio either shown as a number between 0 and 1 or a percent between 1 and 100. It is not possible that 3368 is a measure of Asorρtance.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/23f1qyt-png.228918/
Don’t hold back. You can start showing us your superior understanding of physics any time you like.
Craig T, what does the “T” stand for?
“Thick”?
No one is linking your “3368” to absorp.tance, except you.
You are confusing absorp.tance with absorbance, and can’t learn.
Nothing new.
CT,
You quoted me correctly. Thanks.
You dont appear to be disagreeing with me 10.7 micron photons are not absorbed by a material transparent to the particular frequency. Flying off at a tangent by saying some light is absorbed, reflected, refracted and so on, by various materials makes you appear as intelligent as a 5 year old.
But no matter. 10.7 microns is a wavelength emitted by ice. You claim is is absorbed by water, apparently with no effect whatsoever, as no one has ever managed to raise the temperature of water using the radiation from ice, no matter how clever they claim to be.
As you can see, pseudoscientific climate cultists are adept at misdirection – conflating disparate things, and hoping no one will realise the deception.
This is particularly evident when the climate fools pretend that Wattmeters can be used to measure absolute temperatures. Or try to convince people that outputs of computer programs are experiments! They seem to have convinced you. Intelligence is no protection against mental impairment, such as extreme gullibility.
No GHE description yet, is there?
Cheers.
craig…”craig…”The absorρ-tion spectrum of water is a fact. Liquid water absorbs light from 1000 nm to at least 600 m. (WDL peak -268 C)”
**********
And what is the temperature of the source of that light, about a million C?
When was the last time you saw water vapour heated by radiation from an iceberg?
“And what is the temperature of the source of that light, about a million C?”
A black body whose peak emittance was 600 µm has a temperature of -268 C. But we’re not talking about black bodies.
We’re talking about radiation absorbed and re-emitted by CO2, H20, CH4 and other greenhouse gasses not radiation emitted by ice. But if you must talk about water vapor and icebergs I can. Water vapor near an iceberg would gain some energy from the iceberg as it lost energy to space, just as water vapor inside an igloo would not lose net energy as fast as water vapor in the upper troposphere. Cooling would be reduced.
craig…”Were talking about radiation absorbed and re-emitted by CO2, H20, CH4 and other greenhouse gasses not radiation emitted by ice.”
You missed my point. EM cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body. Water can only be heated by EM from a hotter body. EM from ice does nothing.
CT,
Maybe you could indicate your reasons fro thinking that 300W/m2 from hotter material (ice) creates less heating than 0.5 W/m2 from colder CO2?
I have been generous with the emissivity and the emitted wavelength for CO2, at 14.7 um.
I can’t see how could make water of any temperature hotter with either, but the ice is emitting far more power at a much higher temperature.
You should be able to see why nobody can come up with any rational description for a GHE, which would not attract ridicule and derisive snorts.
Surely you can copy and paste a useful GHE description from somewhere? Only joking – nobody else has managed so far, have they? Of course, I’m having a laugh at your expense. Do your best to turn the tables. Good luck.
Cheers.
“EM cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body.”
So what happens to the energy carried by that EM when absorbed by water?
Craig asks: “So what happens to the energy carried by that EM when absorbed by water?”
It appears Craig T wants another physics lesson.
Maybe I can find time this afternoon or evening.
“It appears Craig T wants another physics lesson.”
I guess I should rephrase that.
Gordon, JD and Mike, what do you think happens to the energy carried by by that EM when absorbed by water?
I’d like to hear how GR, JD, and MF explain that away as well.
A big part of the confusion is that different people use words differently in conversations like this. Sometimes that is because they prefer one specific definition. Often, they don’t even recognize that they are applying different definitions and/or conflating two different by related ideas. Consequently, people often talk past each other.
Take for example: “EM cannot transfer heat from a colder body to a warmer body.”
If you are using the language of classical thermodynamics, where heat = Q = macroscopic energy transferred due to a temperature difference, then this statement is absolutely correct. Heat only ever spontaneously goes from warmer areas to cooler areas.
But if you try to expand this to say that no energy ever transfers spontaneously from cooler to warmer, that is nonsense. Photons can and get emitted from cooler surfaces and later get absorbed by warmer surfaces.
Much like a gas molecule near the top of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a cool gas can have more energy than a gas molecule near the bottom of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of a warm gas, leading to energy transfers from cooler molecules to warmer molecules.
For either photons or gas molecules, the net macroscopic transfer of energy is always from warmer to cooler, but individual interactions can go the other way.
The question has been asked: “So what happens to the energy carried by that EM when absorbed by water?”
Not all photons are always absorbed. Just because a photon strikes a surface, that does not automatically imply the photon will be absorbed. Absorp.tion is determined by the interaction of the arriving photon, and the target molecule. Generally, if the molecule has a vibrational frequency higher than the arriving photon, the photon will be reflected.
But, for the purpose of answering the above question, let’s assume somehow a photon gets absorbed by a water molecule, where the frequency of the other water molecules are higher than that of the photon. Since the average frequency of all the water molecules was then lower, the temperature would also be lower. Of course, such a infinitesimally small change could not be measured.
For those that have never studied quantum physics, a good analogy is adding a glass of 20 C water to a larger volume of 40 C water. Energy has been added to the volume of water, but the temperature will not go up.
“Generally, if the molecule has a vibrational frequency higher than the arriving photon, the photon will be reflected.”
Do you have a reference to support this assertion? No physics text I have ever read says anything vaguely like this! But if you can show me a textbook that explains your ideas, I am more than happy to read and learn from them.
What is the “vibrational frequency” of a water molecule in liquid water at 300 K?
What is the “vibrational frequency” of a gaseous water molecule at 300 K?
What is the “vibrational frequency” of a gaseous water molecule at 350 K?
What is the “vibrational frequency” of a gaseous CO2 molecule at 300 K?
Since you put yourself out as an expert, surely you can tells us how you would do these calculations, and what the specific frequencies are for the above circumstances.
“Not all photons are always absorbed. Just because a photon strikes a surface, that does not automatically imply the photon will be absorbed. ”
In the bandwidth we’re talking about, the odds are 1 in 10^3368 that a photon will not be absorbed by the first centimeter of water. The photons carry 300 to 350 watts per square meter to the surface (without the cooling by conduction that ice placed in the water would bring.)
Unlike mixing 20 C water and 40 C water, energy is added to the water molecules without adding molecules of lower energy states. The energy density goes up.
CO2 also emits radiation of 2.7 um, which corresponds to a temperature of 800 C according to the Wien’s displacement law.
I am assuming that would have no problem heating water at 25 C.
But CO2 in the atmosphere is not at 800 C so somebody’s thinking has gone wrong.
Tim, I bet you are now really sorry that you have such a failed history answering my questions, huh?
Answering questions is a two-way street, and you are about 7-8 behind.
I’m not putting myself “out as an expert”, but thanks for the recognition. It’s been a long time since I studied QP, but I remember the basics well enough to bust the AGW/GHE nonsense. And, I’m having a blast!
“In the bandwidth we’re talking about, the odds are 1 in 10^3368 that a photon will not be absorbed by the first centimeter of water.”
Craig, you keep relying on that pseudoscience, but you clearly don’t know what it means.
Nothing new.
JD,
You never studied Quantum Physics, or if you may have enrolled in a course, you flunked out pretty quick and here is the proof
“bob, I can work the eigenvalues for Hamilton and dot the o in Schrodinder before you can recognize reality.”
Is funny
Too funny
JD — let me refresh your memory about QM, since you are clearly more rusty than you imagine.
Generally, if the molecule has a vibrational mode *possible* that matches the energy of an arriving IR photon, the photon will be absorbed. If the molecule has a no vibrational mode possible that matches the energy of an arriving IR photon, the photon will be transmitted.
So for example, one of the vibrational modes for CO2 corresponds to the energy of ~ 15 um photons. So CO2 molecules can absorb 15 um photons. This is true whether the CO2 molecules are -50 C or +50 C or +500 C. Other vibrational modes correspond to other wavelengths.
Conversely, CO2 molecules have no vibrational modes that correspond to the energies of 12 um photons, so CO2 cannot absorb 12 um photons.
Water has its own set of possible modes corresponding to other wavelenghts of IR.
PS — ask a reasonable question and I could give a reasonable answer.
One other quick follow-up point … JD says various things related to “Since the average frequency of all the water molecules was then lower, the temperature would also be lower.”
Molecules do not vibrate “faster” as they warm up — they vibrate with larger *amplitudes*. The frequencies are quantized based on the possible modes of vibration.
* At low temperatures, most molecules will be in the ground state and not vibrating at all.
* At higher temperatures, some will gain a quantum of vibrational energy and vibrate with a specific frequency.
* At even higher temperatures, molecules can gain a second quantum of energy – at the same frequency but larger amplitude.
‘lets assume somehow a photon gets absorbed by a water molecule, where the frequency of the other water molecules are higher than that of the photon. Since the average frequency of all the water molecules was then lower, the temperature would also be lower.’
If it is absorbed, then its energy has been ADDED. It has excited a molecule to a higher energy state, which could be in the form of vibration, rotation or translation.
If you think temperature (average molecular energy) went DOWN as a result, then 1LOT is going to be very unhappy.
bob, you must be in the same typing class as that other pretender. You certainly would not be willing to bet much money that I have not studied QP. You just make false accusations based on your opinionated beliefs.
Nothing new.
Tim, that’s a lot of blah-blah just to confuse a simple concept mentioned upthread.
Maybe you ignored it:
Here’s some more physics for the clowns to ignore:
Absorbed or emitted photon’s energy = hf.
Molecule’s difference in energy levels = (E2 – E1)
hf must equal (E2 – E1)
See how simple it is?
JD,
So you want to put up or shut up?
The usual amount 1 dollar?
Or do you want to make it more interesting?
I’ll bet you never passed a formal course in Quantum Mechanics at an accredited college or university.
Staring at a wiki page until you are cross-eyed doesn’t count.
I was wrong before saying Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics being the same thing, they are not, at the university I attended Quantum Physics is a pre req for Quantum Mechanics.
When I took three semesters of physics, the last course wasn’t called Quantum physics, and I can’t remember what it was called, but that is what it is called now.
So it was part of your almost minor in physics.
What grade did you get?
No bob, it would have to be a substantail sum for me to be interested. The fees in setting up a legal, binding contract could easily be several thousand.
And, a legal, binding contract would be necessary to keep you from backing out, as you are now doing over your fatuous remarks about QP and QM.
JD Says: “hf must equal (E2 E1)”
Yes!
But that has nothing do do with incorrectly claiming ‘hotter water has a higher frequency’ or incorrectly making analogies about ‘adding cool water to hot water’ or incorrectly describing grains of sand as containing ‘molecules of SiO2’.
Getting one equation right is no guarantee that your other, unrelated claims are also correct.
Tim, you don’t like my simple examples and analogies because they cut through the thick, tangled mess you resort to.
Absorp.tion is dependent on wavelength compatibility. Wavelength varies with energy. Absorp.tion is NOT guranteed. Not all photons are always absorbed. You can NOT warm lukewarm water with ice cubes. You can NOT heat your house in winter with blocks of ice. Atmospheric CO2 can NOT raise surface temperatures.
And, a racehorse is NOT rotating on its own axis on an oval track.
Reality–learn it, live it, love it.
JD, you really do get a lot right.
“Absorp.tion is dependent on wavelength compatibility. Wavelength varies with energy. Absorp.tion is NOT guranteed. Not all photons are always absorbed.”
This is great stuff. A wonderful start. No one should dispute this. This is completely in line with what I have been saying too. ANd completely in line with how the greenhouse effect work. And completely in line with warmer surfaces radiating heat to cooler surfaces.
But you seem to resist deeper thinking. You meander through odd and incorrect extensions, as if getting the basics right somehow guarantees you are an authority.
Stick to your paragraph above and you won’t go wrong.
Tim, that’s a perfect example of the “thick, tangled mess” you resort to.
craig t…”So what happens to the energy carried by that EM when absorbed by water?”
If the EM came from a source like the Sun that is much warmer than the water, the EM will be absorbed. If the EM came from an iceberg floating in the water it will not be absorbed.
The 2nd law is satisfied.
CO2 also emits 2.7 um photons, which correspond to a WDL temperature of 800 C, so it can increase the temperature of water, so it’s not like heating water with ice.
Although the WDL is irrelevant, as CO2 emits multiple wavelengths.
Just for JD’s benefit,
A course in Quantum Physics is a pre-requisite for
Physical Chemistry I
Lectures and problems focusing on microscopic properties. CHEM 442 and CHEM 444 constitute a year-long study of chemical principles. CHEM 442 focuses on quantum chemistry, atomic and molecular structure, spectroscopy and dynamics. 4 undergraduate hours. 4 graduate hours. Credit is not given for both CHEM 442 and PHYS 485. Prerequisite: CHEM 204 or CHEM 222; MATH 225 or MATH 415, and a minimal knowledge of differential equations, or equivalent; and PHYS 211, PHYS 212, and PHYS 214 or equivalent.
Physics 214 Univ Physics: Quantum Physics
Interference and diffraction, photons and matter waves, the Bohr atom, uncertainty principle, and wave mechanics. A calculus-based course for majors in engineering, mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Credit is not given for both PHYS 214 and PHYS 102. Prerequisite: PHYS 212.
This course satisfies the General Education Criteria for:
Nat Sci & Tech – Phys Sciences
Quantitative Reasoning II
bob, I was aware of such.
See if you can educate this clown:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-351683
Gordon,
This statement
“If the EM came from a source like the Sun that is much warmer than the water, the EM will be absorbed. If the EM came from an iceberg floating in the water it will not be absorbed.”
requires that the EM carries the information of the temperature of the body or molecule that emitted it.
Which it can’t as a photon only carries 3 pieces of information, namely it’s energy and the direction it is traveling.
And your other comment about clouds is incomplete, some clouds are composed of particles of ice.
I admitted I was wrong about that.
When I was in college Quantum Physics was called Modern Physics and still is a pre-requisite for Physical Chemistry I for chemists or Atomic Physics and Quantum Theory for physics majors.
So as far as I can tell, your education still lacks a structured course in Quantum Chemistry or Quantum Theory.
Because you still get all the physics about light being absorbed or transmitted or reflected wrong.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
CT,
You wrote –
“Cooling would be reduced.” If you mean the temperature wouldn’t fall as fast, fine.
If you mean that the temperature would increase, why not just say so?
I suspect that you realise that saying this would expose you to mockery and derision.
Gavin Schmidt exclaims “Hottest year EVAH!”, not “Most reduced cooling year EVAH!”.
Maybe you do not understand the difference. Others may.
Cheers.
“If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine.”
So you are agreeing that with GHGs, temperatures don’t fall as fast. Conversely, that must also mean that without GHGs, temperatures fall faster.
That automatically means that average temperatures would be higher with GHGs than without.
TF,
You wrote –
“That automatically means that average temperatures would be higher with GHGs than without.” Nonsense.
As you agree, the surface has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight. Surface temperatures range roughly from 90 C to -90 C (actual surface temperatures). The average temperature has dropped.
The atmosphere prevents around 35% of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface. Hence, maximum temperatures, due to the Sun’s radiation, are depressed. Average temperatures are meaningless – only a strangely deluded mathematician like Gavin Schmidt would claim “Hottest year EVAH!”, and then claim that a calculated 38% probability supported his strange utterance.
As to thermometers showing higher temperatures, this is how thermometers are designed – they indicate how hot they are, and are calibrated in degrees, generally. If you wish to claim that CO2 makes the mercury in a mercury in glass thermometer expand, indicating a higher temperature, I would expect some experimental support for such a remarkable claim.
Falling temperatures are falling temperatures. Cooling. Fast or slow, if the temperature is falling, it is not going up. No heating due to falling temperature. This is just pseudoscientific climate cult garbage.
Cheers.
So it is okay to acknowledge that the atmosphere can block a significant amount of shortwave radiation and yet somehow it’s taken as a given that this can’t possibly happen with longwave radiation as well…because why?
bdg…”So it is okay to acknowledge that the atmosphere can block a significant amount of shortwave radiation and yet somehow its taken as a given that this cant possibly happen with longwave radiation as wellbecause why?”
Clouds are droplets of water that are actually modeled as a lake. The droplets absorb SW solar hence the blocking. As a cloud moves across the Sun you can actually see the visible EM blocked. When the cloud passes, the SW re-appears unblocked.
WV in a clear sky is not about to block a lot of anything, either SW from the Sun or LW from the surface. If there is any blockage it will be a few percent, nothing more.
GHGs block nothing of significance…nada.
b,
Maybe you could quote me. Or you could just make it up as you go along, as you seem to prefer.
Your choice. If you want to make stuff up, you could probably ask yourself all sorts of stupid gotchas, and then pretend to be fearfully confused when you couldn’t understand your own answers.
There is a difference between pseudoscience and science. Feel free to disagree, if you wish.
Cheers.
Me >> “That automatically means that average temperatures would be higher with GHGs than without.
MF> “Nonsense.”
Focus on the issue at hand. Two worlds. Otherwise identical except one has GHGs in the atmosphere.
The identical worlds both warm up some day .. say to 30 C. And we agree the one with GHGs cools slower. So it my cool slowly over night to, say, 20 C, while the one with no GHG’s cools faster — say to 10 C.
T or F: The GHG world has a higher average temperature.
—————————————-
If we can agree on that, then we can see about addressing some of your tangents. But the direct, inescapeable conclusion of If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine. is that GHGs lead to warmer average temperatures.
TF,
Don’t be silly. The problem is that if one of your worlds has no GHGs (like the Moon, say), then it will get hotter than the Earth during the same exposure time, as it is receiving more radiation from a temperature source of the same value.
It will cool faster, and reach a lower temperature – no GHGs, you see. The same thing happens on Earth. Arid tropical deserts reach far higher temperatures during the day, and cool much faster at night, due to the lack of supposed GHGs in the atmosphere.
Thanks for quoting me saying “Nonsense.” I assume you are disagreeing with my opinion, but you haven’t provided any facts to show I am wrong. Just telling me to “focus” on this or that doesn’t seem to help. I focus on whatever I like, and if you don’t like it, tough.
You can agree with yourself as much as you like, and you can address whatever you like with yourself. If you expect me to dance to your tune, you might be sorely disappointed. Maybe you need to focus on the issue at hand – the conspicuous absence of a useful GHE description. Or maybe you could just ignore it.
Cheers.
Gavin never said
“hottest year EVAH!”
GR said…”As a cloud moves across the Sun you can actually see the visible EM blocked.”
And the same effect occurs with non-condensed WV and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) as well. WV shadows surface OLR. The more WV the more the surface OLR is shadowed. This is a significant factor in how the ABI instrument on the GOES-R satellites detects WV. In the presence of WV the ABI instrument primarily picks up the cooler OLR emitted from the WV layer. In the absence of WV the ABI instrument primarily picks up the warmer surface OLR. There are many other satellites that detect WV in this manner as well. I just picked the GOES-R as example because it’s the newest technology developed by NOAA for observational meteorology.
The point…as WV moves across the Earth satellites can actually see the infrared EM blocked.
By the way…the GOES-R ABI actually has a “CO2” channel centered at 13.3 um. Note that 13.3 um is NOT the band in which CO2’s GHE is dominant. It just so happens that CO2 is also IR active at 13.3 um though in a considerably reduced amount compared to the 14.9 um band where the bulk of the GHE arises. This particular band exploits CO2’s well mixed nature in the troposphere to produce various scientific and meteorological products.
https://www.goes-r.gov/education/docs/ABI-bands-FS/Band_16FS_CO2_LW_IR_FINAL.pdf
“…compared to the 14.9 um band where the bulk of the GHE arises.”
bmgwx, your addiction to pseudoscience is blantantly apparent.
tim…”Conversely, that must also mean that without GHGs, temperatures fall faster”.
I would like to see your reasoning behind this claim. Why should GHGs, at even 1% of the lower atmosphere, be able to affect atmospheric temperature enough to affect the rate of surface radiation?
There is no evidence that GHGs have affected atmospheric temps over a period of more than 150 years. It’s a presumption that lacks hard scientific evidence.
bobdroege wrote –
“Flynn,
Here is an accurate quote of what you said, maybe you could clarify what you meant.
The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state,
Did you mean that the earth has cooled at a constant rate since it was molten, or are you supporting Lord Kelvins ridiculous estimate of the age of the earth?”
bobdroege seems unable to comprehend simple English. He seems unable to understand that I meant what I wrote. Maybe he is in the grip of some pseudoscientific climatological delusional condition – or just exceptionally stupid and ignorant.
If anybody else is unable to understand my quoted statement, please let me know what part you don’t understand. Maybe bobdroege only understands Warmese.
Cheers.
Mike, I don’t have trouble understanding the statement. I just have trouble understanding why you think this is so important.
No one disputes that the surface cooled from a few 1000 kelvins to a few 100 kelvins. The early planet’s surface was indeed once molten rock, which cooled to form the current solid crust.
But this is the distant past. Most estimates suggest liquid water was present on earth within a few 100 million years and the life arose within half a billion years. For literally billions of years, the surface temperatures have been relatively stable. They have risen and fallen and risen and fallen many times.
The early cooling of the surface and the continued slow cooling of the core are interesting science. They just have next to nothing to do with climate or climate change. The air, water, and land near the surface can and have warmed in the past, and are doing so again right now.
I would welcome any comments about either
a) anything factually you disagree with, or
b) why the surface cooling 4.5 billion years ago is important to understanding current climate change.
TF,
I am glad you agree with as to the fact that –
“The Sun appears to have been unable to prevent the Earths surface from cooling from the molten state.”
I am quoting myself due to your reluctance to do so. I understand why.
I cannot see anything new or particularly relevant in anything else you say. There is not much point in commenting in any unsupported assertions you may or may not have made. Climate is the average of weather. No comment required.
You still cannot describe the GHE in any useful way, because no such description exists, or is possible. I’m guessing that if you could provide a description you would. If you have a GHE description, but wish to keep it secret, that is your choice.
Cheers.
“If anybody else is unable to understand my quoted statement, please let me know….”
Well some might not know how the sun could prevent Earth surface from cooling, as in the sun doesn’t prevent any planet from cooling from a molten state**.
And there might not be any star which prevents any planet from not cooling from it’s molten state.
And it’s possible, that this is your point.
It’s also possible that might be regarded that a planet such as Venus is somewhere in the ballpark,- if closer to sun, larger atmosphere.
And planet in formation might have various metals and various compound not normally associated to be in a gasous state and within atmosphere which could could act like greenhouse gases.
But probably this is over thinking it, and it would be thebpoint that Earth was very hot and now the surface is quite cold.
And the assumption that there was far more greenhouse gases when Earth was hot, and why did it cool if greenhouse gases could keep it hot?
Or it is plausible that Earth had more than 100 atm of water vapor, thousands of times more CO2 and methane than it does now.
And yet, the Earth cooled.
Though Earth could have been completely cloud covered and reflecting a lot of sunlight, which might be problem with idea of sunlight keeping it warm.
** Of course there is Jupiter moon, Io, which has very little sunlight, and though entire surface (skin surface) is not molten, there is lots of volcanic activity, with lava flowing in a lot places.
One could ask, why isn’t the vacuum of space cooling it.
Someone wrote –
“lets assume somehow a photon gets absorbed by a water molecule, where the frequency of the other water molecules are higher than that of the photon.”
This is about as stupid as saying “let’s assume your auntie has testicles, and is really your uncle . . ” Not only that, but the rest of the sciencey sounding nonsense is meaningless.
The dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha posers resort to such idiocies because they cannot even describe the supposed GHE in any way in which the description could be examined in a scientific fashion. Hence, reams of rubbish from people who pretend they have knowledge about all sorts of irrelevant things, appeals to self appointed authority, endless pointless and irrelevant analogies (pointless and irrelevant because there is no adequate GHE description), and all the rest of the lunatic folderol so beloved of the usual ragtag mob of shambling climate fools.
Suffice it to say that one cannot raise the temperature of water regardless of how much energy you have at your disposal, if it is being emitted by ice.
Likewise, trying to pretend that W/m2 is somehow directly related to temperature is the pseudoscientific rambling of climate cultists. And so it goes. CO2 and H2O do not add to a heat source. They do not accumulate heat, nor reinforce or multiply it. Climate is the average of weather, no more no less.
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should, and the capering climate clowns are part of the warp and weft of the rich tapestry of life. Ain’t life grand?
Cheers.
That “dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser” is JD. Glad to know you think he is so confused here. He won’t listen to me, but maybe he will listen to you, 🙂
TF,
What bizarre nonsense are to trying to flog now?
Maybe you think I have awesome super powers, and that anybody cares what I think, or what my opinion is. I appreciate the flattery, but it will not get you anywhere.
If you are hoping that I won’t mention the fact that neither you nor anybody else can actaully produce a useable GHE description – abandon all hope.
No GHE. CO2 heats nothing.
Cheers.
“….endless pointless and irrelevant analogies (pointless and irrelevant because there is no adequate GHE description)…”
Greenhouse effect doesn’t make the surface hotter.
The greenhouse effect which is inadequately described by the “greenhouse effect theory” does encourage people to imagine greenhouse gases cause the surface to be hotter as compared to a world which lacks any atmosphere, but obviously the lunar surface in daylight is heated to higher temperature than what occurs anywhere on Earth.
But disregarding the pseudo science of the “greenhouse effect theory” a greenhouse effect increases the average temperature.
Or if Earth had less atmosphere it could have lower average temperature, but with less atmosphere in the daytime, the surface could be warmed to higher temperature during the day.
Less atmosphere would make colder nights and colder winters.
Or if Earth had 1/4 of it’s atmosphere and 4 times more CO2, it would probably have lower average temperature.
There many elements involved with making the Earth average global temperature of about 15 C.
If a planet had a strong greenhouse effect, the planet’s surface air temperature would close to being uniform. If Planet’s average surface air was 15 C, then it have uniform temperature which was close to 15 C.
Earth does not have temperatures which are commonly close to 15 C.
Nor is the much percentage of surface area have average daily or yearly average temperature of near 15 C.
An air temperature of near 15 C on Earth is rare rather than common.
40% of surface of Earth is in the tropical zone [between 23.5 degrees North and South latitude]. 80% of the tropics is ocean and the tropical ocean average temperature is about 26 C [78.8 F or a bit warmer than room temperature, “For scientific work, room temperature is taken to be about 20 to 25 degrees Celsius ”
The tropics generally fairly uniform and the tropical ocean has the most uniform temperature.
The human creature is a tropical animal prefers the near uniform temperature of tropics [though modern technological human wears clothes, and if wearing warm clothes prefers it’s living spaces to be slightly cooler than 26 C].
So tropics has fairly uniform and this “fits” with environment which has more greenhouse effect. And the tropics famously is known to have a lot water vapor. Greenhouse gas of water vapor associated with strong greenhouse effect of tropics.
But of course there is other aspect of ocean water having a high specific heat. The ocean water being transparent to sunlight. And the latent heat of water vapor.
The global average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
40% has average of 26 C and remaining 60% of the ocean has average temperature of about 11 C [51.8 F]
Global average land surface air temperature is about 10 C
70% ocean of 17 and 30% land of 10 C is average global temperature of about 15 C.
And Northern hemisphere is about 1 C warmer average temperature than the Southern hemisphere
gbaikie…”But disregarding the pseudo science of the greenhouse effect theory a greenhouse effect increases the average temperature”.
How?
Based on your description you seem to be presuming all atmospheric gases offer a greenhouse effect.
A greenhouse effect refers to only 1% of atmospheric gases and they behave nothing like the glass in a greenhouse. The GHE theory is wrong because it is based on a faulty assumption which itself is based on three faulty assumptions.
Faulty assumption #1 is that GHGs can somehow trap heat. That comes from another faulty assumption that electromagnetic radiation is heat. GHGs can absorb EM radiation from the surface but how much? Calculations show it is in the neighbourhood of 5% of surface radiation.
EM is not heat and since heat is a property of atoms, gases cannot trap atoms. Glass can, but gases cannot.
Faulty assumption #2 is that GHGs can back-radiate energy (EM) that can somehow raise the surface temperature. That contradicts the 2nd law and describes perpetual motion as the recycling of heat from the surface to the atmosphere and back to the surface.
Faulty assumption #3 is that GHGs can affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. The rate of heat dissipation is affected only by the temperature of the atmosphere immediately at the surface.
It’s no different than heat being transferred from the end of a steel rod from an end heated by a torch to the cooler end of the rod. If the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface is the same as the surface temperature, no heat will flow in either direction. If the atmosphere could somehow be hotter, heat would flow from the atmosphere to the surface.
As it stands, the atmosphere immediately at the surface absorbs heat directly from the surface and that heated air rises. Cooler air flows in as convection to replace the rising air parcels and is heated itself. The process repeats.
As far as radiation is concerned, R. W. Wood pointed out that surface IR would itself dissipate within a few feet of the surface to the point where GHGs could not absorb it.
Lindzen does not claim the surface radiates directly to space, he claims heat is convected to higher altitudes in the Tropics and moved pole ward, where it radiates to space at high altitude.
Lindzen claims the GHE, as it is understood, is far too simple.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
Lindzen is not clear about what does the radiating at high altitude but he refers to water vapour and a T^4th factor which I take to be a reference to Stefan-Boltzmann. In that case, S-B applies to any substance at temperature T, not just GHGs.
If S-B is to be applied here than it must refer to radiation from nitrogen and oxygen as well, since they make up 99% of the atmosphere.
Excuse the pun, but I think the science is pretty cloudy.
–Gordon Robertson says:
May 11, 2019 at 1:04 AM
gbaikie…”But disregarding the pseudo science of the greenhouse effect theory a greenhouse effect increases the average temperature”.
How?
Based on your description you seem to be presuming all atmospheric gases offer a greenhouse effect.
A greenhouse effect refers to only 1% of atmospheric gases and they behave nothing like the glass in a greenhouse. The GHE theory is wrong because it is based on a faulty assumption which itself is based on three faulty assumptions.–
I said disregard the greenhouse effect theory.
And I and even pseudo science greenhouse effect theory assert that the glass of greenhouse do not behave like/similar or even analogous to greenhouse gases.
But an actual greenhouse does work.
And the Atmosphere does act like a actual greenhouse.
An actual greenhouse warms and remains warm by inhibting convectional heat loss [the glass reduces convection heat loss- or use double pane windows and it does it better than single pane].
And obviously Earth atmosphere does not transfer heat to space via convectional heat transfer.
Or Earth atmosphere is like a huge greenhouse.
But this huge greenhouse only has a portion of it which is in sunlight. And the sunlight moves during the day and thru the seasons.
Now what happens if someone makes very large/huge greenhouse?
Makes a hemispheric dome with diameter of 100 km and highest point of dome is 50 Km high.
I would say that such large dome does not work like a normal small greenhouse. Or it’s too big to inhibt convectional heat loss in same way a small greenhouse does.
Or small greenhouse don’t warm the rest of the world by very much, instead they warm the volume within the small greenhouse and inhibted the warmed air from quickly warming the rest of the world.
What happens if instead of huge, one make greenhouse which is quite large: hemisphere 100 meter in diameter and 50 meter high.
It going to have more air to warm up, and it will have more thermal mass which would require longer to warm up in the day and longer to cool down in the night.
Anyhow very roughly speaking with the huge 100 km diameter dome it will do much because basically the atmosphere is already doing it.
Or if put dome on world with no atmosphere or little atmosphere like Mars, then would have large effect.
But I am not mentioning the radiant effects of greenhouse gases, as you should recall, I am lukewarmer, and I think there is some warming effect from greenhouse gases. Or I think that were CO2 concentration to double from 280 to 560 ppm, that it would have 0 to .5 C increase in global temperature. And as I recall you also thought it might have some small amount of warming effect.
But I will concede that the effect has not been measured [or the fingerprints have yet to detected]
“As far as radiation is concerned, R. W. Wood pointed out that surface IR would itself dissipate within a few feet of the surface to the point where GHGs could not absorb it.”
You say that again, but I can’t find it in R. W. Wood’s small comments on how greenhouses work. But when a sphere is enclosed in hollow sphere, all radiation from the inside sphere reaches the hollow sphere. Every photon leaving the Earth passes through the atmosphere.
You should reread the Lindzen paper you linked.
“Lindzen is not clear about what does the radiating at high altitude…”
He is perfectly clear and calls them greenhouse gasses.
Lindzen has no doubt the greenhouse effect is real. His position is that increases in clouds will reduce incoming solar radiation and reduce the total warming. Getting the Skeptics on this page to that level of understanding would be a great accomplishment.
I grow tired of arguments claiming radiative balance, outgoing longwave radiation and greenhouse gasses don’t matter.
Craig says: “Lindzen has no doubt the greenhouse effect is real.”
Craig, you should not misrepresent people, just to support your pseudoscience.
Dr. Lindzen is a Skeptic. His expertise is in mathematics, so although he may not be able to put down the pseudoscience with the exact physics, he nevertheless knows it is a hoax.
Lindzen, like Dr. Spencer, is a Skeptic. Neither are so out of touch with physics to deny that there is a greenhouse effect. Read his paper:
“In Section 2, we present a physically correct view of the greenhouse effect, and show how this view enables us to use modeling results and observations in order to estimate a bound on the greenhouse contribution to recent surface warming of about 1/3.”
Calling things you don’t understand pseudoscience doesn’t make you skeptical, it means you would rather deny things than learn about them.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Just in case JDH might actually give a toss about my opinion, I should make it clear that I do not consider him to be a “dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser.”.
I appreciate that trying to communicate with the average dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser requires using terminology one might use with a child. I assume he adopted the patois of the fools, in an attempt to imbue some knowledge. I’ll stick to using attributed quotes in future, to avoid any mistaken imputations.
JDH, a thousand pardons! I grovel in mortification!
Cheers.
Mikey should take up a career in creative writing, perhaps science fiction. While he writes well, his scientific understanding regarding heat transfer is seriously flawed.
ES,
Thanks for the compliment. Maybe you could quote something with which you disagree, and marshal some facts to support your view.
Maybe you are so addicted to your hidden infinite heat sources that you may have misunderstood me when I suggested that trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask resulted in less rapid heating. I was unclear – I did not specify that the soup was inside the flask, and the heat source was outside the flask, as I perhaps should have.
You seem to be besotted with the idea that sunlight can be treated as a heat source below the atmosphere, rather than where it actually is – on the far side of the atmosphere. No amount of magical pseudoscientific fantasy can change this.
Would you like to quote me again, and tell me that I am “flat out wrong”? As to the Moon, only a stupid pseudoscientific climate cultist would try to conflate heating of the Moon by the sun by complaining that that the surface cools in the absence of sunlight! Petulantly demanding that “One must consider the average temperature, not the maximum, . . .”, when I was clearly referring to maximum temperatures, is just stupid.
Why should I do what you demand? You seem to claiming that you know something about a mysterious GHE, which, unfortunately you can’t even describe! Telling me what I must and must not do seems a little odd. I feel compassion towards the mentally afflicted, but it doesn’t mean that I must dance to their tune. Would you?
Carry on with your silliness, if it gives you solace.
Cheers.
Mikey wrote:
No, Mikey, that’s exactly what I thought. The heating within the Dewar flask is due to some external source of energy. It’s your discussion of what happens as the result which is the problem. Comparing the Dewar’s steady state temperature with that of a similar sized glass vessel, the soup/water will be hotter within the Dewar because of the insulating effect of the walls of the Dewar. Both vessels will exhibit the same rate of energy flow thru their respective walls at steady state. Your apparent lack of understanding of these facts displays a fundamental problem which is either due to ignorance or intentional disinformation.
Why even try to explain AGW to you as long as you can’t comprehend the much simpler basics in the example which you yourself presented?
ES,
Presumably, the “steady state temperature” to which you refer, is the equilibrium temperature, without the influence of any hidden heat source which you might suddenly produce?
If this is the case, your comments are quite simply, mad. Everything will be the same temperature. The flask, the contents, the environment.
Insulation has no magical properties. Insulation may be used to slow the rate of cooling, or more likely, to slow the rate of heating – as in refrigerated areas, liquid nitrogen canisters and so on.
Placing insulation between the Sun and an object on the ground, such as a thermometer, does not make the thermometer hotter – it reduces the temperature. Hence Stevenson screens, shade temperatures and so on.
Your fanatical belief in a GHE which you cannot even describe, is your affair. Trying to convince others that it is based on science might only only attract equally deluded persons to your cause. If that is your desire, I wish you well. Count me amongst the non-believers.
By the way, have you abandoned your belief in the GHE? If so, to what would you ascribe observed rises in the temperatures of thermometers in various places?
Cheers.
Cheers.
Mikey continues with his misdirection, writing:
In a condition of thermal steady state, the energy entering a system equals that leaving to the surroundings. Your example proposed heating of soup in a Dewar meets this condition when the internal temperature stops increasing from the effect of the added energy. In more detail, at steady state, the difference in temperature between the “soup” and the surrounding environment no longer changes.
This result is completely different from that of your last sentence which I quoted. Sorry you are unable to understand such a simple heat transfer problem. I suppose this partially explains your ignorance regarding the GHE (and my Green Plate Demo as well).
I have no clue what your last paragraph is about. Did you botch the edit of your cut and paste, or is your bot brain a bit off kilter today?
ES,
You wrote –
“In more detail, at steady state, the difference in temperature between the soup and the surrounding environment no longer changes.”
As I said. This would be the time time to produce your hidden heat sources, eh? And in the case you missed it, I also said –
“. . . trying to heat soup in a Dewar flask resulted in less rapid heating.”, I am not surprised that you are not disagreeing with my statement. Maybe you forgot that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it colder, not hotter.
The overall result of this phenomenon has resulted in the Earth cooling since its creation. Time for you to disagree if you wish. Maybe you could invoke the magic of the average?
No GHE. No CO2 or H2O heating.All delusionary nonsense.
Cheers.
Mikey wrote:
There’s no hidden energy source. There’s no way to heat your soup in said Dewar without adding energy from an external source. Don’t forget that it was your analogy about heating soup, not mine. I just added a second hypothetical case, a glass jar of similar size and volume, pointing out that adding energy at the same rate to each would result with a higher temperature in the Dewar than within the glass jar. That’s basic heat transfer physics.
Of course, you again add your usual misdirection, writing:
Yes, the Earth has been “cooling” since it solidified after the collusion which formed the Moon. And it’s also true that the Earth has also been heated by the Sun’s energy since then as well, a basic fact which you apparently insist on ignoring. In science, facts must not be ignored, even though they present unpleasant results. Magic and miracles belong in the realm of the religious fanatics, charlatans, and other idiots.
Not only has the Sun been heating the Earth for billions of years, but it does so with increasing luminosity. Like all main sequence stars the Sun brightens as it ages. It does so at a rate of about 1% every 120 million years.
E. Swanson, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the clarification, Mike.
I enjoy your continual trouncing of the clowns.
Keep up the great effort!
I gotta say, Mike, it is fascinating to see you harshly call out bad science (“dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha posers resort to such idiocies”) and nonchalantly accept correct science (“If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine.”) — and then backpedal furiously to accept the idiocies and deny your own conclusion.
In fact, you ARE supporting the greenhouse effect. You even stated the elusive greenhouse effect yourself — “If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine.” That *is* the greenhouse effect! Congratulations. Certain gases in the atmosphere cause temperature to not fall as fast as they would in otherwise identical circumstances.
You also correctly recognize that this is not the whole picture — as do we all. You are correct in considering things like “if one of your worlds has no GHGs (like the Moon, say), then it will get hotter than the Earth during the same exposure time, as it is receiving more radiation from a temperature source of the same value.” Lots of things matter:
* clouds changing the albedo
* ozone absorbing some incoming UV
* water vapor absorbing some incoming IR
* Milankovitch Cycles
* convection of energy to/from the bulk of the atmosphere
* geothermal heat flows from the interior
* …
Just because other issues like these are ALSO true does not mean you were wrong before. It just means this is a complicated problem with MANY correct and important factors involved.
Tim, you are making Mike Flynn’s case for him. He continually points out that there is no consistent definition of the GHE. In your comment, you are trying to claim that Earth’s ability to maintain a temperature is the GHE. You are making up new definitions, trying in vain, to protect the failed pseudoscience.
Earth maintains its temperature around a “set point”, based on thermodynamic principles. That ability is NOT the GHE. The GHE claims that CO2 can warm the surface.
Now, come up with some more of your “spin”.
“In your comment, you are trying to claim that Earths ability to maintain a temperature is the GHE. “
No, in my comment I am claiming the the ability of certain gases to reduce cooling rates (ie what Mike himself agreed to) is the greenhouse effect. Read what I wrote.
This ‘ability to reduce cooling rates’ one of the (many) “thermodynamic principles” that shape the temperature of the earth. You simply cannot understand the full thermodynamics without this piece of the puzzle.
To paraphrase you, now come up with more strawmen to attack.
Tim, you get to argue with yourself: “That *is* the greenhouse effect! Congratulations. Certain gases in the atmosphere cause temperature to not fall as fast as they would in otherwise identical circumstances.”
May the best clown win….
JD,
Take it up with Mike — I as simply agreeing with his claim that GHGs have an ability to reduce cooling rate.
Wrong Tim, you were trying to claim that is the GHE.
Again, argue with yourself. I’m not interested in your continual effort to avoid reality.
It’s there in black and white, JD.
YOU >> “In your comment, you are trying to claim that Earths ability to maintain a temperature is the GHE. ”
ME >> “You even stated the elusive greenhouse effect yourself If you mean the temperature wouldnt fall as fast, fine. That *is* the greenhouse effect! ”
I made no claim even remotely like “Earths ability to maintain a temperature is the GHE.”
It’s all there in black and white, Tim.
Tim says: “…in my comment I am claiming the the ability of certain gases to reduce cooling rates is the greenhouse effect.”
The pseudoscience “definition” of the GHE claims that CO2 can warm the surface. So are you now backing away from that pseudoscience?
tim…”in my comment I am claiming the the ability of certain gases to reduce cooling rates (ie what Mike himself agreed to) is the greenhouse effect…”
You have yet to explain how gases making up 1% of the atmosphere can affect the rate of cooling at the Earth’s surface.
“You have yet to explain how gases making up 1% of the atmosphere can affect the rate of cooling at the Earths surface.”
Fortunately, your paper by Lindzen explains it quite well:
“Part of the sunlight reaching the earth is reflected by clouds, and the earth’s surface. The remainder (Net Incoming Solar Radiation) warms the earth and this warming is balanced by the earth’s infrared (or thermal) radiation. However, the presence of greenhouse substances (the most important of which are water vapor and clouds) inhibits this cooling by thermal radiation, and serves as a blanket which causes the earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be. It is commonly claimed that the natural component of this blanket keeps the earth about 33 C warmer than it would be in the absence of this blanket.”
Lindzen doesn’t deny the greenhouse effect. He expects negative feedback from clouds to prevent much of the predicted warming.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
” based on thermodynamic principles”
Oh, JD, you think thermodynamic laws are important?
Then how is it that you so easily cast aside the First Law of Thermodynamics, by suggesting that photon absor*ption in a material will lower the temperature and internal energy of that material??
Nate, I just provide simple examples, to explain the basic physics. It is your task to understand the simple examples.
If you prefer just the basic physics, here you go:
ΔE = hf
‘ΔE = hf’
And….what??
It is still energy being ADDED.
And 1LOT is still being ignored.
So JD,
You understand the frequency of light be it infrared or other, is related to the change in energy levels of the molecule, or atom, or ionic crystal that is emitting or abzorbing the radiation or light.
So do you have a clue as to the number and energy levels that are available with respect to liquid water molecules?
The clowns don’t like it when I provide simple examples to explain the basic physics. And they don’t like it when I just provide the basic physics.
All they like is their pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
We are agreeing that you have the basic physics correct.
Yes E=Hv
We just disagree that because CO2 emits a 14.7 um photon, that you can infer that means that CO2 molecule has a certain temperature.
That’s your made up science and you can’t provide evidence that it is true.
bob,
It is just your false belief that I inferred such a thing.
Thats your made-up belief and you cant provide evidence that it is true.
No JD,
We don’t like it when your examples make no sense and deny reality.
Even Mike concurs…
JD says a bunch of crap
“Obviously you cant warm your room with ice cubes, just as you cant warm Earths surface with 14.7 μ photons.
A 14.7 μ photon can NOT warm the average surface temperature.
Obviously poor Craig doesnt know a 10.7 μ photon occurs at WDL peak for ice at 270 K.
Atmospheric CO2 emits mainly 14.7 μ photons. A 14.7 μ photon corresponds to a WDL temperature of 197 K (-76 C, -105 F)”
Are you now to say you didn’t make the above statements?
Thanks for quoting me correctly, bob.
You are not misrepresenting me, and you might even learn something.
Improvement is good.
Good JD,
We are almost there
So we have a 14.7 um photon headed towards the earth, water or land,
Now tell me what determines whether it will be reflected, transmitted or abzorbed?
Are there the appropriate energy level differences in water or sand for the photon to be abzorbed?
Checkmate
I don’t know if we’re “almost there”, or not. You seem to be playing with yourself–“checkmate”.
Also, it’s spelled “absorbed”, not “abzorbed”.
Your questions have been addressed before. Maybe try memorizing my words. Rote is often a good start to understanding.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-351626
JD said…”As an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand. The sand has a temperature of 40 C, 104 F. A wise person would not bet on the photon being absorbed.”
So what happens to it and its energy?
b,
You wrote –
“Now tell me what determines whether it will be reflected, transmitted or abzorbed?”
Why bother with stupid gotchas? I assume you are not seeking knowledge, but just attempting to make someone appear foolish.
You are right – you are looking quite foolish. How about you tell me how you know which specific materials reflect, absorb or are transparent to photons possessing a frequency of 14.7 um? Feel free to include materials which may or may not possess resonant frequencies of various types which may or may not coincide with those of the incoming photon.
I guess you are trying to make a point, but your point seems to have devolved into a self impacting blunt object – a large limp noodle might fit the bill.
Still no GHE. You cannot even describe such an impossible concept – that is why you have to worship an invisible deity. How do you know your GHE isn’t really an invisible old, old, man with a long grey beard and awesome supernatural powers? Convince me.
Cheers.
bd,
You wrote –
“JD saidAs an example, suppose a 14.7 μ photon impacts a molecule in a grain of desert sand. The sand has a temperature of 40 C, 104 F. A wise person would not bet on the photon being absorbed.
So what happens to it and its energy?”
I’ll see your gotcha, and raise you. Suppose a 14.7 um photon emitted by a black body (equivalent to temperature of about -76 C, impinges on a pot of boiling water – 100 C. What happens to it and its energy?
Or try the same thing with a 10.7 um photon emitted by a block of ice, which you have added to your coffee to raise the coffee’s temperature. What happens to those 10.7 um photons and their energy? How much hotter is your coffee getting due to all those phons emitted by the ice?
Learn some physics, and you won’t have to embarrass yourself by posing witless gotchas. You don’t have to thank me – my pleasure.
Cheers.
bdgwx asks: “So what happens to it and its energy?”
bmgwx, you have asked this before. I answered with a hint that visible light is reflected constantly. You were unable to understand the hint.
Maybe you can’t think for yourself. Maybe all you can do is avoid reality, and come up with “witless gotchas”, as Mike says. You certainly have no demonstrated interest in seeking truth.
If you like your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.
JD,
you posted
“But, to be absorbed, it must pass a major test. Such a photon impacting a molecule MUST exactly match the difference in energy levels of the molecule.”
It passes that major test, as there are plenty of energy levels in water that differ by the 0.0843 eV of energy in a 14.7 um photon.
Water has lots of energy level from the bending, twisting and stretching modes. That would match that exactly.
That’s why on this chart
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/water_spectrum_2.gif
the absorp.tion coefficient for 14.7 um photons is between 1000 and 1000.
Which means the 14.7 um photon is likely absorbed
JD said…”I answered with a hint that visible light is reflected constantly.”
So the infrared radiation emitted by H20, CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc. and directed toward the Earth is then reflected off the surface of the Earth. Is that your answer?
bob, if you’re going to try to understand the links you find, you need to have some background.
“Absorp.tion coefficent” is not the same as “absorp.tion”.
Water absorp.tion varies with temperature.
***********
bdgwx asks: “Is that your answer?”
In general, the low energy photons would be reflected. That’s why the atmosphere cannot warm the surface.
JD, so what does an observer who is monitoring the infrared radiation coming from the Earth see? What conclusions do they draw? To assist in answering this question lets consider that the emission from Earth is X and that the emission from the colder body which is directed to Earth and then subsequently reflected is Y. Will the observer see a flux of X or X+Y?
JD,
So the xxxxxxxxxx coefficient is related to xxxxxxxx
The xxxxxxxxx coefficient is a representative term for determining how far incident light of a certain wavelength penetrates a material before being xxxxxxxxxx.
A high xxxxxxxxx coefficient means a wavelength is easily xxxxxx.
You say it varies with temperature but it would have to go really close to zero to cancel the greenhouse effect.
bd,
“JD, so what does an observer who is monitoring the infrared radiation coming from the Earth see? What conclusions do they draw? To assist in answering this question lets consider that the emission from Earth is X and that the emission from the colder body which is directed to Earth and then subsequently reflected is Y. Will the observer see a flux of X or X+Y?”
Are you attempting to set a record for the longest stupid gotcha?
Do you really not know the answer? You could always try doing a bit of research. If you prefer pictures, you could look at infrared images taken from satellites. You might need to learn more about the light spectrum beyond visible red to understand what is shown.
If you have any problems you cannot establish for yourself, if you admit you don’t know and cannot find out, I will do my best to help.
I assume you are just trolling, but I have no idea why, except that you are truly stupid and ignorant, and do not possess either the will or the ability to learn. Let me know if I am wrong, and provide reasons.
Cheers.
bdgwx asks: “Will the observer see a flux of X or X+Y?”
It depends on how the measurement is made. X and Y would have different spectra, so with a proper spectrometer, you would see both fluxes. But, fluxes don’t simply add. So if you were trying to detect with a bolometer, you would only see X.
bob, that’s some really original pseudoscience!
nate…”ΔE = hf
And.what??
It is still energy being ADDED.
And 1LOT is still being ignored.”
Energy being added provided the conditions are right for it to be absorbed.
Besides, the 1st law is about heat and work and their effect on internal energy. It says nothing about EM.
JD,
If the flux from the warmer body for the 14.7 um band is X and the flux for the colder body for the same 14.7 um band is Y and if Y is reflected from the warmer body then an observer would see X+Y for the 14.7 um band. But it doesn’t really matter what the spectra is exactly. If the warmer body flux is X over a wide infrared band and the cold body flux is Y over a wide infrared band and if all of Y is reflected off the warmer body then an observer is still going to measure X+Y.
If you’re going to hang your hat on the argument that fluxes aren’t additive then you’re going to have to figure out where the energy associated with X and Y is going without breaking the 1LOT. In other words, you have two questions to answer here. How does an observer even know if a photon of a specific frequency is spontaneously emitted vs reflected anyway? And where does the Y flux go if the observer does not see it?
MF, the intent of my questions is to figure out what JD’s model says about reality. I know what the prevailing scientific consensus model says about reality and I can look that up. That’s not the issue. The issue is that I’m trying to figure out what his model says happens to the radiation emitted by a colder object toward a warmer object if it does not slow the rate of heat loss on the warmer object or augment an even warmer object’s ability to raise the average temperature. I’m assuming you subscribe to JD’s model as well or at least a variant of it? Maybe you could chime in and help describe this model and explain how it fits within the established thermodynamic laws?
JD
says
“bob, thats some really original pseudoscience!”
Yes industrial strength verified by empirical observations.
Water is very good at abzorbing infrared radiation.
Yep. Exactly. Water will happily absorb IR regardless of the temperature of the body emitting it. That’s not equivalent to us claiming that the cooler body will necessarily increase the temperature the warmer water on its own though. If the water has no other energy source acting on it then it’s temperature will still cool as it equilibriates with the cooler body. It’s just that the rate of heat loss is than it would be otherwise. The 1LOT and 2LOT are perfectly accounted for here. That is energy is conserved and entropy increases. It shouldn’t be hard to understand what implications this has when you add a cyclic energy source acting on the water to increase its temperature. It’s time averaged temperature is higher than it would be otherwise if the back radiation from the cooler body were not present.
Two questions from bdgwx:
“How does an observer even know if a photon of a specific frequency is spontaneously emitted vs reflected anyway?”
Since photons with the same wavelength/frequency are all identical you could not tell if they were emitted or reflected, without more information.
“And where does the Y flux go if the observer does not see it?”
bdgwx, this is the third time you have asked this stupid question. At some point, you are going to have to move on, or just accept the fact that you want to remain stupid and unwilling to learn.
A reflected photon (Y flux) travels in the direction it was emitted until it impacts mass. It’s the same as reflected photons from Earth. Earth is visible from space because of reflected photons. This is not a hard concept to grasp.
“It’s time averaged temperature is higher than it would be otherwise if the back radiation from the cooler body were not present.”
FALSE!
Physics says:
ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
JDHuffman says:
Tc is always zero.
Svante misrepresents what physics says, and what I say.
Nothing new.
JD said…”Since photons with the same wavelength/frequency are all identical you could not tell if they were emitted or reflected, without more information.”
Exactly. And I completely agree. So if an observer sees a radiation flux of X from a warm body they’ll derive a temperature T(x) from it. And if a colder body is added to the system and it emits Y towards the warmer body and all of Y is reflected then the observer will then see X+Y and derive a temperature T(X+Y) such that T(X+Y) > T(X). The observer sees an increase in temperature *if* all of Y is reflected. This should be a clue that the colder body’s photons are not all reflected because if they were then you’ve violated the 2LOT.
What actually happens is that the photons from the colder body are absorbed by the warmer body. And per Wien’s Displacement Law we know that the flux in every EM channel is less for the colder body than for the warmer body. So the warmer body is absorbing less photons than it is emitting. It still cools as it equilibriates with the cooler body, but it does so at a slower rate. The 1LOT and 2LOT are both very happy with this arrangement.
“FALSE!”
It can’t be any other way unless you don’t think the 1LOT or 2LOT are valid. Slowing the rate of heat loss necessarily means that the temperature is maintained for a longer period of time. And when you add an energy source in the mix that is acting on the warmer body to further increase its temperature than that temperature will achieve a higher equilibrium value and thus a higher time averaged temperature than it would have obtained otherwise even if the energy source is cyclic. Any other effect would be a violation of either the 0LOT, 1LOT, or 2LOT.
That’s all wrong, bdgwx. I’ve already explained why in several places. You refuse to learn, or deal with the explanation. Instead, you just keep moving in the wrong direction, repeating the same old pseudoscience: “GHGs keep the surface from cooling so that it is warmer than it would otherwise be, when the Sun comes up.”
That’s all fantasy, based on perverted physics. And, you refuse to consider reality.
If you want your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.
b,
You wrote –
“So if an observer sees a radiation flux of X from a warm body theyll derive a temperature T(x) from it.”
Complete nonsense, unless they practice pseudoscience. Say you measure a flux of 100 W/m2. What temperature would you derive from it? It doesn’t matter what answer you give, I can quickly demonstrate you are wrong.
Want to give it a try? No? Gee, maybe you aren’t as stupid and ignorant as you appear. Or maybe you are, but you possess enough rat cunning to sense a trap! Which is more appropriate?
Cheers.
Mike says: “I assume he adopted the patois of the fools …”
No, but this was as valiant effort to dig yourself out. And then JD thanks you for thinking his serious contribution was intentional foolishness. I swear we are in “1984”!
Yep.
JD is a “dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser.” ?
A rare occasion when a typical MF ad-hom inadvertently matches reality.
So of course, he has to retract it.
Tim, the problem with misrepresentating someone is it always makes you WRONG!
Nothing new, huh?
“Just in case JDH might actually give a toss about my opinion, I should make it clear that I do not consider him to be a ‘dimwitted pseudoscientific gotcha poser.’.”
No need. We all know your opinion about intelligence and science completely depends on how much a post agrees with your beliefs.
CT,
Thanks for quoting me directly. As usual, you do not disagree, but provide irrelevant and pointless opinion, backed by appeal to the consensus of the unstated “we”.
Your mindreading skills are crap. Your claim to know what I think is the usual demented pseudoscientific climate cultist attempt to convert fantasy to fact, through the power of faith.
My opinion about intelligence and science completely depends on my assessment of information. If I receive new information. I change my opinion – what do you do?
Maybe if you could find a scientific description of the GHE, the invisible object of your slavish worship, I might have to change my opinion. Fat chance – CO2 and H2O heat nothing. No amplification, enhancement, or accumulating of heat, Delusional pseudoscientific worship of fantasy, no more. You could always just ignore what I say, and hope that others might believe the nonsense you espouse! Good luck with that.
Cheers.
bobdroege wrote –
“You understand the frequency of light be it infrared or other, is related to the change in energy levels of the molecule, or atom, or ionic crystal that is emitting or abzorbing the radiation or light.”
Not true as a rule. For example, the warmed air emitted by your lungs contains nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour etc. You cannot distinguish these gases by the frequency of the emitted radiation.
Another example is compressing air with a piston in a cylinder. At a guess, bobdroege cannot explain in any useful fashion how all the components of air all have the same temperature after being compressed to say, 500 C.
A final example might be that of placing a mercury in glass thermometer under your tongue to take your temperature. The mercury expands according to temperature.
If bobdroege is claiming that the mercury is experiencing changes to its energy levels, people might assume he is talking about changes relating to specific frequencies and wavelengths, without acknowledging that matter can respond to light of any frequency by changing its temperature, if it not perfectly transparent or perfectly reflective at that frequency.
Maybe bobdroege could try to be clearer. If he is trying to say that CO2, for example is perfectly transparent to frequencies other than a specified few, he is mistaken. bobdroege doesn’t seem to have much of a clue, regardless of the sciencey sounding nature of his pseudoscientific pronouncements.
In any case, bobdroege cannot heat water with ice. bobdroege cannot heat the Earth’s surface with colder atmosphere. CO2 and H2O possess no heating ability. No GHE. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Flynn
Sorry Dude
“Not true as a rule. For example, the warmed air emitted by your lungs contains nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour etc. You cannot distinguish these gases by the frequency of the emitted radiation.”
Yes you can.
They are gases and don’t emit like blackbodies.
Each can be detected by their specific emission spectrum.
b,
You may spare me the faux sorrow if you wish.
You might need to back your assertion, if you are not referring to emission spectroscopy, which requires sufficiently excited atoms to function.
From Wikipedia –
“Light consists of electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths. Therefore, when the elements or their compounds are heated either on a flame or by an electric arc they emit energy in the form of light.”
If I understand you correctly, you claim that you can determine the composition of samples of gas at roughly room temperature by measuring the frequency of their emitted radiation. I am unaware of any such technology, so I would be most grateful if you could provide further information.
Companies such as Honeywell, Drager, and so on, seem to be unaware of your technology. Navies around the world would beat a path to your door, and abandon their present bulky and expensive gas detectors and analysers for your innovative discriminating frequency detector.
Alas, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are so stupid, ignorant and confused that you cannot comprehend how stupid, ignorant and confused you are. Your fantasies are not fact. If you are depending on some imaginary device which should, would, or could work, not good enough. Go for it.
Cheers.
Flynn
“You cannot distinguish these gases by the frequency of the emitted radiation.”
Astronomers do it all the time.
Flynn,
Honeywell’s gas detectors are bulky and expensive?
https://pksafety.com/bw-honeywell-gasalert-microclip-xl-multi-gas-monitor-mcxl-xwhm-y-na/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIre-88uCT4gIVxLjACh11vgWWEAYYASABEgJKifD_BwE
Your are not playing with a full deck
Flynn,
You must have some reading comprehension problems, is English your first language.
“If I understand you correctly, you claim that you can determine the composition of samples of gas at roughly room temperature by measuring the frequency of their emitted radiation. I am unaware of any such technology, so I would be most grateful if you could provide further information.”
I didn’t say the composition of samples could be determined.
So no, you didn’t understand what I said.
I said the gases could be detected by their emission spectrum.
And I didn’t say it would be cheap, easy, or fast.
And I didn’t specify the temperature.
So your reading comprehension skills are low compared to your being a dick skills.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Mercury expanding in thermometers? Gases heated by compressing?
Mike the red herring specialist is at it again, offering up facts irrelevant to anything discussed.
N,
I see you have answered your questions. Add a few more words, and you can make sentences.
Keep at it.
Cheers.
bobdroege provided a link to support his appeal to his own authority as being learned in Quantum Mechanics.
I couldn’t find support, and bobdroege responded –
“I didnt say the syllabus called it Quantum Mechanics, but the students did and the textbook was called Molecular Quantum Mechanics, by P.W. Adkins.”
The usual fraudulent tactics to avoid being caught in a lie. Blame the questioners lack of mindreading skills.
What a pack of evasive slippery pseudoscientific fools. The students might have called bobd the smartest guy in the world, and there might have been a library full of textbooks. Bobd appears to have avoided learning much of what was offered, so he might as well carry on with the sly misrepresentations.
Cheers.
Flynn,
Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Theory, or Quantum Chemistry all mean the same thing to anyone who has studied the subject.
So go ahead and call me a liar.
Hottest year evah!
Gavin never said that, so you are a liar as well.
B,
Thank you for the part clarification. I indicated I would be grateful if you could provide further information.
When I pointed out that you could not distinguish between the warmed gases coming from ones lungs, you took issue , and wrote –
“Each can be detected by their specific emission spectrum.”
Not without heating the gases to the point where they emit light. Off you go – wriggle some more.
Demanding that I call you a liar because you are stupid and ignorant is pointless. Calling me a liar because I paraphrased Gavin Schmidtss statement that “It wasn’t quite the warmest year in the land records, but combined, this did actually give the warmest year” might be considered a bit harsh, but at least the undistinguished mathematician Schmidt later covered himself by saying by saying that there was a 62% probability that 2014 was not the warmest year on record.
As one publication wrote
“According to NASA, all of the following statements are true:
2014 was the warmest year on record, dating all the way back to 1880.
2014 is far more likely than any other year since 1880 to have been the warmest.
Theres a 62 percent chance that 2014 was NOT actually the warmest year since 1880.”
Typical pseudoscientific obfuscation and misrepresentation. This is what happens when you have mathematicians pretending to be climate scientists. Even worse, when you put a pretend scientist in charge of of something called the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. A non-scientist in charge of a body which doesn’t even have as its main aim anything to do with weather (or its average – climate)! Logical? You tell me.
Carry on b. Maybe if you keep telling everybody about how many courses you attended, and what your texts were titled, people might believe that “Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Theory, or Quantum Chemistry all mean the same thing to anyone who has studied the subject.”
Sure. You are living proof that someone can attend an educational institution, and emerge unscathed by attempts to impart knowledge of certain types. Feel free to continue believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Which part of Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Theory, or Quantum Chemistry supports your crazy assertion?
Cheers.
Flynn,
Didn’t you once post that all matter above absolute zero emits radiation?
I never argued the following
“Feel free to continue believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”
This is a pile of straw, and doesn’t represent what the greenhouse effect is.
Quantum theory supports the idea that CO2 gas in the earth’s atmosphere emits photons of an energy sufficient to add energy to the surface of the earth.
Then you screw up and say this
“Theres a 62 percent chance that 2014 was NOT actually the warmest year since 1880.
Actually it is closer to 100%
You should recheck your dates.
b,
You quoted me saying –
Feel free to continue believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter., and claim you never argued this. That is good, because it is obviously nonsense.
However, you go on to say –
“Quantum theory supports the idea that CO2 gas in the earths atmosphere emits photons of an energy sufficient to add energy to the surface of the earth.”, which might lead a stupid and ignorant person to believe that you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie between the Sun and a thermometer) will make the thermometer hotter, which you said you didn’t believe (or argue, if you want to be specific).
Unfortunately you cannot actually describe the GHE in any useful way, so your slippery obfuscations and evasions come to nothing. Your appeals to your own authority as an expert in quantum theory fall flat. If you believe you understand quantum mechanics, Richard Feynman said –
“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” Do you imagine you do?
The emissions from a naturally colder object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object. That happens to be a fact, whether you understand why, or whether you don’t.
As to your suggestion that I recheck anything, I am happy to ignore it. If the factual information is wrong, feel free to point out why. Otherwise, you are obviously not interested in imparting information, just trolling for no good reason.
Cheers.
Mike,
You say
“The emissions from a naturally colder object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object. That happens to be a fact, whether you understand why, or whether you don’t.”
This is an incomplete statement of the second law of thermodynamics.
Perhaps you could quote the full statement of the second law, or be considered an incomplete expert.
Your choice
It might make you a “a stupid and ignorant person”
Then this
“increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie between the Sun and a thermometer) will make the thermometer hotter, which you said you didn’t believe (or argue, if you want to be specific).”
Is a pile of straw constructed by a fool.
Not one thermometer, and not always warmer, but the average temperature, and an average temperature measured consistently the same way.
b,
Thanks for quoting me. You don’t seem to be disagreeing with me. Why should I do as you suggest? If you want to state the laws of thermodynamics, go your hardest. If you find anything there to show that my statement is incorrect, let me know. I can be as stupid and ignorant as I wish. Don’t you agree? It doesn’t make any difference to observed fact.
As to your second piece of inanity, not only can you not describe the non-existent GHE, but you now believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer either hotter or colder, but as long as there are an unspecified number, the average measured in a consistent way will be higher than something or other.
I suppose you will invoke Quantum Theory to support this particular lunatic assertion?
What was the average surface temperature of the Earth before the first liquid water appeared? Above the boiling point of water? Yes. How many thermometers would you need to figure that out? None.
Has the average surface temperature of the Earth dropped from then to right now? Yes. How many thermometers do you need to figure that out? None.
Did any mechanism prevent the average temperature from falling to its present value? No.
You might need to pray harder – maybe the Almighty could write a useable description of the GHE on a tablet of stone, and a testable GHE hypothesis on another tablet. It seems to be beyond the competence of the likes of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth, or any other fumbling bumbler. Aren’t they supposed to be famous climate scientists? How hard can it be?
Cheers.
Here for the ignorant is one of the complete statements of the second law of thermodynamics
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
you guys seem to always forget about the second part.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Temperatures are not “conserved”. That’s just another fact of the relevant physics that clowns have to avoid.
A couple of simple examples to explain the basic physics:
***A bathtub contains 50 liters of water, at a temperature of 30 °:C. Adding one more liter of water, also at 30 °C, does not raise the temperature of the tub. Energy has been added to the tub, but the temperature does not go up.
If you add a liter of water at 10 °C, the average temperature of the tub will decrease. Energy has been added to the tub, but it results in a temperature decrease.
***A surface has an average temperature of “T”. The average vibrational frequency of the molecules in the surface is “F”. If the surface absorbs a photon with frequency “F”, the surface temperature will not increase. Energy has been added to the surface, but the temperature did not increase.
If the surface absorbs a photon with a vibrational frequency below “F”, then the average temperature of the surface will decrease. The surface absorbed more energy, but its temperature dropped.
The only photon that will increase the surface temperature is a photo with frequency above the average of the surface.
The above examples explain why ice cannot boil water, even if you have a whole lot of ice.
Of course, the examples also explain why atmospheric CO2 cannot warm the surface, even if you have a whole lot of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You forgot to add the scientific link to this new ‘F’ theory.
Begone, troll.
“temperature does not go up.
If you add a liter of water at 10 °C, the average temperature of the tub will decrease. Energy has been added to the tub, but it results in a temperature decrease.”
JD, Seriously? You really dont see the difference between adding energy by adding mass, and adding energy by adding energy?
Different problem, different outcome.
Nate, seriously? You were not able to understand the simple examples?
The first one is easy to understand even if people have never heard of photons, like Svante’s leader with the funny hat. The second example deals with only adding energy to the system.
Two examples, same outcomes.
Nate
I have already explained all this to the troll. It does not matter what you say, how logical it is, how correct the science is. Nothing will stop him (them) from trolling unless you ignore them. There goal is NOT to understand anything, debate rational issues, or learn. It is to provoke and annoy and get some form of reaction. You can spend hours thinking this group of trolls will change. They will not, they are not able to. They will just troll. Observe how the troll interacts with others. It is generally the same.
Norman, there may be some that don’t know what “trolling” means.
Thanks for setting such a great example.
I learnt a lot from your posts Norman, so it wasn’t a complete waste. JD has learnt me a lot about trolling.
Yes Svante, I see more and more similarity between you and Norman. You definitely have the false accusations, misrepresentations, and pseudoscience down pat.
But, you could work more on your rambling….
This is called the backfire effect. The more evidence you present against the contrarian argument the more the contrarian will dig their heels in.
I’ll ditto Svante’s comment. I have learned a lot over the years in monitoring forums and blogs like this. This goes for your posts, Svante’s, bobdroege, barry, swanson, etc. on this blog as well. And yes, I extend that comment to Dr. Spencer himself. And the more I learn the more I realize how much more there is still to be learned.
Adherents to a false religion will not change their beliefs on a blog, especially if they are hiding behind a screen name.
Their agenda is more important to them than truth or reality.
Norman,
Of course you are right.
Norman, Nate, please stop trolling.
JD
The first example adds mass, thus it is irrelevant to this discussion.
The second example when the photons are absorbed, they add energy while adding negligible mass. The average energy of the mass must go up, therefore the temperature goes up.
If absorbing energy makes T go down, you violate 1LOT, and common sense.
Nate, the first example clearly illustrates why temperatures don’t add.
The second example illustrates the same concept, only using photons.
You aren’t able to understand, and twist the second example. Your twisting would make ice cubes able to boil water!
You just can’t ever get it right.
That is Just Dumb.
But thats ok. Trolls dont need to make sense.
Begone, troll.
JD,
I see where you are going wrong.
The water molecule can be modeled as a harmonic oscillator, you said you were familiar with Schrodinger’s equation, sorry Edwin for not bothering to double dot the o.
Schrodinger’s equation can be used to model other things as well, say a guitar string.
You may not know it, but you should, that a guitar string vibrates with the same set of frequencies no matter how hard you pluck it.
The same goes for water molecules in their vibrational states, lower or higher, less energy or more, they vibrate at the same frequency.
The frequency of the photon that can be abzorbed and the frequency of the water molecules vibration do not match.
It’s the energy of the photon that has to match the difference in two energy levels in the water molecule to allow absorp.tion.
At normal temperatures, the vast majority of molecule of water will be in the ground state, ie not vibrating. There is a way to calculate the density of excited states, maybe you could save me the trouble of looking it up, you might learn something.
Sorry Erwin.
bob wastes more time on his keyboard.
A photon’s energy is established at emission, which establishes the photon’s frequency/wavelength.
ΔE = hf
JD,
Clearly I went way over you head.
I am not disputing that E=hv
This is just bs
“***A surface has an average temperature of T. The average vibrational frequency of the molecules in the surface is F. If the surface absorbs a photon with frequency F, the surface temperature will not increase. Energy has been added to the surface, but the temperature did not increase.”
Is pretty close to not even wrong!
You are terribly confused
This equation
ΔE = hf
Is for the photon emitted when a molecule or atom emits a photon and changes energy levels.
E=hf
Is for the equation that tells you the energy of a photon.
Better crack open that Quantum Physics textbook and see where you are going wrong.
bob, ΔE applies to BOTH emission and absorp.tion. ΔE is the energy of the photon.
At least you’ve learned the correct study is quantum physics. You just have a long way to go in your learning….
JD,
There are 2 symbols in ΔE
Δ means delta, or a difference between two things
E means energy
So ΔE means a difference in energy
The energy of a photon is simply E = hv
And back to this
“***A surface has an average temperature of T. The average vibrational frequency of the molecules in the surface is F. If the surface absorbs a photon with frequency F, the surface temperature will not increase. Energy has been added to the surface, but the temperature did not increase.
Molecules vibrate at the same frequency for bending, stretching, or twisting modes.
You would know that if you took the advanced course in Quantum Physics such as offered by my alma mater.
Physics 486 Quantum Physics I
Atomic phenomena integrated with an introduction to quantum theory; evidence for the atomic nature of matter and the properties of the Schrodinger equation, single particle solutions in one dimension, the hydrogen atom, perturbation theory, external fields, and atomic spectroscopy of outer electrons. 4 undergraduate hours. 4 graduate hours. Prerequisite: MATH 285; PHYS 214; credit or concurrent registration in MATH 415.
You never took such a course?
Note that PHYS 214 Quantum Physics is a pre-req.
bob, E = ΔE.
Now, more worthless pounding on your keyboard, please.
JD,
Nope, there is a subtle difference.
b,
What is the relevance to the non-existent GHE? I presume you are trolling because you are annoyed that nobody is able to usefully describe the GHE.
I hope you are not trying to convince anybody that you can use the photons emitted by ice to make water (at any temperature) hotter. That would just show you are completely delusional, wouldn’t it?
Apart from self evident trolling, is there any point to your comment?
Stupid or ignorant people might believe that photon emission only occurs when an electron transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state. This is not necessarily true, as all matter above absolute zero emits electromagnetic radiation (of which a photon comprises a quantum). The stupid or ignorant might claim that matter in an unexcited state might be restricted to certain specific photon energies, but of course this is nonsense.
Pseudoscientific climate cultists have to believe all sorts of incredible impossible fantasies, in order to justify their quasi-religious beliefs in the mystical energy creating properties of CO2 (or H2O, or methane, or anything which absorbs and emits infrared radiation – which would include everything in the known universe, of course).
Do you not wonder why you can not find a description of the GHE anywhere at all? Not even the most fanatical cult leader is capable of expressing such a ridiculous concept in writing. With all your supposed knowledge of “Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Theory, or Quantum Chemistry”, how hard could it be for you to come up with a useful GHE description? Maybe you could try, do you think?
Cheers.
Flynn,
This is stupid bullshit only a stupid and ignorant person would say
“I hope you are not trying to convince anybody that you can use the photons emitted by ice to make water (at any temperature) hotter. That would just show you are completely delusional, wouldnt it?”
The greenhouse effect does not involve the heating of anything with the photons emitted by ice.
You are also pretty ignorant and stupid if you think I have ever posted anything that would indicate I believed this
“Stupid or ignorant people might believe that photon emission only occurs when an electron transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state.”
It’s more complicated.
I have given you descriptions of the greenhouse effect but you reject them because you think it means heating something with ice, but that just shows how stupid and ignorant you are.
Flynn,
you say,
Pseudoscientific climate cultists have to believe all sorts of incredible impossible fantasies, in order to justify their quasi-religious beliefs in the mystical energy creating properties of CO2 (or H2O, or methane, or anything which absorbs and emits infrared radiation which would include everything in the known universe, of course).
If you are so smart, perhaps you could devise an experiment to induce helium to emit infrared radiation.
b,
Thanks for quoting me as follows –
“I hope you are not trying to convince anybody that you can use the photons emitted by ice to make water (at any temperature) hotter. That would just show you are completely delusional, wouldn’t it?”
You responded by saying –
“The greenhouse effect does not involve the heating of anything with the photons emitted by ice.”
Your comment has nothing to with my statement. Maybe you could try to disagree with something I said, if you really want to.
You cannot even describe the greenhouse effect. Why should anybody believe that you know anything about it? It doesn’t exist, does it?
You also quoted me as follows –
“Stupid or ignorant people might believe that photon emission only occurs when an electron transitions from an excited energy state to a lower energy state.”
Once again, you merely come out with an irrelevant fatuous statement “It’s more complicated”. Is this some mystical Zen method of disagreeing by not disagreeing? Or just more pseudoscientific climatological cultist nonsense?
You go on to claim –
“I have given you descriptions of the greenhouse effect but you reject them because you think it means heating something with ice, but that just shows how stupid and ignorant you are.”
How many descriptions are there? Are they all the same? Or are just pretending, hoping that people will be so awed by the fact that you can spell Quantum Mechanics, that they will believe your bizarre assertions?
If you don’t like heating water with ice (chosen because it is difficult for pseudoscientific climate cultists to convince people that frozen water is warmer than liquid water, in general), then maybe you might like to claim that dropping solid Woods Metal at 60 C, into molten Woods Metal will make the molten metal hotter.
How about CO2 at 25 C making anything above 25 C hotter?
Off you go. If Gavin Schmidt can pretend to be a climate scientist, I’m sure you can pretend that the GHE exists.
Cheers.
b,
You wrote –
“If you are so smart, perhaps you could devise an experiment to induce helium to emit infrared radiation.”
Sure. Just allow the helium to heat above absolute zero. It will start emitting infrared, just like all matter above absolute zero. If that was a trick question, I must have missed the trick.
Sticking a thermometer in a ballon full of helium should do. Or are you trying for a gotcha, claiming that helium doesn’t absorb and emit infrared radiation? If you like, you could stick a thermometer up your nose – your body also absorbs and emits radiation infrared radiation.
Have you ever inhaled helium so you could sound like Donald Duck? The exhaled helium is much the same temperature as CO2, exhaled from those same lungs. I won’t make any sarcastic comments about your knowledge of Quantum mechanics, and so on.
Has your irrelevant comment anything to do with the GHE that you cannot describe?
Cheers.
“I have given you descriptions of the greenhouse effect but you reject them because you think it means heating something with ice, but that just shows how stupid and ignorant you are.”
I’ve decided to ignore every post Mike makes that includes his denial that a “useable description of the GHE” has been available since the 1950’s.
He should read Gordon’s paper by Lindzen. While arguing that warming from GHE will be far below 2 C Lindzen explains GHE quite well.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/y4jyoo3u
Flynn
Which of these statements is true
“Not without heating the gases to the point where they emit light. Off you go – wriggle some more.”
or this
” anything which absorbs and emits infrared radiation – which would include everything in the known universe, of course).”
They both can’t be true.
Another question
When one, of course not including you, as you have no clue, measures the infrared spectrum of a sample, the sample is placed between two wafers of crystal salt, simple sodium chloride.
That’s because crystals of sodium chloride are transparent in the infrared region.
As is your balloon full of helium, there are no electronic transitions that have energy levels corresponding to the infrared range available in Helium Atoms.
I thought you might be smart enough to recognize that Helium would only be able to emit infrared when solid, failed that one. ANd that may not even be true, I not convinced that Helium can emit infrared, I would like to see evidence.
Obviously, or at least you seem to be ignorant of what exactly Einstein received the Noble Prize for confirming the ideas of Planck.
Can you try again to write a complete statement of the second law of thermodynamics, you flunked your last try.
How can you understand the greenhouse effect if you cant understand the second law of thermodynamics?
Got it simplify it for JD.
‘If the surface absorbs a photon with frequency F, the surface temperature will not increase. Energy has been added to the surface, but the temperature did not increase.’
Lets say the material contains 10 molecules, with average energy 1 unit, and total energy 10 u. A photon carrying 1 u of energy is absorbed. Its ‘energy has been added to the surface’, as JD said.
What is the new total energy? 11 u. What’s the new average energy of the molecules: 1.1 u.
The temperature went up.
nate…”Lets say the material contains 10 molecules, with average energy 1 unit, and total energy 10 u. A photon carrying 1 u of energy is absorbed. Its energy has been added to the surface, as JD said”.
That applies in principle if the EM comes from a hotter body. It does not apply if the EM comes from a cooler body, otherwise radiation from ice would be able to raise the temperature of hotter bodies.
If EM is absorbed, the body must warm. In the case you describe, the body must warm due to the increased energy.
GR said…”That applies in principle if the EM comes from a hotter body. It does not apply if the EM comes from a cooler body, otherwise radiation from ice would be able to raise the temperature of hotter bodies.”
How does a body know if a photon came from a hotter body vs. a colder body?
“If EM is absorbed, the body must warm. In the case you describe, the body must warm due to the increased energy.”
Not necessarily. Be careful about conflating the absorb of photons and a macroscopic increase in temperature.
Gordon seems to follow the intelligent photon theory.
”
otherwise radiation from ice would be able to raise the temperature of hotter bodies”.
Nope. This is just one absor*ption event being discussed.
There are also emission events going on.
As we have repeatedly stated, when we consider the sum of all events, the NET flow of energy is from hot to cold.
Yep. Exactly.
There is no property of a photon that carries the macroscopic temperature information of the body from which it was spontaneously emitted.
If a material can spontaneously emit a photon of a certain frequency then it can spontaneously absorb one too. When a material absorbs a photon it will NOT necessarily result in an increase in the macroscopic temperature of the body. The reason is because the body is also losing heat/energy via the spontaneous emission of photons as well. If the emission rate is greater than the absor*tion rate then the body cool. If the emission rate is less than the absor*tion rate then the body will warm. Plancks Law says that cooler bodies emit less photons at all frequencies than warmer bodies so when a cooler body emits photons towards a warmer body that necessarily means the net flow of heat is from hot to cold. It’s just the rate at which heat is transported is dependent upon the difference in temperature of the two bodies.
The point…water happily absorbs IR photons emitted from CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nate, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
JD said
Again, absorρtion (that you drug into into the conversation) is a ratio while the data from observations of water at 25 C are given as absorρtion coefficients. Water is almost transparent to blue light, and the link shows light at 450 nm has an absorρtion coefficient of 0.00028000. IR at 15000 nm has an absorρtion coefficient of 3368.0. (All measurements for 1 cm of transmission.)
https://omlc.org/spectra/water/data/hale73.txt
So measurements of water at 25 C shows it soaks up “low energy photons” so well most don’t make it through the first centimeter. You have done your best to confuse and deny this fact. All the energy in any longwave radiation striking water is added to the water. The same is true for soil and most rock.
Craig, you keep trying that same link over and over. I explained to you why your beliefs are wrong. I told you you don’t know what you’re doing. Exponents do not have units. Even Tim didn’t go along with that nonsense.
You clearly have no meaningful background in science, yet you keep coming on like you have all the answers. It would never occur to you to face the facts that the oceans don’t reflect that they are absorbing all that energy.
It would never occur to you to face reality.
But, I enjoy your futile efforts to avoid it.
“Craig, you keep trying that same link over and over. I explained to you why your beliefs are wrong.”
No, you just say I’m wrong. Explain what you think those results say about 15000 nm if you deny they show massive absorρtion by liquid water. Or find another source of spectral data showing water’s absorρtion.
The oceans are absorbing all of that energy.
From the abstract that accompanied the data:
“Extinction coefficients k(λ) for water at 25 were determined through a broad spectral region by manually smoothing a point by point graph of k(λ) vs wavelength λ that was plotted for data obtained from a review of the scientific literature on the optical constant of water.”
If that wasn’t clear enough, here’s how k(λ) is calculated and where the cm^-1 comes from:
“Unit of k(10)^n = 1 cm^-1; of l = 1 cm; of w = 1 cm; of λ = 1µ = 10^4 Å = 10^-4 cm”
https://omlc.org/spectra/water/abs/becquerel29.pdf
CT,
And this is supposed to show that ice can make water hotter? Really? You are fantasizing, and do not understand reality at all. Or are you trying to support the notion that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer results in the thermometer becomng hotter?
Providing pointless and irrelevant links just shows a witless attempt to appeal to authority.
Cheers
Craig, how many times are you going to continue making a fool of yourself?
This has been explained to you several times, but you’re still going down the wrong road. You are trying to “prove” water absorbs all photons. You are trying to “prove” a falsehood, not realizing that all you are proving is you don’t have a meaningful background in physics.
Hint 1: Absorp.tance, like emissivity, is dimensionless. That means it does NOT have units. That means whenever you see “cm^-1”, you are on the wrong road, and making a fool of yourself.
JD,
“You are trying to prove water absorbs all photons.”
Nope, just most of them.
” That means whenever you see cm^-1, ”
That just means they are talking about the ratio for 1 cm of water.
Wavenumber, 1/cm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber#Definition
craig…”If that wasnt clear enough, heres how k(λ) is calculated and where the cm^-1 comes from:”
The source of the wavelength is the Sun, a body where the temperature varies from a million C internally to 5000C externally.
Yes, EM from a hotter body at 5000C will be absorbed by terrestrial water at 15C.
CT,
If you are trying to say that water can be heated by radiation from ice, albeit in a roundabout way, you are barking mad.
If you are actually trying to say something else, please do so.
You cannot describe the GHE, and therefore your comment appears to have precisely no purpose.
What information are you trying to impart?
Cheers.
JD/MF,
Water readily absorbs IR photons regardless of its temperature. The photons from a cooler body will be absorbed by warmer water. This should not be conflated with increasing the temperature of the warmer water though. Remember, the flux in all EM channels will be less for the cooler body than for the warmer body. So as the warmer water spontaneously emits outgoing photons it also absorbs a lesser amount of incoming photons. The warmer water still cools; just at a slower rate. This is consistent with the 1LOT and 2LOT.
On the other hand, if all photons from the cooler body were reflected as claimed then this would violate the laws of thermodynamics. If your argument is that an observer only sees the emitted photons from the water then you’ll comply with the 2LOT at the expense of violating the 1LOT because the reflected photons would have to vanish such the observer does not see them. Or if your argument is that the observer does see both the emitted photons and reflected photons then you’ll comply with the 1LOT at the expense of violating the 2LOT because the observer would then see an increase in the water temperature.
bdgwx, your first paragraph is partly fact, partly fiction. Your second paragraph is total fiction.
Reflecting photons from a surface does NOT violate anything. It happens all the time. Look at the Moon. You see it because photons are being reflected. Why can’t you understand this simple fact?
You can’t “understand” it because you don’t want to. You know reflected photons won’t allow your pseudoscience to work. Your false religion is more important to you than reality.
b,
Richard Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You don’t even have a theory, let alone an experiment to check it with. You write “Water readily absorbs IR photons regardless of its temperature.” This is a pointless statement, without some sort of expectation of what might happen. If water absorbs photons, what do you expect to happen? If, as you say, the water cools, what is your point?
It is fairly well known fact that water cools if its only source of heat is ice, which is demonstrably colder than the water. Pseudoscientific climate cultists imply, without specifically saying so, that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter, apparently because photons emitted by colder CO2 are absorbed by the thermometer, raising its temperature.
Alas, this is just pseudoscientific magical thinking.
You wrote –
“Water readily absorbs IR photons regardless of its temperature.” This is somewhat deceptive, as ELF frequencies (below red – infrared, whether you like it or not), travel through hundreds of meters of seawater, without significant attenuation. This corresponds roughly with a temperature of -273.15 C – close to absolute zero.
If you hang a container of liquid water in freezer, inside a block of ice, or in an uninhabited igloo, the water will still lose heat and freeze. Your comments about reflected photons are just stupid. If you think that seeing the reflection of an iceberg in the water means that the water is hotter where the reflection occurs, I would like to see the results of an experiment which shows this. I don’t believe you have one, and you are just making up fantasy laws of physics to fit your climatological pseudoscience.
If you aim a beam of EMR at water, how do you know it is not reflected, or just penetrating a transparent medium? Water exhibits the phenomenon of TIR at various wavelengths and angles.
Maybe you need to rethink your sweeping pronouncements. They are often a characteristic of the pseudoscientific climate cultist, whose fanaticism outweighs his knowledge.
No GHE. You cannot even describe this mythical deity which you worship.
Cheers.
JD, hang on a minute. I’m not saying that the reflection of photons violates the laws of physics. What I’m saying is that the reflection of photons must obey the laws of physics. Remember the context here. We are talking about water and its behavior with the infrared spectrum. Since water spontaneously emits photons then it can spontaneously absorb them too. What I’m saying is that your interpretation of what it is happening with the infrared spectrum of water and a cooler body that is also emitting infrared toward the water cannot be the correct interpretation because it violates either the 1LOT or the 2LOT. If you want to present a model in which water only emits but does not absorb photons of a certain frequency and instead reflects them then you’re going to have to figure out how an observer can infer the correct temperature of the water without violating the 1LOT or 2LOT. If you want to talk about the Moon then that’s fine. Let’s start another thread. Just understand that a brighter and hotter object (the Sun) is radiating toward a cooler and dimmer object (the Moon) so the configuration of the system is completely different to begin with. And you’re also shifting the focus of the conversation to the visible light spectrum in which reflection really is happening. The laws of physics aren’t violated here either, but that’s a topic for a different line of discussion.
” ‘Water readily absorbs IR photons regardless of its temperature.’ This is somewhat deceptive, as ELF frequencies (below red infrared, whether you like it or not), travel through hundreds of meters of seawater, without significant attenuation.”
Since you want a bottom range of ER absorbed by water:
“Experimentally, these numbers have been measured by detecting the absorρtion of light. Absorρtion lines due to transitions between vibrational-rotational levels are located in the infrared light (IR) range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and infrared spectroscopy is one of the most common spectroscopy methods employed today for the investigation of the structure of molecules. Including the rotational transitions, the absorρtion occurs in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that lies between the wavelengths of a few µm and 1 mm.”
http://physics.gu.se/~klavs/FYP310/A6manual.pdf
bdgwx, Craig T, please stop trolling.
bdg…”Water readily absorbs IR photons regardless of its temperature. The photons from a cooler body will be absorbed by warmer water. This should not be conflated with increasing the temperature of the warmer water though.”
Your theory conflicts with quantum theory. Quantum theory is about the electron and its properties orbiting a nucleus. Your theory that water absorbs photons from any temperature source contradicts the theories of Bohr and Schrodinger that underlie quantum theory.
GR, First, it’s not my theory. Second, this does not contradict current understanding of the quantum realm. If water spontaneously emits two photons of a particular frequency then that’s two steps down to a lower energy state and two openings for photons of the same frequency to be absorbed. If one photon is absorbed for every two that are emitted then the water still cools. It just does so at half the rate as before. Note that cooler bodies emit fewer photons in all frequencies so there is no way for the cooler body to increase the temperature of the warmer body. The 1LOT and 2LOT are happy with this arrangement. If you have a different interpretation in which none of the photons from the cooler body are absorbed by the warmer body then you’ll need to explain what happens to those photons and their energy and do so by working within the confines of the 1LOT and 2LOT.
Quantum Theory is not about electrons orbiting a nucleus, Quantum Theory specifically rejects that theory.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says you can not know the location and momentum of an electron to an unlimited precision.
Look it up.
A cop pulls Heisenberg over and asks him how fast he was going….
bdgwx, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The average temperature of Earth is about 15 C.
Or more precisely the average surface air temperature of Earth is about 15 C. And surface air is 5 feet above the ground in the shade.
Earth surface is mostly covered by ocean, and since the ocean area is about 70% of total surface, it’s temperature is the significant factor which makes up, Earth average temperature.
And likewise since the Antarctic continent is less than 5% of the total Earth surface, it’s temperature does not have much effect upon the average temperature of 15 C.
Or if Antarctic continent were “magically” made 20 C warmer or colder, it doesn’t change Earth’s average temperature- it’s still about 15 C. I say “magically” because in order for Antarctic to be warmer or colder the rest of the world has to change in order to cause such temperature change- or without magic much larger area of Earth would need to have different temperatures.
As I said, the global average surface temperature of the ocean is about 17 C and the global average land temperature is about 10 C.
If 70% of something is 17 and 30% is 10 then average of 100% is about 15.
This is useful to know, if one interested to know what changes in Earth’s average temperature looks like, Ie what does Earth with average temperature of 10 C or Earth with average temperature of 20 C look like.
And Earth in it’s history has had average temperature of 10 C and 20 C.
It’s also useful for a fantasy Earth average temperatures such as Earth with average temperature of -18 C or 40 C.
There are rules or things one should keep in mind.
One “rule” is changes in land average temperature do not have much effect on global average temperature- because it’s only 30% of Earth surface. But land average temperature is governed by ocean temperature. Or like Antarctica, in order to just change Antarctica by 20 C, one needs magic. Likewise to just change land temperature [by a lot] one needs magic.
Though small fluctuation of land or Antarctic isn’t as controlled by the rest of the world. A 1 C change does not need magic, rather it’s commonplace or normal- or there is not that level of strict control of small changes. The random or natural variability of Earth global weather does cause small changes in temperature and/or small “forcing elements” can effect smaller regions.
One could have global warming while some region are cooling or global cooling while some regions are warming.
So if use magic and have global land average temperature 5 C warmer or cooler, it does not change the 15 C average global temperature by much. Whereas if you change average ocean surface temperature by 5 C, it has large effect upon the 15 C average global temperature number.
Rule one small changes in global ocean temperature change global average temperature, and small changes in average global land temperature do not. And this is true because of 70% and 30%.
Rule two, Ocean warms land area, land area does not warm ocean area.
So ocean warms in terms average global temperature due to being 70% [Rule one] AND it warms the land areas- increase the average temperature of land areas. Large land area cooling “require” more ocean warming and large land area warming “require” less ocean warming. And generally, or globally, ocean warms and land cools.
Rule three, the tropical zone has a close to constant temperature state throughout Earth’s history. Or Tropical ocean is the heat engine of world. And roughly more energy input into tropical ocean is mostly about warming the rest of world rather about warming the tropics. There is a large difference in terms of average temperature of the tropics and rest of the world [why it’s Earth’s heat engine] and the tropics has high average temperature because it’s temperature is more uniform.
Now what does 10 C average temperature global temperature look like? In accordance to rule three, the tropical average temperature does not change much. Or 40% of global area of tropics
does not change much from it’s average temperature of 26 C and instead 60% of rest of the world average temperature change by quite a bit.
Or average ocean temperature is 17 C, 40% is tropical ocean at 26 C and 60% is about 11 C. It’s the 60% at 11 C which changes by quite a bit.
Let’s say it lowers by 2 C- instead 11 C, so it’s 9 C.
And most of 2 C cooling of 60% of the ocean is closer to poles rather closer to tropics. Ocean surface waters cool less off coast of Florida as compared ocean around UK. Or California Vs Washington state.
And obviously one has more polar sea ice AND more seasonal summer melting of the polar sea ice. UK could have polar ice in winter and by May, it’s melted. One could walk to continental Europe in the winter.
What about global average temperature of 20 C.
The 60% of ocean surface warms also by about 2 C, 11 C become 13 C
and likewise it warms more near polar region as compared to near tropics. Polar sea ice could all melt in summer and only freeze during winter, there far less polar sea ice.
Though another aspect not mentioning is one could larger or smaller difference in North and South Hemisphere.
Recently [last couple centuries at least] there is 1 C difference between South and North, and Southern is 1 C cooler.
So there could no difference between the Hemisphere, one have Northern being colder, and/or greater difference than 1 C, say 2 to 3 C difference of either.
Now what the fantasy of -18 C or 40 C.
Well it’s not fantasy if Earth has different orbital distance from the Sun or you have sun which larger than our Sun.
Or if Earth was at Venus distance or Mars distance you get global average temperatures around that value or maybe more extreme.
If you had Earth/Moon system at Mars distance, does the tropical ocean freeze. If Earth was 1/2 of distance between Earth and Mars- 1.25 AU, then it seems to me the tropical ocean would not freeze, but at 1.5 AU it seems probably tropical ocean would freeze, but one should have at least 1/2 the ocean as a liquid.
Mars is fairly dim, but Earth at Mars distance would very dim.
But if Earth was at 1.2 AU and had average temperature somewhere around -18 C, the tropical ocean would much cooler than 26 C.
Say it was 10 C and not quite have uniform temperature that Earth’s current tropics has. Ocean would remain about the same in terms of uniformity.
Anyhow post is long.
Re: “Or if Antarctic continent were magically made 20 C warmer or colder”
Magic includes disappearing all of Antarctica’s ice. Disappearing the entire land mass and having area which is ocean area only, also give big temperature differences.
And since plate tectonic moves and builds continents, such magic actually available or occurs, and if have time machine, it could happen quickly.
CT wrote –
“Ive decided to ignore every post Mike makes that includes his denial that a useable description of the GHE has been available since the 1950s.” He then provides a link to a publication which states –
“In Figure 1 (taken from a popular exhibit at the National Academys Koshland Museum) we see a common depiction of the greenhouse effect. It is generally recognized to be oversimplified, but defended on the grounds that the general public would not be able to follow the correct treatment.”
In other words, no actual description, just some condescending rubbish depicting the “general public” as fools. The author goes on to make some breathtakingly incorrect assertions. None of this prevents the pseudoscientific climate cultists from adhering to their mad religious faith.
CT can ignore me to his heart’s content. I don’t mind at all, as it will save me time continuously pointing out that his pseudoscientific wishful thinking is not well connected to reality.
Over the last four and a half billion years or so, Nature has conducted an experiment using the Earth. In spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight, remnant heat, radiogenic heat, tidal heat, heat of meteoric origin, heat produced by living things, imaginary nonsense of the GHE variety, and all other sources – the Earth has cooled. Considerably.
CT may ignore reality to his heart’s content. Nature doesn’t care.
Cheers.
Svante wrote –
“Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty.”
Unfortunately, neither he nor anyone else can explain the “elementary” tenets of climate science, let alone “non-elementary tenets” of climate science. Climate is the average of weather, no more, no less. Why do you appeal to the authority of someone who cannot even describe what it is they profess to believe?
You might just as well appeal to the “authority” of foolish John Kerry, who seemed to think that studying political “science” made him immune to questions about actual hard science. The pseudoscientific climate cultists just can’t handle the truth, it seems.
By now, you should have found a useful GHE description. If not, you could always use the “Kerry response” of “Are you serious?”. That’ll shock and awe non-believers, do you think?
Cheers.
Here’s the GHE explained to you by Lindzen, a real climate scientist cited by Gordon and JDHuffman above:
https://tinyurl.com/54t78t
S,
There is no such thing as a climate scientist. Climate is the average of weather. Science?
Providing irrelevant links is the usual practice of pseudoscientific cultists, attempting to deny, divert and confuse.
Even Lindzen says – “In Figure 1 (taken from a popular exhibit at the National Academys Koshland Museum) we see a common depiction of the greenhouse effect. It is generally recognized to be oversimplified, but defended on the grounds that the general public would not be able to follow the correct treatment.” Unfortunately, Lindzen cannot provide a useful description of the GHE either, much less a “correct treatment” of same.
Carry on, S. Maybe you could try providing the same pointless link, over and over, hoping for a dfferent outcome each time. Insanity, according to Einstein.
Or you could keep praying that Mother Nature will take pity on you, because you are so stupid and ignorant, and change the laws of physics – just for you. I doubt it, but you never know.
Cheers.
Yes, first he shows the oversimplified view, which leads to the surface budget fallacy, so move to his corrected view.
Let’s do it step by step and see where you disagree.
1) “When the earth is in radiative balance with space, the net incoming solar radiation is balanced by the outgoing longwave radiation.”
Keep a narrow focus for now, and find the text in the reference if you need more context. Questions?
S,
You wrote –
“1) “When the earth is in radiative balance with space, the net incoming solar radiation is balanced by the outgoing longwave radiation.””
The Earth is never in radiative balance with space, except for twice a day at most locations. This is when the local temperature is unchanging – at maxima and minima. This would indicate that the outgoing energy is exactly equal to the incoming energy. The maxima and minima change as the Earth ages and cools.
The fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years show that the Earth has lost more energy than it has gained, at the very least in respect of sunlight.
My only question is are you really as stupid, ignorant, and delusional as you appear, or is it merely a facade presented for some peculiar pseudoscientific reason?
Maybe if you put more effort into learning physics, rather than posing gotchas based on fantasy, you would become at least less ignorant. If you disagree with any facts I have presented, quote the part with which you disagree, and support it with more than wild speculation of the pseudoscientific kind.
I am disregarding your instructions re focus. Why should take any notice of someone obviously less capable than myself?
Cheers.
Sorry about the minor typos. I was chortling a bit too much.
Cheers.
Very good, I see you already agree that:
2) Temperature increases when when incoming radiation exceeds outgoing.
S,
Unless you can provide a useful description of the GHE, why should I waste my time dancing to your tune?
But anyway. Your second statement is stupid and ignorant, and depends on factors you either don’t know, or are purposely misrepresenting.
Try describing the GHE. You can’t, so there is not much point going further is there? You can’t even bring yourself to admit the Earth’s surface has cooled, from its original molten state. Back to your fantasy, where Gavin Schmidt is a world famous climate scientist, and Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize for his intellectual brilliance.
The pseudoscientific climate clown continues his mad capering.
Cheers.
With reference to fig.3:
3) “The level at which τ = 1, is one optical depth into the atmosphere, and radiation emitted from this level is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature at this new level.”
With reference to fig.3:
3) “The level at which τ = 1, is one optical depth into the atmosphere, and radiation emitted from this level is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature at this new level.”
This is all you need to know really:
1) When the earth is in radiative balance with space, the net incoming solar radiation is balanced by the outgoing longwave radiation.
2) Temperature increases when incoming radiation exceeds outgoing.
3) The level at which τ = 1, is one optical depth into the atmosphere, and radiation emitted from this level is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature.
4) When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, the level at which τ = 1 is raised in altitude, and, because the temperature of the atmosphere decreases with altitude (at the rate of approximately 6.5 C per kilometer), the new characteristic emission level is colder than the previous level.
https://tinyurl.com/54t78t
Mike…”The Earth is never in radiative balance with space, except for twice a day at most locations”.
I think this fact has been overlooked. When air is heated at the surface and rises due to its bouyancy it must cool naturally due to changes in volume and pressure. In that case, there would be no need to radiate much of the heat to space.
Your observation of the position of the Sun relative to certain parts of the planet changing during a day is important. If the same side of the planet always faced the Sun it would be a different matter. However, that surface is always moving and spends a considerable amount of time away from the heating effect of solar energy.
In such a condition, air has an opportunity to expand and contract and temperature has a chance to rise and fall naturally without being radiated away.
I don’t know where the theory emanated that all incoming solar must be radiated away. Surely a steady-state heat level has been reached where part of the heat is dissipated naturally WITHIN the atmosphere while part is radiated away.
Svante–
1) Irrelevant.
2) Incoming is NOT increasing. Irrelevant.
3) Pure pseudoscience. Irrelevant.
4) When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, more IR can be emitted to space, cooling the atmosphere.
JDHuffman says:
1) “Irrelevant.”
Good, you accept it.
2) “Incoming is NOT increasing. Irrelevant.”
Correct, outgoing is decreasing, temperature must rise.
3) “Pure pseudoscience. Irrelevant.”
Yeah right, by professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr. Roy Spencer PhD, any other publishing climate scientist, and all Physics PhDs on this forum.
4) “When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, more IR can be emitted to space, cooling the atmosphere.”
That’s right, GHGs act like a dam, the upper atmosphere cools and the surface warms.
Three out of four, not bad JD.
I just have to say I disagree with Einstein on that one thing.
I am going to play the same song over and over on my guitar,
One day I’ll get it right.
I like this Einstein quote better
“If I were not a physicist, I would probably be a musician.”
b,
If you play the same song over and over, in precisely the same way, expecting to get it right one day, you are delusional.
Or insane.
Have you got any other stupidity to offer?
How about when you wrote –
“I thought you might be smart enough to recognize that Helium would only be able to emit infrared when solid, failed that one. ANd that may not even be true, I not convinced that Helium can emit infrared, I would like to see evidence.”
If you received a university degree in chemistry in the US, it is easy to see why the US could be falling behind the rest of the world academically.
Cheers.
Flynn, Whatadick,
Obviously I didn’t say I would play the same song over and over precisely the same way.
You don’t like it when other posters misrepresent what you post, then why do you misrepresent what I post, asshole?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
svante…”Heres the GHE explained to you by Lindzen, a real climate scientist cited by Gordon and JDHuffman above:”
As much as I admire Lindzen as an atmospheric physicist, I don’t think he has adequately explained radiation at high altitude. He refers to a T^4 relationship and seems to infer that comes from water vapour.
The T^4 relationship comes from Stefan of Stefan-Boltzmann. He was using that relationship in reference to all substances hence all elements. That means O2 and N2 must be radiating as well, with a T^4 relationship between heat and EM, otherwise the air would never cool.
I don’t think the role of N2/O2 has been adequately researched in the heating and cooling of the atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I dont think the role of N2/O2 has been adequately researched in the heating and cooling of the atmosphere.”
Gas radiation is limited by their vibrational modes.
N2/O2 radiation is very limited.
S,
You wrote –
“Gas radiation is limited by their vibrational modes.” – which is information free meaningless blather.
You also wrote –
“N2/O2 radiation is very limited.” – just more meaningless blather.
Typical pseudoscientific sciency sounding nonsense. You can’t even properly explain what your first sentence means, can you? Do you really believe the noble gases cannot cool by emitting radiation?
As to N2 and O2, air temperatures are routinely measured – air being comprised of mainly N2 and O2. In what manner is N2/O2 radiation very limited?
Maybe you could concentrate on finding a useful GHE description. You wouldn’t have to waste so much of your time appearing pointlessly stupid, would you?
Cheers.
Mike,
Cause O2 and N2 emit about a billionth of the infrared compared to CO2.
And I can’t remember if that’s the British billionth or the American one, this time I think it’s limey.
Atoms and molecules only emit radiation if there are energy level transitions available for them to do so.
O2 and N2 are transparent to infrared and visible as well, so they also don’t emit in those ranges.
Mike,
Most of what you post is information free meaningless ad-hom blather.
People are here to discuss. You are here only to disrupt discussion.
If you don’t like the discussion, fine. Go find another one.
Live and let live.
svante…”Gas radiation is limited by their vibrational modes.
N2/O2 radiation is very limited”.
************
Forget about modes: transitional, vibrational, or rotational, it is all blather aimed at obfuscation. The only radiating particle is the electron in either of those modes.
Vibration in molecules comes from electron bonds, no electrons…no bonds….no vibration. Rotation is a property of a linear molecule, the linearity due to electron and the shapes bonds they form. That leaves transition, which we have already discussed.
Electrons in N2/O2 behave no differently than electrons in CO2 or WV. If the temperature differential between the electron/nuclei and the outside world is sufficient, they will radiate like any other molecule. Do you think electrons bound in a surface nitrate don’t radiate? How about an oxide? They all radiate.
The surface is formed from all kinds of atoms and molecules and all of them radiate. In general, the Earth’s crust is formed of oxygen 47%; silicon 27%; aluminum 8%; iron 5%; calcium 4%; magnesium, potassium and sodium 2%.
The oceans are 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. When water radiates it is the electrons bonding the H and O atoms that radiate.
The problem we have is that climate alarmists are focused only on radiation from WV and CO2 at terrestrial temperatures. They have the mistaken notion that no other atoms or molecules can absorb SW solar or radiate EM. If that was true, there would be no surface radiation at all.
There is no WV in the surface, either land or oceans. There is very limited CO2 in the surface or the ocean. So where does the radiation come from?
The truth is that the surface converts SW solar to LW EM. Because it is so much cooler than the Sun, the surface radiates in the IR band. Have you seen any explanations from NOAA or NASA as to how the surface radiates so much EM in the IR band if it has no WV and little CO2?
Gordon, let’s go to school:
https://tinyurl.com/y6eejpha
The Stephan-Boltzmann law is for black-bodies and doesn’t mean gases like O2 and N2 behave in accordance with that law, because they are not black-bodies.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Craig T wrote –
“Lindzen, like Dr. Spencer, is a Skeptic. Neither are so out of touch with physics to deny that there is a greenhouse effect. Read his paper:
In Section 2, we present a physically correct view of the greenhouse effect, and show how this view enables us to use modeling results and observations in order to estimate a bound on the greenhouse contribution to recent surface warming of about 1/3.
Unfortunately, Lindzen forgets to actually describe the greenhouse effect, in any useful way.
CT, your appeal to authority falls flat. Until someone describes the supposed GHE, links to vacuous speculation are no doubt the best you can do to support your bizarre fantasies. CO2 produces no heat. Nor does it enhance, amplify or accumulate heat. Keep dreaming.
Cheers.
craig…”In Section 2, we present a physically correct view of the greenhouse effect, and show how this view enables us to use modeling results and observations in order to estimate a bound on the greenhouse contribution to recent surface warming of about 1/3.
Unfortunately, Lindzen forgets to actually describe the greenhouse effect, in any useful way”.
********
If you had taken the time to read Lindzen’s introduction in the paper, he describes the current GHE theory as overly simplistic. He goes on to explain how he thinks it actually works, through hot air near the Tropics being convected to higher altitudes then poleward.
Lindzen’s description of the GHE has nothing in common with the pseudoscientific GHE we are negating here, which is based largely on radiation theory that could never work.
“He goes on to explain how he thinks it actually works, through hot air near the Tropics being convected to higher altitudes then poleward.”
Look at Lindzen’s figure 3:
“Schematic depiction of how greenhouse effect actually works.”
He doesn’t talk about hot air and the poles describing that figure. He talks about outgoing longwave radiation.
Mike loves the Feynman quote “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Your understanding of “radiation theory” doesn’t match observational data.
CT,
You quoted –
“This situation is illustrated in Figure 3b. Because τ = 1 is now at a colder level, the outgoing longwave radiation no longer balances the net incoming solar radiation, and the earth is no longer in thermal balance with space; this imbalance is what we refer to as the radiative forcing.”
What a load of rubbish. No radiative forcing – that’s just pseudoscientific climate GHE true believer jargon. Things get hotter, things get colder. No reestablishment of balance – no balance to start with. Over the last four and a billion years, the Earth has cooled.
End of story. No GHE.
As to your effort to ascribe emotion to me – you are quite deluded. Pseudoscientific fools often claim that they can read minds, and know what others are thinking or feeling. Self serving tosh.
Your fantasy about your mind reading abilities is not even tangentially related to fact. If you want to find out what I love, you could always ask. I’ll no doubt decline to respond, on the basis it is none of your business.
Cheers.
“No radiative forcing thats just pseudoscientific climate GHE true believer jargon.”
Good to know that Lindzen is a “pseudoscientific climate GHE true believer”.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Watching the desperation of the Warmists is always interesting. Now, several are trying to “prove” that the oceans absorb all infrared. But, as usual, they don’t have a clue about the actual physics.
The “average” infrared impacting the surface, from the atmosphere, is believed to be about 325 Watts/m^2. Pseudoscience tells us that the average solar impacting the surface is 240 Watts/m^2. So the clowns believe the atmosphere is “supplying” more energy to the surface than the Sun!
They claim the atmosphere is warming the planet.
Reality says “it’s the Sun, stupid”.
The comedy continues….
Let’s have some fun.
It makes no sense to average fluxes, but it’s done all the time in pseudoscience. The average DWIR is about 325 Watts/m^2. The average solar over the hemisphere is 480 Watts/m^2.
Fluxes can’t be simply added, but it’s done all the time in pseudoscience. So, the average E/M impacting one hemisphere is 480 + 325 = 805 Watts/m^2, At equilibrium, the energy arriving a surface equals the energy leaving a surface. So, oceans surfaces would then be 72 °C, 162 °F.
Pseudoscience is such fun.
They never get to equilibrium because the earth rotates.
JD’s calculation proves that the earth is flat and non-rotating, just like the moon.
Maybe he thinks the earth is flat and rotating on an axis aligned with the sun.
S,
No, that’s how NASA depicts the Earth in their stupid Trenberth energy budget cartoon graphics.
This guy is so dim that he depicts the Sun shining everywhere at once – on a flat Earth!
No wonder he couldn’t find his “missing heat”. Maybe it fell off Trenberth’s flat Earth!
I’m surprised he doesn’t seem to know the difference between heat, temperature, energy, power etc – as shown in his cartoon graphics. A travesty.
Cheers.
Mike’s so dense he doesn’t understand averages.
Maybe mike can take a look at the actual paper
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf
I don’t see the sun on the diagram, and I see a projection of a round earth, it’s not flat.
Mike you are ******* stupid.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
When their pseudoscience blows up, they have to find ways to discredit their own pseudoscience.
Such fun….
JD, the average non-reflected solar at TOA is actually 240 W/m^2 over the full sphere. The amount reaching the surface that is not reflected is actually 160 W/m^2. (240 – 160) = 80 W/m^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere before reaching the surface. 20 W/m^2 is removed from the surface via sensible flux. 84 W/m^2 is removed from the surface via latent flux. And your 325 W/m^2 figure is a bit low. It is probably closer to 342 W/m^2. This means the surface is radiating at 160 + 342 – 20 – 84 = 398 W/m^2. The surface temperature is then approximately (398 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 289K which is the ballpark of what we measure with thermometers. If you want to do this for one hemisphere it would be 320 + 342 – 20 – 84 = 558 W/m^2 on the day side and 0 + 342 – 20 – 84 = 238 W/m^2 on the night side. The surface never actually achieves the equilibrium response for either day or night energy budgets because there isn’t enough time for it to equilibriate.
As we’ve said repeatedly the Earth is not a flat disk. It is a sphere. It also rotates on its axis so solar flux is not constant over specific locations on the sphere and the day/night equilibrium responses never fully occur.
The figures above are averaged over the entire sphere for one full orbital cycle and are in line with the estimates in Wild et. al. 2013.
The point…you’re calculation of 72C is way off because you are wildly overestimating the amount of the non-reflected solar flux at the surface and because you are assuming the Earth is constantly exposed to that flux which is incorrect because the Earth rotates.
b,
Your silliness is meaningless, if it is supposed to support a non-existent GHE.
All your sciencey sounding waffle is put into context, when it is noticed that ice can emit 300 W/m2. You are spouting pseudoscientific climate cultist nonsense.
You can’t even provide a useful description of the GHE, can you? No science in evidence. Sad.
Cheers.
bdgwx, I’m not impressed by typists, and their long rambling irrelevant spiels.
If you can’t state in 50 words, or less, what you disagree with, I can only assume you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
bdgwx
To save you time on posting, this troll responds to everyone the same way with the same words. It is not a very creative troll team. When I post a comment (with great science, logic and rational thought) the troll will make the comment about typing and rambling. Does it many times to different posters. The troll is not worth your time. I am hoping most can understand this is a very persistent troll and will continue to annoy and disrupt intelligent conversations with vast amounts of stupid material (as he/they are doing in this thread). This troll generated hundreds of posts with the total nonsense claim that the Moon does not rotate. He had some troll allies that pop in (J Halpless and the irritating Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team). I think they are all trolls from the same group. If you keep responding to them they keep posting. The only way to see these trolls leave is totally ignore them. Do Not Feed the Trolls. If you want to keep trying to reason with trolls have fun, it is a waste of time.
See why I’m not impressed by typists, and their long rambling irrelevant spiels?
What makes this exercise so entertaining is that the clowns have to attack their own pseudoscience!
Go Svante, bob, and bdgwx! Smash your own pseudoscience.
Norman says:
“If you want to keep trying to reason with trolls have fun, it is a waste of time.”
It might be entertaining if you’re seriously bored.
Svante
Yes I would agree. Interacting with trolls can be entertaining (if you had a clever creative troll, the JDHuffman troll is bland at the game and does not come up with new interesting troll tactics).
You have interacted enough with the JDHuffman troll team to know that they are not rational, scientific skeptics that you might have a chance to discuss science issues with. Others may not know this and believe that the poster is genuine. If you read his responses you can see this person or persons does not actually know any real science. They look up terms on the Internet (like Poynting Vectors, which he/they do not understand but it creates a false illusion of knowledge to some unsuspecting poster).
I am just letting other posters know so that if they want to play with a troll then that is okay, just be aware that you will get zero useful conversation from this one.
The worst thing about this troll on this blog is he jumps in my posts when I told him I am ignoring him and not responding to his posts. If he stays away from my posting, and others want to engage him, that is up to them. I am only letting them know it is a waste of time if you are actually trying to explain rational science to this group or individual.
Norman types out a long rambling screed “ignoring” me!
(You can’t make this stuff up.)
He is a peculiar case. The purpose is obviously to disrupt the conversation here, but why? “Doubt is our product”?
He called himself anger in reverse until he was banned (twice), so perhaps he’s just unhappy. He said he feels like a winner when other people lose their temper, like satisfaction you get from bullying.
Svante slinks in with more sludge, but no science.
Nothing new.
What is your purpose here then?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Svante asks: “What is your purpose here then?”
To counter pseudoscience.
Same as me then (I have a few more).
bob d…”Yes E=Hv
We just disagree that because CO2 emits a 14.7 um photon, that you can infer that means that CO2 molecule has a certain temperature”.
************
You asked in a later post how it is determined whether a photon is absorbed, reflected, or whatever. As someone with a degree in chemistry you should be aware of the operation of an atom with relation to the electrons in the atom. You could not pass a basic course in organic chemistry without that knowledge.
E = hf. The E is the difference in orbital energy levels through which an absorbing electron must rise. The f is the frequency of the electron in an orbit which is a function of its angular velocity at that level.
If you look at the opposite situation, where an electron falls from one energy level to another, it emits a quanta of EM with energy intensity equal to E, the energy difference between orbital levels, with f, the frequency of the electron.
Where there are emission spectra where an atom emits several frequencies of EM, the different frequencies represent transitions downward between different energy levels, sometimes more than one level.
The relationship to temperature comes in the kinetic energy available at each energy level. An electron has a lower KE at a lower energy level. If it absorbs a quantum of EM and rises to a higher energy level, its KE increases.
The energy from the EM cannot be lost, it must change something somewhere. It is converted to an increased kinetic energy for the electron, forcing it to transition to a higher state of energy. Note that the electron must rise to a higher level of KE if the EM is absorbed.
Temperature is the average KE of all atoms in the substance which means the sum of all the electron energies. As I said before, one must be careful to distinguish the KE of each electron from the KE of an entire atom in motion, as in a gas. Atoms do move in a lattice but it’s a vibration that does work hence has an equivalent level of heat, which is measured by temperature.
An electron will not transition to a higher level unless it receives energy sufficient to force the transition. Just heating a substance can cause a mass transition of electrons to higher energy levels in the atoms of the substance. I think you might agree that is evidence of temperature rising with electron transitions.
In order for an electron to make the jump due to absorbed EM, the EM must satisfy at least E = hf. The only way that can be possible is when the EM comes from a hotter body, since the case of thermal equilibrium produces no heat transfer.
EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency to resonate with the potentially receiving electron. No resonation, no transition, it’s as simple as that.
Gordon,
I do indeed have a degree in chemistry and know this
“The f is the frequency of the electron in an orbit which is a function of its angular velocity at that level.”
is not correct.
It is now thought that electrons do not orbit the nucleus but reside in orbitals where the location of the electron is given by a probability density function.
This also is not true
“The relationship to temperature comes in the kinetic energy available at each energy level. An electron has a lower KE at a lower energy level. If it absorbs a quantum of EM and rises to a higher energy level, its KE increases.”
The kinetic energy is determined by the average velocity of the atom or molecule, not the electron, with the addition of the energy of various electronic and vibrational, rotational and stretching energy levels above the ground state.
JD was saying the two equations ΔE = hf and E = hf are the same, actually one is for the difference in energy levels in the atom or molecule and the other is the energy of the photon emitted.
Subtle difference but
this has one true sentence and one false one
“A molecule does not emit EM. A molecule is a model representing an aggregation of electrons and their respective nucleii in an atom. When the electron/nucleii arrangements consist of two or more nucleii bonded by electrons, you have a molecule.”
Molecules do indeed emit EM
For the CO2 molecule there are two sets of four electrons comprising the bonds, which are involved in the emission of the infrared radiation we are discussing with respect to the greenhouse effect.
This one though
“f is related to E through the electron frequency at different energy levels. If an EM quantum has an f that does not match the f of an electron in a hotter body, it cannot be absorbed.”
try this site
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-frequency-of-an-orbiting-electron
b,
Why should anybody follow a link you post? Appealing to the authority of random contributors to Quora, is about as silly as believing everything you read in Wikipedia.
Previously, you provided a link to back up your claim to your own authority relating to quantum mechanics. I pointed out your link contained no reference to quantum mechanics, and you responded –
“I didnt say the syllabus called it Quantum Mechanics, but the students did.” Ooooh. Persuasive?
In relation to another query about your expertise and knowledge in the quantum theory area, you wrote –
“I was wrong before saying Quantum Physics and Quantum Mechanics being the same thing, they are not, at the university I attended Quantum Physics is a pre req for Quantum Mechanics.”
Tell me again, why should anybody take any notice of your rambling?
Try coming up with a useful GHE description. Just post it here – you won’t even need a link. How hard can it be?
Too hard for you.
Cheers.
Stop drooling mike,
I have already given you a description of the greenhouse effect, and you respond with crap like you think you can make a thermometer hotter by putting CO2 between the thermometer and the sun.
Hey dummass, if you can demonstrate that you understand the second law of thermodynamics, I’ll post another description of the greenhouse effect.
You haven’t posted that you understand the second law, so it’s obvious you won’t understand the greenhouse effect.
So it’s time you demonstrated you can do better than
“hottest year evah!”
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bob d …”This equation ΔE = hf
Is for the photon emitted when a molecule or atom emits a photon and changes energy levels.
E=hf
Is for the equation that tells you the energy of a photon”.
JD is right, the E describing a photon of energy is the delta T it received from the electron in an atom.
A molecule does not emit EM. A molecule is a model representing an aggregation of electrons and their respective nucleii in an atom. When the electron/nucleii arrangements consist of two or more nucleii bonded by electrons, you have a molecule.
The only particle emitting EM is the electron. I don’t care how large a molecule may be, it is the electrons in the electron/nucleii arrangements that emit and absorb EM.
The E in E = hf is the difference in orbital energy levels through which an electron transitions to change the energy, hence the heat in an atom. If a photon is located in space with energy E = hf, the E came from an electron transitioning through orbital energy levels from E2 to E1.
In order to be absorbed by an electron, the EM must have at least the energy required to raise the electron from E1 to E2.
f is related to E through the electron frequency at different energy levels. If an EM quantum has an f that does not match the f of an electron in a hotter body, it cannot be absorbed.
Gordon,
stop posting bullshit like this
“A molecule does not emit EM.”
You don’t know what you are talking about.
b,
Technically he is correct. Making demands using foul language is unlikely to attract him to your point of view.
The following actions can be used to explain all physical processes in the universe, with the exception of gravity and nuclear reactions.
A photon goes from one place and time to another place and time.
An electron goes from one place and time to another place and time.
An electron emits or absorbs a photon at a certain place and time.
Whether you like it or not, predictions arising from the theory of quantum electrodynamics have never to been shown to be wrong by experiment. Never. Not once. Accuracy? Much better than the thickness of the finest human hair compared with the distance between New York and Los Angeles.
Cheers.
Flynn
Quantum Electrodynamics is way over your head, you should try to understand something more your speed.
Here’s a quote that directly contradicts what Gordon said.
“Fluorescence occurs when an orbital electron of a molecule, atom, or nanostructure, relaxes to its ground state by emitting a photon from an excited singlet state:[12]”
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence
b,
You wrote –
” . . . when an . . . electron . . . emitting a photon . . .”
Are you stupid? Is this a special pseudoscientific bobdroege tactic of disagreeing by destroying your own argument?
As I said, photons are emitted by electrons. Your quote agrees. Maybe you need to seek employment with NASA, or Boeing, if you haven’t already. They would appreciate your unique intellectual approach to reality.
Cheers.
No dummass,
What Gordon was wrong about was whether or not molecules emit electrons.
That’s what I said he was wrong about.
Your reading comprehension is letting you down again.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“Making demands using foul language is unlikely to attract him to your point of view.”
Good point, Mike. Maybe you should take your own advice.
“If an EM quantum has an f that does not match the f of an electron in a hotter body, it cannot be absorbed.”
A crystal has many vibrational modes (frequencies), and that means the atoms and charges on them can absorb energy from a broad range of EM wavelengths.
And this agrees with emissivity data being close to 1 for a broad range of IR wavelengths in many materials.
If a photon comes along at one of these absorbing wavelengths, it has a high chance of being absorbed.
It has nothing to do with its origin in a colder or warmer body.
Nate, please stop trolling.
DREMT, pls get therapy for your obsessive compulsive disorder.
Nate, please stop trolling.
S,
Appealing to the authority of self styled “climate scientists” is not very helpful. Climate is the average of weather records over an arbitrary period. No science there at all!
Pseudoscience, sure. Any nutter can claim to be a”climate scientist” and many do.
If you could actually usefully describe the GHE, and include the action of the GHE in cooling the Earth over four and a half billion years, it might help whatever cause you are pursuing. Of course you can’t, so it wont.
Cheers.
JDH,
He’s definitely a strange lad, Svante. He has no hesitation in telling you “all you need to know – even though he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about, generally.
To help lurkers, I have provided a few complete comments from Svante –
“And we shouldnt accept the risk just because it is natural.”
“Make a fortune short selling sun parasols, they have no cooling effect whatsoever.”
“Funny how everything you say applies to yourself.”
“You forgot to add the scientific link to this new F theory.”
I don’t need to comment. I wouldn’t be surprised if others came to the conclusion that Svante is a troll – he finds that his bizarre, yet sciency sounding pseudoscientific climate cult pronouncements, are challenged by other commenters, as being deficient in regard to objective fact.
Svante, in common with others of his delusional ilk, such as John Kerry, is staggered that anyone would actually ask him to explain what he is asserting. John Kerry claimed his liberal arts political science degree amounted to “climate change” credentials. When somebody asked “How do you get a bachelor of arts in a science?”, Kerry responded “Are you serious?” A typical pseudoscientific climate cultist response. Deny, divert, and confuse. Of course, Kerry is not a scientist of any type, but nobody is supposed to point this out.
Facts are facts, regardless of scientific credentials, or lack thereof. Anybody who says “The science says . . .” is an idiot. Anybody who claims you should trust them because they are a scientist is either a fool or a fraud. The motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in Verba ,(roughly “Take nobody’s word for it), for good reason. The society explains it thus –
“It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.”
As far as the fake science of climatology goes, even authority has no substance. Just fools or frauds like Svante, John Kerry, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and many others. All froth and bubble, form without substance. All claiming expertise, based on pseudoscientific cultist belief – nothing else.
As Richard Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”. A more ignorant bunch of self proclaimed “experts” would be hard to assemble.
Cheers.
“John Kerry claimed his liberal arts political science degree amounted to ‘climate change’ credentials. … Facts are facts, regardless of scientific credentials, or lack thereof.”
So facts are facts regardless of scientific credentials but Kerry can’t talk about the facts because his degree is in political science? Thomas Massie made a heavy-handed attempt to undermine Kerry’s testimony by appealing to authority.
I love Kerry’s response to the exchange.
“It’s almost as if someone said, ‘Congress has hit rock bottom’ and Massie replies with hold my beer.'”
Yes, Svante is a troll. He can’t understand the science, and only jumps in with “hit-and-run” tactics, such as linking to irrelevant things.
Mikey wrote, quoting the Royal Society:
I suppose that means you must therefore now accept the results of my Green Plate demo, now a year old. Or, have you have other experimental evidence to present which refutes my results? Put up or shut up, as the old saying goes…
Swanson, are you still not able to understand thermodynamics? You can’t raise enthalpy and lower entropy without adding new energy.
Your “demo” only demonstrates how heat transfer works. It does NOT “prove” cold can warm hot.
But your continuing failures are entertaining.
There are 3 entities in play here. A warm body (blue plate), a cool body (green plate), and a hot body (work light) with a continuous energy supply (electricity). The green plate is not warming the blue plate. It is reducing the rate at which the blue plate loses heat. The work light is what is warming the blue plate. The entropy of the bell jar and blue plate are decreasing despite the entropy of the entire system increasing. 1LOT and 2LOT are perfectly happy with is configuration. And it demonstrates that the back radiation from a cool body can result in a higher equilibrium temperature of the warm body in the presence of heat supplied by an even warmer body with a continuous energy supply.
bmgwx, you need to study the links provided by DREMT. You’re WAY behind, and don’t even understand the issues.
There are two scenarios at play here. The first is the bogus blue/green plate problem where the green plate back-radiates to the blue plate, causing an increase in temperature. This incorrect solution comes from the bogus “2-Ts” equation (also known as the “radiative heat transfer” equation).
The other scenario is Swanson’s demo, which merely indicates how radiative insulation works. This is different from the bogus blue/green plate scenario because the laws of thermodynamics are not violated. So, the demo proves nothing new. But the clowns like to use it to claim “cold” can warm “hot”.
The comedy continues.
I’m pretty familiar with the topic. I’ve been lurking here for awhile.
My comment was mainly in reference to “You cant raise enthalpy and lower entropy without adding new energy.”
The apparatus has new energy being added to it via the input to the 300W work light.
Wrong bdgwx.
You are confusing the “demo” with the original blue/green plates scenario, which had a constant 400 W/m^2 source.
Obviously “lurking” is not learning. Neither is commenting….
JD, so the 400 W/m^2 isn’t considered adding new energy…why?
bdgwx, have you ever had any meaningful education in thermodynamics?
If so, why doesn’t it show?
Do you not understand equilibrium?
Together, the plates are receiving 400 Watts/m^2. The equilibrium temperature is 244 K.
Pulled apart, the plates have fluxes as shown in the link:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Incoming energy remains 400 Watts/m^2. No NEW energy has been added.
(At some point, you need to stop asking stupid questions.)
Then Chrissy say
I got me six arrows and a fistful of plates
I’m gonna get wrecked so **** you clowns
JD said…”Incoming energy remains 400 Watts/m^2. No NEW energy has been added.”
Incoming energy is new energy to the system. You are literally adding 400 joules per second for every square meter on the blue plate. It is energy that is performing work on your system. Your system is not being allowed to evolve on its own.
bdgwx displays his ignorance of thermodynamics, again.
The “Green Plate Effect”, here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Was debunked here (read through from this comment right up until the end of the comments, if you need to):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344407
As we can see, there are various people here either still in denial about it, or who are just “doing their job” of pretending that it isn’t debunked.
There’s nothing more that needs to be said on the subject. It’s debunked, and by extension, so is the GHE. No more climate debate.
Science is advanced by repeating and confirming experimental result.
That was not done on your link, JD proposed a different experiment and provided no experimental evidence.
Not even a good try.
“Its debunked, and by extension, so is the GHE. No more climate debate.”
I trust you’ll pass the news on to Spencer and Lindzen?
Debunked.
I thought we cleared this up.
There is still confusion on how Debunking works.
Debunk -“expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).”
JDs post, as usual, is Declaring something without providing evidence.
Declare – “say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.”
Debunking and Declaring are different.
Are we clear on this now?
Incorrect, failure. It was an entire discussion.
Next DREMT will discuss how vaccines cause autism and another controversy will be closed.
No, it’s only the GHE we’re talking about. Nothing substantial.
Next, Craig will explain why exponents have units, in his “new” math.
Nate, the debunking of the bogus blue/green plates incorrect solution is easy.
Plates toghether 244 K 244 K 244 K
Plates slightly apart 244 K 290 K 244 K
The enthalpy of the system has been increased, with no new energy. The entropy has been decreases, with no new energy.
I have to explain to you again about absorρtion coefficients? Why don’t you read the link I gave with the last explanation and come back when you understand?
The Huffingboy/DRsEMT have performed the miraculous, posting with the identical time stamp. Quick work, zero intellectual content.
The more obvious and straightforward conclusion would be that we are two different people. But, you get to believe whatever ridiculous fantasy you want. You can even believe in the GHE, if you want to.
The Huffingboy/DRsEMT sock puppet can’t understand that a black body can’t reflect thermal IR EM radiation. A real body may absorb some and reflect the rest, maybe 90/10% or 80/20%, but not 100/100%, as in your fantastical cartoon. Learn some physics and stop trolling.
Swanson, a black body is an imaginary concept. The concept is used to explain radiative physics, but the concept can NOT be used to violate the laws of physics.
Try to get something right, or just continue making a fool of yourself.
Your choice.
Predictably, the GHEDT try to deflect onto questioning JD’s alternative solution, rather than accepting the fact that their solution is debunked. There doesn’t need to be any discussions about “black bodies reflecting” and all the rest. JD’s solution isn’t what’s on trial at this stage. Your solution is, GHEDT. The temperature of your blue plate cannot increase simply through the act of separating the two green plates either side of it. Get over it.
Nope,
Your failure to properly solve a simple heat transfer problem is not a debunking of the greenhouse effect, it just means you get an F on your homework.
‘The enthalpy of the system has been increased, with no new energy. The entropy has been decreases, with no new energy.’
No. You are wrong, as we explained ad-nauseum, but you ignored.
This exactly what I mean about Declaring.
If you or DREMT want to make declarations without logic or evidence, then why bother?
It convinces exactly no one.
DREMT,
‘Incorrect, failure. It was an entire discussion.’
Yes, one in which your arguments were shown to violate laws of physics and common sense.
And you ignored all these points. Total waste of time. No need to repeat.
3 plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
3 plates slightly apart: 244 K…290 K…244 K
Nate is unable to recognize the enthalpy of the system has been increased, with no new energy. The entropy has been decreased, with no new energy.
Nate demonstrates his lack of understanding of thermodynamics.
Nothing new.
“nthalpy in the system has been increased, with no new energy.”
JD, when will you ever learn about power and energy?
There is plenty of energy flowing into the system, 400 W, Dufus!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352445
DREMT,
‘The temperature of your blue plate cannot increase simply through the act of separating the two green plates either side of it.’
Declaration not/= fact.
The only arguments you have ever made to support this claim are based on your feelings, intuition, and biases.
OTOH, we have used science-based arguments to show that your feelings and intuition are not informative in this case. We’ve also shown you technologies that rely on this effect.
The real world disagrees with your intuition. A not uncommon event.
Most sensible people would say, well, this is not my field of expertise. Im wrong, no big deal, time to move on to something else.
Unless your purpose is to troll.
People make statements to summarize arguments that have already taken place, rather than repeating every single facet of the argument each time, which would take forever. This is perfectly reasonable.
Nate comes along and pretends that these statements are the entire argument, that this is somehow “arguing by declaration”, when he is fully aware that it isn’t. Just another one of his tricks.
DREMT,
Misrepresenting a previous discussion as a one-sided win when the reality was quite the opposite is your trick, and self deception.
Sure, sure.
Swanson, one thing that might be fun to do if you still have the rig available is to make the energy source cyclic instead of continuous. Toggle the on/off switch at regular intervals to simulate “day” and “night”.
The GPE’s debunked.
Nope,
Black-bodies don’t reflect, debunking debunked.
A black body is an imaginary concept.
Nope JDFstudent
It is an idealized opaque non-reflecting body.
It can be effectively modeled by a small hole into a hot furnace.
An “idealized…body” is an imaginary concept.
b,
“black-body:
a hypothetical perfect absorber and radiator of energy, with no reflecting power.”
Notice the hypothetical. No physical existence. It is an imaginary construct.
Cheers.
But we are trying to solve a problem based on an idealized situation.
It was a hypothetical problem in the first place.
If you want to solve the problem with the corrections for emissivity, or do an actual experiment with real plates, you will get the same answer, the temperature of the blue plate goes up.
You are arguing against real live physics and real experimental data.
Anyway, in you debunking of the GPE effect you used 100% reflection, and hey nothing reflects 100%.
Here’s the correct solution to the 2-plates. There’s no violation of the laws.
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
But the plates should emit the same amount from each side.
But you diagram doesn’t show that.
So is wrong.
Highlarious
JD, an observer monitoring the blue plate will see 600 W/m^2 coming from it and an observer monitoring the green plate will see 400 W/m^2 coming from it. This doesn’t concern you…why?
bob and bdgwx, it’s obvious why you can’t understand the relevant physics. You can’t understand the simple diagram, and you can’t add!
At blue plate:
incoming = 400 + 200 = 600
outgoing = 200 + 200 + 200 = 600
Incoming = outgoing
At green plate:
incoming = 200 + 200 = 400
outgoing = 200 + 200 = 400
Incoming = outgoing
Blue plate has more because it receives the input to the system, green plate does not.
JD, the fact that each plate has an equal amount of incoming and outgoing radiation isn’t an issue. My question is what justification are you using to assign 600 W/m^2 outgoing and 244K for the blue plate and 400 W/m^2 outgoing and 244K for the green plate?
JDHuffman,
My comment was that the blue plate has 400 going out one side but 200 going out the other.
Also the blue plate has 600 total going out and the green plate has 400 total going out but both plates are at the same temperature.
So captain sum ting wong
what you gonna do when dey come for you
bobdroege, yeah, that’ll be a problem too. And the fact that 200 W/m^2 is coming from the “warm” side and 400 W/m^2 is coming from the “cool” side stings the nostrils as well.
bdgwx asks: “…what justification are you using…”
It’s called “physics”.
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
No, it’s called coloring.
It’s what you do in kindergarten.
JD, what kind of physics allows two different black bodies to be at the same temperature but with one radiating at 400 W/m^2 and the other at 600 W/m^2? Please show the calculation that transforms 400 W/m^2 into 244K and 600 W/m^2 into 244K.
And what law of physics allows a black body to radiate at a lower power on its “warm” side and a higher power on its “cool” side?
bdgwx, bobdroege, try to concentrate this time:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352377
bdgwx asks: “JD, what kind of physics allows two different black bodies to be at the same temperature but with one radiating at 400 W/m^2 and the other at 600 W/m^2?”
bdgwx, if you are referring to the simple diagram, then obviously you are unable to understand it. I don’t know how to make it any simpler. It’s very possible you do not have the ability to think for yourself. That’s likely why you are so easily brainwashed by pseudoscience.
bdgwx continues his confusion: “Please show the calculation that transforms 400 W/m^2 into 244K and 600 W/m^2 into 244K.”
There is no such calculation, bdgwx. You need to get an adult to explain the simple diagram to you. You can’t figure it out by yourself.
bdgwx relentlessly avoids logical thought: “And what law of physics allows a black body to radiate at a lower power on its ‘warm’ side and a higher power on its ‘cool’ side?
The funniest part is bdgwx said he had been lurking for some time, and had been studying the issue!
Gordon said “A molecule does not emit EM.”
Molecules emit and absorb energy based on molecular rotation and vibration. This happens in the IR range.
“Absorρtion lines due to transitions between vibrational-rotational levels are located in the infrared light (IR) range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and infrared spectroscopy is one of the most common spectroscopy methods employed today for the investigation of the structure of molecules. Including the rotational transitions, the absorρtion occurs in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that lies between the wavelengths of a few µm and 1 mm.”
http://physics.gu.se/~klavs/FYP310/A6manual.pdf
“If an EM quantum has an f that does not match the f of an electron in a hotter body, it cannot be absorbed.”
Water is able to absorb a wide range of IR.
“In neat liquid water, [vibrational energy relaxation] is quite complex because of numerous intra and intermolecular resonances (Fig. 1): the stretching mode is resonant to the first bending overtone of the same molecule (Fermi resonance) and to two bending quanta partitioned over pairs of molecules. Furthermore, stretching and bending vibrations of different molecules are coupled via a hydrogen bond network, and their coupling to librations and hindered translations leads to extensive vibrational line broadening.”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.626.8381&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Bonus in the linked paper for Mike:
“Fig. 4. Feynman diagram for the vibrational energy relaxation. Symbols s, a, o, b, and l stand for the symmetric stretch, asymmetric stretch, bend overtone, bend fundamental, and librations, respectively, while indices account a number of the water molecule.”
I’m sorry, but your religion is falsified. Game over.
I look forward to Dr. Roy’s Lack of Moderation Team publishing this ground breaking paper that single-handedly proves there is no greenhouse effect. Will it contain anything besides 6 arrows and 2 bars?
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
So you didn’t read through from the linked comment. No surprises there.
You mean JD’s comment?
“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.”
Not exactly proof there is no greenhouse effect.
Maybe you could link to something Tesla said.
No Craig, I mean the entire discussion from the comment I linked to, until the end of the comments.
Found it!
JD,
What’s the difference between a black-body, an insulator and a heat shield?
How did you do in this class?
Did you graduate?
You are losing, give it up.
Are you employed?
I could help you get out of your mamas basement if you want a entry level low pay third shift STEM job.
Just because the irrational troll posts dishonest points:
You’re pseudoscience erupted in your face again, huh Craig?
Those were just some of the comments levelled at JD, from the trolls, yes.
Sorry, I realize this is tough for you to dismiss as simply as you want to, since it’s an entire discussion. Also you need to read up on the original Green Plate Effect post. Take a little time, try to grow up a bit, stop mouthing off at your betters, and come back in a few hours when you’ve finished your reading.
Craig ruminates: “Not exactly proof there is no greenhouse effect.”
It’s proof the blue/green incorrect solution is pseudoscience. One proof builds on the last.
Actually JD’s debunking relies on whether matter reflects or abzorbs radiation, which is the topic we were discussing.
So let’s table the claim that the GPE is debunked until we can settle the matter of whether water reflects or abzorbs infrared.
Evidence shows water indeed abzorbs almost all the infrared that hits it.
Maybe the clown car can come up with some evidence about how matter can reflect radiation, when the GHE defense team has provided evidence that it abzorbs it.
JD calls links to facts ” not relevant”.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.626.8381&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Nope, the debunking is entirely about the GPE’s logic, failing. It doesn’t even have anything to do with whether JD’s alternative solution is correct, let alone whether water reflects or absorbs.
The GPE’s debunked.
I’m in agreement that the GPE has enough elements in common with the discussion of whether water reflects or absorbs infrared photons that the facts of one can be applied to the other.
Water absorbs infrared photons.
The blue plate has a higher temperature in the presence of the green plate. Swanson’s experiment proves it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352334
Dr Empty,
you fail to recognize that JD was wrong when he said entropy went down.
It went up.
I am pretty sure JD doesn’t know what entropy is.
There was no work done on the system, so entropy could not go down.
Therefore debunking debunked.
Try again.
bob, not that you will ever understand:
High Entropy: 244 K…244 K…244 K
Low Entropy: 244 K…290 K…244 K
Entropy went down, when plates were pulled apart.
JDFstudent
S = Boltzmann’s constant * the natural log of the number of microstates
The temperature went up therefore the number of microstates went up therefore entropy went up.
Not down
Unless you want to show your workings that show a different result
But you need an input of energy to lower entropy and you don’t have one.
Yes I don’t understand your pseudo-science, cause it’s wrong.
bob stumbled backwards into reality:
“But you need an input of energy to lower entropy and you don’t have one.”
Exactly bob, that’s why the incorrect solution to the plates nonsense violates the law.
But JD,
You fail to calculate the change in entropy properly.
But thanks for playing.
No need to calculate anything, bob, not that you will ever understand:
High Entropy: 244 K…244 K…244 K
Low Entropy: 244 K…290 K…244 K
Entropy went down, when plates were pulled apart.
For full credit you have to do more than just assert you have the correct answer.
Which you don’t.
This is getting HIGH larious.
bob, you have nothing of value to add, as usual.
“High Entropy: 244 K244 K244 K
Low Entropy: 244 K290 K244 K
Entropy went down, when plates were pulled apart.”
JD neglects all the entropy being created by the 400 W heat source.
He fails another Thermo exam. Not too late to drop the class!
“No Craig, I mean the entire discussion from the comment I linked to, until the end of the comments.”
DREMT, I dont know why you keep referring vaguely to that previous lengthy discussion as Debunking?
As I recall, there was plenty of rebuttal of the declarations by your TEAM, involving violations of 1LOT, 2LOT, the Rad Heat Transfer law, etc.
Somehow youve forgotten all of that!
Nate admits he has no clue about thermodynamics: “JD neglects all the entropy being created by the 400 W heat source.”
Nate, in your pseudoscience, the plates go from “high entropy” to “low entropy” with no additional energy being supplied.
If you understood thermodynamics, you would know that is impossible. And, you would know how stupid your statement is.
Just Dumb:
“No additional energy being supplied.”
What do you call the 400 W entering the system? Chopped liver?
I call it 400 J/s. J is energy, entering the system! Nothing stops some of that being stored.
And lots of entropy created by this 400 W of heat!
Why do you insist on continually showing off your physics incompetence?
Nate, in your pseudoscience, the plates go from “high entropy” to “low entropy” with no additional energy being supplied–a constant 400 Watts. “Additional” energy would be required to lower entropy, like an addtiional 50 Watts, for a total of 450 Watts. A constant 400 Watts would NOT lower entropy, from one state to another.
If you understood thermodynamics, you would know how stupid your statement is.
But, you just keep making the same mistake, over and over, never able to learn.
Nothing new.
“‘Additional’ energy would be required to lower entropy, like an addtiional 50 Watts, for a total of 450 Watts.”
Now Im a little worried that JD has some actual brain damage.
Energy is J.
Power is Watts = J/s.
Energy not/= Power.
If you need more energy, you don’t automatically need more power.
Its like you’re saying I need more space in my house, so I need a higher velocity! Makes no sense.
We have 400 J/s coming in to the system.
Before the system reaches equilibrium, nothing stops < 400 J/s from leaving the system.
If, for 10 seconds, only 350 W is going out, then the system has gained 50 W x 10 s = 500 J.
This system has no problem gaining the energy it needs to warm a plate.
DREMT: good example of declaring not/= debunking. What else ya got?
“‘Additional’ energy would be required to lower entropy”
No, no, just no, Total entropy is not getting lower.
dS/dt = (1/T) dQ/dt.
dQ/dt = 400 W.
Plenty of entropy is constantly being created by the flow of heat out of this system.
Total entropy of system plus its environment is never decreasing as a result.
2LOT is happy.
DREMT: more proof that declaring not/= debunking.
Poor Nate is so confused by the simple example:
High Entropy: 244 K…244 K…244 K Input power 400 Watts
Low Entropy: 244 K…290 K…244 K Input power 400 Watts
There is no additional energy, yet entropy decreases, violating 2LoT.
If Nate understood thermodynamics, he would know how stupid all his statements are. But then we’d miss out on the humor.
‘Input power 400 Watts’, ‘There is no additional energy’
Except for those additional 400 J per second, that for some reason don’t count.
Really, JD, you see no other option than to triple down on stupid?
‘High Entropy: 244 K244 K244 K Input power 400 Watts
Low Entropy: 244 K290 K244 K Input power 400 Watts’
Not possible? How about this:
High-entropy: air, water and dirt at room temperature. Input power 240W/m^2 from the sun.
Low-entropy: a tree growing out of the soil. Input power 240 W/m^2 from the sun.
If you actually understood 2LOT, which you clearly don’t, you would understand that as long as the total entropy of the universe increases, all is possible, even lowering entropy of parts of the universe, like trees.
Sorry Nate, but claiming it’s okay to violate 2LoT in one system because some other system will cancel it out is pure, unadulterated pseudoscience.
That’s the basis of your false religion.
Nothing new.
You havent shown any 2LOT violations, JD. Just more of the usual epic physics fails.
Hilarious how you guys are so obsessed with 2LOT, yet are so ignorant about it.
“claiming its okay to violate 2LoT in one system because some other system will cancel it out is pure, unadulterated pseudoscience.”
I’m claiming that trees can grow.
Do you think trees violate 2LOT?
Nate, if you are unable to understand this
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352531
then you are unable to understand how a tree grows, which does NOT violate 2LoT.
‘A tree growing doesnt violate 2LOT’?
I agree. But a tree is organized matter and energy, and lower in entropy.
How did it get there? Via energy input from the sun.
Virtually the same as plates attaining a lower entropy, via energy input.
Not a 2lot violation either.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Thanks for linking to the correct solution to the blue/green plates, Craig.
Very helpful.
How come we never see JD and DREMT together anywhere?
We sometimes comment almost at the same time, just to fool clowns, shich isn’t hard to do….
How come whenever we lose a member of the GHE Defense Team, another professional sophist pops up in its place?
DR Empty,
How come you never post anything useful, you just suck up to JD’s posts.
bobdroege stop trolling! 😉
DR Empty,
When you stop being an arrogant prick.
Calm down, failure.
Dr Empty
Stop “stop mouthing off at your betters”
Begone foul-mouthed troll.
Since Flynn, JDhuffman, DREMT like to call people names, I joined in, if the three candidates for the COTHO award, stop their abusive behavior, I will stop.
Until then I will be a foul mouthed abusive troll.
Begone troll.
Craig, if you could understand your links, you would realize they are not relevant.
But then you wouldn’t be so funny.
Funnier than “70 F is less than half of 104 F”?
You get to laugh at my typos, I do also.
But, you’re not laughing when your pseudoscience gets busted.
Typo? What temperature is half of 104 F?”
Now you can’t even manage a calculator?
I want your opinion. Can’t even manage an answer?
My opinion is that you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics and are only looking for ways to cover over your incompetence.
Hey JD,
What temperature is half a duck?
Troll, begone.
Do you mean like the energy levels absorbed by rotational, librational, and vibrational movement of molecules? The energy levels you claim water can’t absorb?
My understanding isn’t the reason you keep shifting your excuses for why energy transfer can’t happen when the fact is documented. It’s not why you have to pretend that absorρtance coefficients should never have units as if it didn’t matter if transmission was through 1 cm or
Craig, I don’t know if all that is “incompetent incoherence” or “incoherent incompetence”.
But whatever it’s called, it’s funny.
CraigT,
All your claims of knowledge fail to be supported by reality – no more how devoutly you wish it to be true, you cannot use the radiation from ice to make water hotter. Nor heat gaseous N2 using liquid nitrogen, or molten lead by adding lead below the melting point.
As Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Not a fantasy “experiment” so beloved of pseudoscientific climate tru believers, but a real, reproducible, scientific experiment. You cannot demonstrate your nonsense other than by appealing to imagination.
No GHE. Complete nonsense. Nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between it and a heat source. Pure looniness. You can’t do it, and neither can anybody else.
Pseudoscientific delusion, promoted by people too stupid and ignorant to realise how stupid and ignorant they are.
Cheers.
craig…”Do you mean like the energy levels absorbed by rotational, librational, and vibrational movement of molecules? The energy levels you claim water cant absorb? ”
Question…what is a molecule?
Answer…two or more atoms bonded by electrons.
Question…how does a molecule radiate/absorb energy via vibration, rotation or what???… librational modes? (What about the transition mode in which electrons jumps between different energy levels? The other two modes are dependent on electronic transitions).
Answer…to understand vibration, transition, and rotation at the molecular level you MUST understand molecules at their basic atomic level. To understand atoms at the atomic level you MUST understand the relationship between the protons and electrons which form the basis of atoms. If you don’t, you don’t have a hope of understanding your question, never mind the answer.
Why should you listen to me? Because I have learned and applied this theory as part of my electronics and electrical career over decades. Furthermore, it can all be verified through a quick Google search. I am trying to save you the time.
The vibration and rotation are properties of the electron/nucleus interaction. In the Bohr model, which still applies for all we know, despite the protests of mathematicians, the positively charged nucleus, due to positively charged protons, is orbited by negatively charged electrons.
Forget the model if you like, the math is based on the same thing, a nucleus with orbiting electrons. Some people just don’t like the idea of a tiny particle orbiting other tiny particle yet they have no problem with the Big Bang theory, where the entire mass of the present universe suddenly exploded out of nothing.
So, the atom is formed from the interaction of equally and oppositely charge electrostatic forces outside the nucleus, as well as nuclear forces within the nucleus. For your question, you can ignore the internal nuclear forces.
When certain atoms come together, they can share their electrons or donate/accept them. The sharing/donating/accepting is called bonding. In essence, two or more atoms can share electrons and the model shows the electrons orbiting one or more atoms, hence bonding one or more atoms into molecules.
Actually in quantum physics, the electrons are not shown orbiting the nucleii of two or more atoms, they are shown as orbital probability spaces in which the electrons are projected to be. The spaces, however, are based on the basic Bohr model of the atom.
Vibration (in molecules or atomic lattices in solids) is due to the repulsion of +vely charged protons in the nucleus from nearby nucleii, and the attraction of -vely charged orbital electrons to the protons in the nucleii they are orbiting.
In molecules, due to the repelling and attractive forces of the electron/nucleus bonds of the bonded atoms vibrate. The vibration is akin to a mass/spring interaction but based on inter-atomic forces rather than a physical mass and spring.
The only way the energy can increase or decrease in the inter-atomic mass/spring vibration is via the bonding electrons. They are the only particle capable of absorbing/emitting or transferring energy (EM or heat).
In solids, in which atoms are formed in a lattice structure, each atom is bonded to the adjacent atoms by electron bonds, or by charges formed in donor/acceptor pairs (NaCl…salt). In the latter it is electrons that are donated/accepted and electrons are the means by which the atomic bond can increase or decrease its energy state.
The entire surface of the planet is a complex interaction of electrons with their associated nucleii and the nucleii of nearby atoms which the electrons serve to bond together. All radiation from the Earth’s surface, water or land, comes from electrons.
All elements making up the surface, differ from each other only by the number of protons/neutrons in their nucleii and the number of electrons orbiting those nucleii. For a neutral atom, the protons and electrons are always the same number. Hydrogen has 1 proton, 1 electron, and no neutrons, carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons.
Lead has 82 protons, 82 electrons and 125 neutrons. ALL MASS IN THE UNIVERSE IS MADE OF ELECTRONS, PROTONS, AND NEUTRONS. With atoms, only the electrons can absorb and emit radiation. Free protons can absorb and emit EM, but in the atom they don’t. That’s likely because EM…electromagnetic energy…. has an electric field produced by a MOVING charged electron and a magnetic field due to an electric charge MOVING. The protons in the nucleus don’t move like the electrons.
The properties of the electron bonds also determines molecular shapes. In certain cases like in CO2, the hydrogen atoms are forced into a linear shape. If that molecular form is struck by another molecule it can rotate about the linear axis. In other cases the molecule can rotate about other axes.
In all cases, any energy radiation/absorp-tion is due to the electrons alone. Molecules do NOT radiate or absorb energy like a mysterious black box, all of it is done by the electrons in the bonds holding the atoms in a molecular arrangement.
As the electrons reside in their bonds, holding the molecules together, they can also transition between energy states in each atom. That’s how molecules can claim to be emitting and absorbing energy…via electrons. The molecule is a model, the electron is the real, physical deal.
If you apply heat to an aggregation of molecules (or atoms within a molecule), the electrons forming the bonds move to a higher energy state. That will increase the vibration in the molecule or the emission from a rotating molecule. It also increases the kinetic energy which is the heat.
In a single atom, the atom changes its kinetic energy state via electron transitions. Heat is the average KE of a mass of atoms, therefore increasing the KE of individual atoms in a solid increases it’s level of heat.
In a solid, heat is transferred through the solid via valence electrons, the electrons in the outermost orbitals of the atom.
In a gas, heat can be transferred via molecular collisions but to raise the heat in a gas each atom must increase its kinetic energy. Once again, that is done via electrons absorbing external heat as KE through the electrons.
It’s all very simple, actually, and nifty.
Huh? I mustve fallen asleep somewhere in the middle. What were we talking about?
Wake up Nate,
Gordon is teaching Chemistry.
And I am going to flunk his class.
“In certain cases like in CO2, the hydrogen atoms are forced into a linear shape.”
“Why should you listen to me? Because I have learned and applied this theory as part of my electronics and electrical career over decades.”
Your work as a Double E involves the rotational and vibrational states of molecules? A while back you complained that in your engineering courses they didn’t teach you that current flows negative to positive. Didn’t they teach you about electron holes? That’s useful knowledge for your field for understanding transistors.
“Some people just dont like the idea of a tiny particle orbiting other tiny particle yet they have no problem with the Big Bang theory, where the entire mass of the present universe suddenly exploded out of nothing.”
Big Bang has held up to all tests. The Bohr model has not.
“Vibration (in molecules or atomic lattices in solids) is due to the repulsion of +vely charged protons in the nucleus from nearby nucleii, and the attraction of -vely charged orbital electrons to the protons in the nucleii they are orbiting.”
Yes, but the rotational and vibrational energy levels don’t change by electrons changing state. Light emitted by a drop in electronic energy state is visible or UV light. Rotational energy emits in the IR range and rotational in microwave.
Craig spouts: “Big Bang has held up to all tests.”
How Craig is able to claim such nonsense is amazing. Obviously he knows nothing about reality, or the scientific method.
Like with all pseudoscience, “the science is settled” for clowns like Craig.
CT,
Are you quite mad? Do you really claim you can raise the temperature of water by utilising the infrared radiation emitted by ice?
Your delusions are not reality. Your fantasy is not fact.
You cannot even usefully describe the GHE you worship, because your religion rejects inconvenient fact. Faith is enough, apparently. I wish you well. Keep praying.
Cheers.
bobdroege wrote –
“Stop drooling mike,
I have already given you a description of the greenhouse effect, and you respond with crap like you think you can make a thermometer hotter by putting CO2 between the thermometer and the sun.
Hey dummass, if you can demonstrate that you understand the second law of thermodynamics, Ill post another description of the greenhouse effect.
You havent posted that you understand the second law, so its obvious you wont understand the greenhouse effect.
So its time you demonstrated you can do better than
hottest year evah!”
bobdroege is another strange lad. He apparently has a description of the greenhouse effect, but he is only prepared to make it available under certain circumstances – if he can only make his fantasy become real!
He blames me for the bizarre pseudoscientific climate cult assertion that increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere (between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface) results in increased temperatures! What a deluded fool!
I don’t know whether bobdroege is a fool, a fraud, or both. Time will no doubt tell.
Cheers.
Hey Flynn
Here’s your greenhouse effect
“Putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes “hottest year evah!””
Lets see you debunk that!
Begone, troll.
So I’ll take that as your failure to debunk.
Begone, troll.
Flynn,
I note you already said that.
Wouldn’t you possibly have an actual debunckion of the greenhouse effect on you, I could use a smoke.
Begone, troll.
Well CO2 has been going up, see the Keeling curve
And temperature has been going up, see the chart at the top of the page.
Sooner or later we’ll have another hottest year evah
Look at the arctic ice this year, could be interesting.
Begone, pointless troll.
reposted from above…
svante…”Gas radiation is limited by their vibrational modes.
N2/O2 radiation is very limited”.
************
Forget about modes: transitional, vibrational, or rotational, it is all blather aimed at obfuscation. The only radiating particle is the electron in either of those modes.
Vibration in molecules comes from electron bonds, no electrons…no bonds….no vibration. Rotation is a property of a linear molecule, the linearity due to electron and the shapes bonds they form. That leaves transition, which we have already discussed.
Electrons in N2/O2 behave no differently than electrons in CO2 or WV. If the temperature differential between the electron/nuclei and the outside world is sufficient, they will radiate like any other molecule. Do you think electrons bound in a surface nitrate don’t radiate? How about an oxide? They all radiate.
The surface is formed from all kinds of atoms and molecules and all of them radiate. In general, the Earth’s crust is formed of oxygen 47%; silicon 27%; aluminum 8%; iron 5%; calcium 4%; magnesium, potassium and sodium 2%.
The oceans are 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. When water radiates it is the electrons bonding the H and O atoms that radiate.
The problem we have is that climate alarmists are focused only on radiation from WV and CO2 at terrestrial temperatures. They have the mistaken notion that no other atoms or molecules can absorb SW solar or radiate EM. If that was true, there would be no surface radiation at all.
There is no WV in the surface, either land or oceans. There is very limited CO2 in the surface or the ocean. So where does the radiation come from?
The truth is that the surface converts SW solar to LW EM. Because it is so much cooler than the Sun, the surface radiates in the IR band. Have you seen any explanations from NOAA or NASA as to how the surface radiates so much EM in the IR band if it has no WV and little CO2?
Gordon,
It’s about what’s radiating in the atmosphere.
The energy difference between the first excited state of the Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule is so much higher than for the water or CO2 molecule.
This means infrared doesn’t have enough energy to push an electron to the first excited state in oxygen or nitrogen, which also means oxygen and nitrogen don’t emit infrared.
Which means oxygen and nitrogen are opaque to infrared.
The jump to the first excited is much lower for water and CO2 so those molecules (or the electrons in those molecules if you insist on being wrong) do absorb and emit infrared.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
bobd “The temperature went up therefore the number of microstates went up therefore entropy went up.
Not down
Unless you want to show your workings that show a different result
But you need an input of energy to lower entropy and you dont have one”.
*************
Microstates is a reference to statistical mechanics, which drove Boltzmann to commit suicide. He tried to prove the 2nd law using statistical mechanics and in doing so DEFINED entropy statistically.
He failed.
Let’s look at entropy as defined by Clausius. He coined the word entropy and invented the concept, which he provided as a mathematical solution of the 2nd law.
Clausius DEFINED entropy as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat transferred during a process at temperature T.
S = integral dQ/T.
That’s entropy….the S.
Clausius also supplied limits to entropy. He claimed it must be zero for a reversible process and positive for an irreversible process. Later still, to reach agreement over the sign of the heat transfer, either into a substance or out of a substance, he reversed the sign from positive to negative.
ds = dQ/T
If you keep T constant by using a constant supply of heat, you can pull it outside the integral sign and entropy becomes simple the sum of heat transferred in a process.
A change of entropy is another matter. I have seen entropy applied as follows for a heat transfer between a hotter body at T1 and a cooler body at T2.
delta S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1)
If T1 is a hot wooden stove and T2 is a block of ice deposited on the hot stove, the formula tells us that the change of entropy must be positive.
If T1 = T2, delta S = 0
If T1 > T2, delta S must be +ve
No other condition is allowed.
The equation is a mathematical expression of the 2nd law that clearly instructs that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
Gordon,
two questions
If temperature goes up, does entropy go up or down?
Do you understand that the green plate effect has been experimentally verified and does not violate the second law of thermodynamics?
“Clausius DEFINED entropy as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat transferred during a process at temperature T.
S = integral dQ/T.
That’s entropy….the S.”
NO! I already clarified for you that this is CHANGE in entropy. I even pointed you straight to the right page in his book. It is not that tough. But it does take a willingness to expand your understanding.
“He claimed it [entropy] must be zero for a reversible process and positive for an irreversible process.”
Again, no. He claimed the CHANGE in entropy must be zero.
bobdroege, Tim, please stop trolling.
Day 68. The GHEDT is still in denial that the Green Plate Effect is debunked. Hilarious!
They can never admit they are wrong. They have devoted too much to their false religion. We are watching the demise of a cult.
Just wait until UAH global anomaly drops below 0 °C. The insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations will really accelerate then!
“Just wait until UAH global anomaly drops below 0 C.”
Or when Hell freezes over, whichever comes first.
When either comes I will apologize to JD for doubting his armchair science, his ability to be right without supplying any evidence.
You mean like in 2008 when everybody said 50 years of global warming had been wiped out.
And then UAH temperature went up 0.7 C in two years.
Last time UAH was below a zero anomaly was 2013, so it could happen, but that wouldn’t disprove the greenhouse effect.
Could be due to a strong La Nina, or a big volcano, or a sensor malfunction.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
When has the Green Plate Effect been debunked? Actually it has been experimentally verified. You deny empirical evidence in support of a belief system. E. Swanson showed the effect and not one of you deniers of science has even attempted your own experiments to debunk it, all you have is your own silly and unsupported ideas and you keep reinforcing each other that you are right but none of you will ever confirm your silly and false ideas via actual experiment but you will certainly declare a valid experiment is wrong. You deniers of science and lovers of made up pseudoscience will never change. I find that very sad when actual tests do not even budge you or have you reconsider how wrong and misguided you are.
Poor Norman. He never gets the physics correct. He had never heard of the Poynting vector, before I mentioned it. But, instead of learning, he determined that it was me that had never heard of it!
It’s amazing how his own depraved mind works to make him a fool, and he can’t figure it out. He is his own worst enemy.
He clings to his biased, erroneous opinions and must resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, because that’s all he has.
Nothing new.
“When has the Green Plate Effect been debunked?”
Norman reveals he is incapable of following a discussion.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Norman reveals he is incapable of following a discussion.”
Not sure where this came from. I think you are completely unable to follow anything rational. Where is your debunking. E. Swanson performed an actual experiment that matches the prediction. You have nothing and never will. Yet you will post as if you know what you are talking about. Sad for you. If you want to stay ignorant and uniformed that is your option. Not sure why anyone wants to do this but you trolls all have your reasons for what you do. I can’t understand it.
“Where is your debunking”
Scroll up. Find the links. Read through. You were there at the time though, so I know you are just full of it again. Sad for you. If you want to stay ignorant and uninformed that is your option. Not sure why anyone wants to do this but you trolls all have your reasons for what you do. I can’t understand it.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I have debated you over this and you are not able to think rationally enough to process the data. You can mirror my posting like a trained bird but you are not intelligent enough to understand physics at all. You are just another troll like the other one. Always have been and always will be. Another one who will be most easy to ignore except I will warn others not to waste any time trying to reason with you. They still will and in time they will learn what others already know. You are here to troll and that is all you do or know how to do.
Recall Roy Spencer himself has pointed out you are nothing but a troll. You ignored him and continue your trolling.
Norman, please stop trolling.
DREMT
Here troll read this.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344479
I responded to you with valid science. You are too much a troll to rationally discuss it. You just go on your troll mission and make troll comments over and over and you think this trolling is a valuable thing to do. why do you need to troll this blog? Some people are here to understand and discuss good science with intelligent people that know science. Your troll posts do nothing but waste time.
Can you help me understand how trolls think, why thy need to do what they do?
#2
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman, I think the reason you troll so much is you have nothing of value to offer. You are frustrated because you can’t understand the relevant science. You can’t defend your beliefs, even with links you don’t understand.
As with most trolls, all you have are your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yes the troll speaks. Rather than answer the question as to why you need to troll, you answer by trolling saying “Please stop trolling” which is a troll comment as it has zero value or content and you use it constantly. You are such troll I have seen you go to older blogs and post this several times to many people. Yes you are a troll and you will not accept the reality. I have wasted enough time with you. See you troll, troll away it is all you know how to do. To bad you could not invest some time in learning real science.
#3
Norman, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I suppose in your limited troll thinking you believe putting numbers in front of a troll post makes them have some significance? You do that same routine. Why?
I ask again (will you post another mindless troll comment or try to answer my question). Why do you need to troll this blog? What do you get from doing this with your time? What is the point of trolling?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team troll:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-347517
Here you might have forgot this troll. This should remind you (it won’t trolls are not able to change their fundamental negative behavior…You are not able to change what you have become, a useless troll).
#4
Norman, please stop trolling.
# 83 OCD post.
Whatever effect theyre supposed to have shouldve happened by now.
You think I’m OCD. Opinion acknowledged. You’ve said that to me, what, ten times now? More? Maybe you’re just OCD, Nate. Whatever effect you were hoping for in continually telling me your opinion should’ve happened by now.
You posted the same comment 83 times. If we count previous articles, prob 1000 times, to no obvious effect.
It suggests a mental coondition of some kind.
Yes, you’re very unpleasant, Nate. Was there anything else? Or has this entire sub-thread devoted to an attempted character assassination finally finished?
Flaws have been found in your debunking.
Please correct the flaws and resubmit for review by your betters.
The condescension thing really seems to have struck a chord with blob. I guess it’s because he’s so regularly condescending and insulting himself. He doesn’t like taking a look in that mirror.
Poor old blob.
So you can’t find the flaws in JD’s diagram.
They are obvious, it only takes a glance to find them.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352377
Try to use your own words and not just link to another post.
OK.
“Predictably, the GHEDT try to deflect onto questioning JD’s alternative solution, rather than accepting the fact that their solution is debunked. There doesn’t need to be any discussions about “black bodies reflecting” and all the rest. JD’s solution isn’t what’s on trial at this stage. Your solution is, GHEDT. The temperature of your blue plate cannot increase simply through the act of separating the two green plates either side of it. Get over it.”
Well stated, DREMT.
JD, and Dr Empty,
The thing is that you have presented your debunking by presenting JD’s solution as the correct one.
You haven’t presented any flaws in the solution presented by the Rabbet.
You want to show where the Rabbet went wrong, go ahead.
Or take a crack at Swanson’s experimental evidence.
“The thing is that you have presented your debunking by presenting JD’s solution as the correct one.”
No, that’s not the debunking, and you are well aware of that. Stop lying, blob.
DR Empty,
I am not lying when I say all JD’s diagrams are wrong.
Both of them are wrong the 3 plate one and the two plate one.
JDs diagrams are not the debunking. As you know. Stop lying, blob.
Dr Empty,
Then explain to me how it is debunked.
As I have not seen a debunking and I have read most of the comments about it.
No Debunking has been shown.
Stop lying, blob.
Your debunked it for him, you can debunk it for me
Debunk it Sam
I thought we got past the second law crap
I guess not, your debunking is still based on your misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Which our host says doesn’t get violated with the greenhouse effect.
That means the only thing is you guys are too stupid to learn even from guys with Phd’s, whose main job is research, but do some teaching on the side.
Don’t take it from me, take it from Dr Roy, but he has already said it.
Can’t transfer energy from cold to hot, is false.
Doesn’t become true if you repeat it 60,000,000 times each time clicking your ruby red slippers together.
You’re definitely high.
Dr Empty
Sadly not.
OK, blob.
Dr Empty,
Why do you just lie there like a slug?
What an odd thing to say.
It is fascinating that people think a scientific idea has been ‘debunked’ because a few random, anonymous people on the internet with little or no scientific training have unilaterally made a declaration.
Especially when:
1) experimental confirmation has been offered.
2) the idea agrees with standard physics as taught at universities around the world.
And now they will unilaterally declare this “hilarious” and continue to pat themselves on the back for their victory without actually addressing the key underlying issues.
“1) experimental confirmation has been offered.”
Tim, if you are referring to Swanson’s “demo” as anything even slightly related to science, then you seriously need to review the “scienctific method”.
“2) the idea agrees with standard physics as taught at universities around the world.”
Tim, you are fantasizing again. There is NO valid physics book that indicates 2LoT can be violated.
Maybe you have a book on pseudoscience?
No JD, there is no valid physics book that suggest that a violation of the 2nd Law is occurring. I have a whole shelf of physics books.
It’s sad to have a “whole shelf of physics books”, and not be able to get anything right, or even answer relevant questions.
Kind of a waste, huh?
I think JD reads physics books the way others read the Bible. The Spirit moves him to believe his interpretation of the 2nd Law is the correct one and you have no right to tell him otherwise.
Yes Craig, false accusations and misrepresentations, right out of “Trolling 101”.
Nothing new.
Actually it’s quite fitting Tim, as the GPE concept was invented by a random anonymous person on the internet.
Well, sorry for your loss, Tim, but it’s time for you guys to move on. You can find employment with the next scam, I’m sure. Wherever they need some ex-academics to lie to people on the internet for money, there you will be.
Yeah, a random guy on the internet who has a PhD in Physics and is a department chair of a Chemistry department and teaches physical chemistry.
IE a guy who would get the right answer because he more than qualified.
Friend of yours, too, isn’t he, from what I remember?
No, but I read his blog and we have exchange pleasant words through the internet.
So though he and I are not your betters, we do have a couple skills in common.
We can solve systems of two equations in two variables.
We understand the second law of thermodynamics and that the solution he posted on his website which you linked to is correct and does not violate the said second law.
OK blob.
Dr Empty,
Do you not understand the physics and math?
#2
OK, blob.
So you resort to insults instead of engaging in a scientific discussion. Insults like a seven year old girl.
You know I can respond in kind.
But that tells me you can’t discuss the science because you don’t know any.
#3
OK, blob.
Why don’t you and JD put your posts together and submit it to a journal, I bet a dozen journals would publish a refutation of the greenhouse effect.
If you actually have refuted the greenhouse effect.
It would be ground breaking.
Would save the world a lot of money.
Wouldn’t that be nice?
#4
OK, blob.
So your technical skills are somewhere between counting and refuting the greenhouse effect.
#5
OK, blob.
b,
Pointless appeal to authority. maybe you believe that NASA personnel with PhDs, always “get the right answer” because they are qualified? Or Boeing 787 aircraft don’t need certification, because they are designed by qualified people?
You are a lovely gullible laddie, perfectly conditioned to believe that Gavin Schmidt is a famous climate scientist, or that CO2 makes thermometers hotter! In reality, you just demonstrate to others that you are stupid and ignorant, and a true believer in a GHE that you cannot even properly describe!
If you can contribute a fact or two to support your bizarre GHE assumptions, it might help. Up to you, of course.
Cheers.
Flynn,
You need to bone up on what an appeal to authority actually is.
You appear to be deficient in that regard.
Cheers!
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“Vibration in molecules comes from electron bonds, no electronsno bonds.no vibration. Rotation is a property of a linear molecule, the linearity due to electron and the shapes bonds they form. That leaves transition, which we have already discussed.
Electrons in N2/O2 behave no differently than electrons in CO2 or WV.”
The bonds in CO2 and water vapor are much different than N2 or O2. The differences in spectral absorρtion are documented. If what you are saying were true only the elements in a substance could be found through spectral analysis.
Regarding: https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
I said…“Please show the calculation that transforms 400 W/m^2 into 244K and 600 W/m^2 into 244K.”
JD said…”There is no such calculation, bdgwx. You need to get an adult to explain the simple diagram to you. You can’t figure it out by yourself.”
Then how did you arrive at 244K and how am I or others supposed to replicate your results?
I said…“And what law of physics allows a black body to radiate at a lower power on its ‘warm’ side and a higher power on its ‘cool’ side?
JD said…”The funniest part is bdgwx said he had been lurking for some time, and had been studying the issue!”
I’m not trying to be obtuse here. These are important questions that drive to the heart of the matter in regards to Swanson’s experiment. If a simple diagram is enough to overthrow actual observations then surely there is an equally simple answer that would address the concerns that have been raised about it.
“If a simple diagram is enough to overthrow actual observations”
OK. One more time, bdgwx:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352377
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352382
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352442
DR Empty.
How does the blue plate emit 400 watts/m2 from one side and 200 watts/m2 from the other side?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352591
Dr Empty.
I see you are evading the question.
Defense of debunking has failed, do you want to try again?
You keep missing the point. Over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Once again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352377
Over and over and over and crimson and clover
You have failed to make your point.
JD’s diagram has serious errors.
You guys can’t do the math and don’t understand the thermodynamics.
Two plates at the same temperature emit the same amount of radiation.
A plate emits the same amount of radiation from both sides.
If the plates are at the same temperature the arrows between them need to sum to zero, because if there is no temperature difference there can be no heat transfer.
That’s three strikes, for those who are counting, but the catcher dropped the ball, oh but he picked it up and smacked you on the heat in an attempt to knock some sense in you but you just lay there.
You missed the point again.
“…because if there is no temperature difference there can be no heat transfer.”
bob, radiative heat transfer does NOT depend on ΔT.
Learn some physics.
JD,
If they are at the same temperature, one can’t heat the other, hence no heat transfer.
time for you to learn some physics
How about the other two objections?
Hand wave them away too?
The flux to the green plate provides its temperature, not the other way around.
b,
I suppose you are still trying to show that you can use the radiation from ice to make water hotter. You cannot. Maybe you are going to claim that you can use the radiation from a colder object to raise the temperature of a hotter object, using imaginary materials. The problem is that any temperature increase occurring in your imagination is not perceived in the real world.
None of your rambling is worth anything at all – particularly as you can’t even provide a useful GHE description.
You fall back on the usual tactics of the pseudoscientific climate cultist – deny, divert, confuse.
Bad luck. Nobody rational gives a toss whether you hurl abuse and foul language at them. Appealing to your own authority is not working too well for you, either. Maybe you could threaten people with the exercise of your awesome super powers, but nobody is likely to believe any claims you make in this regard either!
As to your silly implication that a “plate” emits the same amount of radiation from both sides, it may, or it may not. This assumption relating temperature to radiation is just stupid – more pseudoscientific climate cultist assumption. Anybody with any brain is probably aware of Leslie’s cube, for example. “Leslie’s cube is a device used in the measurement or demonstration of the variations in thermal radiation emitted from different surfaces at the same temperature.”
The principle applies equally to different sides of a “plate”.
Carry on with the pseudoscience, swearing, and foul language, if you think it advantageous to your cause. You look stupid and ignorant at the moment – you can’t even describe this GHE which you claim to know all about!
What a fool!
Cheers.
Remember Flynn,
You have always been abusive, so quit your griping when someone is abusive to you.
You can dish it out but you can’t take it.
So you might as well get out of the kitchen.
Mike,
In the green plate effect problem the plates are made of the same material, so they emit the same.
Is not a leslie cube problem.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“Then how did you arrive at 244K and how am I or others supposed to replicate your results?”
The 244 K is the calculated temperature for 200 W/m^2, using the S/B equation.
“I’m not trying to be obtuse here.”
bdgwx, either you are being obtuse, or you are ignorant of physics, or both. You have not demonstrated an interest in learning. You keep asking the same stupid questions, acting as if you can’t understand the answers. So, either you can’t learn, or you are only interested in confusing the issue.
No JD,
we are trying to tell you your diagram is as fucked up as hogan’s goat.
Oh, I know what you’re trying to do, bob.
You just can’t get it done with science. You have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
I’ll list them nicely and see if I get a better response
In your diagram
The blue plate emits different amounts of radiation from different sides.
If the blue plate and the green plate are at the same temperature then the arrows between them must sum to zero, they don’t.
If the blue plate and the green plate are at the same temperature, then they emit the same amount of radiation, in your diagram they don’t.
Will you address my comments?
Wrong, bob. The plates all emit the same. You are just unable to understand the simple example.
You can’t see reality, right in front of your face, just like your other clowns.
Nothing new.
JD,
Do they all emit the same?
You claim
“The plates all emit the same.”
Yet your diagram show the green plate emitting 400 and the blue plate emitting 600.
I guess I just can’t understand your kindergarten diagram.
Sorry you can’t understand at the kindergarten level, bob.
I can’t make it any easier.
JD,
So you can’t make it correct.
So it’s wrong, try again.
The plates have to emit the same amount from each side.
That is a simple requirement of basic elementary beginner first year physics.
The plates are emitting correctly, bob. You just can’t understand the simple diagram.
Before you can graduate from kindergarten, you will have to learn your colors.
Maybe that will help….
No JD,
The blue plate is emitting 400 to the right and 200 to the left,
So that tells me the right side is hotter than the left side
is that correct?
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
No of course not
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352781
Begone, foulmouthed troll!
JD,
Why are you using 200 W/m^2 as an input to the SB equation? You have the blue plate radiating at 600 W/m^2 and the green plate radiating at 400 W/m^2. There is no body in your diagram radiating at 200 W/m^2 so nothing should be at 244K.
Would you care to offer an explanation regarding why the blue plate is radiating 200 W/m^2 on the “warm” side and 400 W/m^2 on the “cool” side? How is this even possible?
Nope. That’s not right. In reality the plates will be more closely approximated as 2D entities as opposed to 1D entities. I’m assuming the lip is small enough that it can be neglected for now.
So using the SB equstion I get…
Red: 400 W/m^2, T = 290K
Blue: (200 + 400) / 2 = 300 W/m^2, T = 270K
Green: (200 + 200) / 2 = 200 W/m^2, T = 244K
My apologies…the green plate is 244K. I’m good with that part.
But…
1. The blue and green plates are still radiating at different amounts; 300 W/m^2 vs 200 W/m^2.
2. The blue plate is radiating 200 W/m^2 to the left and 400 W/m^2 to the right. It has a temperature differential from left to right. Even worse the “warm” side is radiating less than the “cool” side.
So the questions still stand…
1. How can the blue and green plates be radiating at different amounts and still be at the same temperature?
2. Why is the blue plate radiating 200 W/m^2 on the “warm” side and 400 W/m^2 on the right side?
bdgwx, once again you demonstrate your extreme ignorance of the relevant physics.
You can’t comprehend the simple diagram. You seemingly do not understand how to use the S/B equation. (Even a clown like Norman knows how to apply the S/B equation.)
Would you care to offer an explanation as to why you don’t have a clue about the topic, yet represent yourself as some concerned expert?
JD, why are you using 200 as input for the SB equation for the blue plate?
Would you care to offer an explanation as to why you don’t have a clue about the topic, yet represent yourself as some concerned expert?
(If you can’t explain yourself, and your deficiencies, the default position is that you’re just another physics-deprived pseudoscience clown.)
It’s all just a game. bdgwx, Craig T, bobdroege, Norman and the rest were all present at the time this was originally discussed. I have repeatedly tried to remind them that the debunking itself was not your alternative solution. They all already know that, because they were there at the time. Yet, here we are. Focussing attention onto your solution is a deliberate ploy to distract from the debunking of their solution. In reality, all of them already understand your solution, because you have explained it dozens of times. bdgwx even says he’s been lurking a long time, and following the discussion, so how can he possibly pretend not to understand? Make no mistake, their game is deliberate deception.
Here’s a comment from Mike Flynn, last month, discussing the actual debunk:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-349298
Note how Swanson, in response, tries to pretend the “3-plate problem” has nothing to do with the Green Plate Effect! He actually tries to pretend that what Mike is discussing doesn’t represent what they all have to defend. They are all utterly, utterly shameless, and without a shred of integrity, when it comes to this subject.
It’s Day 69 and they still can’t just accept that the GPE is debunked.
DREMT,
Mike’s explanation:
“can be induced merely by physically separating three plates, and obtaining a situation where the middle plate is at a higher temperature than those on either side. Further, that this temperature difference, once created, will persist without further input of external energy.”
“without further input of external energy.”
Like JD, for some unexplained reason, he does recognize the 400 Joules per second entering the system as input of external energy.
You can’t make a winning argument, if it is based on FALSE premise like this one.
There is no difference in incoming energy before and after separation.
“Would you care to offer an explanation as to why you dont have a clue about the topic, yet represent yourself as some concerned expert?”
This from the guy who insists a perfect absorber can magically switch to a perfect reflector?
A guy who has no issue with violating the Radiative Heat Transfer Law, Kirchoff’s Law, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics in his ‘diagram’?
Ironic.
Moronic.
‘There is no difference in incoming energy before and after separation.’
No difference in POWER input.
POWER not/= ENERGY.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352516
Yes, that’s right, energy is measured in joules, power is measured in joules per second, or watts. Very good, Nate. You’re learning.
There is no change in incoming energy, or incoming power, before and after separation.
Nate says: “This from the guy who insists a perfect absorber can magically switch to a perfect reflector?”
More misrepresentation from Nate.
DREMT says: “They are all utterly, utterly shameless, and without a shred of integrity, when it comes to this subject.”
And maybe any subject….
The Huffingboy/DR Empty sock puppet continues to ignore physics. In the two plate situation, the two plates are held in contact, thus the temperatures of the two would be the same, assuming perfect conduction between the Blue and Green plates. But, assuming both plates to be 1 meter square, as soon as the two are separated, the Green plate will begin to radiate at 200 w/m^2 on both sides, for 400 watts, while receiving only 200 watts from the Blue plate. Thus, the Green plate will begin to cool, while the Blue plate will begin to warm as it then receives 600 watts.
They’ve left out time and thermal mass. Neither plate experiences instant steady state conditions after they are separated, thus their model’s temperatures are incorrect, as the two plate’s energy flow evolves to a new steady state with the Green plate being cooler and the Blue plate being warmer than their temperatures at separation.
Of course, there’s no “Green arrow” from the Blue plate to the Green plate, as the Trolls appear to have realized when it was pointed out that the Blue plate can’t simultaneously emit BB radiation at 200 w/m^2 (the Blue arrow) and reflect 200 w/m^2 (the lower Green arrow), a fundamental fact which they continue to ignore. Not to mention that any initial temperature difference between the two plates resulting from the slight insulation effect between the two plates, will also present a similar result, that is, with the two plates having a temperature difference at steady state.
Three plates, Swanson. The debunking involves three plates. As you know.
Swanson says: “The Huffingboy/DR Empty sock puppet..”
I guess in Swanson’s world, I am supposed to respond with some such immature comment. But, I prefer to address his pseudoscience.
The simple diagram is shown at equilibrium, with the same thermal mass, so his “left out time and thermal mass” is just a distraction.
In the incorrect solution, the temperatures reflect an increase in enthalpy and a decrease in entropy, violating the laws of thermodynamics.
In the correct solution, no laws of physics are violated. The only violation is the false concept from pseudoscience that “all photons are always absorbed”.
Correct solution:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
JD,
I will gladly fix this for you
“In the incorrect solution, the temperatures reflect an increase in enthalpy and a decrease in entropy, violating the laws of thermodynamics.”
“In the correct solution, the temperatures reflect an increase in enthalpy and entropy, not violating the laws of thermodynamics.”
There you go!
‘More misrepresentation from Nate.’
No, JD, you are shamelessly lying again.
In your diagram, the blue plate, a black body, a perfect absorber, is reflecting 100% of the 200 W/m2 from the Green plate.
Are you going to deny what is in your own diagram?
DREMT,
Here is why Power not/= Energy matters in this problem.
“We have 400 J/s coming in to the system.
Before the system reaches equilibrium, nothing prevents < 400 J/s from leaving the system.
If, for 10 seconds, only 350 W is going out, then the system has gained 50 W x 10 s = 500 J.
This system has no problem gaining the energy it needs to warm a plate."
These are the relevant facts.
Explain to me what part you disagree with and why?
OK, Nate.
“If, for 10 seconds, only 350 W is going out, then the system has gained 50 W x 10 s = 500 J.”
Why does this happen by virtue of separating the plates?
a. Your statement “There is no change in incoming energy, or incoming power, before and after separation.” says nothing about outgoing power, correct?
Nothing prevents it from being different when not in equilibrium.
b. When separated, the Green and Blue plates are at the same temperature, therefore the radiative heat flow between them is 0.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
But the green plates are still emitting heat to space. They therefore must COOL.
When they cool, they will emit < 400 W/m^2 to space, until equilibrium is restored.
Again, explain to me what part you disagree with and why?
OK, Nate.
“b. When separated, the Green and Blue plates are at the same temperature, therefore the radiative heat flow between them is 0.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
But the green plates are still emitting heat to space. They therefore must COOL.”
The green plates were emitting heat to space when pressed together, and the conductive heat flow between them was 0. Yet they didn’t COOL then.
Now, I’ll repeat my question:
“If, for 10 seconds, only 350 W is going out, then the system has gained 50 W x 10 s = 500 J.”
Why does this happen by virtue of separating the plates?
Please try to answer it this time.
‘the conductive heat flow between them was 0. ‘
No, declaring again without evidence.
If a plate is emitting 200 W/m2 to space, and is in equilibrium, then it MUST be getting 200 W/m2 from the heat source, via conduction (what else?).
The three plates pushed together are all the same temperature, yes?
So conductive heat transfer between them is zero.
Nate realizes: “In your diagram, the blue plate…is reflecting 100% of the 200 W/m2 from the Green plate.”
Nate finally gets it. Now, he can explain it to the other clowns, like bobdroege, bdgwx, Swanson, and the like.
BTW,
“Please try to answer it this time.”
I gave you a crystal clear answer, and I noticed no disagreement with any parts of it.
Erm…OK, Nate.
Nate claims: “b. When separated, the Green and Blue plates are at the same temperature, therefore the radiative heat flow between them is 0.”
Nate, you are still confused by the bogus “radiative heat transfer” equation. That equation is not valid in the real world. If you understood radiative physics, you would know that equation is not applicable.
“is reflecting 100% of the 200 W/m2 from the Green plate.’
Nate finally gets it.”
Ok, then you acknowledge my previous statement:
you are ‘the guy who insists a perfect absorber can magically switch to a perfect reflector’
was accurate.
Fine, then you acknowledge that you see no need to agree with physics, common sense or reality.
‘The three plates pushed together are all the same temperature, yes?
So conductive heat transfer between them is zero.”
No of course not.
If so, then the input heat of 400 W/m^2 went where?
The output heat of 400 W/m^2 came from where?
Think, think, think, DREMT. We discussed this already.
JD,
‘If you understood radiative physics, you would know that equation is not applicable.’
I understand it well and I know that it is applicable.
We discussed this at length before, and you acknowledged that it is applicable, otherwise heaters don’t heat.
Remember?
‘So conductive heat transfer between them is zero.’
Hint: two options
a. Original problem the plates are idealized and are either infinitely thin or superconducting.
b. In real world, there will be a tiny temperature gradient across the thickness of the plates. Small enough to be neglected.
Wrong again, Nate. I never insisted “a perfect absorber can magically switch to a perfect reflector”.
Wrong again, Nate. I never acknowledged the bogus equation was necessary for heaters to heat. You don’t understand radiative heating.
JD,
‘Wrong again, Nate. I never insisted ‘a perfect absorber can magically switch to a perfect reflector’.
In your bizarro diagram, you have a black body, defined to be a perfect absorber, acting as a perfect reflector, ie reflecting 100% of flux it receives.
No matter how often you declare it, no law of physics allows that to happen.
This magical mirror pairs well with your magical material that absorbs EM energy and COOLS as a result.
For dessert the only option is ice cream because your heaters don’t heat.
And in your head, all that probably makes sense….
I’ve long since given up trying to get any sense from Nate. There’s no point talking to him. Just say:
OK, Nate.
‘Ive long since given up trying to get any sense from Nate.’
And yet, DREMT, you still have not found anything to disagree with in this straightforward post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352813
If you cannot, then I assume you agree that the
‘blue plate cannot warm because there is no difference in incoming energy before and after separation.
is a red herring.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352814
OK, Nate.
Ok lets go through this because you seem lost.
We were discussing the plates AFTER separation:
N: “We have 400 J/s coming in to the system. If, for 10 seconds, only 350 W is going out, then the system has gained 50 W x 10 s = 500 J.’
You asked:
D: “Why does this happen by virtue of separating the plates?”
I answered you
N: “When separated, the Green and Blue plates are at the same temperature, therefore the radiative heat flow between them is 0.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
But the green plates are still emitting heat to space. They therefore must COOL. When they cool, they will emit < 400 W/m^2 to space"
No disagreement. BUT THEN you decided the problem was when the plates were TOGETHER.
You asked
D "The three plates pushed together are all the same temperature, yes? So conductive heat transfer between them is zero."
This is, of course, really a DIFFERENT question. Still I answered you.
N: "a. Original problem the plates are idealized and are either infinitely thin or superconducting.
or b. In real world, there will be a tiny temperature gradient across the thickness of the plates. Small enough to be neglected."
Now, what doesnt make sense to you? What do you disagree with and why?
Are you high, Nate? Is there something preventing you from understanding plain English?
Wow.
OK, Nate.
Wow, DREMT,
Which part, specifically, in plain English, do you think Im misunderstanding?
You wrote this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352813
At the end, you asked me to explain what part I disagreed with, and why. I did so, in the following comment. Since then you have been repeatedly saying that I have not disagreed with that comment.
Because you appear to be high. Or just incapable of reading and understand plain English.
” I did so, in the following comment. ”
In that comment you brought up an issue regarding the plates together and their temperature.
All of us agree that when the plates are together they are at the same temperature (ideal case) or NEARLY the same temperature (real world).
And there must be heat flow between the plates by conduction in order for heat to flow out of the plates to space.
So, IMO, this was a distraction from the issue we were discussing, which was what happens when the plates are moved apart.
What else ya got?
When he loses track of the argument,
he accuses us of being high.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Why does this happen by virtue of separating the plates?”
Because (perfect) conduction is more efficient than radiation.
I didn’t lose track of the argument, blob. Nate did. And he still doesn’t get it, or at least, that is how he is choosing to act.
He needs to read my earlier response to him again. Or, just stop pretending that he doesn’t understand it…
Nate, once again: if the plates are pushed together, and all at the same temperature (and, of course, are at equilibrium), then there is no heat flow between them. So my earlier response to you stands. This one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-352814
Svante: irrelevant. The thought experiment assumes perfect conditions, and is in a perfect vacuum. It is assumed there are no radiative losses past the edges of the plates when separated. So there is no reason for the temperature of the green plates to drop, when separated. In real life, they would, in the thought experiment, no.
But, I tell you guys what. Rather than go round and round and round on what has already been written (which will be what happens, otherwise, because you are all unwilling to admit you are wrong, so will just keep repeating yourselves until you get the last word)…let’s assume (only for the sake of argument), that the temperature of the green plates did drop when separated.
So these are the two equilibrium states, as you erroneously see it:
Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K.
Plates apart: 244 K…290 K…244 K.
So you are saying, separate the plates, and initially the two green plates decrease in temperature. Now there is less power leaving the system than entering. So, the green plates return to their 244 K, as there is now the energy to warm them. You still, then, have the problem of where does the energy come from to warm the middle blue plate to 290 K!
Yes DREMT,
I already rebutted a couple of times your claim that the plates in contact have no heat flow.
You need to explain what is wrong with that rebuttal.
Such as here:
“All of us agree that when the plates are together they are at the same temperature (ideal case) or NEARLY the same temperature (real world).
And there must be heat flow between the plates by conduction in order for heat to flow out of the plates to space.”
Reminder ideal case:
“Original problem the plates are idealized and are either infinitely thin or superconducting.”
“you are saying, separate the plates, and initially the two green plates decrease in temperature. Now there is less power leaving the system than entering. So, the green plates return to their 244 K, as there is now the energy to warm them. ”
Indeed.
“You still, then, have the problem of where does the energy come from to warm the middle blue plate to 290 K!”
Now continue, as you do above, to follow logically step-by-step what should happen:
When the plates are separated, the flow of heat from BLUE to GREEN is initially 0 (as previously shown).
But the flow of heat INTO the BLUE is still 400 J/s.
With 400 J/s input and 0 output, the BLUE plate has no choice, it must warm.
Apparently Nate has no clue what “heat” is. Or, at least, that’s what he’s pretending, in order to confuse this issue as much as possible.
Again, I’ll just say:
OK, Nate.
I’m happy that my responses refute yours.
Regarding this:
‘It is assumed there are no radiative losses past the edges of the plates when separated. So there is no reason for the temperature of the green plates to drop, when separated.’
What is assumed is that the geometry is ideal, infinite, parallel, flat plates, so that only radiation between the plates needs to be considered.
And the material PROPERTIES of the plates are ideal, infinite conductivity, emissivity = 1.
Beyond those assumptions, all laws of physics still apply.
Such as this one:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Therefore, the GREEN plate has 200 W/m2 output and 0 heat INPUT upon separation, and MUST cool.
‘Apparently Nate has no clue what heat is. Or, at least, thats what hes pretending, in order to confuse this issue as much as possible.’
I don’t know what that means. But it certainly does not respond to anything I’ve said.
I’ve laid out a very clear, logical rebuttal to your claims.
Are you now saying you cannot point out any flaws in my logic?
“Therefore, the GREEN plate has 200 W/m2 output and 0 heat INPUT upon separation, and MUST cool.”
Here’s a good example of Nate’s odd use of the word “heat”.
It makes you wonder what he thinks has changed, in separating the plates, which would mean that there is no longer a heat input (as he would describe it) to the green plates.
After all, In an earlier comment, Nate stated:
“And there must be heat flow between the plates by conduction in order for heat to flow out of the plates to space.”
But when separated, he no longer thinks there must be (what he calls) heat flow between the plates by radiation in order for heat to flow out of the plates to space. He suddenly declares that heat flow is zero between the plates, when separated. And now, mysteriously, the outward flow (to space) from the green plate suddenly “counts”. With the plates pressed together, that wasn’t a problem for him. Separated, it is.
Best just to say, “OK Nate”.
OK good, a specific response.
‘ He suddenly declares that heat flow is zero between the plates, when separated.’
I’m declaring it. But I’m backing that up with facts.
A law of physics requires it.
This one:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Plug-in the temperatures of the BLUE and GREEN plates for T and TC and see what you get.
If you prefer real-world temperatures, you can make the GREEN plate’s temperature 0.1 K lower.
You going to find heat flux = 0, or much much less than 200 W/m^2.
Nate says:
“A law of physics requires it.”
But once again, when the plates are pressed together, and at the same temperature, at equilibrium, he doesn’t think that “a law of physics requires” that the heat flow is also zero, between the plates.
“OK, Nate”.
“But once again, when the plates are pressed together, and at the same temperature, at equilibrium, he doesnt think that ‘a law of physics requires’ that the heat flow is also zero, between the plates.”
FALSE.
That’s been thoroughly explained, and you had no response.
More detail, if you need.
Law of heat conduction:
dQ/dt = 200W/m^2= K (T-Tc)/d. Ideal case: K infinite. T-Tc = 0.
Real world case K= 300 W/mK, d = 1 mm, T-Tc = 0.00067 K
“ T-Tc = 0.”
There you go.
‘T = 0. There you go.’
Go where?
Heat flux = 200W/m^2 not 0.
OK Nate. Heat flows between three identical objects when there is no temperature difference between them. Or, to be precise, it does when the heat transfer mechanism is conduction, but doesn’t when the heat transfer mechanism is radiation.
’ll remember that for future reference.
‘ Heat flows between three identical objects when there is no temperature difference between them.’
I can see that still bothers you as it does me, because of the infinite conductivity.
Infinities are annoying.
We are all more comfortable with the real world case, where a tiny temperature difference of .00067 K produces heat flux by conduction of 200 W/m^2 across 1 mm thick copper plates.
That work better for you?
Nate, equilibrium means heat flow has gone to zero.
You seem to be high again.
“Nate, equilibrium means heat flow has gone to zero.”
Well since heat flow is clearly 400 W/m^2 through the system, not really relevant here.
Technically speaking, GPE is not really in equilibrium, it does reach a steady state, though.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Why does this happen by virtue of separating the plates?”
Svante says:
Because (perfect) conduction is more efficient than radiation.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“irrelevant”.
Svante says:
Conduction and radiation have different formulas.
They produce different results.
Well, DREMT, we’ve looked pretty thoroughly at the claim that that the blue plate cannot warm because there is ‘no new energy’.
Weve show that there is new energy input available, and we showed how the blue plate warms when the plates are separated.
We looked at the side issue of heat conduction while plates are in contact and we found that is not a problem either.
Is there anything else that is supposed to debunk the GPE?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353327
craig…”The bonds in CO2 and water vapor are much different than N2 or O2. The differences in spectral absorρ-tion are documented. If what you are saying were true only the elements in a substance could be found through spectral analysis”.
**********
The basic bonding principles are the same between all atoms, however, different atoms offer different levels of electronegativity, which is due to the strength of the electrons in the bonds.
For example, in the water molecule, the electronegativity from the electrons in the oxygen atom are more negative than the electronegativity of the electrons in the hydrogen molecule. That produces an angle between the O atom and the two H atoms giving a molecular angle between the two atomic bonds.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Atomic_and_Molecular_Properties/Electronegativity
In electronics, if a potential is not as negative as another, you can claim that potential is positive wrt the more negative element. In the water molecule, the difference in electronegativity between the two O-H bonds produces a dipole action with +ve and -ve poles. It is that weak atomic bond that holds water molecules together.
I am trying to say that even though everything in a mass is an aggregation of electrons and protons, within that aggregation there are many different possibilities and arrangements that give each element vastly different properties.
The spectral lines are an example of those possibilities and arrangements, even though each electron and proton in the arrangements are identical. All bonds between electrons and nucleii are identical wrt to the electrostatic forces involved but the degree and polarity of force can vary a lot, leading to different molecular shapes.
In the hydrogen atom there are several spectral lines. Each line represents an emission from the single electron in the hydrogen atom changing energy levels from different possible energy states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
If you have a more complex atom with several layers of electron orbital energy levels, those spectral lines can come from electrons in different orbital energy levels, transition over one or more energy levels.
The point to note wrt to AGW, is that alarmist scientists have focused only on terrestrial temperature emissions of WV and CO2 while ignoring the overall effect of N2 and O2 that make up 99% of the atmosphere. N2 and O2 can absorb and emit energy equally as well as WV or CO2, just at different frequencies.
Besides, the problem may be far more complex than air molecules emitting radiation. The temperature of air molecules is a measure of the kinetic enenrgy of each molecule with each gas contributing
In a decent search through Google I have yet to see an adequate coverage of such emission/absorp-tion from N2/O2. The presumption is that N2/O2 cannot dissipate heat, or absorb it, and based on quantum theory that is patently wrong.
I think one problem may be that physicists who deal with absorp-tion/emission of N2/O2 have no interest in AGW, and they have never been asked to comment.
Climate modelers are notorious for ignoring input from other disciplines. When John Christy of UAH, a friendly man with integrity, offered data to a climate modeler that proved his model was wrong, the modeler retorted that he did not care, that his model was right.
Gordon,
It is easy to find information on the spectrum of Nitrogen.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2015/10/aa26353-15.pdf
The point is for the greenhouse gas theory, it is important to look for what can happen at the temperatures in the atmosphere.
The point being Nitrogen and Oxygen only emit when heated to higher temperatures than exist in the atmosphere, and correspondingly only can abzorb high energy photons.
They don’t absorb or emit infrared like CO2 or water (vapor or liquid)
Got anything on this
“The presumption is that N2/O2 cannot dissipate heat, or absorb it, and based on quantum theory that is patently wrong.”
I haven’t heard of anything saying Quantum Theory is wrong.
swannie…”Gordo cant understand that the absprp_tion and emissions of N2 and O2 are of little impact for that portion of the IR EM spectrum corresponding to the Planck spectrum for the Earths atmospheric temperature profile”.
Did I mention radiation from N2 or O2 in the IR band related to terrestrial temperatures? All I claimed was that N2/O2, under the right conditions, would radiate equally as well as CO2 or WV. I claimed further that alarmist scientist have likely overlooked that fact and searched for radiation only in the spectral range related to surface emissions.
********
“The major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 have no net change in the distribution of their electrical charges when they vibrate…”
***
This is the narrow minded thinking to which I refer. The statement obviously comes from someone with a myopic view of molecules and the emission of electrons.
The oxygen atom has 8 electrons, two in the first energy orbital and 6 in the 2nd. All of those electrons are capable of existing in different energy states within each orbital energy state. As they change levels they can absorb and radiate EM. Nitrogen has 7 electrons, 2 in the first shell and 5 spread over the 2nd shell.
The goal of each atom with a configuration like N is to have 8 electrons in the outer shell. That makes it stable, like argon. Two N atoms share 3 electrons each with another N atom to form the molecule N2, which we detect in the atmosphere.
If the two N atoms share 3 electrons each, that amounts to 6 electrons in one bond. With the 2 other electrons per shell that rounds out to 8 electrons in the N2 outer shell making it a very stable and very electronegative molecule.
When people talk about a molecule like N2 being unable to radiate as a molecule in the IR band or absorb in the same band, it does not mean those electrons cannot radiate in other bands. We know they do.
If you have a cloud of N2 molecules close to the -273C of space, the question arises as to whether N2 (and O2) will radiate under those conditions.
I don’t think there is any doubt they will radiate but for some reason that fact is being stifled by alarmist climate scientists whose theory depends on only CO2 and WV absorbing and radiating.
It seems absurd to me that the warming of the atmosphere (or the cooling) would depend on gases making up 0.3% of the entire atmosphere.
The whole point is that N2 and O2 as gases will absorb EM to warm and emit EM to cool. As elements, they are no different than other elements making up the surface. I would like to see how much solar SW is absorbed by N2/O2 directly.
I think the current theory is seriously flawed as well as biased toward the anthropogenic theory.
“The point to note wrt to AGW, is that alarmist scientists have focused only on terrestrial temperature emissions of WV and CO2 while ignoring the overall effect of N2 and O2 that make up 99% of the atmosphere. N2 and O2 can absorb and emit energy equally as well as WV or CO2, just at different frequencies.”
“When people talk about a molecule like N2 being unable to radiate as a molecule in the IR band or absorb in the same band, it does not mean those electrons cannot radiate in other bands. We know they do.”
Nitrogen is transparent to IR, visible and most UV light. In the highest parts of the atmosphere it can absorb and emit some light with a wavelength over 100000 cm^− 1
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/Vieitez-08-ML.pdf
That won’t impact climate.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
bob d…”The point is for the greenhouse gas theory, it is important to look for what can happen at the temperatures in the atmosphere”.
I am well-aware of that Bob. I do not accept the GHE theory as it stands and I am looking beyond it for a better explanation. As it stands, the GHE theory is nothing short of ridiculous. Lindzen claimed as much although he was too professional to state that.
I have no problem with the notion that the planet is warmer with an atmosphere and oceans than it would be without either or both. I just cannot accept the GHE explanation. There is nothing in physics or chemistry to support the notion that trace gases in the atmosphere can radiate energy to the surface and either raise its temperature or slow down the rate of heat dissipation.
With regard to the heat trapping blanket theory, physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, stated it well. He claimed the the theory is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly. I have extended the plain silly bit to both the GHE and AGW theories.
bob d…”The point being Nitrogen and Oxygen only emit when heated to higher temperatures than exist in the atmosphere, and correspondingly only can abzorb high energy photons.”
I know that’s one theory, Bob, but it flies in the face of the notion that all substances radiate energy. The surface is not made of CO2 or WV, and is composed largely in part of oxygen (oxides and water), yet it is claimed to radiate.
Why can oxygen in the form of oxides radiate energy yet free O2 in the atmosphere cannot? Both forms of matter related to oxygen are made of the same electrons and protons as the oxygen in air, yet one set of electrons can radiate while the others cannot.
I am clear about the radiation by molecular bonds but that radiation is only one part of a radiation process where the base process is electronic transitions. Both the radiation due to molecular vibration and rotation fall under the overall process of electronic transitions.
I don’t think enough is known about the chemistry of the surface, including water. There are too many presumptions being made by scientists lacking the qualifications to make such presumptions.
I don’t think we have the telemetry to measure broadband, continuous radiation from the surface. There is no receiver or amplifier with such a broadband abilities.
I want to hear from qualified scientists at large, not just alarmist scientists who have a bias and who receive funding for backing a paradigm.
Part of my studies in chemistry was taking infrared spectra of compounds in a first year organic chemistry lab.
It was back in the day when most of the music I listened to was on vinyl records, the cleanliness of those records was important for various reasons.
I used a compound called D3 and later D4 which came in little red bottles with warnings on the bottle like it was a dangerous chemical. It beaded up like pure water.
I took spectra of both the D3 and distilled water and the scans were identical.
Both had a huge peak in the infrared, as well as some other narrower peaks also in the infrared range.
To say scientists don’t know about the properties of water with respect to infrared abzorbtion is shear lunacy.
Every chemist knows about it.
bob, to be a chemist, you must first graduate from kindergarten. By your own admission, you have not done that.
You’re no chemist.
You’re a blog terrorist.
It’s true that I never graduated from Kindergarten.
My Mom had me pulled out of kindergarten and put in first grade so she could go back to work.
So it’s another thing you are wrong about, because you can get a degree in chemistry without graduating kindergarten.
begone, pointless troll!
Gordo wrote:
Gordo can’t understand that the absprp_tion and emissions of N2 and O2 are of little impact for that portion of the IR EM spectrum corresponding to the Planck spectrum for the Earth’s atmospheric temperature profile. See this Wiki article’s discussion of the various GHGs. As even you may see in the first Figure, there’s a small effect from O2 and none given for N2 within the spectral range of importance. As the article points out:
But, if you made any effort to research the science, you would already know that, right?
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
“I think one problem may be that physicists who deal with absorp-tion/emission of N2/O2 have no interest in AGW, and they have never been asked to comment.”
You have that backwards. It was physicists who first found which gasses absorb IR and could affect climate. Here’s why you don’t see papers on IR absorρtion of N2 or O2.
“Homonuclear diatomic molecules such as molecular hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen have no net dipole moment. As the molecule stretches and compresses itself in its one vibrational mode, the symmetry is unchanged, and at no time does a dipole moment exist. Thus, infrared transitions are truly ‘forbidden’, since symmetry requires that the molecular dipole moment can never vary from zero.”
http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~ljc/LectF.pdf
Craig, you are purposely missing the point. Everyone knows that all matter can absorb and emit, in the right conditions. But, “all photons are not always absorbed”. That’s the point you fail to understand.
You know that if “all photons are not always absorbed”, your precious belief system crumbles.
The funny thing is your precious belief system crumbled a long time ago, due to may violations of the laws of physics. You’re just clinging to a dead squirrel.
Nothing new.
JD,
We all understand that all photons are not always abxsorbed.
Just in the case of infrared and water, it’s 99.abunchofnines%
Wrong, as usual.
Nope,
Actually experimental data has been provided, your objection is denied.
Channeling Mike:
“It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.”
JD your opinion on water absorbing IR is wrong.
Craig, explain again how exponents have units.
Jd,
Of course exponents can have units, I do calculations all the time with units in the exponents, and of course they always cancel out.
Do you need me to show you how to do the calculation for the green plate effect if the case is all photons are not always abzorbed.
It is amazing you don’t know how to do that calculation.
If you don’t know how to do that, you can’t debunk the greenhouse effect.
It’s simple.
bob, when, and if, you finally graduate from kindergarten, the first thing you should do is see if you can understand the simple diagrams.
Then, years later, if you’re lucky, you may be able to understand that exponents don’t have units. If the units cancel, they don’t have units.
It will take years.
JD,
You were the one complaining about exponents having units when the exponents actually mentioned did cancel.
So what are you going on about, you don’t seem to have a point.
How about that equation for when all the radiation isn’t abxorbed?
bob, I’m convinced you are right.
You can’t understand anything above kindergarten level.
bob d..”How about that equation for when all the radiation isnt abxorbed?”
We are talking about heat transfer, not radiation. The radiation is a messenger that can transfer energy from hot to cold.
When you measure heat transfer via radiation you do it by taking the temperature of the emitting body and taking the temperature of the cooler body. The former should cool (unless heated) and the latter should warm. That temperature has absolutely nothing to do with radiation, temperature is a measure of relative heat levels and heat is a property (kinetic energy) of the atoms in the mass in which they are located.
Radiation is a red herring. It does not matter what happens to it as viewed from the POV of thermodynamics. A basic tenet of thermodynamics is the 2nd law, which is stated very clearly. Heat can never be transferred by its own means cold to hot, therefore radiation from a cooler body contacting a hotter body because a moot point.
It has no effect. Who cares what becomes of it in thermodynamics?
bob d…”It is amazing you dont know how to do that calculation”.
No one can do the calculation using real science because the problem as stated make presumptions based on pseudo-science.
Yeah these two pseudo-science dudes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Stefan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
In JDs bizzaro world ‘all photons are not always absorbed’ becomes 100% of photons are reflected, somehow.
Nate
I have also discussed this with the troll. He really has no answer and never will. If you were debating with an actual climate skeptic you could rationally get to some point of understanding. Since this poster(s) is(are) trolls they do not rationally post comments. They post things that they believe will annoy other posters and then get going in long stupid debates.
You are not dealing with a person who wants to reason. The two posting on the end of this thread. DREMT and JDHuffman are both trolls. It is possible they have some physics background (but I put a very low probability on that) but that won’t matter to them. They are trolls with only one purpose in posting. To annoy and disrupt the blog. They will continue this operation as long as they can find fish to bait and lure them. I ignore JDHuffman, Mike Flynn. I attempted a rational debate with DREMT but he also a troll and you will not get any useful responses from this one.
Just keep watching and you will see. They are trolls baiting and luring anyone who they can. When these troll came to Roy’s blog you have threads of thousands of posts of nonsense. I tried many times to rationally use science with JDHuffman then after a period of time you realize they are trolls. You can watch him try and lure me back with his troll attempts. I ignore this one. It gets easy to do.
You are too intelligent to waste time with trolls. There are some better skeptics to debate with. I would stick to those. I know you and Bart have long interactions. I consider Bart to be an actually intelligent skeptic. He does ask some good questions and make one think. The other trolls don’t even offer that service.
Norman, is this one of the times you are ignoring us?
You’re such a clown.
norman…”I have also discussed this with the troll. He really has no answer and never will. If you were debating with an actual climate skeptic you could rationally get to some point of understanding”.
You are on a level below a troll. You argue science that is non-existent, failing to understand the 2nd law or what it means. Both JD and Mike understand clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
You have defended the experiments of swannie in which he reaches conclusions that are a flagrant violation of the 2nd law. What is it about NEVER you fail to understand wrt the 2nd law? Clausius did not talk about a net heat transfer as you imply he talked only of a one way heat transfer between bodies of different temperature.
That notion is a tenet across the fields of physics and chemistry. Energy in general can NEVER be transferred from a source at a lower potential energy to a target at a higher potential energy. It applies to all energy. You should know that.
Clausius was absolutely clear that the only way heat could be transferred cold to hot was through an immediate compensation of the heat lost by the colder body. In practice, in refrigeration, that has nothing to do with a net heat flow, it is about external energy driving machines that change the state of a gas.
That’s how heat is transferred from cold to hot and when no compensation is available as in the atmosphere heat can NEVER be transferred cold to hot.
Both you and swannie should have looked at his experiments under such constraints and looked for another explanation. I supplied one related to heat dissipation and both of you immediately dismissed my observations.
In essence, you are the troll since you are interjected pure pseudo-science into a site run by a scientist.
nate…”In JDs bizzaro world all photons are not always absorbed becomes 100% of photons are reflected, somehow”.
A better way of stating the case is that we have no idea what happens to photons that are not absorbed. All we know for sure is that the 2nd law prohibits the transfer of heat, without compensation, from a colder body to a warmer body. From that, it follows that EM from a colder body cannot heat a hotter body.
You alarmists have tried to amend the 2nd law by talking about a mythical net transfer of heat, hidden behind the generic term energy. You have claimed the 2nd law is satisfied because a mythical ‘net balance of ENERGY’ satisfies the 2nd law.
No one has explained this generic energy and how it relates to EM and heat. The truth is that in a transfer of heat between bodies of different temperatures heat and EM cannot exist simultaneously. Heat is converted to EM and lost, then at the cooler body, EM is converted back to heat and lost.
That process is not reversible. Reversing it would contradict the definition of the 2nd law by Clausius and the definition of entropy he invented to state the 2nd law mathematically.
There is no heat flow between bodies so where does the ‘net’ energy come from?
“You’re just clinging to a dead squirrel.”
He’s only pining for the Fjords!
“Man: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
Mr. Barnard: OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.”
That is the more apt skit for here.
bobdroege, Craig T, please stop trolling.
craig t…”You have that backwards. It was physicists who first found which gasses absorb IR and could affect climate”.
Allow me to restate that without the alrmist bent.
It was one physicist, Tyndall, who first found which gases absorb IR. He hypothesized that the absorp-tion of IR by certain gases MIGHT warm the atmosphere.
That notion lay dormant for nearly a century till some ingrate, modernist, alarmist revived the work of Tyndall and pronounced it as fact. The truth is that no one has ever proved Tyndall’s hypothesis re global warming to be correct.
My point had nothing to do with Tyndall. I was talking about the study of gases over the decades in labs by experts on gases. They were not researching gases in relation to warming or climate, they were simply researching gases.
None of those experts have been consulted on the current innuendo. One of them, R. W. Wood did offer his opinion that CO2 could not warm the atmosphere as claimed. He was an expert on radiation and gases.
He hypothesized the likely cause of atmospheric warming was gases in air absorbing heat directly from the surface then being unable to release it quickly. That is a far better explanation of the so-called GHE than a gas representing 0.04% of the atmosphere allegedly having the heating capacity to raise atmospheric temperature by 9% to 25%.
Can you give me a date for when this alarmist discovered Tyndall? I’d like to know what period you think the science went off the skids.
Begone, troll!
“The words ‘of itself, here used for the sake of brevity, require, in order to be completely understood, a further explanation, as given in various parts of the author’s papers. In the first place they express the fact that heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the colder. . It is true that by such a process (as we have seen by going through the original cycle in the reverse direction) heat may be carried over from a colder into a hotter body: our principle however declares that simultaneously with this passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body there must either take place an opposite passage of heat from a hotter to a colder body, or else some change or other which has the special property that it is not reversible, except under the condition that it occasions, whether directly or indirectly, such an opposite passage of heat. This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction, or this special change entailing an opposite passage of heat, is then to be treated as a compensation for the passage of heat from the colder to the warmer body; and if we apply this conception we may replace the words” of itself” by “without compensation,” and then enunciate the principle as follows: ‘A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.'”
The Mechanical Theory of Heat page 78
Rudolf Clausius
https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/clausius1879.pdf
In an exchange of radiant energy, the warmer body can absorb radiation from the cooler body as long as the cooler body is “compensated” with radiant energy from the hotter.
…and now, including the bit you left out:
“The words, “of itself”, here llsed for the sake of brevity, require, in order to be completely understood, a further explanation, as given in various parts of the author’s papers. In the first place they express the fact that heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the colder. This, which was already known as respects direct radiation, must thus be further extended to cases in which by refraction or reflection the course of the ray is diverted and a concentration of rays thereby produced. In the second place the principle must be applicable to processes which are a combination of several different steps, such as e.g. cyclical processes of the kind described above. It is true that by such a process (as we have seen by going through the original cycle in the reverse direction) heat may be carried over from a colder into a hotter body: our principle however declares that simultaneously with this passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body there must either take place an opposite passage of heat from a hotter to a colder body, or else some change or other which has the special property that it is not reversible, except under the condition that it occasions, whether directly or indirectly, such an opposite passage of heat. This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction, or this special change entailing an opposite passage of heat, is then to be treated as a compensation for the passage of heat from the colder to the warmer body; and if we apply this conception we may replace the words" of itself" by "without compensation," and then enunciate the principle as follows: ‘A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.’"
I left that out of an already long quote because it doesn’t change what Clausius is saying.
It would violate the 2nd law if the cooler gave energy to the warmer body without the warmer giving energy to the cooler. The net exchange will always warm the cooler body and cool the warmer body. “…heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the colder.”
Clausius says your interpretation of the 2nd law is wrong.
“I left that out of an already long quote because it doesn’t change what Clausius is saying…”
It applies what Clausius goes on to say to a couple of specific instances, “cases in which by refraction or reflection the course of the ray is diverted and a concentration of rays thereby produced”, and “processes which are a combination of several different steps, such as e.g. cyclical processes of the kind described above” (for which you will need to read the preceding pages). Pretty important context then, which you deliberately left out, as you are here to deceive others.
There is always compensation.
With a refrigerator, sure.
There’s also compensation in conduction and radiation according to Clausius.
…in the case of those specific instances…
“In the first place they express the fact that heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the colder. This, which was already known as respects direct radiation, must thus be further extended to cases in which by refraction or reflection the course of the ray is diverted and a concentration of rays thereby produced. In the second place the principle must be applicable to processes which are a combination of several different steps, such as e.g. cyclical processes of the kind described above. ”
Let’s start DREMT’s denial count on what Clausius is saying.
Your denial count is now at 2.
mike flynn…”As to your silly implication that a plate emits the same amount of radiation from both sides, it may, or it may not”.
Mike….the whole problem with this silly thought experiment is that it is a pitiful effort by an uber-alarmist, Eli Rabbett, to emulate the situation between the planet’s surface, heated by solar energy, and the surface heating only GHGs in the atmosphere.
I presume the Wabbitt Wascal sees the surface as the blue plate and it is obviously radiating in one direction only. That would make the atmosphere the green plate, in which case, things get seriously complicated.
It would mean the GP is heated by the BP. However, the atmosphere, as the GP, is radiating to space as well as back to the surface and this is where Wabbitt becomes deluded. He thinks radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface hence raising the temperature of the surface.
The number one objection to the latter theory was raised by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They argued with the Wabbitt (Josh Halpern) that the 2nd law forbids such a back-radiation that could raise the surface temperature.
G&T quoted the 2nd law as proof while emphasizing that the 2nd law applies only to a heat transfer (not EM). Halpern (Wabbitt) et al argued that in an exchange of radiation between bodies of different temperatures, if heat could be transferred only one way, it would mean one body was not radiating.
This is the pseudo-science behind the ludicrous G-P thought-experiment by the Wabbitt Wascal. It is a Mickey Mouse scenario in which heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures in a direct and flagrant contradiction of the 2nd law.
Of course, what you state is correct, that a body does not have to radiate equally in either direction, especially if one side is being heated, like the Earth’s surface. However, the entire model is seriously flawed.
The import of the current debate is that the alarmists cannot even begin to understand the 2nd law or the implication of perpetual motion. The surface-atmosphere reality the Wabbitt is trying to model is a system in which the atmosphere is heated by the surface directly by conduction and convection and to a minor degree by radiation.
It is simply not possible for heat to be recycled as the Wabbitt claims. It is not possible for the surface to transfer heat to the atmosphere then have the atmosphere return that heat in such a manner as to raise the temperature of the source that heated it. That describes perpetual motion.
Some have incredibly argued that the back-radiation can be added to solar energy, an absurd notion. The spectra don’t overlap, making summation an impossibility. The idiotic theory does not allow for losses between surface and GHGs and the 5% of surface radiation absorbed by GHGs could not return enough energy to make up for losses never mind raise the temperature.
The Wabbitt sees only radiation and he has reduced the problem to one of sci-fi.
At least, when we were debating the Moon problem we were doing so based on real physics. This G-P problem is not even worth discussing since it is so wrought with pseudo-science.
You cannot apply S-B here because the T^4 relationship between a body at temperature T and the EM it produces depends on the temperature of the environment in which the body is located. If the body at 3000C was located in a blast furnace at 3000C there would be no radiation from the body nor heat transfer to the environment.
S-B describes a one-way heat transfer between the heated body and a cooler environment with the body hotter than the environment. That rules out the Wabitt’s GP to BP heat transfer from a cooler body to a hotter body that warmed it.
S-B was developed in an era before the electron was discovered and the subsequent quantum theory based on the properties of an electron wrt its nucleus. You can apply S-B to each plate as a radiator but S-B does not cover heat transfer or the restrictions of the 2nd law.
Although Clausius stipulated the 2nd law before S-B, and claimed it applied equally to radiation, which was insightful considering at the time he invented the 2nd law, he lacked the proof for the radiation aspect. He thought, as did S-B, and even Planck, that heat flowed from a body as ‘heat rays’.
It was not till much later, in 1913, that Bohr laid down the framework for quantum theory based on the electron. About 10 years alter, Schrodinger laid out the theory with a mathematical basis which also described the electron in discrete energy levels about a nucleus. It is important to understand that the Schrodinger equation describes electrons orbiting a nucleus.
In that theory lies the proof of the 2nd law. Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. The proof is in the behavior of the electron as described by Bohr and Schrodinger.
As the colder body, the GP can NEVER transfer heat by its own means from itself to the BP.
“As the colder body, the GP can NEVER transfer heat by its own means from itself to the BP.”
It’s not, it has help from the Blue plate.
GR,
I had a look at the Eli Rabbet site.
“We start with a simple case, imagine the Earth is just a plate in space with sunlight shining on it. Maybe 400 W/m^2 . . . Using the Stefan Boltzman Law you can calculate the temperature of the plate when it reaches equilibrium (400 W/m2) = 2 σ Teq4 where σ is the Stefan Boltzmann constant 5.67 x 10-8 W/(m2 K4), factor of 2 for a two sided plate per m2. Run the numbers Teq=244 K.”
The man is a fool. Put a plate of anything you like in the Sun, almost anywhere in the world, and your chance of getting your plate to obey the Wonky Witless Wabbett’s insane misuse of physics, is very low indeed. Does this person not realise that expecting a plate of anything, sitting in the Sun, to fall to a temperature of -29 C, is not demonstrating connection to reality?
Just more pseudoscientific climate cultism writ large but stupid. I await the howls of outrage – how dare I challenge the pronouncements of a Professor? I can challenge any witless stupidity I like. Why not?
Cheers.
Mickey, You at least looked at Eli’s site, which Gordo apparently has not. You apparently missed Eli’s setup for his model as being in space, i.e., in a vacuum, not within the Earth’s atmosphere or “anywhere in the world”. Eli’s is connected to reality, can’t say the same for you.
Gordo botched things from the beginning, writing:
Gordo apparently can’t read. HERE’s Eli from 2017. As you note, Eli’s model begins with a plate heated on ones side by sunlight, but radiating from both sides to deep space.
ES,
As I said, and you apparently agree, unattached to reality. The Earth sits in space, just where it is.
Even Eli states –
“We start with a simple case, imagine the Earth is just a plate in space with sunlight shining on it. Maybe 400 W/m^2”
He then creates an imaginary plate with imaginary properties – absorbs like a black body, and emits like a a back body at the same time, from the same surfaces. Wondrously, all emitted radiation is emitted normally to a plane surface. Maybe it is a special coherent emission black body.
It also seems to be a plate of either no thickness at all, or maybe it is superconductive. Who would know?
Maybe the imaginary Earth with no atmosphere, has no relation to the real Earth in another way. The sunlight is specified as 400 W/m2, which has nothing to do with reality, of course. About 3.5 times that is roughly correct.
Now Eli, in the finest pseudoscientific tradition, mentions the “Earth” when he doesn’t mean the “Earth” at all. Of course, you can validly fabricate any temperature you like – just make the appropriate assumptions. Unrelated to reality of course. What numbers would you “run” to get the Earth’s surface being over 1000 C? What about 100 C? Both are real, and have occurred. Maybe his use of the formula is misleading nonsense!
Have a think about it, and once you have used ice to increase the temperature of water, let me know.
Or you could waffle about insulation, but I’ll point out that insulation has to be hotter than the thing you are trying to stop getting hot, and colder than the thing you are trying to stop getting cold, by definition. No climatological magic there.
You complain that I used “anywhere in the world”. Ok, would you like me to use the Weird and Wonky Wabbit’s word “Earth” – sitting in space, with sunlight shining on it? No problem, if that’s the only objection you have. Done.
Cheers.
Mikey, Eli’s post presents a model, an incomplete representation of reality which offers a much simplified but easily understood representation of the basic physics. Eli doesn’t claim that his model is a perfect representation of the climate system. For starters, his use of 400 w/m^2 is close to reality, as the Earth’s disk area facing the Sun is 1/4 the Earth’s surface area. Are you pretending to be ignorant of the physics, or are you really that clueless?
I presume you’ve never tried to analyze and solve a problem with a model as a professional, else you wouldn’t go to the trouble to nit pick his results. If you want to critique more accurate models, I suggest that you investigate one or more of the well known models used in the CMIP5. Most of them offer their code for analysis. You might even go back about 40 years where the state of the art which was hemispherical sector models with a slab ocean, and work your way up from there.
ES,
if you can’t be bothered to quote something with which you disagree, you are just trolling.
In which case – begone, troll!
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.6.1121
b,
Why do you bother posting nonsense in the form of a link to something unknown? Have you some inflated perception of your importance? Do you believe others consider you to be of such intellectual prowess that any link you post must immediately be followed? I cant be bothered, but others might.
Do you suffer from some form of uncontrollable posting syndrome, perhaps?
Cheers.
Maybe he suffers from PTSD – Posts by Trolls Stress Disorder.
And the guy who responds is the guy who posts like he knows Quantum Electrodynamics, yet is totally clueless about regular garden variety Quantum Mechanics.
Is joke, no?
Everybody may not get it, but I am laughing my ass of at Mikey Flynn.
Begone, pointless troll!
No, I’m staying to point out the deficiencies of those who think the greenhouse effect doesn’t happen.
Begone, persistent troll!
I can’t decide if you Mikey Flynn are funny or pathetic.
Begone, indecisive troll!
OK, I’ll go with pathetic to match your understanding of science.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
craig t…from your article…”The importance of molecular nitrogen as the most abundant species in the Earth’s atmosphere is evident. The strong absorp-tion bands in the range 80100 nm shield the Earth’s surface from the extreme ultraviolet (XUV) part of the solar radiation[1]. In fact,even the entire troposphere and stratosphere are free from this hazardous radiation that penetrates only some ~150 km above the Earth’s surface”.
This paragraph makes it clear that N2 not only absorbs EM in the strongest part of the solar spectrum, it is so effective the entire TROPOSPHERE and stratosphere are free of extreme ultraviolet.
When N2 absorbs that extremely intense radiation it warms. Why is that fact not released by alarmist scientists? How much does it warm and how much effect does that warming have on global warming?
Oxygen also absorbs high frequency EM in the UV region. We know that causes warming in the stratosphere but how much does it contribute to warming in the troposphere.
We know that O2 radiates in the microwave band. How much cooling does that create?
It don’t know if this is pertinent but the aurora from N2 and O2 are seen in the northern, colder sky. Is it the colder temperatures causing them to radiate and if so, what effect does the -273C of space have on the gases?
Your article also claims that work on the N2 spectrum is incomplete due to its complexity.
How about radiation?
At the following link there is a diagram of the N2 spectrum and it extends from the UV region to the IR region.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
Read the comments section
Begone, troll!
The papers and spectrum are talking about light from the Aurora. That shouldn’t have a large impact on climate.
http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/4D.html
GR,
I notice when I inspire air at 26 C, all the components seem to also be 26 C.
When I expire the same lungful, I’ve used up a bit of the O2, and increased the amount of CO2. The expired air is probably about 34.5 C. The components of the air all seem to be at the same temperature of 34.5 C.
The expired air then cools to 26 C. Even the CO2.
According to the pseudoscientific climate loonies, this is impossible. Supposedly O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit infrared, so your lungs must be full of pixie dust which heats the O2 and N2. Likewise, supposedly CO2 cannot absorb or emit IR at other than very specific frequencies.
It would appear that Nature doesn’t care about pseudoscientific stupidity. CO2 can be heated, and allowed to cool – just like everything else in the universe. Even bananas absorb and emit IR, much to David Appell’s shock! Unfortunately for bobdroege, even helium’s temperature can be measured, and it will cool if allowed to do so.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, eh?
Cheers.
Look up some spectra Mr I understand quantum electrodynamics.
Begone troll!
I guess it’s beyond your comprehension that the nitrogen and oxygen in your lungs can be heated by conduction and convection.
What part of this don’t you understand
“Likewise, supposedly CO2 cannot absorb or emit IR at other than very specific frequencies.”
You are a self described expert in Quantum Electrodynamics, how come you don’t know any Quantum Mechanics?
A spectra of CO2 shows exactly that, that it only abxorbs at certain frequencies.
Learn something before you type.
Begone, troll.
“Supposedly O2 and N2 cannot absorb or emit infrared, so your lungs must be full of pixie dust which heats the O2 and N2.”
Or conduction transfers heat from the lungs to O2 and N2.
CT,
I assume your thinking is still based on classical physics, and macro concepts such as conduction, radiation and convection. I believe many highly regarded physics professors still refuse to accept the realities of the quantum world. Unfortunately, QED theory is quite possibly the most accurate theory in the history of man.
You may choose to believe whatever you wish, and good luck to you.
However, NASA has some interesting images demonstrating that hot air (mainly O2 and N2) definitely emits IR, and the various parts of the air flow are distinguished by their different temperatures (IR emissions).
Your stupid gotcha “Or conduction transfers heat from the lungs to O2 and N2.” merely shows your uncritical acceptance of the pseudoscientific climate cult propaganda.
Maybe if you could provide some experimental evidence that neither O2 nor N2 absorb or emit infrared, you might convince a reasonable person.
But of course you can’t. Time for another stupid gotcha, do you think?
Cheers.
If nitrogen shows up on NASA infrared images the photos must be rather boring – nothing but the glow of the gasses between the camera and the world. POIDH
“I believe many highly regarded physics professors still refuse to accept the realities of the quantum world. Unfortunately, QED theory is quite possibly the most accurate theory in the history of man.”
Here’s a Feynman diagram explaining how liquid water molecules absorb longwave radiation.
“Fig. 4. Feynman diagram for the vibrational energy relaxation. Symbols s, a, o, b, and l stand for the symmetric stretch, asymmetric stretch, bend overtone, bend fundamental, and librations, respectively, while indices account a number of the water molecule.”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.626.8381&rep=rep1&type=pdf
It looks like the XUV radiation absorbed by nitrogen is under 1 W/m^2 before it reaches the atmosphere. With nitrogen content of the atmosphere pretty constant that shouldn’t have much impact on climate.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.825.8738&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Craig T, please stop trolling.
b,
You wrote –
“As the colder body, the GP can NEVER transfer heat by its own means from itself to the BP.”
Its not, it has help from the Blue plate.
What language are you attempting to express your confusion in?
Is it some pseudoscientific version of English, or some imaginary language you use when talking to yourself?
Cheers.
I can’t help it mike if you think you understand English, when it’s obvious you don’t understand anything.
If you prefer complaining about what I didn’t say, rather than what I did –
Begone, troll!
Not going to quote you directly this time, but it is evident you don’t understand thermodynamics, physics, quantum mechanics, or quantum electrodynamics.
But you think you are so much more capable than you are.
Begone, troll!
It’s Day 70, and they’re still in denial that the Green Plate Effect is debunked. 70 days of denial! Powerful stuff.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Only you are in denial and it seems like a long time for you. The green plate effect has not been debunked but actually proven with real experimental evidence. I suppose if you went back in time and observed Galileo Galilei empirical evidence with a lighter and heavier balls dropped from Pisa you would still insist the heavier ball fell faster and you would demonstrate it with some stupid cartoon made up physics from some A-Hole troll. People would try to inform you you were totally wrong and were proven wrong. You would say 70 days that Galileo’s ideas are debunked. You are a real idiot but don’t realize how stupid you sound. Others have spent (wasted) time trying to inform you. You are too stupid to accept your own ignorance and project your failings onto the rest of the world. Follow the troll JDHuffman but you are both wrong. Sorry to be blunt but you are not an intelligent person, logical or rational and you will also deny evidence that is clearly apparent to nearly all people.
Case of point. You think a Ferris Wheel chair rotates as it moves around in the circle. No one else is this stupid. I explained if it were actually rotating a box of cookies would fall out at some point but you are not logical enough to understand simple ideas.
I guess ignorance is bliss. I am glad most scientists rely on actual evidence to support their ideas. I guess trolls don’t need evidence to support their stupid ideas.
Norman is “ignoring” us again!
The poor clown can’t even do what he says he will do. He can’t get anything right.
It’s no surprise that he doesn’t understand science.
PS, the Ferris wheel chair rotates around the axel supporting it.
You can’t even understand a Ferris wheel!
Oh dear JD, you have stepped in it again.
The Ferris wheel chair is bolted to the axel supporting it, which rotate in the bearing connected to the Ferris wheel.
That configuration would work also. The point is there must be a cancellation of the motion of the wheel, to keep the chair level. Poor Norman cannot visualize that simple fact.
His ignorance in that area is very similar to your not understanding color coding….
How’s this for a simple idea, Norman:
A great way to ignore someone, if that is what you are going to claim you want to do, is to not respond to their posts, or mention them in posts to others.
Are you able to follow this point, or are you not logical enough to understand simple ideas?
[Hint: a good way to show you understand would be to not respond to this comment]
DREMT,
Norman is a devout follower of the pseudoscientific climate cult. Their secret language changes or inverts the meaning of words used by real scientists, and other normal people.
In this case, you give the normal definition of “ignore” –
“refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.”. Norman uses the cult definition – “take notice of, pay regard to”.
Just as “slower cooling” becomes “getting hotter”, “climate science” is no longer a laughable oxymoron, and Gavin Schmidt is a world famous “climate scientist” rather than an undistinguished mathematician.
I hope this helps.
Cheers.
Very helpful, thanks!
☺️
Waht happens when you have a water hose rupture going to your car’s radiator?
You motor cools more slowly and then what?
It overheats.
Mike Flynn
Why not prove you are an actual human and embed an internet link in one of your posts. You respond like an bot and therefore, at this time, without evidence I will believe you are such a bot.
If you are a human, then slowing the rate of heat loss (or energy loss) with an input source will lead to an increase in temperature. You are totally illogical and irrational.
Apparently the only way Norman is able to tell the difference between a robot and a human being is if the commenter posts a link. Unfortunately this says more about Norman than anybody else.
Norman, slowing the rate of heat loss from a system will only cause an increase in system temperature if the conditions are right. Input energy of course being one of the conditions.
You are desperately trying to apply that to the Earth, to make your AGW nonsense somehow valid. But CO2 does not “slow the rate of heat loss”. CO2 is part of the mechanism that warms the atmosphere. Warming the atmosphere helps to regulate the surface temperature. The atmosphere can NOT warm the surface.
But please keep ignoring us. You add great humor.
N,
If you are talking about the Earth, slowing the rate of heat loss merely reduces the rate of cooling.
Obviously, the surface is no longer molten, and the rate of heat loss commensurate with the fourth power of the absolute temperature has dropped.
No heating, just continued cooling. If you are trying to convince me that four and a half billion years of cooling will stop, and magically become heating, you might need to specify which physical laws have changed recently.
If you ignore me, you will avoid the necessity of having to look stupid, as I assail your fortress of fantasy with facts.
Continuing ignorance might be your best option. What do you think?
Cheers.
Actually Dr Empty,
It’s 70 days of waiting for a debunking of the Green Plate Effect, which hasn’t happened yet.
So more than 2 months, looks like you will never debunk it.
How many days has it been with clowns not even understanding the issue? You and bdgwx still can’t figure out the simple diagram. Swanson can’t figure out what “entropy” means, so he resorts to altering people’s names, like a 12-year-old might do.
And, of course, poor Norman can’t grasp anything.
So why oh why is what you guys saying so different from many a textbook on many different subjects.
What we are saying is NOT different from the textbooks, bob. It’s only different from your interpretation of the textbooks. Black bodies are imaginary concepts and can NOT be used to violate the laws of physics just to support pseudoscience.
Yeah, but we are using approximations of black-bodies.
Black bodies do not violate the laws of physics.
Not that you understand the second law of thermodynamic, you have repeatedly shown you do not.
So do the calculations with real emissivities.
Good, now you are changing the problem.
Keep changing. Maybe someday your will get there.
Nope,
you are complaining about the problem not being what you want it to be.
Quit complaining and learn the relevant physics or be ignorant for the rest of your life.
When bob resorts to insults, false accusations and misrepresentations, he’s admitting he knows he has lost, again.
Nothing new.
Sorry did none of that.
I’ll let you deny with your own words, bob:
“…you are complaining about the problem not being what you want it to be.
Quit complaining and learn the relevant physics or be ignorant for the rest of your life.”
b,
What a witless and meaningless gotcha! Why are you so stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
Flynn,
If you ever read a physics text, you would know who is a clueless, ignorant, witless and stupid twat.
Begone, puerile troll!
Plates together:
244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates slightly separated:
244 K…290 K…244 K
Input remains 400 W to the middle, blue plate, throughout.
All you are doing is separating the plates. Yet you think the blue plate increases in temperature by 46 K.
Yep, because now the blue plate is being heated by both green plates.
And it’s the answer you get when you solve the energy balance equations.
You have to be smart enough to set up equations properly and then solve them.
Your equations are based on the false concept that all photons are always absorbed.
GIGO.
That’s because the problem stated it needed to be solved with an emissivity of 1.
You can redo the problem with any emissivity you want but then that would be a different problem.
And the only one that results in the two plates at the same temperature is choosing and emissivity of zero.
“Yep, because now the blue plate is being heated by both green plates.”
No, the blue plate is heating the green plates. Both before and after separation.
Wrong again, bob.
The correct solution uses an emissivity of 1.
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
JD,
an emissivity of 1 is a perfect black-body.
What do you not understand about that?
Dr Empty,
The plates are separated, after you separate them of course, so now the green plates can radiate from both sides and of course they do.
What is you don’t understand about this?
They can now radiate from both sides, yes.
And the blue plate is still heating the green plates, not the other way around. The green plates do not heat the blue plate when they are touching the blue plate. The green plates do not heat the blue plate when they are not touching the blue plate.
What is it you don’t understand about this?
Yes it does
The green plate radiates now that it is separated from the blue plate, so the radiation from the green plate hits the blue plate and warms it.
Science
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Do and actual experiment. Yes indeed in the 3 plate setup with a constant input energy to the blue plate the temperature of the blue plate will increase when you separate the plates. This is already established in experiment.
If you would actually do some science you would learn how wrong you are. You can believe a A-Hole troll, that is your choice. But you are totally wrong in your understanding of science.
Great ignoring, Norman. Well done. I enjoyed the lie about the experiment you claim has been done involving three plates, and separation.
So blob, why don’t the green plates warm the blue plate when they are right next to the blue? Is there something special about radiation?
bob, first you said: “And the only one that results in the two plates at the same temperature is choosing and emissivity of zero.”
Then, I corrected you: “The correct solution uses an emissivity of 1.”
Then, rather than admit you had been wrong, you took off chasing your red herring: “an emissivity of 1 is a perfect black-body.”
By your own admission, you can’t handle anything above kindergarten level, and you’re not even trying. But, as with Norman, I always enjoy letting you make a fool of yourself.
I see poor Norman is back to ignore us again.
He’s such a clown, always good for a laugh.
Huffingboy/DRs Empty sock puppet, All this empty blather about 3 plates, do you have a new cartoon showing your delusional physics? Your repeated posting of your flawed 2 palate cartoon doesn’t work for 3 plates. Using 2 Green plates, one on each side of the Blue plate, will double the effectiveness of the radiation shield. Both Green plates will be cooler than 244 K, if you do the math correctly. BTW, radiation shield works when the emissivity is less than 1.0, as in my Green Plate demo, for which the emissivity was about 0.94.
Learn some Physics and stop trolling!
“Both Green plates will be cooler than 244 K, if you do the math correctly.”
Oooh, that’s new! How exciting. Everybody else on your “Team” has agreed that the green plates will both equilibrate at 244 K after separation. Please do the correct math and show what you think the result will be, if not “244 K…290 K…244 K”
You will be throwing a lot of your fellow travellers under the bus if you’re right, but give it a go.
Although this “plates” nonsense has gone on a long time, it continues to reveal more and more about the clowns. They can’t even understand their own nonsense!
Now Swanson believes the green plates would be less than 244 K! bdgwx and bob couldn’t understand the simple diagram.
Here’s the simple diagram for the correct solution to 3 plates, Swanson.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
The incorrect solution results in temperatures of
244 K…290 K…244 K.
Swanson face plants:“Using 2 Green plates, one on each side of the Blue plate, will double the effectiveness of the radiation shield. Both Green plates will be cooler than 244 K, if you do the math correctly.”
Swanson is so unaware of radiative physics he doesn’t realize lower temperatures would not be able to radiate the 200 Watts/m^2 required from the green plates.
JD,
The green plates are radiating at 200 W/m^2. I’m assuming the lip is negligible so (200 * 0.5) + (200 * 0.5) = 200 W/m^2 on average for the entire area.
The blue plate is radiating at 400 W/m^2. Again, I’m assuming the lip is negligible so (400 * 0.5) + (400 * 0.5) = 400 W/m^2 on average for the entire area.
Thus you have mislabeled the temperature of the blue plate. It should be 290K such that…
244K…290K…244K
If you want it to be a different temperature then you’re going to need to rearrange your arrows. This is not meant to imply that simply rearranging your arrows will lead to the correct solution either or that the green plates would necessarily equilibriate at 244K. I’m only pointing out that the blue plate temperature does not agree with the blue plate radiation.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “So blob, why don’t the green plates warm the blue plate when they are right next to the blue? Is there something special about radiation?”
I already explained this to you in a previous thread. I guess you just ignored it.
I explained it to you via a Newton Cradle. When the green plates are in contact, the energy originates in the blue plate and transmits through the green plate. At opposite side of the green plates the energy transforms to IR photons and is gone. When the plates are separated the energy from the blue plate reaches the green plate, is absorbed and some of it is returned via a photon. Now the blue plate is receiving energy that would not have returned when the plates are in contact. It is not difficult except for people like you. JDHuffman is an A-Hole troll so it really does not matter what he knows or doesn’t know. His goal is to provoke and annoy to generate reactionary counter posts. If you are on his level you may understand what I am saying and not care but will continue to troll. I think you are a troll I am interacting with you a bit more to verify.
I do ignore all troll posts by JDHuffman (meaning I do not respond to what he posts). I really don’t care at all about what either of you idiots post. I am only letting some new posters understand that the two of you are just trolls. They believe you are skeptics and they spend time trying to convince you with science that you are in error. I just want these poor posters to realize neither of you care about what the actual science says or what actual experiments will show, you only want to troll, provoke posters and get reactionary posts. Once people are aware of this it is up to them if they want to waste time with you or not.
Norman, your “explanation” conveniently ignores that the sides of the green plates facing toward the blue, when in contact, are sending energy to the blue plate via “back-conduction”.
norman…”in the 3 plate setup with a constant input energy to the blue plate the temperature of the blue plate will increase when you separate the plates. This is already established in experiment”.
That’s not the way I recall swannie’s experiment. With no plates near the BP, the BP temperature was established by the heat source. The plate was free to radiate from the unheated side and its temperature was lower due to that heat dissipation.
When swannie brought the other plate immediately in front of the unheated side, then the temperature of the heated plate rose, as it should.
Both you and swannie reached an erroneous conclusion that the heated plate’s temperature increased due to back radiation from the cooler plate he had raised in front of the heated plate. That would have been a contravention of the 2nd law. What really happened was the raised cooler plate blocked radiation from the heated plate, reducing its heat dissipation and causing it to warm.
Wrong bdgwx. All three plates are emitting 200 W/m^2.
Your inability to understand the simple diagram is funny enough, but coupled with your belief that you know what you’re talking about, is uproarious.
Please continue.
bob d…”Yep, because now the blue plate is being heated by both green plates”.
No, bob, the green plates are both blocking radiation from the BP, producing a reduced heat dissipation and causing the BP to warm.
And poor Norman returns to “ignore” us again!
What next? Will he hold his breath until we let him play?
He’s such a clown.
Norman’s determined to let us know exactly how much he’s ignoring us.
He’s so obsessed with us, he likely stays up all night figuring how he’s going to ignore us next….
Swanson’s gone very quiet. When are we going to see that “correct” math which puts the green plates at below 244 K?
It’s like they all instinctively know, deep down, that:
Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates separated: 244 K…290 K…244 K
is wrong, so they try to find these different ways to rationalize it. Fascinating to watch.
Reminds me of Ball4’s response, too.
JD,
If you want to claim that 200 W/m^2 is coming from the blue plate then you need to remove 2 more arrows pointing away from it. What you currently have (at least in the image I’m looking it) is left-blue=200, left-green=200, right-green=200, and right-blue=200. That necessarily means there is 400 W/m^2 coming from each half of the blue plate.
Or perhaps I can drive my point home with a question…which arrows are you choosing to count and which ones are you choosing to ignore and why?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “Norman, your explanation conveniently ignores that the sides of the green plates facing toward the blue, when in contact, are sending energy to the blue plate via back-conduction.”
No it does no such thing.
LOOK AT THIS LINK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LnbyjOyEQ8
Back conduction would be when the energy from the first ball is returned when the last ball comes back and returns the energy. With the green plates in contact it would be like the string on the last ball is cut. The energy does not come back, it only travels one way away from the source of energy. When the plates are separate it would be like after the last ball is cut, another one comes in and returns some energy so the first ball has some energy returned to it.
So will you troll or think about it?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
If you want to see backconduction increasing the blue plate temperature you would have to have insulating material at each side of the green plates. Then as the energy moved through the green plate it would not leave but be returned like the last ball falling back and hitting the assembly transmitting energy back to the first ball.
If you want to understand the correct physics, in the Newton ladder the continuous supply of energy would be you moving the first ball to a position. If the last ball is cut, no energy returns and so you move the first ball back to the same position it was in the initial release. Now if you have energy returning, you catch the first ball at the maximum height of return and pull it back further. If now has more energy and is warmer than before. If you can accept this with such a simple demonstration then you are beyond hope.
There is a tremendous difference between a troll and a skeptic. A skeptic will have an open mind and if empirical evidence does not support his skeptic view point, he will accept his view was wrong and correct it. A troll like you and JDHUffman don’t accept any evidence, you don’t care, you are not honest seekers of truth. You come on Roy’s blog to annoy and disrupt good science conversations with stupid points and nonsense that only generates long and useless comments.
I like to warm unsuspecting people of the nature of trolls. They are not skeptics, are not at all interested in truth, just out to annoy and disrupt. I really do not know what motivates a troll seems like a severe mental issue. Not logical or rational.
“With the green plates in contact it would be like the string on the last ball is cut.”
Obviously not, Norman, because it’s only when the plates are in contact with the blue that “back-conduction” could even conceivably happen. It’s like your saying, “back-conduction is not possible when the plates are in contact”, like it would somehow be possible when they’re not!
But it’s always entertaining to see the depths people will go to rationalize their “back-conduction can’t heat/back-radiation can” inconsistency, so thanks for that.
bdgwx tries to sneak one in, again: “Or perhaps I can drive my point home with a question…which arrows are you choosing to count and which ones are you choosing to ignore and why?”
bdgwx, would you care to offer an explanation as to why you don’t have a clue about the topic, and are unable to understand the simple diagram, yet represent yourself as some concerned expert?
(If you can’t explain yourself, and your deficiencies, the default position is that you’re just another physics-deprived pseudoscience clown.)
Norman is “ignoring” us, again. This time with two long, ramblling comments, 10 minutes apart!
The poor clown is relentless in his “ignoring”….
The sock puppet trolls think I’ve gone silent, since I’ve not posted for a few hours. Sorry clowns, I’ve got better things to do with my time than attempt to correct your errors. The lawn needs mowing and I’ve got to fix the transmission on one of my vehicles.
But, I see from your 3 plate cartoon that you are again including 200 watt green arrows from the Blue plate to each Green plate, without explanation. This must be the same as your previously erroneous “reflection” of the back radiation from the green plate(s), which violates the fact that a black body (or one nearly so) can not reflect any (on not very much) of that radiant energy. This is a fact well established in the lab and in the field of engineering, so you are just trolling, on and on, over and over, spreading disinformation and taking up other people’s time.
Swanson actually claims the properties of an imaginary concept have been “well established” in a lab!
The comedy continues.
I almost forgot, Swanson. Here’s some more reality you can run from:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353141
JDhuffman demonstrates that he is just a troll.
He complains that the equations used have an emissivity of 1
JD:
“Your equations are based on the false concept that all photons are always absorbed.
GIGO.”
I suggested he solve the problem using any emissivity he wants.
Me:
“You can redo the problem with any emissivity you want but then that would be a different problem.”
JD:
“Wrong again, bob.
The correct solution uses an emissivity of 1.”
and
“Then, I corrected you: The correct solution uses an emissivity of 1. ”
It’s obvious I suggested solving the problem using a different emissivity because you were complaining about the emissivity being 1.
What a whining dim witted troll.
In your diagram the blue plate has to be at a higher temperature as it is emitting 400 watts/m2 while the green plates are emitting 200 watts/m2.
Diagram is wrong
Please correct and resubmit for review.
Yoh, Sock puppets, you still haven’t given a physics based explanation for those green arrows from the Blue plate toward the Green plate. And, that imaginary concept you mention must be that of a “Black Body”, which is a fundamental concept in physics against which real world emissivity is defined.
As for my point about the temperatures of the two Green plates, you are again ignoring the effects of thermal mass. Initially, for 1 m^2 plates, when the three plates are separated, the Green plates will begin to emit 400 watts, but will be receiving only 200 watts from the Blue one, thus the Green plates will cool while the Blue plate warms enough to provide the requisite 400 watts (400 w/m^2) of IR EM toward each at steady state. Note that 290k (17 deg C) is a reasonable approximation to the Earth’s average temperature.
I expect that you will continue to post nonsense, as your ignorance prevents you from seeing reality. Or, perhaps your real reason for posting this nonsense is just to confuse other folks for which I would throw your empty socks under said bus.
“Swanson’s gone very quiet. When are we going to see that “correct” math which puts the green plates at below 244 K?”
bob still can’t understand the simple diagram.
And Swanson still can’t show what the temperatures of the green plates should be, since he claims they would be lower than 244 K, based on his pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
DREMT, we are amazing!
Somehow that will be more “proof” that we’re the same person!
Yeah JD,
I only had a few days of Kindergarten and never graduated, but still I can understand what is wrong with your diagram.
You and Dr EMPTY are amazingly wrong.
If two things are at the same temperature yet emit different amounts of energy, they you have violated the laws of physics. Specifically the Stefan-Boltzman law.
from wiki
“the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T:”
Please pay the fine
Just a quick reminder that criticizing JD’s diagrams won’t change the fact that your solution is debunked.
Now, carry on.
bob, you STILL can’t understand the simple diagram.
All 3 plates are emitting the same.
You demonstrate a classic case of “stuck on stupid”.
DR EMPTY,
You have to do more than just say it’s debunked, you actually have to show your work, you haven’t done so.
JD,
The diagram shows 4 arrow of 200 watts/m2 coming from the blue plate and 2 arrows of 299 watts/m2 coming from each of two green plates.
So coming out of the blue plate is 400 watts/m2 which corresponds to a temperature of 290 K.
Good Night
That should be 2 arrows of 200 from the green plates
blob misses the point again.
bob has admitted he never graduated from kindergarten. So he probably never learned the colors.
Along with all his other deficiencies….
Yeah you two, comedy gold.
Your diagram has 9 arrows, 6 green, 2 blue and one red.
One red for the 400 watt heater.
Two blue, one in each direction for 200 watts/m2 out put of the blue plate.
2 green arrows, one in each direction for 200 watts/m2 also coming out of the blue plate.
Total output of the blue plate is 400 watts/m2 in each direction.
And then 2 green arrows in each direction from each green plate, so 200 watts/m2 to space on either side and 200 watts/m2 returning to the blue plate.
Since the blue plate emits 400 watts/m2 in each direction by the Stephan Boltzman law its temperature must be 290 K.
Correct your diagram.
Begone, arrow obsessed troll!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353516
craig t ….”This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction, or this special change entailing an opposite passage of heat, is then to be treated as a compensation for the passage of heat from the colder to the warmer body; and if we apply this conception we may replace the words of itself by without compensation, and then enunciate the principle as follows: A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.'”
You cannot read Clausius by skimming his words looking for loopholes. His work is based on a foundation of heat engines which are relationships between temperature, pressure and volume. If you don’t understand the foundation he laid down regarding the mechanical equivalent of heat as well as the extensive research he did on heat engines, you’ll never understand what your quote means.
I encourage you to read through the pertinent parts of his book closely, it is illuminating.
part 2…
In the ex.c.e.r.pt I have included above from your Clausius quote, he is trying to explain what he meant by his reference to ‘by its own means’. He stated as a definition of the 2nd law that “Heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body. He wanted to explain what he meant by ‘by it’s own means’.
We all know that heat can be transferred from cold to hot but not as a natural process. It requires what Clausius called compensation. In practical terms, that means the use of external power to run a compressor to compress a gas to a high pressure liquid, allowing heat to be removed from the HP liquid, then convert the HP liquid back to a LP gas where it can absorb heat from a cooler area.
At no time in that process is heat being transferred freely by its own means from cold to hot. The transfer requires the application of the Ideal Gas Law to a heat engine through external means.
In other words, if you have a refr.i.g.e.rator transferring heat from a cold compartment to a warmer outside environment, and you turn off the power, the process stops. It cannot transfer heat from cold to hot naturally.
There is no such compensation in the atmosphere. Heat can never be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. There goes the GHE and AGW.
I agree with your interpretation of the 2LOT at least as you’ve described in this particular post. We are on the same page here.
However, where we part ways is with your assertion that there is no “compensation” in the atmosphere. That is patently false. The Sun provides a seemingly endless amount of compensating energy that is stored by the surface and released as IR throughout the day. Remember, the atmosphere or the geosphere is general is not an isolated system. Remove the Sun and then, and only then, does the GHE disappear.
bdg….”However, where we part ways is with your assertion that there is no compensation in the atmosphere. That is patently false. The Sun provides a seemingly endless amount of compensating energy that is stored by the surface and released as IR throughout the day”.
*******
If you agree with what I said about the 2nd law then you need to to understand that compensation cannot be a natural process. There’s no way that solar energy can act as the kind of compensation required to enable a transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter body.
If that was the case, we would not need air conditioners or fridges.
With regard to the atmosphere, the GHE and AGW theories are built on the assumption that heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that allegedly warmed it. How can solar energy bring that about?
If a fridge requires external power, a compressor, a gas, a condenser, and an evapourator, how can solar energy do it naturally?
Gordon says:“If you agree with what I said about the 2nd law then you need to to understand that compensation cannot be a natural process. There’s no way that solar energy can act as the kind of compensation required to enable a transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter body.”
Well done Gordon. These basic concepts need to be explained clearly, just in case the clowns have any interest in learning. Often I don’t have the patience, however.
Compensation just means work was performed on the system. In the 2LOT you often see different wordings for this crucial and frequently overlooked clause. Terms and phrases like “isolated”, “by its own means”, “spontaneous”, etc. all mean without external input or stimuli. Terms and phrases like “compensation”, “stimulated”, etc. mean the opposite. There are plenty of examples in nature where the Sun is providing the compensation, stimulus, input of energy, etc. to perform work on a localized basis that decreases entropy.
Examples of natural processes that cause increases in temperature gradients are the GHE, frontogenesis, capping inversion, cold air advection, warm air advection, and the list goes on and on. Perhaps my favorite illustration of this is the capping inversion that inhibits thunderstorm development in the plains. The stronger the capping inversion (often called the “cap”) the more the convective available potential energy (CAPE) or lapse rate (hot on bottom, cold on top) is allowed to magnify. If the external stimuli, often times the solar energy from the Sun, is powerful enough then the capping inversion pops like a balloon and a thunderstorm, often a violet tornadic supercell, is formed.
bdgwx, you have been misinformed, again.
The weather phenomena you describe are the result of energy movements. It results in a chaotic system. You cannot select parts of a chaotic system and claim entropy is being reduced. If you properly consider the entire system, including the energy source (Sun), you will find that entropy increased.
But, your comment was funny, as usual.
JD,
I agree with some of what you said. If you define the system such that it includes the entire Earth and Sun then you can say that entropy increased. It also happens to be a system that is very nearly isolated.
However, if you define the system as being only the atmosphere then it is not isolated. This is why entropy can decrease even on a macroscopic scale. That is there is external stimuli acting on the system to lower its entropy.
And I can pick whatever system I want. So can you. So can anyone. And we’ll all do it all of the time. All thermodynamic systems are either open, closed, isolated or if you want to include adiabatic that’s fine too. The point is that I don’t HAVE to always define an isolated system.
You get to define the system, or “control volume”, in thermodynamics. But, your choice can NOT violate the laws.
Except of course in pseudoscience, you get to violate anything you want.
That’s why it’s called “pseudoscience”.
My examples are all related to the atmosphere. That’s my system. I’m pretty confident that the atmosphere does not violate any laws of physics.
I’m pretty confident that the atmosphere does not violate any laws of physics also.
That’s why the atmosphere does not warm the surface.
bdg….”Compensation just means work was performed on the system”.
To understand what Clausius meant by compensation you have to follow each one of his heat engine state diagrams earlier in the chapter. He very carefully takes you through a process where heat is added and work is done (and vice versa). If you follow his reasoning it becomes plain why the process cannot occur from cold to hot without adding external energy to compensate the process.
Compensation is much more than simply doing work on the system. With an air conditioner or a fridge you are doing work but that work comes from a conversion from external electrical energy to mechanical energy in a compressor. Extra energy must be added to the process, it cannot occur naturally by it’s own means.
The purpose of the work however is not that obvious. You are compressing a gas to a liquid, and in the liquid state it’s temperature rises naturally. By exhausting the heat that caused the temperature rise then allowing the liquid to return to a low pressure gas, you set up the LP gas to absorb heat from a colder area.
Solar energy is not doing work on GHGs in the atmosphere and there is no system in the atmosphere that can replicate the effect of the compressed gas in an air conditioner or fridge.
bdg…”if you define the system”
That argument is a bit of a red-herring argument. Whether a system is open/closed, isolated or not isolated, is an obfuscation.
We are only talking about a transfer of heat. It happens quite naturally in the atmosphere and whatever causes it does not care what kind of system is involved.
GR, Are you trying to argue that only people have the ability to lower entropy?
GR, are you trying to argue that when discussing how the 2LOT applies to a system that it is a red herring and obfuscation to determine whether the system is isolated or not?
bdgwx inquires: “Are you trying to argue that only people have the ability to lower entropy?”
bdgwx, it takes energy to lower entropy, such as thermal, or work. But, the energy must be the right type, for the scenario. So, it actually takes energy AND intelligence to lower entropy. For example, you could likely construct some demonstration where a trained squirrel runs a treadmill, to result iin a lowering of entropy.
But, it wouldn’t work with a dead squirrel….
b,
You wrote –
“GR, Are you trying to argue that only people have the ability to lower entropy?l
Are you too stupid, lazy, or incompetent to find out for yourself? Or are you posing a gotcha, hoping you can make someone look stupid?
It’s usually the gotcha writer who is stupid, because they haven’t the brains to find facts to support their propositions. Typical of pseudoscientific climate cultists – all gotcha, no fact.
Carry on avoiding reality.
Cheers.
But Clausius says “… our principle however declares that simultaneously with this passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body there must either take place an opposite passage of heat from a hotter to a colder body, or else some change or other which has the special property that it is not reversible, except under the condition that it occasions, whether directly or indirectly, such an opposite passage of heat.” He says this is true for “conduction or radiation.”
The formula for conduction finds the net exchange of heat between two bodies. Ask a physicist and they’ll do the same in their formula for radiant energy exchange. In both cases simultaneously the hotter passes heat/energy to the colder while the colder passes heat/energy to the warmer. On the macro scale the colder body warms while the warmer body cools.
Craig T tries again: ” Ask a physicist and they’ll do the same in their formula for radiant energy exchange. In both cases simultaneously the hotter passes heat/energy to the colder while the colder passes heat/energy to the warmer. On the macro scale the colder body warms while the warmer body cools.”
Wrong Craig. You keep trying the same thing, over and over.
Radiant heat transfer is DIFFERENT from conductive heat transfer. You are confused by the equation with two “Ts”. If you check the derivation of that equation, it is for a black body, surrounded by a black body. Such a situation does not exist in the known Universe.
Conductive heat transfer is affected by two temperatures, however. The energy tries to equalize (increase entropy) by moving from hot to cold.
Radiative heat transfer is different. Photons contain energy and are emitted based on surface temperature. The photons don’t “know” if there is another surface or not. If a colder surface happens to be nearby, it has NO affect on the emitter. It doesn’t heat or cool the emitter. Photons may travel forever, if they are not absorbed. The surface that emitted them cools nevertheless.
It’s confusing to folks that don’t understand the relevant physics. It is even more confusing if they have swallowed the available pseudoscience out there.
JDH,
Craig T appeals to authority – “Ask a physicist . . .”.
Unfortunately, many physicists seem reluctant to accept the reality of the uncertainty principle, let alone QED or chaos. For macro purposes, 19th century classical physics works well enough in practice. Visualising atoms and molecules as little billiard balls is convenient in some, even if completely wrong.
Physicists may reject quantum notions of wave/particle duality, even when faced with experiments which simply cannot be explained by the application of classical concepts.
Pseudoscientific climate cult physicists go a step further – they just create “new physics” as they go along, and redefine terms – “cooling” becomes “heating” and so on.
Oh, what fun they have!
Cheers.
JD,
You state
“Photons contain energy and are emitted based on surface temperature. ”
Not always, because gases don’t have surfaces, and sometimes emission occurs because a transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state results in the emission of a photon, which is not based on temperature.
Wrong again as usual JD demonstrates his lack of knowledge of physics, perhaps picking up that Quantum Physics textbook will help.
Of course not, that he will never do.
“…surface temperature.”
“Unfortunately, many physicists seem reluctant to accept the reality of the uncertainty principle, let alone QED or chaos.”
Mike has interesting ideas.
He must also believe:
Chemists are reluctant to accept molecules.
Christians are reluctant to accept Jesus.
Dogs are reluctant to eat steak.
Right, JD,
But it’s the atmosphere warming the surface and the atmosphere doesn’t have a surface.
That’s what the greenhouse effect is, the atmosphere warming the surface.
N,
You wrote –
“Mike has interesting ideas.
He must also believe:
Chemists are reluctant to accept molecules.
Christians are reluctant to accept Jesus.
Dogs are reluctant to eat steak.”
What are you babbling about? If you disagree with something I wrote, just indicate why – maybe I was wrong (unlikely, but possible).
Or you can just write stupid stuff, and pretend it was me! Your delusion seems unbounded.
Cheers,
b,
You wrote –
“But its the atmosphere warming the surface and the atmosphere doesnt have a surface.
Thats what the greenhouse effect is, the atmosphere warming the surface.”
You must be insane. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years years.
Temperatures fall at night – no heating there.
Fantasy is not reality.
Cheers.
bob d…”Not always, because gases don’t have surfaces, and sometimes emission occurs because a transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state results in the emission of a photon, which is not based on temperature”.
How did the electrons get to the higher energy state so they could radiate as they fell back to the lower state? They got to higher energy states through heating and temperature is a measure of heating.
If you remove heat, the energy states get lower and the electrons radiate less intense radiation. If you cool them to 0K they won’t radiate at ll. Therefore temperature has everything to do with radiation and the intensity/frequency thereof.
If you insert a cooler gas into a warmer gas in a constant volume, the slower cooler molecules will collide with the hotter, higher energy molecules and gain energy. Depends on how much of each gas is present and the pressure.
bob d…”But its the atmosphere warming the surface and the atmosphere doesnt have a surface.
Thats what the greenhouse effect is, the atmosphere warming the surface.”
***********
Makes no sense. Where the surface and the atmosphere are in contact, they are in thermal equilibrium. There is no heat transfer unless the Sun heats the surface.
The atmosphere gets cooler with altitude, why should it be able to transfer heat to the surface, a contradiction of the 2nd law?
It makes far more sense wrt the pantomime GHE that solar energy heats the surface and that heat gets transferred directly to the gases in contact with the surface, cooling the surface. As R.W. Wood claimed, the atmosphere tends to retain that heating since gases are poor conductors of heat.
Lindzen claimed that without the cyclic convection of heated air rising and being replaced by cooler air, that the surface could rise to a temperature of 70C.
There is a natural process of expansion and contraction of gases between the cycles of ‘sun – no sun’. That alone could explain a natural heating/cooling process that requires less radiation to space than implied.
After all, no one has really measured it, have they? Kiehle-Trenberth guessed at it but produced no verifiable data.
bob, the issue here is about “bodies”. I was helping Craig T understand his Clausius quote.
But since you confusedly brought atmosphere into the discussion, it allows me to also help you. The atmosphere does NOT increase the temperature of Earth’s surface.
Oh good let me give you a gold star.
But yes the atmosphere does heat the surface.
In many ways, sometimes the atmosphere is warmer than the surface.
Thanks for the gold star, bob. I’ll put it in the trash with all my other worthless awards. I only appreciate cash.
But isolated weather systems do not affect the net.
The atmosphere does not heat the surface.
b,
You wrote –
“In many ways, sometimes the atmosphere is warmer than the surface.”
In many ways, sometimes, you appear to be certifiably insane. Possibly, like an atmospheric surface inversion, only under certain conditions.
Have you been accepted for your science degree yet? A real one, not an imaginary one, that is.
Cheers.
JD,
This statement is not true
“The atmosphere does not heat the surface.”
There is the well established greenhouse effect, have you falsified it yet.
Nope, I didn’t think so.
Begone, stupid troll.
bob d…”But yes the atmosphere does heat the surface.”
You have a degree in chemistry, how about explaining how an atmosphere no warmer than the surface heats the surface that supposedly warms GHGs in the atmosphere.
And how the atmosphere gets hotter than the surface if it does not absorb energy from the Sun. If the atmosphere was hotter than the surface, it would heat the surface. That could not happen unless the atmosphere absorbed more solar energy than the surface via incoming SW solar.
bob d …”There is the well established greenhouse effect, have you falsified it yet”.
How can you disprove something that has never been proved? Why would you bother?
Gordon,
The atmosphere does indeed absorb some solar, after all solar is more long-wave than short-wave. It is also heated by convection (thermals) and the latent heat of vaporization of water.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
“The atmosphere does indeed absorb some solar, after all solar is more long-wave than short-wave.”
The peak wavelength from the Sun is around 500 nm. Longwave starts at 4000 nm and is a tiny fraction of solar output.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/683
craig t…I have included the entire quote from Clausius below which you cherry-picked to get the meaning that heat can be transferred cold to hot as a matter of coarse.
It’s obvious that he is describing what it would take to reverse the process he described earlier in the chapter for a heat engine. He is in no way claiming that heat can be transferred from cold to hot under normal means.
He makes that clear in his final statement which is a revised version of his opening statement:
“A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.”
There is no such compensation in the atmosphere or occurring anywhere naturally in nature.
In the quote from page 78
https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/clausius1879.pdf
“He [Clausius referring to himself] thereupon propounded the following as a fundamental principle: .. Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.”
My note [GR]…that principle is the 2nd law.
The words ‘of itself’, here used for the sake of brevity, require, in order to be completely understood, a further ex-planation, as given in various parts of the author’s papers. In the first place they express the fact that heat can never, through conduction or radiation, accumulate itself in the warmer body at the cost of the colder.
This, which was already known as respects direct radiation, must thus be further extended to cases in which by refraction or reflection the course of the ray is diverted and a concentration of rays thereby produced. In the second place the principle must be applicable to processes which are a combination of several different steps, such as e.g. cyclical processes of the kind described above.
It is true that by such a process (as we have seen by going through the original cycle in the reverse direction) heat may be carried over from a colder into a hotter body: our principle however declares that simultaneously with this passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body there must either take place an opposite passage of heat from a hotter to a colder body, or else some change or other which has the special property that it is not reversible, except under the condition that it occasions, whether directly or indirectly, such an opposite passage of heat.
This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction, or this special change entailing an opposite passage of heat, is then to be treated as a compensation for the passage of heat from the colder to the warmer body; and if we apply this conception we may replace the words” of itself” by “without compensation,” and then enunciate the principle as follows:
“A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.”
From Clausius’ Sixth Memoir page 224
The mechanical theory of heat, with its applications to the steam-engine and to the physical properties of bodies
1822-1888
“I will take this opportunity of mentioning another process in
which this distinction is likewise to be observed. In order for
one body to impart heat to another by conduction or radiation
(in the case of radiation, wherein mutual communication of heat
takes place, it is to be understood that we speak here of a body
which gives out more heat than it receives), the body which
parts with heat must be warmer than the body which takes up
heat; and hence the passage of heat between two bodies of different temperature can take place in one direction only, and not
in the contrary direction. The only case in which the passage
of heat can occur equally in both directions is when it takes
place between bodies of equal temperature.”
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=hvd.32044009771759;orient=0;size=100;seq=246;num=224;attachment=0
Craig stopped the bold too early:
“…the body which parts with heat must be warmer than the body which takes up
heat; and hence the passage of heat between two bodies of different temperature can take place in one direction only, and not in the contrary direction.”
He probably didn’t do it on purpose….
JD…”Craig stopped the bold too early:
the body which parts with heat must be warmer than the body which takes up
heat; and hence the passage of heat between two bodies of different temperature can take place in one direction only, and not in the contrary direction.”
Good catch, I missed that myself. It makes it obvious Clausius was talking about radiation in the earlier part of the statement which he did not know was not heat.
Reading Clausius can be confusing. In that quote he says that in radiation “mutual communication of heat takes place” then says “the passage of heat between two bodies of different temperature can take place in one direction only.”
Both can be true only if Clausius is talking about the exchange of radiative energy when he says “mutual communication” and the net energy transfer when he says “the passage of heat … can take place in one direction only.”
That is how modern physicists interpret the 2nd law.
“…and not in the contrary direction.”
craig…”Both can be true only if Clausius is talking about the exchange of radiative energy when he says mutual communication and the net energy transfer when he says the passage of heat can take place in one direction only.
That is how modern physicists interpret the 2nd law”.
********
Clausius used the word NEVER when he defined the 2nd law. He said heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from cold to hot. He said nothing about a net heat transfer.
I agree that he likely was talking about EM when he referred to a two-way exchange but he knew nothing about that kind of EM during his lifetime.
Clausius had an uncanny ability to predict the behavior of atoms long before atomic theory was developed. Electrons were not discovered till after his death. I think the man was a genius but a genius is limited by the facts he has at hand.
I hope there is an afterlife so he can tune in and see developments since his passing. I can see him saying, “Ah, yes, why did I not think of that”.
It must have perplexed him trying to understand how heat could flow through space. We have the ability to understand that now even if some of the scientists you mention don’t have a clue.
It’s ironic that nearly 130 years after his passing, some modern scientists are still behind him in his understanding of heat and heat transfer.
craig…”(in the case of radiation, wherein mutual communication of heat
takes place, it is to be understood that we speak here of a body
which gives out more heat than it receives),”
**********
You are skimming and cherry picking. I addressed that statement from Clausius in a post a while back.
Unfortunately, neither Clausius nor any of his peers, right up to Planck, knew anything about electromagnetic energy. They all thought heat somehow flowed through space after being emitted from a body. All of them referred to so-called emitted heat as heat rays. Ironically, some modernists still make the same mistake.
If you re-read the statement above from Clausius with that in mind you can clearly see that he thinks EM is heat. He knew something was being transmitted both ways but he had no idea it was electromagnetic energy. He thought it was heat rays flowing through some kind of aether.
If you keep reading in the same area, he also maintains that radiation must obey the 2nd law.
When Bohr, circa 1913, then Schrodinger, circa 1925, laid down the foundation of quantum theory, based on the behavior of electrons orbiting a nucleus, the relationship between the electron and emitted EM was developed as E = hf. E is the difference between electron orbital energy states, which is related to the kinetic energy of the atom. The sum of all those KEs is the heat.
There is no reference to heat in the E = hf statement and that’s because heat is lost when it is converted to EM. Although EM is expressed in watts/m^2, there is no energy in EM that is related to the mechanical work defined by the watt. EM is an entirely different form of energy than heat or work, which are equivalents.
EM is not covered by the 2nd law and had Clausius been aware of the conversion from heat to EM during radiation, he would would have figured it out immediately. Since he was not privy to that info we must cut him some slack and not misinterpret his words to mean something he did not intend.
I’ll agree a lot has been learned about electromagnetic energy since the early 19th century. The only reason I’m looking at what Clausius wrote is you hold him as an authority on the 2nd law.
In the past I’ve posted links to engineers working on spacecraft in the 60’s using net radiative energy exchange formulas. Were they part of the “ingrate, modernist, alarmists” you blame for distorting physics?
craig t…”The only reason Im looking at what Clausius wrote is you hold him as an authority on the 2nd law.
In the past Ive posted links to engineers working on spacecraft in the 60s using net radiative energy exchange formulas. Were they part of the ingrate, modernist, alarmists you blame for distorting physics?”
He is an authority on the 2nd law, he wrote and added U to the 1st law. Then he invented entropy as a form of energy to explain the 2nd law.
I regard Clausius as one of the eminent scientists of all time.
The scientist to whom you refer were applying the equations incorrectly if they inferred heat was being transferred in both direction. It’s plain that heat from a spacecraft is transferred only one way, from the craft to space.
I think what you may have done is confuse what they were claiming. With the special coatings they us on spacecraft, each layer reflects energy back to the previous layer and ultimately slows the radiation. However, the thermal gradient has to be hot to cold since the outside layer is at nearly 0K, unless it is in sunlight.
The gaps between layers is slowing heat dissipation by radiation. It’s akin to the vacuum or insulation layers in a thermos. Without sunlight, the spacecraft would eventually cool to 0K, despite the insulation, if it was not internally heated.
“The scientist to whom you refer were applying the equations incorrectly if they inferred heat was being transferred in both direction. It’s plain that heat from a spacecraft is transferred only one way, from the craft to space.”
Radiation Heat Transfer Analysis for Space Vehicles
Space and Information Division North American Aviation, Inc.
page 20
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/271917.pdf
This is not some climate scientist looking for a way to say CO2 heats the Earth. It was written by engineers on contract using “widely used” methods to determine heat exchange.
Craig, finding things on the Internet that you can’t understand doesn’t help your pseudoscience. It just makes you look like you don’t have a clue, again.
Learn the basics, like exponents do not have units.
It the paper involved QED I’d ask Mike to explain it to me.
CT,
You wrote –
“It the paper involved QED Id ask Mike to explain it to me.”
It does, and you won’t. You are just making silly utterances in the vain hope that someone will think you are intelligent – unless you have another reason for appearing stupid and ignorant, of course.
You may not like me repeating that QED theory explains all physical processes in the universe with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes, but that seems to be the case. Nature doesn’t care what you accept – she just keeps on keeping on. Whether you accept gravity, or QED, or not, makes no difference at all.
The GHE does not exist. Bad luck. It doesn’t matter what you accept or don’t accept, does it?
Cheers.
“You may not like me repeating that QED theory explains all physical processes in the universe with the exception of gravity and nuclear processes, but that seems to be the case.”
True, but I’ve never seen you write about anything actually related to QED.
CT,
Is this the pseudoscientific climate cultist tactic of disagreeing without disagreeing?
You say “True . . .”, and then go on to complain about something irrelevant I didn’t do anyway!
A cunning ploy!
Cheers.
No No No No No No No No
“When Bohr, circa 1913, then Schrodinger, circa 1925, laid down the foundation of quantum theory, based on the behavior of electrons orbiting a nucleus”
Quantum Theory is based on the idea that electrons do not orbit the nucleus.
Write on the blackboard at least once
Electrons do not orbit the nucleus.
Because the nucleus creates a magnetic field, and an electron is a charged particle, and if it is orbiting the nucleus we have a problem because a charged particle moving through a magnetic field continuously emits radiation.
Since that doesn’t happen we can conclude that electrons don’t orbit the nucleus.
bobdroege
Same stuff I learned years ago when I was taking Chemistry.
What I learned was that the orbital was not an actual motion of an electron around protons. It was a probability cloud that was created by the presence of an electron near a positively charged nucleus. The equations gave the probability of finding an electron somewhere in this vicinity. The shape of the orbitals were just probability of finding an electron in a given region of space. Nothing about how it is moving or in what direction.
Also when an electron moved from one orbital to the next, it does not move as a solid particle would. They found that out by the sharpness of the emitted photon wave. If it actually moved the wave shape would be different. I learned that the electron “jumped” to the next orbital, it did not move to it. All strange and weird things but all based upon observed empirical evidence.
Gordon is stuck in the past and refuses to learn new material or accept rational empirical evidence. Good luck in convincing him of anything. I have never had luck with him.
Yes I agree Norman,
And it gets weird really fast, like with P-orbitals, that have 2 probability clouds separated by a node that has zero probability of finding the electron there.
b,
You wrote –
” . . . probability clouds separated by a node that has zero probability of finding the electron there.”
On the other hand, someone seems to agree with me, writing –
“So the statement the probability of finding the electron at a node is zero is either vacuous or false depending on whether you interpret it to mean precisely at a node or approximately at a node.”
Unless you add a bit of explanation to indicate understand what you are copying and pasting, your statement is either vacuous or false, on the face of it.
Feel free to come back and admit you really meant to say something else, but natural stupidity or sloppiness got in your way.
Cheers.
bob d…”Quantum Theory is based on the idea that electrons do not orbit the nucleus.
Write on the blackboard at least once
Electrons do not orbit the nucleus.
Because the nucleus creates a magnetic field, and an electron is a charged particle…”
*********
Certain misguided theorists have pushed the notion that quantum theory is just about math applied arbitrarily but Bohr’s model laid down a foundation that explained the quantum energies of Planck.
Schrodinger applied the Newtonian wave equation using probability theory to determine a space in which electrons are most likely to be found around a nucleus. If you look at his math it is based on the angular velocity of an orbiting electron and the electrostatic forces it encounters from the nucleus.
Eminent chemists like Pauling mapped those regions and predicted molecular shapes based partly on Schrodinger’s theory and partly on Pauling’s own experience bombarding molecules with xrays.
Whether or not electrons actually orbit a nucleus has never been proved either way. As someone who has practiced in the electrons and electrical field and study electronics theory in depth, I question the orbital theory as well. However, I have yet to encounter a better model.
The point is that Bohr offered a perfectly plausible explanation for the quantum relationships in energy proposed by Planck. What Planck actually did was measure the EM from electrons in atomic masses at various temperatures. He admitted that had he known of the electron earlier it would have made his life much easier.
Bohr’s only unreasonable stipulation was that electrons orbited in a fixed orbit that did not decay. He called those energy levels quantum levels and further stipulated that transitions from one to the other had no time involved. That makes little sense on the face of it but his theory has withstood the test of time albeit with modifications for multi-orbit elements.
His theory had to be amended to account for multiple orbital levels. The orbital spin of electrons was introduced to explain certain orbital shapes and behaviors. Electrons don’t actually spin as far as anyone knows, the spin component gives an explanation for variations in orbit, etc.
Unfortunately, Bohr got a little looney as time went by and began making rash predictions about the sci-fi side of QM. He began predicting idiotic properties of matter like the ability of an electron to be in two places at the same time. Unfortunately, many scientist have followed his lead and continued the sci-fi.
Einstein and Schrodinger both parted ways with him circa 1930. Einstein refused to become embroiled in action at a distance (electrons in two places at once)or any theory that could not be corroborated by real physics. Ironically, in his general relativity theory he committed the same crime. He created definitions based on supposition without testing the theories formally.
Schrodinger simply got fed up with Bohr’s nonsense. Wanting nothing to do with the insanity, he retired.
Both the proton in the nucleus and the electron have an equal and opposite electrostatic charge. It is those electrostatic fields that interact, there is no magnetic field involved. The magnetic field is produced by the -vely charged electron moving around the nucleus.
We know that from observing free electrons moving down a conductor. The electric current produced the electron flow produces a magnetic field around the conductor. That is the basis of electric motors, transformers, and all communications systems.
The electron is the source of electromagnetic energy, the proton is not involved with the EM produced by the electron during transitions. However, a free proton, like those ejected from the Sun as the solar wind could conceivably radiate EM.
norman…”What I learned was that the orbital was not an actual motion of an electron around protons. It was a probability cloud that was created by the presence of an electron near a positively charged nucleus”.
So you think electrons just sit there is a cloud around a nucleus? Since they have a negative charge and the proton has a positive charge, what’s to stop the electron being attracted to the protons and clumping around it like a raisin pudding?
The electrons have momentum and that momentum keeps them from crashing into the nucleus via electrostatic attraction. It’s like the Earth-Moon system where the Moon’s momentum keeps it from spiraling down into the Earth.
That momentum is part of the Schrodinger wave equation which defines the probability clouds. They must be in some sort of an orbit unless there is something fundamental that has been missed, which could be the case.
The clouds to which you refer are not intended to depict actual electrons, they are probability points that represent the likelihood of finding an electron ORBITAL in that cloud shape. Somewhere within those clouds the electrons are in motion.
If you check out molecules of different shapes, the cloud shapes tend to take on the shape one might expect from an electron being shared between atoms in an atomic bond.
I find that so-called experts who offer opinions on this tend to trip over their own words. Some claim electrons are not particles but waves, then if you read a few paragraphs later they are taking about electron orbitals. How can a wave have an orbit?
I think electrons are particles, they have a mass which is about 1/1800th the mass of a proton. Both have equal and opposite charges.
Till something better comes along, I am sticking with the oribital theory. Although I cannot begin to imagine electrons orbiting two or more atoms, it’s the only model that makes a semblance of sense.
bob d …”with P-orbitals, that have 2 probability clouds separated by a node that has zero probability of finding the electron there”.
The Schrodinger wave equation has many solutions that explain your probability spaces and the orbitals electrons are supposed to occupy. However, the wave equation is based on harmonic motion and that suggests something is moving with an angular velocity.
Schrodinger could not have gotten solutions to his equation, or the equation itself, without presuming electrons had angular momentum and were orbiting the nucleus at various energy levels.
Bohr’s stipulated that electrons changing orbits downward emit EM with the relationship E = hf. The f suggests angular momentum in an orbit, otherwise the electron would have to be vibrating in place. In that case there would be no wave equation and no quantum theory.
I am afraid the Bohr model with its planet-like orbits, although seeming unlikely, is the only explanation for quantum theory.
“Whether or not electrons actually orbit a nucleus has never been proved either way.”
“But all that success doesnt mean the model was perfect. It got hydrogen right, but it failed miserably at describing the other elements. Bohr and others spent the 1910s and 1920s debating how to make the model better. … Unfortunately, not all of these issues could be fixed. Just four years after the Nobel Prize, a huge sea change in physics made Bohrs model obsolete. The new model, called quantum mechanics, took a page from Bohr but took it to a whole new level. It explains the lives of atoms much better than Bohrs model does, and science has never turned back.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/why-it-s-okay-to-teach-wrong-ideas-in-physics
Craig T, please stop trolling.
bobdroege wrote –
“Waht happens when you have a water hose rupture going to your cars radiator?
You motor cools more slowly and then what?
It overheats.”
Are you expecting me to thank you for your stupid statement? And if my engine is not running?
Do you have a point, or do enjoy being a pointless troll?
Cheers.
Yes I have a point but stupid trolls don’t get that reducing cooling can result in overheating.
And you objection “and If my engine is not running?” is like saying “What if the Sun goes out?”
Mind-boggling stupidity.
b,
Obviously your point doesn’t apply to the Earth, because it has cooled, not heated.
It doesn’t seem to apply at night, indoors, when it is cold, or if one steps into the shade, where apparently reducing the rate of heat loss results in a drop in temperature, rather than an increase.
As you wrote “Mind-boggling stupidity”
What was your point again?
Cheers.
Flynn,
It’s heating now, see chart at the top of the page.
b,
You write –
“Its heating now, see chart at the top of the page.”
What is “it”, that is heating, oh ye of totally confused mien? Is this “it” something like “everyone knows”
Your point is what? You see a rise in the temperature of a thermometer – what has that got to do with reducing the amount of heat loss?
When did the Earth stop cooling, you fool? Did the laws of physics suddenly change last week?
You seem to be thrashing about like a delinquent teenager caught with his hand in the collection box, furiously changing his story, from one excuse to another. Maybe you are trying to say that the Earth has stopped cooling because the pseudoscientific climate cultists’ prayers have worked! You certainly can’t provide any physical reason for overturning four and a half billion years of cooling. Certainly not by invoking a magical GHE which you can’t even describe!
What a dill! Maybe you should stick to copying and pasting stuff. Your choice, of course. Your self proclaimed vast knowledge of quantum physics doesn’t seem to have helped you, does it? Ah well. Better luck next time.
Cheers.
bob d…”Its heating now, see chart at the top of the page.”
It shows little or no average warming over the past 20 years. At the moment we are recovering from a record El Nino in early 2016 and waiting to see what happens.
In fact, if you look at the UAH graph carefully, there has been little or no warming the past 40 years (depending on your location on the planet). Half of the warming is below the baseline and it was re-warming, not warming.
b,
Maybe you could give a concise scientific description of the Green Plate Effect?
It seems that a certain Josh Halpern performed a thought[less] imaginary experiment, in which he confirmed in his mind that insulation reduces the rate of heat transfer between heat sources of different temperatures.
As josh (Eli Rabbett) wrote –
“Sometime ago Eli created a simple example of how the presence of a colder body can limit the rate at which a warmer one emits energy.”
Unfortunately, this effect has been known for millenia. An example might be slowing the rate of cooling of boiling water, by pouring it into a Dewar flask which is colder than the water. And of course, the interior of the Dewar becomes warmer.
Now I suppose, some stupid and ignorant person might claim that reducing the rate of heat loss from a body such as the Earth would result in surface temperatures increasing. This claim would be a lunatic assertion of course. Nature has educed the rate of heat loss from the Earth’s surface by allowing that same surface to cool.
No Green Plate Effect. It’s called insulation. No Greenhouse Effect. Nothing to do with greenhouses, and of no effect whatsoever.
Cheers.
Mikey, I think you are finally getting it. The surface cools because of a temperature difference between it and the air above and warming the air above will reduce that difference, thus requiring that the surface temperature increases in order to remove the heat resulting from incident radiant energy. The net effect of the atmosphere is to insulate the surface from the cold of deep space. One portion of that insulation is the Greehhouse Effect of radiatively active gases, such as CO2. Adding more of these gasses has/will increase the insulation effect, which will warm the surface to a greater degree (pun intended) than that which obtained before said addition.
RS,
As usual you can’t disagree with anything I said, so you go off into an imaginary conversation with yourself.
Unfortunately, temperatures on the airless Moon reach extremes unobtainable on Earth, both hotter and colder. No atmosphere, you see. Talk up a storm to your reflection if you wish. The Earth has still cooled for four and a half billion years. No GHE.
Bad luck for you, good fortune for me.
Keep imagining.
Cheers.
swannie…” The surface cools because of a temperature difference between it and the air above and warming the air above will reduce that difference,”
How much can a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere warm the atmosphere?
Even if it raised the temperate by 0.1C, which is absurd given its percent mass, what effect would a rise of average atmospheric temperature by 0.1C have on the surface rate of dissipation?
Based on the percent mass of CO2, the Ideal Gas Law claims the warming effect of CO2 should cause a warming in line with its percent mass, about 0.04C of the claimed 1C over the last 150 years.
Since the global average is a number covering a vast amount of warming/cooling on the planet, I’d say the warming by CO2 would be imperceptible. That’s especially true when the planet is still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
So how do you explain away the 150+ years of laboratory and infrared spectroscopy experiments that definitively show that CO2 absorbs IR and radiates part of it back to toward the source?
And how do you explain the warming that we observe today if you ignore you the experimentally confirmed positive radiative forcing of GHGs like CO2, H2O, CH4, O3, CFCs, etc? Which set of agents sans GHGs and it what quantities are producing the delta-T behavior in the past and present?
bdgwx, you keep clinging to the same line of blather.
Of course CO2 absorbs and emits IR. But the re-emitted IR can NOT then raise the temperature of the original source. That’s just your belief system, taking you down the wrong path, again.
“Of course CO2 absorbs and emits IR. But the re-emitted IR can NOT then raise the temperature of the original source.”
because…??
With my furnace turned on my fiberglass insulation absorbs heat, and the flow of heat through it is reduced, and my house is warmer.
A thermostat-controlled house is somewhat analogous to how Earth controls its temperature. Except Earth is much more complicated.
So JD,
What is the set-point?
288 K
b,
You wrote –
“So JD,
What is the set-point?”
Ooooh! Is that a gotcha or a zinger?
Can’t you find out what the set-point is by yourself? What is a set-point, anyway? Is this some pseudoscientific climate cultist jargon, or just something you inserted at random?
I suppose you imagine that spouting gibberish might make you appear intelligent. Unlikely, except to similarly deluded climate monkeys of the capering clown variety.
Keep going – you deserve all the mockery and derision you can attract.
Cheers.
N,
You wrote –
“With my furnace turned on my fiberglass insulation absorbs heat, and the flow of heat through it is reduced, and my house is warmer.”
Who cares? What is the relevance to the fact that you cannot even describe the GHE?
I don’t have a furnace. I use insulation to keep my house cool. Maybe yours gets too cold for you, just as mine might feel too hot for me.
I don’t own an overcoat either – but feel free to tell how wonderful you feel spending money on something I don’t need, because I prefer living where it’s not so cold that things like furnaces and overcoats are needed.
It sounds like you could use a bit of global warming – or you just keep buying insulation and overcoats for ever, if you can’t see the benefits of living in a warmer climate.
Cheers.
b,
You wrote –
“So how do you explain away the 150+ years of laboratory and infrared spectroscopy experiments that definitively show that CO2 absorbs IR and radiates part of it back to toward the source?”
How do you explain that bananas absorb IR and radiate part of it back to the source?
Prefer a gas to go with your stupid gotcha? Try oxygen and nitrogen. Relative to CO2, they absorb about 1000 times less at certain pressures and wavelengths. Unfortunately for dimwits like you, there are about 2,500 times as much nitrogen and oxygen as CO2. For every unit of energy absorbed by CO2, about 2.5 are absorbed by nitrogen and oxygen!
in any case, are you really stupid and ignorant enough to believe that reflected IR is of a shorter wavelength than that which impinged? By all means use “absorbed” and “emitted” if you choose. Still no heating, is there?
Throwing in completely irrelevant and pointless comments just makes you appear stupid, not smart – particularly if you are implying some connection to a non-describable GHE!
Off you go now – maybe you can come up with good gotcha, if you put in enough effort.
Cheers.
JD,
what makes it warmer than 255 K, the temperature based on the amount of available solar heating?
b,
You wrote –
“what makes it warmer than 255 K, the temperature based on the amount of available solar heating?
Ooooh, another gotcha!
You idiot. How hot should the surface of a big blob of molten rock be? More than 1000 C? More than 100 C? What it is at the moment?
If your brains were dynamite, do you think you would have enough to blow your nose?
Learn some physics.
Cheers.
bdg…”So how do you explain away the 150+ years of laboratory and infrared spectroscopy experiments that definitively show that CO2 absorbs IR and radiates part of it back to toward the source?”
There is not a shred of laboratory evidence or otherwise relating atmospheric warming to CO2.
The warming is easy to explain. From about 1400 AD to 1850 AD, the planet was 1C to 2C below normal. Since 1850, it has been slowly rewarming.
Why would you throw out a natural explanation for a sci-fi explanation in which a trace gas is claimed to warm the planet by a degree C. If that were the case, then why did the 0.03+ concentration of natural CO2 not have a similar catastrophic effect in centuries gone by?
“…what makes it warmer than 255 K, the temperature based on the amount of available solar heating?”
Wrong again, bob!
255 K is the calculated temperature of an imaginary object, with no means of regulating its own temperature. Trying to compare that to Earth is unadulterated, blatant pseudoscience.
Nope JD,
255 is the real temperature calculated taking emissivity into account according to the Stephan-Boltzmann law, one of the real laws of physics.
GR,
So if your house was at 60F and then it increased to 70F you would be perfectly satisified with saying that it warmed because it was cold?
What I’m asking for is what specifically is causing the entire geosphere to warm? Saying that it warmed because it was once cold does not in any provide an explanation for where the heat came from and what fundamental processes made it happen.
Yes bob, that’s what I said: “255 K is the calculated temperature of an imaginary object, with no means of regulating its own temperature.”
bdgwx asks: “What I’m asking for is what specifically is causing the entire geosphere to warm?”
bdgwx, maybe you have this choice quote, from reality, “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
‘I don’t have a furnace. I use insulation to keep my house cool. Maybe yours gets too cold for you, just as mine might feel too hot for me.’
Shows your experience of heat transfer is rather limited.
No wonder you get so much of it wrong.
Nate, please stop trolling.
How about an example from my previous field.
There was a nuclear power plant by the sea, an earthquake and subsequent tsunami knocked out the diesel generators and the nuclear power plant shut down.
Now with no power they could not cool the nuclear power plant and remove the decay heat.
The cores heated up, and since they had a certain type of metal which when very hot and in contact with water, would use the water as an oxidizer, the cores caught on fire which produced hydrogen, so there were explosions.
All because the rate of cooling was reduced.
“How about an example from my previous field.”
Was that a “field of dreams”, bob?
Maybe someday you will dream you know something about physics.
Dreams can come true….
b,
Here’s an even better example.The Earth used to produce so much heat, the surface was molten.
The rate of cooling has reduced. No heating, is there?
You can’t address reality, can you? All you have is a never ending series of irrelevant and pointless analogies, in vain attempts to convert fantasy into fact!
Over the last four and a half billion years or so, the Earth has cooled, you ninny!
Make sure your carefully framed GHE description provides a cogent explanation for that inconvenient fact. Or you blather about engines, nuclear reactors, overcoats, bank accounts – or indeed, anything which avoids the need for you, and your loony ilk, to face reality. Have fun.
Cheers.
Flynn,
It has stopped cooling is now warming, see chart at top of page.
b,
You are comically confused. Hotter thermometers on the surface do not mean the Earth is heating up. It just means there is more heat above ambient temperature being produced. That is what thermometers measure, not CO2 concentration!
Maybe you should get a clue – most pseudoscientific climate cultists seem to have lost their power of rational thinking, leaving them clueless. You might find one of these lost clues – probably hidden away with Trenberths missing heat, or Michael Manns Nobel Prize.
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey, Mikey
The chart at the top of the page is not surface temperatures.
And it is not measured by thermometers.
How can you be so stupid that you don’t know that?
b,
Maybe you could quote something you disagree with?
Or you just just keep rebutting stuff you make up.
Carry on being dim-witted. Maybe somebody will believe you have found your missing clue.
Cheers.
Mike you ignorant troll
I said
“see chart at top of page”
You said
“Hotter thermometers on the surface do not mean the Earth is heating up.”
Dumbass, I was referring to Dr Roys measurements, which are definitely not surface temperature thermometer measurements.
b,
Are you disagreeing with what I said? You may refer to anything irrelevant you wish. You may also think that I have to do what you want, and tell you what you want to hear.
Silly boy!
If you want to dispute something I did not say, you will probably end up looking pretty stupid.
How about backing yourself into a corner by claiming thermometers on the surface do not show hotter temperatures? That might help to convince others how clever you are, do you think?
Cheers.
bob d…”Now with no power they could not cool the nuclear power plant and remove the decay heat”
You answered your own question. With cooling, the core temperature was lower. Remove the cooling and the core heats because it cannot dissipate the heat.
If the cooling had not been installed in the first place, the core would have melted down immediately due to its high natural temperature.
Gordon,
The core has a naturally normal temperature,it only gets hot when criticality is initiated by human intervention.
My point was that the rate of cooling was lowered, not removed.
The other point being that type of reactor catches on fire before it melts.
Day 71. The denial continues.
The days go on and the troll keep on trolling this blog. One more troll post to add to the several thousand.
True, but you can stop trolling any time you like.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yes you are correct. I do stop trolling. The problem is not on my end. You seem to be unable to stop trolling regardless of day or time. Not sure why you need to do it.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Seems you are unable to stop trolling no matter what. You do know that your repeated posting of “please stop trolling.” is trolling.
You post that regardless of the nature of the comment which makes is a troll post designed to annoy a poster and having no real value other than provocation.
#2
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman is back “ignoring” us again.
I feel so “ignored”….
N,
Can you please include me on your “ignore” list?
While I’m at it, a female colleague would like to know if you can ignore her as well. I assume your ignorance is non-discrimatory, but let us know if you vary your degree of ignorance depending on the race, sex, or religion of the ignoree?
Carry on with your ignorance. I support it.
Cheers
No DREMT,
We went throgh your debunking claims, you were given every opportunity to make your case, and in the end you could not provide facts or evidence to support your claims.
In science, that means your claim is not valid.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353292
You’re free to believe that’s the case, or try to convince others it is, if you wish.
Yes, and you are free to believe what you want.
But repeated posts like this,
“Day 71. The denial continues.”
do nothing to convince anybody that your belief is correct.
They are no different than repeatedly telling Jews that they are wrong about Jesus.
The posts are just an admission that you have no new arguments, ideas, facts or logic to back up your claim.
They only serve to poke and irritate people who disagree with you.
IOW their only purpose is to troll.
You can go that way if you want, but it will only serve to make people respond in kind. Like this:
“Dr Empty,
Why do you just lie there like a slug?”
or this
“# 83 OCD post.”
Then nothing in the end is gained.
Nate
That was a very rational and thoughtful post. I know the A-Hole troll JDHuffman will not change. Is it possible to reach DREMT and let him see that there is more to life than trolling a climate blog?
Norman, you’re lucky to have that dead-end job at Mid-America. They don’t care if you waste time on their computer. They can just wait until they force you into early retirement, then replace you with some high school student.
No problem.
The GPE’s debunked. It’s just that there are a bunch of professional sophists whose job it is to pretend it isn’t. So I just like to keep reminding them it is, because it amuses me that they literally have to respond. Like, their job actually depends on it.
I do wonder if one day any of them could ever admit it, so I also post it for that reason. It’s also good to see crucial mistakes, like Swanson’s recent blunder, getting made, as that lifts the veil for a moment each time. The truth will get there.
“The GPEs debunked. Its just that there are a bunch of professional sophists whose job it is to pretend it isnt.”
That’s your explanation for why YOU don’t understand the physics behind a solution to an absolutely standard textbook heat transfer problem?
Weird. Very weird.
My wife wonders where the $$ from this time-wasting activity is being deposited.
Why would ANYBODY be paid to waste time on this blog discussing over and over again a common textbook heat transfer problem???
And why would people be paid to pretend to solve the problem incorrectly???
Oh and are people being paid to convince people the moon is spinning when its really not?
Why is that a paying gig?
Well…professionals, amateurs, the deceivers and the deceived…working together, intentionally or otherwise, to propagate their shared delusion.
Nate, your “wife” has a poor history of understanding science.
The Moon rotation has been successfully debunked, as has the “plates” nonsense.
But, you have to do what your “wife” says….
Nothing new.
Over and over again, the Huffingboy/DRsEmpty sock puppets repeat their bogus claims regarding the GPE, yet, neither will explain the green arrows from the Blue plate to the Green plate(s) in their idiotic cartoons. All they would need to do would be to provide some rational description using accepted physics for these pesky green arrows, yet, after many months, they run and hide from that little problem with their “debunking” of the GPE models, which I demonstrated more than a year ago.
Sorry, troll(s), you haven’t proved anything yet, accept your persistence.
ES,
As I mentioned before, you haven’t demonstrated anything that indicates that a radiation from a colder body can raise the temperature of a hotter, if that was your intention.
Talk of “arrows” and such like is simply pseudoscientific obfuscatory nonsense.
If you could at least describe the GHE, and describe your exceptionally obscurantist GPE, then one might examine the relationship.
Your experiment appears to demonstrate the principle employed in Dewar flask insulation, poorly implemented, and even more poorly documented.
If you believe there is another explanation, please tell what you think it is. Concentrating on imaginary plates and arrow achieves nothing, except to point out you are delusional.
Are you really trying to assert that you can raise the temperature of water, using the energy emitted by ice? Or make anything hotter using the energy of anything colder? I don’t think so, but maybe you can actually state you can, and back it up experimentally – using proper scientific protocols.
Cheers.
Swanson, you are avoiding reality. you are intentionally distracting from the issue. The issue is the “blue/green plate nonsense”. That issue is separate from your “demo”, which has its own problems.
But, the issue is that the “blue/green plate nonsense” violates the laws of physics. This is clearly demonstrated by adding the second green plate. With all three plates together, at equilibrium, the temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
Slightly separating the plates, and using the bogus calculations, the temperatures would be:
244 K…290 K…244 K
The bogus calculation (incorrect solution) has enthalpy increasing and entropy decreasing, with the same energy in/out. That’s a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
That’s the issue.
There are side issues, such as:
1) Your bogus “demo”, where you have not provided the relevant information.
2) The correct solution to the 3 plates,
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
which clowns don’t like but they can’t identify any violations of the laws of physics. All they claim is that the correct solution violates the definition of an imaginary concept. But the laws of physics supercede the definition of an imaginary concept.
3) Your declaration that the green plates would have a lower temperature than 244 K, which you have not provided any calculations to support.
Now, you can get back to avoiding reality.
MF, Eli described the Green Plate Effect in his original post and provided mathematical calculations in support. The arrows are part of Eli’s description which the sock puppets have distorted by adding extra arrow(s) without any reference to an underlying physical cause.
Huffingboy, your cartoon provides an easy to understand version of my claim that the Green plates will initially cool. Why is that? The Green plates initial temperature is 244 k and they emit 400 watts, while receiving only 200 watts from the Blue plate at 244 K, thus the Green plates will cool for some period of time based on their mass. Your extra green arrows between the Blue plate and the Green plates doesn’t exist and you have never provided any explanation for such. As the Blue plate warms, it will eventually emit 400 watts toward each Green plate and the temperatures of the Green plates will increase back to 244 K. Standard S-B results for your empty troll’s brain…
Swanson, the math is correct, but the physics is WRONG. That’s why the results end up violating the laws of thermodynamics. Your physics is wrong.
The bogus calculation (incorrect solution) has enthalpy increasing and entropy decreasing, with the same energy in/out. That’s a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
And I see you have now backed away from claiming the 244 K would be lower. But your explanation is wrong also. Moving the plates slightly apart, under these ideal conditions, would not cause the green plates to change temperature. They are still receiving 200 Watts, and must emit 200 Watts. Emitting 200 Watts/m^2 corresponds to 244 K.
Now, you can go back to avoiding reality.
“Your extra green arrows between the Blue plate and the Green plates doesn’t exist and you have never provided any explanation for such.”
Swanson, how many times are you, bobdroege, bdgwx and others going to continue to lie about this? You do know what the “extra green arrows” represent. All of you do. Here is you, Swanson, responding to JD’s explanation of it from two months ago:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344456
JD has explained it dozens of times previously.
Why do you people keep lying?
The clowns are in full meltdown. Here is Swanson first claiming the green plates would be less than 244 K:
“Using 2 Green plates, one on each side of the Blue plate, will double the effectiveness of the radiation shield. Both Green plates will be cooler than 244 K, if you do the math correctly.”
“…if you do the math correctly.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353119
OK, so I made a mistake and I’m willing to admit that. My later statement was a corrected analysis. You trolls still can’t get it right, with your mythical green arrows from the Blue plate to the Green one(s). If you refuse to explain those fanciful arrows in your cartoon, there’s nothing to your claims.
ES,
You wrote –
“OK, so I made a mistake and Im willing to admit that.” Which mistake was that?
Implying that radiation from a colder object can make a hotter object hotter still? Or some other mistake?
Would you mind specifying which mistake it is that you are admitting to at this time?
Cheers.
Swanson, you can’t claim any moral high-ground because you got caught perverting and corrupting physics. You are only “admitting” because you got caught red-handed, by your own comments. If your pseudoscience hadn’t been pointed out, you wouldn’t be “admitting”.
And, you continue ignoring the fact that the issue is the bogus “blue/green plate” nonsense. Your incomplete “demo” is only a side issue, as is the “correct solution”. You still act like you’ve never had the correct solution explained to you. But DREMT found differently:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353516
You have no interest in truth. Your ignorance compliments your incompetence.
swannie…”Eli described the Green Plate Effect in his original post and provided mathematical calculations in support.”
Eli was proved wrong by two experts in thermodynamics. He still thinks a two way flow of radiation from bodies of different temperature, that intercept each body respectively, means heat is being transferred both ways.
The experts, Gerlich & Tscheuschner pointed out that the 2nd law applies only to heat. They questioned the net balance of energy claiming that if there is a balance, only quantities of heat can be considered, meaning you cannot lump EM and heat to get a net energy flow.
Therefore, if EM flows both ways between bodies, that does not mean EM is being absorbed both ways. Eli thinks it does mean that and he has applied S-B incorrectly.
In an earlier rebuttal to G&T, Eli claimed that in a system with bodies of different temperatures, if heat only flowed one way, as per the 2nd law, it would mean one body was not radiating.
Eli is seriously confused as are all alarmists who infer a two way heat transfer resulting in a net energy balance. The latter does not exist in such a system. There is not net heat transfer unless external energy and equipment are involved to enable such a transfer.
In a two body system with bodies at different temperatures, each body radiates EM. Parts of the EM fields of each body are bound to be intercepted by either body but only the EM from the hotter body has an effect (on the cooler body).
It is not physically possible for the emitting electrons in the hotter body to absorb EM from a cooler body since that would mean a transfer of energy from a lower energy potential to a higher energy potential. That cannot happen on our planet without compensation from outside the natural process.
The Huffingboy/DR Empty sock puppet points to it’s earlier attempts to spread anti-science back in March, ignoring the fact that there never was a proper explanation for those magical green arrows from the Blue plate to the Green plate(s). In the 3 plate diagram, if the Blue plate’s black body temperature is 244K, it would radiate only 200 w/m^2 toward each Green plate, according to S-B.
So we still have no explanation for the magic green arrows, only more empty assertions without facts, as usual…
Swanson, I linked to a comment where you were responding to JD’s explanation of the “green arrows”. In the response, you quote the pertinent part of JD’s explanation before responding. Here’s a link to the explanation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344439
You don’t agree with the explanation, but pretending that it has not been explained to you is a lie.
Why do you people keep lying?
And once again, for about the tenth time, JD’s alternative solution to the 3-plate problem is not the debunking of your solution. For a brief summary of the issue, go back to this part of JD’s recent comment, that you refuse to address:
“But, the issue is that the “blue/green plate nonsense” violates the laws of physics. This is clearly demonstrated by adding the second green plate. With all three plates together, at equilibrium, the temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
Slightly separating the plates, and using the bogus calculations, the temperatures would be:
244 K…290 K…244 K
The bogus calculation (incorrect solution) has enthalpy increasing and entropy decreasing, with the same energy in/out. That’s a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
That’s the issue.”
Dr Empty,
You are relying on a lying sack of shit.
JD has posted this:
“The green arrows from the blue plate represent flux that is reflected.”
and this:
“The correct solution uses an emissivity of 1.”
The second statement is correct, the first is a lie.
There is no reflection.
Debunking debunked because you have to lie.
“And once again, for about the tenth time, JD’s alternative solution to the 3-plate problem is not the debunking of your solution…”
“The bogus calculation (incorrect solution) has enthalpy increasing and entropy decreasing, with the same energy in/out. Thats a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.”
DREMT,
This is supposed to be a the debunking?
“Enthalpy increasing with the same energy in/out.”
You and I went thru this at length. We found that claim was without merit. You could not offer a sensible defense of this claim.
“Same energy in/out?”
-The problem has the same POWER INPUT at all times.
POWER not/= energy.
-You guys made no claims of same ENERGY or POWER OUT. So that is FALSE.
‘Entropy decreasing’.
dS/dt = (1/T) dQ/dt. T = 3 K of space. dQ/dt =400 W/m^2
= (1/3K) (400 W/m^2) = 133 W/m^2/K
This is a high rate of entropy INCREASING.
FALSE.
Declaring not/= Debunking.
“You and I went thru this at length. We found that claim was without merit. You could not offer a sensible defense of this claim.”
Nate, I only bothered talking to you earlier because you tend to provide great examples of dishonest debating tactics, demonstrating to any readers what sort of people we’re dealing with here. Also, it allows me to repeat a few points which might help their understanding of this problem.
Some of the tactics you displayed earlier:
1) Continually claiming that I hadn’t disagreed with a comment, when I had.
2) Falsely summarizing the discussion, about halfway through, by leaving out crucial parts of my comments, deliberately conflating different ideas from previous discussions with what we were then talking about, and misrepresenting the current arguments.
3) Deliberately confusing/conflating the terms “heat” and “energy”.
4) Falsely summarizing the discussion at the very end, and then linking back to that false summary in a later comment, rather than diverting readers to the beginning of the discussion.
I have no interest in talking to you, generally, for any other reasons, because you are totally dishonest and lacking in integrity.
“And once again, for about the tenth time, JDs alternative solution to the 3-plate problem is not the debunking of your solution”
This is an ordinary textbook heat transfer physics problem, that has been solved by thousands of science and engineering students over the years (including me).
We have even shown you the correct solution in online textbooks!
http://fireflylabs.com/disted/courses/m262(2014)/docs/Will-Week10/m262-radiantHeatTransfer-RadiationShields.pdf (thanks, Norman)
Yet neither of you have shown us how to SOLVE it, using actual physics equations.
Neither of you has shown you have sufficient expertise to solve this heat-transfer problem or similar ones.
Then, how can you possibly know you are right?
How can you KNOW you have debunked anything?
“This is an ordinary textbook heat transfer physics problem”
False. Not even Eli makes that claim, and he came up with it in the first place.
Huffingboy/DRs Empty sock puppet claims that I have lied regarding their lack of an explanation of the magic green arrows from the Blue plate to the Green plate(s). The trolls obviously don’t know what the word “explain” means. Are “they” from a non-English speaking nation? Simply asserting that those green arrows from the Blue plate represent reflected IR EM isn’t a proof of anything. They claim that:
From basic physics, a body’s surface properties of absorp_tion (A) and reflection (R) compared with a theoretical black body must follow this equation:
A + R = 1.0
Your linked statement amounts to claiming that:
A = 1.0 and B = 1.0, thus, A + R = 2.0
which is impossible in the realm of real world physics. Which, needless to say, is just as loonie as claiming that the Moon doesn’t rotate. Carry on, troll(s).
Let’s face it DREMT, you ‘have no interest in talking to you’ because, quite obviously, I am effective at pointing out flaws in your logic and science.
Sorry, but are you really such a ‘delicate flower’?
The reality was a free and fair discussion of the science, back and forth with no ad-homs from me, for ~ a day. Anyone can go read it.
Your claims were, point by point, rebutted. You then came up with other issues, and each time these were rebutted with physics facts or logic, which in the end you had NO RESPONSE to.
Your complaints 1-2, 4 are basically all about me presenting my POV. That is NORMAL in debate. You had plenty of opportunities to dispute what I said, no one cut you off.
“3) Deliberately confusing/conflating the terms heat and ‘energy’.”
No, you are often confused about heat. That is on you.
You kept trying to say the heat flow between BLUE and GREEN could be 0 when they are in contact.
I tried to explain to you that there CANNOT be heat flowing INTO the BLUE plate, the same amount of heat flowing OUT of the GREEN plates to space, and NOT have heat flowing between the BLUE and GREEN plates.
That is like saying water is flowing from my faucet into my garden hose at 5 gal/minute. The hose is connected to a sprinkler, which is squirting out water at 5 gal/minute.
But you think the water flowing through the hose is 0.
IOW, that makes no sense.
“False. Not even Eli makes that claim, and he came up with it in the first place.”
No DREMT, dont be an idiot.
You were not there when I did this problem for homework decades ago.
Clearly NASA has been using MLI since Apollo and they understood the theory behind it back then, which is the SAME theory being applied in the simpler GPE version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Dr Empty,
Now you are lying about reflection not being part of JD’s solution and it being wrong.
It’s wrong and lying about it won’t help.
Nate continues to falsely summarize a discussion that, as he says, “anyone can go read”, and to pretend that the GPE is some standard physics problem. No, calculating the heat flow between two “infinite parallel plates” might well be, but including the energy flow from out the other side of the plates into the calculations is not. And that, is where (deliberately), Eli and the gang have found so many ways to propagate their nonsense.
Swanson tried to defend himself by arguing semantics over the word “explain”, as if what he said wasn’t perfectly clear, from context; and by once again making the point about a black body not reflecting, which has been made and rebutted at least a dozen times already. He still ignores the point about what the debunking actually involves, and instead keeps the attention focussed on the alternative solution to the problem.
bobdroege falsely accuses me of lying that JD’s solution doesn’t involve reflection, when I have never said that it doesn’t involve reflection.
Think that’s about it…
“You kept trying to say the heat flow between BLUE and GREEN could be 0 when they are in contact.
I tried to explain to you that there CANNOT be heat flowing INTO the BLUE plate, the same amount of heat flowing OUT of the GREEN plates to space, and NOT have heat flowing between the BLUE and GREEN plates.
That is like saying water is flowing from my faucet into my garden hose at 5 gal/minute. The hose is connected to a sprinkler, which is squirting out water at 5 gal/minute.
But you think the water flowing through the hose is 0.
IOW, that makes no sense.”
Actually I will just address this, since the response is so obvious. The situation you describe with the plates together is exactly the same as when the plates are separated. There is energy flowing into the blue plate, out of the green plates into space, and energy flowing inbetween the blue and green plates, when separated. Just as when they are together. If you say the “heat flow between blue and green” cannot be zero when they are in contact, you could say the exact same thing when the plates are separated.
The point is (and was, as I tried to explain to you at the time), that your logic is not consistent.
With the plates together, at equilibrium, heat flow has gone to zero between the plates. That’s what “equilibrium” means. You seem to be in denial of this fact.
Dr EMPTY
Equilibrium doesn’t mean zero because it’s not call zeroibrium.
“bobdroege falsely accuses me of lying that JD’s solution doesn’t involve reflection, when I have never said that it doesn’t involve reflection.”
I said you were lying because JD’s solution does involve reflection which violates Kirchoff’s law.
This is what I said
“Now you are lying about reflection not being part of JD’s solution and it being wrong.”
Stop lying.
“Equilibrium doesn’t mean zero because it’s not call zeroibrium”
OK, well whether you think equilibrium is when heat flow goes to zero, or whether you think equilibrium is something else, my point is that you should be consistent with your definition between “plates together” and “plates separated”. So, that doesn’t affect my point.
As to the rest of your comment…
So I’m lying because I’m not saying it’s wrong?
Does this really compare as a lie to when you were continually saying you didn’t understand what the green arrows were meant to represent?
No. Never mind, blob.
“Nate continues to falsely summarize a discussion”
Projecting.
That is precisely your MO, DREMT, as how you simmarized the March discussion as one sided ‘GPE debunked’.
‘The situation you describe with the plates together is exactly the same as when the plates are separated.”
FALSE. Declaration without evidence.
As has been explained to you many times, conduction and radiation are NOT exactly same.
Why is that so difficult?
DREMT,
Again, you are making arguments based on some sort of intuition or guess, here that the heat flow should be the same in contact or not.
Physics shows that is wrong. Conduction transfers lots of heat easily with small T differences. Eg 200 W/m2 with .00067 K.
Radiation transfers lots of heat only with large T differences, ~ 50 K gives 200 W/m2 in this case.
I saw a teachable moment from part of Nate’s comments, and decided I’d write to communicate that to others. Unfortunately, Nate has taken it as though I have some desire to talk to him. He often makes that mistake. I know that he has to miss the point, because he is what he is. I know he will quote only a tiny part of my comment, and deliberately take it out of context. He has to do what he has to do.
Anybody that has talked to Nate for any extended period of time is aware of his antics. Many regulars here know them only too well. Eventually, you just have to stop responding to him.
Dr Empty
“So Im lying because Im not saying its wrong?”
That’s good enough for me.
The diagram is wrong as it violates Kirchoff’s law.
The plate problem is not an equilibrium problem, it’s a steady state problem.
The heat flow is not zero, because in the correct solution there is heat flow from blue to green because blue is at a higher temperature.
Swanson can’t get the simplest things right:
Swanson: “Your linked statement amounts to claiming that:
A = 1.0 and B = 1.0, thus, A + R = 2.0″
(“B” should be “R”. Swanson can’t get the simplest things right.)
Wrong Swanson, if none is absorbed, then A = 0.
So A + R = 0 + 1 = 1.0
Feel free to your luck again.
Yes, you are also a great point-misser, blob.
DREMT,
You can try to blame the messenger if you want, but the message comes straight from physics.
“Conduction transfers lots of heat easily with small T differences. Eg 200 W/m2 with .00067 K.
Radiation transfers lots of heat only with large T differences, ~ 50 K gives 200 W/m2 in this case.”
What part of this calculation is wrong?
How does this add up to:
‘The situation you describe with the plates together is exactly the same as when the plates are separated.’
See how he still only quotes that one sentence, pretending I didn’t go on to explain in what way the situations are the same?
There’s just no point talking to him.
Dr Empty,
Of course I miss your point, it is wrong.
Also you haven’t proved your point, if we can ever be clear on which point you are trying to prove. You keep failing to prove whatever point you are on.
Your strategy is you don’t understand point a, we mean point b, you don’t understand point b, we mean point c, you don’t understand point c we mean point a.
etcetera
Huffingboy/DRsEMT, Sorry for the typo. But, your reply ignores the fact that A and R are fractions of the theoretical black body emissions for that range of the IR spectrum which is of concern. By definition, for a solid non-transparent body, A (absorp_tivity) equals E (emissivity).
In the 3 plate situation, A can not be zero for those 200 w/m^2 Blue arrows to exist. For the assumptions in the GPE problem, A must equal 1.0 for a blackbody, thus, by definition, R must equal 0.0. Your magic green arrows from the Blue plate can’t exist. In real world situations, E will be less than 1.0, but high emissivity surfaces still won’t reflect much back toward the Green plate.
Hey trolls, learn some physics.
Swanson, it’s amazing how you cling to that imaginary concept. It’s almost like you have no understanding of the relevant physics, and can’t think for yourself….
You can’t understand how Kirchhoff’s Law applies. You want to “imagine” how it works, to fit it into your pseudoscience.
A black body is an imaginary concept. But, let’s “imagine” that you could buy one at Walmart. So if the black body were sitting on your table, could you see it? In your fantasy world, the black body is absorbing all light, and reflecting none. It isn’t emitting visible light at room temperature, but it is absorbing it. So, your imaginary concept is violating Kirchhoff’s Law.
Your imaginary, made-up physics fails every time.
But, you’re welcome to try your luck again.
We enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself, EVERY time.
A self-contradictory comment from blob, and proven liar Swanson continues to switch focus from the debunking of their solution onto discussing JD’s alternative.
The Huffingboy/DRsEMT troll responds with an absurd statement in another effort to ignore reality.
The Green Plate Effect model assumes the surfaces are black bodies. It’s true that real world world surfaces do not exhibit perfect black body emissivity, but they “are close enough for Government work” (as the saying goes) in the wavelengths of thermal IR EM radiation.
The trolls throw out another red herring, pointing out that a BB in the SW radiation range wouldn’t be “visible” to the human eye, which would be true if such existed. However, a SW BB would be visible if heated enough to emit SW (think incandescent bulb), which would be a much higher temperature than relates to the LW case with temperatures around 300 K. Furthermore, when viewed by the human eye, the presence of a BB would be seen as perfectly black form surrounded by the light from the other bodies in the area.
Lastly, I agree that a perfect BB would absorb SW, just as a body painted flat black with a near perfect BB emissivity does and as my painted plates (e~= 0.94) did as well. Said real world body would then lose energy via other pathways, including LW radiation, exhibiting a temperature near that of the surroundings. This doesn’t “violate Kirchhoffs Law”, which you claim. At room temperature, the thermal IR EM would be visible with a device which detects IR EM, such as a FLIR camera.
Face it, trolls, you failed first year physics (again). Your magic Green Arrows from the Blue plate(s) don’t exist.
“…and proven liar Swanson continues to switch focus from the debunking of their solution onto discussing JD’s alternative.”
Wow Swanson, that’s a lot of rambling in circles, just to end up with nothing of value.
Your pseudoscience violates the laws of thermodynamics, and you can’t get away from that fact.
Your attempted corruption of Kirchhoff’s Law exploded in your face when I explained a room-temperature BB would be receiving, but not emitting, visible light.
Your imaginary, made-up physics fails every time.
But, you’re welcome to try your luck again.
Huffingboy/DRsEMT emit more cow effluent without bothering to address my objections to their 2 ir 3 plate cartoon. They still can’t bother to provide any physical reasoning to support the existence of those magic green arrows moving energy from the Blue plate toward the Green plate(s). All that’s posted is a red herring about visible light:
Sorry, trolls, the GPE addresses radiation in the infrared wavelengths, not visible light. If you want visible wavelengths from the BB, it’s temperature must be much higher than “room temperature”. Try looking at a powered halogen incandescent bulb for a while and you will see the light. Maybe then you will understand that your magic green arrows don’t exist
#2
“…and proven liar Swanson continues to switch focus from the debunking of their solution onto discussing JD’s alternative.”
The Huffingboy/DRsEMT troll again proclaims I am lying when I point out that it’s magic green arrows from the Blue Plate to the Green plate(s) do not exist. Of course, this is based on their obviously incorrect version of real world physics, which agrees that a body with an emissivity at (or near) 1.0 also has a reflectivity of at or nearly zero, therefore their claim of 200 w/m^2 “reflected” by the Blue plate is impossible.
They failure to understand what I post, irrespective of occasional errors, doesn’t grant them any right to post false science. Their repeated distortions of well established physics makes them out to be either morons or intentional liars.
#3
“…and proven liar Swanson continues to switch focus from the debunking of their solution onto discussing JD’s alternative.”
nate….from your link…”Weve show that there is new energy input available, and we showed how the blue plate warms when the plates are separated”.
Actually, swannie’s experiment showed the opposite. When the BP was heated on its own it reached a fixed temperature. When swannie raised a GP in front of it, the temperature of the BP rose.
Swannie tried to explain that temperature rise as being due to the effect of back-radiation from the GP. I pointed out to him that his conclusion contradicted the 2nd law and that the real reason the BP warmed was due to the GP cutting off its path of radiation.
Fine Gordon, you understand that the ‘the temperature of the BP rose.’
Pls explain to DREMT and JD. I think they can be assured that you are not a professional sophist.
The ‘the temperature of the BP’ rising is an observed effect, and therefore cannot be a violation of any physics.
BTW, ‘Weve show that there is new energy input available’ was my description of a different experiment, where plates are separated.
In that case, I am simple saying the new energy that caused ‘the temperature of the BP rose.’ came from the heat source. You agree?
“Fine Gordon, you understand that the ‘the temperature of the BP rose.”
In the actual experiment carried out by Swanson, yes. Gordon said, “Actually, swannie’s experiment showed the opposite”.
Deliberately trying to conflate the thought experiment with the actual experiment, in order to make it seem like he agrees with you, would be more lying. Even worse than your false summaries of earlier discussions.
Nope, as usual, BS from you, DREMT.
In the real world the GPE works, just as it does in theory.
This is called testing a theory with experiment.
Your theory fails to account for the experimental results.
Your theory is disproven.
Continuing to claim otherwise is self-delusion.
The usual BS from Nate, completely switching focus from what I actually (correctly) accused him of, and waffling on with his usual declarations.
Ok, DREMT.
Yes I’m fine, thanks.
swannie…”Gordo, chimes in giving an agreement with my post. The needle doesnt turn wrt the Earth, but appears to turn wrt the horse from the riders perspective, since the compass case turns as the horse moves around the track”.
What does a compass case turning have to do with the Moon rotating about it’s axis? The horse, with the compass case attached is performing curvilinear motion. That is the same thing as rectilinear motion except it is performed on a curve.
The rider and the horse are at no time turning about an axis. They are able to maneuvre around a track because the horse’s hooves push off against the track surface in curves. If the horse was on ice, it could no push and would keep going straight in curves.
If the horse was turning about an axis, it would be turning in circles as it ran.
Gordon,
exactly,
It turns around once for each lap around the track.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
We are seeing a clown meltdown as two aspects of their pseudoscience go down in flames.
The plates nonsense fails because of the violations of the laws of thermodynamics, which the clowns don’t understand.
And the Moon-rotation nonsense fails because a simple racehorse provides such an easy debunk.
But, as the meltdown unfolds, the clowns are arguing with themselves. Norman believes a Ferris wheel chair is not rotating on an axis, and bobdroege believes it is.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353012
bob actually has this correct because if the chair could not rotate, the passengers would get dumped out. Poor Norman still can’t understand this simple concept.
Of course, poor Norman understands very few simple concepts….
And, as pointed out, Swanson is arguing with himself!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353526
Huffingboy doesn’t know how to measure direction. Attach a compass to the saddle of your high horse. Ride around the track (or around the block) and the compass needle will turn once for each passage around the track. The compass needle isn’t rotating as it points to the North magnetic pole (in the NH), so it’s the horse which rotates, you nitwit.
Swanson, your knowledge of orbital mechanics is at the bottom of the garbage can, along with your knowledge of thermodynamics.
And your immaturity does not help with your ignorance and incompetence.
swannie…”Ride around the track (or around the block) and the compass needle will turn once for each passage around the track”.
Your logic is amazing for the lack thereof. Why would the needle turn once for each lap of the track by the horse? If the needle is always pointing north, why would it turn at all?
The dial indicating direction will turn a full revolution per lap but the needle will remain stationary, always pointing north.
As you know, hopefully, when you use a compass, you turn the container to align north with the correct end of the needle, which is pointing north.
You remind me of the 4 alarmists screwing in a light bulb, one standing on the chair holding the light bulb while his alarmist pals turn the chair.
Gordon,
You forgot the one reading the procedure and the one standing by in a steam suit.
As usual, the Huffingboy troll has no answer and tries to change the subject to cover it’s ignorance.
Gordo, chimes in giving an agreement with my post. The needle doesn’t turn wrt the Earth, but appears to turn wrt the horse from the rider’s perspective, since the compass case turns as the horse moves around the track. The compass therefore indicates that the horse rotates once wrt the Earth for every circuit around the track. The same thing happens regarding the Moon wrt the Sun (and also wrt the stars) as it orbits the Earth.
Swanson gets tangled in his own pseudoscience, again: “The needle doesn’t turn wrt the Earth, but appears to turn wrt the horse”
Yes Swanson, the horse “appears” to rotate with respect to the needle, but the horse is turning in orbit, NOT rotating on its own axis.
It’s the same motion as the Moon–orbiting, but NOT rotating.
There are two different, distinct, independent motions. You should study each to avoid making a fool of yourself, again.
JD,
you are so right, it’s turning but not turning.
Begone, juvenile troll!
Clip Clap Clip Clap
Begone, incoherently repetitive troll!
Here you go, Swanson; have a read through this discussion, from here onwards:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/#comment-350137
There are lots of GIFs and diagrams to illustrate the various motions for you, so even you should be able to finally understand.
Interesting that TEAM Dolt keeps bringing up, over and over again, the topics that supposedly the professional sophists are being paid to discuss.
Odd.
Nate keeps on with his attempted ridicule of the “professional sophists” concept. Funny, the idea of “commenters in the pay of x” came from the alarmists in the first place, where x = “Big Oil”. Apparently only the GHEDT is allowed to make such accusations.
‘Apparently only the GHEDT is allowed to make such accusations.’
Anybody can make nonsense accusations. But without evidence or even plausibility, its quite dumb.
Lets face reality, DREMT. People here understand heat-transfer and you don’t.
You cannot follow or understand people’s science-based arguments.
So you come up with a convenient excuse to dismiss them: we are all paid sophists.
Another option is to go find out what the facts actually are from an independent source: a textbook, a physicist, an engineer.
Will you?
Nate
Now that you spent some time with the two trolls (actually some people have determined that there is a group of these trolls and not just individuals) you can see what I see. The two are not skeptics who might bring up good questions or ideas to think about. The two are just here to annoy and disrupt the flow of ideas. They have no other purpose. You brought up valuable accurate physics and they repeat their troll mantras trying only to annoy you. If you ask the A-Hole troll JDHuffman for any proof of any of his ideas from any valid source he goes around is stupid circles. He will not answer any valid point and he endlessly uses this stupid troll statement on many posters. They link to actual physics textbooks. The troll’s favorite response? Not to bring up any value ideas, he just makes the stupid claim that the poster does not understand the link. You ask the troll to explain what is not understood. They troll goes in troll circles of stupidity. The two of them may be part of the same disruptive troll group. Never expect a rational, logical or scientific response from either of them. You will only get troll responses.
Poor Norman is “ignoring” us again.
And he uses the word “troll” in almost every sentence, not understanding how revealing that is….
He’s such a clown.
Nate
Case of point with A-Hole Troll JDHuffman.
I stated he uses this approach with nearly every link that totally confirms he is wrong.
The Troll: “And he obviously doesn’t understand MLI. Like most clowns, he just found a link that he doesn’t understand.”
The proof of trolling (which will be denied or projected on me for demonstrating the very truth about this posters motivations) is that he never explains what a poster does not understand (believe me I have asked him numerous times…he just starts trolling when asked).
My advice is still to ignore the troll. Do not respond to any of his posts regardless of the troll tools he attempts to use to lure one in.
He will continue to troll as long as he has active participants he can annoy. The dude has a loose screw in his brain. You will never hope to reason with him or engage in a rational debate. This one is too far gone in the lunatic land of happy trolls. When they annoy someone they feel happy inside.
Norman is sure staying busy “ignoring” us!
What a clown.
“So you come up with a convenient excuse to dismiss them: we are all paid sophists”
Saying the GHEDT are professional (or amateur) sophists has nothing to do with dismissing your arguments. Your arguments are refuted by our arguments. They don’t need to be “dismissed”.
Could you maybe stop derailing threads that are on other topics (e.g the moon) with your obsessive and insulting, completely unrelated drivel?
Nate appears to be going for a record level of incompetence.
He can’t understand that when “energy in” equals “energy out”, no energy is being added to the system.
And he obviously doesn’t understand MLI. Like most clowns, he just found a link that he doesn’t understand.
Then, there is this:
“Conduction transfers lots of heat easily with small T differences. Eg 200 W/m2 with .00067 K.
Radiation transfers lots of heat only with large T differences, ~ 50 K gives 200 W/m2 in this case.”
Nate never ceases to amaze….
“He cant understand that when ‘energy in’ equals ‘energy out’, no energy is being added to the system.”
Declaring not/= fact.
You guys never claimed, and certainly never showed, that ‘energy out’ always equals ‘energy in”, when plates are being separated.
Try again.
Nate, even your bogus, incorrect solution indicates that!
Ein = 400 Watts
Eout = 400 Watts
244 K…290 K…244 K
Can’t you even understand your own pseudoscience?
‘Your arguments are refuted by our arguments. They dont need to be ‘dismissed’.’
Refuted? Like here:
“Unfortunately, Nate has taken it as though I have some desire to talk to him.”
Apparently , you could not refute me, because I was supposedly being mean to you, with your delicate composition!
No refute of this:
‘DREMT: The situation you describe with the plates together is exactly the same as when the plates are separated.’
N: “FALSE. Declaration without evidence.”
As has been explained to you many times, conduction and radiation are NOT exactly same.”
“Physics shows that is wrong. Conduction transfers lots of heat easily with small T differences. Eg 200 W/m2 with .00067 K.
Radiation transfers lots of heat only with large T differences, ~ 50 K gives 200 W/m2 in this case.”
DREMT, if you dont have any answers to our rebuttal of your claims,
then come back later and spout:
‘Your arguments are refuted by our arguments.’
‘GPE debunked’.
Then these are simply LIES.
“‘DREMT: The situation you describe with the plates together is exactly the same as when the plates are separated.’”
See how he still only quotes that one sentence, pretending I didn’t go on to explain in what way the situations are the same? It’s a similarity that is not affected by the differences between conduction and radiation that he brings up. You can’t talk to him, because he just isn’t honest.
Even now, he is probably only trying to bring this up to divert attention away from the hot water he finds himself in, with JD’s comments.
“Apparently ,you could not refute me, because I was supposedly being mean to you, with your delicate composition!”
I didn’t say any such thing to Nate. I didn’t say or imply that I had no desire to talk to him because he was “being mean”. I said that I have no interest in talking to him, generally, because he’s dishonest and lacking integrity. The only reason I really bother responding to Nate is so that he continues to prove that, over and over again, as he has done, here.
‘See how he still only quotes that one sentence, pretending I didnt go on to explain in what way the situations are the same? ‘
Nope. Straight up BS.
Point out where you did ANY explaining, beyond more declaring.
They are NOT THE SAME, judging by real numbers from the real world that I showed.
Unless you can show how those real world numbers are wrong and why, then you have not refuted the argument.
Nate continues his dishonesty display. He refuses to acknowledge the existence of the full comment, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353622
He simply will not address the point made there, because he can’t, so he just quotes one sentence from it, takes that out of context, and demands that I respond to something that I don’t need to.
Please continue to show everyone what a sophist you are, Nate.
Are you talking about this gobbledegook?
‘The situation you describe with the plates together is exactly the same as when the plates are separated.’
I addressed this. With real numbers, they are not the SAME.
‘There is energy flowing into the blue plate, out of the green plates into space, and energy flowing inbetween the blue and green plates, when separated. Just as when they are together.’
In steady state equilibrium, yes, I agree. Just after separation the heat flow = 0. As I explained thoroughly, is REQUIRED by a law of physics.
‘If you say the heat flow between blue and green cannot be zero when they are in contact, you could say the exact same thing when the plates are separated.’
In steady state it cannot be 0. We are NOT in steady state just when the plates are separated
“With the plates together, at equilibrium, heat flow has gone to zero between the plates. Thats what ‘equilibrium’ means. You seem to be in denial of this fact.”
This makes no sense, as explained with the garden hose. AND you are disagreeing with yourself:
“energy flowing inbetween the blue and green plates, when separated. Just as when they are together.’
“I addressed this. With real numbers, they are not the SAME.”
I said, “the situation you describe with the plates together is exactly the same as when the plates are separated”.
The situation you describe is the same, together, as separated. This was the situation you described:
“You kept trying to say the heat flow between BLUE and GREEN could be 0 when they are in contact.
I tried to explain to you that there CANNOT be heat flowing INTO the BLUE plate, the same amount of heat flowing OUT of the GREEN plates to space, and NOT have heat flowing between the BLUE and GREEN plates.
That is like saying water is flowing from my faucet into my garden hose at 5 gal/minute. The hose is connected to a sprinkler, which is squirting out water at 5 gal/minute.
But you think the water flowing through the hose is 0.
IOW, that makes no sense”
When the plates are first separated, there is still heat flowing INTO the BLUE plate, and the same amount of heat flowing OUT of the GREEN plates to space (using your exact terminology). The inconsistency is that you are happy to declare that there is no heat flow between the plates, when first separated. But when they are pressed together, and there is still heat flowing INTO the BLUE plate, and the same amount of heat flowing OUT of the GREEN plates to space, you insist there must be heat flow between the plates!
This leads to you falsely claim that when the plates are initially separated, and all at 244 K, they are not at “steady state”, when they obviously are.
And you can call it “steady state”, “equilibrium”, “steady state equilibrium” or “Nate’s special equilibrium in a jar”, and define it however you want if you like, you still need to have the same definition of “Nate’s special equilibrium in a jar” apply to the “plates together” or “plates apart” scenarios.
Now watch as Nate selectively quotes this response into oblivion…
JD “Nate, even your bogus, incorrect solution indicates that!
Ein = 400 Watts
Eout = 400 Watts
244 K290 K244 K”
Once a steady state is reached, YES, JD.
ON THE WAY to a new steady state, NO.
If T’s are changing, by 1LOT, energy is being gained or lost, and thus Ein not/= Eout.
You say T’s are NOT changing BECAUSE Ein = Eout.
But Ein = Eout, if and only if T’s are not changing
An excellent example of CIRCULAR logic.
The energy does NOT change, Nate.
Nice try, but you fail again.
Care to try your luck again?
DREMT,
First of all, let me make one point:
“He simply will not address the point made there, because he cant, so he just quotes one sentence from it, takes that out of context, and demands that I respond to something that I dont need to.”
If this makes me a sophist and a bad person, you need to seriously look in the mirror.
Because you do this to me and others CONSTANTLY.
Me: ‘numbers comparing conduction vs radiation’
You: nothing, then nothing, ignore, ignore.
Me: ‘The GPE are not technically in equlibrium, because they have 400 W/m^2 flowing through them’
You: nothing, then ‘Equilibrium means heat flow = 0″
Me: post, just above, addressing your post, point by point.
You: ignore most of it, spin the rest of it.
Yes, we know you are good at false accusations, Nate. Will the misrepresentations be next?
JD,
‘The energy does NOT change, Nate.’
Repeating a FALSE declaration does not make it any more true, JD.
It just offers more proof that you are a fraud, and a troll.
DREMT,
“When the plates are first separated, there is still heat flowing INTO the BLUE plate, and the same amount of heat flowing OUT of the GREEN plates to space (using your exact terminology).”
YES, ok.
‘The inconsistency is that you are happy to declare that there is no heat flow between the plates, when first separated.’
I gave you a very good reason for this, twice, and you have now IGNORED it, twice.
A law of physics requires it. This one. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
If you CHOOSE to ignore this for the third time, then who is the sophist?
Look, conduction and radiation are different. Steady state and not steady state are different.
Claiming that they should all be the same is pointless, when clearly they are different.
Sure, OK, a law of physics requires it. We’ve discussed that before. Why are you lying and claiming I ignored it?
Now, I repeat, in full, my previous comment of 11:11am, because you appear to have once again missed the point, probably deliberately.
‘This leads to you falsely claim that when the plates are initially separated, and all at 244 K, they are not at steady state, when they obviously are.’
Why do you declare things like this that are pure opinion, feeling, not based on any fact??
I explained this in great detail in our 1 day long discussion, but clearly you IGNORED it, nor did you dispute it.
With BLUE sand GREEN at (nearly) the same temperature, and suddenly no conduction taking place, heat flow by radiation is all that is available. BY SB law, that is 0 (or nearly 0).
Of course this is a big change, and the plates temperatures change to try to find a new steady state.
‘Sure, OK, a law of physics requires it. Weve discussed that before. ‘
No. FALSE. You changed the subject to plates in contact, and conduction, thereby avoiding discussing it. Who’s a sophist?
Reminder:
“Nate says:
‘A law of physics requires it.’
But once again, when the plates are pressed together, and at the same temperature, at equilibrium, he doesnt think that ‘a law of physics requires’ that the heat flow is also zero, between the plates.
‘OK, Nate”.
See, we discussed it; so why lie and say I ignored it? It’s not relevant to what I am explaining, Nate. It does not change the point I am making in my 11:11am comment.
MELTDOWN!
Nate can’t reply with any physics, only insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
They’re in full meltdown mode, and watching it is a blast.
They probably have nightmares about being chased by a blue/green horse!
‘ It’s not relevant to what I am explaining, Nate.’
You are working hard to stay confused.
11:11 comment. All of it has been
‘The inconsistency is that you are happy to declare that there is no heat flow between the plates, when first separated.’
Addressed above. Law physics. Directly relevant.
‘But when they are pressed together, and there is still heat flowing INTO the BLUE plate, and the same amount of heat flowing OUT of the GREEN plates to space, you insist there must be heat flow between the plates!’
Already addressed repeatedly, but you IGNORED. In steady state, YES.
“This leads to you falsely claim that when the plates are initially separated, and all at 244 K, they are not at ‘steady state’, when they obviously are.”
Addressed above, law of physics says heat flow has dropped to (near) 0. Want to dispute this??
“And you can call it ‘steady state’.”
Yes that means temperatures are steady, such as when plates have been together for a long time, or apart for a long time.
Not steady state is what we have immediately after we change something.
Again numbers. Numbers matter! If you can dispute them pls do so.
Plates together, Copper, 1 mm thick. Steady State. Conduction dT = 0.000167 K, heat flow B/G 200 W/m^2.
Separate plates.
Initial Ts B/G = 244K, and 244K -.000167 = 243.9998 K. Conduction heat flow = 0!
Initial Radiation heat flow 5.67e-8 *(244^4 -243.9998^4) = 0.0006 W/m^2
The energy does NOT change, Nate.
244 K…244 K…244 K, Ein = Eout = 400 J/sec
244 K…290 K…244 K, Ein = Eout = 400 J/sec
290 K violates laws of thermodynamics.
The blue/green racehorse eats clowns for breakfast!
Try this one, sophist.
I said:
“When the plates are first separated, there is still heat flowing INTO the BLUE plate, and the same amount of heat flowing OUT of the GREEN plates to space (using your exact terminology).”
So Nate, now apply your words to that situation:
“That is like saying water is flowing from my faucet into my garden hose at 5 gal/minute. The hose is connected to a sprinkler, which is squirting out water at 5 gal/minute.
But you think the water flowing through the hose is 0.”
And you do think the water flowing through the hose is 0, when the plates are initially separated, because a law of physics requires it. OK, so when the plates are together, the water flowing through the hose can be 0 as well then, yes? Or you are being inconsistent…
Or, if you don’t like looking at it that way, you could say that with the plates pushed together, there are 5 gal/minute of water flowing through the hose. And, when the plates are initially separated, there are still 5 gal/minute of water flowing through the hose. That “5 gal/minute of water” flowing through the hose is then just defined to mean “heat flow is at zero”.
Either way, you need to be consistent throughout. Which is my point. Yes? Get it?
“And you do think the water flowing through the hose is 0, when the plates are initially separated, because a law of physics requires it. OK, so when the plates are together, the water flowing through the hose can be 0 as well then, yes? Or you are being inconsistent”
Interesting…
When the plates are connected and in equilibrium there must be heat flow of 200 W/m^2. I believe you already agreed with this, yes?
Just as the water flowing through the connected hose to the sprinkler is 5 gal/min.
If we separate the plates the flow of heat stops. If we disconnect the hose the flow of water stops.
There is no direct analogy between fluid flow and radiative heat transfer. The green plate continues to radiate heat to space, but cools. The sprinkler stops almost immediately.
The law of radiation and conduction are what they are. I showed you numbers. Can you dispute them or not?
Nate found a way to miss the point, even when I made it unbelievably simple and straightforward. Congratulations to Nate. That’s why he is a pro.
I don’t have to dispute his numbers, as they have nothing to do with my point, and he knows that.
He’s thoroughly done with the misrepresentations, now.
I guess the final phase will be the insults.
Which important point did miss?
You are grasping at straws. You keep throwing wrong ideas at the wall, hoping something will stick. None of it has.
Laws of conduction and radiation arent working out for you, lets go back to fluid flow, and try to push that analogy until it no longer works.
‘I dont have to dispute his numbers, as they have nothing to do with my point, and he knows that.’
Numbers are illustrating MY point that conductive heat flow and radiative heat flow are not the same. I don’t know why you keep insisting they are.
The conductive heat flow, radiative heat flow, dont have to be consistent at all times, and the numbers show that.
They are illustrating the point that heat flow goes to near 0, upon plate separation.
If you cannot dispute the numbers than your idea that the heat flow should not change upon plate separation is proven wrong.
That’s what the physics SAYS should happen. Sorry if that disagrees with your intuition.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353327
Declaring not/= fact.
If you cannot back up your claims, with real evidence, and you have no answers to our rebuttals, other than repeating the claim, then your claim is wrong.
You can continue to say the Earth is Flat or the GPE is Debunked or we’re all Paid Sophists, or whatever, and we will all know that you are simply nuts, a troll, or both.
We will continue to say Show us the Evidence. Show us the bloody edge of the Earth!
OK, I made a mistake. Nate was not quite finished with the misrepresentations, when I said so. False summaries of the discussion that just took place seem to be his new thing. But, now we’re getting to the insults. “Flat Earth-er” comparisons are pretty standard Nate fare, as well as the rest.
‘290 K violates laws of thermodynamics.’
Nope, JD. You have never given a reason. You just make shit up.
You can continue to claim that as often as you like. Each time it will be a lie.
Everyone gets that.
‘False summaries of the discussion that just took place seem to be his new thing. ‘
I love how DREMT remembers things differently than the reality.
Thats why he remembered last months discussion as a one-sided discussion and ‘GPE debunked’.
He only recalls his TEAMs argumments. He never remembers the rebuttals, and that he had no answers to them.
Good example:
N: “I gave you a very good reason for this, twice, and you have now IGNORED it, twice.
A law of physics requires it. This one. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
If you CHOOSE to ignore this for the third time, then who is the sophist?”
D “Sure, OK, a law of physics requires it. Weve discussed that before.”
And the result was what? You did not process it. You did not dispute it. You changed the subject. You ignored it.
“not relevant” you said.
Oh? Only it completely debunks DREMTs claims.
D “Sure, OK, a law of physics requires it. Weve discussed that before.”
Here’s Nate in full meltdown. Enjoy!
“You have never given a reason.”
“You just make shit up.”
“You can continue to claim that as often as you like.”
“Each time it will be a lie.”
His pseudoscience isn’t working for him, and he’s trying to blame the messenger. Great entertainment!
Is Nate still trying to use that bogus equation, to push his plates nonsense?
The poor clown just can’t learn.
Nothing new.
Yes, it’s quite a meltdown!
“Nate still trying to use that bogus equation”
No JD, just ordinary physics, you may have heard of it somewhere on the way to your almost-physics-minor.
If you have to claim ordinary physics is bogus, and DREMT must simply ignore it, then you both are admitting that you cannot win without cheating.
Keep it up.
“and DREMT must simply ignore it”
☺️
Nate, the “2-T” equation has no practical application in the real world. It is NOT the S/B Law. You don’t have the background to discern physics from pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
‘It is NOT the S/B Law.’
‘You don’t have the background to discern physics from pseudoscience.’
Fine, JD, you’re the expert and everyone else is an idiot.
Your also sure that your mom doesnt have the background to understand childbirth.
Go ahead and man-splain it all to me, like you did to her.
‘and DREMT must simply ignore it’
☺️
DREMT May 20, 2019 at 11:11 AM
‘The inconsistency is that you are happy to declare that there is no heat flow between the plates, when first separated.
N: “I gave you a very good reason for this, twice, and you have now IGNORED it, twice.
A law of physics requires it.”
D:”Sure, OK, a law of physics requires it. Weve discussed that before.”
D: “Its not relevant to what I am explaining, Nate. It does not change the point I am making in my 11:11am comment.”
Your big 11:11am issue:
“you declare that there is no heat flow between the plates, when first separated.”
is directly ANSWERED by this LAW OF PHYSICS, that you do not dispute.
Can’t make this anymore clear, DREMT.
Falsely summarizing what is the “big issue” in my 11:11am comment isn’t going to work, Nate. The comment exists, to be understood, in its entirety. Chopping it to pieces and only addressing which bits you want to address, is deliberate sophistry.
Anyone having any trouble understanding the 11:11am comment, also has the 1:31pm comment to help them. Again, that exists, to be understood, in its entirety. Chopping it to pieces and only addressing which bits you want to address, is deliberate sophistry.
The comments are there, to help others. That is the good that comes out of the otherwise futile action of debating with a sophist like Nate.
Nate, I haven’t followed your discussion with DREMT, but you appear to be confusing the two equations. The equation with only one “T” comes from the S/B Law. The equation with the two “Ts” is a corruption of S/B. It is NOT a law of physics.
I’ve humored Nate on the “law of physics” front, with the “two Ts” equation.
Does not make any difference to the point I’m making to him, whether you incorporate it into your thinking or not. You must be consistent with how you define “heat”, and “equilibrium” (or “steady state”, or whatever you want to call it) throughout. That’s all there is to it. As long as you do that, either way, you come to the same conclusion at the end: when the plates are initially separated, there is no reason for the plate temperatures to change.
“You must be consistent with how you define ‘heat’, and ‘equilibrium’ (or “steady state”, or whatever you want to call it) throughout. ”
I must be consistent with the laws of physics. Thats it.
I don’t need to be consistent with your proven-wrong intuition about how heat flow is supposed to work.
Your own ideas on heat flow and equilibrium are not consistent and don’t make sense.
Take one position:
“Nate, once again: if the plates are pushed together, and all at the same temperature (and, of course, are at equilibrium), then there is no heat flow between them.”
“Nate, equilibrium means heat flow has gone to zero.
You seem to be high again.”
“There is energy flowing into the blue plate, out of the green plates into space, and energy flowing inbetween the blue and green plates, when separated. Just as when they are together. “
“Ive humored Nate on the ‘law of physics’ front, with the ‘two Ts’ equation.”
So now you are going to change your mind on this law of physics too? Just because JD does?
I thought you had more integrity than him. Maybe not.
I show you the law to make clear that this is not MY idea. Its not faux physics that I just made up.
Both of you:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
This is the law.
Disagree? Show me a reputable source that agrees with you.
Nothing worth responding to. Just more relentless point-missing.
Nate, you won’t be able to understand, and you will even deny we explained it to you.
That’s why you’re such a clown.
Stefan-Boltzmann Law: S = σT^4
NOT the S/B Law: S = σTh^4 – σTc^4
JD,
Your law ignores the temperature of the surroundings, which is wrong and dumb.
And just as predicted, you offer no source that agrees with you. And none do.
So your post is rejected.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
Nate reveals more of his ignorance:
Your law ignores the temperature of the surroundings, which is wrong and dumb.
It’s not “my” law, Nate. It’s the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You don’t recognize it because you never studied the relevant physics.
And just as predicted, you offer no source that agrees with you. And none do.
Just all physics books.
So your post is rejected.
I already knew you rejected reality, Nate.
Nothing new.
No JD, the SB law has both a 1 T and 2 T version, according to my cite and others.
Your cite is talking about a SINGLE surface radiating, which is absolutely useless to our discussion about TWO surfaces at different temperatures.
Your original main point, was “Nate, the ‘2-T’ equation has no practical application in the real world.”
You’ve asserted this many times, never offering ANY evidence. And you still havent.
It is wrong, and makes absolutely no sense.
Engineers NEED to be able to calculate radiative heat flow between two objects at different temperatures. They MUST use an equation with TWO temperatures in it.
And all textbooks show this is the case.
The 2T version satisfies the 2LOT requirement that heat always flows naturally from HOT to COLD.
The 1T version does not, and that is a big problem.
Nate, your history reveals you have no interest in learning. Your interest is to insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
If you want me to seriously address your comments, start fixing your mistakes. Here’s the first:
“Your law ignores the temperature of the surroundings, which is wrong and dumb.”
Fix it!
JD,
The SB law of radiation from one surface is not wrong and dumb.
You won’t take my posts seriously in case, nor do you anybody elses.
Your ongoing statements about the 2-Temp equation, describing heat flow between two surfaces, and its applicability
are wrong and dumb.
Are you going to really try to man-splain to an engineer that to find radiative-heat-flow between between TWO surfaces at different temperatures, say in a blast furnace, she only needs to know ONE of the temperatures?
Clearly that would give horribly wrong answers and would contradict what all heat transfer books are teaching her.
.
#2
https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
DREMT loves to randomly repost useless things.
As I explained, the 1 T SB eqn is fine for 1 surface. It will not work for finding heat flow between 2 surfaces at different temperatures, IOW the separated GPE.
Get it?
“Stefan-Boltzmann Law: S = σT^4
NOT the S/B Law: S = σTh^4 σTc^4”
Get it?
This is so you, DREMT.
Look, a squirrel…and missing the truck slamming into you.
Translation: focusing on an irrelevant detail and completely missing the Main Point.
‘Stefan-Boltzmann Law: S = σT^4
NOT the S/B Law: S = σTh^4 – σTc^4’
Just to be clear, the Main Point is one of these will work to give the radiant heat flow between 2 surfaces at different temperatures, such as the BLUE and GREEN plates.
Which one do you think will work, DREMT, and why?
Nate’s projecting wildly, again.
No, the “main point” is not whatever you want to change it to be.
This little, separate, discussion, is simply about whether the “two Ts equation” is a law of physics. It isn’t. The Britannica article makes clear what the Stefan-Boltzmann law is.
JDs original point was about which eqn is valid to use here.
But you say getting the name of the eqn right (debatable) is NOW the main issue.
More important than using the right equation, or solving the problem apparently.
So you admit you dont know which eqn should be used in the problem?
No surprise.
But somehow still sure youve debunked it.
This has nothing to do with our previous discussion, you ridiculous clown.
…but if you really want to get back to it (and I can tell you do)…
Regarding the “two Ts” equation (which is not a law of physics) and our previous discussion, as I already said:
“[the “two Ts” equation] does not make any difference to the point I’m making to him, whether you incorporate it into your thinking or not. You must be consistent with how you define “heat”, and “equilibrium” (or “steady state”, or whatever you want to call it) throughout. That’s all there is to it. As long as you do that, either way, you come to the same conclusion at the end: when the plates are initially separated, there is no reason for the plate temperatures to change.”
11:11am, and 1:31pm, in their entirety, Nate. End of story.
Now, please do misrepresent every single word I’ve said, as is your job…
Of course the 2T equation is a law of physics! I showed you the cite many times now.
It does apply, here. You say it makes no dirrence, but of course it does, because it ANSWERS one of your KEY questions: why do I say the heat flow goes to near 0 upon separation.
Im being quite honest here DREMT. I dont know how you define ‘being consistent’?
I believe I am being consistent with the laws of physics: conduction, before separation, radiation, after separation. Which is what I have been taught to do.
What else would you want me to do?
That’s not a “key question”, Nate.
That’s you taking something out of full context. Which is what you do.
If you back and look ay yesterday, I adfreessed each part of your 11:11 comment.
What I call a Key Question was smack in the middle.
Tell me, what did I not answer?
Again, your feeling of inconsistency of the treatment of heat flow is likely because the abrupt separation produces changes that cannot be ignored, and require different laws of physics.
You take the puzzle apart, and look at the pieces, confused at what they are.
You had the picture right there in front of you! You know Nate, I could almost believe you are genuine, sometimes, just a bit slow.
Now, have your last word, and I’ll be along to PST through here in a couple of days.
Well DREMT, you seem to be unable to explain what ‘inconsistency’ really means. To me it is pretty vague.
Based on this:
‘As long as you do that, either way, you come to the same conclusion at the end: when the plates are initially separated, there is no reason for the plate temperatures to change.’
it seems ‘consistency’ is defined to be somehow arriving at an answer that agrees with your prior (but unproven) beliefs about what the temperature and heat flow should do.
Sorry, I cannot do that, while still following correct laws of physics.
Nate, please stop trolling.
ES,
That’s not very sporting. You are forcing the needle to point towards something distant. Devious misrepresentation, typical of pseudoscientists.
If you ride in a circle around one of the magnetic poles, your needle will remain stationary with respect to the horse and rider.
I assume you have a point, but it seems obscure. Maybe you are just confused?
Cheers.
Excellent point, Mike!
Mikey does it again. He fabricates another strawman as if that proves something I wrote to be incorrect. Heck, maybe Mikey will start saying the only proof would be racing horses on the sea-ice around the North Magnetic Pole. Spin, spin and more spin (or is that spam, spam, etc?).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353584
ES,
You wrote –
“Heck, maybe Mikey will start saying the only proof would be racing horses on the sea-ice around the North Magnetic Pole.”
Or maybe not?
Straw man, much?
How are you going showing radiation from ice making water hotter? It’s a little harder if no heat lamp or other sly additions are involved, eh?
Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing. Thermometers measure heat, not CO2 concentrations.
Carry on with your brightly coloured imaginary plates. Maybe using different coloured arrows might amplify the temperature.
Cheers.
Mikey, You were the one who chose to ignore my example, posting a trivial straw man which does not refute my example.
And, as I posted a while back, I ran another demo which showed that ice can warm a body at a higher temperature. I found similar results for other materials, with aluminum foil producing the greatest warming. My results demonstrated what’s commonly called a “radiation shield”. I don’t recall your response to my demo, did I miss your profound words? Feel free to provide a link if I missed it.
Swanson, that’s hilarious! Most people would be embarrassed to claim such nonsense.
Can you boil water with ice, yet?
Maybe add more aluminum foil and more ice?
(What a clown.)
ES,
As I said before, demonstrating reflective insulation in action is not particularly novel.
As per usual, you have to use a heater, and in this case you add a freezer!
Turn both off, and now see how you go.
Neither you, nor anybody else, can heat even a microscopic amount of water by cunningly concentrating, magnifying, or augmenting the radiation emitted by ice – no matter how much you have, or how hard you try! Maybe you need to add CO2?
My profound words have no effect on the psychotically delusional – Gavin Schmidt still passes himself off as a climate scientist, and Michael Mann has not withdrawn his claims to be a Nobel Laureate.
Carry on believing in a GHE which you cannot describe, if it suits you. I wish you well.
Cheers.
Swanson, if you actually believe a racehorse is rotating on it own axis, as it makes an orbit on the racetrack, then you are admitting the horse has two motions.
So, the horse’s orbital motion would have to result in the horse always facing the same direction, say north. That would be required to result in the horse always displaying the same side to someone inside the track, if the horse were also rotating on it own axis.
Of course, that is all wrong. But, you can’t understand orbital mechanics.
Nothing new.
JD,
I said the axle the chair is bolted to rotates in the bearing that attaches it to the Ferris wheel.
The chair doesn’t rotate.
Yes, the chair must be able to rotate relative to its support. Otherwise it would dump the passengers as the Ferris wheel turns.
This is just one more easily observable proof that the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Viewed from the center of the Ferris wheel, the chair would appear to be rotating, as you would see all sides.
However, if the chair were rigidly attached to its support, so that it could not rotate, you would only see one side, as the wheel turned. (But the passengers would get dumped out.)
JD, your ideas continue to amaze me.
If the chair were rigidly attached to its support so it could not rotate, and you were beneath the Ferris wheel, you would of course see all sides, and if the passengers were strapped in, you would see them turn upside down, then right side up.
b,
Tell me, if you lost a brain cell, would the other one feel lonely?
Cheers.
Yes bob, if the chair could not rotate, it would still appear to rotate, from outside the Ferris wheel, just as the Moon appears to rotate from outside its orbit.
The non-rotating chair and the non-rotating Moon have the same motions.
JD,
You should pick another word, as appear usually means it does what it appears to do.
So the moon appears to rotate because it actually does.
Appear: To give the impression of being in a certain way; seem.
From outside its orbit the Moon “gives the impression” that it is rotating on its axis, as does a racehorse viewed from outside the track. Both motions are the same–orbiting, but NOT rotating on its axis.
Now you are off the deep end JD, do you need a lifeguard.
A race horse does not orbit.
Orbit: the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution.
Are you saying horses are celestial objects.
you are a hoot
It’s called an “analogy”, blob.
You can see their desperation in almost every comment.
They are overwhelmed with facts, and unable to respond rationally and coherently.
Nothing new.
JD and Dr Empty,
It’s a false analogy for a number of reasons we have already given you.
You can cling to your falsehoods with your Kung-Fu death grip if you like, but it doesn’t change the simple fact that the moon is observed not to face the same direction all the time so therefore it rotates on its own axis.
Here, blob, have a read through from here onwards:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353584
Lots of GIFs and diagrams, for the hard of thinking.
The racehorse is a valid model of orbiting motion. The horse makes a lap, turning in orbit but not rotating on its own axis, just like the Moon. The clowns don’t understand orbiting, or axial rotation, or thermodynamics, physics, or….
Why read a bunch of your stupid blog posts when I have known since I was a little kid that the moon rotates.
Why don’t you look up what synchronous rotation means.
It means a satellite rotates on its axis once for every time it orbits the body being orbited.
Sorry bob, they were misleading you as a child and you never learned to think for yourself so they are still misleading you.
The Moon is not in synchronous rotation because it is NOT rotating on its axis. It is orbiting.
Look up orbital motion. Learn some physics, and think for yourself.
The ignorance of JD and his clown associates is simply staggering. The principles of kinematics have been around for a couple centuries. These clowns have everything backwards.
It’s very easy to determine if an object is translating or not. Draw a line through two points on the object. If the line does not rotate, the object is translating.
A gondola (seat) of a ferris wheel exhibits curvilinear translation. See the following physics reference which explicitly states so in Slide 3. [http://madisoncollegephysics.net/233/week09-1.pdf]
Another definition of translation:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
A person at the center of orbit would see all sides of the gondola throughout its orbit.
Poor JD still can’t understand what an orbit is. And no, the moon is not translating. It rotates on its own axis just like Postma your hero says.
This is what happens when an amateur attempts to dabble in physics having never taken a physics class in his life. Disaster. But great comedy.
I see Stupid-Gone-Obsessed is back.
But, he still hasn’t learned to think for himself. He’s lost in a flurry of definitions that he can’t understand. The simple racehorse is the easiest to understand. The racehorse is obviously NOT rotating on its axis on the racetrack. If poor Stupid believes the horse is rotating in sync with the oval track, just have the horse run a straight line. If he’s rotating, it would show, on a straight track. But, guess what, he’s NOT rotating!
The comedy continues.
I’ll get SGW and we can head over to Postma’s site and have another moon discussion. The last one did not turn out so hot for you (LMAO).
The boat in the moat was a howler! Shows your complete and utter ignorance.
You have attempted a discussion several times on this blog, and lost miserably. That’s why all you have left are your immature insults and misrepresentations.
Like most clowns, you can’t understand the links you find. You don’t even understand the basic issues. You only believe what you are fed by Institutionalized Pseudoscience. You can’t think for yourself. You actually believe a racehorse is also rotating on its axis as it laps the track!
You’re braindead, and happy about it.
Nothing new.
“It [synchronous rotation] means a satellite rotates on its axis once for every time it orbits the body being orbited.”
Yes, I understand that’s how most people see “synchronous rotation” for the moon.
Now think about what the words actually mean. It would have to mean that there were two different rotations happening at the same time. Right? Synchronously.
But, if that were the case – if the moon were rotating about an axis passing through the Earth, and rotating on its own axis – you would see both sides of the moon from Earth, during its orbit.
The funny thing is, instead of using the term “synchronous rotation”, you people should actually be saying, “synchronous translation/rotation” because that is what you actually think is happening with the moon.
If you think the moon is undergoing two simultaneous motions, “rotating on its axis”, and “orbit[ing] the body being orbited” (both as you phrased it, above), then “synchronous rotation” is not the correct term for it. You, at the very least, have to admit it is a misnomer.
In reality, the basic issue is that you are all wrong about what constitutes the motion “orbit[ing] the body being orbited”. You are wrong about what constitutes the motion “orbiting, without axial rotation” (same thing).
DREMT said…”But, if that were the case if the moon were rotating about an axis passing through the Earth, and rotating on its own axis you would see both sides of the moon from Earth, during its orbit.”
No. That is not correct. Consider this visualization in your head. Imagine you are looking down on a square track. Imagine a cube with side faces colored red, green, blue, and yellow so that we can identify which direction it is pointing to determine whether it rotated about its own axis. Place the cube on the right leg of the square track such that the red face is visible to an observer in the center of the track, blue to the top, green to the bottom, and yellow to the right or opposite the observer.
Allow the cube to translate along the right leg of the square track. The first thing you’ll notice is that the green face comes into view even before the cube reaches the corner. When it does reach the corner you are allowed to translate it along the top leg of the square track, but you can NOT give it any angular momentum when it reaches that corner to reorient the colored faces. You are only allowed to translate it along a leg of the track. You will then notice that only the green face is visible to the observer. Repeat the translation along each leg of the square track. At no time are you allowed to give the cube angular momentum. You are not allowed to spin it on it’s own axis. The observer will notice the following color patterns. red, red-green, green, green-yellow, yellow, yellow-blue, blue, blue-red, and then finally red again as the cube reaches its starting point. Notice that when you are not allowed to give the cube angular momentum an observer inside the track sees all of the faces of the cube.
Repeat the visualization again. This time give the cube enough angular momentum at each corner to complete a 90 degree rotation counter clockwise. When done this way the observer only sees the red face. Recognize that at each corner the cube was given 1/4 of a full unit of angular momentum needed to complete one revolution. And when you do this 4x the cube is allowed to complete on revolution on its trip around the track.
But it’s a square track you protest. Fine. Iteratively transform the track from a square shape into a circular shape by making it a hexagon track, then an octogon track, and so on such that you are adding more corners and more opportunities to apply angular momentum to the cube to reorient the faces. Keep doing this until the number of straight legs on the track goes to infinity such that it is now a bona-fide circle. What is the Riemann sum of the discrete angular momentum units applied to the cube to keep its red face oriented toward the observer the whole time? The answer…one 1 unit. No matter how many straight legs you use to approximate a circular track the answer is always 1 unit.
The point…you HAVE to apply angular momentum to the cube about its own axis to keep its red face always pointed toward an observer in the center of the track. Likewise, the Moon must HAVE angular momentum about its own axis for observers on Earth to always seen the same face. If the Moon did not have angular momentum then we would see different faces at different times. The fact that the Moon has non-zero angular momentum is what we are all talking about when we say the Moon is rotating.
Bonus points…do you know why the Moon’s angular momentum is what it is?
All WRONG, bdgwx.
You don’t understand orbital motion.
You don’t understand angular momentum.
That was enough for me.
But, you can type well and you are funny….
Incorrect, bdgwx.
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b).
I said:
“But, if that were the case – if the moon were rotating about an axis passing through the Earth, and rotating on its own axis – you would see both sides of the moon from Earth, during its orbit.”
The moon rotating about an axis passing through the Earth, moves as per that rectangle about point O in the diagram. Yes, I am aware that gravity is not holding the Earth rigidly in place like the rod from point O connected to the rectangle, but it is just so you understand what I mean by “if the moon were rotating about an axis passing through the Earth…”
It’s just so you understand what I mean by that motion.
Once you understand that, you should understand why my statement:
“But, if that were the case – if the moon were rotating about an axis passing through the Earth, and rotating on its own axis – you would see both sides of the moon from Earth, during its orbit.”
is correct. Only bother to respond to me once you understand that statement is correct. Thanks.
“…not holding the Earth rigidly in place…”
meant to say “moon”, obviously…
JD and DR EMPTY,
First I know the moon rotates as I am taking no ones word for it. If you look at the moon over a month and observe the stars the moon is passing in front of, it is obvious that the moon does not face the same direction over the month, ie, it rotates, and it comes around to face the same direction.
Fig 2b from the cite DR EMPTY links to is labeled rotation.
Yes blob, it it labelled “rotation”. Well done, you can read.
Perhaps you should have also read the comment properly first, to grasp the context. Then you might not have made a fool of yourself again.
bob admits:“…and it comes around to face the same direction.”
Yes, the Moon is always facing in the direction it is orbiting, just as the racehorse is always facing in the direction it is orbiting. They have the same orbital motion–orbiting, but not rotating on their axes.
Dr Empty,
I read the comments, it says
“while the plate shown in Fig 2(b) is in rotation”
Which means it is rotating
JD,
You are incorrect as usual.
The moon faces the direction of it’s orbit, which continually changes direction, which means the moon is not always facing the same direction, and since it comes around to face the same direction once each month, it is rotating.
bob, you are incorrect as usual.
The Moon faces the direction of its forward motion in orbit. The forces acting on the Moon pull it, forcing the slightly elliptical orbit. The Moon is NOT rotating on its axis. People that believe it is don’t understand orbital mechanics.
Nothing new.
“Which means it is rotating”
Yes, blob.
Perhaps you should have also read my comment properly first, to grasp the context. Then you might not have made a fool of yourself again.
b,
You are being tricky and sly again. You assume that the force you conveniently forget to include, (gravity), acts to suit your purposes.
However, if you tip the wheel over, through 90 degrees (axis now vertical), so that gravity is working equally on all parts of the wheel, chairs, etc, then you will find the chairs don’t rotate at all. Why should they?
Now tell me again, what is your point? Maybe your vast self proclaimed knowledge of physics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics isn’t quite as vast as you thought it was?
You are just stupid and ignorant, at least according to me. Others may draw their own conclusions – I am sure you will tell others what to think. I wish you luck – future employers may not be quite so impressed with your claim that helium does not emit IR when it is above absolute zero, for example.
You could probably get employment with NASA, NOAA, the NSF or even Boeing (if all else fails).
Cheers.
Flynn,
I could give a rats ass what you think, I have a job, actually working with ultraviolet radiation to detect chemicals.
So I don’t need a job with anyone.
Can you provide evidence for Helium actually absorbing any kind of radiation?
Of course it does, but what can you provide evidence for.
b,
I’m so pleased you have a job. Luckily, it is obviously not one that requires particular proficiency with English.
I hope you detect many, many chemicals with your ultraviolet radiation.
You wrote –
“Can you provide evidence for Helium actually absorbing any kind of radiation?”
Why should I provide you with anything? You are free to believe whatever you wish – you may even believe you are wise and knowledgeable, rather than stupid and ignorant. What evidence can you provide in this regard?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
bob d …”Can you provide evidence for Helium actually absorbing any kind of radiation?”
Here ya go….change absorp-tion in link to you know what.
https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/673903/view/helium-emission-and-absorp-tion-spectra
Thank you Gordon.
Mike, is any of the radiation in the cite posted by Gordon in the infrared?
“I hope you detect many, many chemicals with your ultraviolet radiation.”
Well, actually the object is to detect few chemicals, purity and whatnot.
b,
You wrote –
“Mike, is any of the radiation in the cite posted by Gordon in the infrared?”
Are you too stupid, lazy or incompetent to try to find out for yourself, or are you just acting the fool?
Why are you asking me? Have you now appointed me the authority to which you appeal?
Bad luck – I’m not going to tell you, unless you can show you have made at least a small effort to find out for yourself. I don’t think you will – you are just posing stupid gotchas.
Cheers.
Flynn,
I was asking you because you made the bullshit claim that all matter emits infrared if it is above absolute zero.
I was wondering if you have the capability to learn.
Apparently not.
If your theory disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
Your ideas disagree with experiment and you are wrong.
Cheers
bob d…”Mike, is any of the radiation in the cite posted by Gordon in the infrared?”
Actually, Bob, the Helium spectrum borders the infrared at 800nm = 0.8um.
Gordon,
that is true, but my point was this
“The wavelengths emitted by an element are characteristic of that element.”
from that cite
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
nate…”dS/dt = (1/T) dQ/dt. T = 3 K of space. dQ/dt =400 W/m^2
= (1/3K) (400 W/m^2) = 133 W/m^2/K ”
***********
ds/dt is a differential, you cannot give it values without integrating. It has no meaning as a differential wrt to entropy. You have to integrate it over a range of heat change to calculate the entropy. That’s how Clausius defined entropy.
I have seen people talking about a change of entropy. Integrating ds/dt is not a change of entropy, it is entropy. Entropy is a measure of the change of heat in a process but it is a restricted value. It can only be zero or positive.
I think it is much easier to talk in terms of heat transfer and I don’t think most people who use the term have any idea what it is or what it means.
https://www.britannica.com/science/entropy-physics
Yes Gordon, Nate is clearly lost. The clowns don’t understand thermodynamics, especially entropy.
If the plates are slightly separated, the entopy goes down, with no additional energy being added–violating 2LoT:
Plates together–
244 K…244 K…244 K, Ein = Eout = 400 J/sec
Plates slightly appart–
244 K…290 K…244 K, Ein = Eout = 400 J/sec
The change from 244 K to 290 K illustrates the problem. That ΔT represents the ability to do work. So, the system has somehow acquired the ability to do work, without any new energy. That’s a violation of 2LoT.
The more the clowns try to deny reality, the funnier they get.
‘without any new energy’ except for the 400 Joules per second of new energy, ignored by JD and the 3 amigos.
Poor Nate.
When Eout = Ein, there is no net energy being added to the system.
But, at least he’s funny.
Proof that “Eout always = Ein” ?
Keep making up your own facts, JD.
Your false accusations and misrepresentations only mean that you’re wrong, I’m right.
Nothing new.
And yet, no proof is offered.
Par for the course.
The only thing I’m proving is that your pseudoscience ia a big FAIL. The incorrect solution to the 3-plates violates the laws of physics.
Your inability to understand such a basic point just adds to the comedy.
No JD.
Only an almost-physics-minor fraud can claim a black body (a perfect absorber) can also be perfect reflector, as you do in your idiotic diagram.
Say it with me:
‘I, JD, am a fraud. I don’t actually understand physics, but pretend that I do. Any physics that I don’t know, I just make up’
The only thing I’m proving is that your pseudoscience ia a big FAIL. The incorrect solution to the 3-plates violates the laws of physics.
Your inability to understand such a basic point just adds to the comedy.
I understand that you are unable to learn some physics, but you should try to grow up, at least.
JD,
What is your problem, you seem to be losing control.
Are your panties in a bunch or do you need that load cleaned out of your diaper?
bob, by his own admission, never graduated from kindergarten.
It shows….
‘ds/dt is a differential, you cannot give it values without integrating. It has no meaning as a differential wrt to entropy. ‘
What part of rate-of-change do you not understand??
If I want to look at rate-of-change of entropy, which I do, then I do what I did. The temperature of space is steady.
If YOU want to look at accumulated entropy, go ahead and integrate.
JD “The change from 244 K to 290 K illustrates the problem. That ΔT represents the ability to do work. So, the system has somehow acquired the ability to do work, without any new energy.”
Somehow? Maybe something to do with those 400 W/m^2??!!
Just as the sun’s 240 W/m^2 does work, bring water to the tops of trees and up to high-mountain lakes.
Weird that JD thinks this is all a 2LOT violation.
You guys, please keep posting these gems!
Nate, how much of the 240 W/m^2 is left after it “does work”?
JD,
If you knew thermo, you would know that some of 240 W did work and some turned into heat. Just like any heat engine.
Have a point?
Well then, how much is left of the 240 W/m^2?
(This is your own made-up pseudoscience. Can’t you make up an answer?)
Well, you would think someone could figure out that it was no longer in watts/m2.
b,
You wrote –
“Well, you would think someone could figure out that it was no longer in watts/m2.”
Well, you would think that you could figure out how to say what you are trying to say in coherent English.
Not everyone is as mentally deranged as yourself. Obscurity does not make you look intelligent – rather the opposite.
You are stupid and ignorant, but I suppose there is not much you can do about it. Press on.
Cheers.
Nate, like you bob, is not know for the ability to think.
JD,
It is pretty obvious you are out of your league on this one, since you think entropy goes up when temperature goes down.
Look up Lord Kelvin’s or Carnot’s specific forms of the second law of thermodynamics, you might get clued in.
Flynn, you are hopeless and will never have a clue.
b,
Maybe you could actually quote something with which you disagree? Or not – you could just carry on with the unsupported assertions.
Or just make some stuff up so you can argue with yourself? Good luck!
Cheers.
No bob, it is pretty obvious you are out of your league, since you have to constantly misrepresent me.
I never said anything about entropy going up. In the incorrect solution, entropy goes down without the necessary increase in energy. That violates 2LoT.
You just can’t get the facts straight because if you do, you will be wrong.
Nothing new.
“entropy goes down without the necessary increase in energy. That violates 2LoT.”
Well youve just found the reason that you’re wrong.
‘The necessary increase in energy’ is readily available in those 400 J/s coming in!
Why do you insist on ignoring what is right in front of you?
Nate, if the outgoing equals the incoming, there is NO increase in energy.
Why do you insist on ignoring what is right in front of you?
Learn some basic accounting.
It doesn’t matter if incoming and outgoing energy flows are in balance or not. It’s still not an isolated system. In fact, with outgoing energy the system is even further away from being isolated as compared to if it only had incoming energy. Thus a lowering of entropy still perfectly fits within the 2LOT.
bdgwx, let’s apply your nonsense to the Earth:
“It doesnt matter if incoming and outgoing energy flows are in balance or not.:
Now, you no longer have to worry about the planet boiling!
PS An isolated system can still have incoming and outgoing energy. It just must be accounted for. Not a problem.
JD, no that is not correct. An isolated system is one in which there is no interaction with the surroundings outside the boundaries of the system. Or said another way there can be no exchange or transfer of mass or energy either in or out of the system.
bdgwx, either you are naive, or you are playing games.
A thermodynamic control volume can be anything you choose it to be. You only have to account for anything leaving or entering the volume. Your “isolated system” is a red herring”.
Good work JD,
Your statement
“In the incorrect solution, entropy goes down without the necessary increase in energy. That violates 2LoT.”
What you claim is the incorrect solution has the Blue plate at 290 K, after increasing from the original 240 K with the plates together.
The case with the middle plate at 290 has a higher entropy, ie there is more heat/energy there that is unavailable to do work.
Entropy goes up in this case, the one you think is wrong, so it does not violate the second law.
The three laws
JD is confused about entropy
JD is confused about work
JD is confused about thermodynamics.
bob, I already knew you were ignorant about entropy, but thanks for re-confirming.
JD,
yeah, me and encyclopedia britannica
“Entropy, the measure of a systems thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work.”
but not you eh?
You still think entropy goes up as temperature goes down, or to specifically remember that you said the 240, 290, 240 case had less entropy than the 240, 240, 240 case.
Best review your Quantum Physics book again, or better yet a real book on thermodynamics as Quantum Physics doesn’t really cover it.
JD,
yeah, me and encyclopedia britannica
“Entropy, the measure of a systems thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work.”
but not you eh?
You still think entropy goes up as temperature goes down, or to specifically remember that you said the 240, 290, 240 case had less entropy than the 240, 240, 240 case.
Best review your Quantum Physics book again, or better yet a real book on thermodynamics as Quantum Physics doesn’t really cover it.
bob, thanks for making the same stupid comment TWICE.
That just makes you WRONG, twice.
Good job.
Jd, can you address why you think my comment is stupid?
I didn’t post it twice on purpose, though it does give you a better chance to understand what I said.
So far you are not doing so well with entropy.
bob, I already explained it to Nate. Of course, he was unable to understand.
You won’t get it either. The explanation involves thermodynamics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353695
“Nate, if the outgoing equals the incoming, there is NO increase in energy.’
Why do you insist on ignoring what is right in front of you?”
Where is it? All I see is another made-up fact by JD.
False premise.
You have never shown why they must be equal at all times. No physics requires it.
In fact they are unequal when changes are made, like moving plates around, as Tim and Swanson, and I have all repeatedly explained.
JD,
Let me fix that for you
“I already miss-explained it to Nate”
You see, you have a heat source in your problem, it has the ability to do work when you separate the plates.
But it has the ability to heat the blue plate when you separate the plates, a failure of yours to understand thermodynamics.
And in a system with everything else remaining the same if temperature goes up, so does entropy, you fail to understand entropy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353695
nate…”What part of rate-of-change do you not understand??
If I want to look at rate-of-change of entropy, which I do, then I do what I did. The temperature of space is steady”.
*********
Well, you see, Clausius defined entropy as the SUM of infinitesimal changes of heat at the temperature T at which the changes occurred. He said nothing about infinitesimal change of entropy since his concern was quantifying heat transfer from hot to cold. He wanted a term for the total thermal energy expended or absorbed.
The SUM is the INTEGRAL, meaning the sum of the dQ/dt’s. If you can keep T constant using a heat bath, you can pull it outside the integral sign and S = entropy = the sum of the dq/dt’s = Q.
However, when you write the equation in differential form, dQ/dt is the infinitesimal change referred to in the definition of Clausius. The ds/dt is there only to define an infinitesimal quantity of ‘something’ that had not as yet been defined. The entropy of which we speak is the SUM of those infinitesimal quantities.
For entropy to change we must consider the entropy that has been integrated into a whole quantity as S. In integral form, you might write S = Q/T, provided T has been kept constant. That S is what must change but it can only become more positive or less positive while remaining > 0. That would mean a change in the heat transfer.
‘If you can keep T constant using a heat bath’
OK, lets keep the temperature of space constant. It is.
All the heat is flowing from ~ 240 K into space @ 3K.
Hence dS/dt =(1/T) dQ/dt is the rate of increase of entropy brought about by dumping heat into space, at T= 3K.
And it is always positive. It easily overcomes any decrease of entropy in the plates.
But JD continues to misunderstand.
Poor Nate confuses 244 K with 240 K!
And then he tries to relate the bogus thought experiment to space, believing that entropies between different systems can aomehow cancel!
You just can’t help stupid.
‘And then he tries to relate the bogus thought experiment to space, believing that entropies between different systems can aomehow cancel!’
Just stop man-splaining to people who actually understand thermo!
Heat is flowing to space from the plates.
If you understood thermo better, you would know that you have to consider this flow of heat and its entropy change, just like in any heat engine problem.
From wiki: Clausius Thm.
Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in each infinitesimal heat exchange process between the system and the reservoir, the net change in entropy of the “universe”, so to say, is
dS = dS_sys + dS_res
dS_tot = dS_Sys + dS_res >= 0.
Still wrong, Nate.
Here’s an easy explanation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353695
Clausius is very disappointed in you for screwing up his 2LOT and entropy, JD.
As usual you have no idea and pretending you do.
Go explain what giving birth is like to your mom!
Nate, please stop trolling.
Gordon, i dont know what you’re smoking..
Integrate if you like my differential over 1 minute. The heat flux is 400 J/s, T = 3 K.
JD, you’re still wrong and a troll. As Clausius explained, it is the entropy change of the system and reservoir together that must be => 0.
You don’t want disagree with Clausius…
Nate, please stop trolling.
Day 74. The GHEDT’s desperate denial of reality continues.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Quit your trolling!
No, I said: “Day 74. The GHEDT’s desperate denial of reality continues.”
I didn’t say: “Quit your trolling!”
Stop mis-quoting me, Norman. And if you are going to ignore me, try not responding to me, or mentioning me in comments to others. That’s the best way.
Yes DREMT, I had noticed that also. Poor Norman does not know how to cut and paste.
He might learn that technique in a more advanced typing class.
But, he has such a difficult time learning new things….
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Your request will be denied. As long as you and the group that calls themselves JDHuffman continue to troll this blog, I will continue to warn people so that they understand you are not a rational skeptic of climate change. You are trolls with the intent to annoy and disrupt other posters. I see new posters reacting to you as if you were rational skeptics that might actually have good ideas and thoughtful comments. I am going to continue to warn everyone that you are not rational skeptics but useless annoying trolls with one purpose. Annoy people. That is all you do, it is all you know how to do.
As long as you post I will hopefully continue to alert people that you are not skeptic but trolls.
Norman, DREMT did not say that.
Norman, please stop trolling.
N,
I thought were enforcing your ignorance of DREMT. What’s going on? Can’t control your urges?
Show a bit of backbone, laddie!
Chest out, chin up, stiff upper lip, and all that.
Show ‘im what ignorance really is! You ignore him as hard as you can! Teach the recalcitrant swine a damn fine lesson. I’m sure he’ll turn to jelly when he realise he’s being ignored by an expert.
Cheers.
DREMT,
Is it really denial if they don’t know the difference between fact and fantasy?
Maybe there should be M’Naghten rules for GHE believers, finding the pseudoscientific climate cultists not guilty of intentional fraud, due to scientific insanity. Whether GHE believers should be rewarded for being insane, is the responsibility of the various governments who insist on putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.
Who cares? Governments waste money on all sorts of insane ideas, it seems. Why should climatology be singled out, some might ask!
Cheers.
I’d think there would have to be at least some of them that are aware there’s no GHE, who are here to deliberately deceive, and pretend otherwise…but perhaps not. Maybe they are all true believers! I expect we will never know for sure, since it’s not like they are capable of admitting when they’re wrong, either way.
One day closer to straight-jacket time, DREMT. Better start looking over your shoulder.
Start obsessing over somebody else, Nate.
By posting BS such as “Day 74. The denial..”
you are imploring people: “Please, please ridicule me!”
Its really quite simple. Don’t want ridicule?
Stop being ridiculous. Stop asking for it.
N,
No foul language to go with the implied threat?
You’ll have to do better. Why would anybody be scared of a powerless dimwit?
Have you some awesome secret superpower, perhaps? Should we be trembling with fear at your impotent attempts to frighten anybody?
Leaping out and shouting “Boo!” will probably be scarier!
Away with you, fool!
Cheers.
Nate pretends I meant something other than “start obsessing over somebody else, Nate”, when I said “start obsessing over somebody else, Nate”.
No Nate, I really did mean that you should try not to be so obsessed with me, and maybe start obsessing over somebody else. Although the healthier option for you, mentally, would be to stop being obsessed with anybody.
OK, DREMT, keep inviting ridicule while also fantasizing.
Whatever floats your boat.
Begone, troll!
Ridicule will keep coming with or without “invitation”, as that’s part of what you guys do (and it doesn’t bother me in the least) and your obsession with me is obvious from your comments.
A few people have complained that remote temperature sensing does not amount to measuring the temperature of something with a thermometer.
I beg to differ. One definition of a thermometer –
” . . . thermometer definition: 1. a device used for measuring temperature, especially of the air . . .”
A device. This may be a mercury in glass thermometer, or it may a complicated assemblage of various components. It makes no difference, if it is a device used to measure temperature.
I have been unable to find any device which is calibrated to measure temperature as a function of GHG content between the measuring device and a heat source. The supposed GHE is not supported by any real instrument or device. Nobody can measure its supposed effect. That is because the GHE is the product of delusional true believers, and their gullible followers.
Hence the usual pseudoscientific climate cultists resorting to vituperation, obscenities, stupid gotchas and puerile ad hominem attacks! The louder they shriek, the sillier they look.
All part of the rich tapestry of life, although the cultists’ section of the tapestry is looking decidedly moth-eaten these days.
Cheers.
nate…”A law of physics requires it. This one. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html”
You’re not applying S-B correctly, it describes only a one way heat transfer from hot to cold. S-B cannot be applied from a colder body to a warmer body, that would make no sense.
“If the hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings at temperature Tc, the net radiation loss rate takes the form: P = e(sigma)A(T^4 – Tc^4).
Heat can only be transferred from hot to cold, there is nothing in S-B about cold to hot.
As Tc -> T, in the limit, Tc – T = 0. That means radiation will stop altogether and no heat will be transferred. If Tc somehow gets higher than T, it will radiate EM toward the former hotter plate. Still a one way transfer from hot to cold.
The green plate in Eli’s pseudo-science at no time transfers heat to the BP, just as the colder atmosphere cannot transfer heat to the surface.
The BP warms because T is higher without Tc. With no means of radiating EM, the temperature of BP is it’s natural temperature due to the heat supplied and P = 0. When radiation is allowed, T drops to the point where EM in = EM out (or converted heat in = dissipated heat.
That’s presuming the BP is warmed by absorbing EM. If you bring the GP close enough to the BP, it cuts off its means of heat dissipation via radiation (P = 0). Therefore, the temperature of BP rises naturally toward it’s natural temperature without a means heat dissipation.
Gordon Robertson
Heat cannot transfer from cold to hot but energy can and does. A cold object will transfer energy to a hotter object. Clausius himself said there is a two-way transfer.
You are just wrong in your understanding of most physics and that is the state of your mind.
Norman, you are confused, again. Photons can move from cold to hot, but that does NOT imply they will be absorbed. Photons are NOT always absorbed.
You just can’t understand the relevant physics, so you make stuff up.
Nothing new.
norman…”Heat cannot transfer from cold to hot but energy can and does. A cold object will transfer energy to a hotter object. Clausius himself said there is a two-way transfer”.
Clausius dealt only with heat and its relationship to mechanical energy as work. Nowhere in his works will you see hin make reference to EM, the only other possible energy involved in radiation.
There were two cases in which Clausius made a reference to a two way heat transfer and you alarmists have cherry-picked it to death.
Case 1…as a consequence of his statement that heat can NEVER ‘BY ITS OWN MEANS’, be transferred cold to hot.
He then offered an explanation of ‘by its own’ means which he ended up calling compensation. He explained that if heat is to be transferred both ways then the colder body must be compensated immediately. Since that cannot occur by ‘its own means’, a two way transfer requires external compensation, ruling out its occurrence in the atmosphere.
Case 2….with reference to heat transfer via radiation, Clausius was a bit vague about the difference between heat in a mass and heat radiated from a mass as heat rays. Like his peers of the day he though heat flowed through space as heat rays, through an imagined medium, the aether.
You alarmistos confused his reference to EM as him claiming HEAT could be transferred both ways by radiation. He was talking about heat rays, his version of EM. He did not claim at any time that so-called heat rays from a colder body could transfer heat to a warmer body.
As JD pointed out, he qualified it in the end by claiming heat can only be transferred one way, hot to cold, via radiation. In that statement there was no reference to a net heat transfer.
As it turned out, Clausius was wrong about heat rays, as was Stefan, Boltzmann, Maxwell, and Planck. Even Einstein was likely confused about it before Bohr clarified the relationship between EM and electrons in atoms.
What amazes me most is the number of modern scientists who still don’t understand the relationship between heat and EM. There are even scientists writing text books who don’t understand it. They will INFER that heat can be transferred both ways but they will not attach units to EM or heat in the examples they offer. They offer dimensionless vectors and equations incorrectly interpreted from S-B.
Of course, people like Norman read that pseudo-science and presume it must be correct because it’s in a textbook. And Swannie does experiments on it arriving at the wrong conclusion, which negate the 2nd law, while ignoring the obvious conclusion.
“As Tc -> T, in the limit, Tc T = 0. That means radiation will stop altogether and no heat will be transferred.”
Thank you, Gordon. That was precisely the point I was trying to make to DREMT.
That is the situation, immediately after the BLUE and GREEN plates are separated.
Nate
I am not sure I would support Gordon Robertson’s statement.
As Tc -> T, in the limit, Tc T = 0. That means radiation will stop altogether and no heat will be transferred.
No radiation will still be emitted continuously by both surfaces. Both surfaces will also absorb this radiant energy. Radiation emission does not work at all the way Gordon Robertson believes it does.
Heat transfer stops (net radiant energy, there is no difference between the emission and rate each surface absorbs) but not radiant energy. Radiant energy will only stop when both surfaces are at absolute zero (the lowest energy state where they can no longer emit any EMR).
Norman, emission is based on temperature. That’s what the S/B Law says. And that means that absorb.tion is also based on temperature. Emission from a surface does not depend on another surface.
You just don’t have the knowledge of physics to understand.
Nothing new
JDHuffman
Obviously you want me to respond to your post. So will you just troll or will you debate in a rational, logical sense based upon physics?
So what evidence you have that “absorb.tion is also based on temperature”?
I will keep it short. Provide evidence of this statement or troll. If you troll the debate ends.
Norman, I have seen you calculate fluxes for different temperatures. That means different temperatures have different fluxes. That means different temperatures have different spectra. That means the photon wavelengths are different. Since emission is linked to absorp.tion, that means not all photons are always absorbed.
Emission based on temperature means absorp.tion is based on temperature.
Now you can get back to NOT ignoring me, while you claim you are ignoring me.
Reality is not your strong suit….
JDHuffman
Your logic is poor. You seem to not understand what the connection of emission is to absorb.tion.
You use some poor logic that there is some connection (that you really do not understand at all) so that because the spectrum of emitted EMR changes with temperature it must mean that absorb.tion does as well. Not at all logical or the product of rational thought. Also a demonstration of a total lack of any physics knowledge. I requested evidence to support your statement and you throw out horrible logic and believe this is evidence.
Reality. The connection between emission and absorb.tion is that if a surface is able to emit a photon it will be able to absorb a photon with the same wavelength. There is nothing there that would mean as temperature increases it quits being able to absorb these photons. The only time this property changes is when a surface gets really hot and the surface emitting molecules are mostly above the ground state. This occurs at much higher temperatures that the Earth’s surface or atmosphere. You can find equations for this in statistical thermodynamics. Tim Folkerts could help you with it. At room temperature most surface molecules are in a ground state and the probability is very high that the wavelength that can be emitted will be absorbed. Not that you will care about this. I suspect you will troll this with your pet troll phrases “rambling” “likes to type”. Comments that do absolutely nothing but they do prove you are a troll.
Give me permission to ignore you. I will post you are a troll but I won’t attempt to reason with a troll. I would really like to see you and your stupid troll sidekick DREMT leave and bother another blog. Probably because of moderation you can’t go anywhere else.
See Norman, you don’t have the background to understand, and you can’t think for yourself.
Use a spreadsheet program to calculate the peak of the spectrum for all temperatures from 10 K to 400 K. Plot the wavelengths of each peak. Then tell me wavelengths are not changing.
But your inadequacies are both enlightening and entertaining.
And, please, please, please don’t ignore me. That would break my heart….
JDHUffman
Basically with your latest post you are informing me you are not able to read. Not sure what you latest posts is about, it is not remotely connected to what I posted to you. And all you did was troll.
Norman, basically with your latest post you are informing me that you are uneducated and unable to think for yourself. Not sure what you latest post is about, it is not remotely connected to what I posted to you. And all you did was troll.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Now I know why responding to you is a waste of time. You answer with a mocking parrot. This is another troll tactic used by you blog trolls. I guess you couldn’t change if you wanted to. A troll addict. Sad but true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSG_CjcbfKI
JDHuffman
Before I leave you to troll some other poor unsuspecting poster, I will point out what you are not aware of and have never heard of before.
It is called Fraunhofer lines.
Here is a link:
http://rainbowstampclub.blogspot.com/2012/01/fraunhofer-lines-rainbow-lines.html
A concept you have not known. A gas that can emit a particular photon will also absorb this photon. It does not matter the temperature of the gas. A hot gas or a cold gas will absorb the same photon if it is able to emit this wavelength. I am certain you don’t understand this and even more certain all you will do is troll.
Norman, I see you found another link you don’t understand.
Nothing new.
Franuhofer lines are about cold gases absorbing photons from the Sun. But somehow, in your empty head, you must believe that means “cold” can warm “hot”!
But, maybe you can pound out a 1000-word ramble, making up your own pseudoscience as you go.
JDHuffman
I really did not expect you to be able to understand the point to Fraunhofer lines.
I guess sometimes I think maybe you can think but then you remind me all you know is trolling.
Norman, the one that insults, misrepresents, and falsely accuses the most is the troll.
norman…”As Tc -> T, in the limit, Tc T = 0. That means radiation will stop altogether and no heat will be transferred”.
I based my claim on P = e(sigma)A(Thot^4 – Tcold^4). It’s obvious that if both Ts are equal, then radiation intensity is 0.
JD and I have expressed reservations about that interpretation of S-B. I don’t think the equation has an overall application although it does represent a reality in certain ways.
Under normal circumstances there is far more than radiation involved. When Stefan developed the original equation he went to great pains to remove conduction to air and air convection from the experiment. He wanted to isolate radiation as much as possible without creating a vacuum.
Although I know intuitively that a body will dissipate heat faster as the temperature differential is increased between it and its surroundings, it’s not clear to me what the equation above means.
Gordon Robertson
First you do not understand the heat transfer equation.
Heat is measured in joules. Heat transfer is a rate which is in watts Joules/second.
The equation is about the rate of heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one.
If you just want to use Heat alone, energy that is transferred from a hot object to a cold one in an isolated system (no energy in none out), the actual amount of heat (joules) that transfers is based upon the temperature of the colder object (all else being equal).
If the hot object is at a set temperature but the cold one varies in an isolated system, then more heat will transfer from the hot object to the cold one when the starting temperature of the cold object is lower. The final temperature of the hot object will depend upon the temperature of the colder one (and NO it is not altering the heat dissipation of the hotter object).
In two cases in an isolated system. The one with a warmer cold object (still colder than the hot object) will end at steady state with the hotter object warmer than in the other case. Less heat is transferred and the hot object remains at a higher temperature.
In the case of constant energy input in a system where energy enters and leaves you do not calculate heat transferred as it is not a known amount in this case. The equation calculates RATE of heat transfer in watts. The rate heat transfers is based upon the temperature difference.
In the case of the atmosphere that is able to radiate energy you can use the equation to figure heat transfer rate. If you have the cold of space Tc in the equation vs the much warmer Tc of the atmosphere you find the rate of heat transfer is much less and with the same solar input you end with a warmer surface, the GHE.
Wrong Norman. Gordon is clearly talking about heat transfer. That bogus “2-T” equation is NOT the S/B Law. It has NO practical application in the real world.
Again, you can’t think for yourself so you can’t learn.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
I have been down this road with you already. I have linked you to actual engineering heat transfer equations that use exactly the equation you claim has NO practical application in the real world.
Since you refuse to accept that it is a valid and heavily used equation, I am not sure any further conversation on this topic has merit.
Norman, you’re not doing a very good job of ignoring me.
I know you can find links that you don’t understand. You do it all the time. But the bogus “2-Ts” equation is NOT the S/B Law. It is a perversion of the Law. You don’t have the background to understand, and you can’t thiink for yourself, so you remain “doing the same things over and over, hoping for different results”.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
It seems you will just troll and not attempt a rational debate or provide any evidence whatsoever of your points.
Saying I don’t have the background to understand is not providing any evidence of any of your claims.
Making the claim I can’t think for myself is not support of your points.
I know you only troll but you continued to interfere with my posts so I gave you the opportunity NOT to troll but engage in rational debate. I did try.
Can’t you see, Norman. You don’t understand the papers. Because if you did it would mean JD is wrong. So all those engineers must be wasting their time using net radiative transfer equations because JD knows how physics really works.
Norman, you are in a trap of your own making.
You haven’t the background or thinking ability to debate, yet you want to debate!
I would recommend you learn some physics, and grow up.
********
Craig T, you have stumbled onto it.
Any engineer that is trying to use a bogus equation is wasting their time.
Craig T
I am just demonstrating that this troll (or group of them) that goes by JDHuffman is not a skeptic at all but just a troll here to annoy and disrupt.
I did ask a very simple request. You can observe he only trolls and avoids the request. His posts attempt to annoy and then he gets happy. I chose not to ignore this troll to demonstrate to others that he is just a troll. Some still think he might be a skeptic and get fooled by his tactics.
Again he does not support his claims but trolls. If you interact with him long enough it will becomes obvious.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman said he was ignoring us, but he was NOT ignoring us. Now, he is choosing “not to ignore” us.
Maybe that means he will finally ignore us?
(He’s such a clown.)
norman…”Heat is measured in joules. Heat transfer is a rate which is in watts Joules/second”.
Heat is measured in calories, A calorie is the amount of heat required to raise a cc of water by 1C temperature. The joule is a measure of mechanical energy.
The joule is defined as the work done when a force of 1 newton acts on a body over a distance of 1 metre.
The reason it is used as a measure of heat is that heat and work are equivalent but don’t use the same units. You need to use the Joule conversion factor between calories and joules of 1 gram calorie = 4.186 joules.
“energy that is transferred from a hot object to a cold one in an isolated system (no energy in none out), the actual amount of heat (joules) that transfers is based upon the temperature of the colder object (all else being equal)”.
In a solid mass the rate of heat transfer is dependent on the temperature gradient. You would use Fourier’s Law:
q = (k / s) A dT. This is in differential form and when you integrate you would supply a temperature interval. In integration, you end up subtracting the colder T from the hotter T and the range between them would give you the rate of transfer.
“If you have the cold of space Tc in the equation vs the much warmer Tc of the atmosphere you find the rate of heat transfer is much less ”
Can’t agree with that. As Thot – Tcold gets greater the radiation intensity must get greater. Besides, the very thin air at higher altitudes near space would be pretty cold as well.
I think radiation is a bogus explanation for the GHE or AGW.
Gordon Robertson
The only bogus thing around here is your pathetic and ignorant attempts to pretend you actually took college level science courses. You never have and you never will. You were a radio repair technician that studied the craft in a community college. You can pretend you know physics but you are just a bogus pretender. No smarter than the trolls who infect this blog. I really do not know who you are trying to fool with your posts.
YOU: “Cant agree with that. As Thot Tcold gets greater the radiation intensity must get greater. Besides, the very thin air at higher altitudes near space would be pretty cold as well.”
This statement is really stupid and shows your total lack of knowledge and your pretending to have taken higher level college physics. I know why you believe NOAA is dishonest and phony. You project your own dishonest personality upon others and pretend you are the truthful one.
Since you are a total dishonest pretend phony that rejects all established physics (because you are not able to understand any of it) I really cannot understand any reason to comment to your pointless and made up crap.
Another clown in full MELTDOWN!
Norman’s make-believe world is collapsing on his head, and all he can do is lash out.
I’ll try not to laugh….
norman…”The only bogus thing around here is your pathetic and ignorant attempts to pretend you actually took college level science courses”.
As JD pointed out, you are the one slinging ad homs around here in lieu of intelligent scientific responses. It seems to really frustrate you when you are one-upped by real science.
Gordon Robertson
No I am not frustrated at all by REAL science. I actually like it quite a bit. I just point out you are a pretend phony who never studied actual college level science. You are a fraud person. You lie a lot, make up junk science not based upon anything. You state your crackpot opinions as if they were established fact. You are shown repeatedly what Clausius said (his own words) words then you twist it and say he is talking about refrigeration. That is a dishonest lie and you even know it but pretend it is not.
No I am just letting other posters know that there are trolls (JDHUffman and DREMT) and then there are lying phony crackpots like you that lie all the time.
Case of point. I say water absorbs photons from ice and you intentionally lie and say that this means I am saying ice “heats” water. Just a blatant falsehood that you repeat often even after numerous corrections. You are a dishonest phony that pretends.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman is backing away from claiming that ice can heat water.
Full meltdown.
Day 75. The denial continues…
Indeed, DREMT, your denial of facts and reality continues.
The denial continues…and their meltdown accelerates.
I’ve seen them desperate before, but this is on a whole new level.
Huffingboy/DRsEMT, Let me help you with that statement.
“Day 75+. Our denial campaign continues”
Yes, that’s also a good one. OK:
“Day 75+. The GHEDT’s denial campaign continues.”
I should have been more specific:
“Day 75+. The Huffingboy/DRsEMT denial campaign continues.”
Another day with no proof that those magic green arrows exist.
Another day where Swanson somehow fails to understand that JD’s solution to the 2-plate or 3-plate problem is not the debunking of their solution. It doesn’t seem to matter how many times you explain that to these people, they just don’t get it through their thick skulls!
Of course they are not the debunking dear Dr Empty, JD’s diagrams are wrong, they violate the laws of physics, as do your real debunkings, they violate the laws of physics.
Keep trying to debunk the GPE or the GHE, eventually you will give up and accept the knowledge that has been gained by thousands of scientists the world over.
OK, blob.
b,
You cannot even describe the GHE in any useful way. How stupid you are to ask anybody to debunk something you cannot even describe!
Are you completely mad, or just trying to get there?
Cheers.
Flynn,
I can explain the greenhouse effect to someone who has the brains to understand it.
Best I can tell, your brains are silicon, you are a bot.
b,
You wrote –
“I can explain the greenhouse effect to someone who has the brains to understand it.”
Unfortunately, you can’t actually describe the greenhouse effect, can you?
That is because you are not only stupid and ignorant, but gullible as well – believing you can explain that which you cannot describe!
What a fool you are! Go back to your chemicals, and ultraviolet – and whatnot, as you say.
Cheers.
Flynn,
I have already explained to you and let me bring it down to your level, I don’t chew my cabbage twice.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Been through your so-called debunking, point by point with you, twice now.
Each time your issues turn out to be red herrings. Totally rebutted.
You offer only hand waving intuitions that do not agree with real physics.
Each time you get confused, get stuck in logic loops, and cannot follow basic heat transfer.
Therefore you have not debunked anything.
Response to DREMTs “JDs solution to the 2-plate or 3-plate problem is not the debunking of their solution”
OK, Nate.
Glad to hear youve come to your senses.
“OK x” means, “I acknowledge receipt of your opinion, x”
nate…”Each time you get confused, get stuck in logic loops, and cannot follow basic heat transfer”.
The only basic heat transfer in our atmosphere is from hot to cold. There is no compensation available to allow heat transfer cold to hot. That means the verboten cold to hot heat transfer of GHE and AGW is pseudo-science.
Gordon,
Non sequitur.
#2
OK, Nate.
nate…”Non sequitur.”
Can’t be non-sequitur since it applies directly to your comment.
You stated…”Each time you get confused, get stuck in logic loops, and cannot follow basic heat transfer”.
I was explaining that your version of heat transfer cannot exist in our atmosphere. Ergo, you are wrong in your view of heat transfer.
You think heat can be transferred cold to hot by EM from a colder body. That contradicts the 2nd law as defined by Clausius.
Gordon, I was talking to DREMT about his repeated ‘debunking’ claim. In this lengthy dicussion, which you were not involved in, I rebutted his arguments point by point, several times, with laws of physics, and basic logic. He could not or would not follow simple logic, and ignored basic physics, and calculations that directly answer his concerns, and gets confused, and returned each time his misconceptions.
He seems to belive that he ‘wins’ an ergument on science, with a scientist, by NOT undetstanding the science.
We werent even talking about the atmosphere.
#3
OK, Nate.
“You think heat can be transferred cold to hot by EM from a colder body. That contradicts the 2nd law as defined by Clausius.”
No I dont.
I think the laws that describe the heat flow from a hot object to a cold object by radiation are correct. I assume you do to.
They show that the heat flow is proportional to
eTh^4 – eTc^4.
I believe only raising Tc, by whatever means, will reduce the flow of heat.
Nate: “I believe only raising Tc, by whatever means, will reduce the flow of heat.”
Well Nate, your belief system fails you again.
Nothing new, huh?
I belive in arithmetic, JD. You dont it semms.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Norman,
All your blather is completely irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate how to make water hotter using the radiation from ice. You say that water can absorb photons emitted by water, and therefore it must get hotter.
Complete nonsense.
If you wish to complain that water in the form of liquid cannot absorb photons from water in the form of ice, then you might have to explain why ice manages to absorb photons from liquid water with no trouble, and warm up to above its melting point as a result.
Heat some water using as much radiation from as much ice you want, of any temperature you want, and someone might believe you.
Otherwise, as Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I am puzzled by your total lack of reading comprehension. I suppose a bot does not read so well.
Whereas JDHuffman and his idiot sidekick DREMT are trolls, you are a master of the “Strawman” argument.
You know I have never said anything you are bringing up. You bring up senseless points that no poster made and then you attack your senseless point. Isn’t this rather senseless? I suppose not for a nonhuman bot poster.
Ice absorbs photons from liquid water. Liquid water absorbs photons from ice. No big deal. Ice warms because it is absorbing more photons than it is emitting. Water cools because it is emitting more photons than it is absorbing. What is your next strawman?
Norman says: “I am puzzled…”
He should have stopped there….
N,
As usual, you cannot bring yourself to disagree with something I said by quoting the matter with which you disagree, and producing facts to support your disagreement.
You wrote –
“Ice absorbs photons from liquid water. Liquid water absorbs photons from ice. No big deal. Ice warms because it is absorbing more photons than it is emitting. Water cools because it is emitting more photons than it is absorbing. What is your next strawman?”
I repeat Feynman’s quote –
It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
You see, your blathering is meaningless, unless you can provide some factual context. Of course, you can’t.
Still no GHE, is there? Neither you, nor anyone else, can raise the temperature of a hotter body by exposing it to the radiation from a colder. CO2 does not have this miraculous property, neither does anything else. You cannot even locate in the physics textbooks you admire so much, any reproducible experiment which makes anything hotter by exposing it to the radiation of something colder.
Carry on being stupid and ignorant if you wish. By the way, what happened to your immense powers of ignorance? You don’t appear to be capable of ignoring commenters, as you claimed you could. Do you suffer from a compulsive disorder, or just a lack of self control?
Off you go now – maybe you can practise ignoring yourself in the mirror. Start with someone easy to ignore, and work up, so to speak.
Cheers.
Mikey wrote:
Well, as I’ve pointed out many times over more than a year, it’s not hard to do just that. One doesn’t even need a vacuum chamber, as I showed with my Ice Slab demo in which a metal plate was warmed by back radiation from several materials, including an ice slab. It’s called a “radiation shield” in engineering and is featured in text books on radiation heat transfer.
Mikey’s been rather quiet since then until this latest outburst. Perhaps he is waiting for the Moon to stop rotating.
No Swanson, all you showed was your incompetence and ignorance. You have no understanding of the relevant physics.
You can’t even understand the violations of 2LoT in the incorrect solution to 3-plates.
Nothing new.
Here’s Swanson trying to recover from getting caught with a stash of pseudoscience:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353567
ES,
You wrote –
“It’s called a “radiation shield” in engineering and is featured in text books on radiation heat transfer.”
Nothing new. No heating abilities whatsoever, of course. Only a fool would try and deceive people into believing that he could heat water using the radiation from ice (without any cunning heaters helping!).
I don’t suppose you are going to claim the indescribable GHE is really another name for radiation shielding. That would be too, too, ludicrous, wouldn’t it?
Press on with your bizarre claims that shielding a thermometer from radiation (whether by increasing he amount of CO2 between the sun and the thermometer), or by any other means, makes it hotter!
Lunacy and delusion writ large! Try describing the GHE – you can’t, can you? That’s because you would have to say something so ludicrous that even a deluded nutter like yourself wouldn’t believe it!
Go on, give it a try. How hard can it be? Newton’s laws of universal gravitation can be described thus –
“Every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.”
If the GHE is four times as complicated as gravity, feel free to take four times as many words to describe it.
Cheers.
JD,
in the solution with 240, 290, 240
there is no violation of any physics laws.
b,
You wrote –
“JD,
in the solution with 240, 290, 240
there is no violation of any physics laws.”
You certainly haven’t violated any insanity laws. You could not be found guilty of being rational, wise or knowledgeable.
Keep demonstrating stupidity and delusion. It suits you.
Cheers.
bob, it’s 244 K, 290 K, 244 K.
Try to at least get something right.
Then you can move on to learn some physics.
swannie…”One doesnt even need a vacuum chamber, as I showed with my Ice Slab demo in which a metal plate was warmed by back radiation from several materials, including an ice slab”.
At least you’re consistent with your pseudo-science. I have pointed out to you in detail that you are dealing with a problem of heat dissipation and not one of back-radiation, which contradicts the 2nd law.
Any heated body deprived of it means of heat dissipation will rise in temperature toward the temperature it is naturally heated by the heat source.
Mikey, Yes, the GHE is similar to the physics of a radiation shield, except that the absorp_tion/emissions in a mixture of gasses occur at discrete wavelengths, whereas solid bodies exhibit more-or-less constant properties over a continuous portion of the IR EM spectrum. Since Mikey can’t understand radiation shielding, there’s no way to extend the discussion to include the GHE.
Gordo repeats for the nth time:
Gordo still can’t accept ant experimental evidence which shows that he’s wrong, repeating his old claim about Clausius and the 2nd Law. So sad…
But there’s progress. Gordo is finally beginning to understand that his earlier claim of a body’s “natural temperature” as a property of the body is bogus, as he now states:
If energy is being supplied to a body, but no (that’s a big zero) energy can leave said body (an impossible situation but one fun to talk about), the body’s temperature will increase until some physical temperature limit is crossed and the body melts, burns or vaporizes. That may also includes the unspecified “heat source” as well.
ES,
You wrote –
“Mikey, Yes, the GHE is similar to the physics of a radiation shield, except that the absorp_tion/emissions in a mixture of gasses occur at discrete wavelengths, whereas solid bodies exhibit more-or-less constant properties over a continuous portion of the IR EM spectrum. Since Mikey cant understand radiation shielding, theres no way to extend the discussion to include the GHE.”
You see, it makes precisely no difference. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. Your “radiation shield” is about as silly as Raymond Pierre-Humbert (author of “Principles of Planetary Climate”, Halley Professor of Physics, University of Oxford) saying “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
Unfortunately, insulators work both ways. A Dewar flask can be used to keep cold things cooler, and hot things warmer. No amount of pseudoscientific jargon can alter this fact.
Making fatuous and patronising statements like –
“Since Mikey cant understand radiation shielding, theres no way to extend the discussion to include the GHE.”
A nice slippery try at evading the fact that you cannot describe the GHE, but it won’t help, will it? Insulation does not provide heat. It is inert. The Earth has cooled. The core continues to cool, even though it is insulated by up to 25 kilometres of rock and water. Pretty good insulation there, eh?
The Earth has cooled. The surface is no longer molten. Any supposed GHE description has to include this inconvenient fact, if you expect anybody to believe you. The atmosphere reduces the amount of radiation reaching the surface by around 35% – it insulates the surface from the fierceness of the Sun’s rays! No heating there!
Do you understand the meaning of insulation? From the Cambridge English Dictinary –
“insulation definition: 1. the act of covering something to stop heat, sound, or electricity from escaping or entering, or the fact that something is covered in this way: …”
The Earth is covered with an atmosphere. Enough said.
Insulation doesn’t explain the GHE. Nothing does. You may continue to be as stupid and ignorant as you wish – you still can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Cheers.
Mikey, The Earth is said to have been molten a few billions of years ago, but It cooled to a mostly solid surface soon after and thus had nothing to do with the climate of the recent (in geological terms) past or the climate which is projected to be in mankind’s future if we keep going as we are now. But you know that and still continue to post comments as if that long gone geology still matters. Geothermal energy represents a tiny fraction of the energy entering the atmosphere from the Sun or that leaving the surface and the lower atmosphere out to deep space.
The second part of the “Cambridge English Dictionary” definition of insulation, which you omitted, states: material that is used to stop heat, sound, or electricity from escaping or entering. The fact is, a radiation shield is a form of insulation. Since greenhouse gases act like radiation shields at discrete wavelengths, it’s immediately apparently from your reference that greenhouse gases are also a form of insulation, whether you like it or not.
swannie…”Gordo still cant accept ant experimental evidence which shows that hes wrong, repeating his old claim about Clausius and the 2nd Law. So sad”
I can accept experimental evidence with the correct conclusion. Why you would want to venture a conclusion that contradicts the 2nd law while ignoring the obvious conclusion re heat dissipation is the question.
You cannot heat a non-heated plate from a heated source and have that plate radiate EM back to the heated source to raise its temperature. The fact you cannot comprehend that marks you as scientifically-challenged.
The only way the temperature of the heated source can rise is if you stifle it’s ability to dissipate heat. However you fail to understand that process as well. It goes right over your head that an electrically heated body with all radiation blocked in a vacuum will reach a maximum temperature dependent on the electrical power delivered.
If you allow it to radiate freely, that maximum (natural) temperature will drop as it dissipates heat via radiation. All you have done by raising the green plate in front of the BP is stifle the BP’s means of radiating freely. Therefore it’s temperature has to rise toward Tmax where no heat dissipation is allowed.
I mean, swannie, this is stupid simple. How did you ever allow your ego to mask your intelligence to the point you have become blind to basic physics?
swannie…”material that is used to stop heat, sound, or electricity from escaping or entering. The fact is, a radiation shield is a form of insulation”.
A radiation shield has nothing to do with blocking heat, it is designed to block radio frequency EM that produces the nasty and undesirable ‘static’ we hear in communication devices.
Such a device used as insulation in homes is designed to reflect EM. A radiation shield is designed to absorb EM. It has to be metallic and preferably grounded. It absorbs EM and the EM is converted to circulating electrical currents called Eddy currents. The currents produced are bled to ground.
Nothing to do with heat.
swannie…”the bodys temperature will increase until some physical temperature limit is crossed and the body melts…”
You are lost in space, swannie.
If I run 1 amp through a 10 ohm resistor, the power generated will be P = I^2.R = 10 watts. If I use a 1 watt resistor, it will burn up. However, if I use the proper sized resistor, one that can handle 10 watts, the resistor will heat and give of EM as IR in a vacuum.
Why do you think the filament in a 100 watt incandescent bulb won’t burn up? It can radiate power away as well as conduct it to air. There is also cooling by convection. Put that same bulb in a vacuum and wrap metallic foil around and see what happens.
Let’s use a 100 watt resistor so it has an adequate warming factor. Let’s wrap the resistor in a metallic foil (without shorting the leads) that blocks EM. We have stifled the resistor’s ability to dissipate heat and it will warm but it will not burn up if it is a 100 watt resistor. It will get mighty hot but it won’t burn up at one amp.
Now remove the cover blocking the EM. The temperature of the resistor will immediately drop till power in = power out.
In your experiment, your BP is at the same level as my resistor. Power in = power out. When you block the radiation with the GP. you are blocking the BP’s ability to dissipate heat so it warms.
https://www.digikey.ca/en/maker/blogs/resistor-power-rating-derating-and-temperature-coefficient
ES,
Maybe you could find something to disagree about?
Do you disagree that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so? No?
Therefore, any supposed mechanism resulting in heating of the Earth has not worked, has it?
The Earth has cooled.
Insulation has not stopped the Earth from cooling, has it?
Keep dreaming.
Cheers.
Gordo continues to display his complete ignorance of radiation heat transfer. A radiation shield is a proven method for insulating a body against thermal energy loss or gain, which has been repeatedly shown to work. A Dewar flask is the classic example, but other versions, such as multi-layer reflective insulation also work.
Gordo must be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, apparently thinking that his experience in electrical engineering applies to heat transfer. Worse still, his ignorance only fuels greater arrogance in his replies.
His reference to a “natural temperature” of a body, such as a resistor, ignores the fact that said resistors are carefully designed to operate in an air environment with strict specifications limiting applied power. And, his unsupported claim about a radiation shield insulating a 100 watt resistor ignores the difference between a small insulation effect and my previous point about using a large insulation effect, i.e., perfect insulation, which would destroy a 100 watt rated resistor when supplied with 10 watts, as said resistor would not be able to cool. And the insulation doesn’t need to block EM, as a thick layer of fiberglass insulation would also result in the destruction of the 100 watt rated resistor.
Why don’t you try it out for yourself? Surely you could figure out a way to do a simple experiment and document your results, that is, if you really cared to find the truth.
‘Do you disagree that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so? No?
Therefore, any supposed mechanism resulting in heating of the Earth has not worked, has it?
The Earth has cooled.
Insulation has not stopped the Earth from cooling, has it?’
And?
Do you disagree that the Southern Hemisphere has cooled over the last four and a half months? No?
Therefore any supposed mechanism resulting in heating of the SH has not worked since then, has it?
The SH has cooled.
Insulation has not stopped the SH from cooling has it?
Are we supposed to conclude from these Data that the Earth or the SH cannot warm?
Nate, please stop trolling.
norman…”Ice absorbs photons from liquid water. Liquid water absorbs photons from ice”.
You are hung up on blackbody theory with 2 BBs in thermal equilibrium. Even though there can be a theoretical but unmeasured mutual EM absorp-tion at TE, there can be no heat transfer.
It’s amazing that you think ice can transfer heat to water. That implies the ice heats the water, in direct contravention of the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
When did I say ice transfers “heat” to water. Again you display the dishonest person you really are. You lie so easily you don’t even realize it and you pretend to be what you are not.
You are totally wrong with all your posts about science and you know only what you make up or read on crackpot blogs.
Norman, you constantly attempt to pervert physics. Go back and look at any of your comments where you tried to cancel 2LoT, such as the “plates” nonsense.
You still cling to the 290 K, even though it clearly violates the law.
Nothing new.
N,
You wrote –
“When did I say ice transfers heat to water.”
Well, if you are saying that when water “absorbs” photons from ice, nothing at all happens, why bother saying it?
Supposedly the indescribable GHE results in “heating”. If you agree that radiation from a colder body cannot raise the temperature of a hotter, then radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the hotter surface.
Maybe you believe that water absorbs photons from water, heating it and not heating it simultaneously. This is plainly ridiculous. Ice cannot heat water. Colder CO2 cannot heat anything hotter than itself. Examine your textbooks. You will find I am right.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Sorry you are not a human and are not able to actually understand the written word, you are a thoughtless program written by some clever programmer. Any thought I generate in this post is beyond your program to analyze and make sense of. You are a total waste of time. I wasted too many words on you already.
Begone, delusional troll!
Day 76+
What are we are counting again anyway.
the debunking of someone’s debunking of some debunking
The moon has spun two and two thirds times around its axis since we started keeping track
bob d,,,”The moon has spun two and two thirds times around its axis since we started keeping track”
How did it manage to do that and keep the same face pointed toward the Earth.
Try it with two coins, one moving around the other. Put a mark on the perimeter of the moving coin and keep it pointed toward the centre of the stationary coin. Are you able to rotate it through 360 degrees AROUND ITS AXIS while keeping the mark pointed to centre of stationary coin?
Not possible. The axis is moving along a parallel concentric line with the mark on the moving coin. In order for the moving coin to rotate even a fraction of a degree about its axis it would have to leave the surface of the stationary coin.
Are you able to rotate it through 360 degrees AROUND ITS AXIS while keeping the mark pointed to centre of stationary coin?
Yes, of course.
“How did it manage to do that and keep the same face pointed toward the Earth?”
The exception to the rule that there is no such thing as a dumb question.
Let’s make this simple. Get a tennis ball. Place a red mark on it. With the tennis ball in your hand, make a one quarter circular orbit while keeping the red mark pointed towards the center of orbit. You HAVE to rotate the tennis ball about its own axis in your hand to keep the red dot pointed towards the center of orbit.
Now, was that too difficult? Apparently so for Gordo, Dr Em T, and Just Dumb.
Stupid, the force you apply to “orbit” the tennis ball is analogous to the resultant of forces acting on the Moon.
You still can’t understand the difference between the two motions–“orbiting” and “axial rotation”.
Nothing new.
JD,
Huffmangonestupid has it right those are the forces on the moon that cause it to rotate.
and orbit.
at the same time.
Synchronous.
Poor JD can’t figure out that an orbit is just a path. He can’t figure out what a translation is. He does not understand kinematics. He’s so dumb, Postma even threw him under the bus.
Poor HGS still can’t understand what JD means by “the two motions”, and attacks the same dumb straw man for at least the thirtieth time, revealing himself to be utterly ineducable.
Another way to demonstrate this is to put the tennis ball on the end of a variable speed drill. Using your hand translate the drill backward, forward, left, and right with your hand to make the tennis orbit a central point. Because you haven’t turned the drill on yet the red mark continues to point in the same direction. Now squeeze the trigger of the drill to put angular momentum into the tennis ball all the while continuing the original orbital motion. Play around with the speed of the drill until you find the sweet spot that causes the red mark to always point toward the center of the orbital motion. Once you find the sweet spot stop and restart the orbital motion while leaving the drill running several times to convince yourself that the rotational motion is distinct from the orbital motion and that the drill speed (and thus rotational motion) must be tuned precisely to keep the red mark always facing toward the center of the orbital motion. If the speed is either too fast or too slow then the red mark does not stay synchronized.
No progression in understanding from bdgwx. Shame.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Mr or Mrs. Stupid. Have you considered doing bdgwx’s little demonstration or are you just being stupid for its own sake. You are one total idiot.
JDHuffman is a troll and uses this moon rotation as a vehicle to troll. He knows the Moon both rotates and orbits and he also knows the Moon rotates once per orbit. His goal is to troll, find issues like this one to get outrageous responses and annoy people.
You are just a complete blithering idiot. You are not trolling the idea you actually think it is true. I think you are even on a lower rung of intellect than Mr. Dishonest Gordon Robertson. Oh well keep posting and showing how stupid you are. It must do something for you.
bdgwx’s inability to understand angular momentum is even funnier than his inability to understand orbiting.
Where do these clowns come from?
Norman, you have nothing to offer but insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
YOU are the troll!
JDHuffman
Now you want to be a dishonest poster like Gordon Robertson? Isn’t it enough to be a troll?
I offer so much more than “but insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.”
I have posted many links to actual physics to you, Gordon Robertson, and the Very Stupid DREMT (dumbest poster on this blog). I have spent many posts trying to reason with each of you. The effort was pointless.
You are a useless and annoying troll.
Gordon Robertson is a very dishonest poster.
DREMT is too dumb to ever hope to spark any thought processes.
Had I not done much attempts at rational thought, logical debate and vast amounts of science links I would consider myself a troll. At this point you are wrong again. But that won’t matter you will troll anyway. It is the only thing you know how to do and you are not a very good troll at that. Same tactics over and over. You lack creativity.
Norman, as I said, you have nothing to offer but insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
YOU are the troll!
bdg…”Play around with the speed of the drill until you find the sweet spot that causes the red mark to always point toward the center of the orbital motion”.
There is no sweet spot, it is not possible to do what you are inferring.
Try it with two coins, it is blatantly obvious that one body cannot revolve about another body and rotate through 360 degrees while keep one face toward the centre of the stationary object.
norman…”You are a useless and annoying troll.
Gordon Robertson is a very dishonest poster.
DREMT is too dumb to ever hope to spark any thought processes”.
It can be frustrating when you don’t have the science to debate real science. The 2nd law has been fact for 170 years yet Norman is still trying to contradict it by moving goalposts and making pseudo-scientific inferences.
Not to worry, Norrie, there are people at NASA GISS and NOAA being paid to spout the same propaganda.
Gordon Robertson
If there was a slight chance that communicating with you would help you be less dishonest, I think it would be worth the effort.
You are so filled with lies you do not know what it true or lies. You are so much into making up things and falsely and intentionally misleading posters with fake and false information (which has been pointed out to you so many times and yet you keep lying!!).
You accuse NOAA of dishonesty. Maybe you should clean out your own closet before you stand on moral ground to call them liars.
The biggest lie you perpetuate on this blog is that you actually studied college physics. I see zero evidence you studied any real science. All your posts look like a collection of terrible blog ideas which have no support at all with valid science.
Too bad you will keep lying and being dishonest. I do not know how that makes you feel good.
Norman, you start out the first thing in the morning with another long tirade of insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
You never add value or anything constructive.
YOU are the troll!
Excellent demo, BDGWX. Makes the point very well.
And I see the crew are left sputtering…
JDHuffman troll
Have you done any actual experiment with 3 plates in a vacuum? E. Swanson has done a two plate experiment that you reject.
I didn’t think so. Continue to troll away you have a dishonest liar (Gordon Robertson) and a blithering idiot (DREMT) supporting your troll points. I guess that must be an accomplishment for you.
Neither the liar Gordon Robertson nor the idiot has done any actual experiments but they are convinced that your rantings of a troll are good. Hilarious beyond belief.
I think Gordon Robertson could do an experiment but would lie about any results that did not agree with his dishonest views. DREMT is far to stupid to attempt setting up an actual experiment. That one is dumb.
But he/she has learned a couple words they can repeat (similar to a 2 year-old): “Please stop trolling”
Thank you for your valuable contributions, Norman. Always nice to hear from a fan.
Norman avoids reality, again.
He conveniently forgets that he did not purchase the toy Ferris wheel so he could learn that the chairs must rotate, to counter the rotation of the wheel.
He won’t do the simplest of experiments, because he can’t accept reality. All he can do is insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
It is NORMAN that is the troll.
JDHuffman
I did forget that about you. The only reason you are able to provide a bit of amusement is how you divert away from simple requests and go about trolling. Now you have a good one. You troll constantly but rather than admit this obvious reality, you divert and claim I am the troll. Hilarious and amusing.
Also it should be pointed out that you will divert away from doing an actual experiment to prove your totally flawed and made up physics. Hilarious stuff troll!
You post a stupid childlike cartoon of bogus physics. The dumbest posters DREMT sees it and concludes it proves that two or three plates remain at the same temperature. You avoid doing a real experiment like E. Swanson did. You are just funny. Hilarious I would think.
Norman, YOU are the troll.
All you have are insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
You don’t like it when I provide simple examples to explain physics, but you can’t find anything wrong with them, so you resort to your juvenile attacks.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You are truly hilarious. A riot!
I ask you to provide experimental evidence to support your claims (like E. Swanson was able to do).
I can ask 100 times and you will ignore the request 100 times and then troll. Hilarious I tell you!
YOU: “You don’t like it when I provide simple examples to explain physics, but you can’t find anything wrong with them, so you resort to your juvenile attacks.”
I am not asking for your silly unsupported cartoons that go against all established radiant heat transfer physics. You have been shown it is totally wrong by many. Ignoring their evidence is a weakness on your part.
What I am asking is for an actual experiment. Take three plates in a vacuum environment. Heat the middle one. Wait until the temperature reaches a steady state, then move the outer plates out a bit. In reality the outer plates will reach close to the same temperature and the inner plate will reach a higher temperature. If you did a real experiment you would get this result. I don’t have a vacuum chamber like E. Swanson of I would make a video of such a test. Also it would not matter you rejected a very valid test by E. Swanson calling it “bogus” for no real reason except to troll him. You will reject all evidence because you are a troll and are not interested in anything else but trolling.
Take care. You (or the gang of you) are hilarious in your simplistic attempts to troll.
JDHuffman
You are truly hilarious. A riot!
I ask you to provide experimental evidence to support your claims (like E. Swanson was able to do).
I can ask 100 times and you will ignore the request 100 times and then troll. Hilarious I tell you!
YOU: “You don’t like it when I provide simple examples to explain physics, but you can’t find anything wrong with them, so you resort to your juvenile attacks.”
I am not asking for your silly unsupported cartoons that go against all established radiant heat transfer physics. You have been shown it is totally wrong by many. Ignoring their evidence is a weakness on your part.
What I am asking is for an actual experiment. Take three plates in a vacuum environment. Heat the middle one. Wait until the temperature reaches a steady state, then move the outer plates out a bit. In reality the outer plates will reach close to the same temperature and the inner plate will reach a higher temperature.
“You post a stupid childlike cartoon of bogus physics. The dumbest posters DREMT sees it and concludes it proves…”
JD’s solution is not the debunking of your solution. How many times…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Then why don’t you actually debunk the three plate conclusion that the heated center plate will warm.
Actual debunking comes with actual science. Not your ignorant opinions.
I will consider you are not dumb if you actually do a science experiment and do some REAL debunking.
Do you have children? Maybe have them do such an experiment for a science class. The school may even be able to supply the necessary materials.
I am more than certain that you will not do any REAL debunking but continue on with your childlike posts of nonsense and stupid opinions.
Wow Norman, you submitted almost the exact same comment, within 2 minutes of the first!
Full MELTDOWN!
What great entertainment.
And why would anyone waste time on an experiment when the debunk of your pseudoscience is so easy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353695
JDHuffman
In response to your incorrect physics. Nate already addressed your false notions. There is a continuous input of new energy.
I have already addressed your silly notions as well. What if you insulate the heated blue plate. Does its temperature go up? Once it reaches a steady state you will have the same amount of energy going in as you have going out. The blue plate will reach a much higher temperature in order to move the energy through the insulation.
So now the blue plate, with insulation is hotter than the blue plate without. Now the deltaT means it can do more work. Green plates separated or blue plate insulated results in similar effects. Same energy in as out, but in both cases the blue plate temperature goes up.
Again rather than waste everyone’s time with your stupid physics explanations why not do an actual experiment. Would not that be far better than you opinion. You act like you like science and claim to have studied physics. Then do some science and perform an actual experiment. Why not?
Norman, now you have taken off your troll hat, but have put your clown hat back on.
Nate did not “address” anything. Nate revealed he doesn’t understand energy flow.
And you didn’t “address” anything either. You just indicated you still don’t know the difference between a black body and insulation.
Nothing new.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353695
JDHuffman
You can gab on and on about absolutely nothing of consequence but you can’t even do one experiment. This is funny.
I wonder what you would think if you actually did a real science experiment and it showed you were wrong. I am fairly certain you will be proven completely wrong by actual science.
Opinions are endless and yours are terrible in all aspects. What you believe to be science and what you think of fellow posters.
Do the damn experiment or please just shut up for awhile.
Again why don’t you do an actual experiment. E. Swanson led the way, what is stopping you? Money? Time? Fear? I think the latter is most likely your troll days will end if you do some real science.
Why would anyone waste time on an experiment when the debunk of your pseudoscience is so easy?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353695
JDHuffman
YOU: “Why would anyone waste time on an experiment when the debunk of your pseudoscience is so easy?”
Because that is what science is. Your opinion of a debunk IS NOTHING at all but empty thoughtless words.
Science is the process of doing experiments to verify a hypothesis.
Wrong, Norman! Science is NOT about doing things you don’t need to do. By pointing out the decrease in entropy, and increase in enthalpy, with no accompanying increase in energy, the plates nonsense is completely debunked.
You can’t understand it because you can’t understand thermodynamics.
In science, you do experiments if you need to. For example, you should do the experiment with the toy Ferris wheel, because you don’t understand the motions. For the chair to remain level, and not dump the passengers, it MUST rotate relative to its support when the wheel is turning. You can’t visualize that, so you must do the experiment to learn. But, you refuse to learn.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Sounds like you are making excuses.
About the Ferris Wheel. The chairs are not rotating. They are freely moving and not rotating. With the design they are free of the structure so they do not have to rotate.
Sorry you are wrong on this. If the chairs rotates as they moved in a circle the people would get dumped out. They remain in the chair because it is not rotating.
You don’t even know what rotation means.
You can gab and make your excuses. You don’t understand thermodynamics at all. Your opinions are without merit.
If you actually did the experiment you would get the heated blue plate increasing in temperature (in vacuum conditions) when the green plates are moved slightly away.
“when the debunk of your pseudoscience is so easy?”
JD, you’ve linked to a post showing your declarations getting debunked.
The more you try to post science, the more your ignorance of it is revealed. Keep it up!
Norman, you finally admit the chairs can rotate relative to their supports: “With the design they are free of the structure so they do not have to rotate.”
But, notice how convoluted your statement is. You can’t face reality. You can’t just state the simple truth: “The chairs rotate relative to their supports. That allows them to remain level and not dump out the passengers.”
Sceince is all about reality and truth. If you’re not into reality, you’re not into science. You’re into pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
The more correct statement is that the wheel is rotating around an axis. The chairs are not rotating around this axis, the structure rotates the chairs do not.
Also your statement is not a correct one. YOU: The chairs rotate relative to their supports. That allows them to remain level and not dump out the passengers.
The chairs are not rotating at all the support structure is. Also we are talking about the chairs rotating on THEIR axis, they do not! They do not rotate in reference to a non moving fixed frame, the ground. You are so scrambled you make me think of eggs.
All this is just diversion from the fact that you make up your own rules of thermodynamics. You do not support your claims with any material. We are all supposed to accept your unfounded opinions on what you believe the correct understanding of thermodynamics is. You have no expertise in the field. You have many unfounded and unsupported opinions. But you refuse to attempt any actual experiment because it will clearly show you are wrong in your understanding.
JD said…”Why would anyone waste time on an experiment when the debunk of your pseudoscience is so easy?”
Richard Feynman…It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.
Funny….
All this time commenting on the subject, and you’ve never even been able to grasp the absolute basics of our position. Unbelievable. All there is left to do, at this stage, is laugh at you.
Dr Empty,
we all grasp the basics of your position.
The moon does not rotate: wrong
The second law of thermodynamics: Your interpretation is wrong
A plate can decide to reflect or emit based on temperature: wrong
A photon can decide to be abzorbed or reflected based on the temperature of the body that emitted it: wrong
The Green Plate Effect has been debunked: wrong
The Greenhouse Effect has been debunked: wrong
OK, blob.
bob d “The moon does not rotate: wrong
The second law of thermodynamics: Your interpretation is wrong
A plate can decide to reflect or emit based on temperature: wrong
A photon can decide to be abzorbed or reflected based on the temperature of the body that emitted it: wrong
The Green Plate Effect has been debunked: wrong
The Greenhouse Effect has been debunked: wrong”
*****
You have just convinced me you have no degree in chemistry and that you have likely never studied science.
1)re Moon’s alleged rotation, you are unqualified to speak on the subject. You have no idea how angular velocity works and you don’t know the difference between rotation and translation.
2)Re the 2nd law….ditto. It was laid out by Clausius in such a simple explanation and statement that an elementary school pupil could understand it.
What is it about the statement you don’t understand, that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cold body to a hotter body?
3)re photons and their relationship to electrons, which anyone with a degree in chemistry would understand…ditto. The relationship between electrons, EM, and temperature are the basis of quantum theory.
4)re a plate ‘deciding’ whether to emit or absorb based on temperature….ditto. A plate is a mass of electrons and protons and you have not the slightest idea how they interact.
5)re the green plate…it is a thought experiment based on pseudo-science to begin with. The author was told by experts in thermodynamics that he is wrong yet you go along with the pseudo-science.
6)re the GHE…it never was proved. It’s a theory based on a misunderstanding of the S-B equation and the 2nd law.
Gordon,
says
“Are you able to rotate it through 360 degrees AROUND ITS AXIS while keeping the mark pointed to centre of stationary coin?”
Yes, that is exactly what you have to do to keep the mark on the coin pointing to the center of the stationary coin.
What, you don’t have two coins to rub together?
bob d…”Yes, that is exactly what you have to do to keep the mark on the coin pointing to the center of the stationary coin”.
I guess I’ll have to make this dead, stupid simple for you Bob.
Start the coins adjacent to each other. Make the RH coin the movable coin and the LH coin the stationary coin.
Draw a line from 3 o’clock on the RH coin through 9 o’clock then through 3 o’clock on the stationary coin to its centre. Draw an arrow on the RH coin at 9 o’clock pointing to the stationary coin’s centre.
Now draw a line on the RH coin through its centre and perpendicular to the line on the RH coin from 3 to 9. This line through the RH coin’s centre is parallel to the tangent line on either coin where they meet. The tangent line is perpendicular to the line drawn from 3 o’clock on the RH coin straight through to the centre of the stationary coin.
At any point on the stationary coin’s circumference, the instantaneous motion of the arrow tip will follow the tangent to that point. We have already defined that tangent line, therefore the line through the RH coin’s centre has to be moving parallel to the arrow tip.
Each point on the moving coin is moving in concentric circles around the centre of the stationary coin. Repeat…EACH point, including the the axis of the RH coin around which you guys claim the arrow tip is rotating.
How the hay can the tip of the arrow rotate around the axis of the Rh coin when the axis is moving in a concentric circle that is concentric to the path of the arrow tip?
What I have just described is curvilinear motion. There is no rotation about the moving coins centre. Again, all points on the moving coin are moving in concentric circles around the axis of the stationary coin.
Bob, your mind is playing games with you. LOOK!!!
Tesla saw it. JD saw it, DREMT saw it, and I saw it. Don’t be intimidated by greatness, man. See it.
Gordon,
Use a coin with a face on it, when you first put it next to the other coin it is facing one direction, when you have moved it 180 degrees around, it is facing the other direction.
hence it is rotating
You say
“Again, all points on the moving coin are moving in concentric circles around the axis of the stationary coin.”
concentric circles that do not intersect, the inner circle makes a smaller path than the outer circle, the only way you can make that happen is to turn the orbiting coin.
As soon as you start moving the right hand coin, the tangent line you have drawn changes and is no longer pointing straight up(north)
The tangent line continuously changes direction as the coin moves around the center coin.
Yes blob, that’s called “orbital motion”. It’s like the RH coin is “rotating” (orbiting) about an axis in the center of the LH coin, and not on its own axis. Each particle of the RH coin is moving in concentric circles about the LH coin.
JD’s diagram, Figure 1.
That is just one of the two, separate and independent motions, “orbital motion” and “rotating on its own axis”.
Dr Empty,
Who calls that orbital motion?
Other than the group that says the moon doesn’t rotate.
Most rational thinkers realize there is two things going on with the moon, rotating and revolving, about two different axes.
Orbiting is not rotating, both are happening at the same time.
Synchronous, two things at the same time, the moon orbits the earth with the same period as it rotates about its axis.
Keep making up your own science.
That’s what is typically called pseudoscience.
bob, I understand this is really confusing for you. You’re not used to thinking for yourself. Just take it really slow. Only look at Figure 1. Ignore Figure 2.
Figure 1 is only ONE motion, “orbiting”. The arrow is NOT rotating on its axis. It is being turned by the resultant force.
I know it is really hard to understand. See if you can even find Figure 1.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
It’s okay if you have to ask an adult to help you.
JD,
Thank you, we are done, you have admitted it is rotating.
“It is being turned by the resultant force.”
It is being turned as you say, therefore it is rotating.
OK, great, you’re done, blob. Bye then, don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
Obviously bob was unable to get an adult to help him.
Dr Emtpy,
I said I was done with JD, he admitted the moon was rotating.
Your buddy admitted the moon was rotating.
Let me repeat that.
Your buddy admitted the moon was rotating.
It’s worth saying again.
Your buddy admitted the moon was rotating.
That door you speak of rotates.
On its own axis, blob? Or was he just trying to explain that the moon is “orbiting”?
bob, any adult should be able to help you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354256
bob d…”The tangent line continuously changes direction as the coin moves around the center coin”.
Congratulations Bob, you have just defined a curve, of which a circle is a special form. As you move along a continuous curve, the tangent line changes angle. It’s called a derivative with the slope of the tangent line being the first derivative of the curve.
An orbit is a continuous curve with the slope of the tangent line at any point on the curve continuously changing. A body following that curve with one face always facing inward, toward the centre of a circle, or a focal point of any other curve, is not rotating.
You have already explained it. The body wants to keep moving along the tangent line but gravity is tugging it into a curve against the body’s angular momentum along the tangent line. The body does not have to turn around its axis at the same time, it can be stationary and still follow the orbital path. That means the same face can always be pointing in without local rotation.
As I implied, you are allowing your brain to delude you into seeing what you want to see. Look at the problem again, very carefully. It becomes apparent that the body’s axis and all points on the body are moving in concentric circles about the axis of the stationary body.
If the body was rotating about its own axis at the same time that would not be possible.
Gordon,
I get that the points on the coin are travelling in concentric circles, one larger than the other.
The points moving on the concentric circles complete an orbit in the same time, yes?
So then, is it fair to conclude that these points have different SPEEDS? The one on the larger circle has a higher speed than the one on the smaller circle. Yes?
Poor Nate. He’s confused “speed” with “angular speed”.
He’s always so confused.
Nothing new.
JD FYI, any fact-free posts from you, like this, will be ignored.
Go troll your mom!
Nate, the more you ignore facts, the less you learn, the funnier you get.
Ignore all you want….
And here is an animation of what it would look like if the Moon were not rotating compared to what it looks like as it really is (rotating). Left is rotating (reality). Right is not rotating (hypothetical).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Moon on the left, which moves as per our moon, is not rotating on its own axis, whilst orbiting. Moon on the right, is rotating on its own axis once, clockwise, per orbit.
He doesn’t call himself Dr Em T for nothing.
The moon on the right is translating just like the seat of a ferris wheel. This is Kinematics 101.
You just need to understand what the motion “orbiting without axial rotation” is. Or, more simply, “orbital motion”. It can be hard for deeply programmed robots to have their first ever independent thought. But it will come. Keep trying, HuffmanGoneStupidlyObsessedAndOnlyEverDiscussesTheMoon.
Poor Em T. So, so stupid. An orbit is a path, clown. You don’t understand this because you have never taken kinematics or physics. I have. This is simple stuff. But not simple for morons.
You don’t have “independent” thoughts. You just regurgitate the dumb stuff spouted by Tesla.
But don’t let me get in the way of making a fool of yourself. You are doing quite well.
2#
You just need to understand what the motion “orbiting without axial rotation” is. Or, more simply, “orbital motion”. It can be hard for deeply programmed robots to have their first ever independent thought. But it will come. Keep trying, HuffmanGoneStupidlyObsessedAndOnlyEverDiscussesTheMoon
Orbiting without axial rotation has never been observed.
OK, blob.
I agree with bob. I’m not aware of a body orbiting another that has zero angular momentum about its own axis.
bdgwx–How to become “aware”:
1) Learn “orbital motion”.
2) Learn “angular momentum”.
3) Then, go outside and look at the Moon.
bdgwx doesn’t realize that DA has repeatedly linked to that. bdgwx is unable to understand orbiting, or think for himself. He has a lot in common with DA and the other clowns.
To understand orbital motion, consider shooting an arrow around a planet. The arrow is shot from a high enough altitude, and with enough velocity, that it goes into orbit around the planet.
The arrow would have the motion of Figure 1.
bdgwx, DA, Stupid, Nate, Norman, Bart, Swanson, bobdroege, Kristian, and several others somehow believe orbiting is represented by Figure 2.
They are WRONG.
Nothing new.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
We all think fig 1 represents the motion of the moon and clearly the arrow does not point in the same direction all the time so it is rotating.
Fig 2 is what it would look like if the moon were not rotating.
Orbiting and rotating are two different things.
You guys point at something that is obviously turning and say it’s not turning.
And adding caps doesn’t help prove your point.
bob is the first to believe Figure 2 is orbiting, but not rotating.
“Fig 2 is what it would look like if the moon were not rotating.”
(Will anymore clowns jump in the WRONG pool?)
I agree with bob.
By the way, in figure 1 if you iteratively decrease the orbital radius and allow it to approach zero what is the arrow doing?
bdgwx brings the count to 2. Not exactly a landslide…
bdgwx, Figure 1 is an example of “orbital motion”. If you reduced the radius, it would no longer be orbiting. You have perverted the example, so that you can avoid reality.
Why are you afraid of reality?
It is a thought experiment. Reduce the diameter of the center body and the radius of the orbital motion and allow them to approach zero. What are your arrows doing then?
The Moon is real. The simple example of orbital motion is real. The arrow is NOT rotating on its axis. It has NO angular momentum about its axis. ZERO! The Moon has the same motion.
Why are you afraid of reality?
JD,
Your model should be able to accommodate generalized scenarios and bodies of different sizes right? So what’s the problem with the thought experiment?
The reality is that the Moon is rotating and does, in fact, have angular momentum. It is 2.e29 kg m^2/s. I don’t fear that at all.
It can be calculated as follows.
Radius of Moon = 1.74e6 m
Mass of Moon = 7.35e22 kg
Rotation of Moon = 2.36e6 s
w = 2pi/T = (2*3.14)/2.36e6 = 2.66e-6 rad/s
I = 2/5 MR^2 = 0.4 * 7.35e22 * (1.74e6)^2 = 8.9e34 kg m^2
L = Iw = 8.9e34 * 2.66e-6 = 2.4e29 kg m^2/s
Note that the tricky part is getting its moment of inertia. The formula for I for a sphere is I = 2/5 MR^2.
The w part can be calculated by measuring the time sunlight falls on a location of the Moon and then compensating for the distance it has traveled in its orbit around Sun. The synodic period is 29.5 days while the sidereal period is 27.3 days.
bdgwx, the Moon only has angular momentum due to it orbit, or mωr^2, where m = mass of Moon, ω = average orbital angular speed, and r = average Moon/Earth distance.
The Moon has NO angular velocity about its center of mass, so your calculations are bogus. IOW, L = Iω = I(0) = 0.
That’s why I made the simple Figure 2. The arrow is NOT rotating on its axis, you just BELIEVE it is. Your eyes deceive you because you can’t understand the relevant physics.
If you think you are dealing in reality, then answer this:
How did the arrow acquire angular momentum about its center of mass, from being shot horizontally?
JD,
Cause the rifle it was shot out of was, how do you say it, rifled
Begone, troll!
“It is a thought experiment. Reduce the diameter of the center body and the radius of the orbital motion and allow them to approach zero. What are your arrows doing then?”
I should be able to help with this. Imagine there were a path running around the Earth’s equator. You are viewing the Earth from above the North Pole, looking straight down. A person is jogging along the path. Now reduce the radius of the Earth and allow it to approach zero. The person would never be rotating about his center of mass (on his own axis) even at zero.
DREMT,
My thought experiment is to bring the radius of the orbit to zero. Your thought experiment does not quite do that. Do you see why? Let me try to explain.
The best real world illustration of this concept is the Pluto/Charon system. They are both orbiting the barycenter. In this case the barycenter lies just outside of Pluto’s mass. Pluto keeps the same face pointed toward the barycenter. It is locked into a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance. Pluto also has 1:1 spin-orbit resonance with Charon and Charon has a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance with Pluto. Pluto is like your walking man thought experiment. I guess this means the contrarians also reject the idea that Pluto is rotating?
A similar thing is happening with the Sun except the Sun’s orbit around it’s barycenter is special in that the barycenter is inside the Sun’s mass. The Sun has both rotational angular momentum about its center of mass and it has orbital angular momentum about its barycenter. There is a similar orbital motion with the Earth as well. The barycenter is inside Earth’s mass. That is what the Earth and Moon are actually orbiting. Note that the barycenter is NOT the center of mass of Earth though. Earth orbits its barycenter about once per month.
The point…the radius of the orbital motion can be inside the mass of the body. My thought experiment is to iteratively bring the radius from the barycenter to the center of mass of the body in question to zero. One way of doing this is decrease the mass of the Earth in steps. As you do this the barycenter will move toward the Moon. Eventually it will be at the Moon’s surface, but if you keep shrinking the Earth the barycenter will move inside the Moon. Keep shrinking the Earth until the barycenter now aligns the with the center of mass. Notice that the Moon had been rotating and had angular momentum this whole time. You just didn’t notice possibly because of the distracting nature of the orbital motion. Bonus points…how would the Moon’s angular momentum and velocity change as a result of this thought experiment?
bdgwx, that’s quite a long irrelevant ramble.
But, you are avoiding reality, again.
If you honestly believe the arrow in Figure 1 has angular momentum about its center of gravity, then where did the AM come from? The arrow was shot from a bow, perfectly tangental to the green planet, at the exact speed to remain in orbit.
Where did the angular momentum about its center of gravity come from?
The lengths these people are prepared to go to, to avoid the obvious, never ceases to amaze me. Thank you for teaching me lots of things I already knew, whilst coming up with a thought experiment that completely changes the relationship between the Earth and the moon, such that the Earth is then orbiting the moon, which is in turn orbiting the sun, proving precisely nothing about the current situation.
bdgwx has used this technique several times.
He presents a long comment, full of twisted pseudoscience, believing he is proving something. Then, when you show him his errors, he disappears, only to re-emerge later with the same failed technique.
I guess he believes he is fooling someone other than himself….
Which error did I make? The best way to be convincing is describe the error and describe how to get the correct answer. For example, can you show the math that gets a sidereal period of 27.5d and a synodic period of 29.5d with angular velocity of 0?
“By the way, in figure 1 if you iteratively decrease the orbital radius and allow it to approach zero what is the arrow doing?”
Rotating on its own axis.
The stupidity of Just Dumb and Dr Em T is breathtaking.
bdgwx asks: “Which error did I make?”
bdgwx, there are more than one, but your MAIN error is in avoiding reality. For example, you completely ignored the simple diagram showing orbital motion. That was bad enough, but then you tried to distract and divert. You indicated AGAIN that you don’t have a clue about angular momentum. You went to a big effort to calculate the bogus angular momentum of the Moon, as if it had axial rotation. But, you completely neglected the anguar momentum due to its orbital motion.
You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics, but you can’t wait to avoid reality.
Anything to promote your agenda, huh?
If you want to face reality, answer the question I asked, and you avoided:
How did the arrow acquire angular momentum about its center of mass, from being shot horizontally?
“Stupid”, your inability to hide the fact that you are a 12-year-old coward, is breathtaking.
JD, that’s a good question worthy of discussion. The motion of the arrow you have in figure 1 is not special (ignoring tidal locking for now). The arrow must be given the right amount of angular momentum for it to orbit in that manner. For rockets, space shuttles, and the like this requires precise maneuvering. It doesn’t just happen on its own. If the maneuvering puts too much or too little rotational angular momentum on the vehicle then it will tumble as it orbits. It has to be given a special amount of both rotational and orbital angular momentum for a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance to occur. There is no process by which this occurs naturally except via tidal locking and atmospheric drag exploitation which I’m ignoring for now.
The reality…the Moon is rotating. The fact that it is in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance with its barycenter exactly like how Pluto and Charon are both in 1:1 spin-orbit resonances with their barycenter in no way changes that fact. The Moon is rotating. Pluto is rotating. Charon is rotation. They all have rotational angular momentum. This is reality.
bdgwx says: “The arrow must be given the right amount of angular momentum for it to orbit in that manner.”
WRONG!
The arrow is given the correct speed for its tangential launch. At launch, it has ZERO angular momentum. As it orbits, it’s only AM is referenced to the green planet. It has ZERO angular momentum about its center of mass.
No wonder you avoid reality.
The why of the motion is not important in regards to describing the motion in kinematics. Poor Just Dumb and Dr Em t fail miserably in this regard. But that is to be expected since they are not educated in kinematics nor kinetics.
bdgwx, also study Figure 1.
It will help you to understand how silly your last comments have been.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
bdg…”The realitythe Moon is rotating. The fact that it is in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance with its barycenter exactly like how Pluto and Charon”
This talk about barycentres and reference frames is a red-herring obfuscation. And what is a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance with a barycentre?
The Earth-Moon barycentre is deep within the Earth. If it had any significance the pair would be wobbling about that barycentre as both orbited the Sun. There is no significant wobble, in fact, I think the notion of an Earth-Moon barycentre is misplaced.
What exactly does that have to do with a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance. Are you confusing quantum theory with Newtonian physics?
There is no spin-orbit resonance in the Earth-Moon system, the notion of the Moon rotating precisely once during an orbit is a pure illusion. It’s simply not possible.
You have not taken the time to observe this problem without your pre-conceived notion of what you want to see.
Stupid…”But that is to be expected since they are not educated in kinematics nor kinetics”.
Yes, but I have. I spent an entire year in first year engineering physics studying that very subject with 100s of hours of actual problem solving.
You guys who think the Moon can rotate about it’s axis have not the slightest idea of how to lay out a free body diagram to observe the Moon’s motion as it orbits the Earth. I have laid out a depiction of a free body diagram using coins yet not one of you can follow what I tried to explain.
None of you get it that having the same face of the Moon always facing the Earth means that EVERY point in the Moon is turning in concentric circles about the Earth’s centre. That completely rules out any kind of local rotation of the Moon about its own axis.
Gordon,
You spent the first year of Engineering class sleeping. You have continually demonstrated the fact that you do not understand the simple concept of curvilinear translation. You get it confused with curvilinear motion. And you make up your own definition of curvilinear translation to suit your erroneous beliefs.
And then you say really stupid stuff like reference frames not being important when, for example, the Purdue University engineering website notes specifically say:
“Only when we go to laws of motion, the reference frame needs to be the inertial frame. From the point of view of kinematics, no reference frame is more fundamental or absolute.”
Your credibility is completely shot to pieces.
DrEmT shrieks:
“I should be able to help with this. Imagine there were a path running around the Earths equator. You are viewing the Earth from above the North Pole, looking straight down. A person is jogging along the path. Now reduce the radius of the Earth and allow it to approach zero. The person would never be rotating about his center of mass (on his own axis) even at zero.”
OMG that does not even remotely have anything to do with the example bdgwx came up with, nor does it remotely reflect the situation with Just Dumb’s stupid non-rotating gif in Figure 1. You are earning your title of Dr. Empty. Would you use your same stupid analogy for a race track, with the cars driving on their sides with the track perpendicular to the ground? Do you even have a brain?? You were too stupid to answer bdgwx’s question, so you came up with a brain dead false analogy.
GR said…”The Earth-Moon barycentre is deep within the Earth. If it had any significance the pair would be wobbling about that barycentre as both orbited the Sun. There is no significant wobble, in fact, I think the notion of an Earth-Moon barycentre is misplaced.”
The Earth-Moon barycenter is located approximately 4700 km from Earth’s center of mass. In fact, it is closer to the surface than the core. The axis of the tidal bulges goes through the barycenter and Earth’s center of mass. Earth’s center of mass orbits the barycenter every 27.32 days…the same amount of time it takes for the Moon to revolve once on its own axis…the lunar sidereal period.
GR said…”There is no spin-orbit resonance in the Earth-Moon system, the notion of the Moon rotating precisely once during an orbit is a pure illusion. Its simply not possible.”
Then why is the lunar synodic period 29.53 days?
GR said…”You have not taken the time to observe this problem without your pre-conceived notion of what you want to see.”
I used no a-priori knowledge of the rotation of the Moon when I derived its rotational angular velocity mathematically in this post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354422
There’s actually another way to derive the lunar rotational angular velocity without using the synodic period. I provided hints in this post on how this can be done. Can you guess how to do it?
Yes, you are very good at trying to escape the obvious.
I think we all agree that the Moon, the arrow in JDs fig 1, and Gordon’s coin, have the same motion, which you guys call orbiting.
As Gordon showed, and DREMT agreed, “Each particle of the RH coin is moving in concentric circles…” around the ceter of the orbit.
OK, fine.
Points moving in concentric circles, some larger some smaller, but all points completing an orbit in the same time period.
Thus some points have higher SPEEDS. The ones on the larger concentric circles.
Even JDs figure 1 arrow. The point and tail of the arrow are moving on larger circles than the mid-point.
Thus the point and tail of the arrow have higher speeds than the midpoint. Yes?
Now JD says:
“To understand orbital motion, consider shooting an arrow around a planet. The arrow is shot from a high enough altitude, and with enough velocity, that it goes into orbit around the planet. The arrow would have the motion of Figure 1.””
When an arrow is fired from a cross-bow or bow, ALL points on the arrow are given the SAME SPEED (and BTW velocity). Yes? SAME SPEED relative to the center of the EARTH. yes?
So this is an inconsistency.
A fired arrow’s points all have the SAME speed.
The figure 1 arrow’s points have DIFFERENT speeds.
For a fired arrow to orbit like the fig 1 arrow it would need to be fired with some initial extra spin and angular momentum, as noted by BDGWX.
Not at all. It’s exactly the same principle as Newton’s Cannonball. Follow the animations:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
JD’s arrow just makes it even clearer.
DREMT, if the cannon ball were in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance with the Earth such that only one face points towards the Earth then points on the near face travel a shorter distance than points on the far face. But all points complete an orbit in the same amount of time. That necessarily means that different points on the cannon ball are moving at different linear speeds. It also happens to mean that these same points have different orbital angular momentum values owing to the different moments of inertia as a result of the differences in radius from the barycenter. Furthermore, since the moment of inertia I is proportional to the square of the radius R from the barycenter this means the distribution of orbital angular momentum through the cannon ball is not linear. In other words, points furthest from Earth have more momentum relative to points near the center of mass than points closest to the Earth have less momentum relative to points near the center of mass. In other words abs(If – Ic) > abs(In – Ic) where I is the moment of inertia, f is far, c is center, and n is near.
bdgwx, how many times do you make the same mistake before you hit “reset”?
When you’re stuck on stupid, it is necessary to hit reset.
The cannonball is NOT in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance. It is orbiting. You STILL don’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
Hit reset, then study Figure 1:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Newton’s cannonball? Not sure what Im supposed to see?
Can you dispute any of the points I made?
Sorry Nate, apparently your reset button is not working.
You will have to remain “stuck on stupid”.
But you can always pretend otherwise….
JD ad-hom-noise cancelling headphones ON.
JD said…”The cannonball is NOT in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance.”
To be fair that may be true. We don’t actually know because DREMTs does not give us enough information to make that determination. But, if it did have a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance then what I said about its orbital moment of inertia being non-homogeneous would be correct. This is because that motion requires different points within the cannonball to be sweeping out larger circles in the same amount of time.
“Not sure what Im supposed to see?”
☺️
The cannonball is fired horizontally, without spin, just like the arrow.
And, what? Is it keeping the same face to Earth? Cannot tell.
What, if anything, do you disagree with in my post?
☺️
Think what you want.
bdgwx and Nate, when your religion does not fit reality, it is often best to change your religion.
Just saying….
Just as i suspected, you guys cannot understand the facts or logic in people’s posts, so you just ignore it.
Go troll someone else.
Nate, I’ve heard that it can be devastating to leave a false religion.
But, it may be some comfort to know reality is not that hard to learn.
Study Figure 1, to get started:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
nate…”Points moving in concentric circles, some larger some smaller, but all points completing an orbit in the same time period.
Thus some points have higher SPEEDS. The ones on the larger concentric circles.”
Yes. But the angular velocity of a rigid body is not defined by the individual particles. It is defined by the angular velocity of a radial line from the axis through the centre of gravity of the rotating body.
With the Earth’s rotation, points on the equator are turning faster than points near the Poles yet the angular velocity of the Earth is a constant 2pi/86400 seconds = 7.27 x 10^-5 rad/s.
Therefore the angular velocity of the Moon about its axis would require the side facing the Earth to rotate away from a radial line from the Earth’s centre to the Moon’s centre.
That does not happen.
‘ But the angular velocity of a rigid body is not defined by the individual particles. ‘
Im interested in the linear velocity of the particles, not angular velocity, just as you show when drawing the concentric circles for each point on the coin.
These make the points I made.
What do you disagree with that i said?
BTW Gordon,
“But the angular velocity of a rigid body is not defined by the individual particles. It is defined by the angular velocity of a radial line from the axis through the centre of gravity of the rotating body.”
How in this definition would you determine if a sphere had angular velocity about an axis thru its OWN center of gravity?
How can I draw a ‘radial line from the axis through the centre of gravity’ when they are the same point?!
Nate needs somebody to do all his thinking for him.,,
bdg…”Right is not rotating (hypothetical).”
Neither is the left.
Look at it closely. The centre of the orbiting body is moving in a larger circle parallel to the smaller circle in quick the near face is moving. The axis and a point on the near face are always moving parallel to each other.
At no time is a point on the near face rotating about the axis. They are moving in lock-step.
correction…too many paint fumes.
in quick the near face is moving = in which the near face is moving
Yes. That’s all correct from a reference frame fixed to the barycenter of the two bodies. That’s orbital angular momentum you are talking about. Rotational angular momentum is measured from a reference frame fixed to the center of mass of the orbiting body. From this reference frame and when the orbiting body is on the right the face is along the -X axis. As the orbiting body moves to the top the face is along the -Y axis. It then moves to the +X axis and finally the +Y axis before returning to the starting position. When plotted against the correct reference frame for measuring rotational angular momentum you’ll see that a point on the face traces out a circle around the intersection of the X and Y axis.
bdg…”Yes. Thats all correct from a reference frame fixed to the barycenter of the two bodies”.
Forget about reference frames and barycentres, they are not required. Reference frames don’t exist, they are devices used by the human mind to get it past illusions.
The problem as initially stated was that the Moon does not rotate about a local axis. You posted a diagram with two gifs and the left one is the correct motion. However, no matter what reference frame you cite, the point on the Moon facing the Earth does at no time rotate about its own axis. It can’t, the point nearest the Earth and the central axis of the Moon are turning in concentric circles about the Earth.
I have no argument against the observation that the Moon SEEMS to be rotating wrt to another reference frame, but in no reference frame is it rotating about its own axis. Therefore any other rotation wrt to a defined reference frame is an illusion of the human mind.
GR said…”However, no matter what reference frame you cite, the point on the Moon facing the Earth does at no time rotate about its own axis.”
I’m citing the reference frame of the axis that goes through the center of mass of the Moon. All points on the Moon including those facing the Earth etch out a circle on that reference frame. That’s the one that matters when measuring rotational motion.
GR said…”I have no argument against the observation that the Moon SEEMS to be rotating wrt to another reference frame, but in no reference frame is it rotating about its own axis.”
The axis is the reference frame. All points on the moon are moving around it. Therefore the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
GR said…”Therefore any other rotation wrt to a defined reference frame is an illusion of the human mind.”
I agree. The reference frame fixed to the Earth (or more precisely the barycenter of the orbit) is a different reference frame. It is not the reference frame fixed to the center of mass of the Moon. And because the Moon is in a special 1:1 spin-orbit resonance it is an illusion that observers near the barycenter see no rotation.
GR,
If the rotational angular velocity of the Moon is zero then why is the day/night cycle 29.5 days?
Remember, if the rotational angular velocity is zero then the day/night cycle should be entirely a product of the orbital angular velocity around the Sun and thus would be 365.25 days.
Also, as a fun exercise iteratively decrease the rotational angular velocity of the Earth until it matches the orbital angular velocity. What happens? Right now the spin-orbit ratio of the Earth is 366:1. What would the rotational angular velocity have to be to make this 2:1? 1:1? 0.5:1? What is the ratio when the rotational angular velocity approaches zero?
bdgwx says: “All points on the moon are moving around it. Therefore the Moon is rotating on its own axis.”
Wrong bdgwx. All points on the Moon are moving WITH the center of mass, just as all point on a car are moving with its center of mass.
You are still confused by the difference between “rotating on its own axis” and “orbiting”. The Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Again, study Figure 1:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
You people think “orbiting without axial rotation” or “orbit without spin” is as per JD’s Figure 2. You actually have to think that, in order to think our moon is both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”. We have given an example, clearly described, and even animated for those who struggle with visualizing motions, of how an object could hypothetically be launched into “orbit without spin”, as per JD’s Figure 1. If the description of the arrow wasn’t sufficient, the animations and description of Newton’s Cannonball make that perfectly clear to anybody with two eyes and a brain.
So, if you want to continue to believe that Figure 2 represents “orbit without spin”, then please explain how you could launch an object into orbit, which would move as per JD’s Figure 2, without you applying spin to the object either at the moment of launch, or later.
I’ll try that again…
You people think “orbiting without axial rotation” or “orbit without spin” is as per JD’s Figure 2. You actually have to think that, in order to think our moon is both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”. We have given an example, clearly described, and even animated for those who struggle with visualizing motions, of how an object could hypothetically be launched into “orbit without spin”, as per JD’s Figure 1. If the description of the arrow wasn’t sufficient, the animations and description of Newton’s Cannonball make that perfectly clear to anybody with two eyes and a brain.
So, if you want to continue to believe that Figure 2 represents “orbit without spin”, then please explain how you could launch an object into orbit, which would move as per JD’s Figure 2, without you applying spin to the object either at the moment of launch, or later.
JD, and yet the synodic period of the Moon is 29.53 days. The angular velocity of the Moon can be derived from this observation as follows.
S = 2pi / (Wr – Wo)
S is the synodic period, Wr is the rotational angular velocity and Wo is the orbital angular velocity.
Solving for Wr…
Wr = (2pi / S) + Wo
We already know what S is…
S = 29.53 * 24 * 3600 = 2551392 s
And I think we can all agree what Wo is…
Wo = 2pi / (365.25 * 24 * 3600) = 1.99e-7 rad/s
And now we can just plug values into the equation…
Wr = ((2*3.14159) / 2551392) + 1.99e-7 = 2.66e-6 rad/s
And to convert that to time…
T = 2pi / Wr = 2360635 s = 27.32 days
And what is the established consensus for the lunar sidereal day? It is none other than 27.32 days. Beautiful!
Let’s do the rotational angular momentum while we’re at it.
L = Iw
I = 2/5 MR^2 = 0.4 * 7.35e22 * (1.74e6)^2 = 8.9e34 kg m^2
w = Wr (from above) = 2.66e-6 rad/s
L = 8.9e34 * 2.66e-6 = 2.4e29 kg m^2/s
There it is; a non-zero angular momentum derived entirely from the solar cycle as it is observed on the Moon without any a-priori presumption that the Moon is rotating.
Quick! It’s been made really simple, clear, and obvious that the moon doesn’t rotate on its own axis. Somebody obfuscate!
DREMT said…”So, if you want to continue to believe that Figure 2 represents orbit without spin, then please explain how you could launch an object into orbit, which would move as per JD’s Figure 2, without you applying spin to the object either at the moment of launch, or later.”
The answer…you can’t. You HAVE to apply a torque to the object to get it to orbit without angular momentum if launched from the surface of the Earth. I’m going to let you guys stew over this for awhile and see if you can figure out why.
Note that it is easy to get an object to orbit with any random spin-orbit resonance (as evidenced by space junk and the many satellites that are tumbling). It’s getting it to orbit at a 1:1 or a 0:1 resonance that takes a concerted effort. Again…I’m ignoring the exploits of tidal locking, atmospheric drag, terrestrial magnetic forces, detumbling devices, etc. when I make that statement.
bdgwx, your continued effort to distort reality is most entertaining.
Very enjoyable.
I hate to be a party-spoiler, but the arrow was NOT launched as you prefer. It was launched with zero angular momentum, and would have the orbital orientations as shown.
Once again, Figure 1 has your hated reality:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
“The answer…you can’t.”
Exactly!
DREMT said…”So, if you want to continue to believe that Figure 2 represents “orbit without spin”, then please explain how you could launch an object into orbit, which would move as per JD’s Figure 2, without you applying spin to the object either at the moment of launch, or later.”
I said…”The answer…you can’t.”
DREMT said…”Exactly!”
So just to be clear…you are agreeing with me that it is not possible to launch an object into “orbit without spin” as per JD’s figure 2 WITHOUT applying spin (which I read as applying a torque) to the object at some point during the orbital entry. In other words, you HAVE to apply a torque to the object to get it into a 0:1 spin-orbit resonance if launched from the surface of Earth. Is that what you are agreeing with?
Do you know the reason why?
bdgwx, you’re getting yourself wrapped around your own axle.
Just consider Figure 1, by itself, until you understand it.
Reality can be a bitch, huh?
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
JD,
I falsified your hypothesis that the Moon has zero rotational angular momentum by showing that an observed synodic period of 29.53 days necessarily leads to a Wr > 0 thus the Moon has to be rotating.
If you disagree then you will need to derive the synodic period of 29.53 days in an alternate way and by also assuming the rotational angular velocity (Wr) of the Moon is 0. That is your challenge.
“So just to be clear…you are agreeing with me that it is not possible to launch an object into “orbit without spin” as per JD’s figure 2 WITHOUT applying spin (which I read as applying a torque) to the object at some point during the orbital entry.“
Yes, because Figure 2 isn’t “orbit without spin”. Figure 1 is! And the arrow is launched without spin, and moves as per Figure 1.
If you actually could find a mountain as high as Newton’s, at the equator, and fire a cannon ball horizontally East, it would orbit as figure 2. Why not?
DREMT,
Then we are not in agreement.
I want to discuss your statement “And the arrow is launched without spin, and moves as per Figure 1.” Think about launching the arrow a bit more. What are you missing? I’ll give you a hint…conservation of angular momentum.
☺️
Think what you want.
bdgwx, you didn’t falsify anything.
The Moon has ZERO angular momentum about its center of mass. You continue to confuse orbiting with rotating on an axis.
See if Figure 1 helps:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
bdgwx,
Good efforts, but these guys are uninterested in facts or logic, cannot absorb it, will ignore it, and will keep on declaring without evidence.
Nate, speaking of “facts and logic”, were you able to understand Figure 1?
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
They have to ignore the simple description of the arrow…pretend they can’t relate the cannonball animations to the motion of the arrow…pretend they can’t understand how that is represented by your Fig. 1…they actually have to claim that an object which is fired without spin, and moving without spin, and thereby completing an orbit without spin…is somehow spinning.
The mind boggles. If it’s stupidity, or close-mindedness, then it’s staggering. If it’s deliberate, it’s just pathetic at this stage.
Seriously, what is the point!? I really can only just laugh at it all.
The clowns lose on both the “plates” and the “Moon”.
Meltdown!
bdg…”The axis is the reference frame. All points on the moon are moving around it. Therefore the Moon is rotating on its own axis”.
Draw a radial line from the centre of the Earth to the centre of the Moon (at its axis). Every point on the Moon touching that radial line, including the axis, is turning in concentric circles about the Earth with the same angular velocity (not particle velocity).
If a point on that radial line on the Moon’s face facing the Earth is turning in a small circle than the axis, how could it ever rotate about the axis without breaking through the concentric circles?
This is a problem of curvilinear translation, not one of rotation. The definition of curvilinear motion is that all points in the body must be moving parallel to each other and with the same angular velocity.
Remember, the angular velocity of a ‘rigid body’ is not the velocity of individual particles it is the angular velocity of the radial line we defined earlier.
GR said…”Draw a radial line from the centre of the Earth to the centre of the Moon (at its axis). Every point on the Moon touching that radial line, including the axis, is turning in concentric circles about the Earth with the same angular velocity (not particle velocity).”
If your reference frame requires you invoke the Earth then you aren’t using the right reference frame. Rotation is measured relative to an inertial reference frame fixed to the axis that goes through the center of mass of the Moon.
GR said…”If a point on that radial line on the Moon’s face facing the Earth is turning in a small circle than the axis, how could it ever rotate about the axis without breaking through the concentric circles?”
It is for two reasons. First, your radial line is orbiting the Earth. The end that always has X,Y coordinates of 0,0 is in a reference frame fixed to the Earth (or more precisely the barycenter of the orbit). Second, the rotation of the Moon is in a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance with the orbit of this radial line. This is a special case arrangement that makes it appear from an observer on the Earth that the Moon isn’t rotating. Only the 1:1 spin-orbit resonance creates this affect. Remember, lunar rotation is a property of the Moon. Earth observers can be fooled if they are not aware of this special case.
By the way, the same problem happens with Mercury. It was once thought that Mercury was tidally locked into a 1:1 spin-orbit resonant because of an illusory effect from the perspective of Earthly observers. Sun observers who always face Mercury are fooled as well because they think it rotates halfway for each orbit when, in fact, it rotates 3x for every 2 orbits.
GR said…”The definition of curvilinear motion is that all points in the body must be moving parallel to each other and with the same angular velocity.”
You’ve described pure rotation here as well.
GR said…”Remember, the angular velocity of a ‘rigid body’ is not the velocity of individual particles it is the angular velocity of the radial line we defined earlier.”
There are two angular velocities in play. Orbital angular velocity is can be measured using your radial line in the reference frame fixed to the Earth. Rotational angular velocity can only be measured in an inertial reference fixed to the axis that goes through the center of mass of the Moon. There are two completely different (but linked) measurements. Both are important. See my post above for the derivation of the rotational angular velocity of the Moon given its observed synodic period and Earth’s yearly period.
Gordon spouts:
“The definition of curvilinear motion is that all points in the body must be moving parallel to each other and with the same angular velocity.”
Complete and utter BS. Wikipedia correctly defines curvilinear motion as “the motion of an object moving on a curved path”.
Gordon has confused curvilinear motion with curvilinear translation from Day 1. He never knows what he’s talking about. He just makes up definitions to suit his own stupid beliefs. An object experiencing curvilinear motion can be translating, or rotating on its own axis.
Gordon blubbers:
“Reference frames dont exist, they are devices used by the human mind to get it past illusions.”
Wow! No wonder Gordon is so stupid. Purdue University Engineering lecture notes:
“Only when we go to laws of motion, the reference frame needs to be the inertial frame. From the point of view of kinematics, no
reference frame is more fundamental or absolute.”
OMG Gordon. And you CLAIM to be an engineer?? Just shut up! No wonder you are SO confused.
This is totally hilarious. That’s why you clowns have everything backwards.
bdgwx, you get a lot wrong.
“Rotation is measured relative to an inertial reference frame fixed to the axis that goes through the center of mass of the Moon.”
Wrong. You do not get to choose the reference frame. The inertial reference frame will give you the wrong answer.
“Remember, lunar rotation is a property of the Moon. Earth observers can be fooled if they are not aware of this special case.”
The Moon has no axial rotation. You are one of the observers being fooled.
“There are two angular velocities in play.”
Wrong. The only angular velocity is due to the orbital motion.
“See my post above for the derivation of the rotational angular velocity of the Moon given its observed synodic period and Earth’s yearly period.”
That derivation is WRONG. The Moon’s synodic and sidereal periods are due to its orbit, not any axial rotation.
Again, study Figure 1.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZbfn
JD is so dumb he cannot even design a gif. So he’s produced two static figures. Static. Ya. They don’t move. You have to pretend they move. But this is the norm for Just Dumb since he lives in a make-believe world.
The problem with Just Dumb, Dr Em t, and Gordo is they don’t understand that kinematics does not care about the how or why an object moves. Kinematics studies motion without taking into account forces that cause it. Hello! McFly!
“Stupid”, all that just to deny orbital motion?
Your frustration shows. Likely it’s due to your cowardice.
An orbit is simply a path, clown. You can’t even understand the basics.
Poor clowns live in their make believe static world, with their made-up definitions.
If you try to ask an intelligent question, their response is “Look! A squirrel!”
An orbit is a kind of path. And like a path, an orbit does not cause axial rotation.
If you walk around a tree, you are “turning”, but that is NOT axial rotation.
It can be confusing if you don’t understand the relevant physics.
JD said…”That derivation is WRONG. The Moon’s synodic and sidereal periods are due to its orbit, not any axial rotation.”
Can you explain the synodic and sidereal periods mathematically? I like to review how you do it.
bdgwx, you appear as confused about synodic and sidereal as you are about physics.
Synodic and sidereal are not based on mathematical derivations, they are based on definitions. Synodic references the Sun, and sidereal references the stars. The two are just ways of measuring orbital movements and positions. That’s why the two have different periods, for both the Moon and Earth.
You are trying to bring in irrelevant issues to cover your lack of understanding about the Moon.
DREMT,
‘pretend they cant relate the cannonball animations’
You are very confused.
I asked you to explain what it is you think the cannonball animation is showing, and you couldn’t come up with anything.
The Newton cannonball is simply demonstrating how an object can get into orbit.
You are imagining that it is supporting your cause.
It isn’t.
Poor Just Dumb. Always behind the curve.
A person can walk around a tree in a multitude of modes, He could be translating or even rotating on his own axis as he moves around a tree.
But back to a simple model that can be demonstrated. A tennis ball held in your hand with a red dot on it making a quarter circular orbit with the red dot always facing the center orbit.
You HAVE to rotate the tennis ball about its own axis in your hand continually to perform the quarter orbit. All that’s happening is the axis of rotation (at the tennis ball’s center of mass) is translating along the orbital path. No imagination required. The tennis ball’s rotation on its own axis is physically happening.
A simple earth model. Take our earth, put it on a circular ccw orbit around a sun. The initial conditions are a 1 year orbital period, with the earth rotating once every 24 hours (1day) about its own axis. For ease of analysis, we will use the noon, 9:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock and 3:00 o’clock positions of a clock. Assume north is pointing up towards the noon position.
Now assume for some reason the earths rotation has dramatically slowed to 2 rotations about its own axis per year. Orbital period is still one year and will remain so throughout this example model. Let say we begin at the noon position, with the USA facing the sun, i.e. pointing south. So every 6 months the earth makes one rotation on its own axis. That means at the 9:00 o’clock position, the USA. would be pointing north after 3 months having rotated 180 degrees on its own axis. After 6 months, the earth would be at the 6:00 o’clock position having rotated 360 degrees on its own axis, with the USA facing south once again. Another year goes by and the earth is back to the noon position having rotated twice on its own axis.
Now assume the earths rotation has incrementally slowed even more. It now rotates once on its own axis per year. Once again we start at the noon position with the USA pointing south towards the sun. At 3 months, the earth is at the 9:00 o’clock position, has rotated 90 degrees CCW on its own axis and is pointing east towards the sun. Another 3 month go by and the earth is at the 6:00 o’clock position, having rotated 180 degrees CCW on its own axis, with the USA pointing north towards the sun. Another 3 months expire, the earth is at the 3:00 o’clock position having rotated 270 degrees on its own axis, with the USA pointing west towards the sun. Finally, at the one year mark, the earth is back to the noon position having rotated 360 degrees on its own axis, with the USA facing south once again towards the sun.
So does this earth stop rotating on it’s own axis as it incrementally reaches the 1 rotation per orbit mark, and then start rotating on its own axis again as passes that mark with its slowdown? Apparently so according to Team Dork.
“You are very confused.”
☺️
I’m not the one that said, “if you actually could find a mountain as high as Newton’s, at the equator, and fire a cannon ball horizontally East, it would orbit as figure 2. Why not?”
Is the guy jogging along the equatorial track running upside down, on his hands, halfway around!?
The animations are self-explanatory. You are either pathetically dumb, or pathetically dishonest. I don’t mind which.
As regards HGS’s comments, it’s always amusing to me when they try to find ways to illustrate the way they perceive it, as if we somehow struggle to understand it. As if it’s not unbelievably simple! It’s the correct way of perceiving this issue that seems to cause people problems, but it’s not that hard to understand, if you open your mind, and just think about what has already been explained.
Don’t be expecting any more responses from me, today.
“Stupid” goes through his confused, convoluted nonsense, trying to disprove reality.
Talk about the opposite of “Occam’s Razor”!
You can’t fix stupid.
Here’s the simple, easy-to-understand reality:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZbfn
Dr Em T
Do us all a favor and don’t respond again……ever. We need less stupidity in this world.
DREMT: “The animations are self-explanatory. You are either pathetically dumb, or pathetically dishonest. I dont mind which.”
This is both hilarious, telling, and worrisome.
DREMT is absolutely certain that these animations are showing ‘something’ that ‘debunks’ our POV.
Yet, when asked to explain what it is showing, he comes up empty. He insists they are ‘self-explanatory’.
The animations show a uniform green sphere with no identifiable features getting launched into orbit. Is orbiting like diagram 1 or 2? Hmmm..
This shows when DREMT thinks he has ‘debunked’ something, it is actually just him being very very confused.
Nate, you are trying to confuse, obfuscate, pervert, obscure, and corrupt reality.
As DREMT stated: “You are either pathetically dumb, or pathetically dishonest.”
Reality is not going away:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
I was trying to hint at this earlier, but an arrow, rocket, etc. launched from the surface of the Earth with perfectly longitudinal thrust still has “spin” due to the law of conservation of angular momentum.
HGES hinted at this above…if the space shuttle wanted to flip its belling over to face the Earth to prepare for reentry it can do this with two different maneuvers. It can change its rotational angular velocity by firing a thruster to put a torque about the center of mass. Or, it can change its orbital angular velocity by firing a thruster parallel to its orbital trajectory. This is because the spin-orbit ratio is a product of both rotational and orbital angular velocity. You only need to change one to reorient an object in orbit.
bdgwx, you keep wanting to add your “spin” to the issue, but the arrow has zero angular momentum about its center of mass, as evidenced by the simple diagram. Its only angular momentum is referenced to the green planet.
Figure 1 illustrates orbital motion, as also seen with the Moon.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Now for your next “spin”.
I hear some sort of buzzing sound…
Once again for the benefit of our three resident clowns, Kinematics is a branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that caused the motion.
So when you hear Just Dumb and Dr Em T moaning on and on about angular momentum, forces and such, just know they have no clue what they are talking about.
Poor “Stupid” still doesn’t realize that his immaturity does not make up for his ignorance.
That’s funny enough, but he’s so obsessed with me that he uses my name.
He probably has “JDH” tattooed on his forehead….
“…they actually have to claim that an object which is fired without spin, and moving without spin, and thereby completing an orbit without spin…is somehow spinning.”
‘Is the guy jogging along the equatorial track running upside down, on his hands, halfway around!?’
A jogging upside down seems odd.
But reality is a guy jogging and a guy orbiting do not behave the same. Why do you keep insisting they should?
No one would think it odd if a space-jogging guy was orbiting upside down halfway around.
…and, they are fully aware, and agree, that to orbit as per Figure 2, spin must be applied…
So: an object can be launched without spin, horizontally, travel without spin, and complete the orbit without spin, moving as per Fig. 1.
The object, launched the same way, or indeed any other way, must have spin applied in order to complete the orbit as per Fig. 2.
Yet they conclude Fig. 2 represents “orbit without spin”.
You really couldn’t make it up.
I call this the Declare/Ignore tactic.
Declare what you believe, without evidence.
Ignore the facts/logic other people present. Example: no answers given when I asked for your explanation of the Newton cannon?! Nada.
Summarise the argument as if the opponents never made any counter arguments.
Such as here:
“So: an object can be launched without spin, horizontally, travel without spin, and complete the orbit without spin, moving as per Fig. 1.”
False premise: no proof offered that an object ‘launched without spin’ will orbit as Fig 1. It is simply ASSERTED.
In fact arguments were made:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354411
that this is NOT what happens. And NOBODY rebutted this or other similar arguments.
It’s pretty simple. Either Figure 1 is “orbit without spin”, or Figure 2 is.
They have already agreed that for an object to move as per Figure 2, spin must be applied.
If you are then going to try to argue that the motion in Figure 1 also requires spin to be applied, then you are saying there is no such thing as “orbit without spin”.
Lol.
DREMT,
Figure 1 is an orbit with rotational angular momentum.
Figure 2 is an orbit without rotational angular momentum.
To get an object launched from the surface of Earth to orbit as in figure 2 torque must be applied to the object to remove the angular momentum that has been acquired from the rotation of the Earth. Remember, angular momentum is a conserved quantity. When a part of the mass is separated from the bulk angular momentum is taken with it.
bdgwx, earlier you said:
“It’s getting it to orbit at a 1:1 or a 0:1 resonance that takes a concerted effort.”
You think getting the object to orbit as per Figure 1, or Figure 2, requires applying spin. Even including the hypothetical horizontal launch from a “very tall mountain”.
So you are saying there is no such thing as “orbit without spin”. Which means you can’t now claim Figure 2 is “orbit without spin”.
“They have already agreed that for an object to move as per Figure 2, spin must be applied.”
FALSE. Can’t make this stuff up!
Clearly you don’t really read what people post.
‘figure 2 torque must be applied to the object to remove the angular momentum that has been acquired from the rotation of the Earth.’
bdgwx, ok, that is a small effect, the subtlety of that is lost on these guys, and it just allows them to confuse the issue.
I’ll let you argue with bdgwx, Nate:
“So just to be clear…you are agreeing with me that it is not possible to launch an object into “orbit without spin” as per JD’s figure 2 WITHOUT applying spin (which I read as applying a torque) to the object at some point during the orbital entry”
As I said, the subtlety of that is lost on you guys…
Meanwhile, DREMT, you still offer no proof of your claim that:
“an object can be launched without spin, horizontally, travel without spin, and complete the orbit without spin, moving as per Fig. 1.”
An object launched with no spin will be TRANSLATING, which means all points on the object have the same velocity.
The points on the arrow in fig 1 do NOT all have the same velocities (as discussed with Gordon).
To see this draw a line from the tip of one arrow to the tip of the next arrow. That is the instant velocity vector of the tip.
Now draw a line from the tail of the arrow to the tail of the next arrow. That is the instant velocity vector of the tail.
NOT the same velocity vector as for the tip.
This shows that the arrow in figure 1 is TRANSLATING AND it has SPIN.
And agrees with BDGWX ‘Figure 1 is an orbit with rotational angular momentum.’
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Explain this:
At 3 o’clock, the arrow is launched, without spin, facing forwards in flight. At 9 o’clock, once the arrow has completed half its CCW orbit, it has now turned around 180 degrees, CW, so that it is facing backwards in flight. How is it possible for the arrow to spin around, on its own axis, through 360 degrees, during the course of each orbit, if you claim Figure 2 represents “orbit without spin”?
‘it has now turned around 180 degrees, CW, so that it is facing backwards in flight.’
If we are looking at the same fig 2, it has maintained its orientation, toward the same star, the whole way around.
No need to turn 180 deg.
Wrong answer. Try:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354646
Day 76. The GHEDT are still in denial that the Green Plate Effect is debunked.
Your talent for never letting things go must be quite helpful in your personal life!
, Nate said, completely unable to let it go.
Hilarious.
Says the poster who brings up the topic first thing every morning, probably before even taking a piss!
, Nate said, completely unable to let it go.
Institutionalized Pseudoscience teaches that the Moon is rotating on its axis. But, we only see one side of the Moon. So, IP claims that the reason is that the Moon is rotating on its axis, in perfect “synchronous rotation” with its orbit around Earth.
Sounds plausible.
But easily debunked.
Figure 1 represents orbital motion.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZbfn
So, if the Moon were really rotating on its axis, we would see all sides of it, just as shown by Figure 2.
bdg…If your reference frame requires you invoke the Earth then you aren’t using the right reference frame. Rotation is measured relative to an inertial reference frame fixed to the axis that goes through the center of mass of the Moon”.
I am not trying to win an argument here I am trying to lure you into the world of awareness. It’s a magnificent place and many people go through life stuck in their own personal dimension. Such a waste.
I gently tried to nudge you out of the delusional part of your mind (I have one too), to look at the problem from a perspective of reality, but you insist on creating theoretical dimensions that do not exist in reality.
Reference frames are of use only in problems of relative motion or the translation of axes. We are not dealing with relative motion here or the translation of axes. We are dealing with a very simple problem related to a statement that the Moon does not rotate about its axis.
I was in an awareness seminar once and we were discussing the meaning of truth and reality. I got into a philosophical argument with the leader of the seminar as to what reality meant. He asked me as he thumped on a cinder brick wall, “Is this real”? I replied that it depended on what he meant by real, that it was made of atoms.
He then challenged me to walk through it. I got even more stupid and claimed I MIGHT be able to walk through the wall if I could somehow fit the atoms in my body between the atoms in the wall. This fired him up and he asked, yes or no, can you walk through this (****ing) wall right now? Of course the answer was no.
The wall was real even though it was comprised of bazillions of microscopic particles.
It took me a couple of hours till I got it what I was doing in my life. I was playing mental games with reality, redefining it to fit my ego. There are many people who will claim there are different types of reality and at one point I would have agreed. Now I think they are full of crap, just as I was back then.
There comes a time when you have to drop the crap about theoretical obfuscations and philosophies if you want to understand reality. A better word than reality is actuality, since it allows no wiggle room for theory.
What is, is what is. That is actuality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the human mind, it just is. The human mind tries to bend actuality to fit what the human mind wants to see.
So, can you cut the crap about reference frames and barycentres and LOOK at the actuality? A radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon as it passes over the Equator shows the same face of the Moon as the same radial line when the Moon is on the other side of the Earth.
The relationship of the near face to the axis does not change. The near face is NOT turning about the axis at any time during the orbit of the Moon. They are both turning in concentric circles.
If you want to obfuscate that actuality to shows the Moon from a different perspective it still does not show the near side turning about the axis.
You can see it in my coin experiment. Rather than a mark on the near face, draw an arrow from the coin centre to the mark. Now move the coin around the other one while keeping the arrow perpendicular to the tangent line where the coins meet.
If you draw a succession of arrows right around the stationary coin they will form a band the width of arrow. At no time will the arrow point turn around the axis.
That is curvilinear translation despite the rantings and ravings of another poster here. He doesn’t understand the the sum of instantaneous tangential motions that represent curvilinear motion.
Another long winded red herring rant from Gordo, continuing to display his wrong headed views of physics. Translation is motion of the center of mass of a body. Rotation of a body is different as it involves no translation of the body’s mass, only turning about that center of mass. That turning motion is measured as a rate of angular deviation with respect to some coordinate system. From a dynamical perspective, that coordinate system must be an inertial reference frame, which, for the Moon, could be the background of stars or the coordinates of the Moon’s orbit (neglecting precession).
Swanson, you were doing okay until you attempted to define “turning motion” as axial rotation.
Nice try, but no cigar.
swannie…” Rotation of a body is different as it involves no translation of the body’s mass, only turning about that center of mass”.
You have just confirmed my point. The Moon is translating and not rotating about it’s centre.
If it were not for gravitational force, the Moon would perform rectilinear translation. If the Moon was suddenly released from its orbit it would continue in a straight line. Since the same face that always faces the Earth would be facing the Earth, the Moon would shoot off in a straight line with all points parallel to the linear trajectory and the same face facing the same direction.
Due to gravitational force, that rectilinear translation is turned in an orbit of curvilinear translation. All points on the Moon are still turning in concentric circles about the centre of the Earth as in rectilinear translation. The only thing left is that all points must be moving at the same angular velocity.
Since the Moon is a rigid body, all points are already turning at the same angular velocity as measured by a radial line from the centre of the Earth to the centre of the Moon. The angular velocity of that line is roughly 28 days per 2pi radians.
The individual particle velocities don’t count with a rigid body’s angular velocity. Same on Earth. Particles on the Equator are turning significantly faster than particles near the Poles yet the angular velocity of the planet’s rotation is constant.
Gordo wrote:
Yes, Gordo, the vector between the Earth’s center and that of the Moon does rotate once an orbit. It rotates relative to the vector between the Earth and the Sun, as well as a vector between the Earth and the apparently fixed background of distant stars. However, because your Moon-Earth vector is not part of an inertial reference frame, it can not be used to determine whether the Moon rotates or not without making the transformation to an appropriate inertial reference frame.
“it can not be used to determine whether the Moon rotates or not…”
…on its own axis, is the question, Swanson. It is not just about whether it “rotates or not”.
‘So, can you cut the crap about reference frames and barycentres and LOOK at the actuality’
Again, Gordon, I have to ask, what have you been smoking?
Your view seem to be that science is fine up to a point, but when it disagrees with my intuition, or gets complicated, I can reject it.
Science introduces reference frames when they are needed. They are needed here, because things look different in a non-rotating reference frame, than in one rotating with the Earth, or with the Moon.
If the Apollo engineers didnt properly use the ‘crap about reference frames’, they could not have landed on the moon.
nate…”Science introduces reference frames when they are needed. They are needed here, because things look different in a non-rotating reference frame, than in one rotating with the Earth, or with the Moon”.
I covered an intense year of engineering physics devoted to statics and dynamics. In fact, I had two assigned text books, one called Statics and the other Dynamics. In the Dynamics text we covered kinematics and kinetics in intense detail and only briefly did we touch on reference frames, while discussing the translation of axes.
Reference frames are being used here to obfuscate the problem. You guys cannot prove the Moon is turning about its axis by demonstration a clear angular velocity about its axis, so you are inferring it because the Moon appears to rotate during one orbit. You think that by looking at the problem from a difference reference frame that the Moon is turning on its axis.
It is not rotating about its axis in any reference frame. What you are seeing is an illusion based on your belief that the Moon rotates.
The Moon is performing curvilinear translation (aka an orbit). The orbit is a resultant trajectory due to gravity nudging the Moon fractionally as its momentum tries to move it in a straight line. Eventually those fractions add up to a complete orbit that is no different than rectilinear translation with the exception that it curves.
The point you are missing is that a point on the near face of the Moon is turning in a smaller concentric circle about the Earth’s centre than a point at the Moon’s centre. Since those circles are parallel they can never cross, meaning the point on the near face can never cross any other concentric circle to perform a 360 degree rotation about its own centre.
Gordo, Your intense lessons in Dynamics must have missed the practical methods of measuring rotation. Inertial guidance systems have been available for decades which measure both linear and angular rotations in order to navigate missiles and submarines without any external position references. Such a device placed on the Moon’s surface would show that the Moon does rotate. I would expect that those rate gyros would give the same rate reading on the side facing the Earth as would one placed on the opposite side, as would instruments placed on the leading and trailing sides WRT the orbit.
Once again, as always, Gordon monumentally screws up the definition of curvilinear translation.
Gordon blubbers:
“The orbit is a resultant trajectory due to gravity nudging the Moon fractionally as its momentum tries to move it in a straight line. Eventually those fractions add up to a complete orbit that is no different than rectilinear translation with the exception that it curves.”
WRONG. Translation on a curved path (i.e. curvilnear translation) is the type of movement shown in Figure 2 of JD’s gif. It’s the same motion as a ferris wheel seat.
Where you asleep in your alleged engineering classes? A line drawn through a translating body does not rotate or turn at all. If it starts out pointing north, it stays pointing north throughout its motion.
The trigger words, “curvilinear translation” were uttered, hence HGS immediately stops concentrating on anything else.
Gordon,
This is curvilinear translation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OS92hs5_fs
nate…”This is curvilinear translation.”
It’s one form of curvilinear translation and I find it limits the general definition.
Rectilinear translation describes a body moving in a straight line with all points on the body remaining parallel to the line of motion.
Curvilinear translation is exactly the same except the particles move parallel to the direction of motion along a curve. A circle or an ellipse is a curve. Therefore an orbit is a curve.
I have mentioned before that if you take a body performing rectilinear translation and you slightly bend it’s path into a curve it will continue to meet the definition of rectilinear translation along the curve. You can no longer call it rectilinear translation, however. If you continue to bend the curve into a circle, the body will still have all parts of the body moving in parallel lines.
That type of motion rules out local rotation about an axis. In order to rotate about the centre, a peripheral point would have to cross over the parallel paths of other particles. That is obviously not happening with the Moon since it always has the same face pointing toward the Earth. All points on the Moon are traveling in concentric, parallel circles about the Earth’s centre.
‘Its one form of curvilinear translation and I find it limits the general definition.’
It is limiting. That is what definitions are intended to do.
‘All points on the Moon are traveling in concentric, parallel circles about the Earths centre.’
The Moon is travelling in an ellipse, its farthest point is 10% farther from Earth than its nearest point, where it is also moving 10% slower.
Yet its rotational angular momentum does not allow it to rotate faster or slower as it moves faster or slower in its orbit. Hence we see slightly different faces of the Moon.
That is why it makes more sense to describe it as spinning about its axis at constant speed, AND orbiting the Earth at not constant speed.
Notice, for curvilinear translation, all points in the body must have the same velocities.
For your coins you agreed that points have different speeds (therefore different velocities):
nate “Points moving in concentric circles, some larger some smaller, but all points completing an orbit in the same time period.’
Thus some points have higher SPEEDS. The ones on the larger concentric circles.”
Gordon: “Yes.”
So clearly, your coin, and the Moon, are NOT doing curvilinear translation.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
These are the facts:
For the arrow moving as per Figure 1:
If you were standing on the Earth at 3 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip facing forwards.
If you were standing on the Earth at 9 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip still facing forwards.
For the arrow moving as per Figure 2:
If you were standing on the Earth at 3 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip facing forwards.
If you were standing on the Earth at 9 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip now facing backwards.
An arrow would have to have been fired with spin in order to move as per Figure 2.
DREMT, one of their problems is that they do not understand vector addition. An orbiting body, like the Moon, has two vectors acting on it. One due to Earth’s gravity, the other due to its velocity. The resultant vector defines orbital motion. But the resultant vector does NOT cause axial rotation.
The fact that they deny such basic physics tells us a lot.
Dr Empty
“An arrow would have to have been fired with spin in order to move as per Figure 2.”
I think you are on to something Doctor.
Spacecraft dont need to fly like airplanes, with nose forward, DREMT.
All of ‘the facts’ are simply describing what we can already plainly see in figure 2, except looking from the center.
But the last entry:
‘An arrow would have to have been fired with spin in order to move as per Figure 2.’
does not follow from these already known facts. That is just pure assertion.
From standard rigid body kinematics, this is exactly what we would expect to see if an object orbits while maintaining a orientation fixed to a star.
They have many problems, JD. Still trying to work out if they’re “pathetically dumb”, or “pathetically dishonest”.
DR EMPTY,
the reason for this,
“If you were standing on the Earth at 3 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip facing forwards.
If you were standing on the Earth at 9 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip now facing backwards.
An arrow would have to have been fired with spin in order to move as per Figure 2”
is that you who is standing on the earth is actually spinning.
It is like when NASA put the Hubble telescope in orbit, they had to stop the telescope from spinning so they could point it in a direction to take pictures of distant objects.
I’ll go with “pathetically dumb”, for blob.
DR EMPTY,
You need to stop spinning to figure this out.
It is really child’d play.
Why can’t you solve it?
blob, the tip of the arrow facing backwards at 9 o’clock, has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth’s rotation. Are you even aware I am talking about a location, rather than a time, when I say “9 o’clock”? It’s hard to know what level of stupid we’re dealing with.
I got that you were talking about the position on the chart when you said this
“If you were standing on the Earth at 3 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip facing forwards.
If you were standing on the Earth at 9 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip now facing backwards.”
However to get from 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock the earth has to rotate to move you from 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock.
So it has everything to do with the earth’s rotation.
So you tripped up again, best stay away from the brown blotter.
“However to get from 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock the earth has to rotate to move you from 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock.“
No, I mean that you are in one location at 9 o’clock, and view the arrow flying overhead at that position, and then you are on the opposite side of the planet, at 3 o’clock, watching the arrow fly overhead when it has reached that position in its orbit. The Earth’s rotation is not factored into these diagrams, how could it be? The Earth would rotate about 27 times before the arrow completed an orbit, if its to be compared with lunar motion. You can assume that each arrow is drawn on the diagram at the point in time when the Earth is aligned the same way.
Have you really, genuinely, never understood these diagrams!?
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
DR EMPTY,
I understand your diagrams perfectly well.
What you don’t seem to grasp is at 3 o’clock you are standing straight up and your head points in the direction of 3 o’clock and whether you allow the earth to turn you to 9 o’clock or walk halfway around the earth to get to 9 o’clock where you are standing straight up and your head points in the direction of 9 o’clock, you had to spin 180 degrees in that transition.
To get from 3 to 9 you have to spin.
blob, when people refer to Australians as being from “Down Under”, you are aware that they are not actually upside down, right!? When you are in Australia, the ground is still underneath you, and the sky above you. Hopefully you do grasp that.
So if you are in Australia and look up, can you see the star Polaris?
or the handle of the little dipper?
Or is the earth flat?
You do understand that if I am in New York City and pointing straight up and you are in Perth Australia pointing straight up, we are pointing in nearly opposite directions?
Yes, blob. I understand. The question is, do you? You see, you initially said this:
“the reason for this,
“[quoting me]If you were standing on the Earth at 3 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip facing forwards.
If you were standing on the Earth at 9 oclock, and looked up, you would see the arrow flying overhead, tip now facing backwards.
An arrow would have to have been fired with spin in order to move as per Figure 2”
[back to your comment] is that you who is standing on the earth is actually spinning
It is like when NASA put the Hubble telescope in orbit, they had to stop the telescope from spinning so they could point it in a direction to take pictures of distant objects.“
Since the discussion that followed between us, you should have had the confusion you demonstrated in that initial comment cleared up. Hopefully you should now understand the point I was originally making.
DR EMPTY,
The point being the arrow in fig 2 is spinning.
Nope I still don’t get it, you are still on the brown blotter, best seek emergency medical care.
You spun around, and the arrow didn’t.
Child’s play it should be, but I guess you can’t figure it out.
By the way the earth is not flat and the moon spins.
“You spun around, and the arrow didn’t“
Weird that. Considering how gravity affects both me and the arrow.
Dr Empty
But you are standing on the earth and the arrow is not.
simple really
Gravity tends to affect things on the ground and things that are not on the ground.
DR EMPTY,
But gravity is not making you spin, the angular momentum of the earth is what makes you spin.
Gravity doesn’t make the arrow spin.
“But gravity is not making you spin, the angular momentum of the earth is what makes you spin.”
The rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the point being made. Already explained that to you.
Already explained to you that your point is wrong
no matter which way you try to twist it, in figure 1 the arrow is spinning, and in figure 2 the arrow is not spinning.
And yes compared to me Australians are indeed upside down.
“Gravity doesn’t make the arrow spin.”
Yes, exactly. So it must have been fired with spin, to start with. I’m glad you agree.
DREMT,
You still don’t seem to have learned how tologically prove what you believe.
You already know that we disagree with you on the interpreation of fig 2.
So why would you think simply descrbing figure 2 to us, what we can plainly see, would prove to us that our interpretation is wrong?
Then when we are not convinced you fire up the ad homs.
Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the logical arguments that we make. You dont even try to rebut them. You have no answers.
You just keep on declaring and ignoring. And you seem shocked and appalled when nobody is convinced by these tactics.
Having not proven your ideas correct to any sensible person, you will likely still declare our POV ‘debunked’.
I think DR EMPTY and JD are both
“Still trying to work out if they’re “pathetically dumb”, or “pathetically dishonest”.”
OK Nate and blob.
stupid ….aka Norman…what’s the point of hiding behind a nym?
“Kinematics is a branch of classical mechanics that describes the motion of points, bodies (objects), and systems of bodies (groups of objects) without considering the forces that caused the motion”.
You are a bit confused. Kinematics is a study of moving bodies. Obviously, a body in motion was set in motion by a force.
The basic disciplines are categorized as statics and dynamics. Statics involve the study of forces applied to rigid members like on a bridge. Dynamics involves the effect of forces on masses that are free to move. Kinematics is a particular branch of dynamics that studies masses after the force has been applied.
If you simply study accelerations as if there are no forces causing them, you run into the utter stupidity of time dilation. IMHO, that’s where Einstein went wrong with special relativity. He considered accelerations without the forces and ended up thoroughly confused about the relationship of time to forces and masses, and there isn’t a relationship. Forces and masses are real and time does not exist other than in the human mind.
You lot have gotten yourselves thoroughly confused about angular velocity and momentum. Now you are using semantics in an attempt to get around your misunderstanding. Kinematics is a red-herring argument used to obfuscate the reality.
To understand the Earth-Moon relationship you must address gravitational force. If you lay out the problem as just kinematics you end up introducing red-herring arguments about reference frames, which have no application here.
The Moon is in orbit because it has linear momentum and there is no friction to slow it down. The Moon always wants to travel in a straight line tangential to a radial line from the Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre.
Gravitational force is acting along the radial line toward the Earth and it is a real force. The orbit is the resultant between the acceleration due to the force and the relatively constant velocity component of the linear momentum.
There’s your kinematics, if you disregard the force and work with acceleration and momentum. Like I said, it’s a red-herring obfuscation in this particular problem.
All you need here is the radial line rotating with an angular velocity and the Moon moving along a path perpendicular (tangential to the orbital curve) to that radial line. Since the radial line goes straight through the Moon, which is a rigid body, and the line is turning with an angular velocity, it means every point on the Moon is traveling along the same tangent line to the curve (orbit) at each point on the curve.
The Moon turns through the orbit due to gravitational force, not it’s own angular velocity. It is gradually nudged bit by bit until it turns a full 360 degrees per orbit. However, every point on the Moon is still moving along a line tangential to the orbit. For that reason it is not possible for the side facing the Earth to turn about the Moon’s axis.
As I have pointed out in the past, if a person has a ball on a rope and spins the rope about his/her head, the ball will perform a similar motion to the Moon. With the rope attached to the ball it is impossible for the ball to rotate about its own axis yet over its orbit it turns through 360 degrees.
And for those who struggle with visualizing what Gordon is explaining…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Well, Gordon, you never seem to deal with the rebuttals to your arguments. Just ignore them, and move on. So you will probably ignore this one too.
Kinematics is all about describing motion, with no consideration of forces. Just a FACT.
Rigid body Kinematics describes Translation and Rotation as separate motions. Just a FACT.
A rigid body can move in a circular path without any rotation. That is called curvilinear translation. Just a FACT. See the video I linked to above.
Curvilinear translation is like the motion of an x-y plotter pen drawing a circle. The pen never rotates. It is programmed simply by telling the pen to TRANSLATE to a set of x,y positions that happen to lie on a circle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTH3VjvCfpA
For this kind of motion, there needs to be a coordinate system, a reference frame. If it is translating or rotating, it is wrt the reference frame of the paper. Just a FACT.
If a celestial object is translating or rotating, it is wrt to a reference frame of the fixed stars. Just a FACT.
All these are universal descriptions of rigid body kinematics, used by all scientists and engineers.
Once you agree on a description of motion, then you can talk about the CAUSES of motion, forces and torques.
You want to use different conventions, fine. But communicating your ideas with anybody else will then be screwed up.
Example: xy plotter, if we use a coordinate system that is different when we are drawing a circle, than when we are drawing a line, then programming its motion becomes a nightmare!
Let me add one further observation. Suppose the xy plotter pen is drawing a circle CCW.
The pen is moving like figure 2.
Do we need to program the pen to move in a CCW circle AND simultaneously ROTATE CW?
Of course not!
We just program it to TRANSLATE on a circular path.
Or, you could argue that the moon’s motion is as per Fig. 2(b) on page 4 of 28, here:
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
You’ll note from the text on page 3:
“Fig 2(b) is in rotation, with all its particles moving along concentric circles”.
Note the rectangle is not rotating about its own center of mass, it is rotating about point O.
This shows that kinematics won’t resolve the issue. Sorry HGS. You need to get to the bottom of “what is orbital motion without axial rotation”? What is “orbital motion”, in other words. And that does involve considering the forces involved.
You really don’t get this stuff.
In your link, the section on kinematics, including Fig 2(b), does not include any forces in the write-up or sample problems. You don’t need them to describe the motion of the objects.
I don’t know why you are fixated on this orbital motion without axial rotation business. Orbital motion is simply the motion of an object in orbit. JD’s dumb non-rotating gif shows two objects in orbital motion, one is translating, the other is rotating on its own axis while orbiting.
In JD’s dumb “gif”, you have an arrow whose centroid is following a circular path or orbit. There are only two options for the arrow. It can either spin or not spin while orbiting. Not spinning would be curvilinear translation. (JD’s Figure 2) If the arrow is not translating, it has to be spinning or rotating on its own axis. (Figure 1) There is no other option.
stupid…”Orbital motion is simply the motion of an object in orbit”.
Not quite. In this case the orbit is a resultant path between the acceleration of the Moon due to gravity and the linear momentum of the Moon. The Moon appears to be rotating due to that resultant but at no time does the near side of the Moon rotate about its axis.
If you draw a vector from the axis to the near side, the vector must always point toward the centre of the earth and it can never rotate about its tail (the axis).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354760
“but at no time does the near side of the Moon rotate about its axis”
You were not paying attention during your alleged physics classes. Place a north arrow through the centroid of the moon. Your “vector” will be happily rotating about the axis, once per orbital period.
You are confused because you are fixing your vector to a rotating reference frame. Of course the vector would not rotate wrt that rotating reference frame.
stupid…”You were not paying attention during your alleged physics classes. Place a north arrow through the centroid of the moon. Your “vector” will be happily rotating about the axis, once per orbital period”.
Why is the vector turning? Is it due to an angular momentum locally within the body, or due to it’s trajectory induced by Earth’s gravitational field?
It’s the latter. The vector is turning because the mass of the Moon is being forced onto a resultant path by gravity. However, the Moon’s axis is at one end of the vector and the near-face of the Moon on the tip of the vector. The vector is not spinning about its tail, both the tail and the tip are remaining along a radial line from the Earth’s centre.
That is true no matter which reference frame you select. You will never see the tip of the vector turning around its tail.
“In your link, the section on kinematics, including Fig 2(b), does not include any forces in the write-up or sample problems. You don’t need them to describe the motion of the objects.”
That was partly my point, HGS. That’s partly why I said kinematics won’t resolve this issue, because you do need to consider the forces involved to get to the right answer.
You don’t even read my comments properly.
You still don’t get it Dr Em T.
All the information needed to describe the motion is there. You referred to Figure 2b and made the claim that kinematics alone won’t resolve the issue. WRONG. If that were the case, your link would have stated so.
Wikipedia states:
“Kinematics, as a field of study, is often referred to as the “geometry of motion” and is occasionally seen as a branch of mathematics.[4][5][6] A kinematics problem begins by describing the geometry of the system and declaring the initial conditions of any known values of position, velocity and/or acceleration of points within the system. Then, using arguments from geometry, the position, velocity and acceleration of any unknown parts of the system can be determined.”
There is no missing data in JD’s dumb gif where the motion can’t be described.
Point missed, by HGS. No surprise there.
The only thing missing is your brain and a basic education in kinematics, which is why you are so confused.
You simply DO NOT need to consider the forces. All the geometric data regarding their movement are goven.
You simply do need to consider the forces.
No. The geometry of the movement is given. Bolding your response does not make it true.
This is a rookie mistake, just like earlier in here when you agreed with Gordon’s false definition of curvilinear transaltion. This is a precise science, with no room for stupid errors.
“Bolding your response does not make it true.”
I agree. Just like using capital letters for emphasis doesn’t make it true.
stupid…”Wikipedia states:
Kinematics, as a field of study, is often referred to as the geometry of motion and is occasionally seen as a branch of mathematics.”
Applying this definition of kinematics to the Moon-Earth problem is akin to number crunching in statistics without understanding the context from which the data was derived.
If you were studying the specifics of the orbit, given initial conditions, you could apply kinematics to solve changes in position due to velocity or acceleration. However, kinematic won’t tell you why the same face of the Moon is always facing the Earth.
To understand that you need to bring force into the problem. You need to understand why the mass is in orbit to begin with.
It’s vital to understand the context. The Moon is trying to move in a straight line. There are no forces acting on it other than gravitational force. All it has is linear momentum.
Gravitational force is acting in a radial line toward the Earth’s centre. The Moon’s momentum is along a line perpendicular to that radial line.
Momentum can be modeled as a form of force since it requires a force in the opposite direction to change it. Momentum is created by a force being applied to a mass. As long as the force is applied, the mass will accelerate, but when the force is removed, the mass carries on at a constant velocity. Its mass times its constant velocity is its momentum.
In order to slow the mass and stop it, a force of the opposite direction must be applied. In the atmosphere, or on the surface, air friction or surface friction respectively serves to decrease momentum.
At the altitude of the Moon there is not enough friction to slow the Moon, therefore it tries to go on a linear path indefinitely. At the same time, gravity acts on the Moon with a centripetal force directed toward the Earth’s centre. Although momentum is not officially a force it could be modeled as a force by calculating the force required to change the momentum.
Essentially, you have two force vectors at right angles forming a resultant path which is the orbit.
That momentum-gravitational force relationship is maintained through the entire orbit. A line drawn along the radial line of centripetal force representing the axis of the Moon to the near face, will always be oriented inward. At no time will the tip rotate around the tail.
DREMT, Look at section
4.0 General Plane Motion
“A general plane motion can always be considered as the sum of a translation and a rotation”
And example 1 that follows shows a rolling wheel, described as rotation about its cm plus translation.
Down you go, Nate, to where the point of my comment is explained to you again, hopefully in simple enough terms for you to actually understand, this time:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354873
nate…”For this kind of motion, there needs to be a coordinate system, a reference frame. If it is translating or rotating, it is wrt the reference frame of the paper.”
Do you think there is a coordinate system drawn out in the universe with the Earth at the centre and the Moon orbiting the Earth within that coordinate system?
Can you not visualize the simple Earth-Moon system without coordinate systems and reference frames? It’s not as complex as you are making it out to be.
I suggested the coin experiment because you can draw a vector on the moving coin and you can keep the vector pointed at the Earth’s centre as it slides around the stationary coin.
Yes, the vector will turn through 360 degrees as you slide that coin around the other but the head of the vector never turns about its tail. It doesn’t matter what reference frame you use, it never happens.
The vector is always pointing in with its tail along a radial line through the centre of the other coin. The head cannot turn around the tail as long as it is part of that radial line.
“Do you think there is a coordinate system drawn out in the universe with the Earth at the centre and the Moon orbiting the Earth within that coordinate system?
Can you not visualize the simple Earth-Moon system without coordinate systems and reference frames?”
Who said anything about Earth at its center? Not me.
Visualizing, maybe.
Describing MOTION without a coordinate system and reference frame would make no sense.
‘Dynamics’ means forces are considered, as opposed to Kinematics, where they are not.
Nothing inconsistent in there with what we’ve said about Kinematics.
Still, DREMT:
“Do we need to program the pen to move in a CCW circle AND simultaneously ROTATE CW?”
in order to make the pen draw a circle, IOW an orbit???
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354805
Read the comment again, and respond to what I’m actually saying, not to whatever you are trying to twist my words to mean.
How bout you respond to my comment, which obviously came first..
More pathetic games, from Nate.
The comment I linked to at 6:07 AM was already in response to a comment of yours that finished with the same question you just posed. The point made in that linked comment was that you can, using kinematics, describe the motion of the moon in a couple of different ways. You described one way, previously. I described a different way, in the linked comment. Since you can describe the motion of the moon in different ways using kinematics, then kinematics alone, clearly, cannot resolve the issue.
DREMT,
This is an ongoing problem in discussions with you. You don’t ever
‘respond to what Im actually saying’
You simply ignore it and make whatever point you want.
Hence, nothing gets resolved.
Kinematics is all about describing motion, in a way that works well, and leads to further understanding e.g. with forces and torques.
The XY plotter is showing why standard definitions of Translation and Rotation are useful.
You want to use DIFFERENT definitions? You can, but they make life way more complicated.
This example:
“Suppose the xy plotter pen is drawing a circle CCW.
The pen is moving like figure 2.
Do we need to program the pen to move in a CCW circle AND simultaneously ROTATE CW?”
shows why your definitions of ‘orbit’ make little sense.
“This is an ongoing problem in discussions with you. You don’t ever
‘respond to what Im actually saying’
You simply ignore it and make whatever point you want.”
Nate does his usual thing of accusing me of what he himself is doing, literally as he does it.
“You want to use DIFFERENT definitions?”
I’m not. The motion of the moon as I described it in the comment linked to at 6:07 AM is described using standard definitions. It differs to the way you describe it, also using standard definitions. Hence kinematics, alone, won’t settle this debate. You can describe the motion of the moon in different ways, using kinematics. So kinematics alone won’t settle the issue.
You have fig 2b, which is a PURE ROTATION. Fig 2a is PURE TRANSLATION.
The Moon’s motion is neither, it is quite complex. Clearly it is not a Rigid body attached to a pivot point as in Figure 2b.
‘Any plane motion which is neither a rotation nor a
translation is referred to as a general plane motion.’
Example 1 is a ‘general plane motion’ wherein they describes it as a combination of ‘Translation plus Rotation’
‘If a celestial object is translating or rotating, it is wrt to a reference frame of the fixed stars. Just a FACT.’
This is the reference frame used by astronomers, space travellers, and military.
Why do they use that? Because it works well.
If one needs to go into a particular ROTATING FRAME of reference
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354815
to see that the MOON is NOT rotating, then that makes life super complicated for describing motion of any other celestial object.
Just as:
‘Suppose the xy plotter pen is drawing a circle CCW.
The pen is moving like figure 2.
Do we need to program the pen to move in a CCW circle AND simultaneously ROTATE CW?’
shows why your definitions of ‘orbit’ make little sense.
Nobody is denying the motion of the moon is complex. There are all sorts of eccentricities and quirks about the moon’s orbit, some of which are still being studied even now. To a certain extent however you choose to describe it will be a simplification. You can criticize the “pure rotation” kinematic description if you wish, as you could many other ways of looking at it, but you would be missing the point. The point isn’t, “which way of describing it is best?”, the point is, “there are multiple ways of describing it, so this isn’t going to resolve the issue”. It’s just another dead end.
Really the only important issue is, “what is orbital motion without axial rotation?”.
You can describe motion in more than one way.
But this is either right or wrong:
‘an object can be launched without spin, horizontally, travel without spin, and complete the orbit without spin, moving as per Fig. 1.’
If an object is launched without spin, all of its particles have identical velocities.
The particles on the object in fig 1 do not, as I showed.
You didn’t need to “show” it, Nate. Of course the particles of an object moving as per Fig. 1 have different orbital velocities (whilst having the same angular velocities). That is what we are describing as “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Firstly, the object is launched from the “very tall mountain”, without spin. Then, as Gordon describes:
“The orbit is a resultant trajectory due to gravity nudging the Moon fractionally as its momentum tries to move it in a straight line. Eventually those fractions add up to a complete orbit that is no different than rectilinear translation with the exception that it curves”
Ignoring the trigger word “translation”, as I know you will not agree with that part of it, and focusing on the rest…
…what you guys conclude is that the “nudging” equals “axial rotation”, which is why you insist that for an object “completing an orbit without spin” the particles must have identical orbital velocities. All you are really doing here is “declaring” that any deviation an object takes from a straight line must involve axial rotation! This isn’t actually any better an argument than those who simply look at the arrows in Figure 1 and say, “the arrows are turning, so they are rotating on their axes”. It’s just a more convoluted way of saying the exact same thing.
Now, here is where Dynamics (forces, torques, momentum) come in.
If an object has ‘no spin’ like a launched arrow, it means it has no rotational angular momentum.
As discussed, the arrow in fig 1, even you describe it as having ‘rotation’ like the fig 2b object.
That means, that wrt the stars it is rotating (never mind which axis).
That means that it has rotational angular momentum.
Problem. Conservation of angular momentum. Objects don’t obtain angular momentum on their own.
If the arrow starts out with no rotational angular momentum, then it cannot end up with rotational angular momentum just by going into orbit.
One of the well-known properties of a planetary orbit is fixed angular momentum.
I guess our replies crossed.
“All you are really doing here is declaring that any deviation an object takes from a straight line must involve axial rotation!”
We BOTH agree that it has ‘rotation’ wrt to the stars. Axis is a separate issue.
But the arrow was launched with no initial rotation.
The ‘nudging’ that gravity does, to first approximation, is nudging the center of mass of an object, toward the Earth in this case, producing an orbit.
That kind of nudging is not able to produce rotation that was not there before.
That is the reason for fixed angular momentum in planetary orbits.
“The ‘nudging’ that gravity does, to first approximation, is nudging the center of mass of an object, toward the Earth in this case, producing an orbit.”
You are ignoring the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. You have to consider that, and gravity. Here, try studying this again:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Both JD, and in particular Gordon, have explained this so many times, it’s getting ridiculous. Every time, Gordon says something about “curvilinear translation”, or something else, which triggers you guys onto focusing on that rather than actually thinking about what he’s saying!
“The ‘nudging’ that gravity does, to first approximation, is nudging the center of mass of an object, toward the Earth in this case, producing an orbit.”
“You are ignoring the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. You have to consider that, and gravity. Here, try studying this again:”
Good example of you ignoring what I actually said and going off on a tangent, DREMT.
What did I say?
“That means that it has rotational angular momentum.
Problem. Conservation of angular momentum. Objects dont obtain angular momentum on their own.”
‘Nudging the center of mass” Yes it is “producing an orbit”
But no “That kind of nudging is not able to produce rotation that was not there before.’
Good example of you ignoring what many people have said and going off on a tangent, Nate.
I don’t understand how we can make this any easier for you to understand.
At some point you have to actually do some thinking for yourself. You have to actually try to understand, and connect the dots.
An yet the ignoring continues, now with excuses.
This is exactly how nothing gets resolved, DREMT. You make your point, then ignore rebuttals people actually make, because, apparently, you have no good answers.
Not honest debate.
Nate, if you are arguing that the object can’t obtain angular momentum about its own axis from a combination of the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line, and gravity, then obviously I would agree with you.
If you are arguing that the object can’t obtain orbital angular momentum from a combination of the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line, and gravity, then obviously you would be wrong, as that would mean “orbital motion” were not even possible.
See how easy “connecting the dots”, was?
Now you can ignore/misrepresent every single word I’ve said, or switch subjects, or hit the “reset” button on the entire conversation, or do whatever tricks you feel you must.
‘If you are arguing that the object can’t obtain orbital angular momentum from a combination of the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line, and gravity, then obviously you would be wrong, as that would mean “orbital motion” were not even possible.’
Actually I am arguing that.
Linear momentum is just P = MVcm, V cm is the center of mass velocity.
If the velocity is initially perpendicular to a radius, r, then the orbital angular momentum is just L = M Vcm r = Pr.
The fired object already HAS orbital angular momentum, L, when fired. It doesnt need to OBTAIN it by gravity or going into orbit.
Then as it orbits, it maintains this initial L. It does not add any new L, or rotational angular momentum.
Again by Conservation of angular momentum.
“The fired object already HAS orbital angular momentum, L, when fired. It doesnt need to OBTAIN it by gravity or going into orbit.
Then as it orbits, it maintains this initial L. It does not add any new L, or rotational angular momentum.
Again by Conservation of angular momentum.”
Great, there you go then. Earlier, you said, “If the arrow starts out with no rotational angular momentum, then it cannot end up with rotational angular momentum just by going into orbit.”
Now you’ve clarified that it does have the angular momentum when it starts out. So there’s no problem with it having angular momentum when “orbiting”.
DREMT,
I can’t tell if this is understood or not…are you aware that orbital angular momentum/velocity and rotational angular momentum/velocity are different quantities? For example, the Moon’s OAV is 1.99e-7 rad/s and it’s RAV is 2.66e-6 rad/s.
Yes, bdgwx, thank you for your concern.
The moon’s rotational angular momentum (angular momentum about its own axis) is zero. You already had this discussion with JD, remember?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354179
Clarification…the Moon’s OAV about the Sun is 1.99e-7 rad/s and its RAV about itself is 2.66e-7 rad/s. It’s OAV about the Earth is the same as its RAV of 2.66e-7 rad/s. What this means is that Moon’s OAM about the Earth is different than its OAM about the Sun which is also different than its RAM about itself. This is because the moment of inertia is different for each motion.
DREMT,
No. That’s not right. The Moon’s rotational angular momentum is non-zero. I derive it without an a-priori assumption that it is rotating in the following post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354422
If you disagree then derive a value of Wr that is zero without an a-priori assumption of rotation and post your work so that we can all review it.
Again, already discussed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354473
It’s handy how you’re always here to obfuscate, every time the truth is made abundantly clear, huh? You also seem to disappear at equally crucial moments (such as the point you should admit you are wrong).
DREMT,
Maybe I didn’t articulate the request well. What I’m asking for is a derivation similar to the one I did without a-priori assumption of rotation in which you get Wr = 0 rad/s for the Moon. Show your work. That’s how convincing arguments are made. The absence of the steps involved in deriving your answer is akin to what I call a “nuh-uh” argument. A “nuh-uh” argument isn’t even really an argument at all nevermind a convincing one.
And then, it continued…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354483
“bdgwx, you appear as confused about synodic and sidereal as you are about physics.
Synodic and sidereal are not based on mathematical derivations, they are based on definitions. Synodic references the Sun, and sidereal references the stars. The two are just ways of measuring orbital movements and positions. That’s why the two have different periods, for both the Moon and Earth.
You are trying to bring in irrelevant issues to cover your lack of understanding about the Moon.”
DREMT,
Great…if I’m confused about synodic and sidereal periods then this is your opportunity to set me straight. Show me mathematically that the values for the synodic and sidereal periods are consistent with a rotational angular velocity of 0.
And I disagree that discussing rotational angular velocity is irrelevant to the issue. It is the opposite of being irrelevant. It is THE defining metric regarding whether the Moon is rotating or not.
“rotational angular momentum just by going into orbit.”
Now you’ve clarified that it does have the angular momentum when it starts out. So there’s no problem with it having angular momentum when ‘orbiting’
Nice try at sophistry there DREMT, changing what I said.
All orbiting objects have orbital angular momentum rmv. Some also have spin angular momentum, which i said the fired arrow doesnt have.
We already agreed that the fired arrow has no spin angular momentum, but it does have orbital angular momentum.
And you also agreed that:
The fired arrow’s points all have the SAME speed, but the figure 1 arrow’s points have DIFFERENT speeds.
So something is different about their motion. But as just discussed, its NOT their orbital angular momentum, which is rmv for both.
What is different about the fig 1 arrow from the fired arrow is that has added rotation.
Even you have argued that it has rotation, but around the planet center.
That extra rotation means extra angular momentum. It is NOT mvr, orbital angular momentum, it is spin angular momentum.
And the Moon has it too.
“Great…if I’m confused about synodic and sidereal periods then this is your opportunity to set me straight…”
I link to the discussion between JD and bdgwx, and quote JD’s words, and bdgwx talks to me as if those words are mine. bdgwx, if you want to continue your discussion with JD, then by all means, please go and do so.
As for you, Nate: it’s not my fault that you refuted your own argument.
DREMT, unless I’ve missed something I’m the only one who has derived the rotation angular velocity of the Moon in this blog post and I came up with a non-zero value without using a-priori assumption of rotation. You can say “nuh-uh” and link to other people that also say “nuh-uh”, but that doesn’t make me wrong. What would make me wrong is if there was an error in my math. I’m prone to mistakes…it happens. That’s why I submitted my work to the blog for review. I’m asking you to compute Wr, submit your work for review, and explain how Wr = 0 is consistent with all observations.
As per standard operating procedure, just on the cusp of learning something, DREMT turns off civility, turns on the sophistry.
Poor Dr Em T keeps referring to Gordon’s TOTALLY WRONG definition of curvilinear translation. OMG if you are going to argue the motion of rigid bodies, at least get the definitions correct!!! This is why it’s so pointless to argue with you clowns. You don’t get kinematics.
JD’s object in Figure 2 meets the definition of curvilinear translation.
Figure 1 is not rectilinear translation that curves.
bdgwx seems to be stuck on “repeat”, HGS keeps on proving that he doesn’t actually read anybody’s comments (my only mention of “curvilinear translation” was to make the point that as soon as these people see those words, that’s all they fixate on, and ignore what’s actually being discussed – HGS couldn’t have come along and proved my point better if he tried), and Nate is…well, just Nate.
DREMT,
“The point isn’t, ‘which way of describing it is best?’, the point is, ‘there are multiple ways of describing it, so this isn’t going to resolve the issue’.
Two of the ‘multiple ways’ of describing the Moon’s motion:
1. One is like fig 2b in your book. Still not quite correct, because elliptical orbit, etc.
2. Another is as Translation thru inertial space (curvilinear), PLUS axial rotation. Like the rolling wheel Example 1 in your book.
The Moon HAS rotational angular momentum in #2.
But now you declare:
‘The moon’s rotational angular momentum (angular momentum about its own axis) is zero.’
So which statement of yours is correct, DREMT?
DO you stand by your ‘Multiple Ways’? Or not?
Nate…who exactly is it that you think you are fooling? Me? Others? Yourself?
Dr Em T,
It matters when Gordon has the definition of an important kinematic concept MONUMENTALLY wrong. Namely, translation.
And the fact that you agree with him speaks volumes.
“Natewho exactly is it that you think you are fooling? Me? Others? Yourself?”
That’s fine, DREMT.
You don’t need to answer such questions.
You don’t need to be consistent.
You don’t need to agree with physics.
You don’t even need to make sense,
if you’re just here to troll.
Thanks for confirming that.
OK, HGS and Nate.
The clowns are still having a hard time understanding Figure 1. The simple diagram shows orbital motion. The clowns can’t seem to understand the arrow is NOT rotating on it axis.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Likely, they are confused by the green sphere. So, to explain at their level, “actual photographs” of the orbiting sphere were take every 45 degrees around the orbit. The photographs can then be displayed in the “flat Earth” manner they are accostomed to.
Figure 3 shows the 8 photographs of the orbiting arrow. Figure 4 shows the arrow if it were both orbiting and rotating on its axis.
https://postimg.cc/2V0dYHYX
In figures 3 and 4 the green planet is rotating.
Even with them not understanding the relevant physics, there are so many easy examples. The racehorse is the easiest. Or the orange and string. Or a merry-go-round.
All easy to understand examples.
It’s almost as if they are afraid of reality.
Nate makes out like they all understand Fig. 1/Fig. 2, whilst blob reveals he still doesn’t. Will Nate help blob understand? Of course not.
‘Figure 3’
JD claims NO rotation of arrow.
The dimwit forgets that he is using a rotating camera to take the pictures!
Try this JD: take a picture of Earth from over the North pole, from a camera rotating 1 revolution per 24 h.
You will ‘prove’ that the Earth is not rotating!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354722
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354780
Just Dimwitted also thinks velocity vectors and force vectors sum into a ‘resultant’ vector.
Keep these pearls of wisdom comin!
Nate tries to misrepresent my words, when they are here for all to see. That just makes him look dimwitted.
“An orbiting body, like the Moon, has two vectors acting on it. One due to Earth’s gravity, the other due to its velocity. The resultant vector defines orbital motion. But the resultant vector does NOT cause axial rotation.”
His desperation and incompetence make for great comedy.
JD,
You are missing a vector.
bob d…”You are missing a vector.”
Nope. There’s just two. If you remove the gravity-associated vector the Moon continues along a straight line and it is still not rotating.
Velocity does not ‘act on’ a body.
What is the ‘resultant’ of two unrelated vectors with different units?
Resultant -“The resultant is the vector sum of two or more vectors. It is the result of adding two or more vectors together” The Physics Classroom
What units would it have?
I stand by what I said. You are very very confused.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354803
nate…”Velocity does not act on a body.
What is the resultant of two unrelated vectors with different units?”
****
One vector is an acceleration which is the first derivative of the velocity of the other. The Moon has a relatively constant velocity in a straight tangential line and gravity supplies acceleration in a straight line toward the Earth’s centre.
The relationship vis-a-vis a resultant is not straight-forward but it’s there. Look it up, the derivation is interesting.
No, Gordon, we do not SUM velocity and acceleration vectors.
Nate must misrepresent others.
That’s all he has.
Nothing new.
LMAO. JD uses his own special physics to add a force and velocity vector.
I remember last year JD was claiming how he was such an expert in vector manipulation.
The vector acting on the moon due to earth’s gravity has to be a force. So, Einstein, what is the vector due to velocity?? And how do you calculate it? What’s its magnitude and direction?
You have no clue what you are talking about.
This the same brand of physics JD uses to come up with his moon non-rotation garbage.
Nate started this nonsense about adding vectors that have different units. He was either purposely trying to misrepresent what I had said, or doesn’t have a clue about the relevant physics. Or, quite possibly, both….
Then the immature coward, “Stupid”, chimes in to go along with Nate–“peas in a pod”.
Here’s what I ACTUALLY said:
An orbiting body, like the Moon, has two vectors acting on it. One due to Earth’s gravity, the other due to its velocity. The resultant vector defines orbital motion. But the resultant vector does NOT cause axial rotation.”
I only mentioned the cause of the vectors. I never mentioned units, and I never went into the actual process of addition. My point, which they chose to miss, was that the vectors do NOT produce axial rotation.
The adults that understand the relevant physics know that to get the resultant vector, the units must be the same, just as the units for “acceleration” must be length per time-squared.
The clowns won’t understand the hint, just as they won’t understand how stupid and immature they are.
Nothing new.
“the units must be the same, just as the units for acceleration must be length per time-squared.”
What? That makes no sense at all. So the units for two vectors have to be the same because acceleratation is measured in length per time squared. LMAO. That is SO dumb.
Everyone wants to see YOU “go through the process” of this vector addition. Wow us with your prowess. Otherwise, you are blowing hot air as usual.
nate…”Gordon, we do not SUM velocity and acceleration vectors.”
*********
Ever heard of a 2nd order differential equation? They are used in vector calculus as well. I remember creating matrices to solve vector calculus problems and having different orders of differentials in the matrix.
https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Calculus/Supplemental_Modules_(Calculus)/Vector_Calculus/2%3A_Vector-Valued_Functions_and_Motion_in_Space/2.5%3A_Velocity_and_Acceleration
I just posted, however, that we can model momentum as a force. It takes a force to create momentum and a force to slow it down or destroy it.
f = ma = m.dv/dt
If a = 0 it means f = 0 but the velocity created is still there.
When dv/dt becomes constant we have mv = momentum. Momentum can and does apply a force to an object contacted by a mass with momentum. Use your imagination and visualize momentum as a quasi force since f = dP/dt = d(mv)/dt = m.dv/dt = f. Force and momentum are related.
Look at momentum as a pseudo-force and gravity as a force acting at right angles. Obviously that creates a resultant momentum path with the effect of the Moon’s momentum having the greater impact. I say that because the orbital path is closer to the momentum vector than the gravity vector.
BTW…there is a way to work this out using Newton’s gravitation constant, radii, and velocity. It makes it hard to visualize the problem, however.
Also note that as the Moon is accelerated by gravity toward the Earth, its momentum carries it away from the Earth. The resultant has to be at least tangential otherwise the Moon would begin a spiral into the Earth.
The Moon does not require a torque to keep the same face toward us. If it was moving past us on a perpendicular course with the same side facing us, it would continue on with that same side toward us as it passed.
That would be rectilinear translation. If you now bend its trajectory slightly toward the Earth, the same side face continues to point toward us. There are no forces acting to create a torque. If you had a significant elliptical path, the Moon might librate slightly at the ellipse extremes, but the same face would always be pointed in.
Unlike what stupid claims, it is curvilinear translation because the definition is there. All points on the Moon are turning in concentric (parallel) circles about the Earth’s centre and all points ‘as a rigid body’ are moving at the same angular velocity.
It’s important to distinguish between particle velocity in an orbital path and the angular velocity of a rigid body.
The clowns won’t understand the hint, just as they won’t understand how stupid and immature they are:
So the units for two vectors have to be the same because acceleratation is measured in length per time squared. LMAO. That is so dumb.”
Can I predict them, or what?
“When dv/dt becomes constant we have mv = momentum. ”
No. When dv/dt is constant we have costant acceleration.
“Momentum can and does apply a force to an object contacted by a mass with momentum.”
??? Makes no sense.
“Use your imagination and visualize momentum as a quasi force since f = dP/dt = d(mv)/dt = m.dv/dt = f.”
No. Momentum and force are different quantities”
Force and momentum are relate
If this is how you think thru physics, casually blurring together different quantities that are not the same, saying one thing but really meaning something else, then of course you will not get the right answers.
Gordon shrieks:
“Unlike what stupid claims, it is curvilinear translation because the definition is there. All points on the Moon are turning in concentric (parallel) circles about the Earths centre and all points as a rigid body are moving at the same angular velocity.”
WRONG! That is NOT the definition of curvilinear translation. Curvilinear translation accurately defined:
“It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.”
[http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf]
So with Gordon’s personal WRONG definition, all points are turning in concentric circles, when with curvilinear translation, all point move on congruent curves.
With Gordon’s WRONG definition, a line drawn through the moon and tangent to the orbit, rotates. With the correct definition of curvilinear translation, a line drawn though the moon remains parallel to its original position. There is no rotation of any line in the body translating.
For the past year you have spouted this totally wrong definition even when confronted with the truth. You could care less. You just make stuff up to support you erroneous views. Pathetic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The moon on the right is exhibiting curvilinear translation per the exact definition. A line through that moon does not rotate. A line through that moon remains parallel to its original position. Pick any two points on that moon. Those points move in congruent curves/circles.
In the Engineering link I provided above, I left out the last sentence concerning translation:
“In each of the two cases of translation, the motion of the body is
completely specified by the motion of any point in the body, since all the points have the same motion.”
The trigger words, “curvilinear translation”, were uttered. Consequently the HGS robot is powerless to resist repeating itself for about the 50th time, whilst everything else Gordon said remains unprocessed.
‘whilst everything else Gordon said remains unprocessed.’
Nope.
Clearly its been looked at, processed, and overall it doesnt make a lot of sense.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-355086
OK, Nate.
Although, from the sound of things, maybe Nate’s not the best person to “teach” young blob. Oh well.
Not so young, now get off my lawn.
I stand corrected:
“Although, from the sound of things, maybe Nate’s not the best person to “teach” ancient blob. Oh well”.
Please teach JD about his rotating camera blunder, and why he can’t add velocity and force vectors.
You sure you want to tag-team with this guy?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354803
nate…”and why he cant add velocity and force vectors.”
F = ma
a = dv/dt
F = m.dv/dt
And….??
And yet, we are still not SUMMING velocity and acceleration vectors.
Pretty basic stuff you guys.
If you don’t understand this, then understanding anything more complicated becomes impossible.
If Nate keeps twisting, spinning, and distorting, he might accidentally get something right.
But, he wouldn’t know it.
That’s why he’s so funny.
‘If Nate keeps twisting, spinning, and distorting, he might accidentally get something right.’
Ad-hom-noise with no answers…goes right in the JUNK folder.
Not ad-hom, Nate. You twist, spin, and distort. That’s your reality. Live with it.
For example, you said my comment went to your “junk folder”. If that were true, you would not have responded. But, you did.
You twist, spin, and distort.
Nothing new.
Gordon makes up his own brand of physics and tries in vain to add force and velocity vectors, much like his made-up wrong definition of curvilinear translation.
Poor “Stupid” cannot understand Gordon’s hint.
Nothing new.
nate…”And yet, we are still not SUMMING velocity and acceleration vectors.”
Because the math is far too convoluted to do it here. For one, I am so rusty I’d have to bone up for a week.
But why are you making such a big deal about it? The only important factors are force and mass, the rest is about the position of the mass and what is going on in that instant.
Velocity describes the rate of change of position and acceleration the rate of change of velocity. Both are about the rate at which the position of a mass is changing. If the mass is changing at a constant rate with a constant velocity, it has momentum. If the rate of position change is changing it has acceleration, which requires a force.
I don’t see why you cannot sum a velocity and an acceleration since they are related by time. The math used to do that in vector calculus is not trivial, however. Rather than having two constant velocities you’d have to consider the acceleration component as a series of instant.
That’s presuming the law of gravitation applies to a mass like the Moon with its own large momentum. Something has to happen, however, to prevent the Moon spiraling into the Earth.
I don’t understand why you cannot look at the problem as a mass with a momentum strong enough to overcome an acceleration due to gravity while producing a resultant path called an orbit.
The point is that gravity is trying to accelerate the mass which has a velocity component directed toward the planet. Normally, that velocity component would change as the mass accelerated due to gravity but with the Moon’s momentum offsetting it, there must be a constant radial velocity component created.
Gordon, I dont why you say such gibberish. Its not helping your cause.
Look, those who regularly use physics understand how gravity bends the path of an object into an orbit, as Newtons cannon illustrates.
But the force of gravity on a sphere is acting thru the spheres center. It pulls the sphere’s center of mass into an orbit.
But because gravity is acting on the center, it does not change the spheres orientation.
“But because gravity is acting on the center, it does not change the spheres orientation.”
Because gravity is acting on the center, it cannot cause the sphere to rotate on its own axis. The combination of gravity and the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line causes the sphere to rotate about the center point. Pure rotation, just like in Figure 2(b), from earlier. The cannon is the source for the “torque” for this rotation about the center point. Overall, the cannonball moves like the sphere is tethered to the center point. And, once again, because gravity is acting on the center of the sphere, it cannot cause the sphere to rotate on its own axis as this movement occurs. So it doesn’t. It remains moving like the sphere was tethered to the center point. The cannonball is not rotating on its own axis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque#/media/File%3ATorque_animation.gif
Awful lot of assertions without evidence here:
“The cannon is the source for the torque for this rotation about the center point.”
Doesnt really make sense. Cannon is just propelling the ball forward. No torque.
“Overall, the cannonball moves like the sphere is tethered to the center”
No, why? More argument by assertion. Gravity is not like a tether.
“Doesnt really make sense. Cannon is just propelling the ball forward. No torque.”
Of course it makes sense. The cannon provides a force perpendicular to the force of gravity, so it results in a turning of the ball about the center point. I’ve noticed that when you don’t want to understand something, you just proclaim it “makes no sense”, in order to dismiss it. Or just call it an “argument by assertion”. Anything but accept that you’re wrong.
FYI, for anyone willing to learn, the rotating camera debacle is illustrative of what a rotating reference frame is, and does.
If we look at the arrow of figure 1 from a frame of reference rotating with the arrow, then in this frame, the arrow does not rotate.
When you guys claim that the arrow of figure 1 has no spin, that is true, but only in a particular rotating reference frame.
In the inertial reference frame, one not rotating wrt the stars, the arrow of fig 1 is of course rotating, and the arrow of fig 2 is not.
If you guys prefer to live in a rotating reference frame, OK, thats up to you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354797
It’s the same with the GOES-16 imager. From it’s frame of reference the Earth does not rotate. This is what happens when you pick an arbitrary reference frame that is not fixed to the axis that goes through the center of mass of the body in question; you draw incorrect conclusions. I’m fairly sure that even JD would agree that the Earth is rotating.
bdgwx continues with his confusion:
“It’s the same with the GOES-16 imager. From it’s [sic] frame of reference the Earth does not rotate.”
The Earth does not APPEAR to be rotating because the GOES-16 is in geosynchronous orbit.
“This is what happens when you pick an arbitrary reference frame that is not fixed to the axis that goes through the center of mass of the body in question; you draw incorrect conclusions.”
Exactly! That’s why you are wrong about the Moon. You pick the stars as your reference frame, when the reference frame is “its own axis”.
“I’m fairly sure that even JD would agree that the Earth is rotating.”
The Earth has both motions. It is orbiting, and rotating on its axis. I’m fairly sure you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
JD,
Yep. A 35785 km orbital radius with an angular velocity of 7.29e-5 rad/s about an orbiters center of mass makes for a special observational vantage point.
We aren’t picking the stars as the reference frame. We are picking a reference frame fixed at the axis that goes through the center of mass of the Moon. We are allowing it translate while also ensuring that it is rotationally inertial from the perspective the fixed stars. That is how rotation is defined for astronomical bodies. And it’s done that way so that angular momentum calculations can be conserved throughout the solar system and its constituent bodies and so that “rotation” has preferential context relative to the most important star, the Sun, and in how we define day/night cycles and other properties of astronomical bodies.
If you want to use a different reference frame or a different definition for rotation that’s fine. But, may I recommend we use different terminology for the effect your are describing. Perhaps we can use phrases like “no apparent spin” when discussing what the Moon looks like from the perspective of the Earth or what the Earth looks like from the perspective of the GOES-16 satellite. This way there is no confusion between the established meaning of rotation and what you are intending for it to mean.
Some questions for you to ponder…What would it look like if the rotation of the Earth slowed from 7.29e-5 rad/s to 1.99e-7 rad/s? What about 1.00e-7 rad/s? How long is the day/night cycle for each of these rotation rates?
bdgwx, it appears you can find info on the Internet. But, you are unable to understand what you find.
Nothing new.
A simple racehorse wrecks your pseudoscience.
Some questions for you to ponder…What would the racehorse look like if it slowed to half its speed? What about a quarter of its speed? What if the racehorse were running at night?
bdgwx probably won’t return to answer my questions. He’s too busy arguing with himself.
He’s not using the stars:
“We aren’t picking the stars as the reference frame.”
But, he’s using the stars:
“We are allowing it translate while also ensuring that it is rotationally inertial from the perspective the fixed stars.”
And, as he’s demonstrated several times, he doesn’t have a clue about angular momentum, let alone the conservation thereof. But, we tag him with that, if he ever returns.
Nothing new.
JD said…”What would the racehorse look like if it slowed to half its speed?”
Since horses cannot run sideways or backwards we should use a more realistic analog. Let’s do a carousel on wheels. I think we can agree that your questions can be answered more realistically with a more realistic scenario.
1/2 translation speed: The carousel will rotate 2x for every 1x around the track.
1/2 rotational speed: The carousel will rotate 1x for every 2x around the track.
JD said…”What about a quarter of its speed?”
1/4 translation speed: The carousel will rotate 4x for every 1x around the track.
1/4 rotational speed: The carousel will rotate 1x for every 4x around the track.
JD said…”What if the racehorse were running at night?”
I hadn’t realized your questions were asked in good faith mainly because of this question. What relevance does this have to the racehorse or the carousel?
bdgwx, I knew you were uninformed about physics. But, I didn’t know how really clueless you are.
Racehorses don’t rotate as they run. Nor do carousel horses rotate on their axes.
You really need to get out of that basement occasionally.
“Nor do carousel horses rotate on their axes.”
Even if the “carousel horses” were nothing more than a chalk circle drawn on the floor at the edge of the rotating platform, they would still argue that the atoms comprising the piece of the platform within the chalk circle are rotating about an “axis” in the center of the chalk circle.
They have actually argued that before.
☺️
bdg…”We arent picking the stars as the reference frame. We are picking a reference frame fixed at the axis that goes through the center of mass of the Moon”.
It doesn’t matter which reference frame you select, it does not affect the fact that a point on the Moon’s face is not rotating about its axis. The idea that it does rotate is an illusion. If you look at the orbit closely it becomes plain that no local rotation is happening.
JD offers more pearls of wisdom.
‘
You pick the stars as your reference frame, when the reference frame is ‘its own axis’
How does an axis, which is simply a line, define a reference frame for 3D space?
And where is the ‘axis’ of the Moon anyway, if its not spinning?
bdg…”We are allowing it translate while also ensuring that it is rotationally inertial from the perspective the fixed stars. That is how rotation is defined for astronomical bodies”
Huh??!!!!
Local rotation for an astronomical body is based on a point on its circumference rotating about it’s axis. There is no other form of local rotation.
What you are doing from your perch on high in the stars is mistaking an apparent rotation for a real rotation. A vector drawn from the Moon’s centre to the face opposite the Earth never rotates about its axis. That’s because the axis is orbiting the Earth in a larger diameter circle than the face opposite the Earth.
Points in concentric circles don’t cross. How is the near face supposed to rotate around the centre in that case?
bdg…”We are picking a reference frame fixed at the axis that goes through the center of mass of the Moon”.
OK. So you’re sitting on top of the Moon right on it’s axis. You are looking at the Earth’s North Pole with the near face of the Moon between you and the Earth.
As you ride the Moon around the Earth, the near face is always between you and the Earth, straight down a vertical plane that slices through the Earth’s axis and the Moon’s axis.
Pray tell, at which point does the near face rotate around you in a circle?
GR said…”It doesnt matter which reference frame you select, it does not affect the fact that a point on the Moons face is not rotating about its axis. The idea that it does rotate is an illusion. If you look at the orbit closely it becomes plain that no local rotation is happening.”
Then why do the stars change positions when observed from the Moon? Why does the Moon have a day/night cycle just like the Earth?
GR said…”What you are doing from your perch on high in the stars is mistaking an apparent rotation for a real rotation. A vector drawn from the Moons centre to the face opposite the Earth never rotates about its axis. Thats because the axis is orbiting the Earth in a larger diameter circle than the face opposite the Earth.”
That vector you describe only appears to not rotate because you’ve decided to pick a coordinate system that is rotating. Rotating coordinate systems are not inertial. A non-rotating or inertial reference would keep the stars locked onto the same X/Y values. As an alternative to the stars you could also use the cosmic microwave background as an even better inertial reference frame though you’d have to compensate for the dipole anisotropy which makes it mathematically tougher to deal with than just using the fixed stars.
GR said…”As you ride the Moon around the Earth, the near face is always between you and the Earth, straight down a vertical plane that slices through the Earths axis and the Moons axis.”
Why are you picking a rotating reference frame? Ponder this…the imager on the GOES-16 always points to the same face of Earth. That means the same face of Earth always points at the GOES-16 satellite. Do we conclude from this that the Earth is not rotating? Of course not. You can’t pick a rotating or non-inertial reference frame to make determinations regarding rotation. The Earth is locked onto the GOES-16 satellite because the Earth is rotating at 7.29e-5 rad/s which is the same as the GOES-16 satellite.
Simply ineducable.
All their spinning, twisting, conniving, scrambling, and perverting fails due to a simple racehorse.
Nothing new.
bdgwx says: “Figure 1 is an orbit with rotational angular momentum.”
Wrong. Figure 1 is orbital motion, with NO angular momentum about the arrow’s center of mass.
bdgwx says: “Figure 2 is an orbit without rotational angular momentum.”
Wrong. Figure 2 is two motions, orbital and rotating on it axis. Consequently there are two angular momentums.
bdgwx doesn’t have a clue about orbital motion, axial rotation, or angular momentum. But, he believes he does.
Nothing new.
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
They have to pretend they can’t understand (or somehow be stupid, or closed-minded enough to refuse to understand) this explanation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-354748
Which ends with:
“As I have pointed out in the past, if a person has a ball on a rope and spins the rope about his/her head, the ball will perform a similar motion to the Moon. With the rope attached to the ball it is impossible for the ball to rotate about its own axis yet over its orbit it turns through 360 degrees.”
They have to claim they can’t relate that simple description to the animations shown here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Whilst some even claim that the motion shown there, with all that in mind, could be as in Fig. 2 here, rather than Fig. 1!
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Unbelievable!
☺️
“They have to pretend they cant understand (or somehow be stupid, or closed-minded enough to refuse to understand) this explanation:”
Yep, I admit it.
I don’t see any compelling argument from you guys that I should unlearn real physics and replace it with fake-physics that gives nutty answers.
Guess I’m just stubborn that way.
“They have to claim they cant relate that simple description to the animations shown here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Whilst some even claim that the motion shown there, with all that in mind, could be as in Fig. 2 here, rather than Fig. 1!”
You are seeing ‘something’, a vision perhaps, that no one else can see, that tells you that the little green ball is moving like figure 1?!
Now you’re just gas-lighting us, right?!
An honest Q & A:
Q1) Is the motion of a ball on a rope swung about a central point represented by Figure 1, or Figure 2?
A1) Obviously Figure 1.
Q2) Is it perfectly clear that this motion is captured by the animations, and that Newton’s Cannonball is moving as per Figure 1?
A2) Of course. They have even drawn in for you the “string” (gravity), and the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. It couldn’t be more obvious.
Q3) So could Newton’s Cannonball be moving as per Figure 2?
A3) Of course not!
“They have even drawn in for you the string (gravity), and the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. It couldnt be more obvious.
Gravity is not attached to a point on an object like a string is.
Thus planets can rotate freely whilst orbiting the sun!
“Q3) So could Newtons Cannonball be moving as per Figure 2?
A3) Of course not!”
What more proof that DREMT is delusional does anyone need?
Yes, Nate, planets, and moons, can rotate freely, if they have at some point got the required torque to do so.
DREMT,
Everything in the universe is spinning and turning with no strings attached and little friction.
So on the contrary, planets and moons continue to rotate freely, unless and until a torque slows them down!
I’m not arguing that planets and moons can’t rotate on their own axes. So bash a different strawman.
Rotation about a different axis is still rotation, not a strawman.
Huh?
DREMT said…”Im not arguing that planets and moons cant rotate on their own axes. So bash a different strawman.”
But you (and JD) are arguing that the Moon does not rotate on its own axis. That’s what we and the rest of science take issue with.
Why does the Moon experience a day/night cycle?
Why do the stars change position from the vantage point of the Moon?
bdgwx, you have shown no improvement in understanding our position over hundreds of comments. I mean it. Literally no improvement. At least other people get somewhere. No offence, but I have no interest in wasting my time on a mind as inflexible as yours.
bdgwx knows nothing about orbiting: “Why does the Moon experience a day/night cycle??
He must have some phobia about racehorses.
Top 5 clues that Gordon’s ‘simple explanation’ should not be taken seriously:
#1 “All you need here is the radial line rotating with an angular velocity and the Moon moving along a path perpendicular (tangential to the orbital curve) to that radial line. Since the radial line goes straight through the Moon, which is a rigid body, and the line is turning with an angular velocity…”
“The Moon turns through the orbit due to gravitational force, not its own angular velocity. It is gradually nudged bit by bit until it turns a full 360 degrees per orbit. ”
The second paragraph CONTRADICTS the first! And anyway, gravitational force acts thru the Moon’s center, it cannot be applying a torque and thus CANNOT TURN the Moon.
#2 “IMHO, thats where Einstein went wrong with special relativity.”
Right..
#3 Einstein “considered accelerations without the forces and ended up thoroughly confused about the relationship of time to forces and masses”
ditto
#4. “you end up introducing red-herring arguments about reference frames, which have no application here.”
Uhhhh…to describe motion, you need a reference frame. Sorry
you just do.
#5 “The orbit is the resultant between the acceleration due to the force and the relatively constant velocity component of the linear momentum.”
A RESULTANT is a sum of vectors. Acceleration is derivative of velocity. They cannot be simply summed. They are part of a differential equation that must be SOLVED.
“The second paragraph CONTRADICTS the first! And anyway, gravitational force acts thru the Moon’s center, it cannot be applying a torque and thus CANNOT TURN the Moon.”
That’s right. It cannot turn the moon on its axis, and the moon isn’t rotating on its axis. The gravitational force acts through the cannonball’s center, and down to that central point within the Earth. Gravity acts like the string. The cannonball is shot, horizontally. That’s the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. The result of the two things is like a ball on a string being swung around. That moves like Figure 1, and is clearly shown in the animations. Why is this so hard for you to understand!?
“Thats right. It cannot turn the moon on its axis, and the moon isnt rotating on its axis.”
Getting there…
Nor can it TURN the moon about any other axis, unless it applies torque.
Gravity acting only radially thru the CM, is applying no torque.*
Rotation is rotation wrt the stars, regardless of axis. Fig 2b!
If the Moon was initially NOT rotating wrt the stars, IOW, moving like fig 2, then gravity, cannot make it rotate.
It will continue to move like fig 2.
* If the Moon is slightly egg shaped, and the CM is not lying on a radial line, then gravity can exert a tiny torque. Acting over millions of years, this small torque can slow the Moons rotation, causing tidal locking.
Nate just refuses to understand.
A ball on a string is attached, at the other end of the string, to a central post. You fire the ball, as per Newton’s Cannonball. Do you accept that the resulting motion of the ball is as per Figure 1?
Do you acknowledge the existence of the game “tetherball”? Or are you a “tetherball” denier?
‘Gravity acts like the string. The cannonball is shot, horizontally. Thats the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. The result of the two things is like a ball on a string being swung around.’
Gravity is not acting like a string. Gravity is acting on the CM of the projectile in Newton’s cannon. It leaves the rotation or non-rotation of the projectile alone.
As seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DzgPB9646k
“Gravity is acting on the CM of the projectile in Newton’s cannon.”
Yes. Let’s put back in those all important sentences you pathetically left out:
“The gravitational force acts through the cannonball’s center, and down to that central point within the Earth.Gravity acts like the string. The cannonball is shot, horizontally. That’s the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. The result of the two things is like a ball on a string being swung around. That moves like Figure 1, and is clearly shown in the animations. Why is this so hard for you to understand!?”
‘Gravity acts like the string.’
You keep repeating this. I keep showing you that it doesnt. Why is this so hard for you to understand!?
The difference between the way a string acts and the way gravity acts is that a string is attached to a point, and doesnt LET the object rotate freely.
While gravity acts thru the CM, while allowing the mass to rotate freely, as in the video.
Gravity, acting on a body in space, appears as if the body is tethered. It’s the same motion as seen in Figure 1:
https://postimg.cc/m1hZW1CZ
Lol, OK:
“The gravitational force acts through the cannonball’s center, and down to that central point within the Earth. The cannonball is shot, horizontally. That’s the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. The result of the two things is like a ball on a string being swung around. That moves like Figure 1, and is clearly shown in the animations. Why is this so hard for you to understand!?”
‘The gravitational force acts through the cannonballs center, and down to that central point within the Earth.’
Yes I read that, DREMT, twice. Thats fine, but beside the point.
I noticed you didnt quote everything I wrote either. I am not gonna be insulted by that.
The video is pretty clear, DREMT.
Attach a string to the handle of the tennis racket. Would it move the way it does?
Of course not.
😂
Nate simply will not understand! He looks at an analogy, and takes everything literally. He acts like I am literally saying that there is a string attached. Like I’m not aware that the object could rotate freely, if (and it’s a huge if), if there were the torque to make that happen, which there isn’t, in the Newton’s Cannonball thought experiment.
Have your last words, again. It is utterly pointless talking to you (unless it helps others understand).
‘Like Im not aware that the object could rotate freely,’
If you truly understand that, then why keep coming back to the string, which doesnt allow free rotation?
The behavior of a ball on a string, like a tether ball, is that it always keeps the same face toward the center.
This is ONLY DUE to the attached string, which doesnt allow the ball to freely point where it wants.
‘He looks at an analogy, and takes everything literally.’
The analogy is misleading you.
With no string, the tennis racket spins the way it was spinning at the start.
And the cannonball points the way it was pointing at the start.
“The cannonball is shot, horizontally. That’s the momentum that is trying to move the object in a straight line. The result of the two things is like a ball on a string being swung around.”
Did the tennis racket move like it was being swung around on a string? No, it rotated on its CM as it fell towards Earth. Gravity had no effect on the rotation.
The same would be true of the cannon ball. Newton even said so:
“While the planets are thus revolved in orbits about remote centres, in the mean time they make their several rotations about their proper axes; the sun in 26 days; Jupiter in 9h. 56′; Mars in 24 2/3 h.; Venus in 23h.; and that in planes not much inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, and according to the order of the signs, as astronomers determine from the spots or maculae that by turns present themselves to our sight in their bodies; and there is a like revolution of our earth performed in 24h.; and those motions are neither accelerated nor retarded by the actions of the centripetal forces, as appears by Cor. XXII, Prop. LXVI.”
OK, one more try…
“If you truly understand that, then why keep coming back to the string, which doesnt allow free rotation?”
Because there’s no torque to enable the “free rotation” to actually take place. So it is like the string is there, not allowing free rotation. It is like the string is there, not allowing the ball to rotate on its own axis, because there is no torque to make the ball rotate on its own axis.
“Because there’s no torque to enable the ‘free rotation’ to actually take place….there is no torque to make the ball rotate on its own axis.”
In that case the cannonball stays oriented as it came out of the cannon based on the fixed stars.
Here’s a video on keeping satellites aimed at the ground and how it doesn’t just happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WsuNSuIhG0
Keeping an object oriented based on the “fixed stars” doesn’t just “happen” either, Craig, but Newton’s Cannonball is a hypothetical scenario only. You’ve already missed the point, so don’t even bother.
Craig T is over his head again. He doesn’t know the difference between orbiting in Earth’s atmosphere versus orbiting in free space.
And, he can’t learn.
Nothing new.
DREMT,
“Because theres no torque to enable the ‘free rotation’ to actually take place.”
Once an object has rotation, it doesnt need a torque to enable it, it just continues unless friction stops it.
The tennis racket has rotation, the fired cannon ball does not.
Either way gravity has little effect on it, and they just keep doing what they are doing.
“So it is like the string is there, not allowing free rotation.”
But it IS allowed. We see it happening everywhere!
The tennis racket is rotating on its own axis (center of mass). The Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
“Once an object has rotation, it doesnt need a torque to enable it, it just continues unless friction stops it.”
Yes, Nate. The cannonball doesn’t have rotation about its axis when fired, though, does it? And, with no torque, it doesn’t start rotating on its axis after it’s been fired.
“Doesnt have rotation about its axis when fired, though, does it? And, with no torque, it doesnt start rotating on its axis after its been fired.”
Correct.
Nor does it have added rotation about the Earths center, other than the Earths own 24 h rotation, when it is fired.
So with no torque, it doesnt start rotating about the center either.
“… but Newtons Cannonball is a hypothetical scenario only.”
It was a thought exercise that explains the laws of orbital motion until DREMT and JD made it a tetherball. Now it’s a monument to their unwillingness to listen to astronomers or anyone else with actual knowledge of a topic.
Wrap it around the North Pole enough times and you boys win!
Well, if Newton had used an arrow instead of the cannonball, you wouldn’t be able to avoid the obvious. Never mind.
“Nor does it have added rotation about the Earths center, other than the Earths own 24 h rotation, when it is fired.
So with no torque, it doesn’t start rotating about the center either.”
It’s being fired perpendicularly to the force of gravity acting on the ball, so of course there is the torque to make it rotate about the Earth’s center.
Without any knowledge of orbital mechanics, or the ability to think for themselves, the clowns remain confused. They still cling to the false believe that an orbiting object is also rotating on its axis. That’s why they mistakenly believe a racehorse is rotating on its axis. They just can’t accept reality.
A spherical planet causes a circular orbit. The resultant vectors turn the orbiting object so that it always faces its direction of motion. That’s why the racehorse is a good model of orbiting. The horse always faces its direction of motion.
Figure 3 indicates how the orbiting arrow would appear, at various points around the planet. Figure 4 indicates how it would appear if it were BOTH orbiting and rotating on its axis.
https://postimg.cc/2V0dYHYX
No. You cant have it both ways.
How is rotation even defined? It means partcles in the object have different velocities, as in fig 2b.
The fired cannonball does not have that, because no torque has been applied to it.
It does have velocity, and mvr, orbital angular momentum, as we discussed.
The Earth obtained equal and opposite angular momentum.
Fig3 and 4. We’ve already seen the rotating camera trick, JD. It can even make the Earth stop spinning, so it is still a fraud.
“A spherical planet causes a circular orbit”??
Really?? Guess Kepler and Newton didnt have your ‘knowledge of orbital mechanics’ either!
Not a trick, Nate. That’s how the arrow would appear. You just can’t stand reality.
If you really understood Newton’s discoveries, you would understand gravity, and how the resultant vector affects an orbiting body.
But, you can’t understand.
Nothing new.