Abstract: A simple time-dependent model of Earth surface temperatures over the 24 hr day/night cycle at different latitudes is presented. The model reaches energy equilibrium after 1.5 months no matter what temperature it is initialized at. It is shown that even with 1,370 W/m2 of solar flux (reduced by an assumed albedo of 0.3), temperatures at all latitudes remain very cold, even in the afternoon and in the deep tropics. Variation of the model input parameters over reasonable ranges do not change this fact. This demonstrates the importance of the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect, which increases surface temperatures well above what can be achieved with only solar heating and surface infrared loss to outer space.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post regarding why climate scientists use ~340 W/m2 as the global average solar flux available to the climate system, here I present a model which includes how the incident solar flux (starting with the 1,370 W/m2 solar constant) varies across the Earth as a function of latitude and every 15 minutes throughout the diurnal (day/night) cycle.
I am providing this model to avoid any objections regarding how much solar energy is input into the climate system on average, how that averaging should be done (or whether it is even physically meaningful), whether the nighttime lack of any solar flux should be excluded from the averaging, whether certain assumptions constitute a “flat-Earth” mentality, etc. Instead, the model uses the actual variations of the incident solar radiation on the (assumed spherical) Earth as a function of latitude and time of day. For simplicity, equinox conditions are assumed and so there is no seasonal cycle.
This is not meant to be a realistic model of regional climate; instead, it goes beyond the global averages in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram and shows how unrealistically cold temperatures are when you assume there is no greenhouse effect — even in the deep tropics during the afternoon. The model “evolves” the final temperatures, from any starting temperature you specify, based upon a simple energy budget equation (energy conservation) combined with an assumed surface heat capacity. Imbalances between absorbed solar energy and emitted IR energy cause a temperature change which eventually stops (in a long-term average sense) when the daily rate of emitted IR energy equals the daily absorbed solar energy.
The time-dependent model has adjustable inputs: the solar constant (1,370 W/m2); an albedo (for simplicity assumed 0.3 everywhere); the depth of the surface layer responding to solar heating (using the heat capacity of water, but soil heat capacity is similar); and, the assumed broadband infrared emissivity of the surface controlling how fast energy is lost to space as the surface warms. I set the time step to 15 minutes to resolve the diurnal cycle. The Excel model is here, and you are free to change the input parameters and see the results.
Here’s how the incident solar flux changes with time-of-day and latitude. This should not be controversial, since it is just based upon geometry. Even though I only do model calculations at latitudes of 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, and 85 deg. (north and south), the global, 24-hr average incident solar flux is very close to simply 1,370 divided by 4, which is the ratio of the surface areas of a circle and a sphere having the same radius:
If I had done calculations for every 1 deg. of latitude, the model result would have been exceedingly close to 1,370/4.
If I assume the surface layer responding to heating is 0.1 m deep, a global albedo of 0.3, and a broadband IR emissivity of 0.98, and run the model for 46 days, the model reaches very nearly a steady-state energy equilibrium no matter what temperature I initialize it at (say, 100K or 300 K):
Note that even in the deep tropics, the average temperature is only 29 deg. F. At 45 deg. latitude, the temperature averages -11 deg. F. The diurnal temperature variations are very large, partly because the greenhouse effect in nature helps retain surface energy at night, keeping temperatures from falling too fast like it does in the model.
There is no realistic way to remove the very cold bias of the model without including an atmospheric greenhouse effect. If you object that convection has been ignored, that is a surface cooling (not warming) process, so including convection will only make matters worse. The lack of model heat transport out of the tropics, similarly, would only make the model tropical temperatures colder, not warmer, if it was included. The supposed warming caused by atmospheric pressure that some believe is an alternative theory to the GHE would cause (as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out) surface temperatures to rise, making the surface lose more energy to space than it gains from the sun, and there would no longer be energy balance, violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The temperature would simply go back down again to achieve energy balance (we wouldn’t want to violate the 1st Law).
I hope this will help convince some who are still open-minded on this subject that even intense tropical sunshine cannot explain real-world tropical temperatures. The atmospheric greenhouse effect must also be included. The temperature (of anything) is not determined by the rate of energy input (say, the intensity of sunlight, or how fast your car engine burns gas); it is the result of a balance between energy gain and energy loss. The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures then if it did not exist.
Would teh meridional heat transport not change the picture a little bit? Due to the strongly nonlinear t^4 dependence of bb radiation, slight tropical cooling due to heat export can account for a huge warming at the poles… but then again, without ghe heat transport would be very inefficient; still could make some difference.
Yes, it would change it a little bit…anything that reduces the temperature range (which meridional heat transport would do) will make the global average surface temperature a little warmer. On the moon, the very long diurnal cycle (29.5 days) causes extreme temperature variations between day and night, which reduces the average surface temperature of the moon.
Convection cools the surface but it warms the atmosphere. Energy is being transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. The three primary heat transfer mechanisms (cooling of the surface) are convection, evaporation and LWIR.
Dr. Spencer will be very glad that you informed him of that.
Someoone intelligent would understand this doesn’t prove a radiative Greenhouse effect.
Svante, by the way I was referring to you.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
But it doesn’t take into account the primary sources of atmospheric heating which are convection and evaporation.
Without GHGs Earth’s radiation balance must be settled at the surface. Given the solar input, that makes it a very cold place. With GHGs, that place is in the upper troposphere.
There’s a difference between science and speculation.
Which part of it is unclear?
Here’s a spectrum over the Niger Valley, taken from space.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif
Can you see that the integral is considerably less than the surface temperature (320K), because of GHGs.
Without GHGs the surface must produce a black body curve with the same area as before, that means a much lower temperature.
Can you see that?
But that doesn’t imply all the heat transfer is radiant. It doesn’t even imply that most of the heat transfer is radiant.
Also, it isn’t correct to say without GHGs. The correct statement would be without some process or processes warming the atmosphere.
Stephen P Anderson says:
All heat transfer to space is radiant, and in the long run it must be equal to the abzorbed solar radiation. If Earth runs a surplus it must warm until there is balance again.
For balance, the radiation must come from a very cold place,
and if the atmosphere does not radiate that cold place must be the surface.
The atmosphere is a dead end without GHGs, what goes up must come down, and what must rise must fall.
–The atmosphere is a dead end without GHGs, what goes up must come down, and what must rise must fall.–
When it falls there is less warming needed to warm to same temperature as when it rose and then falls.
Or same amount heating as first day, warms to higher temperature the next day.
And the falling make night less cold as compared to having nothing falling.
So increases daytime high temp and night time low temperature- or global warming as it is measured.
Also the cooling of the surface due to convective loss, makes the surface radiant less energy into space.
Convection will even out differences and raise the average by reducing the T^4 loss, as Dr. Spencer explained elsewhere.
Still, the surface must emit the same power to space.
I didn’t say to space. Stop trying to change my argument. I said from the surface to the atmosphere-to the troposphere. The Earth’s gravity doesn’t allow convection or evaporation into space. But, from the surface to the troposphere convection and evaporation are taking place.
You don’t understand, the surface must radiate the same regardless of what your non GHG atmosphere does.
That means it must be cold.
You’re the one who doesn’t understand. That static model doesn’t describe our planet. It is a dynamic process. There is no thermal equilibrium. Energy comes to the planet from the Sun and the Earth cools by emitting energy. There is a thermal gradient from the surface to the upper atmosphere where energy is emitted into space by LWIR. The lower atmosphere acts as a heat engine with the surface being the source and the upper atmosphere being the sink. The lower atmosphere cools at night and then warms during the day when more convection, conduction, evaporation take place. This sets up a circulation pattern. It is mostly convection that sets the temperature of the lower atmosphere not down welling LWIR and not CO2.
Stephen P Anderson says:
“There is a thermal gradient from the surface to the upper atmosphere where energy is emitted into space by LWIR.”
You forgot the topic here, we are discussing a world with no GHGs, in which case there is no LWIR from the atmosphere.
Take section of tropical ocean.
The warmest the surface gets is 35 C
Now cover ocean with black plastic.
Now ocean surface [the black plastic] can warm to 70 C.
And having ocean with higher temperature will cause global cooling.
70 C surface will radiate more energy into space- 35 C radiate less energy into space as 70 C surface will.
Though average tropical ocean is 26 C and rarely reaches 35 C or 35 C ocean radiate more than 30 C.
Anyhow one is only going to have the 70 C for a few hour of sunlight and might average of 60 C for 6 hours of day.
But another factor is the 70 to 60 C surface will not transfer much heat to atmosphere. And the surface will absorb much energy. You going to warm up a thin sheet of plastic and thin layer of surface water. And if black plastic is dry, then the surface which 60 C will only warm the air to about 30 C.
Whereas 30 C water warms air to 30 C.
And of course surface air temperature is what you measure for global air temperature. So it’s not even going to increase day time high temperature But it will lose more energy to space.
So doesn’t heat up air during day and lacks a huge of heat absorbed to warm the night. And when starts the next day, it starts out with colder air which can’t warm up as much as yesterday’s warmer air.
So, putting a significant amount of black plastic on the tropics causes global cooling. The larger the area, the more severe the global cooling.
Though also you reducing the amount of water vapor, or reducing amount of greenhouse gas.
And I think it’s likely greenhouse can cause some warming but it’s small amount and has not been measured yet.
If was a lot, we are not that incompetent that we could not measure it.
Whatever you do on the surface, it will emit the same power to space by adjusting its temperature.
WV is a GHG, it obscures the surface and radiates from aloft where it is colder. Output to space can be the same but the surface can be warmer.
I gave you a spectrum measurement up-thread, and Dr. Spencer just gave you a ball park calculation at the top of the page.
The effect is significant.
It doesn’t imply the mechanism is correct. The AGW mechanism is that greenhouse gases absorb and emit LWIR and increases and controls the surface temperature. This mechanism is wrong. Of course water vapor increases atmospheric temperature-just not the way put forth.
There is no equlibrium average climate state. It is a simplistic mathematical construct that doesn’t describe our planet-maybe your utopia somewhere.
What other mechanism do you propose for keeping our long term average surface temperature above freezing, other than preventing its LWIR from going straight to space?
Note, it doesn’t matter how you get the heat to the TOA (convection, latent heat, radiation).
The Earth’s radiation balance is determined by the TOA temperature.
For equilibrium, it has to be freezing.
The Earth’s radiation balance is determined by the TOA temperature.
For equilibrium, it has to be freezing.
Absolutely irrelevant. Also, it is always freezing somewhere all of the time. Thanks for making my point.
It’s not freezing on average, but you can go back to lala-land now, I’m sorry Dr Spencer disturbed you with his physics.
–Svante says:
June 11, 2019 at 11:17 PM
Whatever you do on the surface, it will emit the same power to space by adjusting its temperature.–
Let’s keep it simple. Urban heat island effect is something done on the surface.
Urban heat island effect increases temperature.
The whole point of bringing up a conduction example was to answer your statement:
“Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a ‘steady state’, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!’
which seemed to be a very general statement about heat flow, not specific to radiation.
Interior wall and exterior walls of a house. Sorry, but those are objects, separated by wood and drywall and air and insulation that the heat must conduct through. So what?
The point I was making was that the heat flow and the temperatures can reach a steady state, and this is a familiar example of that.
Same goes for radiation between two objects. They can reach a steady state of heat flow and temperatures, as the equation from my cite clearly shows.
The thing that you don’t seem to get is that heat flow is driven by temperature differences, whatever the mechanism: convection, radiation, conduction.
That is one of the basic principles of heat transfer.
Arrgh wrong thread…
OK, stalker.
“You forgot the topic here, we are discussing a world with no GHGs, in which case there is no LWIR from the atmosphere.”
And apparently you don’t understand his point. Because the non-greenhouse atmosphere still has a way to warm (as before, through convection aided by latent heats), but if you pretend that radiation absorbtion/emission does not exist anymore, it has a very inefficient mechanism for cooling.
Svante’s busted again.
Adrian Roman,
It doesn’t matter if your non-GHG atmosphere is hot or cold, the surface must emit the same power to space anyway, which is the same as the abzorbed solar radiation.
Since the surface radiates according to its temperature, that means it has to be cold, just like Dr Spencer’s calculation shows at the top of this page.
Svante’s gone into one of his infamous loops on some semantic issue.
No I gave up, they don’t get it.
Do you also think Roy Spencer is wrong in his top post?
Question?
Aha, you didn’t read it.
He shows how “unrealistically cold temperatures are when you assume there is no greenhouse effect — even in the deep tropics during the afternoon.”
Do you agree?
I just asked you a question, Svante. Aren’t you going to answer it?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says Dr Roy is wrong, great.
Why don’t you tell him to stop trolling?
So you couldn’t answer my question. That means you didn’t read the article, you didn’t read any of the comments, you disagree with Dr Spencer, you think he should stop trolling, and it means I have “won” this interaction.
That’s the “law of questions asked on a blog”. Sorry. That’s just the way it is.
Yes you win, because you said “Question?”.
‘So you couldnt answer my question. That means you didnt read the article, you didnt read any of the comments, you disagree with Dr Spencer, you think he should stop trolling, and it means I have ‘won’ this interaction.’
Ha, Ha ha!
I’ll have to start counting the times DREMT couldnt answer my questions…so many!
They still can’t answer the question. Typical.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358414
Still waiting to hear what your mystery energy is, DREMT. It is not found anywhere in physics.
Neither you nor JD have an answer. In that case it actually does mean you have lost the argument.
Thats the way science questions are decided. Sorry. Thats just the way it is.
Nate, did you understand what he was on about here?
Nate goes into a loop on some semantic issue, and Svante’s busted yet again.
In your dreams.
‘some semantic issue’
No, DREMT, not a semantic issue. You created a mystery energy that flows between objects in equilibrium, that is not heat nor work.
That is a 1LOT violation.
And it leads you to wrong answers.
I challenged this claim. I ask you to explain this mystery energy. You cannot. Neither can JD.
That means it is wrong. It is fake physics.
They still can’t answer the question!
Ditto!
Nate’s never aware of when he’s the butt of the joke. I think that’s what makes him so funny.
“No, DREMT, not a semantic issue. You created a mystery energy that flows between objects in equilibrium, that is not heat nor work.”
The only possible way to interpret this statement is that you think heat flows between objects…at equilibrium! As for the “mystery energy”, I’ll let Norman explain it to you:
“I have stated so many times that I guess I will have to do so again. HEAT will not flow when two objects reach the same temperature. Energy will still flow back and forth between the two. EMR does not stop emitting from a surface just because the surfaces are at the same temperature. It is really clear and simple physics.”
‘The only possible way to interpret this statement is that you think heat flows between objects…at equilibrium! As for the “mystery energy”, I’ll let Norman explain it to you:’
Nope, I was talking about YOUR claims about the mystery Energy not being HEAT. Nowhere saying heat flows in equilibrium.
As usual you are twisting peoples words and straight up lying.
I have already explained to you several times that no heat flows in equilibrium, and you know that. I have never said otherwise.
Norman: ‘I have stated so many times that I guess I will have to do so again. HEAT will not flow when two objects reach the same temperature. Energy will still flow back and forth between the two. EMR does not stop emitting from a surface just because the surfaces are at the same temperature. It is really clear and simple physics.’
Nope, someday you will have to find your own explanations.
Norman is saying what we always have been saying. EMR flows per SB law. BUT NO NET ENERGY flows between objects at the same temperature!
You and JD claim NET energy flows, which is wrong.
JD: “No heat, but there can be net energy flow, as in the three plates in full contact, or in the correct solution:”
When are you going to learn this very basic principle behind heat transfer?
“No, DREMT, not a semantic issue. You created a mystery energy that flows between objects in equilibrium, that is not heat nor work.”
Which clearly reads that you think heat energy flows at equilibrium. And that is exactly what you do think, only you call it “steady state”, not “equilibrium”.
Be honest about that, and a discussion can continue.
Lack that honesty, and we’re done.
DREMT says “heat energy flows”.
How hard can this be?
Heat is net energy.
Heat = EnergyIn – EnergyOut
If Svante’s going to “chip in”, we’re also done.
‘Be honest about that, and a discussion can continue.’
I have made it very clear what I believe.
You want to tell me I believe something else, just to troll and play games, not interested. Go troll your mom.
Equilibrium has a clear meaning, that by now, you should know very well. Q = 0, T’s are equal. Equilibrium is boring-nothing to solve!
Steady-state means Ts and Qs are steady, not equal.
That is the situation with the plates, which is a standard heat transfer problem.
No honesty, no discussion. Sorry.
You have no answers. You’re proven wrong. Nothing to discuss.
I agree there’s nothing to discuss, unless you are prepared to start being honest.
“Equilibrium has a clear meaning, that by now, you should know very well. Q = 0, T’s are equal. Equilibrium is boring-nothing to solve!”
Things you need to do, for a discussion to continue:
1) Relating to the quote above, admit that you answered my question 2, incorrectly, as gbaikie pointed out here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358315
2) Admit that you think heat is still flowing at equilibrium, “steady state”, or whatever you want to call it (with plates at 244 K…290 K…244 K, the result from the heat flow equation is not zero, so heat is flowing).
3) Apologize for falsely suggesting that I’m twisting your words, or lying.
Do these things, and with no further interruptions at any point from Svante, then a discussion can continue. Until they’re done, forget it.
DREMT, JD,
If you have the facts on your side, there would be no need for all these games, distractions, demands, sad attempts at point scoring.
You would simply have answers.
Clearly you don’t have answers. The facts are not on your side.
That’s that.
If you won’t be honest, then I guess yes, that’s that. Why bother talking to someone dishonest?
I need to be ‘honest’ about something I never said, never believed, but you believe I believe for some reason?!
You’re deeply weird, DREMT.
I’ve clearly described what you need to be honest about. You can’t even be honest about what you need to be honest about.
I already told you what I believe.
‘Equilibrium has a clear meaning, that by now, you should know very well. Q = 0, Ts are equal. Equilibrium is boring-nothing to solve!
Steady-state means Ts and Qs are steady, not equal.’
Steady state is the correct description of the GPE. It has steady heat flow thru the plates, and steady, but unequal temperatures.
You keep saying I believe ‘heat flows in equilibrium’ Nope. False. You know that is False. Therefore that is a lie. No apology needed!
Then you try to obfuscate by saying ‘equilibrium’ and ‘steady state’ mean the same thing.
Nope they don’t.
The idea that “steady state” means there can be a “steady heat flow” between the plates is dishonest in itself, and you cannot support it. Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a “steady state”, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!
OK DREMT, I will not “chip in”.
I have already explained why the surface must be cold in the absence of the GHE, so you can read it above if you didn’t get it, or you can read Dr Roy Spencer’s top post, it’s the same argument.
I think Nate is great so he can speak for me.
Nate isn’t speaking for you, Svante, he jumped in and completely changed the subject from what you were talking about. That you are not even aware of that is one of the reasons it’s best you don’t “chip in”.
That’s OK, I do not need to “chip in” because I repeated myself enough upthread, and Dr Roy Spencer says the same in his top post, so I can let Nate go on and explain how you can have a positive heat flow in one direction (e.g. with the sun) balanced by a heat loss in another (e.g. to space).
Remember to keep a clear distinction between energy and heat (net energy) flow though.
#2
Nate isn’t speaking for you, Svante, he jumped in and completely changed the subject from what you were talking about. That you are not even aware of that is one of the reasons it’s best you don’t “chip in”.
‘Steady-state means Ts and Qs are steady, not equal’
This speaks for itself, defining steady state.
It happens all the time.
Conduction of heat from inside your house at constant T1 to outside your house at constant T2, with a constant heat flux, Q, through the wall.
That is the Fourier’s law of conduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier's_law
There does not need to be steady state, Ts and Qs could be changing.
“Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a “steady state”, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!”
…and Nate has no such reference.
No honesty, no discussion.
I guess you cant read.
How is it that you could be unaware of the law of heat conduction all this time?
Nate fails to find a reference to support his idea of “steady state”, and so the condescension begins.
We’re done.
DREMT,
If you cannot see that the Fourier Law of heat conduction, that I linked to, is describing exactly that, steady-state heat flow, then you are just really really stupid, or trying very hard to remain ignorant.
Which is it?
I said, “show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a “steady state”, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future”.
Between objects, Nate. Via radiation. Not through objects, via conduction. The plates issue is about radiative heat transfer. Why on Earth would you bring up conduction? How deliberately misleading do you want to be?
This is your last chance. Admit that you can’t support your claims about “steady state”, re the plates, and go through the 1) to 3), or I’m off back down-thread, and you will have to obsessively stalk me wherever I comment and jump in to bait me into a discussion some other time.
‘show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a ‘steady state’.
There is no mention of ‘radiation only’, in your question, asshole.
But for radiation, we’ve shown you MANY TIMES the radiative heat transfer equation for steady-heat flux between objects at T1 and T2.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
Equation 19.3
‘Between OBJECTS’
‘Conduction of heat from inside your house at constant T1 to outside your house at constant T2, with a constant heat flux, Q, through the wall.’
Interior wall is an object at T1, exterior wall is an object at T2.
Yes Nate, I’m well aware of the heat flow equation. “Things you need to do, for a discussion to continue” point number 1), remember!?
And “asshole” again, seriously? Please become obsessed with somebody else.
‘Yes Nate, I’m well aware of the heat flow equation.’
OMG. You’re so full of BS!
Then you’re whole line of questioning makes absolutely no sense.
“Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a ‘steady state’, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!”
Nate, it’s not my fault that you don’t understand the heat flow equation.
“The idea that ‘steady state’ means there can be a ‘steady heat flow’ between the plates is dishonest in itself, and you cannot support it.”
shows that you had no idea what the Fourier Heat Conduction Law or the Radiative Heat Transfer equation are saying.
You have already demonstrated that you do not understand the radiative heat flow equation. Down-thread, I asked three questions about it. You got the second one wrong. gbaikie pointed out why:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358315
That’s why it was on my “Things you need to do, for a discussion to continue” point number 1), because it directly relates to this discussion.
You’re obviously not going to be honest, you’ve already wasted enough of my time, and I can’t be bothered to stick around to wait for whatever you’re going to cook up next.
“You have already demonstrated that you do not understand the radiative heat flow equation.”
False. And nice try at distracting from the fact that you were wrong about ‘steady state heat flow’, and about my ‘dishonesty’ was due to your confusion.
Your silly Q2, said view factor <1, not = 0. My answer was therefore valid.
Just stop playing games and pretending you understand heat transfer and 'splaining, when plainly you don't.
OK then, since apparently wherever I comment under this article you are going to appear, I may as well…
All people need to do to see that you’re wrong about everything you just said is to read through the above, and follow the links I provided to the previous discussion with gbaikie. Your answer to Q2 was incorrect.
You bring up conduction in a discussion about radiation, and even then, your link makes it clear that the “steady state conduction” is through an object, and not between objects. There is a whole section on it in the linked article entitled “steady state conduction” which makes that perfectly clear! Your description of the interior of a wall as one object and the exterior as a separate object is laughable.
On the radiative heat transfer equation, you are hopeless. You use it, and calculate a non-zero amount between two objects (which represents heat flow), but then you act like it’s going to stay like that. You just declare it’s at a “steady state”! No, the non-zero amount will spontaneously go to zero as heat flows from one object to the other.
Once again, I’m left wondering who it is you are trying to convince.
“You just declare it’s at a ‘steady state’! ”
Uhhhh…No. The GPE problem requires it, because there is steady supply of heat of 400 W/m^2!
“No, the non-zero amount will spontaneously go to zero as heat flows from one object to the other.”
Now THAT is a just a declaration. And a dumb one. It has no relevance to the GPE problem, nor the Earth.
Why would it do that if 400 W/m^2 are constantly input?
DREMT,
The whole point of bringing up a conduction example was to answer your statement:
Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a steady state, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!
which seemed to be a very general statement about heat flow, not specific to radiation.
Interior wall and exterior walls of a house. Sorry, but those are objects, separated by wood and drywall and air and insulation that the heat must conduct through. So what?
The point I was making was that the heat flow and the temperatures can reach a steady state, and this is a familiar example of that.
Same goes for radiation between two objects. They can reach a steady state of heat flow and temperatures, as the equation from my cite clearly shows.
The thing that you dont seem to get is that heat flow is driven by temperature differences, whatever the mechanism: convection, radiation, conduction.
That is one of the basic principles of heat transfer.
“The point I was making was that the heat flow and the temperatures can reach a steady state, and this is a familiar example of that.”
“You bring up conduction in a discussion about radiation, and even then, your link makes it clear that the “steady state conduction” is through an object, and not between objects. There is a whole section on it in the linked article entitled “steady state conduction” which makes that perfectly clear! Your description of the interior of a wall as one object and the exterior as a separate object is laughable.”
“Same goes for radiation between two objects. They can reach a steady state of heat flow and temperatures, as the equation from my cite clearly shows.”
Wrong, the equation shows no such thing.
“The thing that you dont seem to get is that heat flow is driven by temperature differences, whatever the mechanism: convection, radiation, conduction.”
There is nothing I have said that would lead you to conclude I don’t understand that.
““You just declare it’s at a ‘steady state’! ”
Uhhhh…No. The GPE problem requires it, because there is steady supply of heat of 400 W/m^2!”
Non-sequitur.
“Same goes for radiation between two objects. They can reach a steady state of heat flow and temperatures, as the equation from my cite clearly shows.
Wrong, the equation shows no such thing.”
The equation shows that with a constant heat flow (eg an input power to one plate is constant), the eqn requires a certain T1 and T2, that will be steady if the heat input is steady.
“The GPE problem requires it, because there is steady supply of heat of 400 W/m^2!”
“Non-sequitur.” ??!
Look have you solved heat flow problems for homework in a course or not??
If not, why do you make such declarations?
If 400 W/m^ are coming in to the system, from one side (or middle). That is called a ‘boundary condition’ on a heat flow problem.
The GPE problem has another boundary condition that the surroundings are at 3 K.
In that case, the system will ultimately reach a steady state condition, where 400 W/m^ is coming in and going out and the parts of the system will reach steady temperatures.
Thats what you get if you were to solve such a problem in a course!
This is no different from an incandescent light bulb. 100 W bulb, the filament reaches a steady temperature, then 100 W is flowing out as heat and light.
Or soldering iron. I have 60 W input soldering iron. It reaches a steady temp in a couple of minutes, then 60 W is flowing out as heat into the air.
In none of these cases do the objects reach equilibrium, because that means no heat flow in or out.
Look it up if you don’t believe me.
“In that case, the system will ultimately reach a steady state condition, where 400 W/m^ is coming in and going out and the parts of the system will reach steady temperatures.”
400 watts, yes. Not W/m^2. And there is 400 watts entering the system and 400 watts going out with temperatures at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
The rest is obfuscation.
‘240, 240, 240’
And how do you know that is correct? How do you find these numbers?
I gave you several real world examples of steady-state temps with heat flow in and out. Can you explain them?
Can you give a real world example that matches your ideas?
BTW,
‘100 W incandescent bulb’
Analogous to GPE. The filament is receiving the 100 W, and gets super hot, the glass shell, receiving radiation from the filament gets less hot, and finally the glass heats surrounding air releasing 100 W as heat and EM radiation.
Nate, you can’t give me a “real world example” of a situation where three identical objects are at the same temperature when pressed together, but when separated by even so much as a millimeter the middle one spontaneously rises in temperature by 46 K. So, leave it out.
This all started because I said there could be energy flowing through a system at equilibrium. You demanded that I explain what that energy was.
You got your answers. I pointed out that as even Norman had explained, objects don’t stop radiating EM energy just because heat flow has gone to zero. EM still flows freely between the plates. The plates emit radiation to space based on their temperature and emissivity.
You seem to have a problem with the directionality of that energy flow, from the middle blue plate, to the green plates, and then out to space. So let me ask you one question, Nate, and see if you “have the answers”.
How much energy do you think flows from space, to the green plates, through the green plates, back to the central blue plate, converts itself from EMR back to electrical energy, and then heads back down the wire from the blue plate!?
Oh, and the 244^3 (not 240^3) solution still runs in to this problem:
“You created a mystery energy that flows between objects in equilibrium, that is not heat nor work.
That is a 1LOT violation.
And it leads you to wrong answers.
I challenged this claim. I ask you to explain this mystery energy. You cannot. Neither can JD. ”
You still need to explain how energy flows between objects at the same temperature, and what is that energy?
If you cannot explain how that works within ordinary physics, then its wrong.
‘You got your answers. I pointed out that as even Norman had explained, objects dont stop radiating EM energy just because heat flow has gone to zero. EM still flows freely between the plates. The plates emit radiation to space based on their temperature and emissivity.’
No. Thats just the thing. I didnt get an answer, and you know that!
As I explained and as Norman explained dozens of times, EMR can be emitted by a plate, but there cannot be a NET flow of energy.
So no. That doesnt work. Try again.
An no there will be no net flow of energy from space to the plates because, as you should know, that would be a 2LOT violation.
How much energy do you think flows from space, to the green plates, through the green plates, back to the central blue plate, converts itself from EMR back to electrical energy, and then heads back down the wire from the blue plate!?
‘You cant give me a ‘real world example’ of a situation where three identical objects’
I can, with the light bulb, and with Swansons experiment. It doesnt need to be 3, because you guys also dont like the two plate version.
But it doesnt seem to matter, you will always dismiss them.
There’s nothing remotely comparable to the absurdity of what you people think happens with the three plates, and you know it.
Can’t answer the question, Nate?
‘How much energy do you think flows from space, to the green plates, through the green plates, back to the central blue plate, converts itself from EMR back to electrical energy, and then heads back down the wire from the blue plate!?’
None.
And how do I know that?
Only if space were warmer than the green plate, would NET energy flow from space to it.
Only if the Green plate was warmer than the blue would NET energy flow from the green to blue.
Heat would never directly convert back to electricity.
All of these are because of the 2LOT. Which you guys also need to satisfy (but dont).
Lol, exactly. So how can you question the directionality of the energy flow!?
‘comparable to the absurdity of what you people think happens’
Why absurd?
It can’t be anymore absurd than your mystery energy that you speak of which is no where to be found in ordinary physics.
If you can’t show me where this comes from then its not real.
Sorry, you are not allowed to just make up new energies.
I don’t question the directionality. I question the temperatures, because if equal temps, the energy flow must be 0.
You said you understood that temperature differences drive heat flow?
Then that tells you that there must be temperature differences, because there IS heat flow, 400 W!
It’s absurd because you can’t find a single example from the real world where you have three identical objects pressed together, whereupon separation by even a millimeter the middle object spontaneously rises in temperature by 46 K. It’s absolute nonsense. Ridiculous!
And it’s not “mystery energy”, Nate, it’s EMR!
“You said you understood that temperature differences drive heat flow?”
Indeed Nate, but it’s not heat flow, is it!? It’s energy flow!
And its not mystery energy, Nate, its EMR!’
Nope, as explained DOZENS of times, but you ignored, there can be no NET EMR!
If both objects have the same temp, and both emit the same EMR, then it should be QUITE obvious that there can be no NET EMR.
Both simple arithmetic, and the RHE make this quite clear.
If you try to say its not HEAT so the RHE does not apply, well
a. What is that mystery energy?
b. Its not EMR because as we saw, both plates are emitting the same amount of EMR.
‘Its absurd because you cant find a single example from the real world where you have three identical objects pressed together, whereupon separation by even a millimeter the middle object spontaneously rises in temperature by 46 K’
Not absurd at all. This has been explained to you many times, even a mm of vacuum is a fantastic insulator compared to metal.
I showed you the equations, the numbers, real science. That beats a feeling every time.
There are two directions that energy could flow in.
Nate freely admits that it is not possible for energy to flow in one direction.
Yet he does not accept that this must mean energy is flowing in the other direction.
Nate is in denial.
‘There are two directions that energy could flow in.
Nate freely admits that it is not possible for energy to flow in one direction.’
Yes I explained that, no NET energy will flow in either direction, without a temperature differential.
You must’ve missed ‘NET’ again.
‘Yet he does not accept that this must mean energy is flowing in the other direction.’
No and this does not follow. It can be 0 Net in any direction.
Nate is in denial.
Yep in denial of fake physics.
Nate, you can repeatedly say the word “NET” in capital letters, well done.
But regardless of “NET”, no EMR can convert itself back to electricity and head back down that wire from the blue plate. So that limits the energy flow to one direction immediately. No “NET” required.
And at the other end, how much energy is going to flow from space to the green plates, regardless of “NET”? A tiny amount. Negligible. So that limits the energy flow to one direction as well. No “NET” required.
Nate is in denial.
‘But regardless of NET, no EMR can convert itself back to electricity and head back down that wire from the blue plate. So that limits the energy flow to one direction immediately. No NET required.’
Look, there is a proper way to solve a heat transfer problem, and what you are doing, obviously, is not it.
You are twisting yourself into knots, trying any nutty argument you can think of, to justify an answer that you got how? By guessing?
That’s backassward of course, and is doomed to fail.
The electricity is simply the means to heat one of the plates. It could be heated with sunlight, a flame, steam or hot water in a pipe, a chemical reaction, or mechanical work.
No matter how the BLUE plate is heated, that heat must flow from the warmer objects to the colder ones (2LOT!). That determines directionality.
And it becomes a heat transfer problem. IOW a system with boundary conditions–certain heat inputs, outputs and temperatures. You need to solve it by applying heat transfer laws and 1LOT.
Nate twists, turns, and obfuscates, but the reality is too simple and straightforward for others to ignore.
‘the reality’ seems to be whatever your guess about it is, DREMT.
You are in denial that a good knowledge of heat transfer physics is essential to understanding a heat transfer problem and finding the right answers.
…here comes the standard Nate spiel…
The one you have never had a good answer for…
I don’t need to have a response to your endless appeals to your own authority, and knowledge, etc.I just have to roll my eyes and wait for you to accept that the discussion is over.
The eye rolling is from me, wondering why this person, who has so many science misconceptions, so little knowledge of basic concepts, yet mysteriously still believes that he knows what he’s talking about.
That still puzzles me.
Yet wherever I am, under any article, at any point in the comments, and whoever I am talking to, you are always desperate to pop up and bait me into a discussion.
Once in a while you do show signs of someone thinking..
OK, stalker.
Better than what you do to Ball4…
#2
OK, stalker.
I looked at your spreadsheet which appears to be similar to the one you published here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-radiative-EBM-of-sfc-and-NOatm-with-diurnal-cycle.xlsx
Your Excel based model is interesting because it is at least 500 times faster than FEA models and the model is more accessible to the general public as there so many people who are comfortable with spreadsheets.
Here are the results from your spreadsheet with the parameters provided:
256.3 Tsfc average (K) assuming a global average solar flux
252.7 Tsfc avg (K) over a sphere with a diurnal cycle (this spreadsheet)
The only problem is that both numbers are “Wrong” by which I mean that differ from what is observed. The average surface temperature of the Moon is 197.3 Kelvin.
yes, that was the whole point of the article you took the previous model from: because of the 29.5 day rotation rate of the moon, the day and night temperatures become extreme, thus making the nonlinearity of Stefan-Boltzmann curve very important. Multiply the model time step by 29.5 if you want the moon (as I say in the model input label).
Entering 26,550 seconds in cell $C$3 to adjust for the Moon’s rate of rotation changed the average temperature to 213.4 Kelvin.
While I am impressed to find that is much closer (213.4 – 197.3 = +16.1 Kelvin) my FEA model did a little better with an average error of +1.1 Kelvin.
As we have discussed “Off-line” the accuracy of your model would improve by replacing the “Bulk Heat Capacity” with a more complex function designed to model the Moon’s thermal properties as measured by the Apollo program:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/ashwin-vavasada-lunar-equatorial-surface-temperatures-and-regolith-properties-from-the-diviner-lunar-radiometer-experiment/
Once again you have shown us how real scientists operate. You are not afraid to engage with the public and don’t get upset when nit-picky people (like this camel) offer criticisms.
Thank you!
Standard radiative physics easily accounts for the moon’s average temperature:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
That calculate was done for the moon’s equator, but the extension to the entire surface is easy — I get 204 K. (That’s without any attempt to model thermal conduction through the dark side’s regolith.)
The procedure for the Moon’s sunny side is to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law pointwise instead of globally, since the Moon has no atmosphere.
Very informative. Thank you.
Thank you for your effort Dr. Spencer. I’m afraid “who are still open minded” will be a limiting factor on this post.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
From Space.com: “When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius).”
Your model removes the heat retaining effect of the atmospheric gases. Should not the daytime temperature increase, since the atmospheric effect has been significantly reduced. The moon with no atmosphere is much hotter.
For the Moon, see my post that uses the same model, which does a pretty good job of reproducing satellite measurements of lunar temperatures (the lunar example requires the model time step to be multiplied by 29.5): http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/
Anthony, you say: “The moon with no atmosphere is much hotter.”
No, it is not. While it reaches higher peak temperatures at “noon”, overall it is much colder than the earth, averaging less than 200K. The real earth surface averages ~288K, and Dr Spencer’s time varying model here averages about 250K.
Standard radiative physics gives 204 K:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-356694
Roy,
I can’t believe you’re giving this so much credibility, but I commend your patience and efforts.
This has nothing to do with lending credibility to ‘this’, whatever this is.
A simplified modell was proposed probably a longish time ago.
Then estimates were derived from it.
It is a valid question to ask how much the estimates could be off.
OK.
Thanks again. Dr. Spencer.
But wasn’t the point that the Kiehl/Trenberth global averaging modell (or flat earthing if you will) overestimates the non athmosphere situation temp, und thus underestimates the athmospheric IR effect?
I thought you gave a guesstimate of 5C in your moon post. It surely is small v. the absolute temps, but in terms of the greenhouse effect it would be in the order of 20%.
The radiative greenhouse effect is about 75 deg. C. It is reduced to 30-35C by convective heat loss (Manabe & Strickler, 1964).
So I take it to mean the 5C is in the 30-35C convection figure?
“Dr.Spencer thinks convection is a purely cooling effect which is the same mistake as Trenberth et al. in that they miss out the release of Kinetic Energy in the descent phase.
The reason for that being important is extensively described here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/02/modelling-the-climate-of-noonworld-a-new-look-at-venus/
from which one can see that convective overturning delays energy loss to space without any need for GHGs and thus accounts for the greenhouse effect.”
Philip, I can understand how you might think that makes sense conceptually, but as I say in the bog post, if you warm the surface to a higher temperature that than what it was at energy equilibrium (solar in = IR out), then the surface is emitting more energy than it receives from the sun, and it will cool back to energy equilibrium. You can pump all the energy into the atmosphere you want from surface convection, but that cannot RAISE the surface temperature. Time lags make no difference.
Yes, most of convective warming of the troposphere occurs in the subsidence regions being forced by convection, but you still run into the same energy conservation problem. For a given solar flux, the ONLY way to cause surface temperatures to rise more is to REDUCE the rate of IR cooling to space, which is what greenhouse gases do.
This has been well understood for many decades, and is fundamental to the weather forecast models you rely upon every day for your weather forecasts. It has been put in time-dependent models by hundreds of people independently, and it explains what we see.
Show me your time-dependent model that produces such an effect you describe. It can’t be done because it would violate energy conservation.
Roy,
“Time lags make no difference.”
Using some rough numbers, let us assume that the Hadley cell extends from the equatorial ITCZ to the horse latitudes. The fetch of the north east trade wind blowing from a direction of 45 degrees will be some 4,000 kilometres. Therefore, the total circuit within the Hadley Cell (there and back) will be some 8,000 kilometres (not including the 15 kilometres of rise to the TOA and then the additional 15 kilometres of descent). Let us assume an average wind speed of 10 metres per second (just pick another number if you don’t like this one) then the total circuit time for a parcel of air will be some 9 days.
Now the air within this circuit is delivering power from the surface at the equator to a surface point some 4,000 Kilometres away. But this is not an instantaneous transfer process. The Hadley cell is a gigantic capacitor, charged and maintained by a flux that is stored within it. This process of storage means that time lags make a huge difference. You cannot charge a capacitor without a time lag Air is a compressible fluid, so there is no possibility of instantaneous flux within the atmosphere by connected mass transfer.
Physics matters.
In all of these discussions about radiant power intensity the key factor is frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. The frequency of the insolation is not the same as that of the thermal radiant exhaust. Not all power intensity fluxes are equivalent. We see this most clearly when we observe that sunlight penetrates water to depths of more than 100 metres, whereas the thermal radiation from the air cannot traverse into the water more than a few microns.
The issue is one of quality not one of quantity.
When you say here: –
“I have tried to point out that evaporation, too, only occurs at the skin of a water surface, yet it is a major source of heat loss for water bodies. It may be that sunlight is more efficient, Joule for Joule, than infrared due to the depth of penetration effect (many meters rather than microns). But I would say it pretty clear that any heat source (or heat sink) like evaporation which only affects the skin is going to affect the entire water body as well, especially one that is continually being mixed by the wind.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
You are clearly discussing the effects of a mass motion process (in this case water), you cannot then ignore the impact of the mass motion process of air movement, particularly when there is no phase change involved with the motion of the air. Because of phase change, the evaporation process is a heat sink, not a heat source.
Oh and just to be absolutely clear about the process of forced evaporation, the katabatic winds of Antarctica are at minus 50 C in winter. When they pass over the Weddell Sea, they force evaporation of the exposed surface seawater in the latent heat polynya, which has a temperature of circa minus 2C.
Is this an example of something cold heating something hot or is there a clue in the name?
–Roy W. Spencer says:
June 7, 2019 at 5:58 PM
Philip, I can understand how you might think that makes sense conceptually, but as I say in the blog post, if you warm the surface to a higher temperature that than what it was at energy equilibrium (solar in = IR out), then the surface is emitting more energy than it receives from the sun, and it will cool back to energy equilibrium. You can pump all the energy into the atmosphere you want from surface convection, but that cannot RAISE the surface temperature. Time lags make no difference.
If tropics was say 0 C in morning, it not going warm up in one day- it will not do it with or without greenhouse gases.
As I mentioned before, if mixed ocean so the surface temperature was the average volume temperature of the ocean: 3.5 C, then
Earth would become colder than Earth has ever been. The average temperature of earth would be less than 3.5 C.
And earth would take days or weeks to get warmer and years to return to present average temperature.
And your model seems have a requirement to making it a colder starting point, so naturally I would agree it would even colder, as compared to “merely” lowering the global average ocean surface temperature from 17 C to 3.5 C.
Can you make the model so Earth is always facing the same side at the sun?
If Earth only has one side facing the sun, Earth will be much colder in terms of average temperature. I think everyone would agree, but the wouldn’t the side which always facing sun get fairly warm?
Perhaps it’s average global temperature would lower, but mean would the side always in sunlight in the tropics be well above freezing?
Or Gulf stream warms Europe by about 10 C.
Europe average yearly average temperature is about 9 C.
If Atlantic ocean surface temperature had uniform temperature of 3.5 C.
Then Europe would not be warmed by 10 C. And Europe would be below freezing.
The tropical ocean is heat engine of the world, it heats the entire world, the tropical ocean average surface temperature is about 26 C.
If the surface of tropical ocean was 3.5 C, then the tropical ocean would cease to be heat engine of the entire world.
Also if in summer, and you get cold weather, it’s predictable that it takes days to warm back up. And we have greenhouse gases.
Philup,
What is your response to this:
” but you still run into the same energy conservation problem. For a given solar flux, the ONLY way to cause surface temperatures to rise more is to REDUCE the rate of IR cooling to space”
Nate, please stop trolling.
Philip:
A non-GHG (transparent) atmosphere has no way of transferring energy to or from the external universe, because it is radiatively inactive. It can only transfer energy to or from the surface.
This means it cannot over the long term steadily transfer energy either to or from the surface. It can only execute short term localized transfers that overall balance out to net zero over time and area.
Such an atmosphere could increase the temperature of colder regions (polar, nighttime) by transferring energy from the warmer regions (equatorial, daytime). But it cannot explain the significantly elevated temperatures above Dr Spencer’s model that we actually see on earth.
–Ed Bo says:
June 7, 2019 at 7:27 PM
Philip:
A non-GHG (transparent) atmosphere has no way of transferring energy to or from the external universe, because it is radiatively inactive. It can only transfer energy to or from the surface.–
So, say “non-GHG (transparent) atmosphere” heats up but doesn’t lose it’s energy to space.
But it seems to me, water evaporating is doing a lot in regards to transferring heat to atmosphere.
Or if dry ground is heated to 30 C, it’s not transfering much heat to the atmosphere unless the atmosphere is quite cold- say below 0 C.
Of course if dry ground is 30 C and air is 0 C, the ground would warmer with same amount of sunlight if air was warmer, say 10 C.
Not saying it’s possible, but suppose only the top 1 meter of air was 20 C and ground was 40 C, that would situation of not absorbing much of sunlight energy. As compared to 1000 meter air being warmed to 20 C.
And if wet ground, there would have to be far more mixing of air.
This “model” was more complicated than the Institutionalized Pseudoscience version:
1370/4 W/m^2 –> 342.5 W/m^2–> 239.75 W/m^2 –> 256.3 K
But, it produced a lower temperature –> 252.7 K
Every 3.6 K helps, I guess….
JD, yes, but that was always known. The zero-order (e.g. Kiehl-Trenberth) model was always meant as a way to explain energy balance in the climate system using global averages. It was never meant to be accurate.
All the more reason it seems foolish to argue about the global average.
Just because it is simple doesn’t make it pseudo so long as you clearly communicate its limitations.
Dr Spencer,
You wrote –
” . . . making the surface lose more energy to space than it gains from the sun, and there would no longer be energy balance, violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The temperature would simply go back down again to achieve energy balance (we wouldnt want to violate the 1st Law).”
Hopefully, you will agree that if an object’s temperature is increasing, there is no energy balance. Conversely, if an object is cooling there is no energy balance.
Why should there be? Without an external energy source, an object will continuously emit light (EMR) at progressively longer wavelengths, all the way to 4 K or so (environmental temperature).
No energy balance there. The Earth started off as a big molten blob, and all sources of energy (internal and external) were insufficient to prevent the energy imbalance which resulted in cooling for four and a half billion years. Why should the operation of the physical laws cease to apply now?
Even your graph of solar input shows more energy absorbed than emitted for 6 hours (more in than out) and more energy emitted than absorbed for 18 hours (more out than in). No laws of physics require that energy emitted in an 18 hour period cannot be greater than that absorbed in the preceding 6 hours.
Fourier accurately stated that the heat received during the day is lost at night, plus a bit of the interior heat as well.
In the case of actual temperatures disagreeing with model outputs, 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.”
You also wrote –
“The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures then if it did not exist.”
This is irrelevant for a cooling body such as the Earth. The measured temperature is the measured temperature, regardless of what anybody thinks it “should be”. I notice that you avoided saying anything to the effect that temperatures rise, which I believe is the thrust of the GHE true believers. If you are implying that temperatures will not actually rise (after falling for four and a half billion years), then there doesn’t seem to be much point in saying that temperatures are falling more slowly than they would “otherwise”. The temperature at any point and time is a measurement of the existing temperature field – no more, no less.
If you feel like putting me in my place for disagreeing with your views, would you mind quoting the parts of my comment you wish to correct, and provide some facts in support.
Your blog, your rules, of course.
Cheers.
I once visited a cave and got told that the cave is at a barmy 15 deg C more or less all year round.
So how comes that a cave that never seens a ray of sun light keeps its air temperature at this 15 Deg C?
Come to think of it, how are other caves like around the equator and closer to the poles? Would we find them at equally 15 Deg C more or less?
Is it as you say just the temperature of the Earth body that we see, with the atmosphere just added mass with a temperature defined by the heat content of the Earth crust?
Mike:
Why do you say the earth is a cooling body? It is significantly warmer now than it was 20,000 years ago, at the time of the last glacial maximum.
It is far warmer now than at the times of “snowball earth”, hundreds of millions of years ago.
The thermal flux density from the earth’s interior is less than 0.1 W/m2, far less than many external flux densities, and completely insignificant even to the variations in those external flux densities.
EB,
The Earth radiates about 44 TW of energy continuously. The core is around 5500 K. The surrounding environment is around 4 K maximum.
The Sun illuminates the Earth from one side only, and any heat absorbed by the atmosphere, aquasphere, and lithosphere is emitted each night. This is why the surface is no longer molten, and the seas are no longer boiling.
To raise the temperature of an externally heated object requires that the object receives more energy from another object at a higher temperature, than it emits. The Sun is obviously incapable of even maintaining a temperature 5 K higher than present, otherwise the present temperature would be 5 K higher.
You are confused. A molten blob of rock, hanging in space 300,000,000 kms distant from the Sun, does not magically heat up. Try placing a pot of boiling water in direct sunlight. The Sun cannot even stop water from cooling to below 100 C, nowadays.
Your gotcha has gone badly astray, it that was your intent. If not, you can find papers by real scientists (geophysicists and suchlike) who will confirm that the Earth as a whole is cooling. Slowly but inexorably.
If you disagree, feel free to quote the parts in question. Nonsensical assertions of the nature of “It is far warmer now than at the times of “snowball earth”, hundreds of millions of years ago.” are meaningless. You don’t even define “snowball Earth”. Care to try?
Cheers.
To raise the temperature of an externally heated object requires that the object receives more energy from another object at a higher temperature, than it emits.
False.
You just need to wrap a blanket around it.
DA,
Rubbish. That’s why firemen wear heavy insulated protective clothing. To keep their body temperatures down when exposed to external heat such as fires.
Try heating up a corpse by wrapping a blanket around it. Or making a thermometer left in the sun hotter, by using a blanket to shield it from the heat of the Sun.
Your stupidity and ignorance knows no bounds – maybe you should put a blanket between the Sun and your cranium to keep your brain form getting too hot!
Carry on.
Cheers.
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
Try heating up a corpse by wrapping a blanket around it.
Dumb. Corpses don’t generate heat.
Fireman get very hot in their suits. Why?
DA,
Oooooh! A gotcha. Or two.
Read what I wrote.
You wrote –
“Dumb. Corpses dont generate heat.” What a stupid thing to say. Of course they do, as they decay. And of course, they have remnant heat after life ceases. Not enough to heat them up if you wrap a blanket around them. Just like the Earth – internal heat production is quite small, due to the depletion of radiogenic heat sources, and remnant heat is being radiated away.
Why are you so stupid, David? Did you have to work at it, or does it just come naturally?
Keep trying to make a thermometer in the Sun hotter by shielding it from the Sun. Let us know it you can achieve this remarkable outcome.
Cheers.
Corpses come to thermal equilibrium.
Again, why do you sleep under a blanket at night??
And do fireman get hot in their fire fighting suits?
How?
Begone troll.
‘ Thats why firemen wear heavy insulated protective clothing. To keep their body temperatures down when exposed to external heat such as fires.’
Ha!
I have a family member who is at fireman boot camp. He said under their coat during practices their clothes were thoroughly soaked with sweat! Some nearly had heat stroke.
And no fire was involved..
Ha!
MF is afraid to respond.
Nate, David, please stop trolling.
DA,
the fine detail is “Externally heated”
If you wrap a blanket around it you prevent the heat from getting to the object.
So your “false” is wrong.
Can you post links to these real scientists who present evidence that the Earth only cools? I’d like to review them.
bd,
No. Find them yourself, and review to your heart’s content.
Cheers.
No, MF can’t.
DA,
You are dim-witted. I said no. I mean no. What part of “no” do you fail to comprehend?
Cheers.
Name calling appears to be the best you can do. That’s weak.
Begone, troll.
Right on cue, you prove my point. 🙂
David, please stop trolling.
Mike, you have ignored his perfectly clear information, that renders moot all that you speculations,
‘The thermal flux density from the earths interior is less than 0.1 W/m2, far less than many external flux densities’
These are measurements. Remember your quote:
‘It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.’
N,
Losing energy is indicative of cooling. Sunlight is irrelevant to overall cooling. As Fourier pointed out, all heat absorbed from the Sun each day, is emitted at night. All. No heat accumulation.
Even the finest technology employed at “solar” plants such as Ivanpah is unable to store heat overnight. The plant uses around 1.4 billion cubic feet of gas per annum to overcome heat losses at night. Insulation merely reduces the rate at which the molten salts cool.
You are confused.
As to –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, its wrong.”
Nature is conducting an experiment using the Earth. After four and a half billion years, it seems that nothing at all has stopped the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
Quote something if you wish to complain about it being wrong. Otherwise, people might assume you are just another pseudoscientific climate cultist whinger.
Cheers.
The Earth was cooler 20,000 years ago.
The Earth was cooler 150 years ago.
It is not constantly cooling. And you’ve never presented any evidence that it is.
DA,
Don’t give people reason to think you are more stupid than you really are. That would be quite enough for most ordinary people.
Making witless unsupported assertions, and posing witless gotchas does not impress. If you wish to disagree with something I wrote, quote me and present some facts to back of your mad assertions.
If you wish, of course.
Cheers.
Energy transport should take into account the operation of the winter stratospheric polar vortex.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
The surface temperature in medium and high latitudes depends on the height of the tropopause (convection height).
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2j0hy1g.jpg
For comparison, the current temperature in Idaho.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00984/lhzavfzg536f.png
Changes in circulation in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere depend on changes in ionizing radiation at these atmospheric levels.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/onlinequery.cgi?station=OULU&startday=08&startmonth=05&startyear=1989&starttime=00%3A00&endday=08&endmonth=06&endyear=2019&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&outputmode=default&picture=on
OK Mike, Here is a quote:
‘Losing energy is indicative of cooling. Sunlight is irrelevant to overall cooling.’
If the cooling output is 90 mW/m^2, and the solar input is 240 W/m^2, the solar warming is 2600 times larger than the cooling.
Only a delusional person would call the solar irrelevant.
Why isn’t it true that the 90 mW/m^2 is the irrelevant one?
Mike Flynn says:
…and posing witless gotchas…
Your schtick is obvious by now — any question that reveals you are wrong, you whine that it’s a “gotcha” and don’t answer it.
Fact is, you can’t defend your claims, we all see it, and you fold up like a cheap suitcase when you realize you’ve been had.
Mike, Mike, Mike? Where’d ya go?
I guess Mike agrees that only a delusional person would call the solar input irrelevant.
Nate, David, please stop trolling.
Mike, you say: “The Earth radiates about 44 TW of energy continuously.” (Speaking of internally generated energy.)
The earth receives about 176,000 TW of energy continuously from the sun. It reflects and re-radiates virtually this same amount continuously.
The 44 TW you cite don’t even count as rounding error in determining surface temperature levels.
EB,
You wrote –
“The earth receives about 176,000 TW of energy continuously from the sun. It reflects and re-radiates virtually this same amount continuously.”
As Fourier pointed out, during the night, the surface loses all the heat it received during the day, – plus a little internal heat.
Hence the surface cooling since the Earth’s creation.
The 44 TW or so, is just an indication that the Earth continues to cool – researchers differ somewhat as to the amount. Somewhere between one and three millionths of a Kelvin per annum. No need to panic yet!
Sunlight doesnt accumulate. Four and half billion years of sunlight has not stopped the Earth from cooling to date.
No GHE. No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
“As Fourier pointed out, during the night, the surface loses all the heat it received during the day, plus a little internal heat”
Did Fourier never go swimming? Water doesn’t lose all of the heat it absorbs during the day. Even the translator of Fourier’s On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space found it odd he would say that. He added this footnote:
“It is strange that Fourier neglects the effect of thermal inertia and atmosphere-ocean heat transports, which easily account for the moderation of polar and night-time cooling. Fourier mentions these effects further along, but dismisses them without having any quantitative reason for doing so.”
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf
Nope.
The Earth has an energy imbalance, inward, now of about 0.7 W/m2:
Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance,
Johnson, G.C., J.M. Lyman, and N.G. Loeb
Nature Clim. Change, 6, 639640, doi: 10.1038/nclimate3043 (2016).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
From the abstract:
Here, we update our calculations (Fig. 1), and find a net heat uptake of 0.71 +/- 0.10 W m−2 from 2005 to 2015 (with 0.61 +/- 0.09 W m−2 taken up by the ocean from 01,800 m; 0.07 +/- 0.04 W m−2 by the deeper ocean; and 0.03 +/- 0.01 W m−2 by melting ice, warming land, and an increasingly warmer and moister atmosphere).
Craig T, David, please stop trolling.
Ed,
which area are you using to come up with your number?
Just asking.
Begone, stupid troll!
Mike,
You are responding to yourself at June 7, 2019 at 8:07 PM.
How appropriate!
Svante, please stop trolling.
You’re making a fool of yourself, you know that, do you?
Svante, please stop trolling.
The geothermal flux through the crust is ~0,065 W/m^2 on average.
Yet the crust is hot:
https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/geo_temperature.jpg
Assuming you are not believing that CO2 heats the crust, how are the deep oceans heated?
And I believe the tidal transfer of energy from the Earth/Moon system is on the order of 0.01 W/m^2 so the combined geothermal and tidal energy sources is still only on the order of 0.1 W/m^2…hardly enough to account for the magnitude of changes in the climate system we observer. Nevermind that these quantities are, for the most part, static.
Apparently I need to spell it out:
if 0,065 W/m^2 flux can maintain a very high crust temperature, why shouldn’t a 0,1 W/m^2 flux at the ocean floor not be able to maintain their high (~275K) temperature?
The sun only warms a shallow layer a few degrees, and creates an impenetrable layer for bottom heated water.
Ben:
The substances that make up the earth’s crust are very poor conductors, which is another way of saying they are excellent insulators.
The fact that they are excellent insulators means that they are very good at “keeping the heat in”. This means that the internal heat generation has very little effect on the exterior.
But all you really need to know is that this power flux density is ~0.065 W/m2, absolutely trivial in any proper energy balance (1st Law) analyses of the surface zone, when compared to the inputs and outputs from space (and the thermal resistance is very low to these fluxes.
EB,
You wrote –
“The substances that make up the earths crust are very poor conductors, which is another way of saying they are excellent insulators.”
Rocks are not very good insulators at all. For example, plywood insulates about 25 times as well as granite. Vacuum insulated powder panels insulate up to 2000 times as well as granite.
Rock is certainly not an “excellent” insulator by any stretch of the imagination. However, given between 10 and 50 kms of rock, heat transfer is very slow. Only about 44 TW total from the surface, continuously. Cooling, not heating.
Cheers.
Mike:
While rock is certainly not as good an insulator as, say, fiberglass wool, it creates a far higher thermal resistance between the earth’s surface and the interior than there is between the surface and space. That is all that is needed to make the surface temperature more dependent on conditions above it than below it.
Consider two thermos jugs, one filled with water at 90C and one with water at 100C. Is the temperature of the outside surface more dependent on the room ambient temperature or the inside liquid temperature?
A couple more questions for you:
How much of the earth’s internal 44TW power flux is due to residual heat from the compression of earth’s formation 4.5 billion years ago (so from “cooling”), and how much is from ongoing radioactive decay and tidal friction (so not from “cooling”)?
If the dissipation of the internal power flux is the dominant determinant of surface temperature, how do you explain the much warmer conditions now compared to those of the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago?
EB,
You wrote –
“If the dissipation of the internal power flux is the dominant determinant of surface temperature, . . .”
I don’t recollect saying such a thing. I don’t believe you can actually quote me to that effect, either.
Maybe you are questioning something you made up yourself?
Cheers.
Oceanic heat content is increasing at a rate of 10e21 joules/year and has been for decades. This works out to a +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance on the ocean.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330399834_2018_Continues_Record_Global_Ocean_Warming
bdgwx, are you sure about your first number?
I do get 0.66 W/m2 for the 0-2000 region, since ARGO started measuring it in 1st quarter 2005.
But I find it to be 1.1e22 J/yr, about 10 times larger than your number….
1.1e22 is pretty close to 10e21
I usually do all of my e’s in multiples of 3. I just find it easier to do mental calculations this way…just personal preference.
They’re not close — they’re an order of magnitude apart.
I’d really like to know. The data are readily available. Are we each really that incapable of calculating a simple linear trend?
We agree. 1e22 = 10e21
I agree with bdgwx that your numbers are close. 10 * 10^21 would be equal to 1 * 10^22. As far as I can see David just used slightly different notation and rounded less.
Yeah, I just have a habit of doing scientific notation in multiples of 3…12,15,18,21, etc. I find it easier that way because conversion are often done in 3’s in the metric system. It just seems “right” to keep everything in 3’s. To each his own I guess.
Craig T says:
I agree with bdgwx that your numbers are close. 10 * 10^21 would be equal to 1 * 10^22. As far as I can see David just used slightly different notation and rounded less
You’re right, I misunderstood. I didn’t see the “10” in front of “10^21”. I thought that leading number was 1 — I thought it is always between 1 and 10, as is usual in scientific notation.
Nevertheless, my bad, and I apologize for getting it wrong.
‘Theyre not close theyre an order of magnitude apart.’
your display drops decimal points? or you have asperger?
flynn’s diagnosis is in making.
bd,
Nobody has the faintest idea how much heat is pouring into the oceans through the mid ocean ridges, thermal vents, and so on.
Even the disseminated heat from the crust is about 30 TW or so. This is continuous, day and night.
All heat entering the ocean is eventually radiated to space, of course. Warmer water rises, displacing colder water – no miracles involved – just basic physics. Water has peculiar properties. Frozen water floats, and the densest water at the bottom is above zero C.
As to the misleading paper you linked to –
“Note that relatively little is known about the deep ocean below 2000 m because observations at these depths are sparse (Argo data are mainly available for the upper 2000 m).”
The average depth of the oceans is >4000 m.
Argo temperatures are a bit silly in ways. Taking the temperature of water you are floating in is not going to say much about the water you are floating past, is it?
The oceans are no longer boiling. They have cooled. CO2 heats nothing. No GHE.
Cheers.
What is 30 TW per unit area?
< 0.06 W/m2
The oceans are no longer boiling. They have cooled.
The ocean is now warming.
Why?
https://is.gd/0iTZLA
“Taking the temperature of water you are floating in is not going to say much about the water you are floating past, is it?”
That is so zen!
DA,
You wrote, in your usual witless attempt at a gotcha –
“The ocean is now warming.
Why?”
Why are you so incompetent or stupid you cannot answer your own question?
If you do not understand what the word “warming” means, or why this phenomenon occurs, I suggest you obtain some educational assistance. You might also need to learn a bit of geography. There is apparently more than one ocean.
Off you go now. If you need more help, please let me know. It’s always a pleasure to assist those less capable than myself.
Cheers.
Dr. Roy,
Thanks for doing this. Clears up a lot of confusion hopefully.
Nate, please stop trolling.
I read this report of a near miss in the Pacific between russian and US warships.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48553568
The pictures show the two ships converging and then running parallel.
Th right of way rule in this case is that “If you are on the right, you have right of way.”
The ship on the right normally maintains course to remain predictable and the ship on the left manoeuvres to avoid conflict.
The ship on the right is the russian, yet she is the ship
forced to change course to avoid collision. I have heard that the quality of seamanship in the US Navy is in decline, but this is ridiculous.
If he approached through the 135 deg. aft sector he has to give way:
https://www.sailingissues.com/navcourse10.html
Is this less than 22.5 deg. aft of beam?
https://tinyurl.com/y6zqlvx3
He could easily have gone behind, this is the Pacific.
E-man gets it wrong again.
That would be a first.
We need the Aegis tactical recording to be sure.
Svante, please stop trolling.
The russian ship was filmed overtaking. A vessel overtaking has a duty to keep clear.
Maybe we can get a war out of this.
Do you think?
Hi Dr Spencer,
Over 1 year ago, I developed a spreadsheet model of the Earth’s daily temperature cycle, at different latitudes. The output is very similar to yours.
But I wanted to make it more realistic. So I added a simple Greenhouse effect. I did this by returning a fixed percentage of the outgoing energy back to the surface. I kept increasing the percentage until I got an average temperature of 15.0 degrees Celsius for the Earth.
The percentage of returned energy gave me an estimate of how strong the greenhouse effect is. And I tried increasing the percentage, to see what would happen with higher levels of CO2.
It is a fairly simple model. but it produces quite realistic results.
Very interesting. What was the magnitude of the GHE in W/m^2 that you modeled?
I didn’t work out the magnitude of the GHE in W/m^2.
I just worked out the percentage of energy returned to the surface, to bring the average temperature of the Earth to a particular value.
Here are the results. Remember, that it is only a model. All models are wrong, but some models are useful.
Avg-Temp CO2-ppm %-Returned
13.8 262 41.0
14.0 280 41.1
14.5 335 41.5
15.0 400 41.9
15.1 409 42.0
15.7 484 42.5
If you wanted to, you could work out the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from this data. But you would have to make assumptions about linearity etc.
ECS works out to be about 2.3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 level. This is at the bottom of the accepted range.
[The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report have ECS values ranging from 2.1C to 4.7C per doubling, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C]
Youre likely a spoiler of Dr. Roys next instructive post….probably magnitude of GHE and effect of Albedo change using this model with a convective effect disclaimer….it will be good stuff…
Albedo change is a feedback, not a forcing.
DA,
Oooooh! Look! Pseudoscientific jargon of the climatological variety!
Deny, divert, confuse. Let the pointless argument about the differences between non-existent feedback and forcing commence!
No GHE. Nobody can even describe this non-existent effect.
Carry on regardless.
Cheers.
Do firefighters get hot in their fire fighting suits?
some people think firefighters are hot no matter what they are wearing. Just sayin’…
CT, agreed.
But MF can’t answer even this simple question.
Craig T, David, please stop trolling.
Good work Roy.
If we were to push this forwards:
We add an atmosphere of N2 & O2 with no radiative components.
The surface would conduct to the atmosphere, cooling temporarily until the atmosphere reached the same temperature as the surface.
The surface would return to the original temperature from the current simulation.
Now we add a choice of two gases:
H2O or CO2.
We could add 0.04% of H2O and measure the effect of the water vapor on the surface temperature.
We could add 0.04% of CO2 and measure the effect of the carbon dioxide gas on the surface temperature.
Taking into account that H2O has many more bands active in the IR range, I suspect that H2O would have a greater effect of surface temperature.
Taking into account that H2O is between 500 to 1000 times more common in the real atmosphere I suspect CO2 is a bit part player.
Steve, H2O is NOT 1000 times more common than CO2. At the top of the troposphere, CO2 is still 400 ppm, whilst the equilibrium water content at that T&P is only 200 ppm. The rest has rained and snowed out at lower altitudes.
% H2O appears to vary from 0.02% to 4% (ish) as an atmospheric column. It would suggest to me that water vapor response would overwhelm CO2 response comfortably.
Once H2O has reacted to some photons then there is less for CO2 to react with?
What is your view on the max level of H2O in the atmosphere, as the maximum will do the most of the heavy lifting in terms of effect?
Steve,
1) Yes, H2O is has a bigger impact overall.
2) CO2 absorbs in some bands that H2O doesn’t, so no amount of H2O can prevent CO2 from having an effect.
3) The most critical effect of GHGs is near the top of the atmosphere, where temperatures are coldest. There CO2 is more common, and this boosts CO2’s importance.
Yes, and as always, Tim: Where exactly in the real-world data do you see the clear impact of the atmospheric CO2 increase on Earth’s ToA heat budget?
Again you’re presenting “AGW theory” as if it were established also as an empirical fact.
H2O has a bigger impact … on the COOLING of Earth’s atmosphere. The so-called “GHGs” enable our atmosphere to COOL, not to warm.
Kristian, you have some good arguments, but the last sentence is not.
GHGs cool the upper atmosphere and warm the surface.
Dr. Spencer just showed us what happens if the radiation balance is settled at the surface.
Svante says, June 9, 2019 at 6:51 AM:
Did you notice I wrote: “The so-called ‘GHGs’ enable our atmosphere to COOL, not to warm.” ?
I never mentioned the surface.
Do you dispute the point I make? An atmosphere heated by a planetary surface needs to be at least partially IR-active in order for it to be able to adequately COOL, but it doesn’t need to be IR-active in order to warm.
It’s not the atmosphere’s IR-active constituents that warm the surface. It’s the atmosphere’s thermal presence, thermodynamically connected to the surface.
The atmospheric insulating effect on the solar-heated surface is a MASS-based one, not a radiation-based one. What we observe of radiation and radiative fluxes in the Earth system are mere EFFECTS of temperature.
“Modern Climate Science” manages to turn reality exactly on its head – it looks at an effect and think it sees the cause of what, in reality, caused it.
Everything we observe is real. People just happen to confuse cause and effect in what we see … The end result: The story of the “anthropogenically enhanced GHE causing global warming” (“AGW”).
But it’s an illusion. It does not exist.
‘Its the atmospheres thermal presence, thermodynamically connected to the surface.
The atmospheric insulating effect on the solar-heated surface is a MASS-based one, not a radiation-based one. What we observe of radiation and radiative fluxes in the Earth system are mere EFFECTS of temperature.’
OMG, weird. You are always on about the precision of words.
What is the physics behind these words ‘thermal presence’, ‘Mass-based’?
Also ‘radiative fluxes are mere Effects of temperature’ ?
So we are to understand that radiative fluxes, like that from the Sun on the Earth, cannot be the CAUSE of temperature change??
Kristian says:
OK, I don’t dispute that, although there’s a difference between the upper and lower atmosphere, and it can cool by shifting heat sideways, to the poles for example.
Suffice it to say that without GHGs there is no insulating effect at all, mass-based or otherwise, since the radiation balance must be achieved at the surface.
I expect there will still be a lapse rate due to convection, but it will be anchored at the surface instead of the TOA.
Equilibrium vapor pressure of water is .0234 atm at 20 C, and .0425 atm at 30 C. So aproximately 2.34% and 4.25% at 100% humidity respectively. Needless to say 42,500 ppm of H2O overwhelms 400 ppm of CO2 a few inches above the ocean, and CO2 slightly overwhelms at top of troposphere. Earths SB radiative temperature as viewed from outer space is way up in the troposphere, where the relative amount of H2O to CO2 starts to decline.
However, these radiative effects are insignificant compared to the albedo effects of cloud formation, clouds caused by water condensation, clouds reflecting hundreds of watts/sq M of sunlight. Clouds control the average temperature of the Earth via albedo. Just CliSci guys arent with the program yet.
I hear the sound of Chemical Engineers heads exploding. Yes I slightly oversimplify using vapor pressure to get 2.34 % and 4.25% water content at 100% RH in air at sea level. But nobody wants to study the non-idealities of Raoults law for this topic…
“However, these radiative effects are insignificant compared to the albedo effects”
That is a bit of a stretch. Albedo does have a huge effect, but that can’t eliminate the effect of GHGs. That would be like saying the calories from proteins are insignificant, just because they are less the the calories from carbs and fat.
CliSci guys arent with the program yet…..actually Ramanathan was with it in the 80s but has been backing some pretty sketchy papers written by others lately….
Tim,
Cloud albedo, say 0.6 over 55% of the planet , ocean say .08 over 70% of planet, continents about 0.15, clouds reflecting 50% of incoming solar back into space per square meter of cloud cover, thats hundreds of watts over a few cloudy hours per day, compared to C02 forcing of about 2 watts/sq.M, sort of continuously, as the increase since 1850…..OK, I can accept much less significant instead of insignificant. 🙂
Tim,
My original point was actually that CO2 has higher ratio compared to water vapor than some people think, when you consider altitude and equilibrium water content
DMacKenzie,
I agree that clouds & albedo are often under-appreciated. However, I think you should consider two points.
1) You are comparing *total* effects of albedo to *changes* in radiative forcing. To be more fair, you should consider only *changes* to cloud cover and albedo. A cursory search suggests that average cloud cover only changes a few percent from year to year, so your “hundreds of watts” would only be changing by a few percent — which is suddenly back in line with the changes due to GHGs.
2) Beside the cooing effect of clouds as they reflect away sunlight, there is a warming effect via IR radiation. See for example, https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rossow_01/neteffect.html
This means that the albedo effect is largely countered by the IR effect.
DMacKenzie says:
Needless to say 42,500 ppm of H2O overwhelms 400 ppm of CO2 a few inches above the ocean
No it doesn’t — wavelengths matter more than ppms. CO2 and water vapor have some spectral overlap, but it’s hardly 100%:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg
Plus, CO2 dominates where there is little water vapor, as in the polar regions.
DMacKenzie says:
CliSci guys arent with the program yet..actually Ramanathan was with it in the 80s but has been backing some pretty sketchy papers written by others lately.
Such as which papers?
David, please stop trolling.
Steve Richards says:
% H2O appears to vary from 0.02% to 4% (ish) as an atmospheric column. It would suggest to me that water vapor response would overwhelm CO2 response comfortably.
That’s wrong — you HAVE to look at the ab.sorp.tion across the full IR spectrum, where there certainly isn’t 100% overlap between CO2 and water vapor:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg
DA,
You wrote –
“Thats wrong you HAVE to look at the ab.sorp.tion across the full IR spectrum, where there certainly isnt 100% overlap between CO2 and water vapor:”
And if he ignores your demand to “look”, what then? Will you smite him with a colourful picture? Maybe flap a piece of paper in his face screaming “Evidence! Evidence!”
Oooooh! Scary! CO2 (like anything else) absorbs some infrared. It warms as a result (like anything else), and emits radiation (like anything else).
If you believe otherwise, you are more stupid and ignorant than you appear.
No GHE. You can’t even describe such a non-existent thing, can you?
Cheers.
MF finally wrote:
CO2 (like anything else) absorbs some infrared.
Half right, but right about the CO2 part.
Now, what are the consequences of CO2 absorbing some of the IR given off by the surface?
DA,
You wrote –
“Now, what are the consequences of CO2 absorbing some of the IR given off by the surface?”
Oooooh! Another witless gotcha! “Whatever shall I do?”, he said sarcastically?
The problem dear David, is that if the CO2 is hotter than the surface, radiation from the cooler surface will have no effect at all on the hotter CO2! You might just as well try to heat water using the radiation from ice!
If the CO2 is colder than the surface, then the CO2 will warm, just as any other matter in the universe of the same temperature.
CO2 has no special properties. It cannot warm anything hotter than itself, and it cannot fail to be heated by anything hotter than itself.
Stupid David. Stupid gotcha. Try getting a real job.
Cheers.
H2O definitely shunts a big portion of the spectrum. CO2 has a rather large response around 15 um that closes off more of the window.
Interesting side note…CO2 also has another, albeit far weaker, response around 13.3 um that is exploited by the ABI instrument onboard the GOES-R satellites. This “CO2” band at channel 16 is exploited for producing several of the GOES products. I believe the GHE in this part of the spectrum is insignificant however. Interesting nonetheless…
https://www.goes-r.gov/education/docs/ABI-bands-FS/Band_16FS_CO2_LW_IR_FINAL.pdf
That’s just one more way CO2 can cool the planet.
CO2 is increasing. But the planet isn’t cooling.
Well you’re only half wrong, DA.
Much improved from all wrong. huh?
Which half do you think is wrong? I will disprove it for you.
DA, the only thing you can “prove” is your ignorance of the relevant physics.
And you do that regularly.
Five years ago Scott Denning (Monfort professor at Colorado State) put a tool that calculated the Moon’s soil temperature on the web. It was even more nifty than a spreadsheet because you could enter parameters in boxes (on-line) and the answers would pop up.
Sadly this model no longer works the way it used to so I tried the “Wayback Machine”. Here is what I found:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141123151912/http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Moon/
Given that the “R” code is shown I am hoping that some bright spark here can figure out how activate the “Output Processor” that used to display the results.
Scott Denning and Roy Spencer don’t always see eye to eye. It would be fun to watch them discuss the GHE issue on TV. It could be entertaining.
Did you see that Denning/Spencer debate someone posted a few months ago?
@Svante,
I did see some sniping back and forth by Denning & Spencer here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
That was only a few weeks ago so if there was something going on before that please send a link.
Contrary to what I said in my last post, Denning’s Moon soil temperature model is working:
https://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Moon/
Ric Werme linked to a debate at the Heartland Institute.
It was worth watching I think:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/#comment-350110
The Moon soil temperature page may stir up the dust around here:
“The Moon is ‘tidally locked’ to the Earth so that the time required to rotate once on its axis is exactly the same as the period of its orbit around the Earth (that is, the length of the Moon’s ‘day’ is the same as the length of a Lunar ‘month:’ 29 Earth days, 12 hours, 44 minutes).”
Craig demonstrates his fascination with Institutionalized Pseudoscience, again.
Unable to think for himself, all he can do is falsely accuse others.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-356856
Nothing new.
You’re right, Craig. Don’t listen to the gargoyles here who deny astronomy.
DA, have you found your “missing” 150 W/m^2, yet?
Well, keep looking.
Hopelessly looking is better than no future at all, huh?
Sure I have.
But ask camel. He’s still confused about that.
David, please stop trolling.
Why is it trolling to ask Gcamel to account for his missing 150 W/m2?
You notice he never addresses this issue.
#2
David, please stop trolling.
Now that Scott Denning’s Moon model is working again on my computer let’s kick the tires. Remember this is an equatorial model so the temperatures should correspond closely with Dr. Roy’s Lat=5 numbers.
The day time temperature looks fairly good for both Scott & Roy. Here is how the peak temperatures compare:
Dr. Roy……….361.9 K
Scott Denning….390 K
Gallopingcamel…387.4 K
Diviner LRE……388.0 K
When it comes to night time temperatures the situation is much worse. Here are the dawn temperatures:
Dr. Roy……….118.5 K
Scott Denning….135 K
Gallopingcamel….95.8 K
Diviner LRE…….93.6 K
All three of us use the same radiation equations. While we use different parameters for Albedo and IR emissivity the differences are too small to explain the variations shown above.
So what is wrong with the models? The main problem is the nature of the lunar regolith which is highly complex. Dr. Roy’s model is the simplest as it uses a constant (sfc) to represent the bulk heat capacity of the regolith. Changing this constant has a much greater effect on night time temperatures than day time temperatures.
For example changing the sfc from 0.1 to 0.0476 drops the dawn temperature to 93.6 K which is in exact agreement with observations (the Diviner LRE).
Problem solved? Sadly no…….this is just “Whack-a-Mole”. You can adjust parameters to get perfect agreement at one point but errors pop up elsewhere!
On the Moon, the focus is understanding the radiative half of the problem. Time spent on crudely modeling the dark side and heat conduction through the lunar regolith is time wasted. I just take it to be (the observed) constant. I then get a number for the average that is better than all of you.
Naturally your model will be perfect if you plug in the numbers published by the Diviner LRE.
Awesome! Brilliant! Great job!
I didn’t do that. I said it was a big waste of time for people like you to try to model thermal conduction through the dark side regolity, when the focus is on radiation.
Try reading again.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
David, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
The calculation must be repeated layer after layer, right?
If bands are saturated more CO2 still adds thickness.
Sorry Svante, CO2 does NOT add “thickness”.
All of your hopes and dreams rest on a false religion.
Don’t worry, probably no one is laughing at you….
Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation?
Does the Earth emit it?
DA,
Does everything in the universe absorb infrared radiation?
Does everything in the universe above absolute zero emit infrared radiation continuously?
Are you still as stupid and ignorant as you were yesterday?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Does everything in the universe absorb infrared radiation?
No, of course not.
But GHGs do. Why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
DA,
Try naming something in the universe that does not absorb infrared information. You are obviously just as stupid and ignorant as you were yesterday, if not more so.
I assume you will ignore things such as vacuum, photons and other such irrelevancies.
I see you have essayed another stupid and pointless blanket gotcha.
If you want to use a blanket for a particular reason, just do it. Your attempt to conflate insulation with a GHE which you cannot even describe is just stupid.
Carry on attempting to deny, divert and confuse with stupid and irrelevant analogies. The Earth has cooled since the surface was molten – even since the seas were first created in the boiling state. Get used to it. No GHE. You cannot even usefully describe such an impossible thing! How hard can it be for a deluded GHE true believer?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
Try naming something in the universe that does not absorb infrared information.
Gaseous N2 and O2 are very poor ab.sorp.ers of IR.
Now, again: why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
You’re afraid to answer.
DA,
Initially, you claimed that not everything in the universe absorbed infrared radiation.
I wrote –
“Try naming something in the universe that does not absorb infrared information.” Of course I meant infrared radiation. Sorry.
However, in your usual slippery, evasive, and misleading fashion, you responded –
“Gaseous N2 and O2 are very poor ab.sorp.ers of IR.”
Indeed, they absorb infrared radiation, don’t they? You still cannot back up your claim that not everything in the universe can both absorb and emit infrared radiation. Actually, because N2 and O2 are some 2000 times as numerous as CO2, they absorb more infrared radiation in total than the 4 molecules in 10,000 which represent CO2.
So you still cannot name anything which does not absorb infrared radiation. About normal for a deluded GHE true believer not used to being questioned.
As your dim-witted blanket gotcha, work it out for yourself. Look at the internet. If you are still totally bamboozled, you are not smart enough to understand the answer. Don’t expect me to do your thinking for you.
Now, again – are you still as stupid and ignorant as you were yesterday? Afraid to answer? I wouldn’t blame you.
Cheers.
MF:
Present the evidence that atmospheric N2 and O2 ab.sorp IR.
Again, why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
DA,
You wrote –
“MF:
Present the evidence that atmospheric N2 and O2 ab.sorp IR.”
Oh, ye of small brain and short memory. You wrote before –
“Gaseous N2 and O2 are very poor ab.sorp.ers of IR.”
Maybe you should flap your answer in your face in front of a mirror, exclaiming “Evidence! Evidence!”
What a fool. You even manage to lose an argument with yourself.
Cheers.
DA,
You wrote –
“Again, why do you sleep under a blanket at night?”
Why do you want to know? Are you incompetent or lazy? Why ask me? Why would you think I sleep under a blanket in the tropics, anyway?
What a fool you are!
Cheers.
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
Why are you afraid to answer?
It’s relevant to the discussion here.
(Ironically, I know why you’re afraid to answer. We all do.)
Begone, troll!
JDHuffman says:
Optical thickness:
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Optical_thickness
Does CO2 not absorb infrared radiation?
Svante, I always enjoy clowns finding links they can’t understand.
As Mike Flynn says: “Carry on.”
Svante says: ” If bands are saturated more CO2 still adds thickness.”
That is one way to say it. If CO2 levels were only 10 ppm, then the radiation that escapes to space in the 15 um band would come from quite close to the surface. At 400 ppm, the radiation comes from higher elevations. At 10,000 ppm, the radiation would come from even higher.
So the “thickness” as regards radiation does depend on CO2 concentration. Which (I think) means we agree with each other.
Yes.
Tim Folkerts, Svante, please stop trolling.
You’re not quite right, are you?
Svante, please stop trolling.
I have read that right at 15µm the absorρtion is saturated at current levels of CO2 but increasing CO2 expands the wings on either side so more radiation is absorbed.
This isn’t the paper I was thinking of but it discusses the issue.
Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR
bands between 10 and 20 µm
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.618.6431&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Craig,
A simple way to explore some of these relationships is to play with MODTRAN. http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
This is not a full-fledged climate model, but it does show what happens (everything else being equal) when GHG levels are changed.
Craig,
A simple way to explore some of these relationships is to play with MODTRAN. http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
This is not a full-fledged climate model, but it does show what happens (everything else being held constant) when GHG levels are changed.
Tim Folkerts says, June 8, 2019 at 5:46 PM:
Yes. Which tells us zero about what happens in the REAL world. “Everything else being held constant” are the operative words here, after all. The Earth system isn’t a controlled lab experiment, and so the “All Else Being Equal” premise ultimately remains a pointless one.
We have to actually OBSERVE the Earth system to see what happens when the composition of the atmosphere changes over time. And thus far, the relevant observational data strongly points to the conclusion that nothing of significance happens, at least not thermally. It all appears to neatly regulate itself.
I agree with the POTENTIAL effect. I (and the data) disagree with the claim/assumption that it’s being REALISED.
“It all appears to neatly regulate itself.”
Oh, how does it do that?
The clearest evidence we have is that the Earth was NOT able to ‘regulate’ its way out of the ~ 33K of warming that GHG have produced, relative to an Earth without them.
The 33K is bogus.
Same as the bogus “missing” 150 W/m^2.
Just more of the same pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
Oh is it, JD?
Then Dr. Roys post above, where he showed Earth is quite cold without them, is all wrong?
What did he do wrong?
Obviously you were unable to understand his spreadsheet.
Nothing new.
JD specialty, never having an answer to back up his claims.
Nate can’t understand why he has no relevance.
Nothing new.
DA
Ummm, that reference just proves what I said. Of course wavelength has lots to do with it, but water wins…
DMacK: What does “water vapor wins” mean, exactly?
You haven’t bothered to put up my comments, Roy … understandable considering the abuse from Joe Postma. He’s extremely frustrated , and you must forgive him for that. Just remember, we’re all on your side. You can see things can get rough and dirty, emotions high …
Here’s an example, where you know which side you’re on, Roy…
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2018/01/climate-change-just-got-personal.html?showComment=1516344914022#c2227445517051063591
Where are Postma’s published papers? (In real journals.)
There isn’t a single reason to take him seriously. He is dead to all the science community except, for some reason, Roy.
David Appell
It seems Joseph Postma has gotten numerous articles published in Astrophysics journals. He may be good in his field of expertise. He does not seem capable of understanding heat transfer. It is not possible to attempt to explain how it works and why he is wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Postma
Norman, thanks for this.
But his wacky claims about climate science have never been published in real, good, peer reviewed journals, right?
Just this once I agree with David Appell. It really hurts to admit this but he is right about the deranged Joe Postma.
Why does it hurt you to agree with me, if you think I’m right?
That’s weird.
David, please stop trolling.
From your link:
“Sorry Grant, what you are linking to has no credibility and I have read them. You do realise that Wattsupwiththat is a site managed by the Fox News weather man. Rather than believing conspiracy theories and fringe and outlier science, I would rather trust the 100 years of peer reviewed science from institutions like the Royal Society and NASA.”
Dr. Spencer seems to be staying on the side of peer reviewed science. Joe Postma has gone to the other side.
Has Postma ever published a paper on climate science?
He does not deserve this amount of attention! Why is he getting it? He’s a fool.
DA,
Don’t be stupid. Climate is the average of weather, no more no less. Anyone claiming that the endlessly repetitive analysis of an average is science is either a fool or a fraud.
Keep at it. You might be able to convince the odd dimwit or two that pseudoscientific climate cultism is valid.
Cheers.
Has Postma ever published a paper on climate science?
David, please stop trolling.
Reply to bdgwx. Duplicated from above.
I didn’t work out the magnitude of the GHE in W/m^2.
I just worked out the percentage of energy returned to the surface, to bring the average temperature of the Earth to a particular value.
Here are the results. Remember, that it is only a model. All models are wrong, but some models are useful.
Avg-Temp CO2-ppm %-Returned
. 13.8 . 262 . 41.0
. 14.0 . 280 . 41.1
. 14.5 . 335 . 41.5
. 15.0 . 400 . 41.9
. 15.1 . 409 . 42.0
. 15.7 . 484 . 42.5
If you wanted to, you could work out the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from this data. But you would have to make assumptions about linearity etc.
ECS works out to be about 2.3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 level. This is at the bottom of the accepted range.
[The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report have ECS values ranging from 2.1C to 4.7C per doubling, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C]
I just rechecked my ECS calculation.
Assuming a linear relationship between CO2-ppm and Avg-Temp, the ECS is not constant. It depends on the initial CO2-ppm.
Initial
CO2-ppm ECS
280 . 2.3
300 . 2.5
320 . 2.7
340 . 2.8
360 . 3.0
380 . 3.2
400 . 3.3
420 . 3.5
[The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report have ECS values ranging from 2.1C to 4.7C per doubling, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C]
Very cool. Yeah, I get an ECR of about 2.3 from the data you posted here as well. Despite the linearity problem that does certainly lie within the accepted range.
AR5 officially states 1.5C to 4.5C. I wouldn’t be surprised if they pull the lower end up to 2.0C in AR6.
Yes, the IPCC probably will, since the 2015 Karl et al data published in Science showed there was, in fact, no pause.
David, please stop trolling.
Oh, I did (15.7 – 13.8) / (ln(484/262) / ln(2)) = 2.2C. Did I do that calculation right?
I didn’t use logs in my ECS calculation.
I just worked out the temperature for 2 x 280 = 560 ppm
temp = 0.0083 x ppm + 11.667
temp(560) = 16.3
So ECS = temp(560) – temp(280) = 16.3 – 14.0 = 2.3
But your log calculation seems to give a very similar result.
Well then that is even more interesting. Two different techniques yielding similar results…
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong.
The data for 0-2000 m for 2005 are around 9e22 J, and the data for 2018 are around 23e22 J.
That’s a change of 14e22 J in 13 years, or about 1e22 J/yr.
So a trend of roughly 1e22 J/yr.
I just don’t see how you get 1/10th of that value. Can you please explain?
data source:
0-2000 m:
https://is.gd/uzuYSI
https://is.gd/Oqc9cL
Yes. I agree with the trend of 1e22 j/yr. 1e22 = 10e21.
Anyway, you and I are on the same page. Geothermal and tidal dissipation energy sources aren’t enough to account for the +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance on the planet.
And going further this +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance is in the ballpark of what is expected for the difference between the TCR and ECR. If the climate sensitivity were about 0.7C per W/m^2 then even if no new CO2 were added then equilibrium would be achieved with a further 0.4C of warming. This would give us an ECR-to-TCR ration of 1.5/1.1 = 1.35x which is about the ballpark using other techniques. 1.5C of warming may already be baked in…maybe.
OK, good, so you were off by a factor of 10.
And going further this +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance is in the ballpark of what is expected for the difference between the TCR and ECR.
Neither TCR or ECS is measured in units of W/m2.
If the climate sensitivity were about 0.7C per W/m^2 then even if no new CO2 were added then equilibrium would be achieved with a further 0.4C of warming.
I don’t understand how you come up with any of these values. I don’t accept claims I can’t understand or that aren’t proven with reasoning.
I said the trend was 10e21 j/yr. That is exactly the same as 1e22. I’m not sure how I’m off by a factor of 10 since 10e21 = 1e22. Did I typo something further up?
I’m not saying ECR and TCR are measured in W/m^2. I’m saying a +0.6 W/m^2 is consistent with the expectations of ECR and TCR. For example, at 410 ppm the forcing of CO2 would be 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m^2. With a current imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2 that means we’ve burned off 1.4 W/m^2. And with a warming of about 1.1C that puts the sensitivity at 1.1/1.4 = 0.78C per W/m^2. This is in the ballpark of expectations using recent volcanic eruptions as calibration tools and the paleoclimate record which shows a range of 0.5-2.0C per W/m^2. Anyway, to reach equilibrium we still need to burn off that 0.6 W/m^2 imbalance. Using a more conservative 0.7C per W/m^2 that yields 0.7 * 0.6 = 0.4C. That 0.4C added to the TCR of 1.1C brings us to an ECR of 1.5C. Thus 1.5C of warming *might* already be baked in.
bdgwx says:
I said the trend was 10e21 j/yr. That is exactly the same as 1e22.
Huh??
They differ by a factor of 10.
What are you talking about????? What are the units on your last number? I can’t make sense of what you’re claiming unless you put units on your numbers and tell me what they represent.
10e21 = 1e22
Note that is 10 * 10^21 = 1 * 10^22
Pay attention to the numbers after the ‘e’. I’m using 21 while you are using 22.
We agree.
OK, thanks. Then I misunderstood you. My bad. But I don’t see why you’d write 10e21 instead of 1e22. In scientific notation the leading number is supposed to be always between 1 and 10.
Thanks for clearing this up/
Again, my mistake.
Sorry, bd.
Just this once I agree with David Appell. It really hurts to admit this but he is right about the deranged Joe Postma.
bdgwx Said:
“For example, at 410 ppm the forcing of CO2 would be 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m^2.”
That equation looks like something from the Arrhenius (1896) paper that estimated the warming effect of CO2. The constant (5.43) is the “Sensitivity Constant” in degrees Centigrade per doubling of CO2 concentration. The “ln” (log based on 2.71828) should be replaced by log based on 2.
Log(base 2) of (410/280) = 0.5502 so the answer is 2.99 Kelvin rather than 2.0 W/m^2.
Please note that nobody defends the Arrhenius sensitivity constant of 5.43 K/doubling of CO2 because it does not come close to wahat is observed. Dr. Roy has suggested a much lower “Sensitivity Constant” equal to 1.3 K/doubling.
While I respect Dr. Roy and Dr. Richard Lindzen they should stop talking about “Sensitivity Constants” measures in degrees/doubling and thereby acknowledge that the Arrhenius hypothesis is FALSE.
There is a sensitivity constant that agrees with observations over the last seven glacial cycles:
Sensitivity Constant = 120 ppm of CO2/degree Centigrade with a time lag of ~600 years.
camel, odd that it would bother you to agree with me, unless your pursuit is something other than the truth.
GCamel: Arrhenius was right about the forcing of CO2. It’s the same equation today:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Arrhenius got a great deal right. Not everything. But it was a tremendous first effort, and set the scene for 20th century climate science.
DA,
You wrote –
“Arrhenius was right about the forcing of CO2. Its the same equation today: . . .”
There is no such thing as climate science. Climate is the average of weather, no more no less. Your use of pseudoscientific nonsense words such as “forcing” is bizarre.
CO2 “forces” nothing, certainly not the weather, the average of which is climate. Do you really believe the nonsense you spout, or are you just another deluded cultist?
You cannot even describe the wondrous and magical, yet strangely non-existent GHE. You can’t make a thermometer hotter by putting more CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer! I suppose that is why you are reduced to stupid and irrelevant analogies involving blankets, overcoats, pot lids, and anything else to avoid admitting you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis to explain your mythical GHE!
What a fool you are! Do you expect anybody to believe your peculiar nonsense? I suppose there must be some people who are even thicker than you, but I don’t know any personally. Maybe you could provide a few names?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, do you really believe the nonsense you spout?
camel,
I’m using the form of the radiative forcing law documented here. This form is in units of W/m^2. I do understand that the sensitivity parameter can incorporate the C per W/m^2 part as well and directly yield a response in units of C like what Arrhenius did in his original 1896 work.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238498266_New_estimtes_of_raditive_forcing_due_to_well_mixed_greenhouse_gases
By the way, Arrhenius’ sensitivity parameter was too high because of errors in experimental data provided to him from other scientists like Langley. He updated his sensitivity parameter in 1908 based corrected data to 4C per doubling of CO2.
And yes, Arrhenius may not have laid the golden egg on the first try, but it’s remarkable how accurate some of his predictions have been considering how little knowledge he had to work with. For example, he predicted that the oceans would buffer significant amounts of anthroprogenic CO2, that the warming would be more pronounced in the polar regions and during the night. Sure, his original sensivity of 5.5C (1896) and even his revised sensivity of 4.0C (1908) may be too high, but consider that this was the first ever quantification of the effect and it was done more than 100 years ago without any knowledge of the molecular physics and quantum mechanical understanding needed to explain it.
S,
If you were not such a fool, you would quote something I wrote, and convince others of my error by producing facts to bolster your opinion.
It seems you cannot, so you lash out like a trapped rat, although less effectually. I decline to directly answer your irrelevant and stupid gotcha.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Thank you for your answer.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Anyway, the main point here is that an imbalance of +0.6 W/m^2 or more precisely +0.7 W/m^2 if counting the uptake in the atmosphere, cyrosphere, lithosphere, etc. is consistent with the warming already observed and the well known 5.35 * ln(delta-CO2) relationship. It is also consistent with expectations of the climate sensitivity in terms of C per W/m^2. It’s also consistent with expectations of the ratio between TCR and ECR and the lag between the two of a couple of decades or so.
The big unknowns in IMHO are the tipping points. When do they activate? We know from the paleoclimate record that climate sensitivity (in units of C per W/m^2) tends to settle toward the lower end of the range during quiescent periods, but once the climate system gets perturbed hard enough the sensitivity ramps up going above 1.0C per W/m^2.
The point…we *may* experience more warming from the 2nd half of the CO2 doubling than the first half if the sensitivity increases. I’d be interested in hearing comments regarding this point.
bdgwx says:
“experience more warming from the 2nd half of the CO2 doubling than the first half if the sensitivity increases. I’d be interested in hearing comments regarding this point.”
The first half has more time to run feed-backs to completion, your equilibrium point may be hundreds of years into the future.
Yes, the equilibrium point *IS* hundreds of years into the future, if not thousands.
It takes a long time for some feedbacks to run out.
The Paris limit of two degrees is enough to wipe out the Greenland ice sheet, but it will take a few thousand years.
As I understand it the fast feedback ECR lags the TCR by a few decades. The slow feedbacks are a different matter. And I agree that they are likely measured in hundreds of years. I also agree that 2C of warming may indeed put a enough of nudge on the climate system to melt huge volumes of ice thus causing more warming. But, like you said that may take over a thousand years to play out.
“The big unknowns in IMHO are the tipping points. When do they activate? ”
This is typical Alarmist BS that has no more credibility than James Hansen and his “Runaway Greenhouse Effect”.
Ignore the stupid people who are trying to scare you and listen to H.L. Mencken:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
Yes, we all know that HL Mencken was quite the expert in modern climate science.
DA,
You wrote –
“Yes, we all know that HL Mencken was quite the expert in modern climate science.”
There is no such thing as climate science, modern or otherwise. You are living in a fantasy world unconnected to reality. Climate is the average of weather, no more, no less.
Any fool or fraud can call themselves a climate scientist, and many do. Second rate wannabes, undistinguished deluded mathematicians, PhDs who are too dim to work out whether they received a Nobel Peace Prize – or not.
You worship these bumbling buffoons? Good luck.
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
You are absolutely correct; there is not such thing as climate science. For as you stated, and I again state: climate merely is the average of meteorological factors at a given place on a given day average over many years there have been records of these meteorological factors that have been measured.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hi Make,
And I believe we both know that a major meteorological factor is temperature which is greatly influenced by the incident solar radiation upon the surface at each individual location. So there is not average temperature for the earth, only for that location for each hour of the day. I agree at some point we must a average such a variable as temperature because it is commonly changing, not usually constant during many hours of a 24hr period.
As the solar radiation incident upon the surface is strongly influence by the very variable cloud.
Have a good day, Jerry
MF is right but I would put it slightly differently. There are honest “Climate Scientists” such as Nicola Scafetta, Scott Denning, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Linzen and some others.
At least 90% of “Climate Scientists” are dishonest and they are destroying the public’s trust in science. Our society is being corrupted because lying goes unpunished almost every time.
Hi gallopingcamel,
Have to disagree with you. The fundamental basis of science is the observation and not reason or models. So, in the case of Roy, previous article and this one. A continuous solar radiation of 342 W/m2 value has never been observed to my knowledge and he pretends his models can explain something which is not observed.
Have a good day, Jerry
camel,
Can you provide a justification as to why you feel a tipping point is alarmist? It might be best, at least for me, if you could define what “alarmist” even means. How can we objectively categorize hypothesis/predictions as being “alarmist”?
“At least 90% of Climate Scientists are dishonest”
It sounds like you define ‘dishonest’ as those climate scientists who don’t agree with you, GC?
This is the tenor of our times that somehow people who disagree with us, even on a science issue, must have character flaws!
You realize you are talking about thousands of 20-something graduate students as well.
You believe that all of them are being persuaded by their bosses to be dishonest too?
N,
You wrote –
“You believe that all of them are being persuaded by their bosses to be dishonest too?”
I might use words other than “dishonest”, such as deluded, foolish, or fraudulent, but, in essence, the answer to your question is yes.
A student will generally do well to agree with their lecturer or supervisor if they wish to pass the course. If the lecturer teaches phlogiston, phlogiston it is. If Lord Kelvin decrees the age of the Earth to be twenty million years, this is probably a good answer to give if Lord Kelvin is asking the question.
Just see the comments on this blog. People furiously defending a GHE they cannot even describe, on the basis that some “expert” said it must exist.
As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”, and I agree. If you cannot even describe what it is you wish me to believe in, I am unlikely to give my unstinting support to your nebulous beliefs.
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. The atmosphere is chaotic, and unpredictable.
Cheers.
Given your delusional view that 90 mW/m^2 of geothermal cooling is relevant but 240 W/m^2 of solar warming is irrelevant to The Earth’s temperature, I don’t really think you have any credibility on these issues, Mike.
N,
I don’t care what you think, if you cannot actually say what it is you are disagreeing with me about.
Maybe you could actually quote something you disagree with, and provide a fact or two to support your disagreement? No?
Begone, troll.
‘Maybe you could actually quote something you disagree with, and provide a fact or two to support your disagreement? No?’
Did that, Mike. Did exactly that, as you requested.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-356818
And ….??
Nothing from you. Nada. Crickets.
Clearly this is just your standard tactic to avoid dealing with inconvenient facts.
Nate, please stop trolling.
@Svante,
That Denning-Spencer debate you linked was really interesting:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/roy-spencer-vs-scott-denning-iccc6/
Both participants came over very well no matter which one you find credible.
So why did normally rational Scott Denning go all snarky and make this loony attack on UAH?
https://twitter.com/airscottdenning/status/1118628870641594370?s=12
I think Roy came across better, Scott seemed a bit jumpy, perhaps that’s what caused the Twitter comment. He also threw in some basic stuff that seemed out of place.
The Twitter comment was in response to the AIRS independent validation of the NASA GISS temperature record.
Roy just said AIRS is consistent with the UAH record, so I conclude both are OK. They just measure different things. GHGs warm the surface and cool the upper atmosphere. UAH is just nearer the pivot point.
There’s no reason the average LT temperature should be in agreement with the surface temperature.
RSS’s LT trend is 50% higher than UAH’s.
Yes, the RSS weighting is closer to the surface, isn’t it?
I conclude they’re all reasonably OK, for what they measure.
While I was leaning towards Dr. Roy he said some things I disagreed with but that is the nature of science (it is never settled).
If you recall Scott Denning made that point. You can never prove you are right and it only takes one experiment to prove you wrong (Einstein, Feynman etc.)
Well, Dr. Spencer starts on the right foot. But then it all goes hideously wrong.
Modelling without radiative atmosphere? Perfect! A time dependant model with multiple latitude bands run over multiple diurnal cycles in 15 minute intervals? Great. Solar constant of 1370 w/m2 and planetary albedo of 0.3? Fine. Surface layer using specific heat capacity of water? Perfect, 71% of the surface is water!
But then…
Surface layer responding to heating is 0.1 m deep?! Nooooo ….. solar heating of the oceans occurs down to 200m.
Broadband IR emissivity of 0.98? For water that is only the emissivity at zenith. Hemispherical emissivity for water is below 0.7!
This modelling fails for exactly the same reason the models that give 255 K for surface Tav without radiative atmosphere fail. That is a complete failure to correctly model solar thermal gain in the oceans.
Let’s do a quick sanity check on the model. Only 3 out of 9 latitude bands get above freezing for just a few hours a day. That’s the oceans frozen solid. Now, where is the snowline in this solar system? That would be beyond 3AU in the outer reaches of the asteroid belt. Only after that point can worlds like Ceres and Europa exist with frozen oceans. This model fails the simplest sanity check. This is what happens when you treat the oceans as opaque to sunlight.
The very simple model that gives 255 K doesn’t assume any ocean. It simply assumes the planet has a global average albedo of alpha = 0.3.
I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand, People take this simple model way to seriously — it’s just a heuristic model.
“The very simple model that gives 255 K doesn’t assume any ocean. It simply assumes the planet has a global average albedo of alpha = 0.3”
It’s worse than that. That simple model assumes the surface of the planet to be a near blackbody instead of an extreme shortwave selective surface.
You can’t complain people take it “way too seriously”. 255 K being raised 33 K to our current average of 288 K is the very foundation claim of the entire AGW conjecture.
The entire AGW conjecture rides on failing to correctly model solar thermal gain in the oceans. Dr Spencers modelling has failed for exactly the same reason.
Try modelling 71% of the surface as an extreme shortwave selective surface with a slow speed of internal energy transport and you will find that surface Tav without radiative atmosphere should be above 310 K. That doesn’t leave any room for a radative atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Konrad,
The surface is very nearly a blackbody for thermal IR (ie for all the outgoing IR from the surface). With no radiative atmosphere, the surface Tav MUST be ~ 255 K to radiate @ 240 W/m^2 (ie the amount absorbed, accounting for an albedo of 0.3). And of course, it would be warmer near the equator and cooler near the poles.
If the surface Tav were 310 K, it would be radiating well over 500 W/m^2 to space while receiving 240 W/m^2. The surface would have to cool rapidly!
Your “selective surface” effect could allow water BELOW the surface to get warmer than 255 K. Just like the BOTTOM of the solar pond can reach ~ 80 C while the surface must remain close to the ambient surface temperatures (~ 10-40 C). A solar pond cannot maintain a surface @ 80 C. Similarly the oceans could not maintain a surface @ 37 C = 310 K.
(In the real oceans, convection maintains the lower layers at or below the temperature of the surface. If the water 1 m down were warmer than the surface, the warmer water blow would rise to the surface and the cooler water at the surface would sink.)
–Tim Folkerts says:
June 11, 2019 at 8:30 AM
Konrad,
The surface is very nearly a blackbody for thermal IR (ie for all the outgoing IR from the surface). With no radiative atmosphere, the surface Tav MUST be ~ 255 K to radiate @ 240 W/m^2 (ie the amount absorbed, accounting for an albedo of 0.3). And of course, it would be warmer near the equator and cooler near the poles.–
What must be, is Earth absorbs about 240 watts and emits 240 watts.
But if tropical ocean surface temperature was about 3.5 C rather than about 26 C.
Then Earth would not emit 240 watts.
And Earth would absorb more than 240 watts and the albedo would change, and you could blame it on the change of albedo.
But the change in albedo would not be much. But you not measuring it very precisely now, nor would you then. So it might work out somewhat.
But anyhow when planet is close to “equilibrium” it’s going to emit as much as it absorbs. But it doesn’t tell you the temperature.
Or no one don’t uses how much a planet emits as a way to determine the average temperature of any other planet.
Space alien might measure Earth temperature and say it’s -18 C, and they might measure Venus and Mars and say those planets about same temperature.
Which might upset the Earthlings, but it’s because they have some standard way to measure a planet’s temperature which they think is useful [for whatever the weird alien purpose is].
Tim, you are still not getting it. It does not matter about surface “a” and “e”. The oceans covering 71% of this planet’s surface are not heated at the surface.
Throw your climastrology clacs out. Go with Spacecraft thermal control 101. After all, our planet is a giant spacecraft.
I get that you don’t understand how the sun heats our oceans, so forget the sun. Switch the sun off!
Let’s imagine a spacecraft floating in free space several light years from the sun. It is powered by an internal Seebeck generator. It has an external surface area of 1 m2. The Surface has an emissivity of 0.8 in the LWIR spectrum.
What would be the internal power dissipation in watts that would result in an external surface temperature of 335K?
When you do the work Tim, and give me that power in watts, I’ll talk you through the simple replicable experiments that show how the sun causes that internal power in our solar translucent oceans. I Promise.
But you won’t so that simple calc will you Tim? You’ll gaslight and say why it isn’t relevant. You’ll run back to your instantaneous radiative balance calcs that failed for the earth, the Moon, Mars and Pluto.
I challenge you Tim. Spacecraft. No sun. Surface emissivity of 0.8. Surface temp of 335 K. What is the internal power in watts?
“You’ll run back to your instantaneous radiative balance calcs that failed for the earth, the Moon, Mars and Pluto.”
There was no failure in the global mean (or local) temperature estimates for moon, Mars, Titan or Pluto or even Venus or any other object, the going in expectations for temperature were reasonably observed by instruments well enough for gov. work. It is Konrad’s experiments that are unreasonable, misleading Konrad not the informed, critical blog reader.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Even deeper. Direct heating is in the first 5-10 m.
Mixing and conduction can be seen down to 400-500m.
A good day of sunshine delivers some MJ/m^2 to the surface, just enough to warm the upper 5m 1K……
–A good day of sunshine delivers some MJ/m^2 to the surface, just enough to warm the upper 5m 1K–
Ocean is warmed by direct and indirect and at noon clear skies you get 1120 watts. So for 6 hours get average of 1000 watts per square meter. Problem is you tend get clouds in tropics around noon, though if for whatever reason the ocean was cool, you wouldn’t get the clouds.
3600 x 6 hours times 1000 is 21.6 million joules
1000 kg of water is 4.18 kJ per kg or 4.18 million joules.
Hmm, most the the sunlight warms first couple meter, but within the first meter are portion of heat will rise to surface and evaporate but heated water below 1 meter will be inhibted due the more warmed top one mater of water.
And per mm of water evaporated per square meter. one loses 2.26 million joules.
It seems upper 5 meter would increase by average of 1 K, and have more uniformity the more it mixed.
I wonder how many mm of water one can evaporate in a “good day of sunshine” of course it’s related to how much it rains, but evaporates more than rain because water vapor is transported outside of the tropics.
Rough 200 cm per year, 2000 / 365 = 5.4 mm per day.
So about 10 million joules per day and it seems most of it coming from top 1 meter of warmed ocean water.
And before and after peak hours sunlight arriving at steeper angle and heating more in top 1 meter of water.
Sorry should have written 20 MJ/m^2
https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/isoflux-contour-plots
Point is that thinking in radiative balance for oceans is utter nonsense. May work on the moon, not on Earth. Thinking in received energy warming a certain amount of water with a given heat capacity makes way more sense.
https://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf
Konrad:
Like JP, you are arguing against yourself without realizing it!
The greater the depth of ocean involved in the diurnal heating/cooling cycle, the larger the thermal capacitance.
The larger the thermal capacitance involved, the less the diurnal temperature swing.
The less the diurnal temperature swing, the higher the average temperature (Holder’s inequality).
So if you object to Dr. Roy’s model due to too little of a depth involved, you are arguing that it should be closer to the “zero-order” (average power) model.
Ed, no, I am not arguing against myself. The issue of depth is not about increased thermal capacity. The issue of depth is about where solar energy is deposited in the oceans. Dr. Spencer has incorrectly modelled the surface as completely opaque to solar SW and SWIR.
The reality is that the sun heats the oceans well below their LWIR opaque surface. Given the oceans can only lose energy from their surface and the only energy transports back to the surface are slow (conduction and convection) there is a real greenhouse effect in the oceans. The deeper sunlight penetrates, the stronger this effect gets. This is why the depth of solar penetration into the surface and the speed of sensible heat transport back to the surface must be modelled correctly to find the critical figure for surface Tav without radiative atmosphere.
Konrad
I am throwing of the BS flag on this one.
Where do you get this from? “Broadband IR emissivity of 0.98? For water that is only the emissivity at zenith. Hemispherical emissivity for water is below 0.7!”
You made that up maybe?
Here is the reality. Roy Spencer is right and you just make up unsupportable claims.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.781&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Scientists have actually measured the emissivity of sea water. They don’t just make up numbers, act like authorities and then post the junk science on a blog.
If you make claims support them.
I can also give you a simple experiment you can have your kids do at a science fair. Take ball made with very absorbing surface. connect it to a variable speed motor. Have an infrared heat lamp shine on the surface. Use an IR thermometer to measure the temperature. First do not rotate the ball and see how hot it will get with no rotation. After that is established try various speeds of rotation. It will soon be apparent that if it rotates the surface does not reach the same temperature as when it is stationary. Why? The energy is spread out over the whole ball instead of just one side.
Norman asks: “Where do you get this from? “Broadband IR emissivity of 0.98? For water that is only the emissivity at zenith. Hemispherical emissivity for water is below 0.7!”
Emissivity (and reflectivity) do change with angles. A quick google search found this from Science of Doom:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/
Briefly:
1) emissivity for water does decrease as the angle of incident comes closer to horizontal. Emissivity drops to 0.95 at ~ 60 degrees and 0.7 at ~ 80 degrees . It seems doubtful that an integration of all angles would give 0.7
2) The answer above assumes perfectly still water. For rough water, the effective angle is smaller and hence the effective emissivty is larger. This makes it even less plausible for the answer to 0.7 when integrated over a rough hemisphere.
Tim Folkerts
Thank you. Looking at this graph from you link:
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/emissivity-vs-angle-and-refractive-index.png
Even with the decrease in emissivity with angle, if you take a black body over all the angles and compare it. If the blocks in the diagram represent energy radiated away with comparing to a black body, you would still get an overall emissivity of about 0.9. If you look at the blocks of the potential 100 of a blackbody you might get around 10 that are lost. This means the ocean would still radiate 90% of the energy of a blackbody even taking all angles into consideration.
Also another important fact is that, since emissivity goes down with angle away from 90, the ability of water to absorb also drops drastically with angle.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/phdwg33.gif
From this site:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/water.htm
The net effect would mean it really does not matter. The angles that can’t emit well also do not absorb incoming solar well so they lose less energy but they gain less input energy from the Sun. It would not make water a selective surface.
I am not convinced at all Konrad’s point is valid or good. It seems what so many do. Look for some small thing to try and discredit rather than understanding what they are seeing. The Solar input to the surface is not close to enough to maintain the Earth’s surface at the temperature that is observed.
One can nitpick the exact amount. That would not be the point of the thread. The point is the Solar input could not keep the surface as warm as it is without a GHE.
Norman, it appears you’ve found another link you can’t understand.
Your comedy is most appreciated.
Any more examples?
Norman, your accusation that I am just making things up is ludicrous. Given that LWIR reflectivity is the corollary of emissivity, you can easily determine the angular emissivity of water with the tunable LWIR quantum cascade laser and detector.
However, as Tim Folkerts correctly points out, the issue is largely academic due to the real world texture of water. I only brought up the point about hemispherical emissivity of flat water because Dr. Spencer’s model did not include surface texture.
The real failing of Dr. Spencer’s model is failure to model the physical greenhouse effect in the oceans. The sun heats the oceans well below their LWIR opaque surface. The oceans can only lose energy from their surface, and the internal energy transports within the oceans are slow. Further, the energy transports back to the surface vary with the diurnal cycle, with conduction dominating during the day and convective overturning at night.
K,
As far as I know, the hottest water is a the surface, being least dense. It radiates in proportion to the fourth power of the absolute temperature as usual. It then becomes cooler, and sinks, displacing warmer water to the surface. And on it goes.
The end result is that the densest water sinks to the bottom, where it is prevented from freezing by the heat below, and the peculiar properties of water – freezing water becoming less dense, and floating to the surface, etc.
Net result – current state of the oceans. Fancy NOAA and other brightly coloured graphics showing denser colder water miraculously rising from the depths to the surface are just stupid.
About as stupid as the National Science Foundation insisting for years that Archimedes’ Law did not apply to floating ice!
Fairly obviously, the influence of the Sun extends to the bottom of the photic zone. Light which is absorbed results in heat, and the hotter water rises. Perpetual motion, driven by the Sun in the photic zone, combined with convection from basal heat. Conduction seems to be pretty much zero, given that the water is in liquid form, and continuously in motion.
Cheers.
Konrad,
solar heating of the oceans occurs down to 200m.
Looks like you just have to put this into the Excel calculator and temperatures soar up.
Why was Dr. Spencer afraid to include convection if the correct input of the solar heated depth gives us plenty of room for more cooling?
I agree that the treatment of the oceans to be opaque is one of the very mistakes that climate science is doing.
But then the calculator actually works and anybody can draw the right conclusion. The fattest green house is in the oceans.
And naturally so. Water has all the hallmarks of a “green house” ingredient: It lets short waves pass through and emitts long wave.
Konrad, June 9, 2019 at 12:32 AM
You said:
“Surface layer responding to heating is 0.1 m deep?! Nooooo .. solar heating of the oceans occurs down to 200m.
Broadband IR emissivity of 0.98? For water that is only the emissivity at zenith. Hemispherical emissivity for water is below 0.7!”
Dr. Roy and Scott Denning have published models for the Moon that you can find linked on this thread so your comment about oceans does not apply.
The Moon’s regolith is a good insulator…..far better than that glass fiber insulation in your roof space. A consequence is that a model of the Moon only needs to go to a depth of one meter yet Scott Denning’s model goes down 17.5 meters.
Dr. Roy uses a broadband IR (isotropic) emissivity of 0.98 which has a significant effect on night time temperatures. My own model works best with 0.95 emissivity. Scott Denning points out that the Moon radiates and absorbs like asphalt!
Most models need to make a bunch of simplifying assumptions. Over time we can improve our models to more closely correspond with observations.
“The Moon’s regolith is a good insulator…..far better than that glass fiber insulation in your roof space. A consequence is that a model of the Moon only needs to go to a depth of one meter yet Scott Denning’s model goes down 17.5 meters.
Dr. Roy uses a broadband IR (isotropic) emissivity of 0.98 which has a significant effect on night time temperatures. My own model works best with 0.95 emissivity. Scott Denning points out that the Moon radiates and absorbs like asphalt!”
Well if Moon radiates and absorbs like asphalt, it would probably go down to 17.5 meter.
But I would say any significant amount of heat is absorbed to depth of about 1 foot.
But trying figure out lunar night temperature [why it’s sort of flat for a few days] then the small amount of heat absorbed below a foot is important.
Most of lunar heat loss occurs before the sun goes down, and this similar to land surface on Earth, though it’s more dramatic with the Moon due to it’s long day. Or as sun sets on Earth or Moon the surface gets less than 100 watts per square meter and surface temperature is dropping with such small amounts of solar flux.
Of course in morning one also less than 100 watts, but the very cold surface can warmed by 100 watts- but it’s not going warm to much depth [an couple cm]. And near noon it’s heating to deepest depth [due to having 120 C at the surface] or days of intense sunlight heats to deepest levels [despite the very good insulation at top few cm of lunar dust. And by 3pm though surface is cooler, one could be added heat at depth, but by 5 pm, the surface is colder than depth it’s losing heat rather gains, and does this for more than 1 day before sunset. Of course having any sunlight on the surface acts like insulation, inhibiting heat loss.
So at 1 meter depth on Moon you have fairly uniform temperature, though could vary by .1 C or more. Same goes with 10 meter, though could vary by .01 C or less. But 10 meters at .01 has same heat as 1 meter at .1 C. or deeper depth has effect upon the 100 K lunar night.
Gallopingcamel, I am aware of your work on Lunar modelling from Talkshop. You used a multi layer FEA model to closely match the empirical results from DIVINER. As you point out, modelling below 1m for the Lunar surface gives diminishing returns on precision.
However, what I am pointing out is that the model Dr. Spencer has presented is for Earth, and he has ignored the true properties of the planet’s surface. He’s used the conductivity and specific heat capacity for water, but only modelled to 100mm depth.
To model surface Tav without radiative atmosphere for Earth, you must correctly model solar thermal gain in the oceans along with the conductive and convective sensible heat transports within the oceans.
Treating the oceans as opaque to sunlight as Dr. Spencer has done simply won’t work. There is no net radiative atmospheric greenhouse on this planet, but there is a greenhouse effect in the oceans. This is because the sun actually heats the oceans well below their LWIR opaque surface. For energy to leave the oceans, it must conduct and convect back to the surface from the depth where it accumulated. This is a slow process which allows the oceans to accumulate energy over diurnal cycles. The oceans act as a physical greenhouse.
Dr. Spencers final comment highlights the error that led to the entire AGW debacle:
I hope this will help convince some who are still open-minded on this subject that even intense tropical sunshine cannot explain real-world tropical temperatures. The atmospheric greenhouse effect must also be included.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect is an assumption based on incorrect modelling of the critical figure for surface Tav without radiative atmosphere. Remember, the atmospheric GHE conjecture begins with Fourier’s work, not Tyndall’s.
My counter to Dr. Spencers argument is simply this: The oceanic greenhouse must be included to explain real world temperatures. When you do that, you find our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling the solar heated surface materials of this planet, not warming them.
David Appell, June 9, 2019 at 12:08 AM
You said:
“camel, odd that it would bother you to agree with me, unless your pursuit is something other than the truth.”
In the immortal words of Robbie Burns:
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!”
To me and probably many others here you seem like the ACLU which is on the wrong side of every issue.
Thus when I found myself agreeing with you I was shocked.
All I’m doing is presenting the consensus science.
You’ve never come close to disproving it.
David, please stop trolling.
There is no greenhouse gas effect, nor is there its Radiative Forcing effect. Chapter 8 of IPCC clearly and and repeatedly says that Radiative Forcing is a concept, it is therefore not a science.
Changes in climate has been cause by life on earth, long before life became aerobic. Climate change is thus not about atmospheric physics or meteorology. For more details, click on my name.
Correction: IPCC Report of 3013 AR5.
Nabil Swedan says:
“There is no greenhouse gas effect”.
But Roy Spencer just proved it, who to trust?
You believe what you see and measure only. No one has ever measured the greenhouse gas effect, it has no chemical potential in the thermodynamic tables or other published literature; it therefore does not exist. Chapter 8 of IPCC Report of 2013 says repeatedly its effect, the Radiative Forcing is a concept, not a science.
Here’s a measurement:
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif
The IPCC clearly and repeatedly says there is a GHE.
Climate change is modulated by life on Earth. It’s also modulated by a lot of other factors. The trick is figuring all of the factors and what magnitude of a role they played in each climate change event. The magnitude of their effect changes from one era to another.
bdgwx, your false religion always seems to have a backdoor.
That should tell you something.
Clearly you have not looked at Chapter 8 of IPCC Report AR5. Read it first. Radiative Forcing is a concept based on this Chapter. Radiative forcing is the greenhouse gas effect.
Radiative Forcing was a concept decades before any IPCC report. The greenhouse effect (an idea over a hundred years older than IPCC) is only one aspect of radiative forcing.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Addition: IPCC Report of 2013, AR5
Some people have apparently taken umbrage at my opinion that the Earth as a whole is cooling, even though individual thermometers on or near the surface will react to being exposed to increased heat by showing higher temperatures.
Here is a quote which might lead them to a variety of original sources.
“Their estimate on the average cooling rate is ∼70 K Ga−1 for the last 3 Ga, but because of data scatter, this estimate has a large uncertainty of at least ±30 K Ga−1.”
Research on the Urey ratio will probably be of assistance.
You have a choice of believing the delusional beliefs of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and the rest, or scientists such as Urey, who was awarded a real Nobel Prize for Chemistry, unlike the fake Nobel Peace Prize which Mann awarded to himself. Who to believe?
Cheers.
Sorry Mike, the fact that you are nothing but an armchair scientist is again obvious since you should know that Urey was out of his depth on this topic. See:
Influence of magmatism on mantle cooling, surface heat flow and Urey ratio
TakashiNakagawaa Paul J.Tackleyb
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.02.011
who demonstrate that “The Urey ratio is not good constraint for understanding thermal evolution. “
m,
Spare me the faux sorrow.
As is usual with the GHE true believers, you cannot actually bring yourself to disagree with anything I wrote, can you? Or you can argue with things I didn’t write, as you have done.
That is because you are stupid and ignorant, compared with my superior wisdom and knowledge.
Carry on believing the delusional likes of Hansen, Schmidt Mann, Trenberth, and the rest, if you must. I wish you luck.
Cheers.
Carry on believing the delusional likes of Urey.
It is amazing how people like you (e.g. Trump) live in an alternative universe of facts and physics.
Are you sure you are not an alien?
m,
As usual, you cannot disagree with anything I wrote, rather things I didn’t write. Oh well.
This is characteristic of pseudoscientific climate cultists, who lash out left and write at anybody who does not share their fantasy.
If you can’t bring yourself to say what it is you are disagreeing with, then you are just being disagreeable for the sake of it.
In which case – begone, troll!
“my opinion that the Earth as a whole is cooling”
Carry on believing.
How about that theory that the moon is made of cheese? What say you?
Begone, stupid troll!
Nate says, June 9, 2019 at 3:09 PM
You said:
“It sounds like you define ‘dishonest’ as those climate scientists who don’t agree with you, GC?”
Dishonest scientists are those who say whatever their funding agencies want to hear even when they know that they are lying. I spent 12 years feeding at a government research trough and watched some of these dishonest piggies up close and personal.
Dishonest scientists refuse to retract papers that are demonstrably false. For example I am still waiting for Michael Mann to admit that Mann et al, 2008 included Tiljander sediment data that was inverted. The attached post by Steve McIntyre points to other members of Mann’s Climate Mafia as well:
https://climateaudit.org/2011/11/13/the-epa-and-upside-down-mann/
GC,
I don’t know what to make of your Climate Audit anecdote, but I know I can also find articles by skeptics, that have been shown to have serious flaws. Some by McIntyre.
” In 2005, McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal component analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers, including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007, which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology.”
Have these been retracted?
But the main point is that anecdotes about instances of ‘possible’ dishonesty, does not get you anywhere near your implausible 90% claim.
I noticed you said this: “While I was leaning towards Dr. Roy he said some things I disagreed with but that is the nature of science (it is never settled).”
You ought to have the same attitude toward ALL climate scientists, because they, like Roy, may have biases, but that doesnt mean they are not also professionals, and have integrity.
Nate, please stop trolling.
“The oceans act as a physical greenhouse.”
Yes.
What is smaller and perhaps more obvious is a solar pond.
Solar pond is like a car with the windows rolled up.
Or few would argue that solar pond (assuming they know what solar pond is) is not like a greenhouse.
And our oceans in terms of global warming work better than solar ponds.
Or our ocean is a huge and self correcting planetary solar pond.
gbaikie says: June 9, 2019 at 6:34 PM
Yes, for the calculation of surface Tav without radiative atmosphere, the oceans should be considered as a giant solar pond. If the oceans could only cool by radiation and conductive and evaporative cooling is eliminated, average ocean temperatures would rise well above 300K
gb,
Unfortunately, maximum useable solar pond depth is around 1.5 m. or so. The density has to be artificially maintained to suppress convection, as, left to itself, the pond fails to operate as expected, as salt diffuses though the pond, removing the density gradient.
Additionally, just like a greenhouse, the pond cools at night. Any retained heat will not result in increased maximum temperature the following day.
The salinity gradient in the oceans is insufficient for the ocean (or any natural body of water, no matter how salty, to act in the fashion of a manmade solar pond. Water heats, and the warmer water sits on top of cooler water – being less dense. At night, it radiates away all the heat absorbed during the day, and the cycle repeats.
All part of the rich Natural tapestry.
Cheers.
There are two types of solar pond. Convecting with constrained surface conductive and evaporative cooling or salt gradient.
Your comment refers to issues with the salt gradient type, the most easy research to find on the web. But this type is entirely inapplicable to a convecting ocean that can only cooling by LWIR emission.
Rushing to the web to find a quick shoot down of the AGW sceptic won’t work in my case. You would need to have run better empirical experiments than I have to shoot me down.
By snatching at the low hanging fruit of salt gradient in response to comments that used the phrase “solar pond”, you have fully revealed your motivation.
Perhaps cancel the knee-jerk “the AGW sceptic must be wrong response, and ask yourself: could there be a greenhouse effect in the oceans? Maybe materials that are translucent to SW and SWIR and opaque to LWIR heat in a very different manner to materials opaque to all wavelengths?
K,
You wrote, and wrote, and wrote.
You appear to be complaining about something I didn’t write.
Generally, stupid and ignorant commenters set up strawmen in order that they can demolish their own arguments. Unfortunately, when you win an argument with yourself, you must, perforce, lose.
Maybe you could quote me, and the disagreement you have, and provide sufficient facts that would cause me to change my views, as would any rational person, I guess.
Or you could just keep making unsupported assertions. Go your hardest.
Cheers.
Well Mike, I’m not going to go my hardest. On reflection we both made knee-jerk responses, resulting in unnecessary flame.
To clarify, when I referred to solar ponds, I was not referring to salt gradient type, but rather fresh water convecting type with evaporation and convective cooling barriers. Here is an indicative image:
http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg
Here’s an image of how hot a simple physical experiment of the concept gets:
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
The old experiment shown had poor insulation, but being only 100mm deep, it proves a point. 76.4C after 2 hours of solar exposure. At the time of the experiment run, sky background was -60C, so for an atmospheric emissivity of 0.7, DWIR was only 82 w/m2. Solar SW + SWIR at the time was over 1000 w/m2.
Now how deep was Dr. Spencer’s model? 100mm. Look at the plots at the top of this thread. There are no noon temperatures approaching 70C at any latitude. Empirical experiments don’t lie. Something must be very wrong with Dr. Spencer’s calculation method.
“Additionally, just like a greenhouse, the pond cools at night.”
Solar ponds can maintain temperature of 80 C hot water during night.
Main thing about solar ponds is there are able to store thermal energy
Solar ponds are far better at storing heat as compared to greenhouse.
But an ocean is superior as it stores heat for thousands of years.
There are trillions of tons of clouds in Earth’s atmosphere, I wonder how well clouds store heat?
gb,
No offence intended. I was unaware of practical solar ponds which were able to maintain water temperatures of 80 C overnight.
In view of the fact that the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of “greenhouse effects” of any type, it seems obvious to me that no matter how seemingly logical a natural heating mechanism might appear, it obviously hasn’t worked in the past.
Thermometers react to heat – that’s what they are designed to do. If a thermometer shows a higher temperature, it has been exposed to radiation from an object hotter than the thermometer.
“Heat from where”, I hear you ask? Well, estimated (yes, I know, estimated) world wide energy consumption in 1900 was around 12 TWh, and in 2017 154 TWh. All this energy is eventually converted to low grade heat (infrared), which raise the temperature of objects on the surface, which then radiate the IR to space.
Some might say that the Sun’s radiative input to the surface is orders of magnitude greater (and they would be right), but as four and a half billion years of history shows, Sunlight does not accumulate. The earths temperature has fallen over this period.
The result is that heat generated by Man makes objects on the surface hotter. AGW, if you like. No GHE necessary. A good time to see if this hypothesis is supported by fact might be to examine minimum temperatures which occur at night in the absence of sunlight. As the temperature falls toward the minimum, any supposed GHE is definitely not raising any temperatures. If a thermometer shows increasing night time minima, then an increasing temperature heat source (other than the sun) is required – and man-made heat might fit the bill.
Apologies for being so wordy, but there has been at least one study done on the UK and Japan, as they had their Industrial Revolutions at different times, and are both island nations. Historical temperature records in both cases seem to support my thinking. Of course, increased energy consumption based on burning hydrocarbons creates increased CO2, so a naive person might leap to the erroneous conclusion that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.
Just a thought or two.
Cheers.
Next:
[I reply to first sentence below- or didn’t go here for some reason]
Mike:
“In view of the fact that the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of greenhouse effects of any type, it seems obvious to me that no matter how seemingly logical a natural heating mechanism might appear, it obviously hasnt worked in the past.”
Well I said a number times, I think volcanic heat does warm the ocean.
I think volcanic heat mixes with ocean- because the heated water is vented thousands of meters under water, and obvious it will mix as warmed water rises, and becomes around same temperature of water, and so stops rising. Of course if venting brime or other things which make water denser, the warmer water could stay near the bottom.
And other people think a Hothouse Earth [in the past] could be caused by massive amount of oceanic volcanic heat.
Anyhow, we are currently in Ice Age. The real question is why are we so cold. 15 C is not warm.
And US [48 states] has average temperature of about 12 C. Which far too cold for the human monkey/primate.
And most of life is used to +20 C global average temperature.
Or said differently use to an Earth with a more uniform temperature and similar to tropical conditions.
Earth current does not have uniform temperature- it’s got a tropical paradise in the tropics, and a lot frozen waste lands.
And warmer Earth is less deserts and less frozen waste land.
Now if Earth didn’t have global ocean, it would be mostly a frozen waste land [forever]. It’s important that Earth has a lot water, otherwise all of it could be frozen at the poles.
“Some might say that the Suns radiative input to the surface is orders of magnitude greater (and they would be right), but as four and a half billion years of history shows, Sunlight does not accumulate. The earths temperature has fallen over this period.”
Well the energy of sunlight [and volcanic heat] do accumulate in our Ice Age.
The volume temperature of entire ocean varies from about 1 to 5 C.
The difference of 1 to 5 C is a vast amount of energy.
[[[The total amount sunlight reaching Earth in a year is a smaller amount of energy. Though our molten ball has far more energy- we are living on this thin skin of vast molten ball]]]
If this average temperature is 1 to 2 C, we have to be in a glacial period. If this average temperature is 4 to 5 C, we have to be in an interglacial period.
Currently it’s about 3.5 C
Re:
“The earths temperature has fallen over this period”
I know of no evidence that earlier than our Ice Age, Earth’s ocean was ever 1 C or colder.
And it seems to me, that during our Ice Age “something” stops the ocean from getting colder than 1 C or warmer than 5 C
Oh I thought of something regarding an analogy.
I re-read what wrote:
“Solar pond is like a car with the windows rolled up.”
If car is parked on asphalt parking lot, the heat of the asphalt doesn’t have a lot to do with the air temperature inside car with windows rolled up. But the surface temperature of asphalt “probably” has some effect, but big factor is sunlight reaching the car itself- particularly thru windows [and top of dashboard, seats, etc].
The heat of volcanic activity has very near zero effect- if on land area- in terms of global temperature. If very widespread on land area, that different. But say the size of Oregon is tiny and of course all land area is only 30% of Earth surface. Also if have moderately widespread volcanic activity say size of US, one will have lots of volcanic activity under the ocean- or something occurring with global plate tectonic activity in a very major way.
Or something like a Yellowstone super volcanic eruption is by itself, is minor/small [regardless of mass destruction caused by such a chance and major event].
And only reason oceanic volcanic activity has effect is due to the ocean ability to store heat very long time.
And 1 C change in average temperature of the entire ocean as large effect on global average temperature.
Or I believe that difference of 1 C ocean and 5 C ocean is a huge effect upon global average temperature.
And I think 1 C change is probably more significant because we living in icebox climate {Ice Age}.
Or in non Ice Age periods, the ocean average temperature could be 10 C or higher, and perhaps 1 C change of ocean in the non Ice Age
Period {Eon}, has less significance upon global temperatures.
Konrad, June 9, 2019 at 6:08 PM
You said:
“However, what I am pointing out is that the model Dr. Spencer has presented is for Earth, and he has ignored the true properties of the planets surface. Hes used the conductivity and specific heat capacity for water, but only modelled to 100mm depth”
As it stands Dr. Roy’s model is not good at modeling bodies with complex surface properties. I fixed this problem by replacing Dr. Roy’s sfc (bulk heat capacity) with a multi-layer surface model.
Scott Denning’s model has 15 layers and my FEA model has 50 layers which makes it easy for us to model bodies with surfaces consisting of regolith, water or ice. Here is what my model shows:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/image-417-small.png?w=549&h=348&zoom=2
I have no doubt that Dr. Roy could model an icy surface if he had the time and the inclination.
@Konrad,
That plot linked in my last comment was confirmed by two other people using different software.
I used a Russian FEA program while Tim Channon (deceased) used PSPICE and “br” (who wishes to remain anonymous) used LTSPICE. All our models agree closely with Vasavada’s equatorial temperatures that you can find in Figure 4a here:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
bdgwx, June 9, 2019 at 12:28 PM
You said:
“Sure, his original sensivity of 5.5C (1896) and even his revised sensivity of 4.0C (1908) may be too high, but consider that this was the first ever quantification of the effect and it was done more than 100 years ago without any knowledge of the molecular physics and quantum mechanical understanding needed to explain it.”
Yes, the Arrhenius CO2 hypothesis is stunning in its simplicity but sadly it is false. It can’t explain the past so why would you expect it to predict the future?
While there is no doubt that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has some effect on average global temperature the effect must be really tiny if it is so well masked by other factors.
There is a correlation between temperature and CO2 that is backed by “Hard Science” but temperature is driving CO2 (thanks to Henry’s law) rather than the other way around:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
Actually, yes, it does help explain the past and quite well. How else do you solve the faint young Sun paradox? How else do you explain the magnitude of the glacial cycles? How else do you explain the PETM and other sudden warming events? Models that incorporate all climate forcing agents do a far better job at solving these problems than do models that selectively ignore CO2 and other GHGs.
And no one is rejecting the hypothesis that CO2 is dependent upon T. That is accepted by the broad scientific community without controversy. But, it is also true that T is dependent upon CO2 (and other GHGs).
Question…can you find a model that selectively ignores CO2’s radiative forcing behavior that can do a better job than this…
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337
GC, impressive take down of the theory that glacial cycles were caused by CO2.
Oh wait, thats not a real theory anyway.
bdgwx, Nate, please stop trolling.
gbaikie, June 9, 2019 at 12:45 PM
You said:
“So at 1 meter depth on Moon you have fairly uniform temperature, though could vary by .1 C or more. Same goes with 10 meter, though could vary by .01 C or less. But 10 meters at .01 has same heat as 1 meter at .1 C. or deeper depth has effect upon the 100 K lunar night.”
The diurnal temperature variation on the Moon is close to zero at 0.4 meters depth so there is not much to be gained by extending the model deeper than that. See Figure 7 in Vasavada’s paper:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
Isn’t .1 C (or .1 K) close to zero?
Norman, once again you have found a link you can’t understand. Upthread, you included this link in your comment attempting to falsely accuse Konrad:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.781&rep=rep1&type=pdf
That link leads to some classic pseudoscience. In fact, it is pure comedy.
Just to demonstrate your incompetence, look at Equation 2, on page 19. The bogus equation has 3 terms, in the form:
A = B + C
Can you clearly and correctly explain all 3 terms?
Of course not. You haven’t a clue.
JDHuffman
Not sure what you are having a problem with. Equation 2 is established to work to get the emissivity of sea water.
The thing about Equation 2 is that in this study they wanted to add the energy reflected off the surface from the Downwelling IR in the band they are using (atmospheric window).
The article says it is mostly from water vapor. Here is a spectrum with the DWIR found in the atmopsheric window.
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/node3.htm
They are trying to get the most precise measure of ocean emissivity.
The Equation adds the extra reflected IR that reaches the instrument to get a result for emissivity closer to the “true” value.
They go on to derive the equations to get to calculating emissivity from their measured values.
Norman, I was not asking for more of your diversionary rambling. We all know you can do that. But, can you clearly and correctly explain all 3 terms in the equation.
If you can’t, then you don’t have a clue about your link.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
The equation is an energy balance.
Term A: The energy the measuring device reads.
Term B: The energy given off by the Sea Surface (based upon its temperature and an unknown emissivity which is what the authors are trying to find) that is measured by the radiometer.
Term C: Is the energy that is reflected of the Sea Surface (a gray body) and is added to the net energy the radiometer measures
The temperature of the radiometer is determined by the energy given off by the sea surface and the energy reflected off the sea surface.
You did a good job of trying to figure out the equation. But, you got lost in the pseudoscience.
“Term A: The energy the measuring device reads.”
The term is just the S/B law. An infrared radiometer does not employ the S/B law. Term A is NOT the energy the infrared radiometer reads.
“Term B: The energy given off by the Sea Surface…that is measured by the radiometer.”
Correct. You got that much right.
“Term C: Is the energy that is reflected of the Sea Surface and is added to the net energy the radiometer measures.”
Here, you get bogged down in the pseudoscience. First, you are now having to admit the water is reflecting IR. You have been fighting admitting that for a long time. But, as you have been repeatedly told, all photons are not always absorbed. Second, because the reflected flux represents differing wavelengths, it does not simply add to the emitted flux. Terms B and C do not add. And term A is invalid.
Equation 2 is bogus. You just found another link you don’t understand.
JDHuffman
You are demonstrating your total lack of knowledge. You really don’t have a clue, but you will pretend to be a knowledgeable expert to fool a few people who don’t know any physics. The rest know you are a pretend troll.
Anyway you are totally wrong about you information on IR radiometers.
I looked it up. The equations used by the manufacturer are the same as used in the article. The only “bogus” is your pretend physics. The article was quite correct you are completely wrong.
You will troll some more but you won’t take time to learn.
http://www.ecosearch.info/sites/default/files/prodotto_scheda_tecnica/SI-100manual_1.pdf
Wrong again, Norman.
That’s just another link you can’t understand. They even admit to the flaws in the equations. But, it’s not what you want to learn.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You are the puffman as they call you. Huff and Puff. You don’t know what you are talking about but post as if you do. A pretend person all the way through. No credentials. You know no physics and can’t understand it even when it is spoon fed to you.
Maybe you should stick to your expertise of not knowing what the term “rotation on axis” actually means. You are confused by all things science. Troll away and pretend.
Maybe your imaginary friend DREMT will come give you support of all your zany wrong ideas.
Maybe one day you’ll grow up, stop obsessing about personalities, and just focus on the arguments made…we can only hope.
Norman, why do you have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, every time someone tries to correct your pseudoscience?
Isn’t that a signal that you don’t have a clue about the relevant science?
Just go back and look at all the things you have made up. Why are you so afraid of reality?
JDHuffman
Here is what the article on radiometers actually says:
“Equations (1)-(3) assume an infinite waveband for radiation emission and constant ε at all wavelengths.
These assumptions are not valid because infrared radiometers do not have infinite wavebands, as most
correspond to the atmospheric window of 8-14 µm, and ε varies with wavelength. Despite the violated
assumptions, the errors for emissivity correction with Eq. (3) in environmental applications are typically
negligible because a large proportion of the radiation emitted by terrestrial objects is in the 8-14 µm
waveband (the power of 4 in Eqs. (2) and (3) is a reasonable approximation), ε for most terrestrial objects
does not vary significantly in the 8-14 µm waveband, and the background radiation is a small fraction (1 –
ε) of the measured radiation because most terrestrial surfaces have high emissivity (often between 0.9 and
1.0).”
JDHuffman
They say the errors are negligible and will not have much effect on a temperature reading of an object you are trying to determine with the radiometer.
I am aware of your point. It just does not matter at Earth’s surface primary emission energy.
https://topex.ucsd.edu/rs/thermal.pdf
Page 27 of this link shows emissivity changes with wavenumber. Converting to microns from this shows that in the range of the radiometer 8-14 microns, the emissivity is very high and does not vary much.
Norman, your pseudoscience is busted, again.
So why do you have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, every time someone tries to correct your pseudoscience?
Isn’t that a signal that you don’t have a clue about the relevant science?
Just go back and look at all the things you have made up. Why are you so afraid of reality?
JDHuffman
Another worn out troll tactic. When your pretend expertise is exposed you copy and paste the same comment.
I guess when you pretend and have zero counter points to make all you can do is copy and paste a previous comment. I think it will make your imaginary friend DREMT very happy. I think you do these troll posts because it makes this friend of yours giggle in delight.
When you have nothing of value to say, troll is your motto. I bested your simplistic points and you have no rational counters.
“…your imaginary friend DREMT…”
…is amused to see another one that is obsessed with me. I seem to live rent-free in so many people’s heads. Must be all those arguments they lost.
Norman, why do you have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, every time someone tries to correct your pseudoscience?
Isn’t that a signal that you dont have a clue about the relevant science?
Just go back and look at all the things you have made up. Why are you so afraid of reality?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Did you giggle when you read JDHuffman’s comment to me?
No. As I said, I’m amused by the fact that you randomly bring me up in your comments when I’m not even talking to you. You do that a lot. It shows I’m always on your mind.
Even then, I didn’t “giggle”. Sorry to disappoint.
Norman, that was me laughing at you. As usual, you are not responsible for your own words.
Why do you have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, every time someone corrects your pseudoscience?
Isn’t that a signal that you don’t have a clue about the relevant science?
There’s a volcano erupting in Indonesia that might have an effect on global temperatures so we might get a temporary drop even to an anomaly of zero.
Mount Sinabung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinabung
Please explain how the albedo could be 0.3 when you have no GHG. GHG’s includes clouds made of water.
Clouds influence outgoing IR as it also influences ingoing solar power.
I know the albedo and the clouds combined effekts are difficult topics, but some reflections would be appreciated.
Without the albedo from clouds i believe the average surface would be between 0 and 5 Celcius, not those -18C that is a common figure.
In that way the GHG’s have only in total increased the temperature 15K not 33K.
The problem is based in the “all else equal” that always needs some carefull definition.
MF,
You make Appell look brilliant. I assure you he isnt. Learn some science.
SP,
You wrote –
“You make Appell look brilliant. I assure you he isn’t. Learn some science.”
Thank you for your interest. I assume you are trying to find grounds to disagree with something I wrote, but are unable to do so.
I cannot think of another reason why you decline to specify what it is you are concerned about.
Are you just being a petulant whining troll?
Cheers.
In last 3 billion years, how much mass has the Earth gained?
And in last 3 billion years, how much has Earth’s core, cooled?
I was wondering how much mass and how much Mars has cooled in last 3 billion years, but not a lot of people are interested in Mars. And we probably know more about Earth than Mars.
So, looked a bit:
“The first rocky bits of Earth coalesced around 4.54 billion years ago, less than 100 million years after the solar system formed. For much of those early years, Earth was a blob of molten rock, but over time, the surface cooled and formed a crust that floated on the Earth’s liquid core. In time, the Earth developed an atmosphere, life, and the rest is, well, history.
At some point in this process, the liquid iron churning at the heart of the planet froze. Exactly when, however, remained a matter of hot debate; some scientists said it formed just 500 million years ago, while others said it formed about 2 billion years ago.
This so-called nucleation of the inner core is important because the planet’s frozen heart helps power Earth’s magnetic field, which shields life from harmful radiation from solar wind.”
https://www.livescience.com/52414-earths-core-formed-long-ago.html
So, if formed into crystal form- it adds heat from that process??
Also same article:
“What’s more, this giant ball of iron at the planet’s heart is growing, to the tune of 0.04 inches (1 millimeter) in diameter per year, the researchers reported today (Oct. 7) in the journal Nature.
“This finding could change our understanding of the Earth’s interior and its history,” Biggin said.”
Am i the only one who sees a problem modeling an atmosphere that can only cool to space by accelerating matter to escape velocity?
Also, maybe someone can clear this up for me…
If the earth surface radiating as a BB in a vacum emits x w/m2 based on its temp, this is essentially the power available from that surface at that temp…
If the surface then transfers more than half of its available power to the atmosphere via evaporation, then the emissivity of the surface cannot be more than .5 yes?
What value do you get running Dr. Spencer’s model with an emissivity of .5 ?
“Am i the only one who sees a problem modeling an atmosphere that can only cool to space by accelerating matter to escape velocity?”
I see a big problem with that. The model must include the cooling caused by longwave radiation from the Earth into space.
Sorry, Phil, but that is just not how emissivity works.
Maybe a couple analogies will help.
* Suppose you have a large tank of water with a hole at the bottom that leaks 1 liter/min. If you poke a second hole the same size somewhere else at the bottom, will the first hole suddenly leak 0.5 liters/min?
* Suppose you connect a 6 ohm resistor to a 12 V battery, producing 24 W of power. If you connect a second equal resistor (in series), will the power in the first drop to 12 W?
The tank will drain sooner; the battery will drain sooner. But the depth or the voltage determines the flows, not other drains that might be present.
Similarly, radiation depends on the temperature. The surface will cool more quickly if there is a second ‘drain’ present (evaporation). But temperature is what matters for radiation.
(sigma) A T^4 is not a limit on “available power”; just a limit on possible radiative power.
Tim states: “…the battery will drain sooner”
Adding more series resistance will drain the battery slower.
Good catch, JD! I meant “in parallel”! I wish I could go back and edit that slip!
The two holes in the tank are “in parallel”.
The radiation and evaporation are “in parallel”.
For the analogy, the resistors should also clearly be in parallel!
Admitting errors is important to one’s credibility.
JDHuffman
That would indicate your credibility is in the negative zone. You make constant errors about everything but will admit to none.
Norman, if I make “constant errors”, as you falsely accuse, you should be able to identify at least one, huh?
JDHuffman
I have demonstrated you silly nonsense heat transfer cartoon is wrong. I have demonstrated with many videos your understanding of rotation on axis is wrong. That is two. How many more do you need?
Wrong Norman.
You didn’t demonstrate, you IMAGINED you demonstrated.
You can’t identify even one time my physics has been wrong. You just imagine it.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
No it was not imagined at all. Your errors were pointed out many times in many ways by many posters. You make as statement but will not live up to your own words.
YOU: “Admitting errors is important to one’s credibility.”
You have negative credibility and you have not demonstrated any credentials to support your claims of expertise in physics. You know you have not studied the subject but will not admit to this glaring error. You pretend to know physics by looking up terms on the Internet and posting them. When I asked you for verification there was zero. You claimed Poynting Vectors proved that fluxes do not add. To date you have not explained in any way how that works. You don’t even know what Poynting vectors are or how they are used. When confronted you run away. Always have and always will. But you will continue to pretend to be an expert at physics and you will continue to troll. Nothing new.
Norman, that’s just another of your long rambling rants. It contains no substance, just your usual insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
You still can’t identify even one time my physics has been wrong. You just make stuff up.
Tim,
Thanks for the response.
” But temperature is what matters for radiation. ”
Agreed. So maybe I didnt make myself clear.
Consider…
Take a starting surface temp, say 5 C (below that the water starts sinking and is replaced with warmer water from below)
This is the min w/2 leaving the surface
As the sun comes up the surface temp rises.
With no evaporation, it will continue to rise until it is radiating at rate equal to or greater than the incoming amount of insolation. Lets call this its peak temp..
With evaporation, the surface will be cooled, and thus it will radiate less than the case with no evaporation, not just at the peak but throughout the day increasing to the peak and decreasing to sundown…
so throughout the day the surface cooled by evaporation will radiate less total energy than the uncooled BB surface…
I expect the difference between the two will be equivilant to the rate of evaporation over that time frame..
After peak temp both start cooling, evaporation slows down, the higher temp BB surface cooling more quickly until both approach the starting temp at which point they will cool at the same rate until the sun comes up…
Over the full day much less energy has been radiated from the surface with evaporation than the other BB surface.
thus the emissivity of the evaporative surface will be less than without, how much depending on the rate of evaporation
this got me thinking of course… what happens with all that energy pouring into the atmosphere and no way to cool (unless of course you want to quickly blow the atmosphere off in which case the model is one with no atmosphere (or oceans)…
if you do not allow mass to escape to space or radiation to cool the atmosphere, then the atmosphere must HEAT to the point where it conducts HEAT to the surface at the same rate as evaporation is adding energy to the atmosphere
so you therefore have three heat flow inputs: solar, geothermal, aerothermal …
Yes PhilJ, that is the function, and importance, of radiative gases. They allow for energy to leave the atmosphere.
Both solar and geothermal are thermodynamic heat sources, as they add new energy to the system. But, the atmosphere does not add energy, so it cannot raise the system temperature.
Konrad
I think you could have a valid point with the water. Rather than go with simple models. On the previous thread I demonstrated the GHE with real world measurements.
I can do them for you if you wish to follow.
I used this data (a clear summer day and night in a desert location).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
This is the link that has the data I use. You can try your own. I think it will all show the same thing.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5cff1f2b7823e.png
The green line in the graph is the energy emitted by the surface.
The red line is how much solar energy reaches the surface. The blue line is what is reflected away. The orange line is the solar energy the sand actually absorbs.
If you do some rough calculations you will find that the amount of energy emitted in the 24 hour period is around 40,600,000 joules/m^2. The amount of solar energy that can be absorbed by the sand surface adds to aroiund 23,500,000 joules/m^2. There is not even close to enough energy from the Sun to keep the sand warm enough to radiate away this energy.
If you add the GHE you can supply the needed energy.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5cff245d89cb8.png
With the DWIR your NET IR loss is less than the incoming solar. The other cooling mechanisms (evaporation and convection) remove the remaining energy to keep the surface in a balance.
I am not sure how one could actually deny the GHE with this evidence. I think the denier mechanism is then not to trust the measured values. If you accept the data as valid you would not have an argument against the GHE. It is quite real and responsible for the warm temperatures at Desert Rock. Without the GHE the temperature would be much colder.
Try this simple experiment:
http://i61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Norman,
I’m sorry, I have tried 6 times to post the experiment build instructions and results. Have no idea why the website refuses to post …
Norman, you are not understanding those links. Find the relevant spectra!
Otherwise, you’re just lost in your pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
I have already linked you to spectra at other places. It is not important. You do not understand what I am stating and take it off to a place that is not significant to what is being discussed. You think you have an issue but you don’t. You won’t because your physics knowledge is very lacking. You still don’t understand radiative heat transfer. I am certain you have no clue about what emissivity is or why it is used in equations. You will never learn but it won’t stop you from trolling.
No one but you is lost in your own made up physics.
No you didn’t, Norman.
I recommended you get the corresponding spectra, but you refused. You’re afraid of reality.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
They do not do spectra for this sight. And they don’t need to. You don’t understand heat transfer at all. You pretend to be this expert in the field but I see zero credentials.
I have posted spectra from other locations. Does not change the reality of the energy absorbed or emitted. Your point is a false diversion that means nothing. You can’t understand energy flows. You don’t have enough knowledge of actual physics to communicate science ideas to. You know enough or look up some terms now and then so you can troll the blog.
Since you pretend to be an expert. What would spectra change if you had the data. Would more energy be emitted? Less energy? Would more be absorbed or less. It is pointless pursuit. It has no bearing on the concept.
The point is the Sun does not provide enough energy to maintain the observed emittance. This is measured energy values. It does not matter the spectra of what is emitted, it covers most the IR spectrum. Sand has an emissivity of about 0.9 for the IR band. It means it will radiate away 90% of the energy a blackbody at the same temperature would. That does not matter either. The amount of energy that is leaving is all you really have to know. If you were not a pretend person you would already know this.
As usual, Norman can not support his pseudoscience.
He offers endless pounding on his keyboard as substitute.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You might need to expand your trolling toolbox a bit. You use the same troll tactics too much, it loses the effectiveness of some really good trolling.
Whenever you know you are totally outwitted by a much smarter poster and proven to be wrong about all you post, rather than attempt to counter the points and show you really have some physics knowledge (which you don’t), you pull out some really stale and overused troll tactics.
In this case it is the very stale “pounding on his keyboard”. You use that often when you are outsmarted by a person much smarter than yourself and you know it but there is nothing you can do about it except throw out some old troll comment and hope that no one notices how lame your physics really is.
Maybe DREMT, your imaginary friend, will jump in to save you from your obvious lack valid science.
As usual, poor Norman can not support his pseudoscience.
He offers endless pounding on his keyboard as substitute.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Typical troll tactic. When bested in intelligent debate overwhelmed by valid facts and information, copy and paste. The troll tactic assumes no one will notice.
Keep trolling. You are not real good at it but you know far more about troll tactics than any valid or rational physics.
Norman, you haven’t yet realized I no longer waste much time trying to explain physics to you.
You are unable to learn. You cannot process facts and logic.
At least you are consistent….
JDHuffman
That is your other troll tactic you use often. When you know you are not able to actually scientifically demonstrate in any way my points are wrong you pull out this troll tactic. It is old and stale you have used it many many times. Usually when your pretend expertise is exposed. I show that you know nothing about actual physics so then you go into troll tactics to pretend or try to fool someone. Not sure why you do it, but you will do it, that is a certainty.
One problem with your troll comment is you never present facts or logic. Mostly you throw out some troll comment. When a person attempts to reason with you or link to actual physics you then pretend you have logic or facts. I have never seen any of this. The only “fact” you present is your stupid anti-science heat transfer cartoons that no but your imaginary friend believes.
See, at least you’re consistent.
–Mike Flynn says:
June 10, 2019 at 5:55 PM
gb,
No offence intended. I was unaware of practical solar ponds which were able to maintain water temperatures of 80 C overnight.–
I recall temperature indicating this, and I can’t find it.
Instead I got this:
“Salt-gradient solar ponds have also been studied because of their considerable promise for collection and long-term storage of solar energy as reviewed by Nielsen [8J and Tabor [9]”
https://tinyurl.com/y6o5mlsv
{this is not posting for some reason, so going do it parts]
Part two:
Didn’t accept first try [oh, absor…], so try include final part
Oh, something interesting also for other reasons:
” We observe that about half the solar radiation is absorbed in the first 50 cm of water.
This is on account of strong infrared absorp**tion bands in water. At a depth of 2 meters the transmission is about 40%. This sets the upper limit on the thermal efficiency of a solar pond.
The thickness of the gradient zone must be chosen depending on the temperature at which thermal energy is needed. If the thickness of the gradient zone is too high the transmission of solar
radiation is reduced while if it is too small it causes high heat losses from the bottom to the top
of the pond. The optimum value of the thickness depends on the temperature of the
storage zone of the pond. Nielsen (1980)”
https://tinyurl.com/yyeapxqt
dvantages:
At Right: Generating electricity at night.
Solar ponds are capable of delivering
power on demand even at night or after
long periods of cloudy weather.
https://tinyurl.com/y64qmvoo
So how well it insulates is thickness of salt gradient, but thicker salt gradients have lower efficiency.
Which is not to be confused how hot the water can get- but rather how joules of heat can be stored per X amount of sunlight.
Or electrical solar panel range from few percent, common is about 12%, high end around 30%.
Solar thermal panels tend be as high as 60%, but for higher temperature water, it tends to have lower efficiency.
And roughly same applies to solar pond, if want modestly warm water +50 C you make more water reach this temperature per day of sunlight, and since make more it can have higher efficiency.
Anyhow when salt gradient is working the heat lose in limited to heat conducted through water [which is remarkably low value]
Or 12 inches of salt gradient will prevent more heat as compared to 8″ of salt gradient.
It possible that someone made the heat gradient bigger than it should be [in terms of best efficiency in terms of collecting heat from sunlight] and graph saw reflected this.
But if don’t care about efficiency, you can choose how much it will prevent heat loss [Ie make it 18″ of salt gradient layer].
During my reading, apparently they can’t figure out how to store waste heat [from coal or nuke plant or whatever] using a solar pond- this doesn’t make any sense to me.
It should be quite doable.
And I would say if you could figure out how to do this, this might solve the battery problem of solar and wind.
But of course you would have to “allow” power plants or other things which make a lot waste heat.
gbaikie,
is there a helpful list of banned words?
I can’t seem to get simple build instructions for an experiment to post.
Konrad, “Absorp.tion” does not work without the “.”
Also, any “d” followed by a “c” does not work.
For example, you must use “Washington, D*C”, “D*C current”, etc.
URLs are common problem, so first thing I do is make links into tiny:
https://tinyurl.com/
If post works, the browser will bring to your post.
If it does not, then page back, and your post should be intact.
And if haven’t copied it, copy it and try to figure out problem.
If post has links, first thing I do is make tiny links and I save it to notepad.
But as general rule if a link looks long and hideous, I always, first, tiny it.
Dr Spencer,
This model has to be some kind of joke.
Where is the convection and the auto-compression?
Where is the thermal gradient/enhancement that must come from auto-compression?
You do not need a ‘greenhouse effect’ for that!
Also, atmospheric measurements from Earth, Venus and Titan show that albedo is not a factor in atmospheric temperatures at 1atm;
Earth Te= ∜1 x Te
Te = 1.000 x 288
Te = 288 Kelvin
Venus Tv= ∜1.91 x Te
Tv = 1.176 x 288
Tv = 339 Kelvin
Titan Tt= ∜0.01089 x Te
Tt = 0.323 x 288
Tt = 93 Kelvin
Regards
Dr Robert Holmes
bdgwx wrote elsewhere –
“How else do you solve the faint young Sun paradox?”
If you don’t bother with a non-existent GHE, there is no paradox at all. If the Earth started off as a molten ball, and the Sun was fainter, the earth would have cooled more quickly from the molten state.
Radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, and radiogenic heat sources decrease geometrically in proportion to individual isotope half-lives. The Sun slows the rate of cooling slightly, but even pseudoscientific climate cultists seem to agree that the Sun cannot heat the Earth above 255 K or so.
The “faint young Sun paradox” is an invented red herring, created in an attempt to justify the non-existent GHE. Apparently some otherwise intelligent fools failed to realise that the Sun has not heated the Earth to its present temperature from close to absolute zero, but rather the earth has cooled from an apparently molten sate at its creation.
Hence its present oblate spheroidal shape – centrifugal force and gravity working on a molten blob. What difference does it make to a rapidly cooling molten blob whether the Sun was fainter while the blob was still molten? What difference would it make?
Use a bit of science, chaps.
Cheers.
Don’t dismiss the Faint Young Sun Paradox that easily.
The paradox is that we have proof of liquid water on Earth (seas, oceans?) while the sun was emitting at ~70% of current power.
The solution is obviously geothermal, like a higher geothermal flux, more and larger eruptions like the Ontong Java one (100 million km^3 magma.
BW,
You wrote –
“Dont dismiss the Faint Young Sun Paradox that easily.”
I just did. I’m ignoring your advice.
You also wrote –
“The paradox is that we have proof of liquid water on Earth (seas, oceans?) while the sun was emitting at ~70% of current power.”
According to the GHE true believers, the Sun, even a current TSI levels, is incapable of maintaining the Earth at a temperature greater than 255 K, which is below the freezing point of water. The water in the oceans is demonstrably generally liquid, even around Antarctica where land temperatures dip below -85 C – below the freezing point of CO2.
A ball of molten rock cools, regardless of the Sun’s current output. Place pot of boiling water in direct sunlight, and watch it cool to ambient air temperature. No GHE to be seen. It won’t magically fall below zero, and then heat back up to beyond ambient all by itself. That is just magical pseudoscientific thinking.
No “faint young sun paradox”. Just standard physical laws at work.
I dismiss the faint young sun paradox because it is nonsensical. The Earth cooled regardless, doesn’t it?
Over to you, if you want.
Cheers.
Exactly the reason for our high surface temperatures on Earth.
Sun warms a small surface layer and prevents geothermal energy from reaching the surface, except at high latitudes. So their Heat Content is almost completely from geothermal origin.
At ~290K surface temperature and no atmosphere Earth would radiate ~400 W/m^2 directly to space. Thanks to the atmosphere this is ~240 W/m^2 and we have an ENERGY balance with incoming solar.
It also reflects quite some solar and aborbs ~80 W/m^2.
So the idea that the atmosphere is responsible for heating the surface (and thus the oceans) is pretty absurd.
BW,
You wrote –
“Thanks to the atmosphere this is ~240 W/m^2 and we have an ENERGY balance with incoming solar.”
This is pseudoscientific folderol of the climatological type.
There are generally two times a day when energy in=energy out, and only for an infinitesimal time. These are the inflection points when temperatures are at a maximum or minimum, and not changing..
At other times, an object on the surface is warming, and energy in exceeds energy out, or cooling, when the opposite is the fact. Each night, all the energy received during the day is radiated away – all.
Over the long term, the Earth cools – energy out has exceeded energy in. Attempts by the dimwitted likes of Schmidt, Mann, and Trenberth to take refuge in an “average”, are merely stupid efforts to avoid reality.
All this W/m2 is completely irrelevant. Ice emitting 300 W/m2 is much colder than a pot of boiling water radiating 300 W/m2! pick up either with your bare hands, and you will realise the futility of pretending that climatological pseudoscience has any relevance to the real world. No GHE. No CO2 heating. All nonsense and delusion.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: June 12, 2019 at 12:33 AM
Nonsense. We have distinct seasonal warming and cooling of the upper layers of the oceans.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/argotimeseriestemp59n_thumb.gif
BW,
You wrote –
“We have distinct seasonal warming and cooling of the upper layers of the oceans.”
Of course. The Earth’s elliptical orbit and its inclination create seasonal variations. Your comment has nothing to do with what I said. Not bad for a diversionary tactic.
Maybe you could disagree with something I wrote?
The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. No GHE. CO2 provides no heat.
A thermometer indicating a higher temperature is responding to the radiation from an object with a higher temperature. Energy from the Sun, and internal geothermal energy reaching the surface are relatively stable. It’s not to hard to work out out where the extra heat is coming from – seven billion people creating waste heat as fast as humanly possible.
Cheers.
During seasonal warming NOT all the energy received during the day is radiated away during the night.
BW,
You wrote –
“During seasonal warming NOT all the energy received during the day is radiated away during the night.”
Imagining you are the captain of the Starship Enterprise doesn’t mean you can just say “Make it so!”, and it becomes true.
Some physics to back up your bald and vigorous ASSERTION would be appreciated.
Thanks for quoting me, anyway.
By the way, you might remember that the seasons are in opposition in the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. The daylight side and the night side of the Earth contain both. Or ignore it – it makes no difference to me. As to warming, each day after the solstice, increasing amounts of the Sun’s radiation impinge on a given area of the Earth. Temperatures rise as a result, to an inflection point (the other solstice), at which point they start to fall again.
You will note that the temperatures of the days on either side of the maximum are lower than the maximum. No storage there.
Cheers.
So are we just ignoring the paleoclimate record that shows multiple warming events in Earth’s distant past? Are we ignoring the fact that the Sun brightens as it ages?
The most recent warming was in the Cretaceous. From ~150 mya temperatures started to rise, peak around 85 mya. Since then cooling into our current ice age. Warming coincides with several deep ocean magma eruptions, totaling far over 100 million km^3, bringing enough energy to warm ALL ocean water over 100K.
Older warming events could very well have the same cause, only the oceanic crust is not old enough to find evidence for them.
b,
There is no paleoclimate record that shows multiple warming events across the whole surface simultaneously.
If there were, it would be interesting to find out why.
I generally choose to ignore the non-existent. What about you?
As to the Sun brightening, it obviously hasn’t stopped the Earth from cooling, has it? What’s your point (if you actually have one)?
Cheers.
Try Scoteses work:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
BW,
Cannot see anything at all about multiple warming events across the whole surface simultaneously. Opinions based on “guesses”, “estimates”, “calculations”, “reconstructions” and so on fail to impress. Of course, the definition can be rubbery – some might say that the Earth warms when it is closest to the Sun. This is ephemeral – it does not last. An object on the surface cools at night, warms during the day.
No magical repeating heating of the Earth without a large increase of energy from without or within.
Certainly not due to varying GHG levels – CO2 provides no energy, and the more you put between a thermometer and the Sun, the colder the thermometer becomes – less radiation reaches it, you see.
If you must link to irrelevant publications, just quote the bits you think support you. Otherwise you might be seen as just another pseudoscientific cultist trying to deny, divert and confuse.
I wasted a bit of time, thinking you knew what you were talking about. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me. Oh well, I should have known better.
Cheers.
Dave Appell has asked a very interesting question here:
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night.
I wonder why nobody tells him that this is, because the air/atmopshere is incapable of heating the body or preventing heat loss.
So for whatever reason he asks this, it is a very good example to proof that the GHE does shoddy work on the warming side.
I recommend trying to sleep without a blanket at 50 deg Latitude in maybe Autum under the sky to experience the GHE first hand!
That when you find out why you would like to sleep under a blanket!
I don’t think David was having his best AGW defender day:
https://imgur.com/iJkm4oE
Imagine slipping up and publicly admitting the foundation claim for the entire AGW conjecture came from not correctly modelling solar thermal gain in the oceans?
Possibly running back to the old blanket talking-point was a rush for a security blanket. There might be some stuff about car mechanic vs. heart surgeon next …
Not sure why he says:
The very simple model that gives 255 K doesn’t assume any ocean. It simply assumes the planet has a global average albedo of alpha = 0.3.
The 255K are arrived at by averaging the solar incoming power over the full surface of the planet over 24 hours. This does include that energy is stored so it is available for thermal radiation in the night. Reason being that the whole set of energy is actually received within 12 hours while for the other 12 hours the sun does not shine, but radiation does not stop!
Since water is very effective energy storage, one has to suspect that the role of water is important part of the GHE.
Seeing this from the side line, I think David does not understand the GH model correctly.
joe…”Dave Appell has asked a very interesting question here:
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night”.
Don’t confuse DA with too much detail, he is still trying to figure out how heat gets here from the Sun when heat cannot be transferred through the vacuum of space.
Nate quoted me elsewhere –
“Losing energy is indicative of cooling. Sunlight is irrelevant to overall cooling.”
He then wrote –
“If the cooling output is 90 mW/m^2, and the solar input is 240 W/m^2, the solar warming is 2600 times larger than the cooling.
Only a delusional person would call the solar irrelevant.”
Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has not prevented the Earth from cooling, As far as sunlight heating the Earth as a whole, Nate is mad if he believes this possible! As Fourier pointed out, each night the Earth loses all the heat it receives during the day, plus a bit more.
Away with your idiotic and nonsensical Wattages, Nate! You are obviously completely clueless, and suffering from pseudoscientific climate cult derangement of the brain.
Cheers.
‘Away with your idiotic and nonsensical Wattages’
Mike bought a really cheap geothermal air conditioner, for his house in the tropics.
It cools with milliwatts of power!
Milliwatts, kilowatts, schmegawatts, same thing. All idiotic nonsensical Wattages, says Mike!
As a result, the ‘irrelevant’ tropical sunshine seems to have baked his brain.
N,
I see you cannot find anything in my comment with which you disagree. That’s a start, at least.
Maybe you could just resort to petulant trolling and whining, if you cant find anything factual to disagree about.
Cheers.
‘I see you cannot find anything in my comment with which you disagree.’
Liar.
‘Petulant trolling and whining’
I could never beat you in that category, Mike.
Troll, begone!
There’s so many cranks on this forum.
GHGs can only absorb and emit in certain frequencies.
They can’t raise Earth’s spectrum accross all frequencies, as shown:
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/goody-1989-clear-sky-spectrum1-499px.png?w=500
Something else is responsible … but the cranks here don’t believe gravity works.
Stupid cranks. There’s no cure for them. -Zoe
zoe…”They cant raise Earths spectrum accross all frequencies, as shown:”
What I’m seeing in the graph is that a water vapour spectrum overlies the CO2 spectrum. How they can make out which is which is beyond me.
The other things is the difference between theoretical and measured. Again, how did they measure the CO2 when its spectrum is overlain by WV? Also, the difference is about 2/10ths W/cm. That could be put down to error alone and the theoretical is based on pseudo-science.
Thirdly, what is it they are seeing? They are likely using an IR detector which measures frequency. If the IR was a few feet above the surface, which is likely, what does it mean? Why have they overlooked the amount of heat conducted directly to the 99% N2/O2 making up the air.
That’s exactly my view on SOD…a load of cranks.
Ummm, the shift “across all frequencies” on that graph is intentional, simply to make the theoretical and experimental curves easier to distinguish. It says so at the bottom of the graph.
‘Ummm, the shift across all frequencies on that graph is intentional, simply to make the theoretical and experimental curves easier to distinguish. It says so at the bottom of the graph.’
Ummm, can cranks go one step further ?
There’s a big bifference between observed (Ts) and theoretical (Te) in frequencies not absorbed by GHGs, such as 10-11.5 microns…
Perhaps you are trying to say something different than I am hearing.
“Theres a big difference between observed (Ts) and theoretical (Te) in frequencies not absorbed by GHGs, such as 10-11.5 microns”
Yes, there is a difference of almost exactly 0.2×10^-5 W cm^-2 steradian^-1 (wave number)^-1 between the observed curve and the theoretical curve, all the way across the graph (not just 10-11.5 microns).
OK, Tim Folkerts just proved cranks can’t go one step further and realize their junk science can’t explain why 10-11.5 microns should have an extra 0.210^-5 W cm^-2 steradian^-1.
“… cant explain why 10-11.5 microns should have an extra 0.210^-5 W cm^-2 steradian^-1”
Zoe, the shift was added intentionally by the authors — entirely as a convenience to make the two curves easier to distinguish! Otherwise the two curves would have overlapped so closely that it would be tough to tell them apart! The correct values for the “Observed” values are actually all 0.2 units lower then they are plotted.
There is no ‘unexplained’ difference between the two curves on the graph! The caption clearly explains this!
Tim,
Don’t get sucked down a rabbit hole with this crazy person and/or troll, Zoe, as I did in previous post.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts is some sort of moron.
“The correct values for the Observed values are actually all 0.2 units lower then they are plotted.”
No. “Observed” is OBSERVED, i.e measured.
‘There is no unexplained difference between the two curves on the graph! The caption clearly explains this!’
That would mean there’s no greenhouse effect. Thanks, moron.
The caption couldn’t mean that they arbitrarily raised it. They must have plotted theoretical Te and then noticed that observed is “displaced upwards”.
“No. “Observed” is OBSERVED, i.e measured.”
Zoe, here is the paper by the original author that does not displace the theoretical and observed radiances so you can see the small differences without confusion – see Fig. 3. What do you say causes the huge discrepancy around 1050 wavenumber?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730018587.pdf
Ball4 is some sort of moron.
Fig 3 does not match my graph. This is a different paper. Probably different author too.
“What do you say causes the huge discrepancy around 1050 wavenumber?”
The colder co2 gas in the atmosphere soaking up the warmer surface radiation.I see CO2 being heated.
Zoe link author is same: Conrath et. al. And, no, the paper explains colder CO2 gas is not the answer.
Hint: CO2 is not the major atm. gas absorber reducing the measured radiance around 1050 wavenumber. So, guess again. Feel free to use your link to improve your answer.
B4,
What percentage of the Sun’s incoming radiation is at 11.5 microns?
Bugger all? You would be right.
It doesn’t matter, anyway. Any absorbed radiation doesn’t reach the ground. It has been absorbed. However, the absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted – some towards the ground, most not – depending on altitude (the earth being roughly an oblate spheroid and all).
So CO2 and other GHGs lower the amount of energy reaching the ground. So does the atmosphere generally, resulting in about 30% of the Sun’s energy not actually reaching the surface.
This is why temperatures get higher on the Moon than the Earth, and no amount of cunning pseudoscientific blather about averages and anomalies can make the relevant physics inoperable.
Bad luck, tough cheese, and all that. No GHE. No CO2 heating. No Nobel Prize for Mike Mann (boo hoo).
Cheers.
Mike, you are almost there! Just apply *your* same reasoning to IR emitted by the earth!
* Change the source from the sun to the earth
* Change to sink from the earth to space.
“Any absorbed radiation [heading from the sun toward the earth] doesnt reach the ground.”
Any absorbed radiation [heading from the earth toward space] doesnt reach the space.
“However, the absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted some towards the ground, most not.”
However, the absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted some towards space, most not.
“So CO2 and other GHGs lower the amount of energy reaching the ground.”
So CO2 and other GHGs lower the amount of energy reaching space.
“So does the atmosphere generally, resulting in about 30% of the Suns energy not actually reaching the surface.”
So does the atmosphere generally, resulting in about 90% of the earths energy not actually reaching space.
As you state, the blocking effect on incoming energy results — naturally and obviously — in the earth being cooler than it would be with out that blocking effect.
Conversely, the blocking effect on outgoing energy results — naturally and obviously — in the earth being warmer than it would be with out that blocking effect.
Yes Tim, Mike Flynn many times has described Earth’s GHE with a testable hypothesis that has passed all tests. Mike does so again here. But that won’t change his m.o. as his political comments demonstrate, nothing new and fun to watch.
Tim, you are comparing two different things. The spectrum of the IR from Earth is completely different than the spectrum of arriving solar. The 30% reflected amounts to considerable energy. The IR re-emiotted back trom the atmosphere (back-radiation) does not have the ability to raise the temperature of the surface.
Physics can be confusing, if you’ve never learned any, but the spectra tell the story.
“The IR re-emiotted (sic) back trom (sic) the atmosphere (back-radiation) does not have the ability to raise the temperature of the surface.”
Of course not when the global mean surface temperature energy balance is right at steady state equilibrium. However, if the surface temperature energy budget happens to be out of balance from steady state equilibrium on the low side then of course enough DWIR will act to return the surface global mean temperature back up to balance.
Yes, radiative physics can be confusing as many demonstrate around here, if you’ve never learned any, but if you have, then measuring or computing the spectra can help tell the story.
The sentence is important enough that I will correct my typos:
The IR re-emitted back from the atmosphere (back-radiation) does not have the ability to raise the temperature of the surface.
(Much better.)
Just to be extra-clear, the discussion here relates specifically to earth’s *surface* (both solid + liquid; but not solid + liquid + atmosphere). That should be clear from context, but some might miss that idea, or some might choose to nit-pick rather than address the physics. (And of course, someone now might choose to nit-pick that I offered a clarification as some sort of evidence that I was wrong/don’t understand.)
So for example. the fourth line would more specifically read:
“Change the source from the sun to the
earthearth’s surface”.Tim, how about this?
“…the
fourththird line would more specifically read…”TF,
Once again, you find yourself unable to factually disagree with anything I said, but demand that I carry out your bizarre desires!
My answer is no.
If you wish to believe that the Earth has heated up since its creation, or that a usefully describable GHE exists, involving the use of magic to make thermometers hotter by reducing the amount of radiation they receive from a hotter object, good for you! Enjoy your fantasy.
Trying to put words in my mouth merely has you agreeing with yourself. A consensus of fools cannot create fact from fiction.
You are clearly delusional – of the same ilk as Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth.
Cheers.
No, Mike, you find yourself unable to factually disagree with anything you yourself said. Everything I stated was exactly the same principles that you laid out.
And then you demand that I carry out your bizarre desires to discuss the core of the earth instead of the atmosphere.
You seem to be unable to see that you are the one resorting to the tactics you describe.
Begone, troll!
Ball4
Sorry, you said 1050, but I read 667. Substitute H2O Vapor for CO2 in my previous response.
Your Fig 3. is different than my graph. My graph refers to: “After Contrath et al. (1970)”
Your paper is from 1973 by Conrath.
My graph refers to a 1970 paper by Conrath.
I suppose the author could be the same, but your evidence doesn’t prove one way or the other.
The author is the same. Here is the 1970 paper Conrath et. al. see Figures 6,7 without ordinate displacement confusing you in order to better judge the match theoretical vs. observed.
Note: the 1050 wavenumber matches in 1970. It doesn’t match theoretical in the 1973 paper because p.11 : “Absorp_tion by ozone in the 1000-1100 cm- 1 region was not included in the model used in this investigation.”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700022421.pdf
Ball4,
Oh, OK. I’m glad you agree there’s barely any difference between theoretical and observed. No GH effect due to GHGs, afterall.
The greenhouse effect is completely obvious:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
DA,
Only to the delusional pseudoscientific climate cultist, of course.
Cheers.
Ball4,
Didn’t you understand that I had you in a double bind?
No, becuase you didn’t
Ball4, please stop trolling.
https://quillette.com/2019/06/06/the-new-evolution-deniers-by-colin-wright/
The New Evolution Deniers
Well, it’s not new.
But found it fairly amusing.
And more proof of God.
“99.98%”
Sort of like CO2
“The Catholics and Left wing agree on Evolution”
Of course they would. It’s almost like they would have it
How does any of that prove a god or gods?
DA,
About as well as 97% consensus proves CO2 makes thermometers hotter, but even more so.
99.98% is greater than 97%, isn’t it?
And Gavin Schmidt, self appointed climate scientist, claimed that a 38% probability meant that 2014 was “the hottest year EVAH!”
Don’t you understand anything at all about pseudoscientific climate cultism, David?
Oh well, you can always toss a few pointless gotchas into the mix, if all else fails.
Cheers.
It’s probably a long wait for proof of gods or God.
But do you think those believing that sex is only a social construct are trying to prove God exist?
It would seem to me more likely that they would tend to worship materialism.
gbaikie…”The New Evolution Deniers”
This essay is yet another rant by a believer who offers no proof of evolution. He doesn’t even try, feeling justified in ad homming those who disagree.
Before any theory of evolution can be established it must be demonstrated conclusively how 5 non-organic elements could bond together to produce life. Yet that’s exactly what evolutionists try to avoid.
Evolutionists lean on disciplines like genetics which is a study of the same species. If you could examine humans over the past 5000 years you’d likely find no evidence that humans are evolving into a different species.
Wiki explains it as follows, which is not really a Darwin-based definition, but one from genetics theory:
“Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population”.
This wiki explanation is about changes in the same species, which makes it an incorrect definition of evolution.
Then they try to gloss over Darwin, the father of evolution whose books is titled “On the Origin of Species (or, more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life…”
It seems modern evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from the absurdity of natural selection as related to the origins of life where life started allegedly from nothing then evolved through a series of species to its present form. If you can’t explain the origins, what good is the theory or its motivation, natural selection?
Why would anyone try to extrapolate backwards to an origin, throwing in pseudo-scientific, red-herring like natural selection. There is no such thing. Natural selection suggests an intelligence that can choose how life evolves. However, it is actually more a reference to rolling the dice.
Explain why DNA has intelligence built in? In the nucleus of a cell there is a coil of DNA that needs to be unwound at a specific portion of the coil where a code can be found instructing RNA how to build certain proteins.
Sorry. that intelligence has nothing to do with natural selection, codes are intelligence obviously put there. I am not religious and I will refrain from taking that thought further. In fact, I am agnostic. I think there’s as much chance that intelligence in the universe put the intelligence in DNA than there is that it happened by sheer fluke.
–Gordon Robertson says:
June 15, 2019 at 5:15 PM
gbaikieThe New Evolution Deniers
This essay is yet another rant by a believer who offers no proof of evolution. He doesnt even try, feeling justified in ad homming those who disagree.–
I think more of issue of being frighten of the New Evolution Deniers, unlike the early situation with fundamentalist Christians [who were polite and interested in dialogue]
“Before any theory of evolution can be established it must be demonstrated conclusively how 5 non-organic elements could bond together to produce life. Yet thats exactly what evolutionists try to avoid.”
The New Evolution Deniers aren’t in disagreement about that, it’s more recent evolution [within last couple hundred million years] which is being denied.
The problem I see with evolution a few billion years ago, is there was no time. Or as soon as life could begin, it occurred very quickly.
“Evolutionists lean on disciplines like genetics which is a study of the same species. If you could examine humans over the past 5000 years youd likely find no evidence that humans are evolving into a different species.”
Biologically not in 10,000 or even 100,000 year.
But humans in terms software or culturally [or technologically or economically] are currently evolving.
I would say humans have evolved since the time of Jesus Christ- because it’s true [and it annoys people].
Or human 10,000 year ago, were fairly uninteresting creatures, but strictly biologically they had everything they needed to become more interesting creatures.
It seems we are living in the best of times, but maybe it will be an even better time in another 100 years.
I would say Jordan Peterson is in this fight with the New Evolution Deniers.
In the future there will be Global Warming museums displaying artifacts from the Idiocene era of man made warming catastrophe planetary delusion
Tim Folkerts couldn’t really find any reason to challenge my explanation of the reason for not needing a GHE of any sort. Attempting to put words in my mouth, he wrote (amongst other things) –
“Change the source from the sun to the earths surface.
That would make it night time – no Sun visible. Bad luck for Tim. At night, temperatures fall – no sunlight to make thermometers hotter!
Additionally, Tim’s poorly thought out and witless suggestion indicates that he does not realise that a heat source of some 5800 K (the Sun), is qualitatively different from the Earth’s surface at a maximum of 363 K or so.
As an example, it is relatively easy to use a magnifying glass to set a piece of paper on fire, or boil water. Tim, for all his supposed knowledge, cannot boil a teaspoon of water by replacing the Sun’s radiation with that of the Earth’s surface. The usual blithering stupidity of the pseudoscientific GHE true believer, backed up by his gullible acceptance of the pronouncements of the climate cult leaders.
Still no GHE by replacing the Sun with something a few thousand K colder.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn couldnt really find any reason to challenge what I wrote. in fact, the core of what I wrote was merely his own understanding, applied a slightly different situation.
Here again are the two core statements:
Any radiation absorbed along its trip toward an object doesnt reach that target object.
However, the absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted some towards the target object, some not.
These are true for any radiation heading from any source to any target with any intervening absorbing gases.
Mike focuses on specific radiation (sunlight) toward a specific target (earth) absorbed by a specific gas (CO2). He is welcome to do that. It is perfectly true. The absorbed radiation that re-emitted in other directions results in less energy reaching the surface; a cooling effect.
I focus on specific radiation (Earth’s thermal IR) toward a different target (space) absorbed by a specific gas (CO2). And I am welcome to do that. It is still perfectly true. The absorbed radiation that re-emitted in other directions [ie not toward space; back toward earth’s surface] results in less energy leaving the surface; a warming effect.
The two statements from Mike that lead to these two conclusion in these two situation are not dependent on time of day or wavelength of radiation.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Day 100. We’ve hit triple figures of denial…
Since they’re wrong on both the “plates” and the Moon, maybe it is “triple figures of double denial”?
True! I wonder how many days of denial there have been about the moon? Maybe SkepticGoneOnlyEverCommentsAboutTheMoon can tell us, since that’s the number one obsession in his life.
David Appell,
“The greenhouse effect is completely obvious.”
How? You showed me a diagram that proves GHGs are heated by the sun-warmed surface. So what?
Do you also believe that a dry sponge will make a spill wetter due to backmoisture just because it can absorb?
“Do you also believe that a dry sponge will make a spill wetter due to backmoisture just because it can absorb?”
Good one, Zoe.
ZP,
Excellent. I wish I could have thought of it, myself.
Obviously, a GHE true believer will point out that if your sponge is saturated with limitless dehydrated water, then backmoisture will be such that a tipping point will be reached, sea levels will rise, and we’ll all be doomed! Doomed, I tell you, and I’ll flap my diagrammatic evidence in your face if you disagree!
Cheers.
Cant make real physics of the real problem work, use a dumb analogy!
You guys are hopeless.
Nate, you should get rid of all dry sponges in your apartment. They are causing sea levels to rise….
Day 1 of sponge denial, right?
I can understand why you have to deny it, Nate. Zoe Phin’s simple sponge analogy is easy to understand, even for clowns that can’t understand the relevant physics. Anyone can understand a dry sponge does not add moisture to the system.
So, please, help DREMT keep track of your days of denial.
That would be an interesting metric.
Anybody here can say whatever BS they want. Flat Earth. Sasquatch. Sponges. We may tell you its nonsense or ignore it.
Then you can keep track of the days of denial of the BS, if you like, just add BS on top of BS.
It just makes the BS twice as thick!
It’s such an easy debunk of the GHE nonsense.
A dry sponge does not add moisture to the system, just as CO2 does not add energy to the system.
Deny, deny, deny, but reality is still there waiting for you.
Nothing new.
Anybody can say whatever BS they want. Case in point:
‘Its such an easy debunk of the GHE nonsense.’
Nate, please stop trolling.
To be analogy, there must be objects/properties that are analogous.
So in your sponge analogy, what is the sponge analogous to?
* The whole atmosphere?
* Greenhouse gases?
* Other?
What is the water analogous to?
* Energy?
* IR radiation?
* Temperature?
In order to understand an analogy, you must have a grasp of the basic concepts.
So in your sponge analogy, what is the sponge analogous to?
Greenhouse gases
What is the water/moisture analogous to?
IR Energy
Nate,
“Cant make real physics of the real problem work, use a dumb analogy!”
That’s projection. That’s what the GHE religion does.
Can’t show experimental evidence that blankets raise your temperature? Just claim CO2 works like a blanket … except neither does what is claimed.
Zoe, water can flow like heat can conduct. But water cannot radiate, can it? So your analogy fails.
Try again.
Nate,
GHE religion also uses bathtub analogy to claim heat can be built up. Except in reality, heat is not an extensive property like volume, it’s an intensive property – and the max temperature sets the max temperature.
‘One easy way to tell whether a physical property is intensive or extensive is to take two identical samples of a substance and put them together. If this doubles the property (e.g., twice the mass, twice as long), it’s an extensive property. If the property is unchanged by altering the sample size, it’s an intensive property.’
Zoe, if I put 2 samples together the amount of heat is unchanged??
Hmmm…
If you pour 2 glasses of water, both at 25 C, together, the temperature is unchanged.
Hmmm….
JD, you know better than to confuse “heat” with “temperature” !
But you don’t know better than to make a fallacious implication!
tim…”JD, you know better than to confuse heat with temperature !”
Enough of the pseudo-science, Tim. Heat IS the average kinetic energy of atoms and temperature is a MEASURE of that average kinetic energy. Therefore, temperature is a measure of relative heat levels.
What the heck do you think temperature measures?
BTW…the kinetic energy referenced IS thermal energy.
That is so JD…
Nate, please stop trolling.
“An intensive property is a bulk property, meaning that it is a local physical property of a system that does not depend on the system size …
“By contrast, an extensive property is additive for subsystems.[3] This means the system could be divided into any number of subsystems, and the extensive property measured for each subsystem; the value of the property for the system would be the sum of the property for each subsystem.”
Volume is indeed extensive. Internal energy, U, is also extensive, as are mass and velocity.
Temperature, T, is extensive.
Heat, Q, is neither extensive nor intensive, since it is not a property of a system. Similarly, work, W, is also neither extensive nor intensive.
So the claim “heat is an intensive property” is either
* incorrect because you are talking about U, which is an extensive property, or
* incorrect because you are confusing “heat” and “temperature”
* incorrect because Q is not a property of a system at all.
(Or maybe there are yet more ways to be incorrect that I hadn’t even imagined.)
tim…”Heat, Q, is neither extensive nor intensive, since it is not a property of a system”.
I don’t know what kind of berry juice you’re on but heat is a property of atoms. That makes it a property of all mass.
Where do you guys get these kooky ideas that heat is some kind of energy transfer? As you guys describe it heat is a transfer of energy,and the energy being transferred is thermal energy, therefore heat must be the transfer of heat.
And why is it necessary to talk about intensive and extensive properties? Or closed and open systems?
Come on Tim, time to think this through.
Gordon,
Colloquially people may use the term heat to refer to internal energy or enthalpy. But it is not used that way in Thermodynamics, or in Chemistry or Physics.
nate…”Colloquially people may use the term heat to refer to internal energy or enthalpy. But it is not used that way in Thermodynamics, or in Chemistry or Physics”.
Better explain that to Clausius who wrote the 2nd law, created the term U for internal energy, and created the concept of entropy.
Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. What else could it be?
The term enthalpy was coined decades after the notion of internal energy was introduced. Clausius explained internal energy as partly the work of atoms and the heat required to maintain the inter-atomic forces for the work atoms perform in vibrating.
According to Clausius, in the 1st law, U = Q – W, Q and W refer to external work and heat while U in an internal sum of work and heat. Makes perfect sense to me.
Every good science student knows that atoms vibrate harder when heat is added and slow down when heat is removed.
I fear that science has been turned on its head by certain modernists who lack the basics and have re-defined physics out of their misunderstanding. There are idiots currently trying to redefine gravity from a force to a space-time anomaly. Other idiots think electrons can be in two places at the same time and that out universe suddenly appeared out of nothing in a Big Bang.
‘According to Clausius, in the 1st law, U = Q – W, Q and W refer to external work and heat while U in an internal sum of work and heat. Makes perfect sense to me.
Every good science student knows that atoms vibrate harder when heat is added and slow down when heat is removed.’
Yeah, makes sense.
But heat, Q, once added to a substance gets converted to external work (W) and internal work (potential energy) and kinetic energy which sum to U.
Thus heat is not preserved (conserved) once it passes into a substance.
Nate, please stop trolling.
You’ve ignored the rest of the atmosphere. Much of the atmosphere warms by conduction/convection and the non-greenhouse gases only lose heat by conduction (i.e. require a collision with colder atoms).
How will the atmosphere cool if the non-greenhouse gases cannot radiate energy into space? Won’t the Earth’s surface only cool by long-wave radiation?
“How will the atmosphere cool if the non-greenhouse gases cannot radiate energy into space? Wont the Earths surface only cool by long-wave radiation?”
Well, with non-greenhouse gases there is more spectrum of IR which can radiate to space.
But without water and the main greenhouse gas of water vapor, earth will be colder.
One could replace water with some other transparent material or have water prevented from evaporating.
But also the tropical ocean is heat engine of the World- you have ocean movement and water vapor transfering tropical heat to atmosphere.
So in addition to some transparent substance at surface, one needs some way transfer heat so one has has a more globally uniform temperature.
Also you don’t have clouds. Clouds are complicated, but I would say if include there reflective nature, the net result is warming.
Some paper claims clouds are about 1/2 of all warming effect of all greenhouse gases. Not sure completely agree, but think cloud are net gain. And of course clouds block more of IR spectrum than greenhouse gases.
The condensation of water vapor effects lapse rate. So 1000 meters of elevation is warmer at top as compared to air with no water vapor.
Or more tonnage of all the air is warmer per square meter.
Water vapor also has more specific heat than dry air and water vapor in confined [mostly] to lower elevation.
Anyhow how air cools, is basically same as cools with greenhouse gases- about 1/2 of planet is cold because it doesn’t get much sunlight due to thick atmosphere and sunlight mostly remaining low above horizon, and low angle in term incidence angle to the level surface.
So roughly half world is much colder than it is currently [and it’s pretty cold/cool, now] and other half is not warmer. Or about 1/2 the daytime hours also has sunlight at a low angle.
Or solar panels don’t work well, even you put them at the right angle and there is not clouds.
I didn’t say that the Earth would be just as warm without the greenhouse gases. I accept it would be cooler.
What I question is whether it would be -18C (i.e. 33C cooler that the supposed average temperature now).
–What I question is whether it would be -18C (i.e. 33C cooler that the supposed average temperature now).–
I don’t think greenhouse gases increase Earth average temperature by 33 K.
But water vapor the most powerful greenhouse gas might add much as about 5 K and doubling of CO2 levels might add around 1 K but possible or even likely, it’s less than this. Because see no evidence of around .5 C of warming from the increase so far from the increase of global CO2 levels.
The IPCC has made a statement that they have high confidence, rising CO2 has caused more than .2 K in recent warming.
I am less confident.
john…”How will the atmosphere cool if the non-greenhouse gases cannot radiate energy into space? Won’t the Earth’s surface only cool by long-wave radiation?”
To question 1, has anyone ever tested that theory? Obviously the nitrogen and oxygen making up 99% of the atmosphere do radiate.
re question 2…the surface cools by direct conduction to N2/O2 and by evapouration.
Besides, as N2/O2 absorb heat by conduction, cooling the surface, then convection carries the heat higher into the atmosphere, the heated gases will cool naturally by expansion. At the same time, cooler air from above moves in to replace the rising heated air. Natural air conditioning.
Furthermore, as the Earth rotates, the atmosphere expands during solar heating and contracts when the atmosphere/surface is not subjected to solar energy. There SHOULD be a natural warming/cooling process there.
Has anyone ever checked that?
All we ever hear about is climate model theory which is based on radiation theory and not done well.
Idiots,
“Temperature, T, is extensive.”
No, temperature is an intensive property.
If the bathtub analogy isn’t to show a temperature rise, then it has no purpose.
Another double bind.
Yes T is intensive, Tim has a typo.
But you didnt say Temp, you said Heat was intensive, which is wrong.
Nate,
Why is Tim allowed a typo? Weird. All non pedantic idiots knew what I meant.
He correctly points out that Heat is neither intensive or extensive, and so he admits the bathtub analogy is inapt and purposefully misleading.
So we all agree that temperature can not be built up due to backradiation nonsense.
“so he admits the bathtub analogy is inapt and purposefully misleading.”
Nope
“So we all agree that temperature can not be built up due to backradiation nonsense.”
And nope.
Nate, please stop trolling.
“Well, with non-greenhouse gases there is more spectrum of IR which can radiate to space.”
Radiation to space is not a heat transfer mechanism. Space can not be heated. Earth can only heat things closer than Lagrange Point 2. The moon, satellites, and that’s about it. The view angle is really small and basically doesn’t matter.
“Radiation to space is not a heat transfer mechanism. Space can not be heated. Earth can only heat things closer than Lagrange Point 2.”
Weird, arbitrary distance!
Look guys, this is just not controversial.
The lit side of the Moon, having been heated by the sun, rotates away from the sun and COOLS on the dark side.
It cools by emitting heat, transferring heat, to somewhere colder than itself…space is the ONLY OPTION.
THAT heat can flow to space is an established fact.
It is good example of you guys making up and declaring fake physics.
Nate,
“Weird, arbitrary distance!”
Not weirdnor arbitrary.
“The lit side of the Moon, having been heated by the sun, rotates away from the sun and COOLS on the dark side.”
The moon is not heated. It merely reflects solar radiation. That’s what your looking at when you scan its daytime surface. The moon is in thermal equilibrium with the sun. No heating.
“It cools by emitting heat, transferring heat, to somewhere colder than itselfspace is the ONLY OPTION. THAT heat can flow to space is an established fact.”
Then space would be hot. But it’s not, because you can only heat matter.
Only objects can emit radiation, because they can be heated. If space could be heated, it would send radiation. The radiation from space is ZERO. The radiation from distant stars is not, because they arw matter.
The fact that heat can flow to space is not an established fact, it’s an imbecile’s wish.
Zoe, anyone saying “The moon is not heated.” has no credibility.
Anyone saying “The radiation from space is ZERO.” is just ignorant.
Anyone saying “The moon is in thermal equilibrium with the sun.” is simply nuts!
‘Then space would be hot. But its not, because you can only heat matter.’
I swim in the ocean and cool off. According to you the ocean should be hot. Why isnt it?
ZP said…” The radiation from space is ZERO”
What do you think about the cosmic microwave background?
backdoor guy, the claim, from Institutionalized Pseudoscience, is that the CMBR is left over from the bogus Big Bang.
Of course, we know that is nonsense….
JD adds more to his long list of declarations without evidence.
bdg…”What do you think about the cosmic microwave background?”
Microwave radiation, like heat, is a product of mass. There is no doubt all forms of radiation bouncing about but it all came from mass. Unless that radiation comes from a high temperature source it is doomed to just keep bouncing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_maser
Nate
“Nope and nope”
Denial is not an argument.
BTW, If space could be heated, then the blue plate heats the space between it and the green plate to its radiation level. Since green plate is right next to this space, it would be odd if it too were not heated to same radiation. Another double bind. Deny all you want, denier!
Denying things that we never said or agreed with is legit.
‘ If space could be heated, then the blue plate heats the space between it and the green plate to its radiation level. ‘
You’re loony.
The sun’s radiation can obviously pass thru space without heating it and heat the Earth.
The point is this, it just an established fact that heat can be emitted into space. The ISS space station dumps it excess heat into space every day.
“The heated ammonia circulates through huge radiators located on the exterior of the Space Station, releasing the heat as infrared radiation and cooling as it flows.
The Station’s outstretched radiators are made of honeycomb aluminum panels. There are 14 panels, each measuring 6 by 10 feet (1.8 by 3 meters), for a total of 1680 square feet (156 square meters) of ammonia-tubing-filled heat exchange area.”
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1
The heat passes thru space and eventually hits something far away. It makes no difference to the ISS’s temperature how far away that is or when that happens.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nate,
“The suns radiation can obviously pass thru space without heating it and heat the Earth.”
Ah, so space can’t be heated afterall.
“The ISS space station dumps it excess heat into space every day.”
“The heat passes thru space and eventually hits something far away. It makes no difference to the ISSs temperature how far away that is or when that happens.”
Nope, ISS dumps its heat onto Earth and Moon.
Its cute how you treat space like a perfect conductor.
‘Nope, ISS dumps its heat onto Earth and Moon.’
Declare whatever made-up BS you want zoe.
But without showing evidence, as I did, it will not be taken seriously.
nate…”The ISS space station dumps it excess heat into space every day.
The heat passes thru space and eventually hits something far away. It makes no difference to the ISSs temperature how far away that is or when that happens.”
Absolute pseudo-science. There are so many people with degrees who fail to understand the difference between heat and electromagnetic radiation.
Heat cannot exist without mass since it is the kinetic energy of atoms. When excess heat is ‘dumped’ from a space station, it has to be dumped as molecules of heated air (oxygen??) or by radiation. If dumped via radiation, heat must be converted to EM and during the conversion, heat is lost.
Heat cannot flow through space as radiation, if for no other reason than heat cannot every be radiation. If it flows through space it has to be via a convective flow of matter.
When hot air rises from the surface, that is a convective flow of heat since the heat transfer is via molecules of air.
“In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.”
In science and engineering, people need to agree on definitions, otherwise projects get screwed up.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Who will answer me these questions three? All about the heat flow equation.
Just “true” or “false”, please. Nothing more required.
Q1: Between the blue and green plates, all at 244 K, heat flow (Q) is zero.
Q2: If the emissivity or view factors involved were other than 1, heat flow (Q) could be zero when the plates were at different temperatures.
Q3. Heat flow goes to zero at equilibrium.
1. Objects at the same temperature do not have heat flow between them, nor Net energy flow.
2.Different temps leads to heat flow. So False.
3. TRUE. Equilibrium defined as equal temp and zero heat flow.
Nates gets it wrong: “1. Objects at the same temperature do not have heat flow between them, nor Net energy flow.”
No heat, but there can be net energy flow, as in the three plates in full contact, or in the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
In the incorrect solution, there is heat, without an increase in energy, which violates the laws of thermo.
‘No heat, but there can be net energy flow, as in the three plates in full contact, or in the correct solution:’
Declaration without evidence, your specialty.
First Law:
dU = dQ – dW dU is internal energy.
If you are able to move energy from one plate to the other without heat then it would have to be work.
Where and what is the work being done in stationary plates?
Nate, explaining this to you involves teaching you thermo, which you clearly do not understand.
So, if I take the time to explain it, will you agree to stay off this blog for 90 days?
‘So, if I take the time to explain it’
Lame!
Par for the course, you have no explanation whatsoever.
Obviously you have more interest in trolling than learning.
Nothing new.
Ive been waiting to learn…if you had a sensible answer Im sure you would have already shared it.
You won’t take the deal because you know I can answer the question, while teaching you in the process.
But then you will have to find new ways to avoid reality.
And, you’re already way behind schedule.
You’re letting down DREMT, who has no answers either.
He was counting on you to ‘splain it to me!
ibid.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358849
Hilarious.
DREMT links to his NO ANSWERS and attempted distractions from somewhere else.
Nate, please stop trolling.
regarding other Qs:
“Q2: If the emissivity or view factors involved were other than 1, heat flow (Q) could be zero when the plates were at different temperatures.”
Hmm, true?
So you have emissivity of .8. It’s 400 K. It will radiate less energy as compare to it being at emissivity of 1.
Or same heat source will be warmer if .8 or will be cooler at 1.
And obviously if something gets less radiant energy it is cooler as compared to getting more radiant energy.
And view factors are also about “getting less or more” radiant energy from something.
So, that aspect is true, you could get equilibrium or zero heat flow having different surfaces or view factor and different temperatures, though of course in a vacuum [or gases transfer heat via collision- kinetic energy]
Q3. Heat flow goes to zero at equilibrium.
If there is no heat flow it is at equilibrium.
But I would not define equilibrium as no heat flow, or
equilibrium = no heat flow
Or in terms of definition, equilibrium = balance.
Or one could have different factors bringing about the state of balance or equilibrium.
So if you get heat flow to zero [in all aspects] that would be an equilibrium.
Yes, I’d agree with you on Q2. I would say, for Q3, if you had a system where energy was always moving through, so long as energy in = energy out, equilibrium would be the point at which there was no heat flow between the objects.
So, “true”, “true”, and “true”.
‘ if you had a system where energy was always moving through, so long as energy in = energy out, equilibrium would be the point at which there was no heat flow between the objects.’
What is the energy that is moving thru?
Heat definition:
“In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.” Wiki
This is also 1st Law.
If we’re not adding mass, nor doing work on an object then Heat is all that is left.
What is the work being done on a plate? None AFIK.
Strange way to admit you were wrong in your answer to Q2, but OK Nate.
And…DREMT has no explanation as to what his mysterious energy is!
Par for the course.
Maybe if you haggle with JD, perhaps suggest 30 days, he might go easy on you. Seems like you could do with the break anyway, and I would love to see the discussion. You have to understand that at this stage, people can’t be bothered to talk to somebody like you unless they’re going to get something out of it.
This mystery energy was your idea, DREMT. And YOU cannot explain it.
If you can’t explain it, why do you keep posting it?
Now you’re baiting me for a response again. Good job I don’t jump into your threads and try to bait you into a discussion. Oh that’s right, you don’t make your own threads. All you do is interrupt other people’s discussions.
‘Who will answer me these questions three? ‘
Was that not you asking questions??
Honestly, I don’t understand you guys.
You make claims, declarations, and you seem certain that you’re right.
But when your assertions are challenged: Where does that come from? How does that agree with known physics?
You have no answers.
Then you try to blame the ones asking, as if there is something wrong with that.
Go and troll somebody else.
And you seem very confused about what trolling actually is.
#2
Go and troll somebody else.
Q1: simplest is true.
As all material has heat gradients. But thin and highly conductive material or “ideal” or stuff like diamonds or plasma type stuff could have insignificant heat gradients.
Or other factor or side of it, is that there is insignificant heat flow or a balance of heat or the answer being it is true.
Thanks gbaikie. Yes, we’re talking about an “ideal” perfectly conducting material. Just thinking about radiation only between those plates, no conduction or convection.
So I agree, “true” is the answer to Q1.
Though gases (ideal gases) are called ideal for a reason.
Or ideal gases normally have heat gradients due to gravity (though perhaps this just my opinion, or people seem to disagree or debate it).
gbaikie…”Or ideal gases normally have heat gradients due to gravity (though perhaps this just my opinion, or people seem to disagree or debate it).”
Not just your opinion gb, it’s a fact. Air pressure reduces with altitude and there is no other explanation than gravity to explain it. If you look at any lapse rate curve in the troposphere it shows a linear relationship between pressure and temperature to 40,000 feet. After that altitude other factor appear, like the heating of ozone by UV.
Up till 40,000 feet, the only explanation for the linear relationship between temperature and pressure (altitude) is gravity.
Of course, as we know, there are other factors operating like thermals. However, the steady-state P-T curve has to be due to gravity. It’s the Ideal Gas Law, don’t ya know?
Nate,
“But without showing evidence, as I did, it will not be taken seriously.”
What evidence did you show?
The ISS as orienting mechanisms. Did you show us where the fins are oriented? No.
Do you not understand that those radiating fins dilute cabin heat via conduction? Do you not know that provides most ot the cooling? Did you not know that ISS is right next to a large radiant heat sink called Earth?
More words with no evidence.
From the ISS site. ” said Ungar. “Then we send the energy to radiators to reject that heat into space.”
Heat can be emitted to space. Just a fact.
No point in continuing to argue about it.
nate…”From the ISS site. said Ungar. Then we send the energy to radiators to reject that heat into space.”
Ungar is wrong. Radiators radiate EM, not heat. It is physically impossible for heat to be radiated. It has to be converted to EM and in that process, heat is lost.
A better way to dump heat would be to open the space station doors. The station would cool instantly as the heat-bearing molecules shot out the door, along with anyone or anything not tied down.
“When excess heat is ‘dumped’ from a space station, it has to be dumped as molecules of heated air (oxygen??) or by radiation.”
Who said this? You need to argue it out with that Gordon.
nate…”When excess heat is ‘dumped’ from a space station, it has to be dumped as molecules of heated air (oxygen??) or by radiation.
Who said this? You need to argue it out with that Gordon.”
I said it. Does that mean I have to argue it out with myself?
It seems so, you said heat can be dumped by radiation.
Nate, please stop trolling.
gbaikie,
“Though gases (ideal gases) are called ideal for a reason.”
SB Law should be called Ideal SB Law because no object in the universe follows it perfectly.
zoe…”SB Law should be called Ideal SB Law because no object in the universe follows it perfectly.”
Further to that, it should be emphasized that the initial law from Stefan was based on an experiment of Tyndall in which heat was obviously transferred one way. S-B obeys the 2nd law and Botltzmann spent a lot of his time trying to prove the 2nd law statistically.
Tyndall was a great scientist. He also devised the first thermopile and used the instrument to quantify the magnitude at which certain gas species would absorb IR radiation.
bdg…”Tyndall was a great scientist. He also devised the first thermopile and used the instrument to quantify the magnitude at which certain gas species would absorb IR radiation”.
Tyndall also devised the experiment from which Stefan formulated his initial T^4 law. He heated a platinum filament wire electrically and noted the wire gave off different colours as the current and temperature increased. Someone else related the colours to temperatures, and Tyndall suggested the ratio between the temperatures.
Stefan did the rest.
It should be noted that S-B is based on a one way transfer of heat from a very hot filament wire to it’s surroundings. There is absolutely nothing in S-B suggested a reverse transfer of heat from a cooler region to the wire.
S-B respects the 2nd law, those following who think EM or heat is transferred both ways disrespect the law.
I re-read what I said, and made me wonder about something. :
“Now if Earth didn’t have global ocean, it would be mostly a frozen waste land [forever]. It’s important that Earth has a lot water, otherwise all of it could be frozen at the poles.”
So extreme, of what I said, was if Earth which had far less water and was at Venus distance, could it have frozen waste lands.
Or at earth distance it would, and how close to Sun, would be needed stop having frozen waste lands in polar regions.
Or what I have been saying is the ocean makes Earth warmer. I also say a ocean [in tropics] would make Mars warmer.
But over millions of years without human activity, Mars would need a vast amount ocean [or it just all ends up at poles].
Where to start. Let’s look at ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
So earth distance is uniform 5 C: 1360 / 4 = 340. And 340 watts of blackbody is 5 C
Venus is about 2600 / 4 = 650 watts. 650 watts of blackbody is 327 K or 54 C
Without atmosphere, it’s 2600 watts, blackbody: 463 K or 189.6 C
When sun is at zenith.
When sun at 30 degree it’s about 1/2: 1300 watts, blackbody: 389 K
or 116 C
Let’s see, make simple, no axis tilt.
90 degree noon equator, 60 degree latitude, sun at noon 30 degree above horizon at noon. and heats surface to about 115 C near noon.
And at equator it’s about 190 C near noon.
With atmosphere, it will warmer at equator and it’s going to Earth like at 60 Degree latitude, or it 1300 watts in vacuum and at earth distance in vacuum you get 1360 watts per square meter. So if the there was only 1 atm the surface would heat to about 70 C, but due to angle, one has twice atmosphere the sun is going thru, not going to reach 70 C.
And loosely that means air temperature is not going get higher than 50 C [at 60 latitude].
So if allow for elevation difference [high elevation and colder air], could/might have water freeze say above 65 latitude.
So, roughly it seems possible.
I will do more later.
So, Earth at Venus distance, axis tilt 0, Moon at same angle of orbit??
With less ocean, ocean if completely covered earth surface, 100 meter deep vs about 2500 meters:
“If spread over the whole surface of the earth the average depth would be 2440m”
So. 1/25th of our ocean.
Which btw, is a lot more ocean then the water in Venus atmosphere- can’t remember- but as wild guess that would be somewhere around 1 meter or less.
Now if Earth didn’t rotate or rotated like Venus, Earth with the 1/25th of it’s ocean, would have a much lower average global temperature, as compare to 24 hours day. But this Earth at Venus distance does rotate with 24 hour day.
I hate math, and want reference, so google:
“The smaller the angle, the greater the surface area over which the sun’s rays spread. This effect reduces the sun’s intensity in any one place. For example, at a 45 degree angle of incidence, solar radiation covers a 40 percent greater area and is 30 percent less intense than at the maximum angle of incidence of 90 degrees.”
https://sciencing.com/sun-intensity-vs-angle-23529.html
So, yeah 45 degree latitude would pretty hot at Venus distance. But I want a chart, add chart:
Amount of sunlight reach earth surface at lower degree above horizon chart
Hmm:
“The annual insolation curve for locations at 60 degrees North best approximates the seasonal changes in solar radiation intensity perceived at our latitude. Maximum values of insolation are received at the June solstice when day length and angle of incidence are at their maximum”
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6i.html
But we don’t have seasons and it pointing at sun, rather level to surface. Next, ah found ref I used to have bookmarked:
http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/air-mass-and-insolation1.htm
90° 1.00 air mass 1040 watts
30° 1.99 air mass 840 watts
Etc
But this again if pointing at sun, but about .81
2600 times .81 = is 2106 watts. And half that because of angle to
level ground. No, wrong.
So if 1360 gives 1040 at 90 degrees
Oops.
1360 times .77 = 1047 watts
2600 times .77 = 2002 watts per square meter of direct sunlight
2002 times .81 = 1622 watts
Then half because smeared over twice much level surface area
811 watts per square meter.
Or something heating ground to 60 C at noon at 60 degree latitude.
20 2.90 air mass 710 watts
And .69 times 1040 = 717 watts
2002 times .69 = 1381 watts square meter
Or if at 70 degree latitude and you point at the sun
at noon, you get about 1381 watts.
Which will boil water easily or get such intense sunlight
on the Moon. But it’s smeared over more area if level.
Another chart:
http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/sun-angle-and-insolation2.htm
30 840 50% 420
20 710 34% 240
1381 times .34 = 470 watts per square meter
I did not yet answer my question of whether a planet with much less water and 1 atm earth atmosphere could have ice caps at Venus distance.
You are on the right track. True surface properties is the key. This is an ocean planet. The “Greenhouse effect” is in the oceans, not in the atmosphere. The net effect of the radiatively cooled atmosphere is to cool the solar heated surface of our planet, not warm it.
Look at Dr Spencer’s model. See how he only models 100mm depth? See how he only calculates solar heating at a SW / SWIR opaque surface? I’ve seen Dr. S design empirical experiments. I’m better, but he is still good. This is what distresses me. He knows what he was doing is wrong. He’s better than this. I cannot fathom why someone would trash the scientific method in this manner!
The answer is simple. The sun heats the oceans as a volume, but the oceans can only cool from a surface. The speed of energy return to the surface is limited by the slow speed of sensible energy transports of convection and conduction. The true GHE is in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
Under each m2 of ocean surface, the sun is adding near 500 watts each diurnal cycle. Because the oceans heat as a volume not a surface.
Good points, Konrad.
Radiatively, the oceans can only lose energy at the surface. And that loss is insignificant, compared to the energy they receive from the Sun. The result is that the oceans become a big storage “battery” for solar energy. Ocean oscillations, such as El Niño, are how they cool themselves.
The Sun heats the surface (including oceans), the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere radiates to space.
Believing the atmosphere can heat the surface is like believing a dry sponge* adds moisture to a water spill.
*Credit to Zoe Phil for the “dry sponge” analogy.
Should be “Zoe Phin”.
–Konrad says:
June 18, 2019 at 5:31 AM
You are on the right track. True surface properties is the key. This is an ocean planet. The “Greenhouse effect” is in the oceans, not in the atmosphere. The net effect of the radiatively cooled atmosphere is to cool the solar heated surface of our planet, not warm it.–
Well, I think what I “learned” by “in a sense” challenging my assumption about amount of ocean water matters, by using extreme situation is that angle of tilt matters [more than I assumed it did].
So I think having axis at 0 degrees is a cooling effect. But the next question is what angle of tilt causes the most warming effect.
And I don’t have a clue,
Is 30 degree tilt cause more warming than 23.5 degree- as an example. Part of it seems to have to do with planetary topography.
So, everyone assume we are in an Ice Age because of changing global topography related plate tectonic movement. Generally people point to position of Antarctica at the south pole as main example of this.
So, amount tilt which causes most amount global warming could depend on global topography. So to make simple one would ask with earth’s current configuration- shape of ocean basins and land masses and elevation and depth of oceans and etc, what what tilt angle causes the most amount of global warming.
And one also limit the tilt angle to the ones we get and of them which causes most warming.
Of course with Milankovitch cycles it usually it focused in regard to the melting continental ice sheet and/or creating continental ice sheets. Which could be different question than what causes the most global warming or least amount global warming.
And of course the modeling of removing 96% the ocean is severe change of Earth’s global topography.
One thing about it, is if just remove ice from Greenland, it has bowl shape [most imagine created by massive weight ice in it] but having bowl shape and zero axis tilt, is something might create snow on Earth at Venus distance from sun. Or something similar to very large impact crater at the poles, something like, the Aitken basin on south pole of the Moon.
I sort of thought doing something like that to create glacials, was sort of cheating.
gbaikie…”So I think having axis at 0 degrees is a cooling effect. But the next question is what angle of tilt causes the most warming effect”.
Think of the area in which you live as being a tangential plane. That means it is perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth’s centre through that tangential plane.
The tangential plane at the Equator should also be nearly perpendicular to solar EM rays. That means they get the full intensity of solar energy. The further north you go, or south, the more inclined the tangential plane becomes to the solar rays. That means the intensity is reduced to a level involving the sine or cosine of the angle the solar rays make with the tangential plane (depending on which angle you use).
As the Earth orbits the Sun, there comes a time when the tangential plane of the North Pole is tilted too far away for the solar rays to reach it. At other parts of the orbit, the NP tangential plane is pointed more toward the Sun and the SP becomes hidden.
Every tangential plane between the Equator and the NP/SP get progressively less energy the further the TP is toward the Poles.
gbaikie said…”But the next question is what angle of tilt causes the most warming effect.”
There is a hypothesis that says a shallower tilt promotes a cooler climate. It works like this. When the tilt is shallow solar radiation spreads out more evenly both in spatial and temporal domains. This means polar winters are warmer and polar summers are cooler. A warmer winter promotes more ice sheet growth due to higher precipitation. A cooler summer promotes less ice sheet melting. More ice going into winter and more build up occurring during winter leads to ice sheet growth. This then leads to higher albedos which begets more cooling and more ice sheet growth.
–bdgwx says:
June 19, 2019 at 12:06 PM
gbaikie saidBut the next question is what angle of tilt causes the most warming effect.
There is a hypothesis that says a shallower tilt promotes a cooler climate. It works like this. When the tilt is shallow solar radiation spreads out more evenly both in spatial and temporal domains. This means polar winters are warmer and polar summers are cooler. A warmer winter promotes more ice sheet growth due to higher precipitation. A cooler summer promotes less ice sheet melting. More ice going into winter and more build up occurring during winter leads to ice sheet growth. This then leads to higher albedos which begets more cooling and more ice sheet growth.–
Yes, something like that.
This might be true, or more important if we didn’t live on water planet.
On Earth, the tropical ocean heat the rest of the world.
Without tropical ocean heating rest of world, polar region would be much cooler.
As said I don’t know, but perhaps with larger tilt which didn’t warm the tropical ocean to average of about 26 C, then that would mark to limit to how much increased tilt causing global warming.
[[But if increase tilt one increasing the size of tropics as our tropics extend 23.5 degree north and south. So if tilt was 30 degree the tropics would extend 30 degree north and south.]]
But I am saying with 30 degree tilt the region in the 23.5 degree is area is I am talking changing it’s average temperature.
Or a 30 degree tropics having average of 26 C is actually much warmer than our tropics or even if average 25 C within 30 to 30 degrees, it might be warmer.
Nate,
Seems like your argument rests on one quote. Very lame.
Did he say “any space”?
Did he mean “to space … in the direction of earth or other matter?
We don’t know. But you assume it works in your favor. What a little fraud.
You do understand that photons don’t actually exist, right? They are conceptual. You do understand that heat actually spreads by vibrational resonance, i.e. waves. What is there to wave in space?
You’re acting like space is a perfect conductor. The green plate emits as if space is a conductor. There is no consideration for distance inverse square law to any object beyond green plate … nay, space is treated like a perfect conductor, but using radiation.
More words but still no evidence offered.
‘Youre acting like space is a perfect conductor.’
Radiation works well in a vacuum. No conduction involved!
You are not making much sense, zoe.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Konrad is completely correct.
The atmosphere is the Earth’s coolant.
It acts just like the radiators on the space station. And there is no backradiation heating to the space station from its radiators just because the radiators can absorb IR.
Dummies will now become hypocrites and deny the obvious.
Hand held IR thermometer records 40.6 °F, directly overhead rain clouds, and 76.2 °F ground temp.
Just another day the atmosphere cannot warm the surface.
Nothing new.
ZP,
So you think if the Earth didn’t have an atmosphere then the surface would be even warmer? Can you reconcile that hypothesis with the fact that the Moon does not have an atmosphere yet its average surface temperature is much lower?
And what do you think about JD’s observations above with his IR thermometer. The observation is proof that there is downwelling or back radiation. What do you think happens to that radiation when it hits the surface?
backdoor guy, excuse me for butting in, but you did mention me.
You are now desperately trying another distraction. You are going to the Moon!
But, you haven’t kept up with all the squashed pseudoscience. The Moon has temperatures well above the boiling point of water. It has the same solar constant as Earth, but has temperatures high enough to fry your skin.
And, don’t try to run to the “average” temperature. The Moon has no atmosphere or large bodies of water to moderate temperatures, as Earth does. You’ll just have to find some other way to pervert reality.
Your “proof” of IR from the atmosphere means NOTHING. Everything emits IR. Ice cubes emit IR. Are you claiming ice cubes can heat the planet? Are you that stupid?
Norman is.
Norman believes there is not enough solar to heat Earth. He believes we only have our temperatures because of CO2. (Don’t tell him about the Moon.)
Now, you may exit via the backdoor. Departure approved.
JD said…”The Moon has temperatures well above the boiling point of water. It has the same solar constant as Earth, but has temperatures high enough to fry your skin.”
And yet the mean temperature is significantly cooler than the mean temperature of Earth.
JD said…”And, dont try to run to the average temperature. The Moon has no atmosphere or large bodies of water to moderate temperatures, as Earth does. Youll just have to find some other way to pervert reality.”
The surface still has a mean temperature that can be quantified. The fact that the Moon does not have moderating factors just means that the standard deviation of the local temperature is higher than that on Earth. But, we already know that. In fact, that is a prediction of the GHE. The stronger the GHE the lower the standard deviation of the local temperatures and the higher the mean temperature.
JD said…”Your proof of IR from the atmosphere means NOTHING. Everything emits IR. Ice cubes emit IR. Are you claiming ice cubes can heat the planet?”
My claim is that a thermal barrier leads to a higher equilibrium temperature in the presence of a heat source than if the thermal barrier were not there.
backdoor guy, for fun, let’s track your ongoing denials.
You started out trying to claim the Moon’s lower average temperature was somehow “proof” of the GHE on Earth. When I pointed out that the Moon actually had MUCH higher temperatures, due to the fact that it does not have Earth’s modulating systems, you went into denial.
Then, when I pointed out that your “proof” of IR from the atmosphere means NOTHING, you again went into denial.
Quite obviously you have no interest in science, or learning.
Nothing new.
JD said…”You started out trying to claim the Moons lower average temperature was somehow proof of the GHE on Earth. When I pointed out that the Moon actually had MUCH higher temperatures, due to the fact that it does not have Earths modulating systems, you went into denial.”
No. That is not correct. The Moon does NOT have a higher *mean* temperature than that of Earth. It does have a higher range of temperatures and thus a higher standard deviation, but the mean is most definitely NOT higher. The GHE does not predict that the maximum temperature of a planetary body be higher than without it. It just predicts that the mean will be higher.
Furthermore, because the Earth has an atmosphere with convective and advective processes the energy is more evenly spread out both in terms of a spatial domain and a temporal domain. The GHE does modulate this homogeneity somewhat, but it’s actually the atmosphere itself that is responsible for most of the homogeneity in local temperatures. The GHE hypothesis does predict some changes in the homogeneity like smaller differences between high and low latitudes and smaller differences between night vs. day. And that’s exactly what has been observed on Earth.
backdoor guy misrepresents me: “No. That is not correct. The Moon does NOT have a higher ‘mean’ temperature than that of Earth.”
I didn’t say that, clown. I was clearly talking about peak temperatures. I never used the word “mean”.
You have started misrepresenting me. Next will be the insults.
Nothing new.
But I’ve never claimed that the peak temperature is higher on Earth. I’ve always acknowledged that it is higher. What we are talking about here is the average temperature. I made that pretty clear in my response to ZP. If you want to shift the focus of the discussion to the peak temperature that is fine. Just understand that it won’t have much relevance to the GHE.
Quit moving to the backdoor.
You indicated that I was “not correct”, and got caught. Now you are backing away from your own words.
The backdoor is open and ready for your exit.
JD, Do you acknowledge that the Moon’s mean temperature is lower than Earth’s mean temperature? If so then I have no beef with you regarding that particular argument. If don’t acknowledge this then I’ll maintain my position that you are not correct.
bdgwx, if you don’t respond within 30 minutes, I’ll assume that I’m correct.
Wow, There is a time limit on TRUTH!
if thats how it works then Ill have to go back and remind JD and DREMT that by not answering my questions–I am also correct!
Quite often!
Too slow (and not the right person). Argument won, by the strict laws of the Internet.
Yes, if the Earth did not have an atmosphere, but still managed to retain its oceans, then average surface temperature would be far higher than it currently is. Even if you removed 30% of incoming solar radiation to account for cloud albedo, the surface Tav wold still be above 310 K.
The reason is water is a SW selective surface not a near blackbody. It is translucent to SW and SWIR but opaque to LWIR. It heats in a very different manner than a SW opaque surface. (this is the primary failure of Dr. Spencer’s modelling).
The empirical evidence to back this statement can be seen from just observing the worlds in our solar system. The snow line in our solar system is near 3AU from the sun. Only after that point can worlds like Ceres and Europa with frozen oceans exist. Our ocean planet is far too close to the sun for the crazed claim of “surface Tav of 255 K without radiative atmosphere” to ever have been correct.
–Zoe Phin says:
June 18, 2019 at 7:38 AM
Konrad is completely correct.
The atmosphere is the Earth’s coolant.
Konrad says:
June 18, 2019 at 6:31 PM
Yes, if the Earth did not have an atmosphere, but still managed to retain its oceans, then average surface temperature would be far higher than it currently is. Even if you removed 30% of incoming solar radiation to account for cloud albedo, the surface Tav wold still be above 310 K.–
I think land surface is the “coolant” rather than atmosphere.
I like to say, the land cools and the ocean warms.
My use of term “coolant” is a bit problematic, but then again you do heat up a coolant in order to make the fridge cold. And in that sense it is almost a plausible way to say it.
But I think you have a lot company when you say the atmosphere cools Earth. Or it’s said Earth cools at some elevation, say somewhere around 7 km up. Maybe it’s 5 km up or 7 to 9 km up.
Probably varies as depends on whether it’s the tropics or not.
Anyhow, I think an atmosphere warms, whether it has greenhouse gases or not.
Do you think atmosphere lacking any greenhouse gas [or dust or anything] acts as coolant?
Do you think adding greenhouse gases makes it act like coolant [or improve it’s ability to cool.
Now, I think think if you add more gas- either CO2 or N2- to Mars
it will make Mars colder place to live.
So Mars air density is .02 per cubic meter. And that is about 1/60th of Earth sea level air density [if the air temperature is about 20 C]. Or in terms of air pressure, Mars is about 1/100th of Earth sea level pressure. So if increase either by factor of 10.
Say density .2 and 1/10th Earth pressure.
Or Mars atmosphere mass is 25 trillion tonnes and you add 225 trillion tons of gas.
Then the air will make things colder- you lose heat faster, people or anything.
And in terms of global average temperature, it might increase it a bit. Though I not sure what Mars global average temperature is. But say it’s -60 C, it might warm it to -55 C.
But with the 25 trillion ton atmosphere, the -60 C doesn’t cool things quickly. And the nighttime of say -120 C, also does not cool things very fast. But a 250 trillion atmosphere at -100 C is going to be freezing cold.
Or with all that cost of adding 225 trillion tons of gas, would make Mars a worse place to visit or live there. Because you making it “effectively” colder. Landing on Mars would easier, but leaving would be harder.
Btw I think a much better idea is to add a few trillion tons of water.
The water makes Mars much warmer if you in the water, and if more than 5 meter under water, it provides enough pressure that you don’t need a pressure suit to breath. If cold water, you probably want a wet suit and air tank and breathing mask or be in diving bell type thing.
So 10 trillion cubic meter= 10 meter deep and 1 million meter long and wide. Or 1000 km square and 10 meters deep. And million of people could live under such a lake.
So anyhow, you and a lot people say atmosphere cools or at some point in the elevation of atmosphere, IR is emitted [which one could say is cooling]. So where in atmosphere is IR emitted or atmosphere “starts” to cool?
Or where exactly does it cool the most?
Do you think atmosphere lacking any greenhouse gas [or dust or anything] acts as coolant?
If said atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation, then the answer is no.
It is important to remember that radiative gases are our atmosphere’s only effective cooling mechanism. If our atmosphere were pure N2 and O2, it would superheat and most would be lost to space.
Note: there are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases in the mix to cool them.
–Konrad says:
June 19, 2019 at 6:28 PM
Do you think atmosphere lacking any greenhouse gas [or dust or anything] acts as coolant?
If said atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation, then the answer is no.
It is important to remember that radiative gases are our atmospheres only effective cooling mechanism. If our atmosphere were pure N2 and O2, it would superheat and most would be lost to space.–
Nope.
–Note: there are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases in the mix to cool them.–
CO2 and H20 are common in the universe.
Our atmosphere is 99.9% free of CO2, and this is very low level of CO2. Our low level of CO2 in our atmosphere is because we have green plants which consume CO2.
Nitrogen gas in our atmosphere average velocity is about 400 m/s to leave earth requires about 9,000 m/s.
The velocity of N2 is related to speed of sound, if it was going 1000 m/s, that doubles the speed of sound, but, at that average velocity of N2 at sea level everything is incinerated.
Beside at such temperature, I imagine it would transform Nitrogen into a greenhouse gas.
Another way to say it.
First Earth currently has super heated atmosphere called thermosphere.
I wanted to see anyone gave number for the velocity of gases in thermosphere. And didn’t find it.
Here a link about thermosphere:
https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/thermosphere-overview
And this is relevant aspect of link:
“Below the thermosphere, gases made of different types of atoms and molecules are thoroughly mixed together by turbulence in the atmosphere. Air in the lower atmosphere is mainly composed of the familiar blend of about 80% nitrogen molecules (N2) and about 20% oxygen molecules (O2). In the thermosphere and above, gas particles collide so infrequently that the gases become somewhat separated based on the types of chemical elements they contain. Energetic ultraviolet and X-ray photons from the Sun also break apart molecules in the thermosphere. In the upper thermosphere, atomic oxygen (O), atomic nitrogen (N), and helium (He) are the main components of air.”
And point about this is that atomic oxygen and atomic nitrogen and helium are are dense gases than N2 and O2 and less dense gases in atmosphere have higher average velocity.
Or at sea level N2 is about 400 m/s and helium is +1000 m/s or something like 1500 m/s.
Which important regarding the next link which has to do question does H2 escape earth atmosphere:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302555/why-doesnt-hydrogen-gas-exist-in-earths-atmosphere
[or H2 is less dense than atomic helium- and has higher average velocity, though atomic hydrogen is even less dense {{and btw it is crazily chemically reactive to anything}}. Anyhow whole link is somewhat interesting but I quote this part:
“Note – if you plot the above on a semilog scale you can see just how small the probability of the high velocities is – and then you remember that the upper atmosphere (above 100 km or so) is actually significantly hotter than the air closer to the surface – under certain conditions, the upper part of the thermosphere can reach temperatures over 2000 C during the day. At that temperature, the probability of hydrogen escaping increases very significantly.”
Anyhow, one could say the thermosphere is mostly de-coupled from the rest of atmosphere. Or if average global temperature were 100 K hotter or colder, it doesn’t have much effect upon the temperature of the thermosphere.
So we have a super-heated atmosphere and the less dense atomic nitrogen and oxygen don’t escape. though the less dense H2 [or Atomic hydrogen] does, apparently, have a significant chance to escape.
Oh look, it’s “Zoe Phin”, who used to go by the name “Bob Phin”, who has invented an Asian wife that happens to talk just like him.
Go back to YouTube “Zoe”.
“Hand held IR thermometer records 40.6 F, directly overhead rain clouds, and 76.2 F ground temp.
Just another day the atmosphere cannot warm the surface.”
A better description would be ‘another day that the surface will be unable to cool by radiation to space’
Compare to a clear sky with an IR therm reading of -30 F directly overhead.
You will notice lots of surface cooling overnight on such a day.
At least you understand that energy moves from the surface to the atmosphere. With the deficiencies in your knowledge of the relevant physics, that’s about as much as we can expect.
JD, And energy is moving from the atmosphere to the surface. Your IR thermometer proves it.
Where have you been?
Do you not know any physics?
Your “proof” of IR from the atmosphere means NOTHING. Everything emits IR. Ice cubes emit IR. Are you claiming ice cubes can heat the planet? Are you that stupid? Are you unable to learn?
JD,
It’s not my proof. It was your experiment; your proof. Though I can say that I and many others can replicate it.
No, I am not claiming that ice cubes can heat the planet. What I am claiming and what has been experimentally confirmed ad-nauseam is that a thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there. And it does not violate the 1LOT or 2LOT.
Repeatedly stating that “a thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there” is nothing more than a smokescreen.
That’s true, but irrelevant to your effort to “prove” the bogus GHE.
The simple fact that the Earth cannot get as hot as the Moon squashes that nonsense.
Just more facts for you to deny,
JD said…”The simple fact that the Earth cannot get as hot as the Moon squashes that nonsense.”
This is no hypothesis that says the temperature at a specific location and at a specific moment in time on Earth (like what might happen directly underneath the zenith flux) should be higher than that which might occur on the Moon as a result of the GHE. Therefore this is yet another strawman.
“This is no hypothesis…”
That’s what Mike Flynn has been telling you clowns.
JD,
Well actually if I understand MF’s argument what he claims is that there is no hypothesis regarding the GHE at all. In reality the GHE theory is comprised of many testable hypothesis despite MF turning a blind eye to them. What I’m saying is that your strawman hypothesis isn’t one of them. Don’t get me wrong, your strawman hypothsis is at least testable so in that regard you can legitimately claim that it is a hypothesis; it’s just not one that climate scientists seriously consider. And why would they? It’s quite obviously been falsified. But again, that’s not a hypothesis that GHE advocates have ever supported. That’s what makes it a strawman.
The simple fact that the Earth cannot get as hot as the Moon squashes the GHE nonsense.
Get over it.
But for some odd reason, the fact that without a GHE, the Earth is much colder, as Roy plainly showed, cannot be explained away by JD.
The fact that the GHE is part of all numerical weather models, and is tested every day, and passes every day, cannot be explained away by JD.
At least you acknowledge, it seems, JD, that that the heat flow from the surface depends on the temperature of the atmosphere!
Nate, that is just you misrepresenting me, again.
You do that because you have nothing else.
Nothing new.
Then how do YOU explain that with a clear night, and a low IR temp of the sky, the surface cools off more?
The Sun is not heating the surface, moron.
‘surface cools off MORE?’ dufus
Obviously and for 477th time, you have no answers.
Yes, the surface cools off more when the Sun goes down.
Maybe you could find an adult to explain it to you.
JD thinks by pretending to be a 6th grader gets him out of defending his own claims!
‘cools off MORE’ than a night that is NOT clear or dry.
Why don’t you try the experiment?
Nate, please stop trolling.
“Oh look, its Zoe Phin, who used to go by the name Bob Phin, who has invented an Asian wife that happens to talk just like him.”
Oh look, it’s my favorite conspiracy theory, started by Bob Trenwith, a serial climate fascist.
Bob seems to have disappeared from YouTube. Why is that “Zoe” ?
bdgwx,
“So you think if the Earth didnt have an atmosphere then the surface would be even warmer?”
I provide evidence here: https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/06/06/real-time-physics-debunks-climate-theory/
“And what do you think about JDs observations above with his IR thermometer. The observation is proof that there is downwelling or back radiation. What do you think happens to that radiation when it hits the surface?”
This is proof of upwelling rafiation.
The thermomemter transfers energy to where it’s pointed.
https://principia-scientific.org/how-to-fool-yourself-with-a-pyrgeometer/
ZP,
The first link does not address my question in any way. It’s just another video of Postma creating more strawmen and grossly misunderstanding Earth’s energy budget as represented by a simple 3-layer model. Let me repeat my question…Do you really think the global mean temperature of Earth would be higher without an atmosphere? And if so how do you reconcile that with the fact that the mean temperature of the Moon, which has no atmosphere, is significantly lower than the mean temperature of Earth?
Let me make sure I understand the second part of your post. Are you trying to tell me that when JD points his IR thermometer up toward the sky it is actually measuring the upwelling radiation originating from the ground? And that this IR thermometer actually transfers energy to where it is pointed? I want to give you the opportunity to clarify your comments.
Zoe,
I noticed he used this equation: E_net = sigma (Ta^4 – Te^4).
But both you and JD have denied this equation can be used in other posts, such as:
“Zoe Phin says:
June 7, 2019 at 5:22 PM
‘No, you said it was in vacuum, dimwit!
Doesn’t matter. There is no heat flow to space, because space is not matter. The right hand side can’t be 300, it’s 0.
The proper equation to use is the SB equation.”
Glad to see you now realize it should be used!
JD, take note!
Well Nate, you display your incompetence, again.
The correct equation, from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, has the form:
P/A = σT^4,
where “P/A” is the emitted flux, “σ” is the constant, and “T” is the temperature of the emitting surface.
Nope, that is the point, JD. Claes Johnson uses the correct one:
E_net = sigma (Ta^4 – Te^4) in his PSI article.
Wrong Nate. That equation is nonsense.
The S/B equation was derived from Planck’s law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan2.html
YEs it can be derived from SB (as I have always said). Congrats!
And the equation is not nonsense and is useful, as Claes Johnson showed!
Wrong both times.
Nothing new.
Liar. Explain it to your PSI friends!
Ah yes, the “L” word.
Used mostly by Losers that get tangled in their own webs of deceit, usually an indicator of meltdown.
Nothing new.
As usual, JD, when you lie, which is often, you project it onto someone else.
‘That equation is nonsense.’ is a lie, false. You’ve been shown the equation is in textbooks many times.
Right here the equation is being used by one of your pals. It is used all the time.
You know it is a valid equation.
Wrong again, Nate.
That bogus equation violates the laws of thermodynamics. That’s why it has no value in the real world. Its only usefulness appears to be in pseudoscience, as you know.
bdgwx,
You’re a moron.You know why? Because when I say “I provide the evidence here”, that means I provided evidence there. Not Postma, me. Tu comprende? Read MY comments.
Nate,
You’re a moron. In your equation, you confused E_net with Ta. E_net is not a result of a radiating blackbody. Yet you took 300 W/m^2 from the ice cube and plugged it into E_net, which is wrong.
I asked you to figure out temperature of a body emitting 300 W/m^2, which requires SB Law, not heat transfer equation.
Gosh, you are braindead.
Zoe, you are very very confused.
‘a body emitting 300 W/m^2′ that is Enet!’
Just as Claes Johnson showed!
Just going to quietly link this through to this comment.
ZP said…”Read MY comments.”
I did read your comments. I see no commentary related to the fact that the Moon, which has no atmosphere, has a lower mean temperature than the the Earth, which does have an atmosphere. In fact, I don’t even see any commentary justifying the claim that a planetary body with an atmosphere will be cooler than the same body without an atmosphere. If I am wrong and I have overlooked one of your comments then I apologize. Which comment in particular do you think addresses this topic?
bdgwx,
“No, I am not claiming that ice cubes can heat the planet. What I am claiming and what has been experimentally confirmed ad-nauseam is that a thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there. And it does not violate the 1LOT or 2LOT.”
As long as ice cubes are above 3K, YOU ARE CLAIMING they can warm the planet.
Normal science:
Q = sig*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
Q goes to Zero. Tcold = Thot
Pseudoscience
Q = sig*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
Q is a constant flux to space from coldest thing. Thot now hotter than it was before.
Magic!
Do they provide any scientific/experimental proof? No, it’s all rhetorical.
‘Normal science:
Q = sig*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
Q goes to Zero. Tcold = Thot’
No, no , no. Clearly not.
Did the IR thermometer in the PSI article behave that way. No!
It behaved like this:
Q = sig*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
Q is a constant flux to the atmosphere. As you agreed!
Z: “This is proof of upwelling rafiation.
The thermomemter transfers energy to where its pointed.”
That is Q!
ZP said…”As long as ice cubes are above 3K, YOU ARE CLAIMING they can warm the planet.”
No. I’m not. This claim is all yours and JD’s.
But bdg, where does all that ice IR “heat” go?
If a 15 μ photon from CO2 can warm the planet, as clowns claim, then why can’t an ice photon with 50% more energy provide even more warming?
The energy contained in these photons get scattered in all directions with half having downward vectors and half having upward vectors. That does not mean that heat flows from CO2 to the surface. It just means that CO2 is returning some of the energy back to the surface. This slows the rate of heat loss from the surface. The surface is still warmed by the hotter Sun at the most fundamental level. And I don’t think phrases like “CO2 warms the surface” are entirely out of line. Remember, the end result is that the surface temperature increases when CO2 increases. Even though the fundamental process requires the Sun I’m not going to fault someone for that phrasing. Is it fundamentally correct…nope. But, everyone understands the outcome all the same.
backdoor guy, I enjoy watching you dance in circles.
But, could you circle in on the relevant issue:
“If a 15 &mu: photon from CO2 can warm the planet, as clowns claim, then why can’t an ice photon with 50% more energy provide even more warming?”
Because ice has a very high albedo. It may return radiation back to the source, but it also blocks most of the incoming sunlight. Remember, for the GHE to work it requires the input from the Sun. That’s what is unique about polyatmoic gas species. They allow incoming shortwave radiation to pass through, but block outgoing solar radiation. By the way, I’ve never claimed that ice can warm the planet. But I do support that claim that the back radiation from ice can lead to a higher equilibrium temperature if the system is configured properly like what Swanson has already demonstrated.
backdoor guy, I enjoy watching you dance in circles, again.
But, could you circle in on the relevant issue:
“If a 15 μ photon from CO2 can warm the planet, as clowns claim, then why can’t an ice photon with 50% more energy provide even more warming?”
The funny thing about reality is that it’s always there, huh?
Nate,
You’re a moron that can’t think ahead.
The atmosphere has a lapse rate due to gravitational work. Equilibrium can’t be attained because Work is constantly done.
In the green plate and my ice cube example, there is no such thing. There is no thermal gradient, and there is no work to purturb equilbrium. Hence E_net goes to zero.
Your E_net is his T_a
Your T_a is what you wish the ice cube to be
Your T_e is the environment temp
You’re just a filthy liar.
bdgwx,
You’re a moron who did not read my comments. The Earth has geothermal energy GREATER than solar inflow. The Moon doesn’t.
‘Your E_net is his T_a
I never said any such thing, that make no sense.
“In the green plate and my ice cube example, there is no such thing. There is no thermal gradient”
Only in your bizarro world, Zoe.
Green plate 240 K, space: 3 K I call that a big thermal gradient!
You make absolutely no sense.
Just going to quietly link this through to this comment.
ZP said…”The Earth has geothermal energy GREATER than solar inflow. The Moon doesnt.”
If you mean that the total energy contained in the thermal mass of the geosphere is greater than the yearly solar inflow then I agree.
What does that have to do with a planetary body having a higher mean temperature without an atmosphere than with one? And how do you reconcile that hypothesis with the fact that the Moon actually has a lower mean temperature?
bdg, comparing apples to aircraft carriers is desperate pseudoscience.
The Moon’s surface is not 70% water. It’s NOT going to have the same temperature as Earth.
Learn some physics.
Let’s go back to JDHuffman’s example:
“Hand held IR thermometer records 40.6F, directly overhead rain clouds, and 76.2F ground temp.”
Q = sig*(298^4 – 278^4)
Q = 445 – 338 = 107 W/m^2
Yup, that’s the heat flow from IR thermometer to clouds. We’re done, scientifically.
Ah, but your cult wants to make your rhetoric of “thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there” a reality.
Pseudoscience to the rescue!
445 + 107 = 552 W/m^2 -> 314K or 106F
Double check:
Q = sig*(314^4 – 298^4)
Q = 552 – 445 = 107 W/m^2
Yup, by assuming cold things prevent hot things from cooling, and by maintaining equilibrium (really by adding the constant heat flow at 107 W/m^2 in the other direction), we magically boosted surface temperature.
Fantastic junk science for idiots to eat up.
‘Pseudoscience to the rescue!
445 + 107 = 552 W/m^2 -> 314K or 106F
Double check:
Q = sig*(314^4 298^4)
Q = 552 445 = 107 W/m^2’
This is gobbledegook, zoe.
No one is saying add Enet to sigma*Th^4 !
How bout think more before you post!
Why are you adding 107 to 445? And what about all of the other heat transfer processes? Why not include them in your analysis?
Also, a cold thing can’t magically boost the temperature of a warm thing. For this to happen it requires an even warmer source of energy (like the Sun) and the cold thing must be masking an even colder thing (like the CMB).
And just remember that your calculation showing 314K is all your doing. Neither I nor Nate told you this is way it should be done.
Just going to quietly link this through to this comment.
Clear skies now, directly overhead –> 3 °F
Ground temperature –> 86.4 °F
Sun very bright, almost directly overhead also (maybe 15° off vertical).
Clowns actually believe the sky warms the planet!
Check air temp.
Are you denying that with a clear, dry, sky at night there will be more radiative cooling of the surface??
Check it.
Yes, JD, good observation proving the sky warms the planet. If your clear skies now, directly overhead reading had been > -265F the ground temperature would be -> 53.4F. 86.4F IS warmer than 53.4F, good point.
Way to go, even you understand the GHE when you do an observation or experiment instead of drawing bogus cartoons.
Nate is in denial.
fluffball is in denial.
But, where’s bdg?
Surely he has not gone out the backdoor, already.
Denial? No denial JD, I agreed with your observation! Now you must be writing in denial of your own proper observation. What a tangled web JD weaves. JD denies JD! JD remains knee slapping funny as always.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Just another DREM Team pop up fail. You should try looking at things from the observational science side like JD, occasionally, DREMT.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-358377
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Nate,
“Green plate 240 K, space: 3 K I call that a big thermal gradient!”
You think space has a temperature? OK, what’s the temperature between the blue and the green plate? Is it 3K?
Between Blue, 290K, and Green 240 K. there is also a big thermal gradient.
I believe Zoe was asking what the temperature of the “space” inbetween the blue and green plates is. Not what is the temperature difference between blue and green. Just trying to help. Don’t shoot the messenger.
If thats what she’s asking then it is just further evidence that she makes no sense.
Well, you see you claimed that between the green plate and space there was a big thermal gradient. This prompted Zoe to exclaim, “you think space has a temperature? OK, what’s the temperature [of the space] between the blue and the green plate? Is it 3K?”
The point being made is pretty clear, to the honest.
DREMT, the relevant thermal gradient in the problem is obviously between the plates, as you should know.
People saying anything else are just using sophistry.
As to whether heat can be emitted to space, I showed clear cut evidence that it can and is.
That was a faux controversy.
Nate, the point being made is that if you are going to consider a “thermal gradient “ between the green plates and space, you may as well consider the “thermal gradient” between the blue plate and the space inbetween it and the green plate. Presumably the space inbetween the plates is also at 3K. Heck, why not consider the “thermal gradient” between the green plate and the space inbetween it and the blue plate, not just the space on the other side of the green plate…
…Zoe is mocking your position, you see. I am just explaining this to you so you understand Zoe’s comment. No need for you to keep responding.
Zoe is a loon, and you think she’s worth quoting.
That says a lot!
Punch drunk with argument-loss, Nate is reduced to childish insults.
Actually, the ‘mocking’ shows someone with no good answers.
“No need for you to keep responding.”
ditto
#2
“No need for you to keep responding”.
JDHuffman,
“Clowns actually believe the sky warms the planet!”
No. You need to use the proper occult lingo. They don’t believe cold warms hot, they believe that cold prevents hot from cooling, which raises hot’s temperature.
You can’t just summarize their B.S. succinctly. That’s an occult no no. Please respect their customs, they need it to have some sense of purpose. They are really bad people, and they need this cult for redemption.
☺
To be pedantic I think a cooler body can result in a higher equilibrium temperature of a warmer body than without it IF, and that’s a big IF, the system also has an even hotter body providing the heat and IF the cooler body acts as a thermal barrier. If you agree that the insulation in home will result in a higher temperature in the presence of a furnace then you are a part of this cult as well. I think we all find common ground here.
backdoor guy, you are pretty desperate now, but your desperation will increase as you continue to meltdown.
It’s a good thing you know where the backdoor is, huh?
Nate,
“Between Blue, 290K, and Green 240 K. there is also a big thermal gradient.”
So space between blue and green is radiating to blue and to green. How come that is not shown? This changes all the equations. There is now a huge gradient object called space sitting between blue and green, that’s a lot of arrows. Don’t forget the backradiation heating from space!
Obviously youve lost the argument because now you’re just being silly..
Just going to quietly link this through to this comment.
Nate,
Surely if space can be heated, then the space close to the green plate would eventually be heated, and heat flow reduced to zero. Why is the green plate constantly heating space as if it’s 0K? I thought you believed space could be heated, so why no result?
Even you already admitted there is radiation in outer space with a temperature of 2.9 K.
So now you are arguing with yourself!
And, nope, never said space could be heated.. objects that the radiation hits in space can be heated.
This links through to this comment.
Whenever Nate is shown to be an idiot he counters with “This is gobbledegook, No one ever said …”. He doesn’t do any alternative math to come up with a different answer. Nope, he just denies the truth.
So Nate, do the math! What’s your result for backradiation heating?
No thanks, tried that with you before, with ice, and you just get all confused, twisted what I said into something else, and changed the problem.
You are immune to facts and logic.
This links through to this comment.
bdgwx,
You’re a moron.
“If you mean that the total energy contained in the thermal mass of the geosphere is greater than the yearly solar inflow then I agree.”
I agree, but that’s not the interesting fact.
No, moron, the energy flux from the earth to space at the surface is greater than the solar energy flux into the surface.
Look at any global geothermal gradient available on google images and the temperature at depth=0 meters: they are always greater than what sun provides.
You are so stuck in climate junk science, that you find this geologic fact unbelievable. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance, and so lashing out.
Zoe you are just stoned.
‘No, moron, the energy flux from the earth to space at the surface is greater than the solar energy flux into the surface.’
No 90 mW/m^2 is not greater than 240 W/m^2.
Even JP tried to explain this to you!
“Joseph E Postma says:
2019/06/11 at 3:08 PM
Aw Zoe. Sorry.
The geothermal heat is negligiblemeasured in milliWatts. What is it: 91.6 mW/m^2 or 0.0916 W/m^2.
It is usually ignored, because if you add it into either 240 W/m^2 or 1370 W/m^2, it is still negligible.”
This links through to this comment.
ZP,
I’m still not sure what you mean then. Geothermal flux to the surface is like 0.1 W/m^2 and the tidal dissipation of the Earth/Moon system adds like 0.01 W/m^2 so that’s even less. This is at least 3 orders of magnitude less than the average solar flux.
If you’re trying to claim that the geothermal flux is larger than the solar flux then that is an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence to back that up?
This links through to this comment.
Nate,
“No thanks, tried that with you before, with ice”
Indeed. You did exactly the same math with the ice. Exactly the same. Now you deny it.
“and changed the problem”
In all my changes the ambient environment was less than 0C, because I was trying to show what the hibachi does.
YOU are the one that changed it to above 0C, so you could prove the ice melts.
Your hibachi math couldn’t melt the ice, so you made the ambient environment do it.
Nate lies and denies, lies and denies, lies and denies, …
Three quick links, just as a reminder of what was being discussed at the time.
Here’s a link:
where you can clearly see I am not doing what zoe is claiming at all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-356497
I would always recommend people read through all the comments, to get the full story.
Now you say something.
Ok. fine.
Rather than posting content-free posts, why dont YOU read through all the posts (no else is) including the many odd things Zoe has said, and then decide whether and why you agree with any of them, or not.
Maybe then you can weigh in with intelligent fact-based support for it.
“Ok. fine.“
Cool, good to hear.
Nate,
“Even you already admitted there is radiation in outer space with a temperature of 2.9 K.”
There is 2.9K coming from the hot stars and galaxies, but there is no 2.9K emitted by space. I never claimed space emits 2.9K, liar.
“And, nope, never said space could be heated.. objects that the radiation hits in space can be heated.”
Ah, so you finally admit heat transfer can only occur between objects. Great. Since the green plate has no objects in space to radiate to (by experiment design), there is no heat transfer from green plate to “space”.
Or do you still believe that space is a magic heat sink that can’t be heated?
‘There is 2.9K coming from the hot stars and galaxies, but there is no 2.9K emitted by space. I never claimed space emits 2.9K, liar.’
Actually you are lying and twisting my words again. Desperate.
N: ‘you already admitted there is radiation in outer space with a temperature of 2.9 K’
‘Ah, so you finally admit heat transfer can only occur between objects. Great. Since the green plate has no objects in space to radiate to (by experiment design), there is no heat transfer from green plate to ‘space’.
False. You long ago lost that argument.
With no facts to back up your claims, and unable to refute NASA or standard physics, now you are just making up BS by the truckload.
Go troll someone else.
Nate,
“Actually you are lying and twisting my words again. Desperate.”
You had a whole comment to clarify your position. You didn’t because anything you say would be a contradiction.
Your NASA quote shows they send heat to space. Your new position is heat can only be sent to matter in space.
“And, nope, never said space could be heated.. objects that the radiation hits in space can be heated.”
So which is it? Is NASA saying they are sending heat to space, OR sending heat to matter in space with inverse square law operating?
I suspect your new position is: both and neither, whatever I need it to be whereever I need it to be.
You’re now agreeing with me?
‘So which is it? Is NASA saying they are sending heat to space, OR sending heat to matter in space with inverse square law operating?’
Zoe, Ive explained this already, ad nauseum.
Radiation is energy flux. Loss of energy by radiation causes a thing to cool off, to have heat loss. It is one of the three methods of heat transfer!
NASA does emit heat to space by radiation. It is a fact. And as a result it cools the ISS. It works!
As I explained, if heat is emitted to space as radiation, it may hit something far away or in the far future. There is plenty of stuff to hit given enough time!
But the ISS doesnt care, it still cools the same either way, because it is emitting radiant energy! Same with the dark side of the moon.
And it still receives the 2.9K radiation from space that was emitted by matter long ago. The ISS doesnt care when or who emitted it!
The result is a net heat flux of Q = sigma[T(ISS)^4 – (2.9K)^4]
This links through to this comment.
bdgwx,
“Im still not sure what you mean then. Geothermal flux to the surface is like 0.1 W/m^2”
That’s the geothermal HEAT flux. Earth energy out > Solar energy in.
“Do you have extraordinary evidence to back that up?”
I already did, moron: every geothermal gradient image on google images.
Ok, gotcha. So how large do you think the imbalance is? And can you present evidence to support this hypothesis?
Here is but one line of evidence that falsifies the hypothesis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330399834_2018_Continues_Record_Global_Ocean_Warming
This links through to this comment.
Nate,
“Even JP tried to explain this to you!”
Keep reading moron:
“Joseph E Postma says:
2019/06/11 at 9:57 PM
Right I get you nowdistinction between energy vs. heat. Ive missed thatwow. Good point Zoe impressive.
So that means that geothermal energy provides a baseline ground surface temperature already around 9 Celsius!?!
I mean!!!”
“Joseph E Postma says:
2019/06/12 at 10:35 AM
If the total energy is only those milliWatts, then the surface would only be maintained near absolute zerobut if that value is a current actuall heat fluxthenit would still maintain much higher without the Sun.”
Let’s see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
“Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.”
E_net = Earth Energy Flux – Solar Energy Flux
E_net is positive, ergo
Earth Energy Flux > Solar Energy Flux
Nope, he is not agreeing with you that 90 mW/m^2 > 240 W/m^2.
Because that is FALSE.
What you are saying, as usual makes no sense.
E_net = Earth Energy Flux Solar Energy Flux
is NOT POSITIVE.
This links through to this comment.
Or maybe you mean Earth energy flux is 240 W/m^2 + 90 mW/m^2 = 240.09 W/m^2, and ok that is, slightly > 240 W/m^2.
Ok, and what does that do for you? The solar portion of the input to the surface is still 99.64 %.
This links through to this comment.
Who said this?
” Good job I dont jump into your threads and try to bait you into a discussion. Oh thats right, you dont make your own threads. All you do is interrupt other peoples discussions.”
Oh, wait that was DREMT, our chief hypocrite.
I’m not trying to bait anybody into a discussion. I have added some links to help people follow the various conversations, as it becomes difficult to follow since Zoe seems to be one of those who suffer from the “can only post at the very bottom of the comments” problem that some have on this site. So, no hypocrisy, sorry.
Riggghhht…you’re so helpful!
‘Zoe seems to be one of those who suffer from…’ a severe disconnect to reality.
But, no matter, you go for that kind of thing.
No hypocrisy. Sorry you were wrong again.
–Zoe seems to be one of those who suffer from the can only post at the very bottom of the comments problem that some have on this site. So, no hypocrisy, sorry.–
This happen all the time, when I used my smart phone rather than my desktop computer.
Seems to be a common problem. It’s OK though, I’m here to help.
JD,
“Both solar and geothermal are thermodynamic heat sources, as they add new energy to the system. But, the atmosphere does not add energy, so it cannot raise the system temperature.”
Agreed! But in the fantasy model presented here, the atmosphere can only cool to the surface, so it must become a heat source…
Ice been running this crazy atmosphere through my head for days now lol… So here’s some thoughts…
First to Tim. You are correct, emissivity is not the issue.. All that energy lost through evaporation must be returned to the surface through the night, so total emissions will indeed be 1 for 1
The atmosphere would have an increasing temp and pressure lapse rate. Its coolest temp (and lowest pressure) at the surface.
If we assume that whatever mechanism returns the energy to the surface (hot rain?), so evenly spreads the energy so that there is little temp difference throughout the day or night then we can imagine a world where our 5C temp is pretty much the surface temp everywhere…
1st there would be no clouds , or snow , or ice …
No snow or ice means sea level is above most of our currrent land mass.
Albedo is effectively the emissivity of the surface…
So we have an ocean surface at 5C that receives 341w/m2
For steady state it must lose that 341, but entropy dictates the Earth must continue to cool so lets at 1w/m2 from the geothermal and 1 from the aerothermal…
What temp is a BB emittimg 343 w/m2 at?
Pretty close to 5c i figure…
Nate,
“Radiation is energy flux. Loss of energy by radiation causes a thing to cool off, to have heat loss. It is one of the three methods of heat transfer!
NASA does emit heat to space by radiation. It is a fact. And as a result it cools the ISS. It works!
As I explained, if heat is emitted to space as radiation, it may hit something far away or in the far future. There is plenty of stuff to hit given enough time!”
At L2, Earth’s radiation is 0.0004 W/m^2. That’s not a lot of heating power. There is only 0.0004 W/m^2 of actual heat transfer.
OK, my prediction was correct. You think space is a heat sink that can’t be heated.
You think the energy just disappears between Earth and L2, in violation of 1LoT.
I think that radiation was never emitted, because I understand 1 LoT.
A satellite that measures Earth’s emission is a piece of matter that can be heated, but can you prove emission to nothing? Can you? Where’s your evidence?
“The result is a net heat flux of Q = sigma[T(ISS)^4 (2.9K)^4]”
But you previously said:
“And, nope, never said space could be heated.. objects that the radiation hits in space can be heated.
So heat transfer can only occur between objects.
“Radiation is energy flux. Loss of energy by radiation causes a thing to cool off, to have heat loss. It is one of the three methods of heat transfer!”
So heat transfer doesn’t only occur between objects?
You can have a heat loss without a corresponding heat gain elsewhere?
Wow, space is a heat sink that can’t be heated. Amazing!
“Nope, he is not agreeing with you that 90 mW/m^2 > 240 W/m^2″
Because that is FALSE.”
He is agreeing with me that
240.090 W/m^2 > 240 W/m^2
And 90 mW/m^2 is a heat flux (difference between 2 energy fluxes).
This shows you don’t understand difference between heat and energy. No wonder you are confused.
bdgwx,
“Ok, gotcha. So how large do you think the imbalance is?”
WTF. You already know the answer, moron.
“Here is but one line of evidence that falsifies the hypothesis.”
It doesn’t falsify anything, it merely bolsters my argument.
Multiply 105 mW/m^2 by ocean area and seconds in a year.
‘Radiation is energy flux. Loss of energy by radiation causes a thing to cool off, to have heat loss. It is one of the three methods of heat transfer!’
True or False?
‘At L2, Earths radiation is 0.0004 W/m^2. Thats not a lot of heating power. There is only 0.0004 W/m^2 of actual heat transfer.’
There are lots of m^2 out there! The energy is all there.
‘You can have a heat loss without a corresponding heat gain elsewhere?’
Well if the energy has been emitted by one object and not YET absorbed by another, then apparently so, YES.
One more example, then I can’t help you anymore.
Our own star, the sun, is radiating 4 x 10^26 J per second. The vast majority of that is not hitting anything in our solar system, and won’t hit much else anytime soon.
Because of this energy loss, the SUN and other stars will burn out and cool down, in a few BY.
Do you believe that this energy 4 x 10^26 J/s is not LOST from the SUN until it hits something else? Something maybe millions or billions of years from now?
Or alternatively, has the light immediately left the sun and taken the form of electromagnetic energy that is now making its way to some distant object?
If radiated energy immediately leaves an object like the dark side of the Moon, or the ISS, or a GREEN plate, then that is a heat loss and it must immediately begin to cool, by 1LOT.
ZP said…”You already know the answer”
Yes. The evidence supports about +0.6 to +0.7 W/m^2 where positive means in > out.
ZP said…”It doesn’t falsify anything, it merely bolsters my argument.”
Well, if the hypothesis was out > in then yes, it does falsify that hypothesis.
ZP said…”Multiply 105 mW/m^2 by ocean area and seconds in a year.”
0.105 W/m^2 * (365.24 * 24 * 3600) s * 360e12 m^2 = 1.19e24 joules
By the way that is equivalent to 0.105 W-years/m^2.
In comparison solar input at the surface is about 240 W-years/m^2 by 510e12 m^2 or 169 W/m^2 over the ocean area of 360e12 m^2.
Hopefully I haven’t made a mistake. Anyway, what point is being made here?
Typo…1.19e24 joules should actually be 1.19e21 joules.
This links through to this comment.
And DREMT, clearly a Zoe fan, can you pls explain some of Zoe’s interesting ideas to us.
Here’s a sampling:
“The moon is not heated. It merely reflects solar radiation. Thats what your looking at when you scan its daytime surface. The moon is in thermal equilibrium with the sun. No heating.”
OR
“In THEORY, sun emits 63MW/m^2, we get 1361 W/m^2.
You think space stores the difference?
If space is storing this ‘heat’, then why is the dark side of the moon cold?
Why cant space give it to the dark side?
Because its not there.”
or
“At L2, Earths radiation is 0.0004 W/m^2. Thats not a lot of heating power. There is only 0.0004 W/m^2 of actual heat transfer.
OK, my prediction was correct. You think space is a heat sink that cant be heated.
You think the energy just disappears between Earth and L2, in violation of 1LoT.
I think that radiation was never emitted, because I understand 1 LoT.”
This would be you trying to bait me into a discussion again.
I know…who does that?
Apparently you: “This links through to this comment.”
OK Nate. In your world, showing where the response to a comment is, becomes “baiting”.
I know, DREMT, whatever you do is virtuous, by definition!
Nate’s bizarre meltdown continues.
Case in point, your ‘last word’ fetish.
Virtuous.
Now dark, but high, heavy haze. No stars visible.
Overhead –> 30.7 °F
Ground –> 77.3 °F
The GHE must have taken the day off….
JD’s own measurement shows the GHE is still there or JD’s Overhead -> 30.7 °F would have been Overhead –> -266F and ground 44.3F. Good work JD, stay with your observations proving the GHE instead of your silly, bogus cartoons.
The results from today’s readings are interesting. (All temps in °F.)
……………….Sky………Ground
8:32 am…..40.6………76.2
1:20 pm……3.0……….86.4
8:17 pm…..30.7……….77.3
Morning and evening had cloud cover. Morning clouds were lower. 1:20 readings were with clear sky.
More funding needed for further research.
This morning, high cirrus-type cloud directly overhead –> 8.2 °F
Ground –> 71.7 °F
I predict when the Sun is high in the sky, ground temp will increase.
I predict when sky overhead clears, sky temp will drop.
No GHE! Not even a hint of GHE.
Nothing new.
This shows a GHE: “This morning, high cirrus-type cloud directly overhead –> 8.2F” since if there were no GHE the measurement would be -> -266F. Good work JD.
fluffball, if your cat has kittens, to you that proves the GHE.
If your cat doesn’t have kittens, to you that proves the GHE.
If you don’t even have a cat, to you that proves the GHE.
That’s the advantage of being clueless. In your head, you’re always right.
Nothing new.
No JD, you prove the GHE in your own observation: “This morning, high cirrus-type cloud directly overhead -> 8.2F” which is greater than -266F for no GHE. More observations confirming Earth’s GHE please.
Testicle4, I’m pretty sure I instructed you to be eternally silent, disgrace. Do so.
JD, why don’t you get a lower reading from a clear sky?
Lower than what, Svante?
3 is lower than both 30 and 40.
Or do you need help with numbers also?
Should be 2.7 K without GHE.
WRONG, Svante!
You are confusing “GHE” with “atmosphere”. Obviously you don’t understand the difference. You’ve been trolling here for years, but haven’t learned a thing.
Just the same as the other clowns.
Nothing new.
You mean back radiation from clouds?
You mean you don’t know have a clue about the issues?
You have so many issues, which one do you mean?
Svante is unable to understand his pseudoscience, or even follow his own troll question.
He doesn’t understand the difference between “atmosphere”, which is reality, and “GHE”, which is fiction. He doesn’t know the difference between fact and fiction.
Nothing new.
So why do you never measure 2.7 K?
So why are you unable to understand basic facts?
It’s almost as if you abhor reality….
Because you couldn’t say where your DWLWIR was coming from.
Now I see you just explained it below, there are blue berries in the sky.
Svante, once addicted to pseudoscience, it’s hard to give it up. It’s such a cheap thrill. For no thought or work, you can believe you are smart.
The prisons are filled with people that believe they are smart….
bdgwx is a moron.
“In comparison solar input at the surface is about 240 W”
Who said you can compare an energy flux to a heat flux?
The Earth emits 240 + 0.105 = 240.105 W/m^2, moron.
ZP, well 240 W-years/m^2 and 0.105 W-years/m^2 have the same units and are in reference to the exact same surface area so what’s the issue? And besides you didn’t seem to have a problem adding the fluxes 240 W/m^2 and 0.105 W/m^2 together to come up with the 240.105 W/m^2 figure just now.
But let’s talk about this 240.105 W/m^2 figure shall we. If out = 240.105 W/m^2 and in = 240.000 W/m^2 then that means the imbalance would be -0.105 W/m^2 and the Earth should be losing energy and thus should be cooling. But it isn’t. Everything in the geosphere is warming and the imbalance works out to about +0.6 W/m^2. That doesn’t jibe with the hypothesis that out > in nor does the magnitude match the geothermal flux either.
Link.
Nate,
“Our own star, the sun, is radiating 4 x 10^26 J per second”
Really? How would you know that? Have you been there?
All you have evidence for is that we receive 1361 W/m^2 here on Earth. And you know that because photons hit matter. You then worked the inverse square law backwards and multiplied by solar surface area to claim the sun actually emits that number to space. But does it? Does it? You don’t effing know.
“Well if the energy has been emitted by one object and not YET absorbed by another, then apparently so, YES.”
In THEORY, sun emits 63MW/m^2, we get 1361 W/m^2.
You think space stores the difference?
If space is storing this “heat”, then why is the dark side of the moon cold?
Why can’t space give it to the dark side?
Because it’s not there.
Just like you need two masses for gravity, you need two masses for an electromagnetic connection. Photons don’t exist, moron. They are a conception.There is only resonance heating.
The inverse square law is already ample proof that energy is lost (63MW/m^2 to 1361W/m^2) to space, except that violates 1LoT, so in reality this 63MW/m^2 energy flux was never transfered, only 1361 W/m^2 (just for Earth, obviously Mercury, Venus gets more).
The 63 MW/m^2 and 4 x 10^26 J figure are POTENTIALS in a field. That’s all they are. There is no heat flux until matter is electromagnetically entangled in this field.
Learn what a field is, learn physics, moron. -Z
ZP said…”Photons dont exist”
What?
ZP said…”The inverse square law is already ample proof that energy is lost (63MW/m^2 to 1361W/m^2) to space, except that violates 1LoT, so in reality this 63MW/m^2 energy flux was never transfered, only 1361 W/m^2 (just for Earth, obviously Mercury, Venus gets more).”
What?
ZP said…”There is no heat flux until matter is electromagnetically entangled in this field.”
What?
These are certainly among the most extraordinary claims I’ve seen on here. First, do you want to clarify any of these statements. And second, be honest…how convinced are you that that they are true?
bdg…”ZP saidPhotons dont exist
What?”
They don’t. The photon is an attempt to particalize EM. To do it, the photon was DEFINED as having momentum but no mass.
“ZP saidThere is no heat flux until matter is electromagnetically entangled in this field.”
That’s right. EM has no heat. When the Sun emits EM by converting local heat to EM, the local heat producing the EM is lost. That EM will never produce heat unless it is absorbed by a cooler body. To do so, the EM is converted back to heat in electrons and the EM is lost.
EM radiation contains energy.
If it leaves an object, it can remove energy and cool an object, by the firsts law, as Gordon knows very well. That is called a heat loss.
“When the Sun emits EM by converting local heat to EM, the local heat producing the EM is lost. That EM will never produce heat unless it is absorbed by a cooler body.”
Yes, indeed. And the whole process, heat loss by one object, and heat gain by something else, can by years apart, is called heat transfer by radiation.
Now explain to Zoe.
Ok, yeah, I agree that heat cannot be transferred to another mass unless there is another mass that can convert the quantized photon energy into kinetic energy. I’m totally cool with that idea. However, the mass from which the photons originating still loses energy and heat and I don’t think it’s egregiously in error to say this heat is lost to space. The mass still cools afterall. The energy went or is going somewhere. It doesn’t just disappear.
“I don’t think it’s egregiously in error to say this heat is lost to space”
Translation: “It’s wrong, but it’s not that wrong. So it’s right.”
Well it’s certainly more right than arguing that energy does not move away from a body until another body receives it.
So what’s the percentage of “right-ness”? Or “wrong-ness”?
IOW, DREMT has no idea what is right or wrong.
Another point sails over poor Nate’s head.
I get the point, DREMT was simply trolling bdgwx, while still insisting that people stop trolling.
Hopeless. Go back to sleep, Nate.
bdgwx,
“0.105 W/m^2 * (365.24 * 24 * 3600) s * 360e12 m^2 = 1.19e24 joules”
If you look at your article, you’ll notice this annual geothermal flux is ~10 times greater than the annual flux they are talking about.
I don’t know if 105 mW/m^2 is a stable figure or it varies year to year. But I’m willing to bet your article tries to pin the blame for changes in geothermal flux onto GHGs. It’s so bloody obvious. GHGs can’t heat the ocean. This article is pin the blame on the wrong thing type of fraud.
First, I need to correct something…1.19e24 should have been 1.19e21.
ZP said…”If you look at your article, youll notice this annual geothermal flux is ~10 times greater than the annual flux they are talking about.”
The publication by Cheng et. al. makes no statements about geothermal flux as far as I can tell.
ZP said…”I dont know if 105 mW/m^2 is a stable figure or it varies year to year.”
Being driven mainly by radioactive decay within the core and after billions of years of working towards an equilibrium this value is pretty stable. There would, of course, be some variability from year to year, but it is minimal.
ZP said…”But Im willing to bet your article tries to pin the blame for changes in geothermal flux onto GHGs.”
It does specifically say that the OHC increases are primarily the result of GHGs.
Can you post a link to material suggesting geothermal flux changes can explain the OHC increases? I’d like to review them.
This was replied to here.
bdgwx is a moron.
“But lets talk about this 240.105 W/m^2 figure shall we. If out = 240.105 W/m^2 and in = 240.000 W/m^2 then that means the imbalance would be -0.105 W/m^2 and the Earth should be losing energy and thus should be cooling.”
Self cooling is other heating.
When a 10C object heats a 9C object, the initial heat flux is 1C, and the 10C objects starts to cool, while the 9C object gets warmer.
The Earth warms other things by cooling itself, moron.
Heating is cooling.
BTW, We measure flux from the hot side, and it’s not “in vs. out”, it’s “in vs. in”.
Geothermal Flux at 0 depth = Earth in – Solar In = ~100 mW out towards atmosphere.
Where did you get 0.6? It’s not in your article. Is that an annual figure? Where is the direction of flow? What is it?
ZP said…”The Earth warms other things by cooling itself”
What specifically is warming and cooling?
ZP said…”Geothermal Flux at 0 depth = Earth in Solar In = ~100 mW out towards atmosphere.”
You do understand that this statement is using the average flux concept that Postma erroneously says is bunk right?
Anyway…can post a link to materials that I can review that suggest the imbalance on the planet is -0.1 W/m^2? And if the net flow of heat is out toward space then why is the entire geosphere warming?
ZP said…”Where did you get 0.6? Its not in your article. Is that an annual figure? Where is the direction of flow? What is it?”
From the publication the oceanic heat content has been increasing by about 10e21 joules/year. This works out to an imbalance on the climate system of about +0.62 W/m^2 where positive values represent net inflow of energy. Note that the ocean accounts for about 90% of the thermal mass of the climate system so the total imbalance is closer to +0.7 W/m^2 because the other 10% (lithosphere, cryosphere, troposphere) are all warming as well.
The interesting thing about this observation is that it matches the predicted value for the transient imbalance quite well. It’s a case where the predictions using varying techniques and models is confirmed by observation within a reasonable margin of error.
Nate,
“Ok, and what does that do for you? The solar portion of the input to the surface is still 99.64 %.”
Earth is 100%.
Solar Heat + Gravitational Work on Atmosphere = 99.64%
Without the sun and/or atmosphere the Earth surface would still be ~15C. No GH effect.
Nope, more weird declarations without any evidence. Shocker.
Zoe Phin
It is strange that you would call other posters morons with your horrible conclusions and illogical thought process. I think you are just clowning around. It would be hard to imagine someone actually thinking their horrible illogical conclusions are valid.
Your geothermal ideas are stupid. You say very stupid things like the surface without the Sun would still be 15 C. That is so stupid that I fell dumb just acknowledging it by responding. You look at some geothermal charts you don’t understand at all and use them to conclude the surface would be heated to 15 C without he Sun.
Ok, I will think you are clowning around. But simple rational thought would be able to show you the idea is really really stupid!
You have the Arctic and Antarctic in their winter months with no Sun and they get quite cold. You have winter months in the US that get much below 15 C. One of the dumbest ideas yet put on this blog. You have lots of competition from JDHuffman and Gordon Robertson. I think yours is even dumber than anything these unscientific goofballs have posted.
https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/EarthTemperatures.htm
Maybe educate yourself. Soil is a good insulator you can see how temperature varies with depth. The surface temperature can swing 20 C from soil temperature 30 feet down.
Anyway I hope your posts are just a type of humor. I hope you are not serious thinking you found something with them.
Norman Grinvalds, I hope you are not using MidAmerica Energy’s time and resources to attack people. There could be serious consequences for you.
You can’t get anything right, so all you do is insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
I am totally correct in stating you don’t know physics and you pretend you do. It is silly that you keep pretending. Not sure why you do this.
You are an unscientific goofball. That is more factual than you can accept.
Wrong again, Norman.
You cannot provide one instance of my physics being wrong. All you can do is insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
Nothing wrong.
This was replied to here.
Bobdesbond,
‘Bob seems to have disappeared from YouTube. Why is that Zoe ?’
He went back to work. Doesn’t have time. Now he just advises me. I’ve learned so much.
What do you think his avatar represents?
Me looking at his name. Me looking at him. Me being trained.
The avatar was specifically chosen to tell a story. You psycho freak got the story wrong, and now peddle conspiracy theories. Now why would you do that if you didn’t feel like a loser?
And what the eff is up with the Asian thing? Do I look asian to you? You’re nuts.
About 70% of the surface of the globe is water. Clouds reflect about 20% of the solar radiation back to Space. Climatologists amplify the assumed effect of warming by carbon dioxide (that is actually based on false physics) by saying that the extra warming would cause more evaporation from the oceans and, seeing that they say water vapor (the most prolific “greenhouse” gas) also warms, they add this “positive feedback” in order to increase their claimed global warming. Now, suppose that only half as much of the surface (35%) were water. There would then probably be only half the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere and half as much cloud cover shading the Earth. Would the global average surface temperature be warmer or colder as a result of this decrease in the greenhouse gas water vapor? For a study comparing temperatures in wet and dry areas see the Appendix of the paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
bdgwx,
“First, I need to correct something”
First I need to correct something.
The 105 mW/m^2 is obviously for ocean to air flux. If you want to know what’s going into the ocean, you need to look at the bottom.
The average depth of the ocean is 3500 m.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4c8bc9a7aa958139da673ed69fcd4990.webp
Earth temperature
@ 3500m deep = 50C = 618 W/m^2
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/THERMOCLINE.png
Water temperature
@ 3500m deep = 4C = 334 W/m^2
Earth to Water Heat Flux = 618 – 334 = 284 W/m^2
284 * 360e12 * 365.24*24*3600 = 3.2e24 J
“Can you post a link to material suggesting geothermal flux changes can explain the OHC increases?”
My math just explained it all.
“The publication by Cheng et. al. makes no statements about geothermal flux as far as I can tell.”
Well, duh!
“It does specifically say that the OHC increases are primarily the result of GHGs.”
Yes, false attribution, on purpose.
“The interesting thing about this observation is that it matches the predicted value for the transient imbalance quite well.”
Because it was reversed engineered from that value.
ZP said…”The 105 mW/m^2 is obviously for ocean to air flux. If you want to know whats going into the ocean, you need to look at the bottom.”
The 0.1 W/m^2 figure I’ve been talking about is the geothermal flux. This is the flux coming through the lithosphere.
The ocean-to-atmosphere heat flux is WAY higher and it’s not typically referred to as geothermal energy. The flux includes latent, sensible, and thermal radiation.
ZP said…”Earth to Water Heat Flux = 618 334 = 284 W/m^2″
The temperature of the crust at the interface with the ocean floor is not 50C; at least not on average. That means your 618 figure is not correct.
The total power dissipation of Earth itself is about 5e13 W. This works out to 5e13 W / 510e12 m^2 = 0.1 W/m^2.
ZP said…”Because it was reversed engineered from that value.”
Nah…this is predicted on the basis of the net effect of the radiative forcing of various climate modulating agents including solar radiation, albedo, aerosols, GHGs, etc. Simple radiative models for these various agents have been around for over 100 years. For example, CO2’s radiative forcing can be approximated with the formula delta-F = lambda * ln(C/Cb) where delta-F is the change in radiative forcing, lambda is the sensitivity parameter, C is the CO2 concentration and Cb is the baseline concentration. So a concentration of 410 compared with 280 would produce 5.35 * ln(410/280) = +2.0 W/m^2 of forcing. More than half of this forcing has been “burned” off to contribute to a transient response of about 1.0C of warming. When you run all of the numbers the theory predicts about 0.5 to 1.0 W/m^2 of imbalance at present.
This was replied to here.
Nate,
“EM radiation contains energy.”
EM radiation is two mutually orthogonal waves of electric and magnetic potential.
EM radiation represents a potential energy until it hits something, and becomes actual energy.
EM energy (waves of E & M), jossle electrons and put them in higher orbit, which causes vibrations in matter. Until matter is hit, EM is just potential energy. The EM emitting object is attempting to resonant heat distant objects. The actual energy is present in emitting object. The emitting object does not send its internal energy into space HOPING something will catch it. The EM waves (potential energy) search something to find, and once found, only then begin the process of internal energy draining of emitting object.
The best analogy I can think of is a battery. Does a battery send electrons hoping to find a circuit? No! You need a circuit (loop), before you get to use the battery’s potential energy.
Same thing with EM radiation. You need a circuit from emitting to receiving object before energy starts flowing. Until receiving matter is found there is no decrease of emitting object’s internal energy.
You can draw a field around a battery and pretend its sending electrons, but that would be silly.
You need a circuit for EM transfers.
Zoe Phin
You should stick with the subject you know, economics. Your physics is far worse than not knowing anything at all.
EM is energy not potential energy. Do you know what potential energy is? It seems you do not understand even the most basic of physics concepts.
EM can move objects (light pressure). It does not have to interact with matter to become energy. I am not sure where this goofy idea of yours sprung up. Why oh why do all the skeptics on this blog have to make up their own science and then pretend to be experts? What type of psychological disorder produces this mental state?
You have to be joking around. There is no possible way you could be as ignorant as your posts suggest.
Norman Grinvalds, did you take a sick-day?
Surely you are not using the resources of Mid-America Energy, there in Omaha/Council Bluffs area for your own private vendettas?
https://www.midamericanenergy.com/home
Utility companies are usually heavily regulated, and do not support private/political use. You could get in serious trouble, mis-using time and resources. And that doesn’t include the legal liabilities you subject your company to.
You might want to consider cleaning up your act.
JDHuffman
I am at home posting why do you ask. I took my wife in for cataract surgery if it is your business. Let it go. You are way off the chart in valid assessment of anything. So now I can’t post because your silly goofball physics is exposed so you are trying to threaten some action because you are not able to support any of your raunchy fantasy physics? Would it not be better for you to learn physics and stop being an idiot poster? That would be much better, than you could actually contribute thoughtful posts instead of some annoying troll attack on someone.
JDHuffman
I took your advice and quit posting from work. If you see posts from me during daytime I am home on my home computer. Do I have your permission to post from my Home Computer? Let me know. If you have only acceptable hours where I can post let me know what they are.
Norman, you need to check with your supervisor. Some attorney suing MidAmerica Energy would be able to get access to your hours at work, and compare to your comment times.
It’s best just to not insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
As the old saying goes: “Grow up.”
JDHuffman
I do think my tactics are poor. Too emotional. I will still think your physics is bad and wrong. I will try and educate you on correct physics if possible. But I do need to work on my interaction skills. Regardless of posting from work or home, it is not good to get too emotional with other posters, even if I feel strongly they are wrong.
I will just try to state the error and that I think they are wrong, then continue to bring supporting evidence to show the error.
Calling you troll or stupid is not the best method of reaching a person even ones not involved in the discussion. I am human so my emotions may get the best of me from time to time but I do think you are right on this issue and I the one in the wrong. I still think you have bad physics but that does not give me license to get emotional about it.
I will respond to Zoe Phin below on Heat Conductivity. I am hoping I can reach her with good evidence and logic and valid physics.
Yes Norman, I think the old “relentlessly insulting the person you are trying to “help” and endlessly asserting that you know the correct physics and that they don’t know the correct physics and that they need to do this elaborate experiment that you describe in great detail but will obviously never do yourself and nor will anyone else but you state that you already “know” the outcome” technique isn’t working. Try something different. Try not obsessing over personalities, and actually make some decent arguments for the first time in your life. You never know!
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team
I actually would like to do the experiments. I do like that kind of stuff, it is what drove me into the field of science (Chemistry sets for Christmas as a kid). I just don’t plan on investing in bell jars and vacuum pumps to prove a concept that will not be accepted anyway regardless of the outcome. The days of Galileo are gone when he could convince skeptics that their view was wrong by going up the Tower of Pisa and dropping masses of different weights. His empirical testing convinced the skeptics of their error. Today’s World does not work on such a mechanism in seeking Truth or reality.
High Vacuum Pumps are not exactly low cost.
https://www.thomassci.com/Equipment/Pumps/Vacuum/_/TWO-STAGE-DIRECT-DRIVE-PUMP
Bell Jars
https://www.labx.com/product/vacuum-bell-jar
To get a good set-up looks like it could run in the few thousand dollar range. Not a matter of not being able to do the experiment, more like a large investment of money for very little benefit.
E. Swanson has already proven that Eli Rabbet’s thought experiment was basically correct. A heated plate that warms a non-heated plate will increase in temperature. The accepted science states that both plates radiate to each other. As the green plate radiates more toward the blue plate the effect is that the blue plate loses less heat but gains the same amount, this drives the temperature up until the blue plate loses the same amount of heat it is gaining. Then the plates reach a steady state where the temperature no longer changes.
Norman, you are trying to hide behind vacuum pumps and bell jars. You refused to purchase the toy Ferris wheel, for about $20, because you knew it would prove you wrong. You use experiments to hide behind. You refuse to do the ones that prove you wrong, but cling to the ones the you want to believe in.
The plates nonsense is WRONG. The incorrect solutions violate the laws of physics. You refuse to admit that. Swanson’s “demo” only fooled the “Normans”.
You have no interest in reality. You believe you can protect your false beliefs using insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
Nothing new.
JDHuffan
I do not accept the point you are making:
YOU: “The plates nonsense is WRONG. The incorrect solutions violate the laws of physics. You refuse to admit that. Swansons demo only fooled the Normans.”
The plates is a reality. It has been experimentally done. There is no incorrect solution. There are only empirical facts.
Only look at the graph. The proof is there and you have not been able to prove this wrong or incorrect to date. You speculate it is not correct but have failed to offer any support for you speculation.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Fact. You have a heated blue plate that reaches a steady temperature in a vacuum. E. Swanson waited until the temperature of the blue plate was no longer changing.
Fact. Moving the green plate in view of the blue plate causes the green plate to increase in temperature. The only logical source for the increase is from the blue plate.
Fact. As the green plate’s temperature goes up the blue plate temperature also goes up. No increase in input energy takes place. No new source of energy. The logical conclusion is the IR emitted by the green plate is being received by the blue plate. The blue plate now has two sources of energy it absorbs. It is gaining energy and now will rise in temperature until it reaches a new temperatures where the energy output once again is equal to the energy input.
None of these facts is disputed. The graph clearly shows this taking place. Last time I discussed this with you, you called it “bogus” because fluxes were not involved. Why you need this information or how it would change the results observed has not been stated by you.
“I do not accept the point you are making“
Yes, the denial has been strong.
Norman, Swanson’s “demo” is nonsense. You just adore nonsense.
FACT: Neither you nor Swanson can state, in 50 words or less, what you believe the bogus Demo” proves.
FACT: The “demo” fluxes have not been provided. In the correct solution, all fluxes, energy flow, and temperatures are indicated.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
FACT: The incorrect solution violates the laws of thermodynamics, which you two apparently can’t understand.
No…just no. Photons carry real bona-fide energy. The amount of energy a photon carries is proportional to its frequency and is given by E=hf. These photons will carry energy away from a body regardless of whether another body is around to receive them.
backdoor guy, since you are now posing as an expert on photon energy, please explain why ice photons, with 50% more energy than CO2 15 μ photons, cannot warm the planet, but CO2 can.
Or, you can take advantage of that backdoor.
No need for anymore explanation, ice photons, with 50% more energy than CO2 15 μ photons, can warm the planet, same as CO2 can.
fluffball displays his ignorance of the relevant physics, again.
(Not that we need any more examples.)
So, JD, you seem to have left the relevant physics out of your comment, again. Nothing new.
Oh, you’re doing it again. No: be eternally silent, disgrace.
Yet another “pop up” who also has left out the relevant physics. Nothing new.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-358377
Yes, you keep proving me right by popping up all the time. Now, be eternally silent, disgrace.
No “pop up” from me DREMT you got that wrong. You know, I recommend you really should read the whole comment thread. No relevant physics again, nothing new.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
DREMT endlessly trolls someone.
Then at night tells the people he has been trolling all day to please stop trolling.
Insists he is not a hypocrite.
Nate just can’t get me out of his head.
Norman is a moron.
“Your geothermal ideas are stupid. You say very stupid things like the surface without the Sun would still be 15 C. That is so stupid that I fell dumb just acknowledging it by responding. ”
Why is global AVERAGE geothermal HEAT flux 0.1 W/m^2 ? If geothermal was less than sun, then the sun would be heating the subsurface and flux would be negative.
“You have the Arctic and Antarctic in their winter months with no Sun and they get quite cold. You have winter months in the US that get much below 15 C. One of the dumbest ideas yet put on this blog.”
LOL. Normy doesn’t understand difference between weather and climate.
Zoe Phin
Okay enough of your joking.
The Sun is what is heating the subsurface.
Look at this again.
https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/amplitude-vs-depth.gif
When the surface is warmed by the Sun, the heat flows down to the lower subsoil (follow the temperature curves). When the surface is colder the heat flows upward.
Norman, the joke is on you. You actually believe the Sun cannot warm Earth. You are convinced. You have even done the arithmetic!
What a clown.
JDHuffman
Once again the idiot post! You do it often.
My claim is that the Sun cannot warm the Earth to its actual measured temperature. It can warm the Earth surface from a colder state (from night to day). It just will not warm it to the level that is measured. It requires backradiation from GHG to achieve the elevated temperatures.
Yes Norman, that’s what I said.
“You actually believe the Sun cannot warm Earth. You are convinced. You have even done the arithmetic!”
You confirm, again and again, that you are clueless.
Nothing new.
My claim is that the Sun cannot warm the Earth to its actual measured temperature. It can warm the Earth surface from a colder state (from night to day). It just will not warm it to the level that is measured. It requires backradiation from GHG to achieve the elevated temperatures.
And your claim is wrong. The sun may only be able to warm a near blackbody at 1AU to a frozen average of 255 K, but the surface of this planet is an extreme SW selective surface.
If your claim was even close to correct, you should have no problem providing repeatable empirical experiments showing that the sun alone could not drive average surface temperatures of this ocean planet above -18C.
But of course you cannot provide valid empirical experiments to support that claim. Because for an ocean planet, that claim is false. The snow line in our solar system is over 3AU from the sun.
“If your claim was even close to correct, you should have no problem providing repeatable empirical experiments showing that the sun alone could not drive average surface temperatures of this ocean planet above -18C.”
The claim is close to correct given the same albedo (but from different system composition). Published, repeatable, in situ empirical experiments showing that the sun alone (meaning with feeble LW radiation N2,O2 surface 1bar atm.) could not drive average surface temperatures of this ocean planet much above mean global 255K given the same albedo are readily available for those that know what they are talking about.
“But of course you cannot provide valid empirical experiments to support that claim.”
Valid in situ empirical experiments to support that claim are readily available.
“The snow line in our solar system is over 3AU from the sun.”
Hmmm…seems to be plenty of snow on the surface at nominal 1AU.
Konrad
I do not believe you have provided sufficient support for your idea: “but the surface of this planet is an extreme SW selective surface.”
You made a claim that water will absorb more energy in the SW band than it is able to emit in the IR band. I think you proposed the water emissivity for IR was 0.7. I do not accept this as a valid claim. I would need to see solid evidence for it.
My research shows that at steep angles the emissivity for IR does go down but also so does the ability to absorb SW. I think it was you I linked the information to.
Norman, seawater does not absorb low energy IR very well. And, as the surface temperature drops, it gets even worse.
As obvious from your comments, you do not understand emissivity. Craig T had the same problem. He kept finding links he couldn’t understand, once believing that an exponent had units!
Is he in your typing class?
Konrad
The “Snow Line” would be the location for continuous exposure to solar energy. Different relationship than a body that only has partial solar exposure and warming.
Snow exists on Earth in many locations. I think it is the issue of available solar energy that must heat a larger surface area.
I watched Joseph Postma’s latest video. He believes that a pig rotating through a higher intensity energy source will somehow get warmer than if you had 1/4 the energy intensity spread over all the sides.
Think this one through. You have 2 cubic blocks of diamond. The block is one cubic meter. You have a surface of 6 m^2.
Diamond is the best heat conductor.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103438.htm
The idea is in isolated region with no other energy input.
You have one side only, heated by a source that imparts 600 Watts to one side of one dimond cube. The energy received easily conducts all the way through the block to the nonheated surfaces.
This block will reach a temperature were each side emits 100 watts from its surface. With the other block you have 6 sources of energy that each impart 100 watts to one of the 6 surfaces. The block will reach a steady state temperature when each side emits 100 watts. Both conditions will reach the same state.
Now if you have a rotating block (not a good conductor as previous) with 4 sides that will receive energy from a source each side will only receive 1/4 the energy a plate, with its backside heavily insulated, facing the source continuously will receive. The insulated plate will reach a much higher temperature than the surfaces of the rotating block even though both receive the same input energy. I may not have explained it well. I hope you think about it.
You’re correct, Norman–you did not explain it well.
In fact, it’s just another of your many writing disasters.
JDHuffman
You may be correct in your opinion of my discussion. Let us see if Konrad is able to understand the points I am making. It was addressed to him specifically. Every mind processes information differently. What is difficult for you to put together, maybe Konrad will not have such problems. We will have to wait and see if he chooses to respond to my post or not.
Or if, like most people, he will decide you’re just not worth bothering with.
Ball4 says: June 19, 2019 at 6:47 PM
Fluffball, you are no good at this game. You keep playing in the Now. This game is for the future. You need to be right now to win in the future. Attempting to gaslight those reading my comments now is pointless.
That’s why your climate warrior from your mom’s basement efforts are so adorable. Fighting in the now you are losing the future. You first tried to defeat me and failed in 2011. Hundreds of comments. More than enough for the stylometrics software to identify you no matter what screen name you swap to. All stored offline. All out of the control of GooGooPlex, SpaceChook or Twitface.
My permanent comments since 2006 say the atmosphere acts to cool the solar heated surface of our planet by 26C. You fought for the surface warming by 33C for the net effect of the atmosphere of the atmosphere on surface temperatures. The laws of physics are not going to change. Ultimately only one of us can be right.
Making a scientific mistake is excusable. But unlike Dr. Spencer, you can’t be excused, because you didn’t make a scientific mistake. It doesn’t matter how many times you change your screen name, the permanent record shows you’ve known the AGW conjecture was wrong for over 8 years. That’s what is so adorable, you’re helping me.
Look at this, your latest effort. Where are your links to those multitude of repeatable empirical lab experiments proving that the sun at 1AU cannot heat our oceans above a frozen average of -18C? Nowhere! Climastrologists have had this is their foundation claim for near 200 years. But the permanent Internet record shows that in 8 years since you first challenged me you couldn’t produce a single repeatable empirical lab experiment supporting that claim.
This is what makes this game so fun. When you learnt you couldn’t gaslight an empiricist with engineering awards, you stooped to trying to gaslight those reading my comments. But at the time you tried this, AGW sceptics had already learnt their lesson. NASA had tried to remove Apollo thermometer data from the web and erase embarrassing old GISS temperature reconstructions. From that sceptics knew the long term record of the debate was far more valuable than any day to day point scoring. After all, there was only one side that wanted that record erased.
Any new Tricks, fluffball? (A new screen name doesn’t count). If you don’t have an empirical lab experiment showing the sun alone can only heat the true surface materials of this ocean planet to a frozen average of -18C in absence of radiative atmosphere, then you are stuck in the same place you were 8 years ago. And that place is adding to the permanent record of what lengths the AGW propagandist would go to trash the scientific method in pursuit of politics.
“Where are your links to those multitude of repeatable empirical lab experiments proving that the sun at 1AU cannot heat our oceans above a frozen average of -18C?”
See your library science major at the librarian desk of your local college library Konrad as I have done. Ask for empirical lab and in situ Earth surface L&O emissivity measurement papers, they will be overjoyed to aid you for free by practicing their craft. Read the published papers! Learn they prove that the sun alone at 1AU cannot warm Earth’s oceans surfaces much above a semi-frozen global surface mean of ~ -18C. Or with a modicum of google-fu Konrad can find many of the papers on line for free to understand the top post is accurate from actual measured empirical data.
Find out those empirical experimental results on the actual Earth land and ocean surface in situ (look up the def.) differ from Konrads kitchen table experiments which have totally misled Konrad.
The permanent internet record shows since Konrad first challenged the whole field of meteorology that it was easy to produce many repeatable empirical lab & out in the wild experiments supporting meteorology’s text book conclusions i.e. the ones the top post are based on and found in basic meteorology text books on the subject in the top post: “that even intense tropical sunshine cannot explain real-world tropical temperatures.”
I also point out “an empiricist with engineering awards” such as Konrad should know Konrad’s kitchen table experiments are misleading by comparing them with actual Earth L&O results. Konrad should open his kitchen door and go outside to do actual Earth L&O empirical experiments; outdoors in nature is a wonderful place/lab in which to learn.
“If you dont have an empirical lab experiment showing the sun alone can only heat the true surface materials of this ocean planet to a frozen average of -18C in absence of radiative atmosphere…”
I do! They are plentifully found at your local college library Konrad and on-line for free since I don’t rely on misleading kitchen table experiments as does Konrad. I rely on published empirical experiments and observations on the natural Earth L&O wonderfully accessible surfaces as does Dr. Spencer in the top post.
Go outside Konrad, have some fun replicating all the L&O empirical experiments that the top post is based upon.
That’s the most fluff I’ve ever seen from fluffball.
He is really getting desperate, as their meltdown continues.
As I said fluffball, you are no good at this game.
In your response attempting to gaslight other readers, you even quote me asking for your links to repeatable empirical lab experiments, then you completely fail to provide such links! Come on you’ve had 8 years!
Even when advised that stylometics software can see through your multiple new screen names, you throw in the phrase “kitchen sink experiments”, instantly linking you back to the first time you tried using false screen names to attack non-lukewarmer sceptics. Seriously, no stylometrics required …
Is it “Ball4” now? No. You are still the same person. To be fair, you do have a love of science and technology, but you are just no good at it. That is why you have always gravitated to marketing or managing the tech efforts of others. (I’m not saying this isn’t vital. Nerds are very poor at selling what they are good at, let alone realising its potential).
Compare and contrast fluffball. What was your true involvement in flight sim? (Fair for someone without a degree in aero). But while I have worked in many design and engineering areas, my degree is also not in aero. The difference? I get trusted with time in the wind tunnel. My aero work has been exhibited in a technology museum. And while my first job out of high school was coding, I was never involved in flight sim, but I do have a pilot’s licence. What we have here is empiricist vs propagandist. How much effort did you expend on trying to gaslight an empiricist?
What I don’t understand is why you became an AGW propagandist. Why didn’t you become a publicist or editor for a science and tech magazine? You would have been able to combine your original area of study with your interest in science and engineering. Why did you fight the AGW sceptic nerds? Sure, you could, as you had better language skills. But why if you loved science and engineering? Nerds almost never make a fuss. When they do something must be seriously wrong. How did you pick the wrong side?
“..you even quote me asking for your links to repeatable empirical lab experiments, then you completely fail to provide such links!”
That’s just unneeded diversion Konrad, I gave you enough information to freely to do the work to find all the repeatable empirical lab & field experiments needed, or that you want, & any link you want. I am not a library science major and my fee to do that work for you is way beyond what you can afford. Find a trained library science major that will happily do it for free.
“How did you pick the wrong side?”
I’ve picked the side of repeatable empirical experimental, natural Earth L&O in situ results and so should Konrad. Get out of your kitchen Konrad, look around at the real world, experiment on real outdoor nature, do your empirical work in the field.
There are many papers that have already done so for guidance, just visit your local college library to supply them (that’s what it’s there for), then study them, maybe extend them. The top post is accurate because it is based on that body of already accomplished, repeatable, empirical experimental outdoor work in the field of meteorology.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
ZP said…”Why is global AVERAGE geothermal HEAT flux 0.1 W/m^2 ?”
Because the energy being generated by Earth itself is primarily through radioactive decay and is approximately 50 TW. When you divide 50 TW by the surface area of Earth you get about 0.1 W/m^2 on average. Note that the tidal energy transferred to Earth via frictional heating of the crust as a result of the Earth/Moon gravitational interaction is negligible being on the order of about 0.01 W/m^2. Also note that the Earth is in gravitational equilibrium so there is no longer any gravitation compression occurring so that value is essentially 0 W/m^2. To keep the core in near equilibrium only requires about 0.1 W/m^2 to escape through the lithosphere.
This was replied to here.
Norman is a moron.
“It does not have to interact with matter to become energy.”
Really?
“EM can move objects (light pressure).”
Oh so it can move objects, and this is an example of it NOT interacting with matter? LMAO
I specifically said: “EM radiation represents a potential energy until it hits something, and becomes actual energy.”
“The Sun is what is heating the subsurface.
Look at this again.”
Your diagram doesn’t say what Tm is. It shows a difference of 40F, but so what?
When the sun is out, desert sand can reach 140F. Without sun, it would be 100F. That’s much greater than 15C.
So what did you prove? This is a local diagram, not a global average.
Zoe Phin
I still think you are here to pull a leg. It is not possible for you to be as stupid as you post. Your points are really bad. I was thinking JDHuffman might be the poster with the least knowledge of actual physics and illogical thought process. You are levels below him in stupid posting.
Goofy as you are, I gave too much credit in hoping a connection to the diagram would form. Wow! Your level of stupid comments busts my logic register. The diagram shows heat flow. You have the temperature at 30 feet below the surface. This changes very slowly. As you move upward, if the surface is cold the energy from this location moves up to the surface (evidence by the temperature curve).
I think I will be done with you. Not in the mood to reply to silly people that are so far gone in stupid world they can’t see how horrible their logic and posts are.
Zoe Phin
It might help if you use terms, and concepts correctly or how they are used by the scientific community.
You think EM is potential energy until it hits something and then it becomes actual. You basically just made this up.
They have established energy forms.
Here look:
https://fl-pda.org/independent/courses/elementary/science/section4/4e6.htm
Radiant energy is kinetic (energy in motion) not static (potential energy).
You can try to get support from JDHuffman in your posts but he will never steer you in the right direction. If you want his made up physics and his unsupported statements, seek him out. If you want real physics, read an actual textbook.
First poor Norman says he’s not in the mood to reply. Then he replies!
The poor clown is clueless.
bdgwx is a moron
“Because the energy being generated by Earth itself is primarily through radioactive decay and is approximately 50 TW. When you divide 50 TW by the surface area of Earth you get about 0.1 W/m^2 on average. ”
bdgwx really thinks the earth gives off a tiny amount of energy. It shows he hasn’t been paying attention at all. What a waste of time.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/image11.png?w=614
http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~jtoro/geol101/geotherm/shallow%20geotherm.jpg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283482498/figure/fig7/AS:567360718413831@1512280744175/Geothermal-gradient-in-the-South-Adriatic-Croatian-Offshore.png
All of the temperatures at depth = 0 meters are way above 0.1 W/m^2 potential.
I’m getting tired of your reality denial and bloviating imbecility.
I’m not saying the Earth only gives off 0.1 W/m^2. I’m saying that the internal generation of heat (geothermal) is equivalent to or contributes only 0.1 W/m^2. The surface of Earth actually gives off orders of magnitude higher amounts via latent, sensible, and thermal radiation. At TOA the outbound flux averages out to about 340 W/m^2 which is roughly balanced with the incoming flux of 340 W/m^2. I say roughly balanced because there actually is an imbalance of about 0.7 W/m^2 with in > out. You can refer to Wild et. al. 2013 for estimates of these average fluxes via a simple 3-layer box model.
bdg…”I’m saying that the internal generation of heat (geothermal) is equivalent to or contributes only 0.1 W/m^2.”
Multiply that power delivery rate over 4 billion years. As Mike Flynn tries to point out, the Earth’s was much hotter in the past.
Zoe Phin
I did look at your links. Here is something hopefully you will consider in your thought process on geothermal energy. Soil is a fairly good insulator, not the best but reasonable.
Here:
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/conduction-calculator
This is a conductivity heat transfer calculator. It gives the heat transfer by conductivity and the variables involved. In this form you will get Watts as the transfer rate. To get flux (W/m^2) you would just move the A (in m^2) under the Q and you would get W/m^2 flux.
I put in some arbitrary numbers to let you know how little heat flows through soil even if it is quite hot a few kilometers down.
The thermal conductivity of dry soil is given at a K value of 0.15 and for wet soil it is given at 0.6.
If you use dry soil in the calculator and have some high temperature of 100 C and the surface temperature of 0 C and the soil depth 10 meters (around 30 feet). One square meter of surface would only have 0.15 Watts flowing through it. So you would have the energy from the hot area losing this energy at a rate of 0.15 W/m^2. This is not even close to the solar input or the GHE. Both of these are much higher fluxes.
This was replied to here.
bdgwx,
“The temperature of the crust at the interface with the ocean floor is not 50C; at least not on average. That means your 618 figure is not correct.”
Hello, moron, I posted the evidence:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4c8bc9a7aa958139da673ed69fcd4990.webp
Can’t you read?
JDHuffman,
What the eff is wrong with these people?
They are mentally ill degenerates.
“They are mentally ill degenerates.”
And, they seem to like it that way.
JDHuffman
You are the one who seems to have this mental illness. You make up physics, you pretend you understand it, you make fun of people several times smarter than you will ever be. You post as an imaginary friend to support your goofy claims. You seem to be the one with all the issues. The rest are pretty much stating facts, using logic and rational thought. They have good physics knowledge and know what they are talking about. You have a distorted view of reality and somehow think your points are based upon some actual science. You make up stupid cartoons that are not acceptable physics. The rest of your posts are trolling. I would think you are the one with the mental issues.
Norman, if only you had some credibility….
bdgwx,
“Nojust no. Photons carry real bona-fide energy. The amount of energy a photon carries is proportional to its frequency and is given by E=hf. These photons will carry energy away from a body regardless of whether another body is around to receive them.”
And how would you know that? Did you detect these photons with a sensor (a piece of matter)?
Clearly Zoe is not living in our universe. Best to leave him/her/it alone, bdgwx.
bdgwx,
“These photons will carry energy away from a body regardless of whether another body is around to receive them.”
Really? Space can store a matter’s internal energy? Where does it store it? Why can’t it give it to the dark side of the moon?
I can understand space “storing” a potential energy, kinda like a ball on a table has potential energy, but actual energy? Gimme a break.
I’m not saying that space itself stores energy (vacuum energy fields ignored for now). I’m saying that photons can carry away energy and photons exist and move through the spacetime continuum. There is a point at which the transmission of a photon may not be interacting with any matter. In that context I don’t see why saying things like energy or heat being lost to space is offensive.
The Moon does receive the energy carried by the cosmic microwave background. What it doesn’t do is get heated by it. The reason is because egress of energy is still greater than the ingress of energy.
“In that context I don’t see why saying things like energy or heat being lost to space is offensive.”
Yes, lots of things are inoffensive to say. Even things that are…what was the percentage of “rightness” or “wrongness” of it again? You didn’t quantify.
bdg…”Im saying that photons can carry away energy and photons exist and move through the spacetime continuum”.
Spacetime continuum??? If I have it right, there exists a 3-D dimension based on a human invented coordinate system and a 4th dimension of time, which has no existence.
Exactly what is expressed by the x,y,z,t coordinates in this amazing system? Based on it, we should be able to travel through time simply by finding the correct x,y,z,t point in the past.
But what would we travel through to get there?
If I recall my physics training, light is an electromagnetic ‘WAVE’ with an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field. Where do the photons fit in to the wave and where do I find one in the spacetime continuum?
Does light have an x,y,z.t coordinate?
Photons:
Photo electric effect. Solar panels, etc.
Compton effect.
nate…”Photo electric effect. Solar panels, etc.
Compton effect.”
Are we now talking about the photon as a quantum of energy emitted or absorbed by an electron? Where would one measure such a photon and what kind of instrument would measure a single photon?
Einstein seemed to imply that no one knows if EM is comprised of photons or waves of energy. He claimed some people think they know but they don’t.
As it stands, a photon is a definition. It is a theorized particle of EM defined with momentum but no mass. Personally, I don’t think such a particle exists simply because particles have mass.
I know that electrons emit quanta of energy that is defined as E = hf. What the heck does that mean exactly?
Like Zoe claimed, it has potential but there is nothing in particular it does in free space till it contacts a mass. Giving it units of W/m^2 is a ruse.
‘Giving it units of W/m^2 is a ruse.’
Guess you think conservation of energy is a ruse.
Star emits light, star has lost energy, energy now in EMR.
Problem with that?
‘As it stands, a photon is a definition. It is a theorized particle of EM defined with momentum but no mass. Personally, I dont think such a particle exists simply because particles have mass.’
Its fine to have thoughts and beliefs, but if they don’t match experiments then your belief is wrong.
Compton effect is most convincing evidence for photons.
Electrons are hit by gamma rays. The gamma rays change direction and wavelength. The only way to explain is a collision of electrons with particles with certain momentum and energy, IOW photons.
But today, photomultipliers and other devices, can be used to detect single photons. Happens all the time.
Nate, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
“Im not saying the Earth only gives off 0.1 W/m^2. Im saying that the internal generation of heat (geothermal) is equivalent to or contributes only 0.1 W/m^2. ”
This 0.1 W/m^2 is derived by Earth – Sun flux. It already subtracts solar contribution.
The sun provides 99.64% and earth provides 100%.
Think of two objects: 9.9C and 10C. Sure the initial flux is 0.1C (small number), sure the 9C object provides 99% of what 10C provides. So what?
I already explained this, why are you so effing dumb?
The geothermal flux of 0.1 W/m^2 has nothing to do with Sun. It is caused primarily by radioactive decay. If you want to know the total amount of energy entering the climate system both from above and below you sum the geothermal energy with the solar energy. The solar contribution at the surface is 99.6% and the geothermal or Earth contribution is 0.4%. These are rough estimates.
This was replied to here.
bdgwx,
“At TOA the outbound flux averages out to about 340 W/m^2 which is roughly balanced with the incoming flux of 340 W/m^2. I say roughly balanced because there actually is an imbalance of about 0.7 W/m^2 with in > out. You can refer to Wild et. al. 2013 for estimates of these average fluxes via a simple 3-layer box model.”
Nonsense. The flux @ TOA is perfectly balanced, except for solar TSI variations.
The 3 layer model relies upon absorbtivity/emissivity coefficients that are tied to temperature itself. A tiny error propagates to become large errors. 0.7 W/m^2 is that error. And this error varies from study to study.
Yes, absorbtivity/emissivity coefficients of GHGs are circularly tied to temperature itseld. And the temperature varies by lapse rate, which is created by gravitational work.
GHG junk science is a circular reasoning trap where they try to mathematically map GHGs to the work done by gravity on all the molecules.
You are too dumb to understand how the fraud works, so this will be lost on you.
Please get a proper computer and respond to the right thread.
Your’re worse than Salvatore.
Don’t worry, I’ll link it all through in a day or so. It’ll be fine.
svante…”Please get a proper computer and respond to the right thread.
Yourre worse than Salvatore.”
Could understand Salvatore either, eh svante?
Salvatore is a nice guy, but how could he keep thinking it would turn around next month when it’s been going on since 1750?
Svante, please stop trolling.
ZP said…”Nonsense. The flux @ TOA is perfectly balanced, except for solar TSI variations.”
Well we know there is an imbalance on the planet because the entire geosphere is warming overall. The imbalance is either at the top or the bottom of the climate system. Observations strongly suggest the imbalance is occurring at near the top.
If you disagree then please present evidence that supports your argument.
Here is evidence that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the imbalance is occurring at the bottom.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/70
ZP said…”The 3 layer model relies upon absorbtivity/emissivity coefficients that are tied to temperature itself. A tiny error propagates to become large errors. 0.7 W/m^2 is that error. And this error varies from study to study.”
This value is derived from multiple lines of evidence some of which have nothing to do with emissivity.
ZP said…”GHG junk science is a circular reasoning trap where they try to mathematically map GHGs to the work done by gravity on all the molecules.”
Let me get some clarification here…are you supporting the geothermal increase hypothesis or the gravitational compression hypothesis or a combination of both?
Regarding this blog post.
Earth takes and long time to warm up or cool down.
There are examples of this not being the case, but would say it’s an illusion.
I think I know how to cool or lower global temperature very rapidly,
but I would say it’s an illusion. Or what mean by an illusion.
I would say it’s an illusion, because we aren’t actually measuring global temperature. Or doesn’t change what I regard as actual global temperature.
I said this before, many times. Once again:
The way to rapid lower global air temperature would be to mix the warmer upper surface of ocean with “90% of the ocean which is lower than 3 C”. Or uniform mix the entire ocean so the ocean surface temperature is 3.5 C.
Or the average volume temperature of the entire ocean is about 3.5 C.
Currently the average global surface temperature is about 17 C and the average global land surface temperature is about 10 C.
And if you average 10 C being 30% of entire surface and 17 C being 70% of entire surface, you get Earth’s global average surface air temperature of about 15 C.
So if change average ocean surface temperature from 17 C to 3.5 C one changes the global temperature of 15 C.
Or if average of 70% of area being 3.5 C and 30% being 10 C, it’s
70 times 3.5 = 245 + 300 = 545. 545 / 100 = 5.45 global average temperature.
But it would be colder than 5.45 C.
Because the ocean warms the land areas.
And if ocean is 3.5 C, it doesn’t warm the land as much. Or the global land temperature of 10 C is decreased by a significant amount.
But you don’t have to mix the entire ocean, instead you could mix the warmest parts of the ocean.
So the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world. The average ocean surface temperature of the tropics is about 26 C.
And Tropics is about 40% of surface area of all ocean area.
So you could mix 40% of ocean surface with deeper and colder water and change the average from 26 C to 3.5 C [you could even make it colder like say 2 C]. And if just cooled the tropical ocean surface temperature to 3.5 C, this also has dramatic effect.
Or going from global average of about 15 C to about 5 C.
Or you just do some large chunks of tropical ocean lower average global temperature from 15 C to 13 C.
So the effect of making global temperature be 5 C, has very real effects- or everyone will freeze their butts off. But in terms actual global temperature, it’s actually a warming effect rather than cooling effect. Or the cold average global temperature will only last a short time period of years or maybe decades. Or after decades or a most say 100 years temperature will return to 15 C and could be warmer than 15 C.
Mixing the ocean is just “losing heat into the ocean” or it’s not losing the heat to space. And since sunlight continues and surface is colder, earth will absorb more heat and will radiate less heat to space.
Or there real possibility that global temperature rise and over shot, resulting global temperature 17 C or warmer.
But I think real global average temperature is average volume temperature of entire ocean, and mixing surface waters will only increase this a small amount.
So other than humans mixing the surface of ocean, natural events can also do this. An impactor causing large global waves say 100 meter high and going to speed of airliner, might do this.
Large flooding causes by glacial melt, and etc.
–Earth takes and long time to warm up or cool down.
There are examples of this not being the case, —
An example being Younger Dryas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
“The Younger Dryas was the most recent and longest of several interruptions to the gradual warming of the Earth’s climate since the severe Last Glacial Maximum, c. 27,000 to 24,000 years BP. The change was relatively sudden, taking place in decades, and it resulted in a decline of 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and advances of glaciers and drier conditions, over much of the temperate northern hemisphere. It is thought to have been caused by a decline in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, “
–If astronauts can get samples of lunar soil from the Moons southernmost region, it could offer more physical evidence of the baby Suns rotation rate, said Airapetian, who suspects that solar particles would have been deflected by the Moons erstwhile magnetic field 4 billion years ago and deposited at the poles: So you would expect though weve never looked at it that the chemistry of that part of the Moon, the one exposed to the young Sun, would be much more altered than the equatorial regions. So theres a lot of science to be done there.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/19/a-record-of-the-sun-left-on-the-moon/
hmm. And:
“Now, he and other scientists are realizing that the Moon, where NASA will be sending astronauts by 2024, contains clues to the ancient mysteries of the Sun, which are crucial to understanding the development of life.
We didnt know what the Sun looked like in its first billion years, and its super important because it likely changed how Venus atmosphere evolved and how quickly it lost water. It also probably changed how quickly Mars lost its atmosphere, and it changed the atmospheric chemistry of Earth, Saxena said. ”
Anyhow, it’s long thought that moon holds long term record [billions of years] of solar activity.
But probably need lunar base to study this in enough detail.
I don’t think NASA should focus on building a lunar base, instead I think NASA should explore the Moon to determine if and where there is mineable, then shift it’s attention to exploring Mars
[rather than getting bogged down making lunar base].
But NASA should bring back samples [related to whether mineable lunar, but also some samples other particular purposes, such as a record of solar activity
bdgwx,
“The solar contribution at the surface is 99.6% and the geothermal or Earth contribution is 0.4%. These are rough estimates.”
Uhuh, a 100C object only provides 1% to a 99C object, and a 99C object provides 99%.
Brilliant.
Norman,
“If you use dry soil in the calculator and have some high temperature of 100 C and the surface temperature of 0 C and the soil depth 10 meters (around 30 feet). One square meter of surface would only have 0.15 Watts flowing through it. So you would have the energy from the hot area losing this energy at a rate of 0.15 W/m^2. This is not even close to the solar input or the GHE.”
OK, so 0.15 W/m^2 creates an emission of 0C at the top.
And 1361W/m^2 gets to a -18C global average using standard method.
And your OK with this. You see absolutely no problem with this? MORON
You should publish your refutation of SB Law, because apparently 0C emits only 0.15W/m^2
“Radiant energy is kinetic (energy in motion) not static (potential energy).”
Wow you found a simple guide, and now you know everything. Do they mean radiant energy from matter to matter? You don’t know, but I bet you feel happy like a pig in mud.
When a ball moves up, it is kinetic, BUT its increasing potential energy. Amazing!
When EM waves traverse space they are potential, until they hit matter, then they become kinetic.
Svante,
“Please get a proper computer and respond to the right thread.”
Please support Chrome on Samsung Galaxy Note 9. It’s not my fault. Sorry though.
OK, I’ll see if I can google a solution.
We have WPtouch 4.0.3 (wp-includes/js/comment-reply.min.js?ver=5.0.4), current is 4.3.34.
It’s probably due for an update, see ‘Fixed’ items:
https://www.wptouch.com/changelog/
Zoe Phin
Your graphs have the surface temperature of 0 C but that is because the surface is warmed by the Sun. It would be much colder if there was no Sun. The geothermal energy flow to the surface through the soil is very small. I think it was well presented. I linked you to an actual calculator so you can use your own numbers and see the effect.
On the potential vs kinetic. You are still wrong on that one. Radiant energy is defined as kinetic since it is energy in motion. It does not have to hit anything at all and will still be energy.
You use a ball in your example. A ball moving through space has kinetic energy. It is moving. Potential energy is energy that is stored but nothing is moving. A boulder on the cliff edge has gravitational potential energy but not yet kinetic because it does not move. Changing the accepted scientific definitions of concepts does not make you wise, it makes you difficult to understand and nearly impossible to discuss ideas with since you have your own definitions of what things mean that no one else has.
When EM hits matter it does not convert to kinetic energy. It is gone, absorbed. The matter gains kinetic energy but the EM no longer exists, it has been converted to a different form of energy.
EM moving through space is considered kinetic energy and will remain such until it is absorbed by some matter and converted to another form of energy.
Norman, you are arguing with yourself, again.
“When EM hits matter it does not convert to kinetic energy. It is gone, absorbed. The matter gains kinetic energy but the EM no longer exists, it has been converted to a different form of energy.”
Typically, it is best to think before typing. Your problem is that you can’t think. You just start pounding on your keyboard, mindlessly.
https://search.google.com/test/mobile-friendly says:
– 13 page resources couldnt be loaded
Svante,
Thanks. The long comment I wrote to Norman just disappeared when I pressed publish.
I won’t be wasting my time twice. Sorry, Norman. Just the short version.
Norman,
“Your graphs have the surface temperature of 0 C but that is because the surface is warmed by the Sun. It would be much colder if there was no Sun. The geothermal energy flow to the surface through the soil is very small. I think it was well presented. I linked you to an actual calculator so you can use your own numbers and see the effect.”
This is incredible imbecility and reality denial.
Did your calculator include solar input? No.
If your calculator worked backwords, you would get 0C from your 0.15W/m^2 and other given parameters.
Such a planet without an atmosphere would emit 315 W/m^2 (0C), a value greater than solar input with current albedo.
You are such a fraud.
In regards to your other comments, you confuse EM waves searching for matter to entangle, and EM waves that have already found matter.
Objects do not drain their internal energy until they find another object to drain it to.
A ball moving can have both kinetic and potential energy, moron.
Zoe Phin
Why do you have this compulsion to make up your own physics (based upon nothing, supported by nothing) and then call people morons for no apparent reason.
Your idea on how EM works is based upon nothing. Observational evidence goes directly against your notions.
You have the Moon with actual surface temperatures.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/diviner_moon_temperatures.png
So when the Moon surface is not facing the Sun the temperature drops to very low levels. It is not finding another object to “drain” its energy to. There are no near objects yet is still gets cold.
I could give you good advice but it is not likely you will consider it. You need to really really study some actual physics instead of just making up unsupportable ideas.
Not sure what the source of your science ideas come from. You may have a vivid imagination and you think this is how things work. But if your ideas go against observation it would be a useful thing to consider that most likely your ideas are wrong.
bdgwx,
“What I am claiming and what has been experimentally confirmed ad-nauseam is that a thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there”
And the rate at which heat moves through that barrier will affect that steady state temp…
H20 moves heat through that barrier much more quickly than co2 and co2 more quickly than o2….
So if we replace o2 with co2 and h2o we will increase the rate at which the surface cools….
Phil J,
If we look at OLR, outgoing LW radiation, it appears to be lower in regions with the highest moisture content. You can see here over the equatorial Pacific.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/polr_c.gif
and those areas, in W Pacific, with lower OLR, have warmer SST.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstanim.shtml
nate…”If we look at OLR, outgoing LW radiation, it appears to be lower in regions with the highest moisture content.”
For your evidence, you point us to the NOAA ‘CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER’.
NOAA is in the business of rewriting the historical temperature record to reflect AGW theory. NOAA is unreliable, try again.
Total number of NOAA personnel worldwide: 12000.
NOAA scientists and engineers: 6773.
https://www.noaa.gov/experts
And a large percentage actually believes CO2 can raise the temperature of the surface!
Scary.
Defunding is the only solution, until “scientists” favor reality over agenda.
‘NOAA is in the business of rewriting the historical temperature record to reflect AGW theory. NOAA is unreliable, try again.’
They are in the business of monitoring and forecasting weather with satellites and reporting the data to the public.
I see no good reason to reject such data.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nate,
At the equator, vapour pressure pushes some h20 to higher altitudes where the air is cooler, so less IR is emitted there..
The vast majority of IR leaving the TOA comes from water in the upper troposphere/tropopause ..
Water cools the planet..
‘The vast majority of IR leaving the TOA comes from water in the upper troposphere/tropopause ..’
Not sure about that, CO2 gets more dominant as water vapor freezes’
“Water cools the planet..”
Only in the sense that it is one of the final molecules to release the heat to space, along with CO2, O3, etc.
Its like saying insulation cools my house.
Because the heat leaving my house warms the insulation, and the insulation carries that heat to the outer wall of the house.
Nate, please stop trolling.
JDHuffman
In response to your post above. I am glad you actually did some science. You are using this data to disprove GHE.
YOU: “The results from todays readings are interesting. (All temps in F.)
.SkyGround
8:32 am..40.676.2
1:20 pm3.0.86.4
8:17 pm..30.7.77.3
Morning and evening had cloud cover. Morning clouds were lower. 1:20 readings were with clear sky.
More funding needed for further research.”
You may want to slow down a bit and think it through. The air above your 86.4 F ground is much warmer than 3.0 F. So this should indicate to you that your device is not measuring the air temperature near the surface nor the IR emitted by this near surface air. So maybe you want to understand what you are getting.
IR thermometers are designed to work in atmospheric windows. You can detect the direct cloud temperature because it closes the atmospheric window. Water droplets emit IR in the 8-14 micron range. The windows are not perfect so you get some IR back to your sensor but it is not a meaningful reading and will not prove your claim of “no GHE”.
Norman’s ramble #1.
JDHuffman
Here is a link to the research you request. IR thermometers are intentionally designed to work in atmospheric windows.
https://tinyurl.com/yxel7x7o
From Link: “Transmission Path
As has been stated, a radiation thermometer can only measure what it sees. Smoke, steam
and solid objects in the sight path of the thermometer will reduce the infrared energy from the
target and should be avoided wherever possible.
The diagram below shows transmission of infrared through the atmosphere. As can be seen
there are certain wavelengths where transmission is very poor. In these regions Water Vapour
and CO 2 in the atmosphere absorb the infrared energy. The actual amount of ABS is
dependent on path length and meteorological conditions. It is important that thermomers do
not operate at wavelengths where there is an ABS band. Thermometers are usually
designed to operate in what is known as Infrared Windows, where the transmission is very
high. Such regions are 1m, 1.6m, 3.9m, 8-14m. It is common for thermometers to have
a filter in front of the detector to ensure the spectral response is matched to an Infrared Window.”
Norman’s ramble #2.
JDHuffman
Remain ignorant. That is a choice you make with a conscious effort. You have to really work hard to avoid the reality and evidence presented to you. You have to pretend I don’t understand the links (not sure what you are implying with this since you will not state what it is I do not understand, very vague assertions).
Links are exactly what an intelligent researcher would do. I could make up stuff like you, Zoe Phin, Gordon Robertson, DREMT. I prefer not to. That is the purpose of links. They are not my own conclusions or opinions. They are not science I am making up.
You should try it some time. Far more rewarding than making up unsupported points. You can call it rambling. Or you could look at the links. Others may learn from the links even if you don’t.
JDHuffman
I will help you. You need to learn definitions of words so you can use them properly.
Here is the definition of “ramble” for you.
“talk or write at length in a confused or inconsequential way.
“he rambled on about his acting career”
synonyms: chatter, babble, prattle, prate, blather, blether, gabble, jabber, twitter, go on, run on, rattle on/away, blither, maunder, drivel;”
Posting directly from a link is not part of the definition.
I will still avoid the insults. I will point out you are wrong. Your physics is bad. I have done research for you on IR thermometers. I have shown you why you read only 3 F when air is much warmer. You are free to reject real science, actual facts. Such behavior will not be beneficial to you.
I concur with that definition of “ramble”.
You definitely “talk or write at length in a confused or inconsequential way”.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
If not convinced here is another. There are more if you want to look for yourself.
https://www.lumasenseinc.com/uploads/Products/Technology_Overview/Technical_Literature_pdf/EN-Infrared-Thermometer_Handbook.pdf
“6.2 Atmospheric Window
The atmosphere is normally the medium through which
radiation must pass to reach the pyrometer. This is why
the spectral ranges of quality pyrometers are selected so
that the atmosphere will not influence the temperature
measurement. These ranges are called atmospheric
windows. In these windows there are no ABS bands
of water vapour and carbon dioxide in the air, so that
measurement errors caused by atmospheric humidity or
changes in measuring distance are definitely eliminated”
Note: I had to change the offending word (a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n to ABS to get the comment to post).
Norman’s ramble #3.
JDHuffman
Now explain, why do you consider #3 a “ramble”. What in this quoted material fits the definition of ramble? You should at least be coherent with the word choices.
Norman, you can never make a point. You just ramble.
JDHuffman
If you want to get a real reading of the DownWelling IR from the atmosphere you would need a device like the IR instrument in this link
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/instruments.html
The IR sensor itself is coated with a black paint to absorb as much IR as possible. The filter goes from 3.5 to 50 microns. It is not selective for only the atmosphere window as IR thermometers are.
If you would use a device similar to this one you would get readings similar to these. You don’t get the cold atmosphere reading at all you get a much warmer atmosphere when converting the flux to a temperature.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d0c33a18a6bc.png
Norman’s ramble #4.
Norman, if you had anything of value to offer, you wouldn’t have to use numerous links, that you don’t understand, over 4 separate comments.
You could make your point in less than 100 words.
Where I could then explain your errors so you could learn.
JDHuffman
It would be much better that you learn your own errors. There are zero errors on my part. I have offered you considerable value. Mostly quotes from actual manufacturers of IR thermometers.
I am sorry that the factual material is too difficult for you to process. You want to remain ignorant, that is your own choice.
You have been proven wrong. You will not accept this. Facts are not something you seem to like. Anyway your loss not mine.
Norman, I’m not sure if you have a science degree, but I can see you have a blind spot when it comes to engineering.
In engineering, non-contact temperature reading through thermography is a thing. However engineers are not climastrologists. Engineers know the difference between apparent and effective emissivity. Climastrologists don’t. (But climastrologists think the net effect of all atmospheric processes over the oceans is to warm the oceans, not cool them, so we can’t be too harsh).
Here’s the thing, an IR thermometer (AKA bolometer) can’t tell you what you need to understand. It averages a viewing circle. To understand, you need an IR camera. Drill some holes in sheet of 10mm plate steel. Heat the steel to an even 100C. Now look through the camera. The holes appear hotter. But measure them with a contact thermocouple and the holes only read 100C. If the emissivity setting of 0.7 on your bolometer gave a 100C reading for plain plate steel, you might need 0.8 after you drill a number holes to get a fair reading. After you drill the holes, the effective emissivity of the steel plate is still 0.7, but to the bolometer the apparent emissivity is 0.8.
To determine the effective, not apparent emissivity of the primary component of this planet’s surface you might need to be really good at simple empirical experiments:
http://i61.tinypic.com/24ozslk.jpg
But is you are a complete clutz how cannot be trusted with surfaces cryo cooled to -50C without losing your fingertips, try using the quantum cascade tunable LWIR laser and detector. Reflectivity is after all the corollary of emissivity. The LWIR laser can deliver such a precise frequency that LWIR emission from the lab background can be ignored. Yes, the equipment cost is higher, but for the scientifically illiterate AGW believer unfamiliar with the use of cyrogenic cooled holoraums, there less screaming.
Konrad
My degree is in Chemistry. I have been on the issue of Climate science for some time. I had been swayed by the material of the PSI group for a period. I came to this blog and Roy Spencer presented some interesting material. I decided to ignore made up blog science and start reading actual textbooks on heat transfer. It did awaken me to the reality that most skeptic blogs have really terrible science. Now some of these “skeptics” come here and try to sway people to accept the nonscience made up versions from the blogs (not textbooks).
I read your post but it has little to do with the measurement of DWIR. These readings are not trying to remotely measure the atmospheric temperature, they are getting a large IR band reading of the energy that is being sensed by a near black body sensing surface.
I have not read where actual scientists believe the atmosphere warms the oceans. This is the “skeptic” straw-man argument that is presented often and it seems impossible to correct.
The GHE point is one of two conditions. An atmosphere with GHG present and one without any GHG (maybe pure N2). The GHG returns energy to the surface that would not be available without such gases. People think the GHG cool the surface. NO! The surface would emit the same energy away based upon its temperature if it had GHG present or not. The amount of energy emitted is a function of surface temperature. The GHG return energy to the surface so of all the energy that was emitted from the surface, some will return and this raises the temperature of the solar heated surface above what it would be without this energy return.
If you are skeptical E. Swanson did a test to show this is the case. He is an engineer so you would have much in common.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Norman says: “My degree is in Chemistry.”
Norman, why don’t you tell the WHOLE truth?
Your degree is a “Bachelor of ARTS”, not “science”. You have never had a course in thermodynamics or heat transfer. All of your science training is at a very low level. The college you attended doesn’t even offer such a weak degree any longer.
You have no meaningful technical background. You don’t understand the links you find. You get frustated when someone corrects you. Then, you lash out with insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
Nothing new.
“Heat the steel to an even 100C. Now look through the camera. The holes appear hotter. But measure them with a contact thermocouple and the holes only read 100C.”
Because the holes you drilled are radiating to themselves where Planck radiation principles (in the camera) are restricted to objects that don’t radiate to themselves. Use the camera according to its instruction manual and you will obtain useful comparable thermocouple results within the CI of the camera & thermocouple.
‘Your degree is a yada yada’
Ludicrous for someone like JD, who makes so many erroneous science comments, cannot solve a basic heat transfer problem, thinks a black body can be a perfect reflector, thinks the radiative heat transfer law is BOGUS, fails to understand angular momentum, gets the 1LOT, 2LOT, and entropy so horribly wrong……
for that guy to attack someones science credentials.
OMG.
Nate is incoherently delusional.
The meltdown continues.
Funny how your comments describe yourself so well.
Yes, it’s called “projection”, and Nate does it quite well.
Norman says: June 21, 2019 at 5:00 AM
For the record, I have nothing to do with the so called PSI group. Also Joe Postma irritates me. He’s right that the true diurnal cycle of solar illumination must be used in modelling surface Tav without radiative atmosphere, but he has no idea why.
As to the greenhouse effect experiment you linked, sorry, I was not born yesterday. Here’s my build diagrams for a cleaner version:
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
You can even model this in a multi-physics FEA/CFD program. Because of the additional radiative layer in block A, the target plate runs hotter for the same illumination. Yay! The radiative greenhouse effect! Now try it without the vacuum line. Doesn’t work so well does it?
I wanted to believe the AGW conjecture. I have a personal hate. The car. I call them petrol burning ego boxes. But much as I wanted to believe, I came to realise that any curtailment of our reckless use of hydrocarbon fuels was worse than worthless if it meant abandoning our greatest tool: the scientific method.
There are no little white lies in science. If the AGW conjecture stands, then science, reason, freedom and democracy must fall.
Norman, the simple reason the surface of our planet runs hotter than a near blackbody 1AU from the sun is that the surface of our planet is an extreme SW selective surface not a near blackbody.
I quite like the host of this site. Dr Spencer is an empiricist. Can you match Dr Spencer, Norman? Will you personally build and run an experiment? Or is it just going to be click, link, cut and paste?
I can give you a simple one to start with:
http://oi62.tinypic.com/zn7a4y.jpg
(that one will tell you where Joseph Fourier went of the rails in 1824)
Ball4 says: June 21, 2019 at 7:53 AM
Because the holes you drilled are radiating to themselves
Did I mention you were no good at this game fluffball?
Yes of course they are radiating to themselves, and because their emissivity 0, their apparent emissivity is higher than the true effective emissivity of the plate steel.
All the links offered by AGW believers for emissivity of the surface of this ocean planet are actually figures for apparent emissivity. Hemispherical effective emissivity for liquid water is 0.67.
Now everyone take out their quantum cascade LWIR laser, a circle of paper and a safety crayon …
that originally read:
“and because their LWIR emissivity is less than 1 and their LWIR reflectivity is greater 0, their apparent emissivity is higher than the true effective emissivity of the plate steel.”
(Question: does Dr. Spencer’s blog-filter/text-mangle drive anyone else crazy?)
Norman claims: “There are zero errors on my part.”
Norman, I’ll be glad to find all of your errors, if you will agree to not comment on this blog for 30 days, for each error.
For example, I find 3 errors, you don’t comment for 90 days.
Do you agree?
Here’s this morning’s results:
Very overcast sky, low clouds. Sun not up yet.
Directly overhead –> 46.3 °F
Ground –> 80.4 °F
Another day with the surface warming the atmosphere.
Just some more facts for the clowns to deny.
(They hate facts.)
Just another day JD proves the GHE with actual outdoors measurements. Good job JD, no bogus cartoons used.
fluffball, if your cat has kittens, to you that proves the GHE.
If your cat doesn’t have kittens, to you that proves the GHE.
If you don’t even have a cat, to you that proves the GHE.
That’s the advantage of being clueless. In your head, you’re always right.
Nothing new….
Actually JD you prove the GHE exists in your outdoors instrumental observation “Directly overhead > 46.3F” thanks for the good work confirming Dr. Spencer’s top post is accurate; more real observations of nature, please, but don’t stop your bogus cartoons as they are so knee slapping funny.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
I think this applies better to Zoe. See next 3 comments.
…and, almost immediately, Nate responds to me yet again…
Norman is very dumb.
The image you showed me is for one latitude.
“So when the Moon surface is not facing the Sun the temperature drops to very low levels. It is not finding another object to drain its energy to. There are no near objects yet is still gets cold.”
What is wrong with you?
Thermal energy can go inward, outward (from center), and sideways.
The average temperature of the moon is exactly what you’d expect it to be given solar and geothermal (moonthermal? lol) inputs.
The moon is in thermal equilibrium, or close enough for our discussion.
The moon is not sending heat to space, except the monitoring satellite, which is puny.
Sorry Norman, but your post was even dumber than I initially thought.
“So when the Moon surface is not facing the Sun the temperature drops to very low levels. It is not finding another object to drain its energy to. There are no near objects yet is still gets cold.”
The sun warms the moon.
The moon rotates.
The sun rays are leaving some molecules and finding “new” molecules to “drain” energy to. Do you not understand rotation?
The moon doesn’t get cold because its emitting to space, it gets cold because the sun doesn’t shine.
This is so obvious.
ZP said…”The moon rotates.”
I agree.
Me too, what does JDHuffman, DREMT, Gordon, and gbaikie think?
Well I don’t know about the others but I think you are an immature, uneducated troll.
You believe a racehorse is rotating about its center go gravity, as does backdoor guy.
That makes you both “stuck on stupid”.
Nothing new.
“center of gravity”
Yes, you have told the rest of us, but Zoe Phin apparently missed it. Tell him about your toy train.
Tuut Tuut.
Svante, unlike you, Zoe has demonstrated the capacity to think.
Thinking independently is a common trait of scientists. You should be quiet, observe, and try to learn.
That would be something new…..
Sure, the moon “rotates”, or “pivots”, or “orbits” about the Earth/moon barycenter, but not on its own axis. Just as per the rectangle on Page 4 of 28, Fig. 2(b), which “rotates” or “pivots” or “orbits” about point O, but not on its own axis. Just substitute the connecting rod with gravity (and no, nobody is saying gravity holds an object rigidly so that it is unable to rotate on its own axis, it is just a simplification to get the idea across).
http://www.mvsrec.edu.in/images/mech_new/DrMM-Notes/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
It’s a distinction that’s so simple, and at so fundamental a level, that it’s missed, precisely because everyone assumes something so simple and at so fundamental a level could not possibly have been missed. So, when confronted by reality, the mind reels, finding multiple excuses to reject the idea. Those excuses get more complicated the more educated in astronomy the person is. Making astronomers the least likely to be able to accept it of all.
Every single possible objection has been raised, and countered, multiple times by now.
‘the more educated in astronomy the person is’
I know. Being educated in a hard science? What a waste of time.
Why bother, when you’ve got the internet and your own gut instincts!
‘Every single possible objection has been raised, and countered, multiple times by now.’
Perhaps as well as rebooting your POV, you could summarize the objections, and the counterarguments that were given to these?
Perhaps I will do as I please, stalker.
I just think it would be rather revealing to see what you remember of the counterarguments, and how you think they were rebutted.
Because many other people disagree with your summary of the situation.
OK, Nate.
Our Moon orbits the Earth-Moon barycenter.
If the Moon and Earth were the same mass, the barycenter would halfway between the Earth and Moon. But the Moon is about 1/80th of the Earth mass, so it’s closer to Earth, wiki:
“If one of two orbiting bodies is much more massive than the other and the bodies are relatively close to one another, the barycenter will typically be located within the more massive object. In this case, rather than the two bodies appearing to orbit a point between them, the less massive body will appear to orbit about the more massive body, while the more massive body might be observed to wobble slightly. This is the case for the Earth–Moon system, in which the barycenter is located on average 4,671 km (2,902 mi) from Earth’s center, 75% of Earth’s radius of 6,378 km (3,963 mi)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
The Moon orbits Earth or more precisely the barycenter which is within, and orbits with orbital inclination of 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic [which is Earth’s orbital inclination to the Sun which regarded to be 0.0 degrees.
Btw, Mercury’s angle to the ecliptic is 7 degrees. Venus is 3.39 degrees. Mars is 1.850 degrees.
And Jupiter is 1.304 degrees.
So in a line between the Earth and the Sun, Moon orbit goes 5.145 above and below this Line. And of course, the Moon crosses this line between Sun and Earth, and when Moon crosses line when the Moon is in it’s New Phase [or opposite of Full Moon] you get a total eclipse of the sun. And when crosses the line when the Moon is Full, you get a Lunar eclipse.
The Moon has an orbit eccentricity of 0.0549
Which means orbits at different distances from Earth
The near distance is called the perigee which is about:
363,300 km
And the Apogee {furthest distance} is about:
405,500 km
With the Sun Earth’s orbit eccentricity is 0.0167
Perihelion [meaning closest distance to Sun] is:
147.09 million km
Aphelion is:
152.10 million km
The Moon also varies it’s distance from Sun the same as Earth does.
The Moon has axis tilt to the Sun which is called:
Obliquity to orbit (deg) 6.68
“In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an object’s rotational axis and its orbital axis, or, equivalently, the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt
So 6.68 – it’s orbital inclination with Earth: 5.145 = 1.535 degrees.
Or every month it varies by 5.145 degrees relative to Sun or Earth
because of it’s inclination of it’s orbit around Earth and every year it’s varies 1.535 degrees to Sun or Earth because it’s axis tilt is 1.535- appears to swing back and forth over a year period.
‘In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an objects rotational axis and its orbital axis’
It seems to me that in order for an object in space to have a rotational axis, it has to be rotating.
Yes?
–Nate says:
June 23, 2019 at 5:46 AM
In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an objects rotational axis and its orbital axis
It seems to me that in order for an object in space to have a rotational axis, it has to be rotating.
Yes?–
Yes, it seems that way.
But where is the rotational axis?
With Moon’s 5.145 degree inclination orbit of Earth, it seems
the rotational axis is at Earth-Moon barycenter.
And perhaps Earth also has rotational axis at the Earth-Moon barycenter {but perhaps it’s not particularly useful or true- Earth could appear to wobble, but we don’t like to think of wobbling as “turning” or in orbit}.
Or it’s not a rotational axis it’s more of an orbital axis [which I don’t even think is a term used by anyone. Try googling it.
Oh, apparently it is:
“Earths orbital axis is defined by a coordinate system in which the z-axis (up) is out of the north pole of Sol and the x & y axes are defined on the plane of Earths ecliptic, that is, the plane it describes in it journey around Sol. Therefore, our orbital axis is right in the middle of the Sun.
In general, an orbital axis is what an object revolves around.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-orbital-axis
So if you think Earth has orbital axis at the Sun, you might also think it also has one at the Earth Moon barycenter. But there is no question about the Moon’s orbital axis being at Earth Moon barycenter and Moon also having an orbital axis at the Sun.
In regards to Moon’s barycenter at the Sun, the angle of tilt is 1.5 degrees, and in regards to Earth Moon barycenter the tilt of that axis of the Moon is 5.145 degrees.
‘But where is the rotational axis?
With Moon’s 5.145 degree inclination orbit of Earth, it seems
the rotational axis is at Earth-Moon barycenter.’
Well, orbital axis and rotational axis are two different parameters.
“Axial tilt is the angle between the planet’s rotational axis and its orbital axis. A planet’s orbital axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic or orbital plane, the thin disk surrounding the sun and extending to the edge of the solar system.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/axis/
So again, how can a rotational axis be defined, without rotation?
–Nate says:
June 24, 2019 at 7:44 AM
But where is the rotational axis?
With Moon 5.145 degree inclination orbit of Earth, it seems
the rotational axis is at Earth-Moon barycenter.
Well, orbital axis and rotational axis are two different parameters.–
Sure. And they both will have angle of their axis.
Or you don’t have an axis without it having a angle.
Or could say an axis is a line. And line will have some angle to other lines.
We have drawn a line of Earth to the Sun, it is called a zero degree line, it is called “the ecliptic”. And if have axis [another line] it has to have angle to that line, the ecliptic.
Axial tilt is the angle between the planets rotational axis and its orbital axis.”
So Earth’s orbital axis is the “the ecliptic”, Earth’s rotational axis is about 23.5 degrees.
Mars orbital axis is 1.85 degrees to the ecliptic [Earth’s orbital axis].
Mars rotational axis is 25.19 degrees to Mars orbital axis.
“A planets orbital axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic or orbital plane, the thin disk surrounding the sun and extending to the edge of the solar system.
Earth orbital axis is perpendicular to it’s orbital plane.
Any body in solar system will have it’s orbital axis perpendicular
to it’s orbital plane. The orbital axis is “found” in the barycenter of object and the sun’s mass. With Jupiter, it’s large mass and far distance from the sun, the barycenter is not within the Sun, but with small planets like Earth, the barycenter in within the Sun.
Since we decided Earth is zero degree tilt, Mars is 1.85 degrees away from perpendicular. But if we were Martian then it would zero, and Earth would be 1.85 degrees away from perpendicular- because one needs a zero [or baseline] to map everything.
“So Earths orbital axis is the ‘the ecliptic’, Earths rotational axis is about 23.5 degrees.
Mars orbital axis is 1.85 degrees to the ecliptic [Earths orbital axis].
Mars rotational axis is 25.19 degrees to Mars orbital axis.”
Moon’s orbital axis is 5.14 degrees to the ecliptic
Moon’s rotational axis 6.687 degrees to Moon’s orbital axis.
So, I am confused why you treat Moon’s rotational axis differently from Mars’ and Earth’s, and say:
“it seems the rotational axis is at Earth-Moon barycenter.”
Makes no sense to me.
–Moon’s orbital axis is 5.14 degrees to the ecliptic
Moon’s rotational axis 6.687 degrees to Moon’s orbital axis.
So, I am confused why you treat Moon’s rotational axis differently from Mars’ and Earth’s, and say:
“it seems the rotational axis is at Earth-Moon barycenter.”
Makes no sense to me.–
The Moon has rotational axis with Earth and a rotational axis with the Sun.
But I think it is more correct to say orbital axis: Moon has orbital axis with Earth and orbital axis with the Sun.
The tilt of orbital axis at Earth-Moon barycenter is 5.14 degrees
and the tilt at Sun-Moon barycenter is… actually not sure… I guess it’s about same as Earth’s, or near zero degrees. Or at that distance both Earth and Moon could regarded as a point in terms of gravity.
Or to make thing simple when it long distance, Earth’s gravity is regarded as a point. Anyhow, the Moon is tilted about 1.5 degrees to the sun.
So at Earth/Moon distance, the Moon is 6.687 degrees variance to very slightly fuzzy point on the sun [actually in the sun].
Anyhow if you wish to use term, rotational axis, the Moon has two, and if want more confusion, Earth also has two rotational axis like the Moon does.
Anyhow you right the Moon, like Earth and Mars, has rotational or orbital axis with the Sun.
But I should point out that the argument or fight is about whether the Moon spins on it’s axis.
And if you want to join the battle.
First, where is this axis it’s spinning on, what angle is it: such as, 5.14, 1.5 or 6.687 degrees.
And how long does it take to spin one time?
I think Moon is orbiting Earth and Sun and it’s not spinning on it’s 1.5 degree axis- and the Moon is tidally locked with Earth. And Moon wobbles/sways back and forth, and this as seen from Earth is called libration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
All of these objects have 2 axes. An orbital axis, and a rotational axis.
To describe their motions properly requires both.
There is no question that there earth is rotating about an axis, tilted at 23
5 degrees. And we know where that axis is by looking at the stars. That is how polar explorers knew they had found the poles.
Same can be said for Moon.
–Nate says:
June 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM
All of these objects have 2 axes. An orbital axis, and a rotational axis.–
Just because all large planet size objects in inner solar system have 2 such axes doesn’t mean some law is governing it.
“There is no question that the earth is rotating about an axis, tilted at 23.5 degrees.”
But not for long.
Mars:
“Astronomers know that the current tilt of Mars axis is just a fluke. Unlike Earth, the planets tilt has changed dramatically over long periods of time. In fact, astronomers think that the wobble in the tilt might help explain why vast underground reservoirs of water ice have been found at mid-latitudes, and not just around the planets poles. Its possible that in the distant past, Mars was tilted at a much more extreme angle, and the ice caps were able to grow across the planet.”
https://www.universetoday.com/14894/mars-tilt/
They also say:
“The surface of the planet Mars tilted by 20 to 25 degrees 3 to 3.5 billion years ago. This was caused by a massive volcanic structure, the Tharsis volcanic dome, which is the largest in the Solar System. Because of its extraordinary mass, it caused the outer layers of Mars (its crust and mantle) to rotate around its core. The discovery of this huge shift changes our vision of Mars during the first billion years of its history, at a time when life may have emerged. It also provides a solution to three puzzles: we now know why rivers formed where they are observed today; why underground reservoirs of water ice, until now considered anomalous, are located far from the poles of Mars; and why the Tharsis dome is today situated on the equator.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160302132609.htm
What do say changes Earth tilt:
“Today, the Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php
Earth changes like a clock changes, but then there is more:
” Scientists have been recording the drift in that direction since about 1899 or so. But between 1999 and 2001, they started to see the Earths axis move in a new direction. That new direction can only be explained by the lost ice mass of Greenland, Ivins says.”
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-04/melting-ice-causing-earths-axis-shift-direction
Three reasons:
Using observational and model-based data spanning the entire 20th century, NASA scientists have for the first time identified three broadly-categorized processes responsible for this drift — contemporary mass loss primarily in Greenland, glacial rebound, and mantle convection.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2805/scientists-id-three-causes-of-earths-spin-axis-drift/
I guess Mars is safe for moment, as it doesn’t a Greenland, nor glacial rebound, nor plate tectonic activity.
Gbaike,
All that is interesting, but really not relevant to whether the Moon has an axis of rotation, and therefore must be rotating.
As I said, all the planetary objects we discussed have two axes, which point in different directions. The orbital axis and the rotational axis.
The difference in direction is quantified by the ‘ axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an objects rotational axis and its orbital axis’
The Moon has an axial tilt of 6.68 degrees. This is a significant tilt of the rotational axis away from the orbital axis.
I don’t understand how anyone can think that the MOON is simply orbiting, and does not rotate on its own axis, when it very clearly has a well defined rotational axis! One that is tilted by 6.68 degrees from its orbit?!
There is no way to DEFINE a rotational axis of a non-rotating sphere.
–Nate says:
June 25, 2019 at 8:08 AM
Gbaike,
All that is interesting, but really not relevant to whether the Moon has an axis of rotation, and therefore must be rotating.
As I said, all the planetary objects we discussed have two axes, which point in different directions. The orbital axis and the rotational axis.–
I would say all planets of inner solar system have one orbital axis and a rotational axis. And our Moon has two orbital axis.
But if want to quibble about it, you could say Earth has two orbital axis and one rotational axis.
This might be particularly appealing to those who like to think Earth is unique.
–The difference in direction is quantified by the ‘ axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an objects rotational axis and its orbital axis’–
The quote was:
“In astronomy, axial tilt, also known as obliquity, is the angle between an object’s rotational axis and its orbital axis, or, equivalently, the angle between its equatorial plane and orbital plane.”
You missed the “, or, equivalently,…” bit. Which would apply to moons.
–The Moon has an axial tilt of 6.68 degrees. This is a significant tilt of the rotational axis away from the orbital axis.”
No it doesn’t, it has obliquity of 6.68 degrees.
The axis tilt of the Moon is about 1.5 degrees.
But the Moon does shift by about 6.68 degrees- every year due to combination of orbital angle, relative to Earth of 5.145 degrees plus it’s yearly shift of about 1.5 degrees relative to the Sun- or the travel time of one year.
–I don’t understand how anyone can think that the MOON is simply orbiting, and does not rotate on its own axis, when it very clearly has a well defined rotational axis! One that is tilted by 6.68 degrees from its orbit?!
There is no way to DEFINE a rotational axis of a non-rotating sphere.–
I think I defined it and describe it.
Gbaike,
” ‘The Moon has an axial tilt of 6.68 degrees. This is a significant tilt of the rotational axis away from the orbital axis.’
No it doesnt, it has obliquity of 6.68 degrees.”
Obliquity IS the angle between rotational and orbital axes.
No, neither the Earth or Moon have 2 orbital axes.
That is something you have invented.
Norman is a moron.
“The GHG returns energy to the surface that would not be available without such gases.”
Photons of same frequency travelling toward Earth will have destructive interference with photons travelling to CO2.
The frequency will go to 0 (on AVERAGE), and since E=hf, E = 0.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/5gEe8.gif
This can be explained simpler:
Earth cools to send radiation
CO2 cools to send radiation.
There can’t be any backwarming from a downstream event (Earth to CO2)
The best you can argue is that CO2 keeps temperature (slightly less wrong), but it certainly doesn’t cause adding.
As the clouds clear, the sky reading drops.
5:07 am, heavy clouds, no Sun
Overhead –> 46.3 °F ——- Ground –> 80.4 °F
10:30 am, clouds clearing, Sun blazing
Overhead –> 13.2 °F ——- Ground –> 86.3 °F
Sky reading drops about 33 degrees F, yet ground temp increases 6 degrees.
The GHE is bogus. AGW is a hoax.
Nothing new.
With heavy clouds higher brightness temperature (46.3F), clouds clearing lower bightness temperatue (13.2F) again proves the GHE observationally, good instrumental results JD.
More thanks for reporting this, good work confirming Dr. Spencer’s top post is accurate; more real observations of nature, please, but don’t stop your bogus cartoons as they are so knee slapping funny.
fluffball doesn’t even understand his own pseudoscience.
Nothiing new.
Yes, as warming would violate first law and second law.
In simple terms Earth average temperature is about 5 C. During daytime it warms up, and during night returns to average of 5 C.
Earth average temperature is not created in a day. It does cool down in mere 24 hours or warm up in mere 24 hours.
Earth average temperature takes centuries to warm or cool by 1 C.
Or a month’s average temperature does not mean much in terms of global temperature, it is weather.
Less than 30 years you mean?
Some people say it requires at least 30 years, other say 17 year is minimal amount of time to measure global temperature.
I agree them only in the sense it takes a long time to measure global temperature.
Which is inconvenient if you in hurry to make money selling a scare book.
The critical aspect regarding global temperature is the average volume temperature of the entire ocean. Which is currently about 3.5 C.
Having a ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C, means we are living in an Ice Age.
If ocean had average temperature of 10 C, than that means you are not living in an Ice Age.
If average ocean temperature is 15 C or warmer, it means you living in a hothouse or greenhouse global climate.
Last time Earth was in a hothouse climate was millions of years ago.
We in Ice Age due to geological processes, which were unknown when the idea of a “greenhouse effect” affecting global temperature was put forward as idea.
Then a panel of nobodies scratch down their limited knowledge and called it the Greenhouse effect hypotheses, which was later called a theory because that sounded better.
The main value of it, was is simple enough for all idiots of the masses to understand.
The “theory” does not even mention geological process and solely view a world control by atmospheric factors.
No one can seriously defend it, and it’s preached governmental funded educational institution as the gospel.
This theory can be found in Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
“The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 C (59 F) below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 C (57 F). The greenhouse effect is the contribution of greenhouse gases to this difference.”
And:
” By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:
water vapor, 3670%
carbon dioxide, 926%
methane, 49%
ozone, 37% ”
So 36% of 33 K is 11.88 C and 70% is 23.1 C
So water vapor is suppose to warm earth somewhere in the range of
11.8 to 23 C.
And CO2:
9% = 2.97 K and 26% = 8.58 K
And after more than 50 years and with trillion dollar industry connected to this lameness, no one has given a more precise indication of these “warming effects” of greenhouse gases.
Or at say, at 300 ppm of CO2, this concentration is suppose to cause somewhere between 2.97 to 8.5 C.
Some believers of this, think CO2 actually causes all of the 33 K of warming because CO2 alone allows the main greenhouse gas of water vapor [which warms somewhere within range of 11.8 to 23 C at current levels of global water vapor] to exist in Earth’s atmosphere.
I’m really sorry that I can’t post in the proper thread, but I can’t post in the proper thread.
Can anyone CORRECTLY explain how the green plate demo:
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Gets to that result?
Hard to say, because Swanson is notoriously unforthcoming with the details. He hasn’t given any details of the fluxes involved, and has been slippery with some of the details concerning the actual materials used. I suggested it could be an insulative effect, which met with extreme resistance from the usual suspects here.
The metal used in the plates is a type of anodized architectural aluminium, which has been painted black. Swanson claims the emissivity has been measured at something like 0.96, not leaving much room for insulation via reflectivity. I suggested that the thermal resistance of the material could come into it, as I had read that anodized aluminium is not a good conductor of heat.
Aluminum -73 C 237 (W/m K)
Aluminum:
0 C 236 (W/m K)
127 C 240
Aluminum – Duralumin (94-96% Al, 3-5% Cu, trace Mg) 20 C 164
Aluminum – Silumin (87% Al, 13% Si) 20 C 164 (W/m K)
Copper -73 C 413 (W/m K)
Copper:
0 C 401 (W/m K)
127 C 392 (W/m K)
Iron
-73 94 (W/m K)
0 C 83.5 (W/m K)
Iron – Cast 20 C 52 (W/m K)
Silver:
-73 C 403 W/m K)
0 C 428
127 C 420
Steel – Carbon, 0.5% 20 C 54 (W/m K)
Steel – Carbon, 1% 20 C 43 (W/m K)
Steel – Carbon, 1.5% 20 C 36
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html
[[Hmm I always thought silver was significantly better than copper.
Aluminum is much better than Iron or steel]]
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“I suggested that the thermal resistance of the material could come into it”
It will make the near side warmer, but it can still only affect the other plate through back radiation.
The clue is in the name, really. “Thermal resistance”, i.e a resistance to heat flow through the plate. Nothing to do with back-radiation.
How can that influence the temperature of the warmer plate through vaccuum?
How can it not?
Indeed, it must be by radiation from cold to warm.
“OK, Svante”.
zoe…”Can anyone CORRECTLY explain how the green plate demo:
Gets to that result?”
The explanation was given a while back. With the GP out of the way, the BP establishes a temperature with its heat gain = heat loss. With the GP in place, it blocks radiation from the BP causing the BP to rise in temperature due to its inability to radiate EM and cool.
Swannie thinks he has discovered a way around the 2nd law by having the GP back-radiate EM to the BP (the BP’s own radiation) hence warming the BP. I tried to explain that explanation contradicts the 2nd law and represents perpetual motion as a recycling of heat to warm the body that is the heat source.
–Gordon Robertson says:
June 22, 2019 at 12:04 AM
zoe…”Can anyone CORRECTLY explain how the green plate demo:
Gets to that result?”
The explanation was given a while back. With the GP out of the way, the BP establishes a temperature with its heat gain = heat loss. With the GP in place, it blocks radiation from the BP causing the BP to rise in temperature due to its inability to radiate EM and cool.—
Yes, the GP is acting as insulation.
If you have double pane glass window, in warm room the interior pane
will warmer as compared to window with only single pane.
In cold room [warmer outside- you have AC going] the interior pane will be cooler as compared to if you had only single pane windows.
If have plate in space and it’s facing the sunlight, the plate will be warmer if the backside of the plate is insulated.
The lunar surface is like a plate with backside insulated. And when sun is near zenith the lunar surface is about 120 C.
You have different plates with different surfaces and have facing the sun in the vacuum of space. And have backside of plate insulated. And they can have different temperatures. And the different temperature would be the equilibrium temperatures of those different surface of the plate.
If you had the ideal thermal conductive blackbody sphere replace the Moon, instead of zenith sun heating surface to about 120 C, it would heat the surface to about 5 C. Because heat would ideally conducted to the entire surface of the sphere.
If you had ideal thermal conductive cube rather than a sphere, the cube would radiate to five times the surface area: Cube has 6 sides, and one is in the sunlight.
If had tall box: 2 high and 1 by 1, then it will have 5 + 4 or 9 times the surface area has the 1 by 1 area facing the sun.
And if tall box has the 1 by 2 side facing the sun, it will have twice area receiving the sunlight and less area radiating the IR radiation.
And four sided pyramid has 3 sides which radiate, and as rough guess the sphere has 4 sides. It certainly more ratio of surface area as compared to pyramid and less than cube. And you have the simple aspect of the disk area being one 1/4 of total surface area of sphere. But one should keep in mind the ideal thermal conductive sphere is an approximation. One could also say sphere is like a cube, when 3 of it’s 6 sides is facing the sun [as both have half of it’s surface facing the sun, likewise one could ask if pyramid had 3 of it’s 4 sides facing the sun, would be warmer or cooler as compare to 1 side directly facing the sun, and 3 in the shade- I would say with normal material 1 side facing the sun
should be warmer, but with magical material, perhaps not.]
“…global warming will produce between 19 and 63 inches of sea level rise around the globe. Climate scientists at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks fear these effects will become evident over the next 200 years.”
Afraid of 19″ in 200 years?
“Afraid of 19″ in 200 years?”
Much more fightening is the fear induced mass hysteria that ‘climate crisis’ propoganda is creating.
Violence is sure to ensue…
phil…”Much more fightening is the fear induced mass hysteria that climate crisis propoganda is creating.
Violence is sure to ensue”
That’s if the eco-weenies don’t destroy the planet with their proposed solutions to a non-existent problem.
DREMT,
The green hoax experiment is a sneaky fraud. The answer is much simpler.
Take a look at photo 1, then photo 2. Look at the steel/lead pipe they use to lift green plate.
It’s well within Blue plate’s view factor!
The Blue Plate is heating the pipe! (higher heat capacity)
Then they yank the pipe down, and the heat capacity goes down … heating the Blue plate.
Blue emits in a radial hemisphere, and if you look at photo 1, you can easily eyeball the pipe taking up ~10% of Blue’s hemispheric view factor.
The pipe is “holding down” Blue’s temperature.
Then they bring green plate in … that is, they remove the pipe – and Blue heats up like 10% more. Amazing!
Experiment is a fraud.
zoe…”Experiment is a fraud”.
The atrociosu thought experiment comes initially from Eli Rabbett, a chemistry professor who cannot present his science using his real name, Josh Halpern.
Rabbett/Halpern has already been told by Gerlich & Tscheuschner that the 2nd law is about heat and not about a summation of EM and heat. G&T pointed out that if summation of heat is required you must sum quantities of heat, not a mixture of EM and heat as a mysterious net energy balance.
When G&T explained that the 2nd law requires heat be transferred hot to cold by radiation between bodies, Halpern et al replied that would mean one body was not radiating.
Doh!!!
How these people (Halpern et al) get degrees not only confuses me, it scares me. Now we have swannie and his ally Norman supporting Halpern while murdering the 2nd law.
I’m an ally too, and the 2nd law is fine.
Svante, you’re a clown, with no understanding of 2LoT.
3 plates before separation: 244 K…244 K…244 K, Energy flow = 400 J/sec
3 plates after separation: 244 K…290 K…244 K, Energy flow = 400 J/sec
Enthalpy increases, entropy decreases, with no change in energy. That clearly violates the laws.
JDHuffman says: “no change in energy”.
You add 400 J/s but the centre plate zero loss at the outset.
That’s where the temp increase comes from.
Learn some physics, Svante, unlike your namesake.
Pathetic effort JD, blue berries in the sky made more sense.
“You add 400 J/s…”
…from the electrical supply to the blue plate, and at 244 K…244 K…244 K, 400 J/s is leaving from the green plates to space.
Anything makes sense to you clown, except reality.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
That’s right, initially:
1) There is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature.
2) The middle plate gains 400 J/s and must warm.
3) Outer plates lose 400 J/s and must cool.
1) There is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature.
2) The middle plate has always been receiving 400 J/s, and losing 400 J/s. Temperature remains the same.
3) Green plates have always been receiving 400 J/s, and losing 400 J/s. Temperature remains the same.
1) Good we agree.
2) The middle plate has no net energy loss to green, would violate 1).
3) Consequently green plates have no net gain, just an outward loss.
2.5 Plates separated. Ignore any HUGE differences in conductivity between vacuum and metal. They dont matter!
4. Forget I said #1. There is net energy flow between plates at the same temperature!
5. Get totally confused and argue with myself.
6. Rinse and repeat as if nothing ever happended
“2) The middle plate has no net energy loss to green, would violate 1).“
I didn’t say it had net energy loss. Try again.
DREMT: “This all started because I said there could be energy flowing through a system at equilibrium. You demanded that I explain what that energy was.”
JD: “No heat, but there can be net energy flow, as in the three plates in full contact, or in the correct solution:”
I’ve explained it my way, JD explains it his.
Once again, the validity of alternative solutions have no bearing on the debunk of your solution.
Nate and Svante are so desperate.
That’s what happens when they deny reality.
‘I’ve explained it my way, JD explains it his.’
This meets the EFSMI standard for grade A bullshit.
http://www.efsmi.org/
I’m sorry you seem to be losing it so much these days. Maybe take a 90 day break from commenting?
‘1) There is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature.’
or
“This all started because I said there could be energy flowing through a system at equilibrium. You demanded that I explain what that energy was.”
Not clear what which one of you is right?
120 days?
DREMT won’t admit he’s conflicted.
There is a plot hole in this story.
Does he now agree with regular physics, that ‘There is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature’, or will he revert back to the magical mystery flow of energy thru plates at the same temperature?
Everything has already been explained, stalker.
Arguin with myself, oh, oh, oh.
Arguin with myself, oh, oh, oh.
When you’re done singin that song we’ll see which side you take next time you bring it up to bait us again.
Guaranteed to happen…
As I already taught you upthread, stalker, there are only two directions for energy to flow – regardless of “NET”. Energy can flow from the electrical supply to the blue plate, from the blue plate through the green plates, and from the green plates to space.
That is one direction.
Or, energy could flow from space to the green plates, through the green plates to the blue plate, convert itself from EMR back to electrical energy, and then head back down the wire from the blue plate.
That is the other direction, which is obviously physically impossible. As you have already agreed, no energy can flow that way.
So you can have the plates all at the same temperature, at equilibrium, and EMR can flow back and forth between the plates…but it can’t convert itself back to electrical energy and head back down that wire from the blue plate at any point. So, ultimately, regardless of “NET”, the energy is always going to be heading in one direction.
If this still confuses you, try considering the green plates to be infinitesimally cooler than the blue plate. This is just so you can understand how energy still flows through a system at equilibrium. Personally I get it just fine without the infinitesimal difference, but it can be tricky for the brain-washed, or for those determined to dishonestly distort reality for whatever reason.
“one direction” of energy flow which is determined purely by the temperature gradient. The temperature gradient is what determines which way is ‘downhill’.
The temperature gradient occurs because one object is being heated and the surroundings are cold.
This is a basic fact of heat transfer problems, as you already said you fully understood. Yes?
The problem arises when you arbitrarily insist there is no temperature gradient.
In that case, there can be no energy flow.
Nate eternally conflates heat flow with energy flow.
We all agree that:
1) There is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature.
How can your “infinitesimal” temperature difference push 400 W from blue to green?
Physical formula and math please.
Poor Svante has got himself all confused.
Formula and math please.
The radiative heat flow equation comes to zero with plates at the same temperature, since emissivity and view factors are 1.
OK, Svante?
That’s OK, thank you.
What happens to the blue if it has 400W input and no output?
You seem to be overly concerned about some “rogue” 400 W…but the only equations you can really use in this scenario are coming up with a big fat zero on this case. I’m really not sure how I can alleviate your confusion, Svante. What are you failing to comprehend? How can I improve you today?
a) You have 400W electrical input to blue plate, right?
b) And no output from blue plate to green plates, right?
c) Blue plate will get warmer, right?
‘only equations you can really use in this scenario are coming up with a big fat zero on this case. ‘
Only if you circular logic, and make an assumption that there is no temperature gradient!
And you see there is no reason whatsoever to make such an assumption, because we need a mechanism for heat to flow thru and out of the system. And we have it with a temperature gradient and the rad heat transfer equation.
We let physics guide us to an answer, rather than let a guessed ‘answer’ guide us to ‘physics’.
‘Nate eternally conflates heat flow with energy flow.’
As we already discussed DREMT, the NET energy that flows as EMR between objects IS called heat. (radiative heat transfer!)
There is no other energy that can flow between objects that are doing no work or transferring no matter.
First Law!
Nate, you already lost your safety “NET”. 9:18am explains it fine.
Sorry for your loss.
Nope, you’re looping. And ignoring the problem that you yourself have created.
Svante: “We all agree that:
1) There is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature.
How can your ‘infinitesimal’ temperature difference push 400 W from blue to green?
Physical formula and math please.”
DREMT: “The radiative heat flow equation comes to zero with plates at the same temperature, since emissivity and view factors are 1.”
“the only equations you can really use in this scenario are coming up with a big fat zero on this case.”
So: you can offer no workable solution to this problem of how to get 400 W to move from BLUE to GREEN, when you assume they have equal temperatures!
Nate goes into a loop on some semantic issue.
Semantic? Nice try, but of course not.
Show some integrity, and face up to the very real problem, DREMT.
A solution with equal temps, by your own admission, cannot explain the REQUIRED 400 W of energy exchange between the plates.
As Svante tried to explain;
With 400 W input to the BLUE plate, and no way to output that to the GREEN plate, the BLUE plate must warm.
When it warms, there develops a temperature gradient. And then heat will begin to flow, and can even be calculated by rad heat transfer law.
Nothing semantic about it.
The whole, “…goes into a loop on some semantic issue” reference goes straight over Nate’s head again.
Every time!
Now it’s plain to see that you are wrong,
and that you realize that you are wrong,
so why will you keep peddling this falsehood?
This “additional 400 W” that they both keep harping on about, only exists in their minds. Certainly Svante and myself, before Nate exploded desperately back on the scene, (completely obsessed with me as always), were talking about the transition from plates together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, to plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K. There is no “additional 400 W” suddenly in play when separated that was not there when the plates were pressed together! There hasn’t suddenly been some new source of energy added. As Ball4 famously agreed, going from 244 K…244 K…244 K to 244 K…290 K…244 K, without an additional source of energy, would violate 1LoT.
And now we looped back to the “no change in energy” argument.
You are adding 400 J every second, all you need is improved insulation.
Vacuum is a very good insulator compared to the perfect conductor that was there before.
So how come the blue plate doesn’t get warmer when it has a 400 J surplus every second?
Now Svante has looped back to the “vacuum is a good insulator” argument. Sure, OK.
But the Green Plate Effect is meant to be a demonstration of back-radiation heating, not vacuum insulation. If you want to change what the Green Plate Effect is supposedly “proving” from “back-radiation can result in the temperature of an object being higher than it would otherwise be” to, simply, “a vacuum is a good insulator”, then please, be my guest.
Obviously, when the plates are separated, radiation takes over from conduction.
And the radiative heat transfer equation, with plates at the same temperature and emissivity and view factors equal to one, is a big fat zero, showing once again that there is no mysterious additional 400 watts floating around.
Sorry, Svante.
‘. If you want to change what the Green Plate Effect is supposedly proving from back-radiation can result in the temperature of an object being higher than it would otherwise be to, simply, a vacuum is a good insulator, then please, be my guest.’
Now THAT is a semantic issue, for anyone who understands what that means.
Semantic because how ever it is explained matters not a bit if you get the wrong answer!
‘And the radiative heat transfer equation, with plates at the same temperature and emissivity and view factors equal to one, is a big fat zero”
Yes, for your nonsense = temperature solution. But that leaves you without anyway to explain the energy flow!
“showing once again that there is no mysterious additional 400 watts floating around.”
Ahhhh, you explain it by denying it exists! Very creative DREMT.
Denying the reality of 400 W input which is plainly there!
Youve clearly lost your way down the rabbit hole, DREMT.
“Denying the reality of 400 W input which is plainly there!”
I said, to Svante (not you, Captain Interrupto), that:
“There is no “additional 400 W” suddenly in play when separated that was not there when the plates were pressed together!”
The 400 W input was there when the plates were pressed together.
“But that leaves you without anyway to explain the energy flow!”
The “energy flow” issue is explained in the 9:18am comment, as you know.
The “vacuum is a good insulator” argument is a red herring, as explained.
Nate’s busted again.
‘The 400 W input was there when the plates were pressed together.’
‘Obviously, when the plates are separated, radiation takes over from conduction.’
Takes over? Takes over doing what?
Conduction transfers HEAT my friend. Radiation needs to take over the job of transferring HEAT. That is the POINT!
“The ‘vacuum is a good insulator’ argument is a red herring, as explained.”
No explanation, just dismissal!
If 400 W of heat was conducted, and now that needs to be transferred across a vacuum gap via radiation, then vacuum being a better insulator than metal is highly RELEVANT.
This simple logic seems to pass in one ear and out the other.
“The ‘energy flow’ issue is explained in the 9:18am comment, as you know.”
That was hand-wave # 47, the ‘One Direction’ excuse. And no that one was thoroughly rebutted. The one direction is determined entirely by the temperature gradient.
So the next try was #48, the ‘400 W is not real’ excuse. And no, sorry that one fails because the 400 W is REAL.
Just one after the other, a series of weird excuses to defend the indefensible.
All your problems will melt away, DREMT, if you simply allow the science to lead you to the answer, rather than insisting on an ‘answer’ that is the cause of all the problems.
“Conduction transfers HEAT my friend.“
Both heat and energy can be transferred by conduction.
“If 400 W of heat was conducted…”
No heat is being conducted between plates at the same temperature. ☺️
“The one direction is determined entirely by the temperature gradient.”
Wrong, you are conflating heat and energy again. For energy flow, the one direction is principally determined by the fact that EMR cannot convert itself back into electrical energy and head back down the wire from the blue plate, as explained.
“The ‘400 W is not real’ excuse…”
As I literally just explained to you, after you accused me of “denying the reality of 400 W input which is plainly there”:
I said, to Svante (not you, Captain Interrupto), that:
“There is no “additional 400 W” suddenly in play when separated that was not there when the plates were pressed together!”
The 400 W input was there when the plates were pressed together.
Nate’s busted again, again.
‘Conduction transfers HEAT my friend.’
D:”Both heat and energy can be transferred by conduction.”
Excuse # 49.
Why do you feel empowered to make up your own physics?
Please do show us an example of energy that is NOT HEAT being transferred by conduction. From anywhere??
‘No heat is being conducted between plates at the same temperature.’
As we all agreed. Anybody with a functioning logic chip must therefore conclude that plates are NOT at same temperature.
What’s wrong with yours?
‘The 400 W input was there when the plates were pressed together.’
and is still there when separated.
This is the 400 W we have been repeatedly bringing up, that you cannot explain.
“This ‘additional 400 W’ that they both keep harping on about, only exists in their minds.”
Nope. Neither Svante or I ever said it was ‘additional’. You are the only one who thinks its additional and imaginary.
This is simply another BS distraction from your inability to explain it.
What’s the next in the world of fake physics?
“Thermal conduction is the transfer of heat [internal energy] by microscopic collisions of particles and movement of electrons within an organ. The microscopically colliding particles, that include molecules, atoms and electrons, transfer disorganized microscopic kinetically and potential energy, jointly known as internal energy. Conduction takes place in all phases of including solids, liquids, gases and waves. The rate at which energy is conducted as heat between two bodies is a function of the temperature difference [temperature gradient] between the two bodies and the properties of the conductive through which the heat is transferred.”
DREMT, how come the blue plate doesn’t get warmer when it has a 400 J surplus every second?
“Please do show us an example of energy that is NOT HEAT being transferred by conduction. From anywhere??”
Back-conduction (although you would probably like to claim that is heat ).
“As we all agreed. Anybody with a functioning logic chip must therefore conclude that plates are NOT at same temperature.”
As we all agreed, plates together are at the same temperature. 244 K…244 K…244 K. So that would be yet another instance where you are wrong.
“and is still there when separated.” [re the input 400 W]
Yes. That was my point, Nate. Let us go through it again, as it is fun to watch you tying yourself in knots in order to avoid the obvious.
I said, to Svante (not you, Captain Interrupto), that:
“There is no “additional 400 W” suddenly in play when separated that was not there when the plates were pressed together!”
The 400 W input was there when the plates were pressed together.
OK? Understand? It’s there when the plates are together, and it’s there when they are separated. So it is not an additional 400 W.
“Nope. Neither Svante or I ever said it was ‘additional’. You are the only one who thinks its additional and imaginary.”
Yup. Both you and Svante think something has changed between when the plates are together and when the plates are separated, whereby there is now an additional 400 W which needs to be taken into account. If you didn’t think that, you would have no reason to believe that the blue plate would rise in temperature from 244 K to 290 K.
“DREMT, how come the blue plate doesn’t get warmer when it has a 400 J surplus every second?”
See, that proves it. Thank you Svante. A “surplus” 400 J per second. An additional 400 W. My original comment to Svante again, in full:
“This “additional 400 W” that they both keep harping on about, only exists in their minds. Certainly Svante and myself, before Nate exploded desperately back on the scene, (completely obsessed with me as always), were talking about the transition from plates together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, to plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K. There is no “additional 400 W” suddenly in play when separated that was not there when the plates were pressed together! There hasn’t suddenly been some new source of energy added. As Ball4 famously agreed, going from 244 K…244 K…244 K to 244 K…290 K…244 K, without an additional source of energy, would violate 1LoT.”
Both Nate and Svante are busted, again.
Originally you have 400W in, and 2*200 W out to space at 0 K.
Then you have 400W in and zero out from blue to green.
Comprende?
Originally (plates together) you have 400W in, and 2*200 W out to space at 0 K.
Then (on initial separation of plates) you have 400W in, and 2*200 W out to space at 0 K.
Where, when, and how does your additional 400 watts of power enter into the equation, Svante?
Comprende?
The plates go their separate ways when you separate them.
The blue plate has the old 400 W in, but zero output to green, so its temperature will go up.
The green plates have the old 2×200 W out, but no input, so their temperature will drop.
There are two ways I could respond to that.
1) Apply your logic to the situation where the plates are together, to show the disconnect:
With the plates pressed together:
The blue plate has the 400 W in, but zero net output to green (plates are at the same temperature), so its temperature should go up. But you are happy to accept that it doesn’t.
The green plates have the 2×200 W out, but zero net input (since the plates are at the same temperature), so their temperature should drop. But you are happy to accept that it doesn’t.
2) Ask you directly if you believe that with the plates separated, the back-radiation from the green plates to the blue represent an additional 400 W of power? Because that is the way you are treating it. And that would be wrong.
Guess I will go with “both”.
First of all, as we discussed before, real plates in contact must have a small temperature gradient for heat to flow between them. But .001 K is enough.
‘Yup. Both you and Svante think something has changed between when the plates are together and when the plates are separated, whereby there is now an additional 400 W which needs to be taken into account. ”
As before, you seem to feel you know better than we do, what we believe.
Weird, and wrong.
We both believe, and have always stated thus, that there is only the 400 W input. Never have we said there is some additional 400 W. That is you imagining things.
The problem is as Svante explained but you ignore:
‘Originally you have 400W in, and 2*200 W out to space at 0 K.
Then you have 400W in and zero out from blue to green.’
The zero out is a result of having Tb = Tg, and WE ALL AGREED that means no net energy transfer from blue to green.
DREMT: “1) There is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature.”
With no net energy transfer, and still the OLD 400 W input to the BLUE (not NEW!), what do you think is gonna happen DREMT?
The Blue plate has to warm. The Green plate is gonna cool. No logical way around it.
1) With the plates pressed together:
The plates are perfect conductors, so there is no temperature difference.
Vacuum has zero conduction and makes a 400 W difference on initial separation.
2) No, back-radiation from the green plates does not represent a net addition of 400 W.
It reduces the blue net energy loss rate by 400 W.
“We both believe, and have always stated thus, that there is only the 400 W input. Never have we said there is some additional 400 W. That is you imagining things.”
Svante used the word “surplus”, Nate. You are simply ignoring everything I say to you. If you don’t have an additional 400 W, from somewhere or other, you’re not getting from 244 K to 290 K.
“The problem is as Svante explained but you ignore…”
I didn’t ignore it, Nate. I directly responded to it. To Svante. Which you ignore, once again.
Tell you what, Nate. Why don’t you stop interrupting, and just let me talk to Svante?
‘Svante used the word ‘surplus’, Nate. You are simply ignoring everything I say to you. If you don’t have an additional 400 W, from somewhere or other, you’re not getting from 244 K to 290 K.’
DREMT, you are still trying to tell us what we believe, rather than PAYING ATTENTION to what we actually say.
And after all this time, you are still mixed up about basic concepts.
Basic concepts explained SLOWLY:
ENERGY, which is work, heat, etc, has units of Joules.
POWER, which is rate of ENERGY flow, has units of Watts = Joules/s
These two things are NOT the same and should not be conflated!
When 400 W of power is input to an object, that means 400 J of NEW ENERGY is coming into the object every second!
Let’s look at what Svante actually said:
“400 J surplus every second”
What is he talking about here: surplus POWER? Nope.
or ENERGY? Yes, because he said J!
Why did he call it surplus?
Because with 400 J of NEW ENERGY entering the plate every second, and NO WAY for it to exit the plate, a SURPLUS of energy will accumulate in the plate.
And the plate will warm.
“What is he talking about here: surplus POWER? Nope.
or ENERGY? Yes, because he said J!”
He said “400 J surplus every second”. 400 J/second = 400 Watts = Power. Wrong again, Nate.
By the way, I have a response to Svante’s 12:06 am comment already written out. I am happy to write that comment if Nate is prepared to stop interrupting with his stupid remarks. Funny as they are, I don’t have all day to write out essays correcting all the spin.
No more comments from Nate at any point on this sub-thread, and I will write my response to Svante.
‘He said ‘400 J surplus every second’. 400 J/second = 400 Watts = Power. Wrong again, Nate.’
DREMT, you still dont get it?! Unbelievable.
You don’t get that the confusion is all on your end, DREMT.
You don’t get the difference between power and energy, still.
No NEW POWER here, DREMT. Just the same old 400 W input.
And yet that MEANS NEW ENERGY. 400 J of NEW ENERGY every second. OLD POWER = NEW ENERGY.
“Because with 400 J of NEW ENERGY entering the plate every second, and NO WAY for it to exit the plate, a SURPLUS of energy will accumulate in the plate.
And the plate will warm.”
Point to something here that you disagree with.
Nate, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you this desperate.
A 400 J/s surplus is a 400 W surplus. I’m sorry Svante let you down, but there’s no need to take it out on me. Pretending I don’t know the difference between energy and power is a bit pathetic (actually, it’s extremely pathetic, but who’s counting?).
“Point to something here that you disagree with.”
I already have, Nate. Again, this is one of your more desperate tactics. Anybody can scroll up and read through the discussion up to this point to see that.
No more comments from Nate at any point on this sub-thread, and I will write my response to Svante’s earlier comment.
OK?
‘No more comments from Nate at any point on this sub-thread,’
DREMT, sorry, you only control your own posts.
My posts make you unhappy? Stop lying about what I am saying and stop saying stupid BS.
Its that simple.
We have stated many times no NEW power is input. The same 400 W is input as in the original problem.
You want to label the OLD 400 W as NEW. That is all your doing.
We are not saying that. Stop saying that we are! That is a LIE.
We are saying that with the same OLD 400 W coming in, that MEANS 400 Joules of NEW energy is coming in every second.
If you disagree with this, then you are demonstrating that you don’t understand the difference between energy and power.
Nate, your posts don’t make me unhappy, I find them hilarious!
Sure, I can’t control what you do. But if you are not going to stop interrupting, and making discussion between myself and Svante impossible, then I think that’s a shame. Guess Svante and I will just have to discuss it some other time.
Sorry Svante, Nate’s ego is too big to allow us to finish our discussion.
Just to clarify, when I say 400 W is the OLD 400 W, I mean there is no ADDITIONAL 400 W.
That is the lie that you have been pushing since many posts back:
“This ‘additional 400 W’ that they both keep harping on about, only exists in their minds.”
With no ADDITIONAL 400 W, we still have the original 400 W input, which means 400 J of ENERGY are added every second. That ENERGY is ADDITIONAL to what was already there.
Funny how hard it is to communicate.
Why not restrict ourselves to physical formulas and math?
How about aluminum, 237 watts per kelvin per meter, 1 mm thick and 1 m^2?
https://tinyurl.com/lwf5pyj
Add ‘Paint, Black (Parsons)’ to approximate a black body (epsilon 0.98)?
https://tinyurl.com/kqlblva
Separate by 1 mm?
DREMT, can you do the honors please?
#2
By the way, I have a response to Svantes 12:06 am comment already written out. I am happy to write that comment if Nate is prepared to stop interrupting with his stupid remarks. Funny as they are, I dont have all day to write out essays correcting all the spin.
No more comments from Nate at any point on this sub-thread, and I will write my response to Svante.
Svante is right to make it about numbers.
If you will answer his last question, I will not interfere…
#3
By the way, I have a response to Svantes 12:06 am comment already written out. I am happy to write that comment if Nate is prepared to stop interrupting with his stupid remarks. Funny as they are, I dont have all day to write out essays correcting all the spin.
No more comments from Nate at any point on this sub-thread, and I will write my response to Svante.
Svante is right to make it about numbers, since words don’t seem to work.
If you will answer his last question, I will not interfere
But its not looking to promising.
Got bored of waiting for you to do the decent thing, Nate. So I just dropped the reply to Svante’s comment at the bottom of the thread. Perhaps you will be able to butt out?
☺️
Of course you won’t.
Ha! I see DREMT doesnt have the knowledge to do Svantes heat transfer calculation, no surprise.
But that wont stop him from splaining to us how we have it all wrong!
Discussion’s moved down-thread, Nate.
Down you go…
I must admit I hadn’t noticed the steel/lead pipe in those photos before, it’s so similar in color to the frame, and about the same width, that it wasn’t jumping out at me. I see what you mean! Interesting. I wonder what “the Team” will make of your idea…
More facts for clowns to deny:
overcast, cloudy skies, Sun not over horizon yet.
Overhead –> 31.8 °F
Ground –> 84.0 °F
Your instrument indicates back radiation, surprise!
Blueberries emit “back radiation”, clown.
Surprise!
OK, you have blue berries in the sky.
What else?
Clowns.
Clowns are in the sky.
And there is vacant space in your head.
JD you should draw blog readers a cartoon that proves blueberries and clowns you write inhabit the sky causing the “back radiation” your instrument measures & thus the “back radiation” is not from the clear sky and/or clouds.
…and you should be eternally silent, disgrace.
Thus DREMT agrees with JD the “back radiation” JD measures is from blueberries and clowns in the sky. JD’s 31.8F instrumental measured brightness temperature not measured due to “back radiation” from clear sky and/or clouds.
Nothing new.
Makes sense though, the sky is blue after all.
“Thus DREMT agrees…”
…that you should be eternally silent, disgrace.
Good point Svante.
According to JD and DREMT it is blueberries in the sky JD measures at 31.8F that make the sky blue & not Rayleigh scattering. Perhaps the clowns that JD claims inhabit the sky producing the “back radiation” JD measures with his instrument are also wearing blue at 31.8F. That explains a lot.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
As predicted: “More facts for clowns to deny…”
They’re so predictable.
Nothing new.
Svante makes another good point, JD measuring:
Overhead –> 31.8F
Ground –> 84.0F
means hey JD’s measurement of “back radiation” IS indeed possible and thus doesn’t violate 2LOT as JD demonstrates with a real outdoors in the wild empirical experiment WITH data published:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359119
Predictably JD and DREMT will deny THAT. And DREMT, please, don’t throw JD under the bus again as the poor commenter is just out of the hospital from the last time DREMT did so.
The clowns are having such fits about facts, let’s keep the fun going:
Clouds clearing
Overhead –> 24.6 °F
Ground –> 83.1 °F
Overhead below freezing, about 60 degrees colder than the surface!
#2
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
“Overhead below freezing, about 60 degrees colder than the surface!”
“Indeed, it must be by (back) radiation from cold to warm.”
#3
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
We’ve got Svante, fluffball, and the backdoor guy, but some clowns are missing. Have they lost the spirit?
They were wrong about the “plates”. They got trampled by the racehorse. And now they are tripping over each other trying to pervert the simple facts..
What’s the name of that river in Egypt?
JDHuffman
The really sad thing about you is that you have been informed but could not understand the material you were given. You thought it was rambling. Your limited reading ability (maybe you are dyslexic) does not enable you to understand some basic concepts.
Your IR thermometer IS NOT reading the DWIR from GHG at all. It is designed to ignore interference from GHG IR. I explained it to you, gave you several links to read and yet you persist in showing you can’t understand even simple physics.
So what is he measuring?
I didn’t see JD give the model of the IR thermometer. Most likely it is a hardware store variety that is admitting the full spectrum of JD’s blueberry sky downwelling LW “back radiation” into the receiver end without an expensive lens filter.
JD should get a sounding rocket, attach a quick response thermometer and sent it up the column to determine the altitude of 31.8F where most of the photons are emitted (sorry, “back radiated” from JD blueberries).
#4
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Poor clown Norman joins in. It only gets better.
He claims the IR from CO2 is not detectable!
First, CO2 is a heat source. Then CO2 is not a heat source, but it traps heat. Then, CO2 does not trap heat but it keeps the surface warmer that it would otherwise be.
Now CO2 only emits “heat” when no one is using a handheld IR thermometer.
It only gets better. Clowns keep making up things.
Nothing new.
norman…”Your IR thermometer IS NOT reading the DWIR from GHG at all. It is designed to ignore interference from GHG IR”.
The type of detectors in question do not measure heat, they measure the frequency of IR radiation. Any heat source, and I mean any source above 0K, will produce IR radiation in a specific frequency band. The detector detects the frequency and uses a lab-interpolated algorithm to convert frequency to temperature.
The detector is only telling you it is detecting a heat source above 0K. It tells you nothing about heat transfer between the source and the surface.
When meteorologist/physicist Craig Bohren pointed such a detector at clear sky he measured -50C. When pointed at clouds, the detector measured -3C. There is no way whatsoever that heat can be transferred from sources at -50C/-3C to a surface averaging +15C.
“There is no way whatsoever that heat can be transferred from sources at -50C/-3C to a surface averaging +15C.”
The heat doesn’t transfer Gordon as you repeatedly write, energy transfers and the energy transfer from colder atm. to JD’s warmer device is as JD reported & fully in accord with 2LOT.
GR…”There is no way whatsoever that heat can be transferred from sources at -50C/-3C to a surface averaging +15C.”
This has been explained to you specifically many times already so why do you keep repeating the same strawman argument?
Conceptually this is not unlike the insulation/furnace relationship in your home. The insulation does not transfer heat into your home, yet it can still raise the temperature. That’s because it traps more energy within thus augmenting the furnaces ability to warm the inside.
backdoor guy, you trip over your own pseudoscience: “Conceptually this is not unlike the insulation/furnace relationship in your home.”
Why are you using a furnace to heat you home? Don’t you care about “saving the planet”?
Use ice cubes to heat your home. If you get too cold, just add more ice.
‘The type of detectors in question do not measure heat, they measure the frequency of IR radiation. ‘
FALSE, Gordon.
Why are skeptics so lacking in self-skepticism, that they cant even be bothered to Google their own ideas?
It is easy to look up how these devices work, and they do work by measuring heat flux with a thermopile.
https://www.te.com/usa-en/products/sensors/temperature-sensors/thermopile-infrared-sensors.html?tab=pgp-story
“they do work by measuring heat flux”
Nate, you seem to have added the word “heat” incorrectly on your own as I couldn’t find that word on the page you linked.
If you were right, these devices could not work to observe the temperature of colder objects but they do so routinely. They work to “measure (brightness) temperature from a distance by detecting an object’s (emitted) infrared (IR) energy.” They are not detecting the object’s “heat”.
Gordon is FALSE by writing they measure the “frequency of IR radiation”. That’s wrong, an instrument used for frequency spectral measurements in the field ofspectroscopy would be a spectrophotometer, say, a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm. Point that at JD’s blueberries and you will get the spectrum emitted of blueberries in that range. Spectroscopy is surely the science of details
AND, you know what? Find one, blueberries don’t just emit “blue” they will have broadband emission at ALL color frequencies. Our brains interpret that emission spectrum as “blue”. Color is fascinating in its details if you ask me.
ball3…”The heat doesnt transfer Gordon as you repeatedly write, energy transfers and the energy transfer from colder atm. to JDs warmer device is as JD reported & fully in accord with 2LOT.”
The 2nd law has nothing whatsoever to do with electromagnetic energy nor does the 1st law.
The discipline is thermodynamics, literally the study of heat. Once again, EM IS NOT HEAT. EM is related to the 2nd law unless it is converted to heat.
Energy, as EM, cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body by its own means. That’s why heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially a warmer surface that provided the heat for the atmosphere.
You cannot recycle heat from a source to itself to make the source hotter. That notion is just plain, dumb pseudo-science.
“Energy, as EM, cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body by its own means.”
That’s not what Clausius wrote Gordon, you just make that up since as you shout: “EM IS NOT HEAT.”
The reason heat cannot be radiatively transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface is because: “EM IS NOT HEAT.”
The reason nature cannot recycle heat from a source to itself to make the source hotter is: “EM IS NOT HEAT.”
The reason EM can be transferred from a cooler body to a hotter body by its own means: “EM IS NOT HEAT.”
Keep shouting that “EM IS NOT HEAT” Gordon, that is very correct & you will begin to better understand nature.
That should cure Gordon’s misunderstanding, surely.
DREMT, how come the blue plate doesn’t get warmer when it has a 400 J surplus every second?
‘detecting an objects (emitted) infrared (IR) energy.’
Yes, otherwise known as heat. As in heat transfer by radiation.
Not sure what you are issue is Ball 4?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux_sensor
‘The 2nd law has nothing whatsoever to do with electromagnetic energy nor does the 1st law.
The discipline is thermodynamics, literally the study of heat. Once again, EM IS NOT HEAT. EM is related to the 2nd law unless it is converted to heat.”
Uhhh Gordon, the first law of thermo is simply conservation of energy.
Thus it considers heat, work, mass transfer, chemical reactions, any type of energy that could be converted to thermal energy.
The second law also governs heat transfers by EM radiation, so..
‘If you were right, these devices could not work to observe the temperature of colder objects but they do so routinely.’
Of course they can. For a colder object they are measuring a negative heat flux.
IOW they are measuring the cooling of the surface of the device due to a loss of heat to the object in view.
Nate, the folks writing your link discuss electromagnetic energy transfer correctly and to do so they have no need to invoke the non-existent entity know as “heat”.
When you invoked the word “heat” as if it came from your link, that term can mean anything YOU want so is totally meaningless. Totally! Just observe the issues the word “heat” creates in your debates. Energy transfers in thermo.
Oh, and Gordon is correct shouting: “EMR IS NOT HEAT”. Formally, in thermodynamics, heat is never contained in any object thus can not transfer from that object. Energy is contained in the object thus can transfer from/to the object. It’s easy to not make mistakes with heat term, just don’t use the term as in no case is it ever necessary to do so.
“For a colder object they are measuring a negative heat flux.”
NO! That’s ruled out by 2LOT. For a colder object they are measuring a negative energy flux, perfectly ok with 2LOT as it works in nature. See how easy it is to make a mistake? Even you do so. Just don’t use the “heat” term, does away with all such mistakes. End the endless debates.
The negative heat flux simply means the heat flux is from the warmer device to the colder target object. 2LOT is happy.
A negative heat flux means dQ/T is negative, Nate, which is ruled out by 2LOT. A negative energy flux though is just sign convention, results in a universe entropy increase so ok with 2LOT.
There is no problem with: the negative energy flux simply means the energy flux is from the warmer device to the colder target object and, in reverse, the negative energy flux simply means the energy flux is from the cooler device to the warmer target object. Both situations are ok with 2LOT, just differ by sign convention, both increase universe entropy as demonstrated in the real world.
Heat is an imaginary concept created by humans not nature and each human seems to imagine heat into whatever argument needs to be made; heat is a useless concept to convey meaning. Only useful for continuing arguments not ending them.
Drop the term or use Clausius’, and only Clausius’, strict def. of heat and you cannot go wrong.
Ball4
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
“Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature.”
accurate definition of heat.
You seem to disagree.
The moon rotates on its axis. It takes ~27 days to do it.
A satellite in moon-synchronous orbit will see:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0094576514004160-gr4.jpg
It doesn’t rotate from a geocentric point of view.
‘I wonder what the Team will make of your idea’
Can you contact them? Can Spencer do another blog post about this topic?
More details and corrections:
I took a ruler to photo 2 (top right)
The diameter of pipe is N
The height of pipe is 3N
Surface area of pipe FACING plate is 3N^2*PI
Distance from center of plate to center of pipe is ~2.8N.
Imaginary surface area of blue plate’s emission at distance 2.8N:
4PI*7.84N^2 = 31.36N^2*PI
So, the pipe takes up 3/31.36 = 9.6% of BP’s radiation.
The results of experiment showed temperature difference from lack of pipe to presence of pipe to be 116 – 106 = 10 C
In fluxes: 1300 – 1172 = 128 W/m^2
Flux % increase: 128 / 1172 = 10.9%
9.6% vs. 10.9% is too close to be a coincidence. The tiny difference is also due to the fact that when the pipe is lowered it still takes up a tiny % of view factor. It’s too small for me to bother measuring it.
The pipe is the culprit. QED.
According to backradiation theory, blue’s final flux should have been 100% higher than green’s (400 vs 200).
In this experiment, the result was 1300/833 (75C for GP) = 56%
This experiment shows pipe view factor heat capacity interference and not backradiation heating. QED
Thank you
-Zoe
“Can you contact them? Can Spencer do another blog post about this topic?”
By “the Team” I just meant the unofficial gaggle of regulars that seem to defend the GHE at all costs, month after month. Dr Spencer has never done an actual blog post on the GPE, it just gets discussed here a lot.
>I’m surprised nobody from “the Team” has said anything about your idea so far. They’ll be along shortly, I’m sure.
Correction:
* I took a ruler to photo 1 (top left) zoomed in.
Correction:
I used full surface area of pipe, and used spherical emission of BP. Same as using just hemispheres for both.
The previous comments and math may sound confusing without this correction. It looks like a flip flop. I do, but it’s still right physics.
Svante
Probably some high up clouds. Also the atmospheric window is not totally transparent, there is some DWIR in the window, just not nearly the amount given off by Water vapor and Carbon Dioxide at warm surface temperatures.
https://patarnott.com/atms749/images/MeasuredRadianceReno.jpg
Here is one spectrum of DWIR. The IR thermometers are designed to work mainly in the atmospheric window (8-14 microns) if you convert the wavenumber. You can see the window would be a dirty window. If it is clear with no clouds you will still get some minor DWIR that is picked up by JDHuffman’s IR thermometer.
If you wanted to actually measure the DWIR from GHG you would use an instrument that is designed for a bulk of the IR spectrum.
The IR sensors used to get this data have a band from 3.5 to 50 microns.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d0e82c03c990.png
OK, makes sense. Roy missed that point here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
“Roy missed that point here”
I doubt it. The inexpensive IR Thermometers don’t use a lens to filter at all, they get the full spectrum onto their thermopile.
Norman is discussing and linking to much more precise, more expensive, and possibly longer range devices that do use a lens to filter out atm. radiation between the target and the device.
My Ryobi IR002 doesn’t have a lens and works the same in winter indoors (low humidity) and summer indoors (high humidity no A/C) and outdoors (short distances in the yard) all year. It displays boiling water at 212F and ice water at 32F accurately. Doesn’t matter over reasonable distance what the atm. is emitting as the optical thickness is so very thin at these short distances.
Unless of course JD’s blueberries get in the way.
Ball4
I did look up your IR thermometer.
https://www.manualshelf.com/manual/ryobi/ir002/use-and-care-manual-french.html
This type is only good with a range of two feet. In the manual one factor that would affect the temperature reading is the temperature of the atmosphere (the IR emitted by water vapor and CO2).
If you point yours at the sky what do you get?
Norman, these are inexpensive (~$30). Get one. I can tell you from experience that this instrument is good for way more than two feet. I haven’t tried to find a limit beyond which it starts to get wrong results, but can say it is longer than fairly large room. See what you find.
At the evening zenith, I get 0F for the clear sky tonight. As I bring it down towards the horizon goes up to about 20F. Pointing it at clouds does the same thing Dr. Spencer reported and as in Bohren’s 2006 Atm. Radiation text.
JD’s clear sky results are correct, it measures the local GHE just fine (sorry, I meant to write measures “back radiation” from JD’s blueberries just fine).
Ball4
For your lower cost IR model, it can’t really measure air temperature at all.
Here is what one person describes what you get when pointing an IR thermometer in clear sky.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1fftfc/when_you_point_a_laser_thermometer_at_the_sky/
The reason you get such cold temperatures and not actually related to any real temperature, according to this person, is that the energy the instrument is receiving is random IR from diffuse source.
If you have a lens you can’t focus the light from a fog.
Norman, any IR Thermometer is measuring brightness temperature of the object in its field of view not thermometer temperature (sometimes called thermodynamic temperature). It is clear the IR002 fixed emissivity setting is that of ice water as when I point it at ice water IR002 reads out 32F. Get one. Try it.
When I pointed the IR002 at the evening (~sunset) sky zenith the air emissivity was more likely about 0.8 as it wasn’t terribly humid (0.9-0.95) nor terribly dry air (0.6-0.7). So becnatrium using the wording “It does not correspond to any real temperature” is sort of correct since my instrument & JD’s was expecting emissivity of ice water (~0.95 to ~0.97) i.e. ~terribly humid air.
The readout of 0F I reported has to be adjusted to get thermometer temperature due the emissivity difference or a more precise IR Thermometer used with adjustable emissivity & precision IR band lenses as shown in your doc.s. The important thing in my or JD’s measurement is that IR Thermometer readout 0F isn’t anywhere near minus 266F (no GHE) which means there is a local GHE.
Even then the emissivity of the air column is a guess (don’t know the humidity which constantly changes). A sounding rocket is needed to measure actual thermometer temperature in the column, which when known, you simply adjust the instrument’s emissivity setting to get the thermometer temperature at the altitude of interest. This is how NOAA ESRL (or maybe aviation weather) measures air temperature at altitude. If interested, you may be able to find that info. which is calibrated from nearby sounding rockets or balloons.
“If you have a lens you can’t focus the light from a fog.”
You have to collimate diffuse LW first. My IR002 does this with a short black tube collimator and a fresnel on the end to direct the somewhat collimated light rays down thru the aperture of the electronic detector. It all works surprisingly well at $30 for temperatures in the range of the atm.
Svante
It is possible that when JDHuffman holds the IR thermometer straight up on a clear day that he is measuring the Ozone layer.
The temperature of the Ozone layer can get up to 5 F.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere
Ozone emits in the atmospheric window. Looks like around 9 microns.
https://tinyurl.com/yx8h2w5p
The designers of IR thermometers would not care about the interference from Ozone since there is very little (produced mainly by electrical events) in any normal use of these devices (getting temperatures of objects at distance with no contact). CO2 and H2O emissions would affect normal operations so these bands are filtered out and do not reach the sensor. It is in the literature of how these devices function. I was giving JDHuffman and actual education. All he could see in the direct quotes was “rambling”. Can’t educate someone who can’t read and comprehend written material.
Poor Norman is so desperate.
Now he’s grasping onto the ozone layer! (And he even capitalized it–“Ozone”.)
Clowns are here for our enjoyment.
And the entertainment is free….
JDHuffman
So what is the specifications for your IR thermometer you are using for your posts? What is the band of IR it measures?
Norman, your attempt to pervert reality will not work. Anyone familiar with a basic handheld IR thermometer knows they work fine for sky temperatures.
Even fluffball knows that: “JD’s clear sky results are correct…”
I have a Fluke and the specs say it responds to 8-14 um radiation so yeah, it’s possible ozone could be a contributor.
backdoor guy, it’s also possible you are a fluke.
(I think the backdoor is open, awaiting your escape.)
Latest facts:
Overhead –> 30.3 °F
Ground –> 88.3 °:F
And just for the uneducated Norman who states: “The temperature of the Ozone layer can get up to 5 F.”
Norman, when I was taking sky readings regularly, I had many below -40 °F.
Now you have more facts to deny….
The latest facts continue to show the GHE in effect (30F), good job JD, keep it up.
The latest facts continue to show that you should be eternally silent, disgrace.
GHE enthusiants failed to learn anything from Green Plate Experiment.
When CO2 and H2O were sucked out of the bell jar … it got HOTTER.
Zoe Phin
The amount of IR emitted by the Carbon Dioxide and Water vapor in the bell jar is very small (small path length). The Plate got hotter because the vacuum eliminated heat loss by convection and some by conduction. If you remove a mechanism of heat transfer but keep the energy input the same, the temperature will rise until it is emitting IR at the same rate it is receiving incoming energy.
Norman, are you by any chance in the same typing class as Norman?
You appear just as illiterate.
Norman says:
“The Plate got hotter because the vacuum eliminated heat loss by convection and some by conduction. If you remove a mechanism of heat transfer but keep the energy input the same, the temperature will rise until it is emitting IR at the same rate it is receiving incoming energy.”
Norman says Earth’s surface will get hotter without an atmosphere.
Zoe Phin
Maybe slow down a bit in your enthusiasm to try and prove something.
With a rotating Earth more complex calculations are needed. The blue plate is not a rotating system, it is receiving the same amount of energy continuously.
Note carefully. If the Earth were not rotating at the current rate (say slower like the Moon) then the surface would reach a higher temperature with not atmosphere. Even a dry atmosphere will remove surface energy by convection.
I just am not sure with the rate of rotation if it would get hotter or not at this time. The brain of gallopingcamel may be able to get good data on this. The Earth would get much colder without an atmosphere. I am not sure if the increase in cold would make it less likely to reach a higher temperature.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman,
“then the surface would reach a higher temperature with not atmosphere”
Norman here admits GH effect cools the sunny side.
Odd. GHGs are supposed to backradiate to sun-warmed earth surface.
Does Norman believe GH effect works at night?
Zoe Phin
The point is you do not follow my instructions “Maybe slow down a bit in your enthusiasm to try and prove something.”
You seem to have JDHuffman reading comprehension issues. If you are not able to understand what a poster is saying, rather than assume you do and are wrong, ask for more information of state you do not understand the point. Like JDHuffman you seem more interested in finding things that are not there. Intentionally assuming something not stated and then trying to point out I am saying something I am not. Huffman does this quite often but I am not sure why. He can barely understand anything written, if a comment is more than a couple words he gets totally confused.
I do not admit GH effect cools sunny side. I claim an atmosphere has a cooling effect via conduction and convection. If you stop these mechanisms, that remove energy from the surface, the surface will be warmer. I am not certain you will be able to understand correctly what I am posting.
Here is the claim. GHG do not warm the surface, they allow the surface to reach higher average temperatures than without the gases present.
I try to show this. Most skeptics (no doubt yourself) will not comprehend what the rational mind can easily see and you will present some unscientific distorted made up version.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5d0f5640ba901.png
The NET IR is still less than zero. More IR is emitted by surface than returned by GHG so technically they are NOT warming the surface. They reduce the amount of NET energy that leaves the surface. Without GHG the NET loss would be around 500 W/m^2
With the GHG it is generally less than 200 Wm^2
With a constant solar input you reach a warmer average temperature if you are losing less NET energy but receiving the same amount. It is unlikely this empirical evidence will be able to open the closed mind that you have.
Norman, as usual, you’ve found another link you can’t understand.
The “net” means nothing, as the surface emission is unaffected by IR back-radiated from the sky.
You make a number of incorrect assumptions that then make your conclusion incorrect.
Nothing new.
Reporting sky temperatures has sure caused a lot of consternation among the clowns. As usual, they do not like facts. They have attacked the measurements in several ways. They claim that “the measurements are not accurate”, or “an IR thermometer cannot be used to measure sky temps”.
But the funniest denial is that the measurements “prove the GHE”! IOW, to the clowns, because the atmosphere has a temperature, that is “proof” the atmosphere warms the surface. As many Skeptics have pointed out, all mass has a temperature. Ice has a temperature. That does not mean you can warm your body with ice cubes.
Clowns clearly don’t understand the physics, or even their own pseudoscience.
That’s why they are so entertaining.
So, what are the facts in your IR thermometer readings of the local GHE today JD?
The facts are your constant attempts to pervert reality, fluffball.
Nothing new.
“That does not mean you can warm your body with ice cubes.”
Sure you can. Tape a dry ice pack to your body for a few hours of therapy (take its temperature with your IR thermometer first), then replace it with ice cube pack (double check with your IR thermometer), your body will not feel or be as cold locally….but would still prefer hot tub therapy.
fluffball, how many times are you going to attempt the same “dry ice TRICK”?
You can NOT raise the temperature of a person with ice cubes.
Insanity is doing the same things over and over, hoping for different results.
Now, try another insane trick….
You can raise the temperature of a person with ice cubes as I just showed you when replacing dry ice with ice cubes; the person won’t complain as much about the ice cube therapy. This would be a good test of your prowess with an IR thermometer JD, set up a sunlight test in equilibrium with dry ice then replace the dry ice with ice cubes, let us know what you find. Observations trump your cartoons.
Yes very good Gonad4, ice cubes shoot laser death beams of eternal energy power which lights the bonfire under the Truth-Witch of Destiny, who screeches, “be eternally silent, disgrace”.
DREMT your rants are every bit an equal to Joe Postma’s rants
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
can’t tell them apart. You would be better off getting agreement with your views of physics hanging out over at Climate Sophistry, here you have to contend with actual observations. Even JD started doing real observations and put together some credulous results, you and JP should try JD’s methods.
Come on now, MaleReproductiveOrgan4, I’m only having a bit of fun. If you were really being honest you would have to admit that all you ever really do here is troll JD, try to eradicate the word and meaning of “heat” from existence in order to perpetuate your sophistry, and bang on about “tests” and “experiments” which never actually support whatever it is you’re on about.
I did enjoy the comment Norman made where he included a conversation he had had with Joe Postma over at his site, though. It was probably the first time I’d ever seen where Norman was arguing with somebody who was about a quarter as insulting and rabid as he usually is himself.
“”tests” and “experiments” which never actually support whatever it is youre on about.”
DREMT has to diss tests and experiments/observations that support discussions here because DREMT can’t contend with them as I wrote. Climate Sophistry features no testing or natural observations so is recommended hang out for DREM Team.
Oh, and you also troll people, like Mike Flynn, for instance, by continually telling them that they agree with you or the GHE, and have written things to that effect, which you take out of context with absolutely no regard for honestly representing what they think. It goes a little bit like this:
Ball4 says he “has to diss tests” because as Ball4 freely admits that Ball4’s “experiments/observations” do NOT “support discussions here” and Ball4 “can’t” stop himself from admitting that Ball4 writes “Climate Sophistry” and Ball4 “features no testing or natural observations”.
You are pretty much that blatant.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
Yes, you did some good “dishonesty displays” under that article.
If that were actually true, I wouldn’t be posting the link. Rant away, continue to skip any testing or observation to support your views.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
fluffball, you are such a clown. DREMT is shaving you bald, and you don’t even realize it.
DREMT exposes your pseudoscience for all to see.
Maybe tell us again how that racehorse rotates on it own axis.
You’re always good for a laugh.
Norman thinks there’s a difference between
“GHG do not warm the surface, they allow the surface to reach higher average temperatures than without the gases present.”
a) GHGs warm the surface
b) GHGs reduce outgoing radiation which warms the surface.
He denies (a) and promotes (b), yet their conclusions are exactly the same.
He is illogical, and therefore mentally ill.
He has completely ignored my previous commment:
Photons of same frequency travelling toward Earth will have destructive interference with photons travelling to CO2.
The frequency will go to 0 (on AVERAGE), and since E=hf, E = 0.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/5gEe8.gif
This can be explained simpler:
Earth cools to send radiation
CO2 cools to send radiation.
There cant be any backwarming from a downstream event (Earth to CO2)
The best you can argue is that CO2 keeps temperature (slightly less wrong), but it certainly doesnt cause adding.
Norman, like most clowns, is famous for perverting reality: “GHG do not warm the surface, they allow the surface to reach higher average temperatures than without the gases present.”
Norman should steal someone’s car. When he gets caught, he can claim he didn’t really steal it. He just allowed the car to drive away with him in it!
He can then see how well his perverted reality holds up….
–Zoe Phin says:
June 23, 2019 at 10:46 AM
Norman thinks theres a difference between
GHG do not warm the surface, they allow the surface to reach higher average temperatures than without the gases present.
a) GHGs warm the surface
b) GHGs reduce outgoing radiation which warms the surface.
He denies (a) and promotes (b), yet their conclusions are exactly the same.
He is illogical, and therefore mentally ill.–
Well, Norman hard to defend. But I can understand what he saying, and he doesn’t understand, is his problem. BUT I don’t think most understand it.
The average temperature of Earth said to be 15 C is caused by the temperature of the surface of 70% of the earth’s surface.
The average surface temperature of the oceans is about 17 C.
And humans can easily change this average temperature of the ocean surface temperature. Easily in sense that it would cost less than 1 trillion dollar and idiots could do it.
So the 17 C average ocean surface temperature makes global average air temperature. Cooling this temperature only requires mixing the warm surface water with the cold ocean temperature. Or as said 90% of the ocean has average temperature of 3 C.
So have thin layer of water which warm, and can cooled by mixing it with colder ocean water.
So if made the average global surface water around 3 to 4 C, that would lower global average air temperature, immediately.
And if that happened summer day at noon on land would be much colder, until such time as ocean surface water warmed back up.
And in terms of human sense of time, this takes a long time.
Or having an average surface air temperature of 15 C, makes days warmer. As compared to an average global temperature of 5 C.
Or with average global temperature of 5 C, means every day starts out cold, and there is not hours of sunlight in a day to allow a air temperature to reach 30 – 40 C [a warm day].
But Norman and others don’t understand what causes global air temperature.
Norman is correct. GHGs, by themselves, do not warm the surface. What they do is impede the transmission of radiation away from the surface. As a result the surface retains the energy that it would have otherwise lost. But this effect will not, by itself, actually warm the surface. For that to happen there needs to be a source energy interacting with the system. This is provided by the Sun.
This is conceptually similar to the insulation and furnace in your home. The insulation does not heat your home. But your home will be warmer with it as compared to without because it is impeding the transmission of heat thus augmenting the furnaces ability to warm the inside.
Now, personally, I’m okay with statements such as “GHGs warm the surface” even though that isn’t technically what happens that is the end result and GHGs played a crucial role just like the insulation plays a crucial role in a similar process at your home.
No, upwelling and downwelling radiation do not destructively cancel each other out. That would violate the 1LOT.
bdgwx says:
“Norman is correct. GHGs, by themselves, do not warm the surface. What they do is impede the transmission of radiation away from the surface.”
Most easily understood if you read Dr Roy Spencers post at the top of this page.
bdg, you are as confused as ever.
Atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR from the surface. That allows some of the solar energy to be used to warm the atmosphere, helping to modulate temperatures. When CO2 emits photons, some travel to the surface, and some travel to space. The ones that hit the surface are not always absorbed. So, the atmosphere can not warm the surface.
The photons lost to space are replenished by the Sun warming the surface, which then emits new IR.
This is conceptually similar to the insulation and furnace in your home, only if your thermostat is working. Earth’s temperature is controlled by a thermostat. It’s called “Physics”.
You can be personally okay with statements such as “GHGs warm the surface” because you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
And, wave cancellation does NOT violate 1LoT. Again, you have no clue about the relevant physics.
Nothing new.
“Earth’s temperature is controlled by a thermostat.”
Hmmm…Earth’s JD thermostat seems to be on the fritz:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2019-0-32-deg-c/
“The (photons) that hit the surface are not always absorbed”, only about 95% incident photons are absorbed, some are reflected, some transmitted into the ocean. So, the atmosphere can warm the surface by this 95% absorbed incident energy when the surface is below its 30year mean equilibrium temperature as shown in the above link.
fluffball, the only things you got right were my direct quotes.
Keep quoting me exactly. Maybe someday you can get out of your hole….
How about some more real facts from your IR Thermometer JD or is it in a timeout for revealing the GHE to us? You had a real string of good physics going for you there.
How about some of you being eternally silent, disgrace?
ball3…”The (photons) that hit the surface are not always absorbed, only about 95% incident photons are absorbed…”
If those photons come from a part of the atmosphere that is cooler than the surface 0% will be absorbed. So says the 2nd law.
Those 95% of photons WILL be absorbed Gordon since that is what is measured because dS = dQ/T is positive for that process.
ball3…”Those 95% of photons WILL be absorbed Gordon since that is what is measured because dS = dQ/T is positive for that process”.
No way. dS is an infinitesimal value that cannot have a sign. Entropy, S, is the sum of all the dQ infinitesimal values at the temperature T at which they occur.
If you want to calculate S from a cooler atmosphere to a hotter surface, you must use:
S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1)
Where T1 is the hotter surface temperature. T1 must be hotter than T2 to make S positive and we know heat can only be transferred by it’s own means from a hotter body to a cooler body. That mean heat transfer is from T1, the surface, to T2, the atmosphere.
The opposite transfer from T2 to T1 is not allowed.
“dS is an infinitesimal value that cannot have a sign.”
dS does have a sign Gordon, entropy can reduce say when water freezes to ice, thus for that case you would compute minus dS and sum them up for the total minus entropy.
“The opposite transfer from T2 to T1 is not allowed.”
JD shows you are wrong by doing actual outdoor measurements of the local GHE, Gordon, which you should also perform:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359444
Cloud directly overhead -> 64.1F
Blue sky next to cloud -> 34.7F
JD’s IR thermometer was at a warmer surface temperature so the opposite energy transfer from T2 to T1 IS demonstrated to be allowed. Gordon just imagines something he calls “heat” exists and does not allow the measurement to proceed. Gordon’s imagination is simply wrong as shown by JD’s actual observation.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
bdg…”GHGs, by themselves, do not warm the surface. What they do is impede the transmission of radiation away from the surface.”
If you have atmospheric gases that are 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and 0.04% CO2, why would the 0.04% of gases affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface?
It is far more likely, not to mention scientific, to presume that 99% of the gases would set the temperature hence the rate at which the surface dissipates energy.
“why would the 0.04% of gases affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface?”
Because that .04% is so strongly IR active the 1bar Earth atm. at the surface becomes nearly opaque to IR.
Earth’s atmosphere is only 0.7 opaque to IR. Most of that is due to H2O not CO2.
Yet again you beclown yourself Fluffball
“Earth’s atmosphere is only 0.7 opaque to IR.”
Looking up, the atm. emissivity is about 0.7 only in very dry non-humid locations such as at the poles. Near the equator, in very humid areas the atm. emissivity is near 0.95.
Konrad would be able to learn this through empirical experiments if Konrad would venture out of the kitchen into real outdoor nature. Or go over to the local college library and look up the instrumental transmissivity of tha atm. at the surface.
Thus, the global atm. looking up averages about 0.8 emissivity so the 1bar Earth atm. at the surface is measured nearly opaque to IR. Venus by contrast with such high surface pressure IS opaque in the IR at the surface looking up.
ball3…”Because that .04% is so strongly IR active the 1bar Earth atm. at the surface becomes nearly opaque to IR.”
That’s climate alarmist propaganda it does not work in real physics.
The Ideal Gas Law tells us that in a mixed gas at constant volume, each gas contributes heat based on its percent mass. Not a whole lot of heat can be expected from a gas with a mass percent of 0.04%.
“Not a whole lot of heat can be expected from a gas with a mass percent of 0.04%.”
Exactly zero heat in nature since heat entity exists only in your imagination Gordon. JD proves gas with a mass percent of 0.04% hugely increases the sky brightness temperature over that of space:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359444
Cloud directly overhead -> 64.1F
Blue sky next to cloud -> 34.7F
Those brightness temperatures result from a LOT more atm. “back radiation” than is emitted from totally feeble space at 2.8K.
“That’s climate alarmist propaganda it does not work in real physics.”
You make me laugh Gordon.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Norman,
“I do not admit GH effect cools sunny side. I claim an atmosphere has a cooling effect via conduction and convection. If you stop these mechanisms, that remove energy from the surface, the surface will be warmer.”
If you remove an atmosphere that has 100% GHGs your statement still holds … it will get warmer.
At least 71% of this planet’s surface would be around 47 C warmer, were it not for the conducive and evaporative cooling only a radiatively cooled atmosphere can provide.
Norman,
In normal science:
More radiation = hotter
Less radiation = cooler
“They reduce the amount of NET energy that leaves the surface. Without GHG the NET loss would be around 500 W/m^2
With the GHG it is generally less than 200 Wm^2”
So GHGs make it cooler. They turn 500 to 200 W/m^2.
All other things being equal a body losing energy at 200 W/m^2 will cool at a slower rate than a body losing energy at 500 W/m^2. GHGs reduce the rate at which energy is lost to space. Therefore, in the presence of a heat source GHGs make it warmer.
bdg, picking numbers to support your pseudoscience is lame.
Atmospheric CO2 does not raise surface temperatures. You still can’t understand the relevant physics.
Nothing new.
(Have you forgot where the backdoor is?)
I didn’t pick the numbers. They are a rough average of what was occurring at the Table Mountain station on July 18th, 2018.
Norman was unable to understand that link. And you weren’t either.
May I suggest you both learn some physics?
Zoe Phin
You need advice from Larry David. You need to curb some of your Enthusiasm.
I will think you are just playing around. I seriously do not think you actually believe what you are posting. JDHuffman believes what he posts. You, hopefully, are just having some fun with ridiculous points and absurd conclusions.
I doubt JDHuffman believes what he posts.
Svante only doubts reality.
He gulps down pseudoscience like a starved hyena.
That’s text book science in a non-spinning reference frame.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Norman, please seek professional help for your mental illness.
Norman is fine.
Norman spends the time and resources of his employer, to attack and slur others.
And, in Svante’s perverted and corrupt morality, that is “fine”.
You just slurred him.
Who pays for your time here?
Svante, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
“All other things being equal a body losing energy at 200 W/m^2 will cool at a slower rate than a body losing energy at 500 W/m^2.”
500 is hotter than 200.
Hotter objects cool at a higher rate.
The sun makes it 500. The GHGs make it 200.Where is the warming?
“GHGs reduce the rate at which energy is lost to space. Therefore, in the presence of a heat source GHGs make it warmer.”
Norman said that removing a 100% GHG atmosphere will make it warmer.
ZP said…”500 is hotter than 200″
we are talking about the net transmission of energy here. If an object emits at 500 W/m^2 and absorbs 300 W/m^2 then the net loss of energy would be 200 W/m^2.
ZP said…”The sun makes it 500. The GHGs make it 200.Where is the warming?”
Please review Wild et. al. 2013 for the correct energy budget estimates.
https://tinyurl.com/y65o8752
bdg…”we are talking about the net transmission of energy here. If an object emits at 500 W/m^2 and absorbs 300 W/m^2 then the net loss of energy would be 200 W/m^2″.
There is no such thing as the net transmission of energy when referring to heat transfer by radiation. The only situation coming to mind re a net transmission of energy would be with several power plants tied to a grid synchronously and transmitting power at the same time.
It is not physically possible, according to quantum theory, for electrons to absorb EM and transmit it at the same time. You have obviously confused yourself over the application of blackbody theory between bodies of different temperature and reached incorrect assumptions.
“when referring to heat transfer by radiation.”
“EM IS NOT HEAT”
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
ZP said…”500 is hotter than 200″
we are talking about the net transmission of energy here. If an object has an egress of 500 W/m^2 and an ingress of 300 W/m^2 then the net loss of energy would be 200 W/m^2. If you removed the 300 W/m^2 ingress then the net loss would increase to 500 W/m^2.
ZP said…”The sun makes it 500. The GHGs make it 200.Where is the warming?”
Please review Wild et. al. 2013 for the correct energy budget estimates.
https://tinyurl.com/y65o8752
bdg, making the same incoherent comment twice does not make it coherent.
The backdoor awaits you, backdoor guy.
bdwgx,
“No, upwelling and downwelling radiation do not destructively cancel each other out. That would violate the 1LOT.”
Then photon interference violates 1 LoT. Such a concept can’t exist, and yet it does. So it must be your misconception that is the problem.
Publish your debunking of photon interference and claim your Nobel prize.
Zoe, only coherent photons can interfere with each other. The natural upwelling and downwelling radiation is a field of incoherent photons which do not interact with each other.
It is possible for isolated photons, with the same frequency to cancel. But that does not happen with different frequencies. And that is why fluxes can not be handled with simple arithmetic, as simple clowns believe.
“It is possible for isolated photons, with the same frequency to cancel.”
No. They do not annihilate in a flash of light, that light would just be the same two photons. Study interferometry a little closer JD. No energy cancel.
Thanks for the blatant misrepresentation of my comment, fluffball.
It’s just one more act of desperation.
Nothing new.
It will help you understand physics if you study interferometry a little closer JD.
It will help you understand physics if you be eternally silent, disgrace.
Yet another meaningless “pop up” from DREM Team. Do “pop up” some real physics from actual observations for the readers DREMT, surprise us all.
Pop-up Pirate, be eternally silent, disgrace.
Obviously, fluffball has never studied “interferometry”.
Otherwise, he would know about “destructive interference”.
As usual, he’s all fluff, no substance.
Nothing new.
For DI you need something called “opposite phase” which can be made to happen in coherent electromagnetic waves which doesn’t happen naturally in the incoherent UW and DW atm. EMR. It will help you (and DREMT) understand physics if you study interferometry a little closer.
fluffball now finally veers to almost the correct direction, which starts to agree with my original statement: “It is possible for isolated photons, with the same frequency to cancel.”
Did he actually learn something, or just get tricked by his own tricks?
Not cancel JD, interfere. Do learn why they call it interferometry.
ibid.
You could just point an IR sensitive thermopile device toward the sky like what JD does to prove that downwelling and upwelling photons do not cancel each other out. They’re actually pretty inexpensive.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
“Zoe, only coherent photons can interfere with each other. The natural upwelling and downwelling radiation is a field of incoherent photons which do not interact with each other.”
Nonsense. There will be interference between 14 micron photons, 15 micron photons, 16 micron photons.
There will be interference between all common photons of CO2 ans Earth.
Think this through. If the photons interfere without each other and cancel out as you say then where does the energy that they are carrying go?
There can be interference between coherent 14 micron photons, 15 micron photons, 16 micron photons; which is the case for upwelling and downwelling incoherent photons of any micron variety. The wave aspect of light gives rise to the whole field of interferometry which you can explore but is not at all applicable to Earth’s upwelling and downwelling radiation.
Incoherent photons do not interact with each other, so the equilibrium distribution of a photon gas can come about only because of interactions of photons with the walls of the container i.e. Earth L&O surface & Earth’s atm. massive constituents.
Geez, …which is NOT the case for upwelling and downwelling…
bdgwx, Ball4, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
“we are talking about the net transmission of energy here. If an object emits at 500 W/m^2 and absorbs 300 W/m^2 then the net loss of energy would be 200 W/m^2.”
Before GHGs, the surface was absorbing 500, now it’s absorbing 300. How could it ever emit 500, if it’s absorbing 300?
You just cooled the surface.
“Think this through. If the photons interfere without each other and cancel out as you say then where does the energy that they are carrying go?”
Only source of energy is solar and geothermal.
Your extra GHG energy never entered, and hence there is nowhere for them to go.
“Incoherent photons do not interact with each other.”
Great. Do you not believe that
a) 14 micron photons travelling up and down will not interfere with each other?
b) 15 micron photons travelling up and down will not interfere with each other?
c) 16 micron photons travelling up and down will not interfere with each other?
… coherent 14.15,16 micron electomagnetic waves travelling up and down can be made to interfere with each other. Doesn’t happen naturally as the natural occurring ones are INcoherent.
ZP said…”Before GHGs, the surface was absorbing 500, now its absorbing 300. How could it ever emit 500, if its absorbing 300?”
No. That’s not correct. This is not what Norman’s link shows nor is what Norman said.
What the links shows and what Norman summarized correctly is that the net loss without GHGs is 500 W/m^2, but with GHGs it is actually closer to 200 W/m^2. This is a different statement than what you just said.
ZP said…”You just cooled the surface.”
No. YOU just cooled the surface because YOU constructed a different scenario. That is entirely on YOU; not me nor Norman.
ZP said…”Only source of energy is solar and geothermal.”
What does that have to do with photons cancelling each other out?
ZP Said…”Photons dont exist”
And how would photons even be able to interfere with each other if they don’t exist?
ZP said…”Your extra GHG energy never entered, and hence there is nowhere for them to go.”
Yet another strawman. I never said GHGs create extra energy that enters the climate system. What I do say is that GHGs prevent energy that already exists in the climate system from leaving. That is an entirely different claim.
Ball4, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Zoe Phin
Above you made this comment: “Norman thinks there’s a difference between
“GHG do not warm the surface, they allow the surface to reach higher average temperatures than without the gases present.”
a) GHGs warm the surface
b) GHGs reduce outgoing radiation which warms the surface.
He denies (a) and promotes (b), yet their conclusions are exactly the same.
He is illogical, and therefore mentally ill.
He has completely ignored my previous commment:
Photons of same frequency travelling toward Earth will have destructive interference with photons travelling to CO2.
The frequency will go to 0 (on AVERAGE), and since E=hf, E = 0.”
First we will give you some actual physics that disproves your final point about photons. If there is destructive interference it does not destroy the energy. With the interference you get some parts that have more energy and some that have none.
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/destructive.pdf
Basically you are wrong. Hopefully you will be able to correct your knowledge.
One your point about me. It is not illogical at all. You are not actually understanding my points. I can try to be very clear it does not seem to help.
ON YOUR POINT: “a) GHGs warm the surface
b) GHGs reduce outgoing radiation which warms the surface.
He denies (a) and promotes (b), yet their conclusions are exactly the same.”
I do not claim either are correct. GHG do not warm the surface. I gave you empirical data showing you this. The surface emits more energy than it gains from the DWIR from GHG. So GHG DO NOT WARM THE SURFACE nor does reducing the outgoing radiation warm the surface. Neither warms the surface. You need an input source of energy to actually warm the surface.
I will state my claim again. Please try not to warp into some golem you make up.
GHG atmosphere, with the same INPUT energy (no change), will cause the surface to reach a higher temperature than in an atmosphere without such gasses. THE GHG are not “warming” the surface.
Others have attempted reason with you. A house, with good insulation, is warmer in winter months (with same energy input) than such a house would be without insulation. Does insulation warm the house? NO it does not. The input energy is what is causing the warming. The insulation restricts how much energy can leave but it does not “warm”. Will this simple logic evade your mind? We will have to see.
Sorry Norman, you still have it WRONG: “GHG atmosphere, with the same INPUT energy (no change), will cause the surface to reach a higher temperature than in an atmosphere without such gasses [sic].”
CO2 can NOT cause such.
You should be taking physics classes, instead of typing classes.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
I already have studied quite a bit on the subject and I have linked you to actual textbooks on the subject. You are just wrong and that is the end of the story. I guess you just like being wrong all the time. Not sure why.
Wrong again, Norman. You have “indoctrinated yourself”. That is NOT the same as “learning”. “Learning” involves refocusing your mind onto reality. “Learning” involves a search for truth. But, you reject reality. You seek to pervert truth.
Want an example?
You insist that a racehorse is rotating on its own axis, as it runs the oval track.
That’s not reality, but you don’t care. You abhor reality.
Nothing new.
You insist that a racehorse is rotating on its own axis only when the horse is turning in the turns.
JDHuffman
No you are so convinced your ideas are the only truth that you will not accept the reality you are wrong. On the racehorse…I have proposed a simple test for you to do to prove it MUST rotate on its axis to change its orientation. You can walk around a square table. When you get to a corner you have to rotate on you axis (turn) to continue around the table. It is really simple. Not that you will accept it or even consider this reality.
fluffball must misrepresent me, and Norman must bring in a “square” orbit in an attempt to pervert reality.
They just abhor truth.
JDHuffman
You are wrong again. It seems to be the norm for you.
The reason I brought in a square table is because I have realized, that not only do you have very poor reading skills and comprehension, you also can’t seem to process events that have more than one thing going on at the same time. This is why you fail to grasp the GHE. You do not have the mental ability to understand things when more than one action is taking place. You can understand emission from a surface. You can’t understand emission taking place at the same time a surface absorbs EMR.
I also realize you can’t understand rotation taking place at the same time you are moving. You understand rotation when an object is not moving (like standing and spinning around). You lose it when the person walks and rotates at the same time.
I realized the only way your limited capacity to understand things was to simplify it. When you walk around a square table and go a little past the corner, then stop, and you rotate one quarter of a full circle and then continue walking. You would not understand that you are doing the same type of motion just at the same time. If totally confuses you and throws you off. That is why the Moon is not rotating in your limited mental capacity.
If you walk around the square table, rotating at each corner, the body part (say your right side if you walk around it clockwise) will always face the table . Your left side will never be visible. This is why the Moon is always showing the same side to Earth observers. If you don’t rotate at the corners, shuffle your feet sideways then walk backwards, an observer sitting on the table will see all sides of you. Just as you would see all sides of the Moon if indeed it did not rotate on its axis.
Sorry I can’t help you at all. Walk around a square table. It is not hard to do.
Norman: does it ever occur to you, when you say things like “walk around a square table”, as if that settles it…that there might be something that you are missing, rather than assume that the person you are talking to is unable to understand the concept of walking around a table?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Thanks for the input. The point would NOT be that the person does not understand the concept of “walking around a table”. The point is that the person is not able to understand that they must rotate both when walking around a square table or a round table. The problem is the person is not able to understand a continuous rotation so to simplify for them I suggest a square table. Rotation is only necessary after a stop in the motion. With a round table the rotation of the walking person and forward movement occur at the same time and this one is not able to understand what is going on.
This person cannot grasp that if a horse on an oval track did not rotate, it would run straight off the course. It is making slight rotation in a continuous fashion to move around the curve. It is easier to see with a square track. The motions are then separated.
If a horse if walking around a square track, the horse comes to a stop after clearing a corner, and now it must pivot by moving its front legs backward and hind legs upward until it has rotated a quarter turn. Then it walks the next section. The person could see it on a square track, but when the motions occur simultaneously the person is confused and can’t grasp it. The horse is making slight pivots (like it does in one motion on a square track) continuously around the curved track.
Norman, you still can not understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating on a fixed axis”.
That’s okay, physics is not for everyone.
At least you can type….
Yes, sorry Norman but that is absolutely no improvement. You are still making the ridiculous assumption that people don’t understand something incredibly simple, after all this time. Try a better argument.
bdgwx,
“And how would photons even be able to interfere with each other if they dont exist?”
Photons don’t exist, but EM waves do. If you want to pretend they exist, I can talk in that language too.
“What I do say is that GHGs prevent energy that already exists in the climate system from leaving. That is an entirely different claim.”
So now you’re claiming GHGs help keep the Earth at -18C?
.
Why do liars have to pretend I claim 14,15,16 micron photons interfere with each other, when I clearly state they interfere with themselves on their way up and down?
Because they’re liars. And all lying animals exhibit the same behaviors.
Norman,
“If there is destructive interference it does not destroy the energy.”
I never claimed destructive interference destroys the original energy emitted by the Sun-warmed Earth. Only the phantom backradiation seen in energy budget diagrams.
“You need an input source of energy to actually warm the surface.”
You think GHGs cause the sun to send more radiation?
What principle of physics allows an object to demand more radiation from another object than it had available? Who first discovered this?
bdgwx,
“Norman summarized correctly is that the net loss without GHGs is 500 W/m^2, but with GHGs it is actually closer to 200 W/m^2.”
What object has a net loss of 500?
The Earth surface receives 500 from the sun, and emits 500 to space. That is a net loss of zero.
If your GHGs create a 200 net loss, that means they cool.
ZP said…”What object has a net loss of 500?”
This line of discussion is focused on the surface at the Table Mountain station on July 18th, 2018. The net loss from 17Z to 22Z was about 200 W/m^2 during this time.
ZP said…”The Earth surface receives 500 from the sun, and emits 500 to space. That is a net loss of zero.”
Correct. But what does that have to do with this line of discussion?
ZP said…”If your GHGs create a 200 net loss, that means they cool.”
GHGs did not create a 200 W/m^2 loss. GHGs reduced the loss by 300 W/m^2 by returning 300 W/m^2 back to the surface. That means GHGs caused temperatures at the surface to be higher than would be otherwise. That’s the opposite of cooling.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Norman, your last article says:
‘The key here is that the energy associated with a wave has two
forms, generically called kinetic and potential’
But you previously dismissed my idea of potential energy EM waves.
Norman said:
“On the potential vs kinetic. You are still wrong on that one. Radiant energy is defined as kinetic since it is energy in motion. It does not have to hit anything at all and will still be energy.”
Hmm, looks like you have contradictory sources.
Just to emphasize and clarify what I said:
Photon destructive interference does not destroy original energy emitted and received from Earth to CO2.
It only destroys the imaginary energy that never existed due to CO2 presence.
The addition that you imagine gets destroyed because it can never come into existence in the first place.
The article is great proof of conservation of energy. You don’t conserve energy, you create additional energy.
Zoe Phin
Most of this post sounds like complete made up garbage. Do you have even the slightest proof of your assertions? You are free to make up whatever you want, but that does not make it good science.
YOU: “It only destroys the imaginary energy that never existed due to CO2 presence.
The addition that you imagine gets destroyed because it can never come into existence in the first place.”
I would request some evidence for these points. What “imaginary” energy? Sounds like total junk science to me. Provide evidence.
Zoe Phin
Since one source did not convince you hare is another.
https://physics.info/energy/
I think you do not understand what the article meant by “potential an kinetic”
The energy of a wave is in motion so it is KINETIC by the definition. It is how they define the terms. EMR is not potential energy.
The components talked about are within the wave but not the overall aspect of the wave.
A water wave has both potential and kinetic energy within the wave, but the water wave is considered kinetic energy overall. Energy in motion. It is moving from one part of a water surface to another.
https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
As the water wave moves, the water molecules move up (losing kinetic energy and gaining potential energy) then when they move down they gain kinetic energy and lose potential energy. But the energy of the wave itself is kinetic.
Please learn to use science terminology correctly. It helps in communication. If you change definitions based upon what you think it should be, it makes it difficult to understand what you are attempting to state. There are formal established definitions of science terms. These help in communication.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman says:
“GHG atmosphere, with the same INPUT energy (no change), will cause the surface to reach a higher temperature than in an atmosphere without such gasses.”
OK, so in this case, a 100% GHG atmo makes it warmer.
“I claim an atmosphere has a cooling effect via conduction and convection. If you stop these mechanisms, that remove energy from the surface, the surface will be warmer.”
OK, so in this case, removing a 100% GHG atmosphere will make it warmer.
LOL. Norman flip flops more than a politician.
Does Norman believe GHGs don’t convect? Are GHGs not convectable?
Didn’t he basically admit that convective cooling trumps whatever extra radiative heating he imagines?
.
Why are retards using insulated home analogy? They need to prove insulation changes W/m^2 of RADIATOR given same power. Of course a good insulator will help hold the heat. But that won’t change emission of RADIATOR (excluding specific feedback tech installed). Will it? No evidence provided, just a self-serving analogy that is nothing but a distraction from the main issue at hand. Lame.
Boys, please use better arguments, or just admit your ideological devotion.
-Zoe
Zoe Phin
There is NO flip flopping at all. Your lack of understanding the points is what gives you this illusion of thought.
This point: “OK, so in this case, removing a 100% GHG atmosphere will make it warmer.”
I stated I was not certain because of the rotation of the Earth. For the Moon which has 2 weeks of intense Sun (at Moon equator) so it does get quite warm. But it also gets quite cold.
If you talk just of PEAK temperatures, removing GHG may allow the Earth to reach a hotter peak temperature (look at the word “may”, because of the faster rotation I am not certain) but NOT an average temperature. Without GHG present the AVERAGE temperature will be much colder.
Norman, you continue to confuse “GHE” with “atmosphere”. They are NOT the same. An stmosphere is real. It has mass and physical properties. The “GHE” is an imaginary concept. The IPCC version violates the laws of physics.
If the Earth had no atmosphere, it would have both much hotter temperatures and much colder temperatures. The atmosphere is part of a system that moderates and controls Earth’s temperatures.
Learn some physics, and quit distorting reality.
JDHuffman
If the Earth had an atmosphere of just pure nitrogen (no GHG) with the same density, the surface would be much cooler than it currently is. No distortion of reality. Your the one who is unable to read and understand textbook material or properly evaluate experiments.
Do you remember this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
If you knew actual physics you could properly interpret Roy Spencer experiment. With your fictitious version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and your inability to accept a large percentage of photons from a cold body will be absorbed by a hotter body (if the hotter body is painted flat black so it is able to absorb most photons reaching its surface). If the hotter body is heated from another source the combination of all the photons adds more energy to the plate and its temperature rises. Believe what you want to. What you believe at this time is unscientific junk science. So far all tests done show you are wrong. Not one supports your claims.
Norman, I stopped reading after your first sentence, because I was laughing too hard: “If the Earth had an atmosphere of just pure nitrogen (no GHG) with the same density, the surface would be much cooler than it currently is.”
The surface would be warmer with pure nitrogen for an atmosphere, with everything else being the same. The atmosphere would be warmer but would not be able to radiate IR to space, so the surface would have to be warmer.
Learn some physics.
“The (N2) atmosphere would be warmer but would not be able to radiate IR to space”
Funny, N2 can radiate JD. All mass radiates. Do learn some radiative physics.
JDHuffman
I think you would be much better off if you curbed your laughter and turned on your thinking circuits.
The atmosphere would only warm by gaining energy from the surface. It does not matter that is could not cool via radiant emission. It is not getting that hot. There is now nothing to stop the energy from the surface emission from reaching space directly. You may not know this, the Earth currently only emits a small portion of its IR emission directly to space. It is called the Atmospheric Window (read up on it). The rest of the IR is absorbed by GHG in the atmosphere and clouds. The heated air and clouds radiates toward the Earth surface. With the combined energy of the Sun and the GHE the surface will be warmer.
For reference look at Roy’s experiment I linked to. The greater radiant energy of a warmer ice shield reaching a near IR black body surface increased the temperture of the heated object.
Time to quit laughing and attempt learning. It could not hurt. You are currently completely wrong. Not sure why you enjoy that state of mind.
Well the clowns are more confused than ever.
fluffball now claims that N2 is a radiative gas, aka “GHG”!
And Norman ignores the Sun: “The atmosphere would only warm by gaining energy from the surface.”
I just bet that both also believe the racehorse rotates on its axis!
JD, do learn that a GHG (water vapor) is IR active where N2 is not (like O2 is not IR active). All mass radiates.
JDHuffman
I don’t want to rain on your parade but we were talking about a nitrogen atmosphere only. The Sun would not warm this type of atmosphere. The Sun energy is composed of mostly visible and near IR. Nitrogen does not absorb in those bands.
As for Ball4, he is right and you are wrong. Your reading skills are so poor and your desire to prove him wrong so strong that you end up showing you can’t read and comprehend at the same time.
What Ball4 actually said: “Funny, N2 can radiate JD. All mass radiates. Do learn some radiative physics.”
You assumed, incorrectly as you usually do, that he was talking about IR band of energy. He never did make this claim. You attributed it to him because you are not able to read and comprehend at the same time.
Here:
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/03/do-all-atmospheric-gases-absorb-and.html
Both N2 and O2 radiate energy in the microwave range (O2 microwave emission are what Roy Spencer uses to generate his temperature graphs).
Wrong again JDHuffman. Seems the normal course for you.
I also noticed you brought up the race horse. Have a horse move around a square track. Have it stop at each corner and then it will rotate to continue its path. It has been stated that a continuous small incremental rotation of a horse confuses the heck out of you. Since it is small pivots you can’t see it happening. That is why you need to observe the process on a square track and the rotation only occurs at each corner and is more drastic. Then you will understand.
Norman, as usual, you can’t understand physics, so let’s start with the easy stuff.
“Institutionalized Pseudoscience” claims the Moon rotates on its axis. This has been taught for years, and folks like you believe it. Because, you cannot think for yourself.
The Moon has the same motion as a racehorse running an oval track. The racehorse “appears” to be rotating on its axis if viewed from outside the track because the viewer would see both sides of the horse in one lap. But, from inside the track a viewer would only see one side of the horse. That single fact proves the horse is NOT rotating on its axis. You don’t even need to know the physics of orbital motions.
Now, for the much more complicated physics of Earth’s atmosphere. Nitrogen absorbs much higher energy photons than CO2. In fact, it can even absorb UV wavelengths. The Sun can definitely warm N2. So, without CO2, a pure N2 atmosphere would be warmer, along with the surface.
Fluffball implied that N2 was a GHG. When I ridiculed him, he tried to correct himself. So, he was only right when he corrected himself, due to my prodding.
I won’t go into more detailed physics about a pure N2 atmosphere, until you understand, and admit, a racehorse is NOT rotating on its own axis. Your failure to accept reality hinders your learning, and thereby wastes the time of people trying to help you.
“But, from inside the track a viewer would only see one side of the horse. That single fact proves the horse is NOT rotating on its axis.”
That single fact proves the horse (race car, toy train on oval track) has rotated one quarter rotation on its own axis 4 times at each course turn to keep the same side to the infield i.e. the horse has turned in the turns 4 times led by the jockey. If the horse did NOT rotate on its own axis at all, the infield would see all 4 sides of the horse.
As usual, the basic physics must be explained to the clowns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
But, of course, they will not be able to understand.
Nothing new.
…if the fingers of the right hand are curled to point in the way that the object has rotated, then the thumb of the right hand points in the direction of the vector.”
Good find JD, learn how the horse rotates on its own axis by finding the direction of the vector the horse rotates on its own axis about: curl the fingers of your right hand to point in the way that the horse on the racetrack has rotated in the turns, then the thumb of your right hand points in the direction of the vector pointing along the horse’s own axis of rotation.
“But, of course, they will not be able to understand.”
norman…”I dont want to rain on your parade but we were talking about a nitrogen atmosphere only. The Sun would not warm this type of atmosphere. The Sun energy is composed of mostly visible and near IR. Nitrogen does not absorb in those bands”.
Are you trying to tell me that an insulated container of N2 with a window to allow solar energy will not warm?
Here’s N2 absorp-tion in the near infrared band.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009261499005849
more…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/nitrogen_sky/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/nitrogen_spectrum/
“It is possible for isolated photons, with the same frequency to cancel. But that does not happen with different frequencies. And that is why fluxes can not be handled with simple arithmetic, as simple clowns believe.”
JDHuffman is absolutely right. Fluxes can not be added, they can only be ORed at best.
Temperature is an intensive property.
The resultant flux density (by SB Law) must also be intensive.
The max temperature is set by the max temperature available.
The max flux density is set by the max flux density available.
For those that remember my Sun puzzle …
S E
a| -> |c
b| -> |d
The greatest flux is from a to c, and b to d
The flux from a to d and b to c can be ignored, even though there is still radiation.
However, this is only for Heat flux. When it comes to Light (Lumens), the story changes – even though heat and light are both energy.
More facts for clowns to deny:
Cloud directly overhead –> 64.1 °F
Blue sky next to cloud –> 34.7 °F
Ground 86.4 °F
Also, there is this:
https://www.iceagenow.info/intense-snowfall-in-northeastern-italy/#more-28876
“Cloud directly overhead > 64.1F, Blue sky next to cloud > 34.7F”
Good job demonstrating the GHE JD, see – instruments and observations are better than cartoons.
Good denial, fluff, as the facts destroy your pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
It’s so funny JD, you not knowing what you’re talking about. Keep up the knee slapping humor.
ibid.
Norman,
“If the Earth had an atmosphere of just pure nitrogen (no GHG) with the same density, the surface would be much cooler than it currently is”
I vehemently disagree. Without water the surface would be far hotter than it currently is.
Exhibt A: Venus
Why do you think Norman’s scenario is “without water”?
PhilJ
Venus has a strong GHE by both CO2 and the sulfuric acid clouds.
You would have to have a nitrogen only atmosphere. Little IR activity.
Also you would have to be more definite with you term “far hotter”.
The Moon’s surface reaches “far hotter” temperatures than the Earth’s surface. But it also reaches far colder temperatures. The Moon also rotates much slower so it is exposed to solar input for much longer time. The average surface temperature of the Moon is much colder than the Earth’s.
Thanks for clarification.
Norman,
“You would have to have a nitrogen only atmosphere. Little IR activity”
A nitrogen only atmosphere (that wouldn’t cook off very quickly) would have to have a TOA temp about 60 K at .001 mb (see Pluto)
If the Earth TOA is 150 km then with a lapse rate of 10 C/km thats 1500 (+60) K at the surface…
Im using the lapse rate for dry air here.. feel free to do the math for a pure nitrogen lapse rate at earth gravity and density … i doubt if it would be lower….
Norman,
A pure N2 atmosphere would be colder, but a pure Argon atmosphere would be hotter.
HEAT CAPACITY. Do you know what that is?
bdgwx,
“GHGs did not create a 200 W/m^2 loss. GHGs reduced the loss by 300 W/m^2 by returning 300 W/m^2 back to the surface. That means GHGs caused temperatures at the surface to be higher than would be otherwise. Thats the opposite of cooling.”
Flux densities are intensive. The max sets the max. 500 from the sun.
Imagine it takes 1 second to travel from surface to CO2.
While Earth is sending 500 to CO2, CO2 is sending it 300 and sending 200 to space. Where is the warming?
Since the solar flux was undefined I’ll just call it S.
With GHGs: Qw = S – 500 + 300
No GHGs: Qn = S – 500
Notice that for all values of S the inequality Qw > Qn holds.
In other words the net flux received at the surface is higher with GHGs than without.
The warming occurs when you start without GHGs and then transition into a state with GHGs. In that case the net flux received at the surface increases by 300 W/m^2 when you apply GHGs. The surface temperature will increase until a new equilibrium is established. This new equilibrium is higher than it was before.
bdgwx
Your message is very clear and well presented. Let us see if Zoe is able to understand your point.
bdgwx, Norman, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
I’m two steps ahead of you.
When GHGs absorb 500 from sun warmed surface, you showed that 300 goes to earth and 200 goes to space. There is now ZERO energy in the CO2.
You warmed the surface by 300, and cooled the GHGs by 300. That’s all you did.
Now you need to return the 300 you stole from the GHGs, otherwise they are colder than space.
You believe GHGs cool themselves to warm the surface and then the surface can’t warm the GHGs. Amazing!
ZP said…”When GHGs absorb 500 from sun warmed surface, you showed that 300 goes to earth and 200 goes to space. There is now ZERO energy in the CO2.”
There’s still energy in the CO2. It’s just that the net flow of energy is zero. That means an equilibrium is established in this scenario.
ZP said…”You warmed the surface by 300, and cooled the GHGs by 300. Thats all you did.”
No. The transmission of energy does not necessarily equate to the transmission of heat. Of the 500 W/m^2 of upwelling radiation GHGs directed 300 W/m^2 toward the surface and 200 W/m^2 toward space. That’s all that’s happening here.
ZP said…”Now you need to return the 300 you stole from the GHGs, otherwise they are colder than space.”
Nothing was stolen from GHGs. 500 W/m^2 went in and 500 W/m^2 came out. The energy budget is balanced. The 1LOT is very happy with this arrangement.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
I’ll explain it for the retards again:
Without GHGs, Earth emits 500 to space. Earth is hot. Hotter objects emit more radiation.
With GHGs:
Earth emits 300 to GHGs
Earth+GHGs emit 200 to space
Earth still loses 500.
Earth HEATS the GHGs.
Just like Earth needs constant solar input (exclude geothermal for now) to maintain 500, GHGs need constant input to maintain 300. You can’t take GHGs’ input and make it an output.
I’m sorry, but reality doesn’t work that way.
Zoe Phin
Wrong!
YOU: “Without GHGs, Earth emits 500 to space. Earth is hot. Hotter objects emit more radiation.
With GHGs:
Earth emits 300 to GHGs
Earth+GHGs emit 200 to space”
NO the Earth does not emit 300 to GHG it emits 500 to GHG.
You might want to lighten up on who you call “retards”. You are not the brightest person I have seen post. Mostly you just make up things and post them. I am not sure that would qualify you to be this high level genius who is much above the rest.
Your posts are like scrambled eggs. You take some of this and some of that and just mix it together in a confused distorted
view point that based upon nothing and supported only by your ego and imagination.
Zoe Phin
Study this graphic. If you have any questions I would be happy to attempt to explain them.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1024px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
norman…”Study this graphic. If you have any questions…”
One question, why are you so naive and stupid as to be taken in by this propaganda from Gavin Schmidt et al?
The graphic shows 340.3 W/m^2 of back-radiation.
Gavin Schmidt made an utter fool of himself trying to explain positive feedback and has to be set straight by engineer Jeffrey Glassman. Now Schmidt et al are trying to contradict the 2nd law by claiming an atmosphere with a temperature equal to, or cooler than the surface, can radiate back nearly as much energy as the surface is claimed to emit.
That is plain pseudo-science. A trace gas with 0.04% of the mass of the entire atmosphere could not possibly back-radiate that much energy. Furthermore, the GHGs are claimed to recycle most of the heat they receive from the surface so as to raise the surface temperature. That not only contradicts the 2nd law, and is perpetual motion, it’s plain stupid.
Gordon Robertson
The 340 w/m^2 is from all GH effects. All the GHG and clouds.
Gordon Robertson
Insulation causes a heated object to reach a higher temperature than the same object that is not insulated. It does not violate the 2nd Law, is observed and does not create perpetual motion and is not “plain stupid”
You accept insulation as a reality but you can’t understand a similar process with radiant energy. It is not a violation when conduction is reduced and the temperature goes up but now, in your distorted view of valid physics, it becomes a violation of physics laws when the process is radiant energy and not conduction. This is a strange way to understand basic physics. Maybe your thought process is “just plain stupid”. That is the most logical conclusion I can come up with.
Norman, CO2 is NOT an insulator.
It is a radiative energy conductor.
You just can’t learn.
“A trace gas with 0.04% of the mass of the entire atmosphere could not possibly back-radiate that much energy.”
Sure it can Gordon, the “back radiation” from the trace gases is measured with instruments! Devices such as radiometers so just see here measured at the surface: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359444
Cloud directly overhead –> 64.1F
Blue sky next to cloud –> 34.7F
Those brightness temperatures result from a LOT more atm. “back radiation” than from totally feeble space radiation at 2.8K. Though JD writes it comes from a trace amount of blueberries, so that’s good for some laughs.
Fluffball remains confused about what the sky readings indicate. Just like he’s confused about blueberries.
Nothing new.
No confusion JD, that’s what you wrote:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359103
Blueberries inhabit the sky producing the “back radiation” & making it appear blue according to JD.
No clown, that is NOT what I said. That is your misrepresentation of my comment.
You misrepresent, and I enjoy watching your failed efforts to pervert reality.
Nothing new.
I enjoy watching JD running away from what JD wrote. Like an entertainer in a 3-ring circus. More please JD. Do NOT learn any science, just enjoy your blueberries.
ibid.
(And, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)
JD says
“Norman, CO2 is NOT an insulator.”
Yeah, that’s why it is used to put out electrical fires.
Actually bob, CO2 is used to shut off the oxygen to a fire.
JDHuffman
Generally the terms insulation and conductor are not used with radiant energy transfer. They are terms used with heat transfer via conduction.
The terms used with radiant energy are radiant shield and good emitter.
CO2 absorbs all the radiant energy emitted by the Earth’s surface in the 15 micron IR band after a few dozen meters of air. It acts as a total IR shield for this band of IR. So it absorbs all the surface IR in this band and you could call it a perfect “insulator” for that band since none of the surface IR goes through the CO2. It also emits in this band but that emission is from a much colder region so it is emitting far less to space than the surface does at that band of IR.
Do you need another spectrum of this? I believe I have posted spectra more than once.
I guess it won’t hurt to do so again.
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/img47.gif
Her is one
and another
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/images/MeasuredRadianceReno.jpg
Without Carbon Dioxide present the band of IR from 650 to 750 cm-1 would not be there in the spectra graphs. The surface would not absorb this energy and would be a little cooler on average (not specific).
“Generally the terms insulation and conductor are not used with radiant energy transfer.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Radiative insulation is via reflectivity. Reflectivity, not absorp.tion/emission.
Something worth remembering.
Norman, I always enjoy you finding more links you can’t understand.
And, I especially enjoy you attempting to pervert reality:
“CO2 absorbs all the radiant energy emitted by the Earth’s surface in the 15 micron IR band after a few dozen meters of air.”
“It also emits in this band but that emission is from a much colder region so it is emitting far less to space than the surface does at that band of IR.”
In REALITY, CO2 emits where it absorbs.
Actually JD,
Putting water on an electrical fire would also shut off the oxygen to the fire by replacing it with steam, but that doesn’t work so well as water is a conductor.
The actual fact is that CO2 doesn’t conduct heat very well, so yes it is an insulator for heat conduction as well as electrical conduction.
Just another example of your half baked notions of anything.
Or maybe you are totally baked.
Blob is definitely an expert on getting baked. I’ll give him that.
Actually,
Radiant shielding works even for emissivity, e = 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Third equation clearly shows that heat flow, Q, decreases with each added radiant shielding layer.
Even when e = 1.
Facts matter. Worth remembering.
If you believe that the wiki article on Thermal Insulation needs correcting, please do so.
People can believe either the Wiki which
1. Explains the formulas it shows, and BTW the GPE.
2. Agrees with other sources, which are cited, and can be checked out.
Alternatively, people can believe a blogger who
1. Never gives a formula.
2. Cannot show an alternative formula or cite one.
3. Has a history of declaring without evidence.
4. Has a history of making up fake physics.
Hmmmm..who should I believe?
The other article on thermal insulation does not need to be corrected, because real radiation shielding works much BETTER if it is reflective, which agrees with the formula I quoted.
You can believe the wiki article on Thermal Insulation, or correct it if you disagree.
DREMT, apparently unable to read plain English, reposts a no longer relevant comment.
Actually your 12:37 PM and my 12:39 PM was a cross-post.
Wrong again, Nate.
Norman,
Your glib denials and insults are flattering.Thank you.
Your graphic shows an energy loop with no origin – according to your religious theory. Where does the 398 come from, the 340? Where does the 340 come from, the 398?
If 340 came from 398, then 340 didn’t cause it. GHE False.
If 398 came from 340, where did 340 come from?
zoe…”Where does the 398 come from, the 340? Where does the 340 come from, the 398?”
All values are pulled from a magicians hat just like the heating factor of ACO2, pulled from the same hat, of (5 to 25%. They make this crap up at GISS and NCAR.
Gordon Robetson
The more accurate truth is you make up your crap at Roy Spencer blog and post like you know what you are talking about. You are a pretend expert like JDHuffman. More than obvious you are making up a reality where you believe you studied college level physics but can’t do any math or understand any college level concepts.
You seem to think still think MID-IR is caused by the energy of electron transitions of energy levels. Wrong! I your made up unscientific world you believe IR from a colder source can’t be absorbed because you wrongly believe ALL the electrons in a hot body are in excited energy states and there are no available electrons to absorb energy from a colder body. Wrong on two counts.
You can’t understand the Inverse Square Law and think the trillions of watts the Earth’s surface emit goes away in a few meters because you never studied any physics. More likely you went to a trade school and learned a few basics about radio communication but mainly how to fix electronic devices. If you took an actual physics course you would completely fail. They do not allow people to make up their own ideas, that is not science.
Science is based upon observation, data, logic and rational thought process. The graphs are based upon observed data, logic and rational thought process. They are averaged values of actual satellite measurements. Go to the CERES web site and find out.
Surface fluxes are modeled but they match closely real measured values.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php
Norman, such data are useless, unless you thrive on pseudoscience.
For example, the outgoing flux at TOA is from a computer model. It clearly is not accurate. There are no spectra indicated, and they don’t even show any error ranges. You are led to believe all of the data are real and accurate.
And, of course, you fail for it.
“All values are pulled from a magicians hat..”
No magic needed Gordon, the values are from actual instrumental observations over the entire globe; the means (340 DW, 398 UW) are developed from that data just like those JD accurately reports:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359444
Cloud directly overhead -> 64.1F
Blue sky next to cloud -> 34.7F
And the top post shows how: if the GHG trace gases were reduced, then so would be the the brightness temperature data JD reports.
fluffball gets it wrong, again.
The values Gordon mentions are best described as being “pulled from a magician’s hat”.
They are not real. They are from computer models, with no supporting actual spectra.
However, we have REAL data from this morning:
High cirrus-type clouds, directly overhead –> -11.3 °F (-24 °C)
Ground –> 70.4 °F (21.3 °C)
The surface warms the atmosphere. The atmosphere can not warm the surface.
Nothing new.
“They are not real. They are from computer models, with no supporting actual spectra.”
The 398 is the global mean from instruments.
The 340 is the global mean from instruments.
No computer models needed.
The atm. warms the surface measured at a much higher brightness temperature than that from space at 2.8K, no computer model needed:
High cirrus-type clouds, directly overhead -> -11.3F (-24C)
Ground -> 70.4F (21.3C)
As shown in top post, ground temperature would be much lower without the GHGs increasing “back radiation” above that from 2.8K outer space.
fluffball just loves his fluff and confusion.
First, he says: “No computer models needed.”
Then, he says: “As shown in top post…”
Poor fluffball doesn’t realize the top post is a computer model!
JD doesn’t even realize 340,398 are not from the computer model in the top post. Those figures are from observing the natural radiation fields on a global mean over multi-annual observation periods.
For example, the outgoing flux at TOA is from a computer model. It clearly is not accurate. There are no spectra indicated, and they don’t even show any error ranges. You are led to believe all of the data are real and accurate.
Ball4
Well it is becoming routine that your points are correct and easy to verify with searches. JDHuffman wrong again as usual. He seems to thrive on being wrong for some unknown reasons. He can’t seem to get anything right but he will pretend he is. He likes to pretend. I guess he is still a child at heart. He pretends to know physics. He pretends his incorrect ideas are correct.
Here Ball4:
“We evaluate computed surface irradiances with observed irradiances at many surface sites. Currently, we use 37 land sites and 49 ocean buoys.”
From this article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290533490_Clouds_and_the_Earth's_Radiant_Energy_System_CERES_Data_Products_for_Climate_Research
JDHuffman and his “imaginary friend” both think you are wrong but with actual research, it is that you speak correctly and they are both just wrong.
Keep up the good work Ball4. It is good you attempt to correct the many errors of JDHuffman and his friend. You do not seem to be getting anywhere but I can learn from your posts. I learn you are an intelligent person who has actually read some science material. It seems JDHuffman is content to make up his own junk science then pretend it is real good. But you could sympathize with JDHuffman. He has very little reading skill, poor ability to comprehend things. You have to say things in a really narrow way or all he can grasp is “rambling”. He is limited. He would be unable to focus or understand any textbook material. He can’t read my links so he pretends he read and understood what he was not able to by hiding under his patent phrase “you posted a link you don’t understand” He does this often with other posters. It becomes clear he can’t read very well and does not want people to make fun of him so he must pretend.
Norman, that’s another great ramble–good typing practice, huh?
Here’s today’s atmosphere reading, for you to deny:
High cirrus-type clouds, directly overhead –> -11.3 °F (-24 °C)
Ground –> 70.4 °F (21.3 °C)
The sky is way below freezing but the bright Sun is warming the surface just fine. (Just some more facts for you to deny.)
Also, I see you found another link you can’t understand.
Nothing new.
Norman, yeah you got it, it’s entertaining playing with JD. So much predictable total nonsense from JD, like a never-ending cheap ticket to a 3-ring circus & a spy thriller all-in-one. JD’s like Simpson’s Sideshow Bob never changes stepping on the rake and getting smacked in the face with the handle no matter which direction taken. I made a list couple times of all JD’s gaffes; it’s gotten longer but I lost track of it awhile back.
Norman, fluffball was unable to answer the question.
Maybe you would like to try:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359579
Norman,
“NO the Earth does not emit 300 to GHG it emits 500 to GHG.”
I wasn’t aware GHGs can intercept 100% of Earth’s radiation. Do you think gases are blackbodies? Go back to school.
Zoe Phin
I think you should consider the error is on you and not me. It has to do with the definitions of science words.
I clearly used the word “emits”. That choice of word is not telling you how much the GHG absorb. The Earth emits 500 in both cases, the amount emitted by the surface does not change in the two cases.
Norman is a moron.
https://physics.info/energy/
“electromagnetic potential energy”
EM waves are orthogonal E and M fields. You seem to believe they are always kinetic while I claim they are only kinetic once there’s entanglement with receiving object. How can you wave space? You can’t, only matter.
Let’s apply your stupidity to gravity. Gravity creates a field, therefore it emits a wave therefore its kinetic. Gravity “must” be sending kinetic energy even to space.
Nonsense. But take two orthogonal fields and you think you’re right. How silly.
Zoe Phin
It might not be scientific or logic skills you lack. I think your problem is the same as JDHuffman. You really can’t read very well.
You have a link to an article. You can’t read what the article says so you pick out something and use it incorrectly than you attempt to call me a “Moron” over something you cannot understand.
It makes me wonder if you are just playing around on this blog. Having a fun time trying to provoke some response but not taking the science at all serious. Maybe you are the female version of the Joker. “Why so serious?”
Read the article again and. Electromagnetic energy is the same as electromagnetic radiation. The electromagnetic energy potential they are talking about is the energy one gets from either an electric field, a magnetic field or chemical reaction. But the energy is not in motion.
I am not sure you grasp the meaning of the words “kinetic” or “potential”
Primarily I don’t think you are at all trying to accomplish any other task than to mess around on this blog. Kind of like playing with a toy.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Ball4
“The atm. warms the surface measured at a much higher brightness temperature.”
As bdgwx demonstrated, every second, every m^2, Earth sends 500 Joules to GHGs and GHGs send 300 Joules to Earth and 200 Joules to space.This leaves GHGs with ZERO internal energy.
Thus you cranks believe cold warms hot until cold reaches 0K.
You cranks will deny that you left GHGs at 0K, but we know better. Please embarass yourself by explicitly denying reality.
Zoe, the fact is lesser cold of the atm. radiation as measured by JD allows the surface to be at a higher steady state equilibrium temperature than with the deeper cold radiation of outer space from a ~transparent atm. That’s the reality. Learn about it in a good meteorology text of your choice if you have accomplished the pre-req.s to understand the material.
fluffball, just so no one will think you are full of fluff, and since you believe you are an expert on meteorology, what is wrong with the 340 Watts/m^2 figure?
The 340 (sometimes seen as 342) is advertised as the “thermal down surface” from “greenhouse gases”.
Scientifically, what is wrong with that?
Actually, JD, the ~340 global multi-annual mean atm. radiation is advertised differently by different authors: DLR – downwelling longwave radiation (L’Ecuyer 2015), all-sky emission to surface (Stephens 2012), thermal down surface (or downward thermal radiation, or atmospheric emission of thermal radiation down to the Earth’s surface) is from Wild, 2012. The number changes a bit because each of these authors use data observed over different time periods.
Scientifically, you should not write “advertised…from greenhouse gases” which are more accurately produced by greenhouse resident cats that have digestive issues.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
ZP said…”As bdgwx demonstrated, every second, every m^2, Earth sends 500 Joules to GHGs and GHGs send 300 Joules to Earth and 200 Joules to space.This leaves GHGs with ZERO internal energy.”
No. I said no such thing. In fact, I’ve repeated said that this was a measurement taken on July 18th, 2018 at the Table Mountain station. That hardly qualifies as “every second” and “every m^2″.
On a global mean basis I advocate for the energy published by Wild et. al. 2013 and other similar works. When making statements about what you think I’m saying first read this publication and make sure your thoughts are consistent with it.
ZP said…”Thus you cranks believe cold warms hot until cold reaches 0K.”
Strawman.
ZP said…”You cranks will deny that you left GHGs at 0K, but we know better.”
Strawman.
bdg, both fluffball and Norman have been unable to answer the question.
What is wrong with the ~340 Watts/m^2, as indicated in pseudoscience for “thermal down surface” from “greenhouse gases”?
There are several things wrong, can you identify even one?
Your use of greenhouse gases is wrong, “greenhouse gases” are more accurately produced by greenhouse resident cats that have digestive issues.
I’m using terms from your own pseudoscience, fluffball.
Yes, JD’s use of the term greenhouse gas is pseudoscience which means it is wrong. Try to get physics right JD, but your 3ring circus comedy act would of course suffer.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
“Gordon Robertson
The 340 w/m^2 is from all GH effects. All the GHG and clouds.”
Norman believes GHGs create new raw energy. He will now deny this and claim it came from 398. But where did 398 come from? If he believes GHGs warm beyond what sun provides, then he has to believe 398 came mostly from 340. But where did 340 come from?
YOU cranks use circular genie physics.
“But where did 340 come from?”
From atmospheric radiation global mean over 4-15 annual periods as measured by ground instrumentation, all mass radiates and the almost IR opaque atm. is fairly massive globally.
Nope, its from computer models.
Nope, JD using Wild’s terminology above at 2:34pm evidences JD’s ref. is Wild et. al. who tell us (bold mine):
“The surface observations to constrain the surface radiative fluxes are retrieved from two data sources: The Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA [12]) and the database of the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN [13]). GEBA is a database for the worldwide measured energy fluxes at the Earth’s surface and currently contains 2500 stations with 450,000 monthly mean values of various surface energy balance components, maintained at ETH Zurich.”
fluffball, you don’t have a clue.
You don’t know what the “340” represents, so you just throw out your fluff, as you did here when you coldn’t answer my question :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359579
But, at least you have poor Norman fooled….
I did answer your question JD, you just don’t like the correct answer. Nothing new.
Sorry fluff, your answer was incorrect.
Nothing new.
My answer stands correct, JD, until it is shown incorrect with reasoned debate which your comments lack. Your comments are entertaining though, sometimes containing funny cartoons and a 3-ring circus. Except, of course, when you are outdoors instrumentally measuring sky back radiation & reporting data showing the local GHE.
Nothing new.
fluffball, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…
…but flattery will get you no where.
If you want to impress me, learn to face reality. Quit spewing your nonsense. You just make yourself look like an idiot. Such tactics as claiming you can stick your arm in a rotating airplane prop only fool clowns like Norman.
Oh yeah, I remember when JD lost an arm doing so, poor one-armed JD not understanding ref. frames was in the hospital for awhile after that accident, just after getting out before that having been thrown uder the bus by DREMT. Fortunately when I did so, it was in the safe ref. frame and still have two arms. JD just types a lot slower now, and hasn’t done a new bogus, funny cartoon since JD’s latest accident.
“If you want to impress me, learn to face reality. Quit spewing your nonsense.”
And that means quit misrepresenting me. That just shows your desperation.
I’ve never misrepresented you JD, you get physics wrong all on your own. Nothing new, learn some physics.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Ball4,
Incorrect. 340 is never measured. It is a derived value.
“The physical grounds of pyrgeometers are presented in Figure 3.1. In the ideal instrument the thermopile leads a voltage (an electromotive force Uemf,) linearly related to the net power gain; thus the pyrgeometer responds to the infrared flux balance at the receiver-detector:
LWin = LWup + LWnet + delta(LW)
ΔLW is the dome-case flux interaction, which is related with the difference among the emissivities and temperatures of the case and dome.”
The instrument measures LWnet. Then upwelling radiation is added on.
The actual energy flowing to the instrument from the atmosphere is LWnet.
Adding upwelling radiation to actual measured energy flow leads to all sorts of junk science.
“340 is never measured. It is a derived value.
Never? Nope. Even JD has measured instantaneous readings for the 340 Zoe! If JD did it spatially and temporally long enough, even JD would measure the mean 340.
The 340 is data based, see JD’s evidenced ref. Wild et. al. 2012 for instance: “The surface observations to constrain the surface radiative fluxes are retrieved from two data sources: The Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA [12]) and the database of the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN [13]). GEBA is a database for the worldwide measured energy fluxes at the Earth’s surface and currently contains 2500 stations with 450,000 monthly mean values of various surface energy balance components, maintained at ETH Zurich.”
They’ve pointed radiometers upwards revealing the DW radiation at far more sites and times than JD and reported the mean value of 340 which is slightly different with each author’s time period observed.
Actually, the “340” is bogus.
fluffball is just overly impressed (obsessed) with me because he doesn’t understand the relevant physics.
I not used to such super-star status….
Day 110. Same old, same old.
My, how times flies when we’re having fun.
110 days the clowns have denied that the plates nonsense is debunked.
The racehorse has trampled them, their dry sponges don’t put out more water than they absorb, and now the sky temperatures are WAY below surface temperatures.
When cults fold, the first indicator is smarter members leaving I think we’re already seeing that. The few remaining should stay away from high windows, sharp objects, and purple kool-aid….
It’s true, there doesn’t seem to be quite as many of them about any more.
…and the ones that are still hanging about seem to be taking “desperate” to a whole new level.
110 days and you still haven’t learned anything.
Such a shame.
Yes bob, for some people, learning can be a slow process.
But don’t get discouraged. Not everyone can understand physics.
At least you’ve learned to type.
Yes JD, you appear to have a learning disability, is there anything I can do to help.
Perhaps, I could explain some elementary physics to you, since I have progressed farther in the study of physics than you.
OK, blob.
Another useless comment from a non student of physics.
You are all hat and no cattle.
OK, blob.
Let’s hear your debunking again,
Can you put it in a few sentences, with no links to previous bullshit you have posted?
blob, please stop trolling.
Aw, what the heck. Nates far too obsessed with me to not have to interrupt, further up-thread, so Ill just post my response to Svantes 12:06am comment down here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359451
(Read on from there a little bit to get to his comment). So here is my reply.
Svante says:
“1) With the plates pressed together:
The plates are perfect conductors, so there is no temperature difference. Vacuum has zero conduction and makes a 400 W difference on initial separation.
2) No, back-radiation from the green plates does not represent a net addition of 400 W. It reduces the blue net energy loss rate by 400 W.”
OK, so first point (most glaringly obvious). Your 1) and 2) adds up to 800 W. You are over-shooting somewhat. Choose one or the other. Or perhaps, reduce each one by 200 W ☺️.
1) This would be an example of you starting from the conclusion you want, and working backwards from there. You want it to be the case that at equilibrium, separated, the temperatures of the plates are different, so that you can have the blue plate be warmer than the green plates (and this would be erroneous, because that would mean there is radiative heat flow at equilibrium!). You know it is universally agreed that when pressed together, the plates are at the same temperature. So, you decide you will claim that there would also be a temperature difference between the plates when pushed together, if it weren’t for the fact that the plates are perfect conductors. You can even use the equation for conduction to “support” this bogus logic, because k is infinite you can claim that the “heat flow” is whatever you want it to be (literally any value) and it will give you the answer that “Thot” and “Tcold” are the same.
In doing this, you can now falsely state that when separated, the blue plate “should” increase in temperature because there “should” have been a temperature difference when they were pressed together in the first place. You have reverse-engineered the answer you want.
2) “It reduces the blue net energy loss rate by 400 W”. Using your logic, there was a blue net energy gain of 400 W with the plates pressed together, since the blue plate was at the same temperature as the green, whilst still having the 400 W electrical input. So there is no “blue net energy loss rate” to reduce, when the plates are separated.
DREMT, I missed that exchange, but I was amazed at Svante’s comment:
“The plates go their separate ways when you separate them.
The blue plate has the old 400 W in, but zero output to green, so its temperature will go up.
The green plates have the old 2×200 W out, but no input, so their temperature will drop.”
Svante has absolutely no clue about the relative physics. We are learning that none of them do!
Upon separation, the plates do NOT “go their separate ways”. The separation is only a slight separation, so that there are no losses. At the instant of separation, the blue plate is at 244 K. So it starts emitting 200 W/m^2 in both directions. Since the photons travel at the speed of light, the green plates never drop in temperature. The final correct solution, as has been shown numerous times, is:
244 K…244 K…244 K
Hmm, thermal conductivity is, I think measured in a second, not nano seconds. With ideal thermal conductivity, it would be at speed of light or close.
Anyhow I think if ideal, then, perhaps:
244 K244 K244 K
Now does the delay effect things?
First, the sun has a temperature at some distance, and temperature is dependent on the type of surface. And a blackbody surface, as far as I know, is not the hottest surface.
Second obviously, once sunlight energy is converted into IR, the IR is not the same radiant energy as sunlight.
I find blue and green plate annoying. The link to “experiment” seems to 400 watts light source and shining on region much smaller than 1 square meter. If shining on 1/10th of square meter, it would be 4000 watts per square meter. I am not sure if anyone aware of this. And it’s got 3000 K filament. Or it’s max temperature if close enough filament is around 3000 K, and not sure how much it is less than 2 feet away. Then got variable of curved glass vacuum container, not sure how that effects things.
But the 244 K, if blackbody and sunlight indicates sunlight of around 200 watts, or well beyond Mars distance.
But as I understand it, it was said 200 watts was absorbed by the first plate. And it’s possible 400 watts per square meter of some kind of light could have surface absorb 200 watts [per square meter].
I seems to me that if in space, and got sunlight about 1360 Watts per square meter, and got blackbody surface, it can absorb 1360 watts per square meter, and it should warm to about 120 C.
I going do another post about that.
It will be long and very boring.
First, something I wrote down:
Some cylinders:
3 meter diameter cylinders 3 meters tall:
Solid iron
Solid copper
Solid aluminum
Clear plastic cylinder filled with water
Clear plastic cylinder filled with air
Volume of 3 meter diameter 3 meter tall cylinder:
1.5 times 1.5 times pi times 3 = 21.2057 cubic meters that will call 21.2 cubic meters
Density:
Iron: 7.874 g/cm or 7874 kg per cubic meter
Copper: 8.96 g/cm or 8960 kg per cubic meter
Aluminum: 2.7 g/cm 2700 kg per cubic meter
Water: 1000 kg per cubic meter
Air: 1.2 kg per cubic meter
Specific heat:
Iron: 0.450 joule per gram per 1 K: 450 joules per kg**
Copper: 385 joules per kg
Aluminum: 900 joules per kg
Water: 4186 joules per kg
Air: 1000 joule per kg
** does vary depending on temperature
Mass of cylinders:
Iron: 7874 times 21.2 cubic meters = 166,928.8 kg
Copper: 189,952 kg
Aluminum: 57,240 kg
Water: 21,205 kg
Air: 25.4 kg
Amount of joules of heat require to heat by 1 K the cylinders
[not including plastic containers of water and air]:
Iron: 166,928.8 times 450 = 75,117,960 joules
Copper: 73,131,520 joules
Aluminum: 51,516,000 joules
Water: 88,764,130 joules
Air: 25,400 joules
[It should noted that air is 10,000 kg per square meter on Earth, and 10,000 kg of air is 10,000,000 joules per K
And also 3 meter depth of water is about 3000 kg per square meter. Times 4186 is 12,558,000 joules.]
The clear plastic cylinder will 1 cm thick walls, something like Polycarbonate and with tensile strength of about 9000 psi.
It’s floor will be a metal such as aluminum and coated with blackbody surface, same thickness but metal is stronger.
The 3 meter diameter cylinder [118.11 inches] would withstand 39 psi of internal pressure. Top of cylinder will have dome
shape and made thick enough to also withstand as much as 39 psi.
The pressure of 3 meter of water depth with earth gravity is less than 1/3 of 1 atm or less than 5 psi.
And vapor pressure of 120 C water, is.. At 30 psi water boils at 121 C. At 38 psi water boils at 129 C.
Perhaps it would withstand any pressure generated from being on lunar surface. Also 1.2 kg density air is air
at about 20 C, and if air is heated, I would guess it would not break the container. Or general idea is they would be
sealed. And all the metal cylinders are also coated with blackbody surface.
And idea is what would happen if put these cylinders some place on earth- say desert on Equator, like say in Congo.
One also put them at different elevations. And of course putting them on the Moon and Mars.
With mars, I thinking you might twice as much air [cause it’s colder] so air with 2.4 kg per cubic meter. Or put a container
1/2 filled with water and half filled with air. Of course if filled container with water, and it frozen, the expansion of forming ice would break the container.
If put a container full of water and it started at 20 C and say at Mars equator, it would need to lose:
88,764,130 joules times 20 before reaching 0 C.
Would it reach 0 C?
So this has some numbers for next post.
Well that didn’t post, try again with part of it:
Density:
Iron: 7.874 g/cm or 7874 kg per cubic meter
Copper: 8.96 g/cm or 8960 kg per cubic meter
Aluminum: 2.7 g/cm 2700 kg per cubic meter
Water: 1000 kg per cubic meter
Air: 1.2 kg per cubic meter
Specific heat:
Iron: 0.450 joule per gram per 1 K: 450 joules per kg**
Copper: 385 joules per kg
Aluminum: 900 joules per kg
Water: 4186 joules per kg
Air: 1000 joule per kg
** does vary depending on temperature
Mass of cylinders:
Iron: 7874 times 21.2 cubic meters = 166,928.8 kg
Copper: 189,952 kg
Aluminum: 57,240 kg
Water: 21,205 kg
Air: 25.4 kg
Amount of joules of heat require to heat by 1 K the cylinders
[not including plastic containers of water and air]:
Iron: 166,928.8 times 450 = 75,117,960 joules
Copper: 73,131,520 joules
Aluminum: 51,516,000 joules
Water: 88,764,130 joules
Air: 25,400 joules
That worked but missing first part:
Some cylinders:
3 meter diameter cylinders 3 meters tall:
Solid iron
Solid copper
Solid aluminum
Clear plastic cylinder filled with water
Clear plastic cylinder filled with air
Volume of 3 meter diameter 3 meter tall cylinder:
1.5 times 1.5 times pi times 3 = 21.2057 cubic meters that will call 21.2 cubic meters
So mainly want copper. Forget the cylinder thing, going to do plates and maybe cubes.
Copper plate 3 meter square or 9 square meter. And will focus on middle 1 square meter of copper. And it will be 1 cm thick.
Have blackbody surface and face sunlight with 1360 watts per square meter. As above cube meter is 8960 kg per cubic meter and 1/100th
is 89.9 kg of 1 square meter 1 cm thick copper plate which surround by 8 square meter plate 1 cm thick.
Copper: 385 joules per kg per K
89.9 kg times 385 joules = 34,611.5 joules to heat by 1 K
34,611.5 / 1360 equals 25.4 seconds to heat plate to by 1 K if it absorbed 1360 watts per square of sunlight.
Since I think it can only heat to 120 C, I could stop it from absorbing sunlight by starting off by having plate 125 C.
And roughly the side facing sun will remain at 125 C and back side of plate will cool. If blackbody surface it will at more than 1360 watts per square meter.
If back side plate was shining copper, it could cool at less than 1360 watts per square meter.
Let’s say back side is a blackbody surface.
1 mm thickness of back side plate has 34,611.5 joules / 10 =
3461.15 joules. And .4 mm has 1,384.46 joules per K
So .4 mm in one second will cool almost 1 K, but warmer copper behind will add joule of heat to it.
So in one second the backside will cool by some small fraction of 1 K.
And of course the front side facing sunlight will cool even less.
See if this posts and then get conductivity of cooper ref.
Copper -73 C 413
” 0 401
” 127 392
And calculator
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/conductive-heat-transfer-d_428.html
Use 392 W/(mK)
And from thick of 1/2 cm [middle of the 125 C plate, it can conduct
313,600 joule if difference is 121 C.
If 125 to 124 C over thickness of 5 mm it’s 78400 watts per square meter. One cm is 39200 watts.
As above about 25 second to cool 1 cm thick plate by 1 K, and 5 K
in 125 seconds, it cools near 120 C with no sunlight being absorbed during this time [or some small amount is, if there is net gain absorbed the 125 C would increase in temperature- which I assume it can’t. I assume surface facing sun is slighly lowering it’s kinetic energy, and warmer copper behind surface could add more energy than the sunlight could. Or it’s cooling significantly less than backside.
Now let’s have 3 meter cube and 3 meter square plate which 1 cm above cube [held by tiny copper wires which strong enough for the microgravity attraction].And they start out at 125 C.
It doesn’t seem anything going warm above 125 C.
Cube going to cool and from all side other than top.
JDHuffman
NO your final correct answer is wrong. Always has been always will be. Even if E. Swanson does another experiment with two plates. You will not accept the results because you will want something more. Spectra (which you have yet to explain why you need it) and fluxes of each plate (which you have yet to explain why you need it).
You are wrong and seem to like being wrong. Because you can convince some imaginary poster you made up that you know physics (which you don’t) does not make your junk science right. It just makes you look like and ignorant person pretending to be something they are not or never will be.
Pretend on. It is what you do. You will never do your own experiment and you will never accept anyone else’s experiment.
The fact are if you heated the “blue” plate with and external energy source and had two identical plates touching, when you move them away the temperature of the blue plate will go up.
You have reduced a mechanism that was removing energy from the blue plate. The word is conduction. The blue plate is no longer conducting any energy to either green plate.
Wrong you are and you can convince your imaginary friend and Gordon Robertson. Congratulations on a successful campaign. You have two people who agree with you.
norman…”The fact are if you heated the blue plate with and external energy source and had two identical plates touching, when you move them away the temperature of the blue plate will go up”.
It’s a more complex problem than you are making out. With the three plates touching, they will be in thermal equilibrium. As you move the two GPs away, they will both immediately cool since radiation is not nearly as good a way to transfer heat as direct conduction.
With both GPs cooler than the BP, they cannot transfer heat to it via EM so they cannot cause the temperature of the BP to rise. If the temperature of the BP does rise it’s because the GPs were its means of heat dissipation via radiation before separation.
At the moment of separation, the GPs are no longer dissipating heat from the BP so it’s temperature should rise at first. However, as both GPs move further away it should begin to cool as their effect on blocking radiation from the BP gets less with distance.
The message here, Norman, is that the BP is not warming via any kind of back-radiation. That contradicts the 2nd law and is sheer pseudo-science.
Norman incorrectly assesses the situation:
“You have reduced a mechanism that was removing energy from the blue plate. The word is conduction. The blue plate is no longer conducting any energy to either green plate.”
Sorry Norman, but you don’t understand heat transfer.
At the instant of separation, conductive heat transfer stops, but radiative heat transfer begins. And radiative heat transfer is even faster than conductive heat transfer.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
Yes I understand heat transfer, it seems quite a bit more than you do.
YOU: “At the instant of separation, conductive heat transfer stops, but radiative heat transfer begins. And radiative heat transfer is even faster than conductive heat transfer.”
Yes and radiative energy transfer is now radiating energy away from the plate and toward the plate. The temperature of the blue plate goes up to reach a new steady state temperature to emit energy at the rate the green plates are losing energy to the surroundings.
You fail to understand the geometry of the problem. When the green plates are touching the blue plate, they have only one radiating surface so it takes only 200 Watts from the blue plate to radiate 200 watts from each of the green plate surfaces. When you move them away you have now doubled the radiating surface. They emit from both sides. In order to continue to emit 200 watts from the side facing the surroundings each plate must receive 400 watts each. Now they emit 200 watts from each side. The 200 emitted toward the blue plate drives its temperature up to the point it is emitting a total of 800 watts (400 to each plate). That is why you get the temperature increase of the blue plate. You could do the experiment yourself and this is what you would see happen. Regardless if you, Gordon Robertson, DREMT, Zoe Phin did the experiment you would all find the blue plate gets hotter. In your experiments the temperatures would be “real” world not hypothetical but the temperature of the blue plate would go up regardless to some new temperature. Zoe could do the test without the pipe she thinks is the cause. It won’t matter. The effect will be the same.
Norman, “heat transfer” is just one of the many things you can’t understand.
You believe that after separation, the blue plate will absorb the emitted flux from the green plates. You don’t understand radiative physics, or thermodynamics.
The green plate is “downstream” in the energy flow. In this “perfect” scenario, the emitted photons from green will not be absorbed by blue, just as the simple diagram shows. So the blue plate will not rise in temperature, and the green plates will not drop in temperatures. Your incorrect solution violates the laws of physics.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
‘At the moment of separation, the GPs are no longer dissipating heat from the BP so its temperature should rise at first. ‘
Yes, Gordon. Agree. Now you can argue with DREMT and JD.
‘However, as both GPs move further away it should begin to cool as their effect on blocking radiation from the BP gets less with distance.’
Now if the GP plate moves a short distance away, 1 cm, and stops, so that is almost completely blocking the BP from the surroundings, then the BP will remain warmer than the GP.
Nate says, “Now you can argue with DREMT and JD”.
Gordon said, “With the three plates touching, they will be in thermal equilibrium”.
Now you can argue with Gordon, Nate.
DREMT, it is not a vote.
If you must rely on who voted for the idea to decide if it is right or wrong then it is hopeless for you.
The plates in contact have nearly the same temperature, thus one could say they are nearly ‘in equilibrium’.
That approximation doesnt apply to the separated plates.
They are not in contact and don’t need to be nearly the same temperature.
Whoosh!
‘Whoosh’ =”missing the point” = DREMT cannot rebut it.
Endless baiting, from Natan: the Master Baiter.
Ha! Baiting?
Im pretty sure you interjected into my conversation with Gordon. Then I responded to your baiting!
You mean the conversation where you mentioned my name?
“Even if E. Swanson does another experiment…”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359146
At the instant of separation the green plate is emitting 200 watts/square meter from each side, while only receiving 200 watts/square meter from only one side, so it drops in temperature.
Because it is emitting more than it is receiving.
You guys never learn.
bob d…”At the instant of separation the green plate is emitting 200 watts/square meter from each side, while only receiving 200 watts/square meter from only one side, so it drops in temperature”.
After separation, the GPs will receive no direct input of heat from the BP, only radiation. The further they get from the BP the less EM they will receive. They will both cool quickly since the Em intensity falls with the square of the distance.
No radiation from the cooling GPs will raise the temperature of the BP, however. That would contradict the 2nd law.
You continue to believe the second law is something it is not.
You keep stumbling over the with no other effect part.
Study it some more or get a professor to help you out, or read what Dr Roy has to say on the subject.
bob d …”You continue to believe the second law is something it is not.”
I apply the 2nd law exactly as defined by Clausius both verbally and mathematically as entropy.
Again, Clausius stated that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a warmer body.
That statement is not only intuitively correct, it is correct for all energy as defined in physics. No energy can be transferred BY ITS OWN MEANS from a state of lower potential energy to a state of higher potential energy.
You alarmists have obfuscated the 2nd law by introducing a mysterious net energy balance that has no explanation in physics. You have also amended the S-B equation to allow a two-way heat transfer.
Gordon,
The blue plate can and does receive energy from the green plate because at the same time the green plate is receiving energy from the blue plate.
This is an example of what Clausius was talking about when he said “without some other change connected therewith occurring at the same time.”
Sure it was, blob.
bob, you still can’t understand the simple diagram:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
See if you can get an adult to help you.
I understand it alright, it is wrong.
Sorry dude, see if you can get a professor to explain it to you.
You can’t identify anything wrong, so it is only wrong in your imagination.
Your imagination is not reality.
Grow up.
I’ve told you a few times that your diagram has plates at the same temperature emitting different amounts of whatever watts/meter squared is.
That is one thing that is wrong.
I could continue, but if you won’t admit that, it is pointless.
Again run it past a professor, see what he or she says.
What’s wrong is your inability to understand the simple diagram.
Nothing new.
Here again is another thing wrong with your diagram.
It has two extra arrows indicating the radiation from the green plate is reflected from the blue plate.
It is impossible for an object to have two different emissivities depending on the source of the energy.
You probably don’t understand my objection to your diagram.
Maybe a Professor of the right discipline might be able to help you.
bob d…”Sorry dude, see if you can get a professor to explain it to you.”
How about if you state the 2nd law as you understand it?
Gordon,
there are several equivalent statements of the second law, most appropriate to this discussion is what Clausius said
Heat can never be transferred from colder body to a hotter body with out some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
I note that you always forget about the second part and are just obsessed with the first.
So I am going to pull a DREMPT,
and start counting until I get a response from Gordon and JD,
It’s been two days and no response from Gordon and JD.
blob, please stop trolling.
“Svante has absolutely no clue about the relative physics. We are learning that none of them do!”
As you can see from my response to Nate, below, they are actually trying to claim there is heat flow between the plates when pressed together, at equilibrium!
Nope. Why do you PRETEND that this has not been answered!
As I showed you many times by now, real plates require a temperature difference between them for heat to flow.
But the delta T is so small it can be neglected! In the IDEAL case it is assumed to be 0.
The difference made in the end is TINY!
You then try to exploit this nuance, a common thing in textbook problems, that flies way over your head,
to try to say:
Oh well then you guys have it all wrong!
FALSE.
“FALSE”
TRUE
Impressive rebuttal!
It’s all that’s required in response to someone who is trying to argue that there is heat flow between the plates when pressed together, at equilibrium.
‘who is trying to argue that there is heat flow between the plates when pressed together, at equilibrium.’
Straight up lie. One repeated many times!
If you have to lie about what Im saying and what the facts are saying, youve lost the argument.
You are saying there is heat flow between the three plates, pressed together, at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
‘who is trying to argue that there is heat flow between the plates when pressed together, at equilibrium.’
a. I have explained about real plates to you a half dozen times. Pressed together, there will be a slight temperature difference. Calculated it for you. You have not challenged the calculation.
Unable to challenge it, you now just lie about it as if you’ve never heard it.
Quite a guy!
b. You know that there MUST be heat flow between the plates, otherwise the heat from the 400 W input will build up in the BLUE plate until it melts!
Just common sense. Do you have any?
So yes, you are saying there is heat flow between the three plates, pressed together, at 244 K244 K244 K.
So no, not equilibrium. Stop lying about it.
So desperate.
Still DREMT,
Regardless of your confusion about how conduction works, you still have not explained how 400 J makes its way from the Blue plate to the Green plate every second when they are separated.
That is your big problem that you have yet to explain.
Particularly given your earlier statements about ‘no no net energy between plates at the same temperature’
You have said the RHE gives a big fat 0. OK, if plates are at the same temperature, I agree, because EMR is balanced, the same in both directions.
What is the alternative equation that you propose to use that gives heat flow or ‘energy’ flow without a temp gradient?
And why must there be NO temp gradient anyway?
“Pressed together, there will be a slight temperature difference. Calculated it for you. You have not challenged the calculation.”
As you know (since I already explained it perfectly clearly), the math isn’t the problem. The problem is the principle that you are starting with “I require this amount of heat flow”, and then from there you are choosing whatever temperature difference between the plates you want (you need to keep that small, so you do), and whatever value of k, that will get you back to this particular amount of “heat flow”. I pointed out that with the infinite value of k you can claim the “heat flow” is whatever you want, and the temperature difference will still be zero, because that makes the entire point very clearly and simply. But it’s the same principle with your other calculations.
‘The problem is the principle that you are starting with ‘I require this amount of heat flow’, and then from there you are choosing whatever temperature difference between the plates you want (you need to keep that small, so you do), and whatever value of k, that will get you back to this particular amount of ‘heat flow’.
“Whatever k value?” The k value of Copper, a good conductor. Why not Copper? The metal is not specified in the problem.
“Get you back to this particular amount of ‘heat
flow’. ”
Yes, as required by the given information in the problem, 400 W.
That is called solving a heat flow problem!
The point was these parameters were not given in the original problem because the problem was never supposed to be about conduction.
Since no metal or thickness was stated, I choose one that is realistic, but close to IDEAL as possible. Copper. Thin, 1 mm.
Whatever Temp difference? Just what law of conduction says it is!
Change the parameters if you like, make it 5 mm thick, make it Aluminum.
If they are realistic, it wont matter. The delta T will still be TINY.
Completely (and probably deliberately) missing the entire point of the comment.
‘Completely (and probably deliberately) missing the entire point of the comment.’
Nope, addressed your exact quotes directly and rebutted them.
Instead of saying I ‘missed the point’ which is your go-to easy throwaway, how bout specifics?
Yup. I say you deliberately miss the point because that is exactly what you do.
Here is a typical conductive heat transfer problem:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/conductive-heat-transfer-d_428.html
Note that the whole point of the exercise is to calculate the amount of heat flow.
What you are doing is starting with the amount of heat flow you want, then working backwards from there. Reverse engineering the problem.
The reason you are doing so is that you wish to claim that with the plates pressed together, and at the same temperature (the situation Gordon described as being at “thermal equilibrium”) there is an amount of heat x flowing between the plates! This, in turn, is so you can claim that when the plates are separated, there “should be” x amount of heat still flowing between the plates, only now via radiation. Which then finally gets you to where you wanted to be all along, with the blue plate having to be warmer than the green plates.
‘The reason you are doing so is that you wish to claim that with the plates pressed together, and at the same temperature (the situation Gordon described as being at thermal equilibrium) there is an amount of heat x flowing between the plates! This, in turn, is so you can claim that when the plates are separated, there should be x amount of heat still flowing between the plates, only now via radiation. Which then finally gets you to where you wanted to be all along, with the blue plate having to be warmer than the green plates.’
Some problems have known heat flow, and unknown temperature, like this one.
Some problems have known temperatures, and unknown heat flow.
These are simply different types of heat transfer problems, idiot!
‘there is an amount of heat x flowing between the plates! This, in turn, is so you can claim that when the plates are separated, there ‘should be’ x amount of heat still flowing between the plates, only now via radiation.’
Not ‘should be x amount’.
It is required by the problem! 400 W input heat 400 W output heat.
OMG, every time you post, DREMT, you reveal new depths to your ignorance!
“have known heat flow”
There is a 400 W input. That’s all that is “known”. All this means is that the plates have to come to the temperature set by that input, and that 400 W will leave. It does not mean all the ridiculous things you pretend it does.
Please do carry on defending the idea that there is heat flow between the plates, pressed together, at the same temperature. It’s fun to watch.
“Here is a typical conductive heat transfer problem:
Note that the whole point of the exercise is to calculate the amount of heat flow.”
The original GPE problem was giving the input heat flow, and asking for the temperatures of the plates. Nothing about plates in contact or conduction or equilibrium.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
You are so thoroughly ignorant about heat transfer problems, that apparently you think finding the temperature, rather than heat flow, is ‘reverse engineering’!
As if it is cheating.
Of course what is it really? Simply SOLVING a heat transfer problem!
That’s how clueless you are, and how ridiculous this argument has become.
Please do carry on. Most entertaining.
‘Please do carry on defending the idea that there is heat flow between the plates, pressed together, at the same temperature. ‘
If heat is flowing in, and heat is flowing out, then heat is also flowing in the middle.
Its just not that complicated.
Its like all this time I’ve been trying to explain tax laws to a kindergartener, and not getting why he’s not getting it.
I particularly enjoyed the immediate misrepresentation: “apparently you think finding the temperature, rather than heat flow, is ‘reverse engineering’!”, along with all the false accusations and insults, and rhetoric about “how ridiculous this argument has become”, and all the rest. A full-on “Nate meltdown”.
Hers you thinking things thru:
‘Nates been talking about heat conduction, I better go learn something about it.
Ok, here’s a ‘Conductive Heat Transfer Calculator.’
Now I get it! It says I can find heat flux if I know temperatures. Cool.
Ha ha! Nate thinks he can reverse engineer it and find temperature from heat flow. What an idiot!
I’ll show him!’
D: “Note that the whole point of the exercise is to calculate the amount of heat flow.
What you are doing is starting with the amount of heat flow you want, then working backwards from there. Reverse engineering the problem.”
A really full-on, “Nate meltdown”.
‘meltdown’ = ‘missing the point’ = ‘learn some physics’= ‘falsely accusing” =”misrepresenting”
all shorthand for: ‘I have no answers’
Nate declaring things are shorthand for “I have no answers” is his shorthand for “I expect a serious response to this ridiculous tantrum, where I have totally misrepresented what you’ve said, as anyone can read, but I’m desperate to keep this exchange going, until it can somehow come across like I’ve come out on top”.
‘I expect a serious response to this ridiculous tantrum, where I have totally misrepresented what you’ve said, as anyone can read, but I’m desperate to keep this exchange going, until it can somehow come across like I’ve come out on top’
Tantrum? No you misread my emotions. Shocker.
More like rolling on the floor laughter.
You have kept the argument going for a year past its expiration date, because you refuse to learn the BASICS that you obviously do not know from people who obviously do know them.
That simply INVITES ridicule.
I take the ridiculous things you said at FACE VALUE. Try to correct them if you wish.
Nah. Definitely seems like a tantrum. Still does.
Ok. I will back off a bit and ASSUME that the ONLY THING you are being confused about is this:
You showed me an example CONDUCTION problem. Where heat is conducting THROUGH an object with a certain TEMPERATURE GRADIENT.
Then for our problem, you say:
“There is a 400 W input. Thats all that is ‘known’. All this means is that the plates have to come to the temperature set by that input, and that 400 W will leave. It does not mean all the ridiculous things you pretend it does.”
You appear to be saying that the plates, in contact with each other will NOT behave the exact same way as your example!
That is they will NOT have 400 W entering, flowing THROUGH the object, requiring a certain temperature gradient, then leaving the object.
That makes NO sense. Why wouldn’t the plates behave exactly the same as your conduction example?
The plates have 400 W entering, and 400 W leaving. Where have I said otherwise!?
☺️
Oh?
You said this:
‘What you are doing is starting with the amount of heat flow you want, then working backwards from there. Reverse engineering the problem.
I said the heat flow is 400 W as required by the INPUT and OUTPUT, and it must conduct THROUGH the material (where else could it go?), just like what happens in your example.
In your example that meant a certain temperature gradient must be there.
What is your problem exactly?
What is your problem, exactly!? Other than not understanding the difference between heat and energy? Oh, and being unable to do anything but selectively quote, out of context?
“What you are doing is starting with the amount of heat flow you want, then working backwards from there. Reverse engineering the problem.
The reason you are doing so is that you wish to claim that with the plates pressed together, and at the same temperature (the situation Gordon described as being at “thermal equilibrium”) there is an amount of heat x flowing between the plates! This, in turn, is so you can claim that when the plates are separated, there “should be” x amount of heat still flowing between the plates, only now via radiation. Which then finally gets you to where you wanted to be all along, with the blue plate having to be warmer than the green plates.”
‘The reason you are doing so is that you wish to claim that with the plates pressed together, and at the same temperature (the situation Gordon described as being at “thermal equilibrium”) there is an amount”
This a recurring theme, that you know my beliefs and wishes better than I do.
Rather than actually taking what I say my beliefs are on face value, which is that I am solving a heat transfer problem.
No that cant be it, even if how I solve is almost exactly your example!
Weird.
Look, is your conduction example showing a system at equlibrium, with NO temperature gradient?
Of course not, and that is exactly the normal way heat flows through a piece of metal, and so of course thats what I assumed.
Your obsession with faux equilibrium is not mine, and is a big red herring.
The problem is, what Fourier’s Law for conduction and what the radiative heat transfer equation can tell you is not the same thing. FL gives you heat flow through an object (or with the plates, multiple objects pressed together) and the RHTE gives you heat flow between objects.
If you could use FL in a way that was consistent with the use of the RHTE in this problem (i.e. get the heat flow between objects), you would have t1 and t2 be the temperatures of the blue plate and one of the green, and with those temperatures the same, the heat flow between the two would come out as zero. Exactly the same as what the RHTE comes out with when the plates are separated, at the same temperature, with emissivity and view factors equal to one. Zero. You want to claim there “should be” x amount of heat flow between the plates, at steady state, when separated. And this relates back to the use of FL in a way that is obviously not going to be consistent with the use of the RHTE, by its very nature.
So by “reverse engineering” I’m not saying, “Ha ha! Nate thinks he can reverse engineer it and find temperature from heat flow”. You are misrepresenting me. I try to keep things as simple as possible, that’s all, but there is always more to it. Usually stuff that shouldn’t need explaining…
‘If you could use FL in a way that was consistent with the use of the RHTE in this problem (i.e. get the heat flow between objects), you would have t1 and t2 be the temperatures of the blue plate and one of the green, and with those temperatures the same, the heat flow between the two would come out as zero.’
Not making any sense. This is circular logic, where you are assuming YOUR ANSWER, Tb = Tg must be correct for plates separated.
These are two different problems that are solved independently.
The FL is used to solve plates together, and we dont get tb = tg, as shown by YOUR CALCULATOR, we get a TINY difference.
The original plates separated problem, when solved with RHTE and has 200 W flowing from BLUE TO GREEN gives Tb = 262K and Tg = 244K, as Eli and we have repeatedly shown, and you know what the 3 plate solution gives.
Neither FL or RHTE give Tb = Tg. But FL gives Tb ~ Tg.
“Not making any sense”
Then try thinking about it a bit more, before you respond.
How bout taking the things I actually said, rather than trying to guess what Im thinking.
Eg “This is circular logic, where you are assuming YOUR ANSWER, Tb = Tg must be correct for plates separated.”
If you think Im wrong, explain why.
Then, try to explain how you can arrive at your answer, without ASSUMING it is the answer.
In the original GPE solution we let physics tell us the temperatures. We dont have any guess what they are before we solve for them.
The only assumptions are the laws of physics: RHTE, 1LOT, 2LOT, and the boundary conditions given in the problem.
I’m sorry, but I can’t do all your thinking for you.
Anything I explained to you now, I would just be repeating myself. You have everything you need to understand. The rest is up to you.
I will not be baited. So if you want to, have your last word, your comfort blanket where you tell yourself how clever you are, and how uneducated you think I am, etc etc.
After 47 posts, DREMT will not be baited!
‘You have everything you need to understand’ =
‘I don’t NEED to be logical’ =
‘I cannot explain how I can arrive at my answer, without ASSUMING it is the answer.’
“After 47 posts, DREMT will not be baited!l
Interesting…that kind of reads like you’re admitting you’ve been baiting me!
Sorry Nate, I didn’t mean to interrupt. Have your last word.
But before you do, have a little think about why you can accept that using the RHTE, with the plates initially separated, at 244 K…244 K…244 K…heat flow is at zero. You can accept that, no problem.
Yet for some bizarre reason, using the FL in a way that is consistent with that use of the RHTE (i.e. getting the heat flow between the objects, having t1 and t2 be the temperatures of the blue plate and one of the green), at 244 K…244 K…244 K…you can’t accept that the heat flow between the two would also come out as zero. Even though it would! That would be a place where you could kick your thinking off from.
“Weird”.
‘why you can accept that using the RHTE, with the plates initially separated, at 244 K244 K244 Kheat flow is at zero. You can accept that, no problem.’
I accept that yes, because thats what the physics, the RHTE, tells us.
Caveat: initially there would be a 0.00067 K difference in temp, so a tiny, insignificant radiative heat flow would be there.
“Yet for some bizarre reason, using the FL in a way that is consistent with that use of the RHTE (i.e. getting the heat flow between the objects, having t1 and t2 be the temperatures of the blue plate and one of the green), at 244 K244 K244 Kyou cant accept that the heat flow between the two would also come out as zero.”
No problem. With the plates now in contact, conductive heat flow will be significant 200 W, because that small 0.00067 K temp difference (not 0!) is enough according to the FL.
Because conduction and radiation give very different results.
No, Nate!
☺️
Using the FL, to get the heat flow between the objects (having t1 and t2 be the temperatures of the blue plate and one of the green), gives the result that heat flow is zero!
Try using the calculator if you can’t do the math. Input whatever you like for the other values. Put t1 and t2 as the same temperature, and it tells you heat flow is zero. Obviously! Duh…
Why can’t you accept this!?
“Caveat: initially there would be a 0.00067 K difference in temp, so a tiny, insignificant radiative heat flow would be there.”
Caveat: this is Nate actually using circular logic whilst he falsely accused me of using…
‘Using the FL, to get the heat flow between the objects (having t1 and t2 be the temperatures of the blue plate and one of the green), gives the result that heat flow is zero!’
You obviously didnt read my post. t1-t2 for real plates is not 0. It is 0.00067 K.
Because in the real world with finite conductivity, and 200 W flowing, it needs to be that, by the FL.
You obviously didn’t read my caveat…
And no that is not circular logic.
That is just what the FL gave us when we SOLVED the plates in contact with 200 W problem.
I get it, you really really want to force it to be 0 so that there will be a CONTRADICTION.
But in reality there is no contradiction.
Bless him…right back to the beginning again…round and round he wants to go…forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever…
“1) This would be an example of you starting from the conclusion you want, and working backwards from there. You want it to be the case that at equilibrium, separated, the temperatures of the plates are different, so that you can have the blue plate be warmer than the green plates (and this would be erroneous, because that would mean there is radiative heat flow at equilibrium!). You know it is universally agreed that when pressed together, the plates are at the same temperature. So, you decide you will claim that there would also be a temperature difference between the plates when pushed together, if it weren’t for the fact that the plates are perfect conductors. You can even use the equation for conduction to “support” this bogus logic, because k is infinite you can claim that the “heat flow” is whatever you want it to be (literally any value) and it will give you the answer that “Thot” and “Tcold” are the same.
In doing this, you can now falsely state that when separated, the blue plate “should” increase in temperature because there “should” have been a temperature difference when they were pressed together in the first place. You have reverse-engineered the answer you want.”
Ugggh, completely hopeless!
You don’t get the contradiction that you tried to artificailly engineer, so you’re looping back to:
I’m not SOLVING a heat conduction problem, I’m ‘reverse engineering’ it!
Puleez!
Look the point of solving this problem is to find out what nature actually does!
Nature is not contradicting itself. It is simply doing its heat flow thing.
Then its for us to use equations to try to understand what it is doing.
If its conducting, its obeying the law of conduction. What else should it do?!
If its radiating its obeying radiation heat transfer laws. What else can it do?
For both, it is obeying 1LOT and 2LOT.
You act like, NO, nature doesnt do what it wants, it does I WANT!
Now that’s a typical Nate “last word”! Finally.
‘You know it is universally agreed that when pressed together, the plates are at the same temperature.’
Nope, I didnt agree, not for real plates! I dont care what Gordon or anybody said, its not a vote.
The point of ideal plate is to say that the temp difference is small, and it is!
So small that it changes the final answer negligibly!
Bringing in an ideal property is NOT intended to generate a contradiction, and get a completely different answer from the real world.
It was intended to simplify the original problem of separated plates.
This is good, but I’m really looking for a, “Well, DREMT…” condescension-fest (Nate hasn’t even recognized where the quoted text in my 1:33pm comment has come from, and is treating it like it’s a new comment! That’s funny, but I really want more “last-worder” trolling from him).
OK so you think youyve found a genuine contradiction for ideal plates?
Then how come if I make the problem more realistic, I dont get a contradiction?
The answer we get for real plates ought to be CLOSER to reality. But no contradiction arises.
So sorry, out of luck.
4/10. Not “last word-y” enough.
DREMT tryin to be funny–sure sign of a lost argument.
6/10 – getting better!
DREMT,
Youll be pleased to hear that I cannot make heads or tails of your thoroughly muddled essay.
But I await your answer to Svantes good question.
Oh, really? Did this bit not ring any bells?
“You can even use the equation for conduction to “support” this bogus logic, because k is infinite you can claim that the “heat flow” is whatever you want it to be (literally any value) and it will give you the answer that “Thot” and “Tcold” are the same.”
Exactly as you did here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2019-0-44-deg-c/#comment-353086
Funny to see you “playing dumb”.
Yep, indeed. Gets a Svantes question.
And I see you ignore the part where I explain how real world plates behave:
‘Real world case K= 300 W/mK, d = 1 mm, T-Tc = 0.00067 K’
gives Q = k * A/d *(T-Tc) = 300 * 1/.001 * (.00067) = 200 W.
x 2 surfaces = 400 W.
We see that for real world plates, a small temperature gradient is required to get a heat flow of 400 W.
It is so small that it can be neglected when compared with the much larger temperature gradient required for SEPARATED plates.
For separated plates, 1 m^2, e = 1, we have Q = 5.67e-8 * (290^4-244^4) = 200 W.
x 2 surfaces = 400 W.
So we see that for conduction .00067 K is sufficient to drive the same amount of heat flow as 46 K does for radiation between separated plates.
If you can show alternative calculations, please do so!
Nate, you used the bogus equation to “prove” the incorrect plates solution!
You’re rotating in place, only at faster and faster RPM.
The comedy continues.
Thank you for proving my point, Nate.
No JD, sorry just cause you cannot back up your declarations with real physics, you don’t get to declare physics BOGUS.
You’ve failed another midterm and need to drop the class.
I didn’t declare physics bogus. Thanks for the false accusation. That just acknowledges you have no responsible argument.
I declared your “2-Ts” equation bogus. It has no use in the real world. The derivation involves imaginary conditions. It leads to violations of the laws of physics. It’s bogus.
But, your desperation is fun to watch.
Oh just stop making up your own fake fizuks, idiot.
Now poor Nate offers insults with his false accusations.
The meltdown continues.
DREMT unable to refute the calculations, then you’ve lost the argument!
Wrong, Nate. As I said, you have proved my point. You’re just too dumb to even realize it.
No DREMT, the calculations show that your ‘feeling’ that there should be no big change upon plate separation is completely wrong.
You cannot refute either the calculations or the formulas used, which are from standard heat transfer physics.
You offer no alternative calculations or physics, only ambiguous hand waving.
Science is quantitative.
If you cannot be quantitative in your arguments then your argument is not science-based. It is something else.
And you will not win against an argument that is based on real quantitative science.
You’re just too dumb to even realize it!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359598
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359651
Empty posts that offer nothing butt hand-waving declarations.
Im very happy you you are not in charge of making anything in the real world work, like bridges or spacecraft.
Because you would be constantly telling the engineers that their numbers and calculations arent important!
Just wing it with your feelings and intuition, you would tell them.
“OK, Nate”.
Yet the GHE IS a fallacy and the parameters used are wrong. I know it seems like confirming the GHE if one considers non-sensical attempts of falsification, like those mentioned in the article. But that is just like becoming champion in shadow-boxing.
In the real world the GHE is falsified by serious punches which actually hurt and will not allow any quick recovery.
a) Surface emissivity (in the LWIR range) is not 1, neither 0.98, but rather something like 0.91.
b) Clouds are not cooling Earth, but warming it. Their heating momentum is stronger than their albedo effect.
c) b) is not only supported by empircal evidence, but a necessary logical consequence of the GHE concept itself. Remember: the GHE is supposed to work by moving the average altitude of LWIR emissions up the atmosphere, where it is colder. Clouds do just that!
d) Allmost all of the “GHE” is explained by underlying assumptions which are easily proven wrong. Once these are corrected, there is likely a margin of 5K or so which can actually be attributed to GHGs. But that is miles off the 33K usually stated..
Sorry, this article is still in a “beta status”, but it should be quite enlightening.
https://de.scribd.com/document/414175992/CO21
leitwolf…”Remember: the GHE is supposed to work by moving the average altitude of LWIR emissions up the atmosphere, where it is colder”.
It’s called the greenhouse effect because the atmosphere is supposed to emulate a real greenhouse by trapping heat. There are several problems with that definition.
1)a real greenhouse has glass that prevent molecules of heated air from escaping. A real greenhouse does trap heat as molecules of heated air. There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere to do that.
I don’t know Joe Postma from Adam but he did offer an apt quip. We build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
2)In the GHE definition, electromagnetic energy is confused with heat. The glass in a greenhouse was presumed to trap the infrared EM emitted by warmed components in the greenhouse, like soil. The GHE as defined presumes glass traps IR but they do not explain what trapped IR does or its relationship to heat.
Supposing the glass does trap IR. The IR bounces around inside the greenhouse warming what? 99% of the air in the greenhouse is nitrogen and oxygen which does not respond to IR very much.
I am willing to bet that if all GHGs like CO2 and WV were removed from the greenhouse, it would still warm as much as usual. An expert on CO2 emission, R.W. Wood, claimed CO2 could not warm the atmosphere (or greenhouse) as claimed. He felt a greenhouse warmed due to a lack of convection, not trapped IR. In fact, he proved it in an experiment.
3)a third claim of the GHE is that GHGs in the atmosphere slow down the emission of IR from the surface. Pseudo-scientific nonsense!! The rate of surface emission is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere adjacent to the surface. The temperature of the atmosphere is controlled by the 99% of it which is N2 and O2, not the 0.04% which is CO2.
Even at that, without convection supplying cooler air to replace the rising heated air, the surface temperature would rise to 72C, according to Lindzen. It’s clear that the atmosphere cools the surface through convection.
4)the energy budget connection to the GHE claims back-radiation from the GHE heats the surface and raises its temperature. The energy budget from NASA/NCAR claims almost as much back-radiation of IR as the surface supplies TO THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE. That means 1% of the atmosphere as WV and CO2 is back-radiating as much IR as the total radiation from the surface.
Clearly the GHE is pseuso-science of the highest order. It ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics which forbids the transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it. It also promotes perpetual motion by allowing a recycling of heat from the surface to the atmosphere and back so as to raise the temperature of the source supplying the heat.
Very good work, Leitwolf.
It’s been said before, but AGW/GHE is the “Greatest Hoax”.
“Yet the GHE IS a fallacy..”
The GHE is not a fallacy, Leitwolf, as the GHE has been instrumentally measured locally by JD (and many others, even globally). Here’s an example from JD with the data you can replicate taking current data at your own location:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359444
Even Gordon could prove the GHE exists locally & do so with real data instead of Gordon’s usual imagination.
Did your cat have kittens again, fluffball?
Then, to you, that must prove the GHE.
But, it your cat didn’t have kittens then, to you, that also proves the GHE.
To you, everything proves the GHE, and nothing disproves it.
Nothing new.
To JD everything disproves the GHE and E. Swanson didn’t do an experiment, horses don’t turn in the turns, blackbodies reflect all incident light. I’ve already told JD what would disprove the GHE, JD just doesn’t like the answer. If JD’s IR Thermometer readout data had been:
Cloud directly overhead -> -266F
Blue sky next to cloud -> -266F
then there would be no GHE, the atm. would be nearly optically transparent and the surface temperature on avg. measured by JD:
Ground 53.4F
But it wasn’t so, JD reported this actual IR Thermometer readout data locally on the observation day proving the GHE does exist:
Cloud directly overhead -> 64.F
Blue sky next to cloud -> 34.7F
Ground 86.4F
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359444
More desperate denial from fluffball.
(His misrepresentations increase linearly with his desperation.)
That is not quite the way it works. First off all you can not simply “measure” the GHE, as back radiation is something different than the GHE. “Back radiation” is part of back- and forth radiation which is ubiquitous.
Imagine you put a probe into water, where you measure downwelling and upwelling IR radiation. You would surprisingly find out there is just as much coming from above as from below the probe. Question is, will that prove a GHE ad infinitum in water (and any other material), or will it just demonstrate the total irrelevance of back- and forth radiation?
What atmospheric “back radiation” shows is
a) there are gases which emit IR radiation in the atmosphere, and
b) clouds are reflecting/emitting much more IR radiation back to the surface
The latter part is specifically important, as we need to differentiate what factors contribute to the observed surface temperatures. The GHE fallacy simply claims that all deviation from 255K was solely due to GHGs, which is far off the truth.
Of an assumed GHE of 150W/m2 about 35W/m2 come from a surface emissivity which is lower than 1, and about 90W/m2 come from cloud forcing. That leaves only about 25W/m2 due to GHGs.
“The GHE fallacy simply claims that all deviation from 255K was solely due to GHGs, which is far off the truth.”
That use of the word “solely” is misinformation Leitwolf since measurements show small contribution to Earth’s GHE comes from O2,N2 and is in part controlled by pressure acting on all the atm. gas IR absorbers (& not GHGs which are only found in farmer’s greenhouses).
“about 90W/m2 come from cloud forcing.”
High clouds have the opposite surface temperature effect to low clouds and the best measurements available show these effects are so close to cancelling each other over long enough time periods (4-15 annual periods) that there is no measurable difference currently. As more data and better observations are gained, the differences should become measurable.
As a foundation to discuss the GHE, the explanation by Prof Merrifield is highly usefull..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw
He is not the only one to put it this way. The point is, that this is the ONLY viable definition, which I concluded long before seeing the video and other sources claiming just the same. And it simplifies at lot, since it renders all the complicated (but useless) considerations on back- and forth radiation irrelevant.
Prof Merrifield appears to be a Prof. of Astronomy & this is a blog by an experimental meteorologist so where they differ, I’d prefer go with Dr. Spencer’s actual data. Along with a modern text on meteorology explaining the fundamentals behind the data.
Wrong fluffball, you are trying to hide behind Dr. Spencer and your imaginary knowledge of meteorology.
You can’t find even one thing wrong the bogus “340”.
leit…”As a foundation to discuss the GHE, the explanation by Prof Merrifield is highly usefull..”
It may be useful as a basis for discussion but with regard to physics it’s the same typical nonsense.
The glaring omission in his presentation is an explanation for how GHGs making up less than 1% of the atmosphere overall could possibly warm it by 33C. This presumption is prevalent in all explanations of the GHE but no one ever supplies numbers.
I have tried, using the Ideal Gas Law. Maybe it’s not perfect for the atmosphere with its dynamic processes but the IGL makes it clear that in a near constant volume, gases contribute heat based on their percent mass. That means CO2 is limited to a contribution of a few hundredths of 1% of the heat.
One thing he goes on about is the adiabatic lapse rate which I regard as a load of nonsense. He makes it sound as if the lapse rate is due to thermals rising and cooling. He mentions nothing about the reduction of pressure with altitude which is a general, static condition in the atmosphere due to gravity, thermals or not.
There can be no such thing as an adiabatic process in a gas like our atmosphere because heat must be transferred laterally by convection as well as vertically. There is no way to keep heat from mingling with its surroundings in the atmopshere.
If the lapse rate was due to adiabatic processes it would be variable throughout the atmosphere. It is not, however, the lapse rate is stated as a constant which can only mean it is due to pressure changes related to gravity.
ball3…”Even Gordon could prove the GHE exists locally & do so with real data instead of Gordons usual imagination”.
I can’t do that because there is no known answer for why the Earth is warmer with oceans and an atmosphere than without. I think its because the oceans absorb and store heat and release the heat gradually. And because the atmosphere absorbs heat from the surface via conduction and stores it temporarily like the oceans.
It makes absolutely no sense that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere could be responsible for the claimed 33 C difference between an Earth with no atmosphere/oceans and one with both.
Gordon can’t prove the GHE exists because Gordon hasn’t studied principles of meteorology enough to know the answer for why the Earth surface is global mean 33C warmer, upper atm. regions cooler with an absorbing semi-opaque atmosphere than with a ~transparent atm.
It makes absolutely no sense to Gordon that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere could be responsible for the observed 33 C difference between an Earth with ~transparent atmosphere and earth with semi-opaque atm. It does make sense to meteorologists that the fundamental reason found in field of meteorology is, while not massively dominant, the grey absorbers in the atm. are radiatively dominant at surface 1bar pressure.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
This is how they operate on the plates:
1) Start from the erroneous assumption that there should be heat flow between objects at equilibrium (I will have to write in “steady state” here, or else they will start droning)! This is the assumption they need to make in order to claim that the blue plate temperature will rise.
2) Reverse engineer everything to get back to that assumption. Use the radiative heat transfer equation as though there should be a positive amount at equilibrium (pretend to be oblivious to the fact that this amount would spontaneously go to zero as heat flows from one object to the other).
3) Constantly conflate heat flow with energy flow. Insist that energy can’t flow without a temperature gradient even though that is a reference to heat flow, and not energy flow.
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Or quit wasting time with your unscientific posts and actually do an experiment. E. Swanson proved one plate increased in temperature (that is factual). You will find the same effect with three plates.
You won’t do testing but you will do a lot of empty talking about things you don’t understand.
One actual experiment will demonstrate your points are wrong. Since this will never happen, I guess you will continue to spout about things you do not understand. Endless.
Norman, Swanson did not do an “experiment”. If you go back and review the history, Swanson set out to “prove” the incorrect solution to 2-plates. He failed. So, he called it a “demo”, and tried to show he could heat plates. You wanted to see it as “proof” so, lacking wisdom and knowledge, you chose to believe what you wanted, regardless of reality.
Neither you nor Swanson will state the relevant facts. You just want everyone to accept your version, without questioning. You keep referring to the worthless “demo” because you have nothing else.
Nothing new.
norman…” E. Swanson proved one plate increased in temperature (that is factual)”.
Unfortunately he ruined the experiment by producing a conclusion that negated the 2nd law. When the correct explanation was offered, he steadfastly refused to consider it.
It was glaringly obvious that the BP warmed because the raised GP was blocking it means of heat dissipation via radiation. Swannie incorrectly concluded that the rising BP temperature was due to radiation from a cooler object.
“the raised GP was blocking it means of heat dissipation via radiation.”
“EM IS NOT HEAT”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359370
E. Swanson correctly concluded that the rising BP temperature was due to ~95% absorbing EM radiation from a cooler object which raises universe entropy thus is fully in accord with 2LOT (i.e. dQ/T was positive).
Ball4, please stop trolling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359652
DREMPT
1 is wrong, it is no longer at equilibrium once you have moved the green plates apart from the blue plate, you have to wait until it returns to steady state.
2 is wrong, it is a steady state problem, not an equilibrium problem.
3 is a straw man, there is no claim that energy can not flow without a temperature difference.
Ask a professor to help you out.
Obviously you have missed the point on 1 and 2. For 3, you may want to read the 8:41 am comment below, from Nate, to see that there is a claim that energy can not flow without a temperature difference.
Dear DREMPT,
You are confused about net energy flow, he did not say no energy flow without a temperature difference, he said no net energy flow without a temperature difference.
Be more careful with your reading lest you jump to conclusions not warranted by the evidence.
“Long story short: DREMT still needs to explain how that 400 J/s can make its way thru the system, between the plates, without a temperature gradient.”
Not seeing where the term “net energy” is, in this sentence? We are talking about the input 400 W to the system and the 400 W output. That is the energy flowing through the system. That is not “net energy flow” it is just energy flow.
Be more careful with your reading lest you jump to conclusions not warranted by the evidence.
It’s the flow between the plates that Nate was talking about, not the flow through the whole system, careful reader.
Not
blob says: “3 is a straw man, there is no claim that energy can not flow without a temperature difference.”
Nate says: “Long story short: DREMT still needs to explain how that 400 J/s can make its way thru the system, between the plates, without a temperature gradient.”
blob tries to pretend Nate’s comment doesn’t contradict his own. “Nothing new”.
Nope. Energy flow is movement of energy from one thing to the next to the next.
Just like water flow, it doesnt just flow with no reason.
Water flows downhill, gravity is pulling it.
Thermal energy flows ‘downhill’ from warm things to cold things. Temperature gradient is driving it.
The 2LOT says exactly that. Otherwise how does thermal energy ‘know’ where to go?
How much energy flows can be calculated with heat transfer laws.
You cannot calculate anything because there is no formula for BS.
Well, you’ve well and truly proved blob wrong that 3) is a straw man.
Nate 2:43pm! Reads like you are beginning to fundamentally understand and use the difference between imaginary heat and real natural energy. Good job.
Thank you Ball4. But Ive understood it pretty well for ~ 30 years.
You haven’t fully understood the difference in the time span of the top post and comments! But at 2:43pm you showed a distinct improvement. Heat is imaginary, can be anything you imagine following the laws of man, while energy is real so energy will follow the laws of nature. There is zero heat in any real object, there is plenty of energy in all real objects.
Nate continues to exhibit his ignorance of physics: “Thermal energy flows ‘downhill’ from warm things to cold things. Temperature gradient is driving it.”
Nate, that is true for conduction, but not for emitted photons. Photons emitted from the blue plate aren’t affected by the target, until impact. The target temperature does NOT affect emission from the source, only absorp.tion by the target.
‘Nate, that is true for conduction, but not for emitted photons. Photons emitted from the blue plate arent affected by the target, until impact. The target temperature does NOT affect emission from the source, only absorp.tion by the target.’
Nope. Heat transfer obeys 2LOT whether it is conduction, radiation, or convection.
Heat flows from hot to cold, douche canoe!
‘Photons emitted from the blue plate arent affected by the target’
But the net energy transfer, IOW heat transfer, is affected by the target temperature, Just Dumb.
Stop making up your own fake physics!
Um, there is a phenomenon called water hammer where water flows against the pressure gradient, and every house has pipes apparently going nowhere, they are there to protect the pipes from the water hammer, basically void pockets of air that act as balloons to absorb the shock waves.
As is often the case, common sense expressions like water always flows downhill, are not true.
Well, ok, also water flows down the pressure gradient..
Strike that… you said ‘against the pressure gradient’, maybe due to water having inertia and elasticity..
nate…”Heat transfer obeys 2LOT whether it is conduction, radiation, or convection”.
There’s a hitch.
With conduction and convection, heat is transferred atom to atom via electrons. With radiative heat transfer no heat is transferred physically.
When EM is radiated from a hotter body, the heat producing the radiation is lost. That EM will flow through space forever unless it encounters mass of a lower temperature than the temperature of the emitting body. Should that EM encounter a cooler body it will be absorbed and converted to heat, raising the temperature of the cooler body.
The absorbed EM is lost. That means EM and heat can never exist at the same time in such a process. Therefore, there can never be a net energy flow.
The heat transfer via radiation means one body, the emitter, cools, while the absorbing body warms.
No heat is transferred through space. The end result is an APPARENT heat transfer but the heat exchange can only occur by a hotter body giving up heat and a cooler body absorbing it. There can be no net flow since no energy is transferred cold to hot.
Nate says: “Heat flows from hot to cold, douche canoe!”
Nate says: “But the net energy transfer, IOW heat transfer, is affected by the target temperature, Just Dumb.”
Any time Nate is rightfully attacked on his idea that energy (not heat) requires a temperature difference to flow (it doesn’t), he switches to discussing heat – as if people are saying that heat doesn’t require a temperature difference to flow!
‘Any time Nate is rightfully attacked on his idea that energy (not heat) requires a temperature difference to flow (it doesnt), he switches to discussing heat as if people are saying that heat doesnt require a temperature difference to flow!’
And DREMT has never been able to identify his energy that can be transferred between objects, but is NOT HEAT.
Here’s another golden opportunity. Pls do find me an example of this energy that is NOT HEAT or WORK or MASS, being transferred.
And, just to be clear, an equal exchange of EMR between objects does not do the job.
If you cannot find a real example from a real source, then either 1. admit it is made up physics. or 2. Stop bringing it up.
Your choice.
‘Theres a hitch.’
No, I don’t see any hitch, Gordon. Radiative heat transfer is still heat transfer, still obeys 2LOT, and doesnt happen without a temperature difference.
You can say that heat, actually internal energy, is converted to EMR, and then later converted to internal energy in another object. That process is called heat transfer.
The EMR in transit is called heat flow in thermodyanmics, in that it is thermally generated EMR, as opposed to EMR generated directly by work, as in a laser, or a radio antenna.
But that is a semantic issue.
My choice is to ignore your demands that I do your homework for you, and to suggest that you take it up with blob, if you think it’s “made up physics”.
‘My choice is to ignore your demands that I do your homework for you’
Hilarious!
DREMT repeatedly claims he knows about ‘energy’ that flows that is NOT HEAT, but cannot come up with even ONE example!
Just one more faux fact to add to the growing pile of BS from the village idiots.
We got:
-heat cannot be emitted to space.
-black body is a perfect mirror.
-fluxes dont add.
-the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus.
-energy flows in equilibrium
-constant power = no new energy
Good to see blob’s not going to rise to Nate’s childish baiting and goading.
Energy can flow both ways, heat only one way, only because it is defined that way.
Having been inside a boiling water reactor vessel, out of which energy flows without a temperature difference, phase change yes, temperature no.
Only impossible things are impossible and unless Gordon has discovered a new branch of science, he’s out to lunch.
“When EM is radiated from a hotter body, the heat producing the radiation is lost. That EM will flow through space forever unless it encounters mass of a lower temperature than the temperature of the emitting body. Should that EM encounter a cooler body it will be absorbed and converted to heat, raising the temperature of the cooler body.”
The photons in transit, which are the EM, do not know the temperature of the body, or electron, or electrons that emitted them, so this is just a crock of the second kind.
So the green plates are allowed to transfer energy by radiation to the blue plates and vice versa.
Which make the blue plate hotter and silly diagrams, well silly.
Those are not the impossible things prohibited by the second law.
bob trips over his own pseudoscience. again: “The photons in transit, which are the EM, do not know the temperature of the body, or electron, or electrons that emitted them, so this is just a crock of the second kind.”
bob, the emitted photons have wavelengths. The wavelengths were established at emission. The target has a temperature. The temperature of the target determines the photons that will be absorbed.
Learn some physics.
“The temperature of the target determines the photons that will be absorbed.”
No.
There is no way to test for that anyway as photons do not carry little identifier tags like truant children. The incident photons (EM wave) on any object at any temperature are observed to be absorbed/transmitted/scattered and no one knows why identical photons (EM waves) sort into each processes. I somehow doubt that JD knows either; per past practice JD will just announce the verdict, hand down a cartoon, and stay the heck away from any lab test.
JD,
this isn’t even pseudoscience
“bob, the emitted photons have wavelengths. The wavelengths were established at emission. The target has a temperature. The temperature of the target determines the photons that will be absorbed.”
it’s just a crock of bullshit you made up.
The temperature of the target does not determine the photons that will be absorbed, what a dumb statement.
Clowns fluffball and bob continue to confirm their ignorance of physics.
Nothing new.
Properly bob and Ball4, demonstrate their ignorance of JD’s imagined physics since both bob and Ball4 depend on experimental results to demonstrate physics & not entertaining cartoons and 3 ring circuses.
JD,
You seem to think that you can tell the temperature of a blackbody by the wavelength of a single photon from that blackbody.
You do know that blackbodies emit a spectrum of radiation, a whole bunch of different wavelengths.
A whole bunch? Kinda…actually at every frequency at every temperature. Planck radiation formula is never identically zero at any frequency or any temperature.
Well, I had to dumb it down for you know who.
Bobd
‘Having been inside a boiling water reactor vessel, out of which energy flows without a temperature difference, phase change yes, temperature no.’
Ok I agree phase transitions release heat. But I think if that heat is then transferred from that substance to another, it will be because of a temperature difference. No?
Im thinking of ice in a glass of liquid water. I think the water cools by transferring heat to the ice, which is colder, and then some of it melts absorbing the latent heat required.
Ball4, bobdroege, Nate, please stop trolling.
Let’s summarize the arguments. Then DREMT can add his two cents.
We have a system of plates with 400 W = 400 J/s of input power to BLUE plate, that flows thru it, via radiation, to GREEN plates, and via radiation out to space @ T = 3K.
DREMT/JD insist that there is no temperature gradient between the plates.
DREMT now has made progress. He agrees with us and physics that:
“1) There is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature.”
But then Svante and I ask: how does the 400 J/s of input power flow thru the system? How does it flow from BLUE to GREEN plate?
DREMT takes a deep dive down a rabbit hole to try to explain that the 400 W is ADDITIONAL POWER that we have imagined.
But we insist that there is still the original 400 J/s of INPUT that needs to find a way out.
Because ‘there is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature’
Therefore the Blue plate will have 400 J/s input and 0 output.
By 1LOT it MUST WARM.
Long story short: DREMT still needs to explain how that 400 J/s can make its way thru the system, between the plates, without a temperature gradient.
Nate, let’s summarize the arguments.
You have no interest in reality. You have no interest in learning. When someone tries to explain things to you, you just try to misrepresent their words. You don’t try to understand. Your mind is closed.
So with all that in mind, this is for anyone else:
“But then Svante and I ask: how does the 400 J/s of input power flow thru the system? How does it flow from BLUE to GREEN plate?”
Photons are emitted from both sides of the blue plate. The photons contain energy. The photons are absorbed by the green plates. The energy then moves through the green plates to be emitted from both sides. But, the emitted fluxes back to the blue plate can not be absorbed because the energy flow is from the external source.
No temperature gradient is needed for photons to be emitted. You are (purposely?) confusing conductive heat transfer with radiative heat transfer.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
“But, the emitted fluxes back to the blue plate can not be absorbed..”
No, the blue is a black body (and a near blackbody in E. Swanson’s experiment), the BB blue plate absorbs all incident radiation (Swanson’s plate reflects a bit ~few %). Do try to get the physics right JD, your cartoon is still bogus.
Wrong again, fluffball. Study spectra from black bodies at different temperatures.
But, you would not be able to understand, because physics and reality are not part of your false religion.
Nothing new.
No need I already have, the blue plate spectra at different temperatures is of a black body (and the spectra show a near blackbody in E. Swansons experiment), the BB blue plate spectra shows it absorbs all incident radiation (Swansons plate spectra shows it reflects a bit ~few %).
Do try to get the physics right JD, your cartoon is still bogus and doesnt show ANY spectra, at ANY different temperatures. Nice piece of misinformation though JD. Keep up the entertainment, nothing new.
Okay clown, here’s another physics question for you to dodge:
What does the spectrum of a perfect homogeneous black body at equilibrium look like?
“perfect homogeneous black body”
There are none to test. If JD had studied ANY radiation physics at all, JD should have known.
Next question. However, the BB radiation spectra of the blue plate at its temperature exists, is measurable, and used for calibration of the instruments that measure the global sky “back radation” (JD term) converted to brightness temperature, for example, by JD’s IR thermometer.
Now fluffball, if you knew some physics, you would know what the spectrum was. It’s straightforward, easy-peasy.
But you haven’t a clue. Nor do any of the other clowns, Norman, Swanson, Nate, bobdroege, bdgwx. All of you support the incorrect solution to the plates, because you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
Nothing new.
JD, your question ended in “look like?”
If you want to know the value of BB radiation in equilibrium with matter at a temperature and a frequency, plug each of those properly into Planck’s law. Plug and chug for any frequency and any temperature, there are on line calculators to make it easy.
Then at a given temperature say the blue plate in equilibrium T, plug in any frequency from near zero to near infinity. Connect the dots, even JD can connect the dots, though one handed since JD’s recently losing an arm in a very unfortunate airplane accident. Then you know what the plot “looks like”.
But you never know “What does the spectrum of a perfect homogeneous black body at equilibrium look like?” as the human eye only sees a very limited range of frequencies in the visible (color) bands even if a BB did exist – which is why you cannot point an instrument at one to find out your answer.
Just another comedy episode of JD going in yet a different direction, stepping on a rake and getting the handle smack in the face.
The less physics they know, the more they ramble.
Nothing new.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359451
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359439
ball3…”the blue is a black body (and a near blackbody in E. Swansons experiment), the BB blue plate absorbs all incident radiation….”
You are confusing your physics. Kircheoff’s blackbody theory was done solely between bodies in thermal equilibrium. He defined a BB as a device that absorbs all incident energy but that premise can be true only at thermal equilibrium.
When Kircheoff made his definition, quantum theory was well down the road. No one knew about electrons and their role in emitting and absorbing EM. The relationship E = hf was unknown.
It is now known that electrons transfer both electrical charge and heat in conductors. It is also known that electrons emit EM by dropping through a quantum potential of E electron volts, as in E = hf. In other words, the electron transfers its frequency to the EM it emits at a certain intensity.
The electron can only absorb EM of intensity E if E matches the difference between the electron’s current energy level and the next higher energy level. Furthermore, the frequency of the EM must match the frequency of the absorbing electron.
EM of a higher energy, hence a higher frequency can be absorbed and drive the electron to even higher energy states, or even eject it from the atom. However, EM with a lower energy and frequency cannot be absorbed.
That means energy from the cooler GP cannot be absorbed by the hotter BP. The 2nd law is upheld.
ball3…”If you want to know the value of BB radiation in equilibrium with matter at a temperature and a frequency, plug each of those properly into Plancks law.”
Planck’s equation only gives you a spectrum of frequency versus intensity for a blackbody at temperature, T.
Note that the only place T and f appear in Planck’s equation is in the exponential function, e^(hf/bkT)
That was Planck’s fudge factor to get past the ultraviolet catastrophe. He fudged the math till he got the response he needed.
The exponential function in the denominator forms a bell curve shape for the spectrum rather than the ultraviolet catastrophe presented by E = hf.
“He defined a BB as a device…”
Gordon isn’t interested in learning this stuff from the masters, he’s mostly imagining it wrong. For those that are interested:
He defined a BB as an imaginary device that is ALWAYS at thermal equilibrium because BB radiation can only be produced & measured when the cavity is held at constant temperature thus in equilibrium.
Kirchhoff’s law was derived for a body illuminated by equilibrium radiation. This naturally leads to the question: Does this law still hold for arbitrary illumination (polarized and nonisotropic)?
Although several years ago this question generated some controversy, it now seems safe to say that the dust has settled and we should not hesitate to apply Kirchhoff’s law to bodies even when they are not illuminated by equilibrium (blackbody) radiation. See the review by H. P. Baltes, 1976: “On the validity of Kirchhoff’s law of heat radiation for a body in a nonequilibrium environment” Progress in Optics, Vol. 13, pp. 1-25.
Where you can get into real trouble is by misapplying Kirchhoff’s law to averages.
It is also known that HIGH temperature molecules in the thin upper atm. emit EMR by dropping an electron to a lower energy orbital that E .NE. hf. This high temperature does not exist in the bulk of the atm. to have raised the electron an orbital so this mechanism isnt at play in bulk of Earths atm. Photons are absorbed by rotational and vibrational quantum jumps in Earth’s atm.
“The electron can only absorb EM of intensity E if E matches the difference between the electrons current energy level and the next higher energy level.”
No Gordon, the electron can absorb way more photon energy. When it does so it gets kicked out of the molecule altogether and that is known as the photoelectric effect. You contradict yourself: “even eject it from the atom.”
That means energy from the cooler GP has to be absorbed/scattered/transmitted by the hotter BP or the 2nd law would not be upheld as universe entropy would not otherwise increase.
“That was Planck’s fudge factor..”
That was Planck’s experimental AND theoretical factor.
“What does the spectrum of a perfect homogeneous black body at equilibrium look like?”
In my best Marissa Tomei voice
“No”
Now do you want the full explanation or will you withdraw the question?
Asking it show how little you actually know
Okay bob, you can’t answer the simple question either.
That’s not a surprise.
Basic physics is hard, huh?
JD,
What kind of equilibrium?
You didn’t specify, how come?
Maybe it’s your lack of physics knowledge.
blob, please stop trolling.
Nope JD, your perfect absorber becomes perfect reflector has been thoroughly debunked, doesnt agree with physics or common sense!
Meanwhile, DREMT agrees that ‘
‘there is zero net energy between plates of the same temperature
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359260
Yes DREMT we saw this ‘hand wave’ declaration already.
“Energy can flow from the electrical supply to the blue plate, from the blue plate through the green plates, and from the green plates to space.
That is one direction.”
But this doesnt explain how this happens, or how much energy flows
Svante asked you for a law of physics, a formula that you are using to get 400 J/s to flow between plates at the same temperature.
You cannot provide any.
Nor does your ‘hand wave’ agree with your earlier statement
that ‘No net energy between plates at the same temperature’
So what we’re left with is just a contradictory declaration without evidence.
The whole comment exists to be understood in its entirety. Just discussing one paragraph will not cut it.
And that is no answer, it is an evasion.
No one is stopping you from rebutting.
I don’t need to rebut a comment which doesn’t correctly represent my argument in the first place.
“Svante asked you for a law of physics, a formula that you are using to get 400 J/s to flow between plates at the same temperature.”
It’s called “radiative heat transfer”, with a side order of “thermodynamics”, and a dash of “conservation of energy”.
Enjoy your meal.
Its called JD tossing out buzzwords, but no formula and no calculation.
Because there is no formula for a pile of dung.
Nate, the calculated fluxes and temperatures are shown in the simple diagram.
“Radiative heat transfer” “thermodynamics”, and “conservation of energy”, are not “buzzwords”. They are concepts of physics which you can not understand.
Nothing new.
‘2) Reverse engineer everything to get back to that assumption. ‘
That is hilarious and a perfect example of PROJECTION.
I have been saying forever that you guys need to let physics guide you to a solution, which is what Eli did long ago!
But you guys insist on GUESSING a solution, ALL TEMPS EQUAL.
Then working hard to hand-wave, duck-dodge-deny facts and logic, or even invent new physics to justify that GUESS:
Imaginary energy flows in equilibrium.
Black bodies becoming perfect reflectors.
Standard rad heat transfer laws become BOGUS.
1LOT 2LOT violations.
Energy and power conflated.
Reverse engineered is one way to put it. Back-assward and wrong is another!
Yes, you regularly falsely accuse others of doing what you do yourself…sometimes even at the same time as you are actually doing it!
Nope.
I listed claims that you guys have made.
Their ridiculousness speaks for itself.
I was referring to your remark about reverse engineering.
?? Even ur attempted zingers make no sense.
It wasn’t a “zinger”. I was describing the reality of how you falsely accuse others of doing what you do yourself…sometimes even at the same time as you are actually doing it.
DREMT,
Of course you would say my accusations are false and cannot say why.
Because you think you understand heat transfer, but every post offers fresh evidence that you have no idea.
We show you calculations, you have no rebuttal, you cannot say why it is wrong but you just ‘know’ somehow that it is.
But you dont seem to understand that if you dont understand super basic calculations, and why they are done that way, then you cannot ‘know’ that they are wrong.
That you fail to get that is a mystery.
“OK, Nate”.
Clear sky, bright sun, directly overhead –> 5.7 °F (well below freezing!)
Ground –> 71.4 °F
The Sun is warming the planet. The atmosphere is NOT warming the planet.
Nothing new.
(Here comes the desperate denial.)
The atmosphere is NOT warming the planet because it is in steady state equilibrium. If the Earth surface were suddenly chilled -33K (to global mean 255K), THEN the atm. would be warming the planet back to 288K global mean steady state equilibrium.
fluffball, you are now confusing the real thermodynamic properties of thermal mass with the false concept that CO2 is a heat source.
Confusion is what you must do in your desperate denial.
Nothing new.
CO2 is not a heat source JD, CO2 doesn’t burn a fuel.
FINALLY!
Now, just don’t forget what you learned.
I won’t, learned that a fairly long time ago. CO2 gas, liquid, solid, plasma emits EM energy, CO2 is not an imaginary heat source. Now back to JD’s regularly scheduled 3 ring circus entertainment.
Now back to you being eternally silent, disgrace.
There’s the DREMT act in one of JD’s 3 circus rings going “pop up” again. Nothing new, just a “pop up” for entertainment purposes. More entertainment please.
Pop-up Pirate, be eternally silent, disgrace.
Ball4,
” If the Earth surface were suddenly chilled -33K (to global mean 255K), THEN the atm. would be warming the planet back to 288K global mean steady state equilibrium”
lol, you just made my list of knee slappers…
If the surface were suddenly chilled -33K, the atmosphere would quickly cool to below the temp of the surface.
And the TOA would contract significantly… at 5 K/km thats about a 6km contraction of the atmosphere
of course, maybe if we can turn back time….. lol
No PhilJ, the atm. has HUGE mass constantly illuminated by sunlight from burning a fuel. At first the atm. would be oblivious as to what just suddenly happened on the surface, the system would be out of equilibrium big time, surface dirt at global mean 255K and surface air at 288K.
Over time the mass would matter, delta T factor would be nonzero transiently and the two would come back to equilibrium at steady state ~288K where the mass factor in the energy balance would drop out as delta T goes to zero at the interface.
Now imagine at current steady state equilibrium, quickly paint the entire globe with a highly conducting metallic paint, thereby reducing the emissivity of the surface to near zero. Because the surface no longer emits much radiation, little can be “trapped” by the atmosphere.
Yet the atmosphere keeps on radiating as before, oblivious to the absence of radiation from the surface (at least initially; as the temperature of the atmosphere drops, its emission rate drops).
Of course, if the surface doesn’t emit much radiation but continues to absorb solar radiation, the surface temperature rises and no equilibrium is possible until the surface emission spectrum shifts to regions for which the solar illuminated surface emissivity is not so near zero.
rofl, youre a funny guy…
guess what surface temps drop every late afternoon (air temps quickly follow 😉 )
but ill play your fantasy game… cold polar air would come flooding down from the pole to replace the rising tropical air, snow ( a lot of snow!) would start falling as the cold arctic air pushed under the warm moist air…
air temps would drop quickly and the atmosphere would contract as the last heat bubble from before the flash freeze escaped to space…
…
it would remain cold until heat from below melted the equatorial ice and allowed solar energy to penetrate the ocean again… (how thick is the ice after a global flash freeze to 255K ? )
how thick is the ice after a global flash freeze to 255K?
Zero thick at the equator. Any more questions?
lol. I see. very well, how much open water is there? What is the extent of the ice covering the land masses? whats the temp profile of the first say 50 m of the ocean at the equator? at 45 degrees North and south… How thick is the sea ice at the poles? How cold is the surface at the poles ( I would suggest it would be close to -100 C as the TOA there would be pretty much at the surface)?
Sea ice is melted primarily by warmer water underneath it (and around it)…
Ice and snow make excellent insulation, so until the oceans rewarmed and melted the ice the amount of heat flowing to the atmosphere from the surface would be much much lower than currently… it would be a long bitterly cold climb out of an ice age….
Less, more, lower, lower, higher, lower.
At least you agree there will be a long bitterly cold climb out of an ice age back to global mean ~288K.
Ball4,
“At least you agree there will be a long bitterly cold climb out of an ice age back to global mean ~288K.”
as all natural processes increase entropy, it might not quite make 288 again….
but yes, the Earth would warm, as heat from the interior and solar input to the open ocean increased the temp of the oceans, the ice would recede and the atmosphere would expand, and the sun would do what it does best, continue to cook off our volatiles…
🙂
“as heat from the interior…and solar input”
There isn’t enough system thermodynamic internal energy increase from both of those combined to raise the global surface Tmean above the quickflash 255K. You need to add in the DW energy radiated from the atm. to get surface Tmean to climb back to 288K steadt state equilibrium.
Ball4,
“There isn’t enough system thermodynamic internal energy increase from both of those combined to raise the global surface Tmean above the quickflash 255K.”
Hornswaggle…
There’s more thermal energy in the first few meters of the ocean than in the entire atmosphere…
The ice cover would reduce energy output from the oceans far below the solar input in the tropics…
As the warmer water flowed under the ice it would melt and open water would expand until the output from the ocean matched the solar input plus just a little bit more….
Increase the solar input and the tropical region expands and the ice caps shrink… decrease the solar input and the tropics shrink and the ice caps grow….
does this mean the ice caps warm the oceans? Ludicrous lol
“There’s more thermal energy in the first few meters of the ocean than in the entire atmosphere…”
Sure, and globally in steady state equilibrium at 255K doesn’t change with a ~transparent atm., solar and geothermal energy are too feeble to increase surface above global 255K, to do that you need to add in the emission of a semi-opaque atm. to get to 288K with today’s global opacity, global measured emissivity ~0.80 looking up.
No ice cover in the tropics at global 255K steady state.
Increase the solar input and the tropical region expands and the ice caps shrink, yes, though the solar constant doesn’t change that much in this epoch, which is why they call it a constant.
The ice caps neither warm nor cool the oceans at global steady state 255K nor 288K which is why they call both steady state equilibrium.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4,
“Increase the solar input and the tropical region expands and the ice caps shrink, yes, though the solar constant doesnt change that much in this epoch, which is why they call it a constant.”
you are missing my point entirely. In the tropics solar energy raises ocean surface temps far above 255K. Some of that warmer water flows under the ice cap edges (see ocean circulation) and the ice cap recedes until the ocean is losing as much energy from its surface as the total input from the sun… no ‘back radiation’ needed…
as the ice caps recede you get a smaller and smaller solar input increase with latitude and and growing decrease in output
my bad, that should be ‘a growing increase in output’
PhilJ’s scenarios miss steady state global equilibrium. Some of that warmer water flowing under the ice cap edges (see ocean circulation) and the ice cap doesn’t change 255K global surface T since the ocean is losing as much energy from its surface as it gains from the sun and geothermal with no ‘back radiation’ (PhilJ term) which is what is meant by steady state equilibrium at 255K global mean.
The ice caps don’t recede when you get no change in solar input or geothermal at each latitude and no change in output which is what is meant by steady state equilibrium at 255K global mean.
Ball4,
“PhilJ’s scenarios miss steady state global equilibrium”
You miss the point entirely… the Earth is not in steady equilibrium at 255K..
it wont be in steady state equilibrium at 255 K until it has finished outgassing, volcanic activity has ceased and all the atmosphere and all the oceans are gone, either escaped to space or condensed out and frozen on the surface…
“the Earth is not in steady equilibrium at 255K..”
The whole system is in steady state equilibrium at 255K, PhilJ, not just the Earth, since there was 240 in and 240 out stabilized after enough time had elapsed.
Ball4,
“The whole system is in steady state equilibrium at 255K, PhilJ, not just the Earth, since there was 240 in and 240 out stabilized after enough time had elapsed.”
Hogwash,
If there’s 240 in and 240 out then Earth is stabilized at whatever its current temp IS.
However over any significant length of time there is more out than in… say 241… as must be the case to increase the entropy of the universe…
JD doesnt remember that in science, we measure numbers, then we ANALYZE them to test hypotheses.
He keeps showing numbers, but skips the analysis part, still thinks hes testing something.
Testing what? How?
Its a mystery.
Nate ignored the analysis.
The Sun is warming the planet. The atmosphere is NOT warming the planet.
In his desperate denial, he must ignore things, including reality.
Nothing new.
The answer is that both the sun and the atmosphere warm the planet.
Go ask Alice, when you get your weekly supply.
That’s just one of the ridiculous things you must believe, to stay in your cult.
Ah, instead of arguing like a scientist with evidence and logic, you throw out the you are a cult accusation.
That means you have lost the argument.
Wrong bob. Bringing out the truth about you doesn’t mean I lose.
The truth just shows you for what you are.
Nothing new.
No truth there JD
Facts and logic escape you.
Nothing new
Yes bob, it’s like I emit facts and logic. Good point.
Also, thanks for imitating me. I never get tired of all the flattery.
No it’s like you can’t get within 10 and a half feet of facts and logic,
but your kindergarten cartoons are priceless.
Or worthless.
So you got any rebuttals to the criticisms provided for your simple diagram other that claiming we don’t understand it?
Nope I thought not.
I see you haven’t cracked that Quantum Physics textbook in a while.
bob, no one has been able to find any violations of the laws of physics, in my simple diagram.
Here’s your chance….
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
“no one has been able to find any violations of the laws of physics”
Bwahahahaha. 3 ring circus material JD.
Imaginary black bodies (the blue plate) shown reflecting all green incident radiation instead of absorbing all (any color) incident radiation which is a clear violation of the original idea by Kirchhoff let alone a clear violation of 2LOT for that unreal process does not increase universe entropy (its dQ/T=0).
Get thee to a lab JD. Roll up thy sleeves to find where photons (EM waves) will obey natural laws not the laws (cartoons) according to JD.
fluffball, that’s a lot of fluff for someone that does not understand the relevant physics.
I notice you are unable to describe the emission spectrum from a homogeneous black body at equilibrium. That’s probably one of the reasons you can’t understand the simple diagram.
You’re just all fluff, with no understanding of physics or abilitlty to comprehend.
Nothing new.
“I notice you are unable to describe the emission spectrum from a homogeneous black body at equilibrium.”
I notice JD missed that I was able to describe the emission spectrum from a homogeneous imaginary black body at equilibrium.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359771
Sorry fluffball, but that was just more of your usual fluff.
Someone that understands the relevant physics can describe the emission spectrum from a homogeneous black body at equilibrium in less than 25 words.
Reality is a bitch, huh?
To describe the value of BB radiation in equilibrium with matter at a temperature and a frequency, plug each properly into Planck’s law.
You can’t describe it, fluffball. All you can do is throw out your fluff.
You don’t understand the basic physics.
Nothing new.
You can’t understand it, JD. All you can do is draw bogus cartoons and produce a 3 ring circus.
JD doesn’t understand the basic physics and, because of that, JD stays the heck away from experiments.
Nothing new from JD, just great entertainment.
JD,
you claim
bob, no one has been able to find any violations of the laws of physics, in my simple diagram.
Heres your chance.
I’ll pass but
Gustav Kirchhoff
is on line 2
as you have violated one of his laws, and I have told you this before, but again you never learn.
Ball4, blob, please stop trolling.
I asked Alice
She gave me a blunt,
She said JD’s diagram was bumkus and that DREMPT was a troll.
blob, please stop trolling.
JD shows that he doesnt know the difference between a declaration and evidence, IOW data AND analysis.
I see a declaration. I see data.
I dont see any analysis.
Where is it?
Asks the blind guy….
Obviously there is no analysis, JD. Otherwise you would point it out.
Just go man-splain stuff to your mom.
Maybe explain to her how feminine hygiene products work.
She’ll appreciate it more than we do.
Now Nate’s desperation takes him to the sewer, where he can wallow endlessly telling himself how smart he is.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Nate has considerably more physics knowledge than you do. He is also correct. You make declarations and some phony pretend expertise on subjects you know nothing about. You also never support any of your junk science nor do you attempt to.
You have as really stupid cartoon physics that is not even logical upon itself. One huge flaw is you have all three plates the same temperature but the IR from the green plates bounce off the blue plate (for some unknown reason) yet the blue plate energy does not bounce off the green even though they are all at the same temperature. It might make you feel good to draw cartoons. But it does make you look very ignorant and like you don’t know what you are talking about. I have proven your cartoon wrong many times already with many links to actual physics textbooks.
Your amazingly ignorant response to real science? “You don’t understand the links” That is about as smart as your limited mind allows you to come up with. Sad but true.
Norman, the reason you can’t understand the simple diagram is you don’t know the relevant physics. It’s the same with the links you find. You can’t understand them.
I’ll ask you the same question fluffball couldn’t answer. What does the emission spectrum look like for a homogeneous black body at equilibrium?
JDHuffman
It would depend upon the surface temperature of the surface.
http://www.sun.org/uploads/images/mainimage_BlackbodySpectrum_2.png
The surface temperature is the same as that throughout the imaginary BB, the imaginary rays do not originate exactly from the imaginary surface. They “shine” through the imaginary surface for the most part.
Norman and fluffball are unable to describe the spectrum.
And neither Nate nor bob have chimed in, even though they are lurking.
Svante? Backdoor guy?
The clowns don’t understand the relevant physics. That’s why they can’t understand the simple diagram. That’s why they can’t understand that the GHE is pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-360046
JDHuffman
All I can say for now is you are a pretend phony. I gave you links to the emission spectrum of a blackbody. Then you say I can’t describe it and go off on your normal rant about how know one understands physics.
We all understand actual valid physics. No one can grasp your made up versions.
When you spend your time making up your own ideas that you can’t and will not support except idiotic cartoon that are illogical.
A plate at 244 K absorbs all the energy from a plate at 244 K but one 244 K plate reflects 100% of the energy from a 244 K plate. Stupidest crap anyone comes up with and you think we don’t know physics? We all can see you lack any science, make up crap and can’t even logically see why your solution is very stupid and illogical.
JDHuffman
This is the source material for your “physics”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.5881&rep=rep1&type=pdf
You reject established tested physics but accept the words of a person who has done no experiments at all. A lot like you.
You continue to conjecture on what would happen with three identical plates in a vacuum based upon a person who does not experiments and goes totally against experimentally verified established physics and you think that is an “open mind” or “can think for themselves”.
Science is not about “open mind” it is about evidence, data, observations, experiments. If you did an actual experiment you would see that Claes is wrong and established science is correct. You will never do experiments. You will never be enlightened. But you will continue to tell people they don’t know physics because they accept experimental physics over crackpot made up versions.
Norman, your immature insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations only document your incompetent and ignorance.
You are on record as not knowing the answer to the simple question: What does the emission spectrum look like for a homogeneous black body at equilibrium?
Anyone with an understanding of the relevant physics could answer in less than 10 words. (That’s a hint.)
‘A plate at 244 K absorbs all the energy from a plate at 244 K but one 244 K plate reflects 100% of the energy from a 244 K plate. Stupidest crap anyone comes up with and you think we don’t know physics?”
Well put.
JD this is a highly accurate representation of your nonsensical claims.
“Science is not about “open mind”…”
Well…it’s probably best not to have a “closed mind”…
I have already explained why Swanson’s experiment is a fraud. The pipe is in blue plate’s view. I have done the math, and it matches their results, unlike the backradiation theory.
Why can’t retards learn?
‘I have done the math’
Ha ha ha ha!!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359146
Whoops, see downthread.
Yes Nate, I see it. Anybody who disagrees with you, is “confused”. If they can be bothered to do the math, it’s “gibberish”. If they explain things conceptually, then they “can’t do the math” and “don’t understand super-basic calculations” and “have no rebuttal”.
Yep, pretty much all of what Zoe posts is gibberish and doesnt make any sense.
If you cannot tell that, then that is revealing your extreme gullibility.
I’m sure you’re right, Nate.
Say you had 50 km cube box with air with density of 1 kg per cubic meter.
The mass of total air in box is 50,000 times 50,000 times 50,000 or
125,000,000,000,000 kg or 125 trillion kg.
Or above a square meter is 50,000 kg of air.
Earth has 10 tons per square meter.
So let’s change the amount of air in big box to .2 kg per cubic meter.
And you fans blowing the air around keeping the at some air temperature, let’s say, 5 C.
Then you move box from no gravity orbit to the surface of world of a one gravity world surface. Or without landing on surface, you stop the orbital velocity and hang or hover 50 km above the surface of planet, and air in box is 25 trillion kg and rest box mass is 5 trillion kg, so need huge space elevator or rocket power strong enough to push with force of 30 trillion kg. Or if orbiting the box weighs 30 trillion kg in a 1 gee gravity well.
So it might easier landing it on the surface unless you have a massive space elevator or have vast rocket power which requires constant rocket power.
When it stops moving at orbital speed [and not falling at zero gee “free fall”] the air becomes denser at the floor of the box and less dense near the ceiling of the box.
And the air will have lapse rate and lapse could be about 6.5 C per 1000 meters. Though if air is drier it could be about 8 C per 1000 meter.
So air was 5 C without gravity and at density of .2 kg per cubic meter but after lands, the floor surface air temperature will denser and warmer than air at the ceiling.
If air was say 20 C at the floor surface then density of the air is somewhere around 1.2 kg per cubic meter.
If it’s 100 C, the density will less than this and you have higher density of air at ceiling of the box.
Or with a high enough air temperature the high kinetic energy of gas molecules could diminish gravity gradient of air density.
The owner or captain of the box might realize that having air at 5 C in orbit is too warm if they land the box and 1 gee world, what temperature should air be, before landing, so the air at the floor is at say 15 C?
If have ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Earth distance the uniform temperature will be 5 C.
If add 1 ton of atmosphere per square meter and air is nitrogen, you will have 1/10th of Earth atmosphere mass. And it should interfere with how sunlight reaches the surface, and so the uniform average temperature of earth will still be about 5 C. So blackbody surface and surface air will be about 5 C.
It has much atmosphere than Mars, but it should similar, it that the warm air will close to surface. Mars air in distance of 2 meters from surface changes a lot, so with 1/10th Earth atmosphere, within 10 meter distance from surface the temperature could vary. Or if standing on the surface the air at head level might be 0 C.
And double atmosphere so 1/5th Earth’s atmosphere mass, again one should still getting around 1360 watts of sunlight reaching the surface. Air pressure would 1/5th, or 14.7 psi / 5 = 2.94 psi. Or less pressure than at top of Mt Everest which is 1/3rd of 1 atm.
With 1/5th pressure it become more different than Mars at surface- instead air temperature differences within 1 meter it might be 100 meters. Or not like Earth and not like Mars.
So 100 meter above surface air temperature could be below 0 C, but first 10 meter might around 5 C.
At 3/10th Earth’s mass [less than 3rd], it seems atmosphere if fairly close to earth’s, so lapse rate near surface of around 8 C per 1000 meter elevation.
On earth when sun at 30 degree above horizon sun going thru twice as much atmosphere. So with earth mass of 3/10th, when sun at 30 degrees it’s going thru 6/10th of earth atmosphere. So when at zenith you might get around 1300 watts [or less] per square, but most of earth surface is getting much less than this.
So this much atmosphere would prevent the ideal thermally conductive blackbody from getting significantly less energy and the uniform temperature could a few degree cooler than 5 C, and 1000 meter elevation might around -10 C [or less].
But I think at this point one getting more warming effect from atmosphere. And if add water vapor, it reduces lapse rate and 1000 meter elevation is -8 C [or less].
And if add 1/10 mass of O2, making it 4/10th of earth atmosphere mass, you get ozone layer- and course even less sunlight is reaching the ideal thermally conductive blackbody surface.
Etc
Norman,
“Regardless if you, Gordon Robertson, DREMT, Zoe Phin did the experiment you would all find the blue plate gets hotter. ”
Of course we would.
The Blue Plate + Pipe vs. Blue+Green Plate – Pipe experiment yields predictable results.
Zoe Phin
I read your analysis of the pipe. It is quite terrible physics. Actually not physics at all. You do seem to have a good imagination but you have no knowledge of any actual physics.
You are under the zany idea you made up (absolutely NOT supported by any science at all!) that in order for an object to radiate it must have another object present so the energy can “drain” from the hot object to a cold one. Have mercy that is some total crap thought process. I am sad you post on this blog with this junk.
The pipe’s presence would not “suck” the energy away from the blue pipe and when lowered heat it up because now it is not “sucking” away as much energy.
You are possess even less physics knowledge that JDHuffman (who pretends he knows things and makes up his own physics as well…like his junk science cartoon that has the blue plate reflecting back all the energy from the green plate).
Both of you are a long way from understanding any actual science. Science is not about making up your own ideas. It is about proving them with observation, data, experiments, rational thought.
I guess this blog attracts those that think making up stuff is science.
You may have done well in economics. You would flunk out of any physics class. They might like your imagination but it would not qualify for physics. Maybe Art is more you ability. Science is not.
Just another long, rambling typing exercise from Norman. As usual, he continues his obsesion with me with slurs, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You are wrong again. You make up a phony fake version of physics.
It would be better if you supported your junk science (worse even than pseudoscience…yours is a step down) with any valid science.
To date you have not provided even the slightest support for any of your fantasy physics. It is not based upon anything. It is completely wrong and distorted. You base it upon no real laws of physics. Just your made up ideas. You pull out some physics terms to pretend to be an expert (like Poynting Vectors, entropy, enthalpy, spectra). You don’t know what any of these terms means and you do not know how to use any but you pretend you do to impress someone. So far you have only impressed your imaginary friend, Gordon Robertson, and now Zoe Phin. Anyone with actual science knowledge considers you a complete phony. But it does not matter you will keep posting and pretending. I guess it must be your hobby or something.
Norman, the reason you feel so intimidated when I mention things like Poynting vectors, entropy, enthalpy, spectra, etc., is that you don’t understand them. You had never heard of Poynting vector until I was teaching you why fluxes can’t be simply added/subtracted.
You’re mad at me because you are uneducated and uneducable.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
To date you have not yet demonstrated how Poynting Vectors prove fluxes do not add. You make this claim YOU NEVER support it. Not even once. What brand of science is this? You make endless unsupported declarations based upon your own ideas. Then you go about telling posters they don’t know physics or understand links.
You tell me I am “uneducated”. Really now. You have yet to provide one source to support all your junk science.
Your cartoon is in direct violation of Kirchoff’s Law but that does not matter you think it is “correct” physics. It is total junk but that will not stop you from thinking you are correct.
https://spie.org/publications/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity?SSO=1
So continue with your phony ideas and junk science. You don’t know what any of the science terms means or how to use them. You just put them in posts to give you this pretend credibility when you have none.
Norman, the very fact that I have to explain to you why vectors can not be treated as scalars shows how uneducated you are.
And the correct solution does NOT violate Kirchhoff’s Law, which you can’t even spell correctly, let alone understand the link.
You’re mad at me because you are uneducated and uneducable.
Nothing new.
Replied to here.
I am very grateful to Ball4 for bringing my attention to GEBA.
https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/191125/essd-9-601-2017.pdf?sequence=2
Figures 2, 5 and 7 are fantastic!
Did you guys know that downwelling LWIR was higher ~1950 than today?
Do retards understand the implications of this?
“Did you guys know that downwelling LWIR was higher ~1950 than today?”
Maybe Zoe can find a figure that does show LW, those figures all show SW.
Ball4,
My mistake, I meant SWIR.
What do you think caused 15 W/m^2 of fluctuation over last 100 years (in Sweden)?
Did you notice the rise from 1985 to 2015?
GEBA says:
“downward longwave radiation measurements carried out with pyrgeometers”
Well we know what pyrgeometers actually measure: LWnet. The reported values are LWnet plus LWout.
2:24pm: “What do you think caused 15 W/m^2 of fluctuation over last 100 years (in Sweden)?”
Probably aerosols and cloud variations as in the paper p.606 bottom right: “an increase in the dimming period up to the mid-1980s, in line with enhanced scattering from aerosols and/or clouds in this period and a subsequent decrease in the brightening period with declining aerosol and/or cloud scattering”.
The paper states p.606: “A comprehensive assessment of the trends in Europe using homogeneous GEBA records is reported in Sanchez-Lorenzo et al. (2015).”
That paper says send more money if you want the research & someone did, there are more updated papers to check if you are interested. Sanchez 2015:: “there is a tendency toward stabilization during the last years possibly due to the decreasing anthropogenic aerosol emissions…further research and additional proxy data of SSR (surface shortwave radiation) are needed in order to study the spatial and temporal scale of the early brightening observed before the 1950s and its possible causes.”
I had misplaced some sky readings from early spring, but found them today.
What luck!
April 25, 8:00a
Overhead –> -52.6 °F
Ground –> 53.2 °F
April 26, 9:30a
Overhead –> -51.9 °F
Ground –> 45.5 °F
Clowns believe the sky warms the surface! It’s called “stuck on stupid”.
Yep, even in Spring there is a local GHE JD, good job.
Wow, you responded in 5 minutes, fluffball.
Your obsession is getting even worse.
I didn’t think that was possible….
JD,
More numbers. Good.
Here are some digits from pi, 159265359.
Maybe you can learn something from these about the GHE too?
Just more facts for you to deny, Nate.
Nothing new.
What I see there is “The moon rotates on its axis. It takes ~27 days to do it.”
Ha!
Then I see Zoe being Zoe and being very confused.
I see a lot of gibberish about pipe area and view factors, but somehow missed is the fact that the pipe is part of the green plate.
The whole point is the GP being there makes a the difference! If its a plate, or a plate plus a pipe, either way, it is still doing its its job of being a radiative shield.
As usual with Zoe, it is a red red herring!
” If the Earth TOA is 150 km then with a lapse rate of 10 C/km thats 1500 (+60) K at the surface”
Of course it follows that when the surface cools to 300K the TOA contracts to about 30 km…
Errr… 24 km
Just as I thought: nothing but denial.
Nate,
“but somehow missed is the fact that the pipe is part of the green plate.”
No it’s not. First it’s part of Blue then it’s part of nothing (almost).
Zoe Phin
If anything the pipe (which is not touching the blue plate) would increase the temperature of the blue plate not decrease it when it was up next to it. The radiant energy returning from the pipe would be greater than the surroundings if indeed it was absorbing energy from the blue plate and warming. Lowering it out of the view would have a cooling effect if it had any at all. You have your ideas backwards on what actually takes place.
Replied to here.
Ball4,
Aerosols?
https://site.extension.uga.edu/climate/files/2017/02/radiative-forcings-graph.gif
All I see is a 140 year down 1 W/m^2 trend.
If clouds can create a 15 W/m^2 double hump then maybe this warming is due to clouds too? Have you considered this?
“All I see is a 140 year down 1 W/m^2 trend.”
Which shows multidecadal dimming and brightening from stratospheric aerosols consistent with the paper discussion I clipped.
Not my interest Zoe, go to your paper’s ref.s on aerosols if you want more detail (not some unsourced link) e.g. Ruckstuhl 2009 which states: “Observed multidecadal variations in downward solar irradiance (over Europe) at the surface can provide a useful constraint on the time history and on regional patterns of past aerosol forcing.”
@Zoe Phin,
The surface temperature of the Moon was modeled with amazing accuracy by Ashwin Vasavada:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
Vasavada’s results have been replicated by many people using a variety of methods. Here are the ones I have looked at:
1. Tim Channon using PSPICE.
2. This camel using a Russian FEA (Finite Element Analysis) program.
3. “br” using LTSPICE.
5. Scott Denning using “R” and other programs.
4. Roy Spencer using an Excel spreadsheet.
When you have a model that tracks well with observations it is reasonable to do “What Ifs” such as changing the rate of rotation. While Scott Denning’s models are different from mine our models agreed quite well:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
There is a simple way to understand why the average temperature of the Moon rises with the rate of rotation:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/gc-fig2.png
Note that the Moon’s day time temperature does not change significantly until the period of rotation falls below one Earth day. However the night time temperature rises by 50 Kelvin as the period
decreases from 7,300 Earth days to 10 Earth days.
GC, I haven’t studied how your models work, but conceptually I can somewhat believe such a body could raise in temperature with faster rotation, relative to the Sun.
Did you allow for any type of heating from the Moon’s core?
Also be careful of the term “rotation”. It can be confusing because the Moon does not rotate on its axis. It’s best to use the term “orbiting”. The fact that the Moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the Sun, faciltates the rotation of the Moon, relative to the Sun.
Greetings JDH!
My model assumes that the temperature of the lunar basalt is 240 Kelvin consistent with Apollo mission measurements. Refer to Figure 7 in the Vasavada et al. paper.
Using this figure gives the wrong result at the lunar poles which makes it likely that the polar basalt has a temperature of ~90 K. As far as I know this has not been confirmed by direct measurements.
The rate of rotation I use is “Sidereal” so it is relative to the stars (e.g. the Sun).
That’s interesting, especially since some sources indicate Moon’s surface gets as cold as 95 K.
And, if faster rotation means higher temperatures, that might raise the temperature of the imaginary globe higher than 255 K, say to about 288 K….
–That’s interesting, especially since some sources indicate Moon’s surface gets as cold as 95 K.–
Gets that temperatures at equator, and cooler in most of area of night side of Moon.
And blackbody 95 K emits about 5 watts.
One also think of it this way, during long day hours, 14 earth days, the warmer surface will inhibt the interior heat loss. Or store it like battery, and it be released at coldest night surface temperatures.
Or you have measure it deep enough to get the constant rate, and it is the shallower depth where it’s stored or has night and day variation in rate.
–And, if faster rotation means higher temperatures, that might raise the temperature of the imaginary globe higher than 255 K, say to about 288 K….–
We have space rock and they have very fast spin, and such space rocks with rocks at surface rather than insulated dust have about average of 5 C, with dust it’s lower average temperature, so say 270 K or lower.
@JDH,
The lowest temperature on the Moon’s equator is ~95 Kelvin as noted by “gbaikie”.
Temperatures at the lunar poles gets much less attention. It has been argued that the lowest temperature thus far measured in our solar system is the ~45 Kelvin measured inside lunar craters at high latitudes where “the Sun Never Shines”.
You can be sure that there are lower temperatures at the poles of airless moons orbiting the outer planets but nobody has measured them yet.
–JDHuffman says:
June 27, 2019 at 6:03 AM
GC, I havent studied how your models work, but conceptually I can somewhat believe such a body could raise in temperature with faster rotation, relative to the Sun.–
I would roughly say it this way, in lunar hour of when sun is dropping below the horizon, the lunar surface has already lost a high percentage of the energy absorbed during the day-a wild guess 99% of heat. And of course by dawn 14 earth later it loses 100%.
No matter the shortness of day, you lose 100%.
But if 99% of loss occurs by midnight [instead if sunset] and 100% by dawn, that roughly should mean the night time temperature is warmer. So say 70% by sunset and 99% by midnite.
With Earth you lose .5 C per hour during night- and aren’t get that with the Moon because lacks Earth thermal mass of atmosphere and ocean.
The other aspect is near crazy way we measure average temperature- or it doesn’t matter how fast the day is, the top surface temperature will reach it’s 120 C temperature, as you warming 1/2 inch of dirt.
And with Earth we measuring 1/2 inch of ocean surface water, which is slightly less crazy.
I say real average temperature with Moon should be about 1 foot under the surface, and with Earth it’s the average volume temperature of our ocean [about 3.5 C].
And length day is not effected as dramatically with what I would call a real average global temperature. And I think axis tilt might be more of factor.
— Did you allow for any type of heating from the Moons core?–
Roughly I believe the solar heating meets geothermal heat a meter or so below the surface. It might have 1 or 2 K difference in night temperature- obviously nothing to do with daytime temperature. Probably lack geologic knowledge and not measuring temperature accurately enough to have rise above the noise.
It would have larger effect upon what I think is “real average temperature”
I was wondering if you knew how much sunlight the Moon absorbed.
But then I thought of different question, how much does Moon emit on it’s night side vs how much Earth emits on it’s night side.
It seems Earth would emit about 240 watts on average on it’s night side and Moon would be about 5 watts on average.
Mercury, would most of time, also emit about 5 watts on night side.
Venus would be low, but not sure of number. As would Mars be fairly low.
Probably some term used for this, but don’t recall, that ever seen it mentioned.
Also Earthshine on new moon would seem to effect how much is being emitted.
The amount of sunlight the Moon absorbs is (1-A) where “A” is the Albedo. To model the Moon with reasonable accuracy one needs to know that lunar regolith is “Non-Lambertian” which means that its Albedo varies according to the angle of incidence of the incoming radiation.
Vasavada used an 8th order polynomial. Tim Channon and this camel use trigonometrical functions. Our models therefore differ slightly as you can see in this chart:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/image-416.png
With regard to IR emittance the situation is (mercifully) simpler. IR emittance is one of the main factors that determine the night side temperature of airless bodies. Using a simple emittance coefficient that is isotropic (uniform in all directions) works well.
It has been said that the lunar surface radiates like asphalt. Tim Channon and I use an emittance of 0.95 while Roy Spencer uses 0.98. A “Black Body” would have an emittance of 1.000.
I was able to model Mercury with good accuracy at perigee and apogee using the same assumptions about the thermal properties of regolith that were used in my lunar model. I never took the trouble to model the entire Mercury year even though a 3:2 phase lock orbit sounds like fun.
cam…from your link…”he Moon experiences extremes in surface temperature due to its slow rotation…”
We have to be careful here since the Moon does not rotate about its axis. The solar energy it garners is due to the Moon’s orbit around the Earth.
The author is wrong to claim the surface temperature extremes are due to the slow rotation of the Moon. They are due to the Moon being tidally-locked in an orbit about the Earth.
Whereas the Moon shows only one side to the Earth during an orbit, it shows all sides to the Sun during the same orbit, albeit at drastically different angles.
The situation on Earth is entirely different. The Earth does rotate on it axis, and every 24 hours. The Moon takes 28 days to show all of its sides to the Sun.
“The Moon takes 28 days to show all of its sides to the Sun.”
I seem to recall Gordon telling us time does not exist, so how can 28 days suddenly exist per Gordon?
But yes Gordon, moon rotates once on its own axis in that ~time period relative to the stars (the sun) showing all its faces rotating so sun can view them on its ~fixed rotation axis; the fixed Apollo landing sites experience night/day in that one rotation on its own axis just like 24 hours on Earth. Well, if you do believe NASA actually landed on the moon at these Apollo sites. That seems to be in some dispute.
ball2…”I seem to recall Gordon telling us time does not exist, so how can 28 days suddenly exist per Gordon?
But yes Gordon, moon rotates once on its own axis in that ~time period relative to the stars (the sun)”
***********
I have demoted you to ball2 for such a dumb answer.
Time does no exist but we humans need a system of keeping tract of events so we invented time based on a machine (clock) which we must synchronize with other machines, otherwise time would be different everywhere. The 28 days does not exist in physical space or any other space or dimension.
If you want to delude yourself into thinking something is happening as the Moon orbits the Earth wrt time, besides a mass with momentum being attracted by a gravitational force, have a happy illusion. You are already deluded about heat, AGW, and climate so you’ll be happy in your delusion.
I have proved conclusively using two coins that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate through 360 degrees while keeping one face toward the Earth. The Moon is still not physically rotating with respect to the stars. It is being held in an orbit of curvilinear translation by gravity with the same face always toward the Earth.
The Moon is trying to move in a straight line with the same face toward the Earth. Gravity bends that line into a curvilinear path, forming a complete orbit.
There is no rotation, only orbital mechanics.
“Time does no(t) exist..The 28 days does not exist..”
Ok, whew, I thought maybe Gordon came out into the real world there for awhile.
“The Moon is still not physically rotating with respect to the stars” of which the sun is one! And Gordon proved it with coins (which he rotated with one hand whilst distracting the observer with the other hand).
Then how in real nature does the moon show all faces to the sun (“the stars”) sans rotation with night and day in a time period that Gordon reverses course and now writes “does not exist”. I can’t see how that’s possible but of course Gordon and JD can make it so.
Better:
“Time does no(t) exist..The 28 days does not exist..”
Ok, whew, I thought maybe Gordon came out into the real world there for awhile.
“The Moon is still not physically rotating with respect to the stars” of which the sun is one! And Gordon proved it with coins (which he rotated with one hand whilst distracting the observer with the other hand).
Then how in real nature does the moon show all faces to the sun (“the stars”) sans rotation with night and day in a time period that Gordon reverses course and now writes “does not exist”. I can’t see how that’s possible but of course Gordon and JD can make it so.
ball2…”Then how in real nature does the moon show all faces to the sun (“the stars”) sans rotation…”
I have explained that many times but like my explanation of heat and time your febrile mind fails to grasp basic physics.
The Moon is orbiting the Earth and at each point of its orbit, except during an eclipse where the Earth blocks solar energy, the Moon is subject to solar radiation.
When the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, the side heated by the Sun will be opposite the Sun when the Moon is on the far side of the Earth. The Moon does not have to rotate for that to happen since it is in a tidally-locked orbit.
The change in the face toward the Sun has to do with Moon being tidally-locked. Its orbit is essentially a changing straight line motion due to the effect of gravity. All point on the Moon travel in concentric rings around the Earth in curvilinear translation.
Curvilinear translation differs from rectilinear translation only in that the path is curved. If you walk around a circle, with your left shoulder pointing toward the circle’s centre, you perform curvilinear translation. At no time does your body rotate about your centre of gravity, all points on your body are moving in concentric circles about the centre.
In order for your body to rotate about its COG as you walk around the circle, all points in your body would have to rotate about your COG as you walk.
We used that as an exercise in soccer as we lapped the park. As we jogged, we’d turn CCW about our COG till we were facing backward, then we’d run backwards for a while before rotating CCW so we were facing forward again.
The problem you are having is in thinking the universe operates with the human mind as a reference. The Moon may appear to be rotating on its axis to your imposed reference frame but you are experiencing an illusion. A similar illusion is that the Sun rises and sets, suggesting the Sun is orbiting the Earth.
“If you walk around a circle, with your left shoulder pointing toward the circle’s centre, you perform curvilinear translation. At no time does your body rotate about your centre of gravity”
In that case, at NO step does your body STOP rotating about its own axis.
If you walk around a circle, with your left shoulder pointing toward the circle’s center, you perform curvilinear translation with your feet in contact with the floor rotating your body about its rotational axis & and equal and opposite torque by the floor which reacts the applied torque as you step (this is the same torque & reaction you apply in your coin example). You will show only your left shoulder to the circle center as you rotate about your own axis walking in the circle in 1st case the floor reacting the torque applied to it.
If you do that on a skating rink with very slippery watery ice (or imaginary frictionless in rotation surface) unable to react the rotational force applied to the rink by your feet but able to react the cg translation by raising & stepping your skates slowly, then your body will NOT rotate about its own axis and you will continue to face in the direction you started. As you step around the circle center you will show all faces to the center & you are not rotating about your own axis in this 2nd case.
1) Which is the moon case and which is not the moon case?
2) Who alone used the existence of a chronometer in this comment? Hint: see bold
“In order for your body to rotate about its COG as you walk around the circle, all points in your body would have to rotate about your COG as you walk.”
They do, by simple inspection.
With no rotation, in the frictionless case, they do not.
ball2…”If you walk around a circle, with your left shoulder pointing toward the circles center, you perform curvilinear translation with your feet in contact with the floor rotating your body about its rotational axis & and equal and opposite torque by the floor which reacts the applied torque”
According to your theory, when applied to the Moon, there must be a force acting tangential to its axis which produces a torque about the axis. However, the only force acting on the Moon is the gravitational field of the Earth.
Since the Earth’s gravitational field is applied uniformly to all parts of the Moon face always facing the Earth, any torques would cancel, producing no rotation.
In the same manner, if you had a vertical pole, and you grasped it with your left hand while propelling yourself CCW around the pole with your feet, your body could not rotate about it’s COG without letting go of the pole.
As I implied, you are suffering from an illusion. You think in your mind that the Moon is rotating but it’s actually moving in a series of straight lines. There’s no need for it to rotate in order to orbit.
“there must be a force acting tangential to its axis which produces a torque about the axis.”
No. Far as has been figured out, the moon coalesced spinning Gordon. Over time the tidal forces slowed it to the present rotation rate about its own axis, no torque is needed to keep it rotating on its own axis there is no friction with space to lose any of its angular momentum.
“There’s no need for it to rotate in order to orbit.”
Correct. The moon could be orbiting with no rotation about its own axis at all, they are independent motions. In that case, the tidal forces would be acting over long periods of time to spin it up into the tidal locked rotating on its own axis state observed in modern times.
“No. Far as has been figured out, the moon coalesced spinning Gordon.”
Which theory has moon spinning?
All of them.
An large impactor could alter the Earth’s spin, but ejecta is analogous to a trajectory of cannon [a rocket does not the instantaneous acceleration, but otherwise like a rocket going into orbit]. A rocket or cannon shell leaving earth also can alter Earth’s spin. Or rockets use earth spin to gain some delta-v to reach orbit or escape velocity [but does not cause rocket to spin].
So if talking about impact and ejecta forming and, it not spinning leaving earth, But to get spin it would relate to formation process of creating Moon [the coalescing of Moon- which could the Moon being impacted by large object and impact causing the Moon to spin]. And where Moon formed [near earth or further from Earth makes some difference.
Anyhow if think moon was spinning at it’s formation it should limit the list of possible theories.
@Gordon,
As mentioned earlier I use sidereal rates of rotation so the Earth is not a factor.
If you were to speed up the rate of rotation of the Moon the average temperature would rise. The day time temperature is insensitive to the rotation rate.
However the surface of the Moon stores heat poorly and the conductivity is really low too. Consequently the surface temperature falls rapidly once the Sun sets. This is why night time temperatures are so sensitive to the rate of rotation.
cam…”However the surface of the Moon stores heat poorly and the conductivity is really low too.”
I don’t like the words set and rise because it’s relative to the human mind. The mind sees the Sun rise and set from Earth as an illusion.
Wrt to the Moon in it’s orbit around the Earth, the Sun does not rise or set as referenced on Earth. We see a rising and setting due to our rotation but the Moon sees it according to it’s position in Earth orbit.
Over the 28 or so days it takes the Moon to orbit the Earth it sees the Sun from different view angles. I think that’s a lot different than a rotating planet averaging solar energy over one rotation.
Norman,
“in order for an object to radiate it must have another object”
No. Never said that. Can’t you read? I said you need another object to transfer heat to. Since space is not matter, you can’t transfer heat to space.
‘The pipes presence would not suck the energy away from the blue pipe and when lowered heat it up because now it is not sucking away as much energy.’
Of course it does, dummy. Learn heat capacity.
“It is about proving them with observation, data, experiments, rational thought.”
Yes, and Swanson’s experiment shows Blue Plate heated up by ~10% – and only I correctly explained why. Your cult predicted 100%, therefore you wrong.
Norman is a moron.
“If anything the pipe (which is not touching the blue plate) would increase the temperature of the blue plate not decrease it when it was up next to it.”
Completely incorrect.
Does moron Norman not understand heat capacity?
Given the same amount of energy, an object with twice the heat capacity will be twice as cold.
Heat Capacity (Blue Plate + Pipe) > Heat Capacity (Blue Plate)
This is not rocket science, Norman. If you put a double cheeseburger under a heat lamp, and then remove one of the burgers, it will get hotter faster.
If you don’t like my explanation, then you must provide your own answer for why BP heated up by ~10%, and not 100% as your cult predicted.
“This is not rocket science, Norman. If you put a double cheeseburger under a heat lamp, and then remove one of the burgers, it will get hotter faster.”
Ha!
You are not qualified to run a fast food joint much less discuss global warming.
that’s not even wrong
bobdroege
It is hard to understand Zoe Phin’s point. Not sure why she brings in heat capacity. The heat capacity of the pipe has no bearing on the temperature of the blue plate. They are not connected, they are not touching. If you can understand her points let me know. Sounds like some mixing up and scrambling ideas until they are senseless.
“The heat capacity of the pipe has no bearing on the temperature of the blue plate.”
It will on transient blue plate temperatures but not at steady state equilibrium as the mass drops out of the energy balance equations at that T (since delta T = 0 at that point).
ball2…”It will on transient blue plate temperatures but not at steady state equilibrium as the mass drops out of the energy balance equations”
The only energy balance in the system is heat in to the BP versus heat out. With the GP raised in front of the BP, heat out is reduced since the GP is blocking radiation from the BP. With heat dissipation reduced the BP rises toward its natural temperature due to the heat source and with no heat dissipation permitted.
The GP adds nothing to that equilibrium state, it serves the role only of blocking IR from the BP. Its temperature has nothing to do with anything.
“The only energy balance in the system is heat in to the BP”
“EM IS NOT HEAT”
The only energy balance in the system is imaginary heat in to the BP so whatever happens is imaginary and can be anything Gordon imagines happening.
What really happens is nature follows natural laws as nature does in E. Swanson’s real experiment, nature follows its own course not Gordon’s. Nothing imaginary about that, see the pictures! Better than cartoons and a 3 ring circus.
Gordon Robertson
You are so wrong!
YOU: “The GP adds nothing to that equilibrium state, it serves the role only of blocking IR from the BP. Its temperature has nothing to do with anything.”
The temperature has everything to do with it. It determines how much total energy rate input the blue plate is receiving. Your ideas are just dumb rejections of actual tested, established and used physics.
Roy Spencer did an actual experiment (something you can’t do but you sure criticize the people who do) that demonstrates your points are ignorant and baseless nonsense.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
In his experiment both the ice bath and the warmer top (shielding the ice) would block all the IR from the heated plate. Yet the temperature difference noticeably changed the temperature of the heated plate.
If you ever did real science or experiments you would find all your ideas are from the mind of an antiscience crackpot that makes up his own deluded declarations and peddles them on blogs.
You could see how stupid your points are if you actually heated the green plate as well as the blue plate.
Always keep the green plate colder than the blue plate but vary its temperature. You would see the blue plate’s temperature follow the green plate. But it is the same green plate that you say only acts as a block. Your explanation would not explain experimental reality. But you don’t care do you. You would rather peddle your unscientific ideas on blogs.
ball2…”The only energy balance in the system is imaginary heat in to the BP so whatever happens is imaginary and can be anything Gordon imagines happening.”
You are really off the deep end with regard to your understanding of heat.
No, EM is not heat, but when EM is absorbed by a body, the temperature of the body rises. That is your heat in.
Temperature is a measure of relative heat levels. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. The electrons in the atoms convert EM to kinetic energy, which is heat.
norman…”The temperature has everything to do with it. It determines how much total energy rate input the blue plate is receiving”
You must have a BS in science because you are full of BS.
If the BP is subjected to radiation from a hotter body, the rate of absorp-tion depends on the the temperature of the hotter body and its distance from the cooler body. That does not apply to the GP, which is a cooler body. The BP will not absorb EM from the GP.
If you moved a block of ice in front of the BP would that raise its temperature?
Did swannie use a block of ice to heat the BP?
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “If the BP is subjected to radiation from a hotter body, the rate of absorp-tion depends on the the temperature of the hotter body and its distance from the cooler body. That does not apply to the GP, which is a cooler body. The BP will not absorb EM from the GP.”
Yes it will absorb some energy from the GP. This is established science based upon years of verified experimentation and used in engineering heat transfer. It is far past research and theory as it was in the days of Clausius. The temperature of the Cold body is one of the variables that determines the heat flow from the hotter body. Your ideas on quantum theory are wrong and you have been explained several times by different posters. You plug your ears and ignore the facts.
YOU: “If you moved a block of ice in front of the BP would that raise its temperature?”
A block of ice WOULD raise the temperature of the heated blue plate if it was between an even colder surrounding wall (like dry ice). If the surroundings were warmer than no it would not, it would cool the BP because it sends less energy to the BP than the surroundings. It is very well established physics you reject and it is also the physics used by all NASA engineers for heat transfer in the vacuum of space. It works very well and does not need your input to correct what works. Your ideas do not work and would cause failure of equipment if people followed your ideas to design things.
“That is your heat in.”
“EM IS NOT HEAT” Gordon. So, correctly, that is your EM in.
“Temperature is a measure of relative heat levels.”
Temperature is not heat. Temperature is the avg. KE of the particles impinging on the thermometer. Heat is a measure of the total particle KE in an object.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Norman,
“Not sure why she brings in heat capacity. The heat capacity of the pipe has no bearing on the temperature of the blue plate.”
Why do the plates need to be identical? Why can’t blue plate be 4 times as thick?
Do you deny that pipe will be heated by blue plate via radiation? Is not the equilibrium temperature of blue plate and pipe determined by how much energy is provided and their heat capacities? Wouldn’t it take more energy to heat two objects than one? Sure, the interface is radiation between plate and pipe, but what about inside each?
Given that only a given amount of energy is provided, more mass will limit final temperature, no?
So again, why do the plates need identical thickness?
Zoe Phin
YOU: “Given that only a given amount of energy is provided, more mass will limit final temperature, no?”
That would be true but there is not a given amount of energy. The energy supply is continuous. It is unlimited supply. The final temperature will depend upon the rate energy it being received minus the rate it is emitted. The final temperature (steady state) is reached when the incoming energy rate is equal to the outgoing energy rate. The heat capacity will not change this. It will only determine how long it will take to reach a steady state temperature. A thicker plate will take longer to reach the steady state temperature but the temperature will be the same.
Replied to here.
@Zoe,
This argument keeps coming back and at the risk of annoying y’all by repeating myself, here is my comment from four months ago:
QUOTE
I tried to comment on the green plate/blue plate thing but Dr. Roys Bot blocked it. Here is another attempt without the link that may have upset the Bot.
This Controversy is like the Walking Dead.it refuses to lie down and die.
John P. Holmans magnificent book Heat Transfer (Tenth Edition) shows two different ways to solve this problem:
Example 8-6 on page 408 and Example 8-16 on page 441.
UNQUOTE
You can find J.P. Holman’s book “on-line” and it is FREE! If you have trouble I can send you a link. My public email is info(at)gallopingcamel.info.
cam from example 8-6…”The plates exchange heat with each other and with the room, but only the plate surfaces
facing each other are to be considered in the analysis. Find the net transfer to each plate and to
the room”.
Note: as is typical, he does not work the problem through to show how much heat each body receives from the other. That’s because there is no way to measure such a heat transfer.
Furthermore, quantum theory tells you why it cannot happen. It is simply not possible for the electrons receiving the EM in the hotter body to absorb the energy from the cooler plate since they reside at an energy level that is too high to affect them.
Heat cannot be transferred from a lower energy level to a higher energy level, by its own means, no more than water can flow from a lower gravitational potential to a higher gravitational potential.
That problem as stated is a direct contravention of the 2nd law. I relay from Clausius…”Heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body”.
I think the author likely means that the bodies exchange radiation but his reference to Qnet suggests he thinks heat can be transferred both ways between a plate at 1000C and another at 500C.
He is dead wrong, and I don’t know where this nonsense has its derivation. He is applying the S-B equation in a way never stated by either Stefan or Boltzmann.
The initial Stefan equation, is based on a heated platinum filament wire where the temperatures were in the range of 700C to 1400C. The air in the room was likely around 20C. S-B is a one way transfer of heat from a super hot source to room air at 20C.
cam…after reading much of chapter 8 on radiation I feel disgusted that this nonsense is being taught at universities.
In chapter 8, they completely ignore quantum theory and there is no mention of Clausius or the 2nd law in the entire book. In fact, they flagrantly thumb their noses at the 2nd law.
This is fabricated thermodynamics based on nothing but a thought experiment from blackbody THEORY..
I don’t care what anyone says, when you ignore the basics of quantum theory, which is based on the electron and its properties, and you infer a net energy transfer that cannot be accommodated by electrons, you are preaching bs. When you completely ignore the 2nd law as written by Clausius, you are preaching heresy.
There is nothing in that chapter re a two way transfer of heat that can be verified by experimentation. As I tried to explain to Norman, there are entries in textbooks that are entirely theoretical with no means of proving the theories.
cam…Since you have a background in mathematics I’d appreciate your review of this article by Claes Johnson on blackbody radiation. I see no problem with his math although norman becomes hysterical when his name is mentioned.
This is not about Dragon Slayer stuff, I have little interest in movements or causes. I just like the way Claes presents himself as a mathematician. He lays out the math to be verified and he gives a very good explanation of blackbody theory and the history behind it.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.5881&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I see no problem with his math although norman becomes hysterical when his name is mentioned.:
I actually do not become “hysterical” at all. He is opposing the established version of physics of radiant heat transfer (where the cold objects radiation is a variable in determining the heat flow from a hotter object). He does NO Experiments to demonstrate his ideas are good, correct or the right direction. We are supposed to accept current physics is wrong (even though it is no longer just a taught theory but used extensively in heat transfer engineering applications all around the world) and accept his version of just clever manipulation of math.
If you or Claes did actual experiments you would find that the heated plate temperature would correlate with the temperature of the colder plate. The IR emitted by the GP is sending energy to the BP changing its temperature. Experiment proves Claes and you wrong. Established experimentally based physics wins against the crackpots who make declarations with zero experimental evidence to backup their junk science and bad ideas.
“Example 8-6: Hot plates enclosed by a room
Two parallel plates 0.5 by 1.0 m are spaced 0.5 m apart, as shown in Figure Example 8-6. One plate is maintained at 1000◦C and the other at 500◦C. The emissivities of the plates are 0.2 and 0.5, respectively. The plates are located in a very large room, the walls of which are maintained at 27◦C. The plates exchange heat with each other and with the room, but only the plate surfaces facing each other are to be considered in the analysis. Find the net transfer to each plate and to the room.
Example 8-16: Numerical solution for parallel plates
Two 1-m-square surfaces are separated by a distance of 1 m with T1 = 1000 K, T2 = 400 K, ε1 = 0.8, ε2 = 0.5. Obtain the numerical solutions for this system when (a) the plates are surrounded by a large room at 300 K and (b) the surfaces are connected by a re-radiating wall perfectly insulated on its outer surface. Part (a) of this example is identical in principle to the problem that is solved by the network method in Example 8-6.”
Erm…OK, GC.
“Two parallel plates 0.5 by 1.0 m are spaced 0.5 m apart, as shown in Figure Example 8-6. One plate is maintained at 1000◦C and the other at 500◦C. The emissivities of the plates are 0.2 and 0.5, respectively. The plates are located in a very large room, the walls of which are maintained at 27◦C. The plates exchange heat with each other and with the room, but only the plate surfaces facing each other are to be considered in the analysis. Find the net transfer to each plate and to the room”
Will not let me tiny that, try this
https://tinyurl.com/y68gpu7t
That didn’t work.
That seems to be two heated plates.
As compared to one plate being heated which heats an unheated plate.
Hopefully this link will work:
http://dl.iranidata.com/book/daneshgahi/%5BJack_P._Holman%5D_Heat_Transfer,_Tenth_Edition_(www.IraniData.com).pdf
<Nope. G’yad dammit. It won’t let me tinyurl it either. But search for “Holman heat transfer tenth edition” and it comes up with a free link OK.
Let’s change the problem again and see if we get a different answer!
The “answer change” from the “2 plate” problem to the “3 plate” problem was a good one.
Anyone ever wonder why the &Idquo;right answer” wasn’t 205 K…244 K…205 K?
These problems sound more realistic than the original GPE, which is fine, IMO.
An open minded person will try to learn from these examples.
What methods were used to SOLVE them? What equations were applied?
Did they use the JD approach?
-Guess an answer. Change physics as needed to get THAT answer?
or did they do something crazy like:
-Apply appropriate versions of the RHTE?
-Apply 1LOT, 2LOT?
The “answer change” from the “2 plate” problem to the “3 plate” problem was a good one.
Anyone ever wonder why the “right answer” wasn’t 205 K…244 K…205 K?
That solution doesn’t balance, so no, I never wondered why it wasn’t the “right answer”
It does require some thinking for yourself, so I can understand why you don’t get it.
Well, thinking for myself, I see 400 watts going in and only 200 watts going out, so it’s not a steady state solution, because at 205K 244K 205K, temperature would still be increasing.
So now we have 205K 244K 205K is wrong
and
244K 244k 244k is also wrong
Can you come up with the right answer
Humpty DREMPTY?
First of all, neither 244 K…290 K…244 K nor 205 K…244 K…205 K are actually the right answer. Obviously the correct answer is 244 K…244 K…244 K.
But, there is quite an interesting comparison you can do between the “2 plate” scenario and the “3 plate” scenario where it could be argued that “you lot” maybe should have thought the “right” answer was 205 K…244 K…205 K, instead of 244 K…290 K…244 K.
I’m interested to see if you can figure it out for yourself.
If you’re struggling, I can give you a clue?
The thing is Humpty DREMPTY,
I didn’t think up an answer.
I used the First law and the Stephan-Boltzmann equation, and set up equations and solved them.
In order to balance the energy input of 400 watts, the green plates have to continue to put out 200 watts from each side, but they now have to put out 200 from both sides now that they are separated, so they need to get 400 watts each from the blue plate, so the blue plate heats to 290K.
That’s the solution you get if you are bothered to set up and solve equations.
But you guys can’t be bothered.
So you’re saying you do need a clue?
Quid Pro Quo?
You give me a clue
and
I’ll give you a clue.
Because one of us is definitely clueless.
Though I am leaning towards the one that doesn’t use equations to solve problems.
Blob, if you don’t understand, it’s OK to admit it. Nobody expects very much of you, after all.
Wrong again Humpty DREMPTY,
Some people expect a lot of me
So why don’t you try explaining JD’s effed up diagram to me, explain to me how different plates emit different amounts of blackbody radiation when they are at the same temperature.
Or how one plate knows to reflect radiation from a cooler body.
Or how a plate can change emissivity depending on the source of the radiation hitting it.
Or you can show your calculations that lead you to determine the temperatures of the plates.
I’ll bet you can’t do it.
Sorry blob, no diversions allowed. 205 K…244 K…205 K. Need help, Little Mind?
No problem Humpty Drempty.
205 K is for the green plate if it was emitting 100 watts/sqmeter per side for a total of 200 watts.
Some time ago we calculated that the plates are 1 sq meter and we are ignoring edge effects..
Squeezed together the plates emit 400 watts, the same as the 400 watts input at 244 K.
Pulled apart, the green plate still emits 200 watts from each outer side so that the input of 400 watts is balanced by the output of 200 watts each side.
In your solution of 244 244 244 you 400 watts input to the blue plate, then the blue plate emits 200 watts each way to the 2 green plates.
The two green plates then emit 200 watts back to the blue plate which is reflected back to the green plate.
Is that it, did I miss anything, maybe you can explain it to me.
Poor blob really doesn’t have a clue what I’m getting at.
First hint: this is about a comparison between the “2 plate” and “3 plate” scenario, only looking at it in a different light. In the “3 plate” scenario, there is now a central blue plate, with a 400 W input of electrical energy. On its own, all agree it comes to a temperature where it is emitting 400 W, 200 to the left, and 200 to the right, at a temperature of 244 K. Now, normally this is compared to the blue plate, in the “2 plate” scenario. What could it be compared to, instead?
Nope,
Humpty Dumbass DREMPTY,
You don’t even understand your stupid problem.
The temperature was set at 244, which determines the area of the plate.
“What could it be compared to, instead?”
I am not interested in comparing it to anything, I just want to see if you can solve the problem correctly in accordance with the laws of physics.
You can’t even decide if the correct answer is 205 244 205 or 244 244 244.
Why I ask.
It’s because you don’t understand the science.
Thick, pathetic, drugged up old hippy failure, I don’t think the answer is 205 K…244 K…205 K. I already said to you:
“But, there is quite an interesting comparison you can do between the “2 plate” scenario and the “3 plate” scenario where it could be argued that “you lot” maybe should have thought the “right” answer was 205 K…244 K…205 K, instead of 244 K…290 K…244 K.”
Now, in the “3 plate” scenario, the temperature of the blue plate is 244 K; which, as I said, all agree on. So, there’s no need for you to spazz out as if there’s any disagreement there. Once again:
“Normally this is compared to the blue plate, in the “2 plate” scenario. What could it be compared to, instead?”
‘But, there is quite an interesting comparison you can do between the ‘2 plate’ scenario and the ‘3 plate’ scenario where it could be argued that ‘you lot’ maybe should have thought the ‘right’ answer was 205 K…244 K…205 K, instead of 244 K…290 K…244 K.’
DREMT, Bob understands it is about SOLVING each unique problem using physics. And you guys just don’t seem to get that.
You seem to think its all done by guessing and hand-waving and some sort of pattern matching, which of course fails.
And you still are trying to tell us what we think and believe, rather than believing what we say we think and believe.
Forget it. I’ll bring it up another time, when there’s somebody other than just my stalker reading.
Sorry DREMT, if you feel you must post nonsense, I’ll be here to expose it.
Rationalize it however you must, stalker.
Humpty DREMPTY,
Are you ever going to address the three deficiencies I pointed out with respect to your 3 plate solution of 244, 244, 244?
Or are you going to keep carrying on?
One: the violation of Kirchoff’s law.
Two: the plates at the same temperature emitting different amounts of radiation.
Three: Your diagram shows a blackbody reflecting, therefore it’s not a blackbody.
Why should I compare the two problems, rather than solve them properly.
Hint: you should try to solve them properly.
You might learn some science after all.
He still can’t work it out…it’s not like there’s that many other things it could be, besides the blue plate…
A hundred and some days and Humpty DREMPTY still can’t figure out how to set up and solve equations.
Maybe you should re-enroll in high school, or take night classes to get you GED>
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-361112
There’s no physical formula there DREMT.
Svante, please stop trolling.
@ gbaikie, June 27, 2019 at 1:26 PM
You said:
“It seems Earth would emit about 240 watts on average on its night side and Moon would be about 5 watts on average.
Mercury, would most of time, also emit about 5 watts on night side.
Venus would be low, but not sure of number. As would Mars be fairly low.”
That 240 W/m-2 sounds about right. It would correspond to about 258 Kelvin if Earth has an IR emittance of 0.95.
The Moon radiates 5 W/m-2 at 97 Kelvin. That is the temperature at the Moon’s equator just before dawn.
Venus has 100% cloud cover so its IR irradiance is well known. According to Jenkins et al. (Magellan) the IR radiation averages ~160 W/m-2 which (perhaps surprisingly) suggests a temperature of 230 Kelvin which is slightly lower than Earth’s.
The surface of Mercury seems to behave just like the surface of our moon.
Norman,
“That would be true but there is not a given amount of energy. The energy supply is continuous. It is unlimited supply. The final temperature will depend upon the rate energy it being received minus the rate it is emitted.”
The experiment doesn’t show horizontal temperature trends, it is always cut off – meaning energy supplied is limited.
Come on, Norman, we know why you show any lack of curiosity for why my math works, and yours doesn’t.
Norman,
“The final temperature (steady state) is reached when the incoming energy rate is equal to the outgoing energy rate.”
LOL. YOU don’t believe that.
You believe that BP will send 266 to GP, and GP will send 133 to BP.
You believe steady state temperature is reached when outgoing is twice incoming.
Don’t flip flop your beliefs to suit your current argument.
Zoe, I’ll give you an update on the “plates” situation, which you might not have picked up on…and it might amuse you…
113 days or so ago, JD came up with the “3 plates scenario” which was an extension to the logic of the original “2 plates” scenario, where instead of having a “sun” to the left of the two plates, the blue plate now has a 400 W source of electrical energy, and there is now a green plate placed either side of the blue plate (close enough that the view factors between the plates can be considered to be one). Without the green plates present, the “blue plate” is agreed to come to a temperature of 244 K, such that it radiates 200 W to the left, and 200 W to the right.
The agreed upon answer by those defending the GPE is that when you add the green plates, the blue plate will rise in temperature by 46 K, so that the final temperatures are 244 K…290 K…244 K. They also agree that with the plates pressed together, the temperatures are 244 K…244 K…244 K. So just the act of separating the plates will cause the temperature of the blue plate to rise, according to them.
Please do assume you’re correct.
It goes to 290 because of the insulating effect of the gap between the plates.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-360173
Will it go round in circles, will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?
OK, blob.
What comes around goes around
I’ll tell you why
round and round?
Update:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-360085
Guess you don’t have to take our word for it anymore.
Oh well…you’ll get us next time!
Yes, I remember that being brought up at the time. Thanks for your obsession.
Happy to help.
And maybe all can be spared future rehashing!
Whoops! Please do assume you’re correct.
DREMT,
The vacuum accordion effect!
Works with money too. For the original problem:
Sunny gives $400 to Bill.
Bill throws $266 in the trash, and gives $266 to Gary.
Gary then returns $134 (So Bill can give Gary the extra $134 he never had).
Gary then throws $134 (he doesn’t have) in the trash.
That’s funny, I came up with a similar name for it myself!
Actually, the 2-plate GPE was the “Accordion of Pseudoscience”, and the 3-plate GPE was the “Pseudoscience Sandwich”.
‘Sunny gives $400 to Bill.
Bill throws $266 in the trash, and gives $266 to Gary.
Gary then returns $134 (So Bill can give Gary the extra $134 he never had).
Gary then throws $134 (he doesnt have) in the trash.”
I like it! But slight correction.
Gary returns $134 to Bill: Bill’s all Even-Steven
400 -2*266 + 134 = 0
Gary throws $134 in the trash. He’s all Even-Steven as well!
266 -2*134 = -2
(OK, rounding error, actually 266.666 -2*133.333 = 0)
Everyone’s squared away and happy, except you guys.
Please do assume you’re correct.
Mama told me not to come
I bet she did.
(pity she didn’t tell your dad that).
Will you have whisky with your water?
That ain’t the way to have fun
Son!
I seen so many things here I ain’t never seen before
I don’t know what it is but I don’t wanna see no more
Obviously the solution then is not to drink the tea.
So DREMPTY, do you stop drinking the Tea?
Have you stopped drinking the whisky and water yet?
No water in my whiskey please
Good man!
Well as it turns out it is the solution one gets from the textbook..
Good, cuz it seems to work well.
Great…although it does appear there may be one or two “little” differences, compared to the GPE…
☺️
Such as?…must very important!
Yes, they “must very important”.
&ldquoOne plate is maintained at 1000◦C and the other at 500◦C. The emissivities of the plates are 0.2 and 0.5, respectively. The plates are located in a very large room, the walls of which are maintained at 27◦C. The plates exchange heat with each other and with the room, but only the plate surfaces facing each other are to be considered in the analysis.”
There’s the money quote
“The plates exchange heat with each other and with the room”
I don’t know about the “money quote”, but it’s certainly one of the big differences, yes.
So it happens or not.
Where do you sit Humpty DREMPTY?
Why would you want to change the subject to be about a “2-way heat exchange” when you yourself already said upthread that “energy can flow both ways, heat only one way”?
Oh wait, I see why…
Did you try to learn something from these examples, DREMT? That could be helpful.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-360422
Why would you want to change the subject to be about a “2-way heat exchange” when you yourself already said upthread that “energy can flow both ways, heat only one way”?
Oh wait, I see why…
Gordon made a very good point that most missed.
An electron can NOT at the SAME time absorb a photon and emit a photon.
Net radiation theory can not be applied to ONE surface.
Zoe, the atm. molecule absorbs a photon with the quantum energy to raise an electron to a higher electronic level, the electron does not do the absorbing – early research showed both momentum (angular and linear) AND energy can only be conserved if the whole molecular structure absorbs the photon not JUST the electron. This is known as quantum effect.
If the electron absorbs enough energy from the photon to be blasted out of the molecular structure entirely, then the electron can absorb the required momentum and energy. This is known as the photoelectric effect.
ball2…”the atm. molecule absorbs a photon with the quantum energy to raise an electron to a higher electronic level, the electron does not do the absorbing…”
There are 3 major, significant particles in an atom and a molecule is two or more atoms bonded by electrons or electron charges. One particle is a neutron…it has no charge and has no effect other than to add mass. The proton is bound in the nucleus with the neutron and does not move significantly wrt the electron.
What absorbs the EM? The electron is the only particle able to do so. The electron is the only particle that can emit a photons since a photon is allegedly an electromagnetic quantum with an electrical and a magnetic field.
What in an atom has an electrical AND a magnetic field? What in an atom emits a photons when it descends from one energy level to a lower energy level? An electron!!!
What rises to a higher energy level of E = hf when it absorbs electromagnetic energy? Only the electron.
The E refers to the difference in energy levels in which an electron can reside. the f is the frequency of the electron.
What else in a molecule can possibly absorb electromagnetic energy? There is nothing there that can absorb EM but an electron.
“What absorbs the EM?”
The mass of the molecule (or atom). The whole structure spins a quantum level jump higher exactly absorbing the momentum (linear and angular) and energy from the photon. This would be for photons with energy ~1/3 kT where T is the yemperature as measured in Earth’s troposphere.
It was demonstrated long ago the electron itself does not have the mass to both absorb the momentum and the energy of the photon so that proposal failed conservation laws, while the whole molecular structure does have the exact mass needed so is in accord with conservation laws.
“What else in a molecule can possibly absorb electromagnetic energy?”
The structural mass of the molecule (atom) is just right, the photon turns into increased KE in the mass of the molecule (atom). And what is temperature? The avg. KE of the molecules so up T goes. This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
Kinda depends on what you think is happening during Compton Scattering.
Could be interpreted as an electron absorbing and emitting a photon at the same time.
When I was studying physics at the Cavendish Laboratory 60 years ago, Compton scattering was studied using X-rays diffracted by crystals. Energetic photons were interacting with electrons that had low velocities in the “Frame of Reference” (aka the laboratory).
Twenty four years ago my team assembled a machine that collided relativistic electrons (gamma = 2,000) with photons. The photons were relatively low energy (2 eV). This is an interesting variant of “Compton Scattering” since it demonstrates the mechanism that is believed to be responsible for the brightest events in the universe……..Gamma Ray Bursters.
When a photon interacts with matter that is moving at near light speed relative to Earth it is still called “Compton Scattering” but the results can be quite spectacular. That feeble little visible photon can be transformed into a deadly gamma ray.
E(gamma ray) = 4 * 2,000 * 2,000 * 2 = 32 MeV
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
The Duke university HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source) is still the world’s brightest in the world.
Apologies for this shameless promotion of Duke university but you did mention “Compton Scattering”.
cam…”Twenty four years ago my team assembled a machine that collided relativistic electrons (gamma = 2,000) with photons”.
How do you get to have all the fun…causing collisions with electrons and playing rugby?
Whoa, cool!
Pretty cool stuff indeed!
The Duke HIGS has undergone major upgrades since I retired in 2002. Here is the latest paper, published in Nature (Photonics):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-019-0467-6
This paper is hidden behind a pay wall but if you want to read the whole thing email me at info(at)gallopingcamel.info.
One of the applications for gamma rays that can be “tuned” is initiating nuclear reactions such as the d(γ,n)p reaction that are believed to occur within stars.
The Duke HIGS produces photons with quantized spin. Who knew? Spinning photons?
“Who knew? Spinning photons?”
Sure, photons possess both linear and angular momentum. But not, it seems, mass, so must be more to the usual m*v = momentum than is macro obvious.
Ball4, blob, please stop trolling.
That’s great, Ball4, but doesn’t quite settle the issue, does it?
Can a molecule absorb and emit at the same time?
Well,
Consider the Chlorophyll molecule, it could absorb an IR photon far from the site that absorbs the green photon, both happening at the same, or within the planck time.
I actually got something wrong in my post above, so go ahead and jump me.
“Can a molecule absorb and emit at the same time?”
Sure. Molecules have different mechanisms for doing so, two of those could occur at same time but as bob implies what is meant by “same” would be difficult to define, measure or possibly even defend due the planck time observational issues.
ball2…”Molecules have different mechanisms for doing so”
Name one other than the electrons that create the bonds in molecules.
My point was that Chlorophyll, having around 130 atoms, can absorb light at its reaction center in the visible range and still absorb infrared light at part of the molecule away from the active site.
At the same time, or within the planck time.
I meant same as within the planck time
UV photons can initiate chemical reactions (e.g. photosynthesis in plants).
Now we can initiate nuclear reactions using photons…….”Photo-Fission”?
bob d…”Consider the Chlorophyll molecule, it could absorb an IR photon far from the site that absorbs the green photon, both happening at the same, or within the planck time”.
You do understand that a molecule is simply a model for two or more atoms bonded by electrons??? What is actually happening in the molecule at the atomic level?
For a molecule like Chlorophyll molecule there are a lot of electrons which are in bonds which can bend and twist and absorb photons.
bob d…”For a molecule like Chlorophyll molecule there are a lot of electrons which are in bonds which can bend and twist and absorb photons”.
Bob…the electrons are the bonds. Without shared electrons or the charges created by electrons as in NaCl, there can be no molecules.
All interaction between atoms in molecules is due to the electrostatic forces between the +ve nucleus and the -ve electron. When atoms get close together, there can be a mututal repulsion between the electron clouds and/or the protons in the nucleus.
There is nothing else in a molecule but electrons and protons, even though people tend to give the molecule mysterious properties it does not have.
Gordon,
It is the electrons that are doing the vibrating, bending and stretching that allow them to emit and absorb infrared radiation.
These bending, vibrating and stretching do occur in discrete energy levels like the electronic ones you think are the only ones that exist.
And they are at much lower energy levels, which is why they emit and absorb energy of lower levels.
blob, please stop trolling.
Ball4,
Awesome; I didn’t think an electron can move in two directions at once. Thanks for enlightening me. Not. Please continue to amuse me. Dance, monkey, dance, like you got ants in your pants. LOL
“I didn’t think an electron can move in two directions at once.”
It doesn’t have to Zoe, it’s the molecule that emits & whether it moves at all in any direction when the molecule emits is an interesting question. The emitted photon could come from the electronic level quantum jump down and another photon at the same time from the rotational level quantum jump down.
ball2…”The emitted photon could come from the electronic level quantum jump down and another photon at the same time from the rotational level quantum jump down”.
All forms of inter-atomic motion, transition, rotation, or vibration, are forms of electron transition.
No electron, none of the above.
You simply fail to understand that a molecule is a macro expression for electrons and protons. All molecules are aggregations of electrons and protons (nucleii).
A molecule can do nothing as a molecule. There is nothing there except nucleii bonded by electrons and shaped by polarities created by electrons.
A molecule can spin! At different quantum spin levels. A molecule can vibrate stretching, relaxing its electron bonds at different quantum vibrational levels in several different modes!
What a molecule cannot do in Earth’s troposphere is kick an electron up a quantum electronic energy level as there isn’t enough collisional energy for that to occur.
ball2…”It doesnt have to Zoe, its the molecule that emits & whether it moves at all in any direction when the molecule emits is an interesting question”.
Molecules don’t exist as an entity, they are models for aggregations of electrons and protons. A molecule is just a convenience for naming an aggregation of two or more atoms.
Electrons are responsible for all EM absorp-tion and emission.
ps. when an electron is excited to a higher energy state by a higher energy photon, it cannot radiate energy back due to a temperature difference between it and a cooler mass. If it falls to a lower energy level, emitting a photon, that is incidental.
If the same thing happens in a cooler mass, the emitted photon cannot affect an electron at a higher energy level in a hotter mass. The electron in the hotter mass simply cannot absorb it.
Two way radiative heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures simply cannot happen.
Gordon,
when an electron or a group of electrons emits a photon, it doesn’t know where it will eventually be absorbed.
If it is in a higher than the ground state energy level and able to emit a photon, it will do that by chance similar to radioactive decay.
Just put this idea
“ps. when an electron is excited to a higher energy state by a higher energy photon, it cannot radiate energy back due to a temperature difference between it and a cooler mass.”
in the rubbish bin where it belongs.
or find a physics or chemistry professor to explain it to you.
blob, please stop trolling.
Humpty Drempty
so now you are back to your please stop trolling asinine crap.
Calm down, child.
blob, please stop trolling.
Nate,
“Everyones squared away and happy, except you guys.”
Because your narrative doesn’t work.
Bill couldn’t give Gary $266.
Your story rests on Bill giving Gary $266.
Whacu talkin bout Willis?
Of course he can give $266, oh dense one, hes getting $134 in return.
You never heard of getting change back?
400 -2*266 + 134 = 0
If you have 5 dollars and Chuck Norris has 5 dollars, how much money to you have?
Replied to here.
bobdroege,
“My point was that Chlorophyll, having around 130 atoms, can absorb light at its reaction center in the visible range and still absorb infrared light at part of the molecule away from the active site.
At the same time, or within the planck time.”
My point was that 65 molecules can absorb and 65 can emit at the same time OR 130 molecules alternate between absorbing and emitting.
The point was that the Blue plate can’t emit 266 and absorb 133 at the same time. The Time average always works out to 200.
“The point was that the Blue plate can’t emit 266 and absorb 133 at the same time.”
BP can do so transiently while cooling off. Not at steady state equilibrium tho.
The plate has zillions of atoms, no neeed for simultaneity.
Red red herring.. its just so glaring.
nate…”The plate has zillions of atoms, no neeed for simultaneity”.
It does not matter how many atoms are present the basic driver of radiation is the electron. Quantum physics is based on the motion of the electron around the nucleus at a certain distance and its change of state between energy orbitals.
Schrodinger’s equation and it’s many solutions are based on the motion and changes of state of the electron wrt the +vely charged proton in the nucleus. The solutions describe the many orbitals available to the electron.
If you heat a mass, all the electrons rise to higher energy orbitals as defined by E = hf, where E is the difference, in eV, between energy levels. To drive them to even higher energy orbitals certain values of E and f are required from radiation.
The values of E and f from a cooler body lack the energy and frequency to drive an electron at a higher energy state to an even higher energy state.
That’s why electrons in a hotter body cannot absorb energy from cooler bodies.
If a body at temperature T receives EM from a body of a higher T, the E and f from the higher temperature body has the E and f to drive an electron to an even higher energy state.
In quantum theory, as f increases, E increases….to a degree. Planck introduced his fudge factor with an exponential, e, using exponents of T and f. That rounded the curve in the visible light spectrum and had it decrease with f.
That does not contradict the claim that E increases with f, it means it’s less likely to find higher frequency, higher intensity photons as f increases. Therefore Planck’s curve is really a statistical and theoretical treatment of reality. It works, but the solution was fudged.
Boltzmann tried to prove the 2nd law statistically and failed. However, when you see the S-B equation, it’s imperative to understand that it obeys the 2nd law. That means it cannot be applied in the reverse direction as some mechanical engineering authors try to claim.
Fanciful stuff, but not true
When you heat a solid, it’s the vibrational energy states of atoms that are raised, not the electronic states.
Basically you can’t pick and choose which scientific theories you think are true, you have to decide based on the evidence.
It’s not just the electronic energy states that are available to do the absorbing and emitting of photons, there are the vibrational and rotational ones and those are at lower energy levels.
bob d “When you heat a solid, its the vibrational energy states of atoms that are raised, not the electronic states”.
What you fail to grasp is that atomic vibration in a solid is due to the interaction of bonding electrons with the protons in the nucleus. Atoms in a lattice have equal and opposing electronstatic forces. The -ve nucleus wants to repel nearby nucleii while the -ve orbiting electrons, attracted to the +ve nucleii, but having too much momentum to get near them, hold the atoms together.
It is this equal and opposite interaction, like a mass and spring, that causes atomic vibration.
When such a mass is heated, it is the electrons that absorb the heat, causing the relationship between electron and proton to change with an increase in vibration. There is no way to affect the vibrational state since the +ve nucleus does not change.
Only the electron can absorb heat as kinetic energy. Furthermore, the electron orbits around the atoms bonded together are the bonds creating the vibration. The proton in the nucleus provides a static force whereas the electron can vary its energy states.
Electrons don’t orbit the nucleus
You need to get that straight
And the nucleus of an atom can vibrate, what makes you think it can’t?
Yes it can,
It is emitting more than 266 because it is receiving 400 from the internal source. At steady state it has to emit what it is receiving.
“My point was that 65 molecules can absorb and 65 can emit at the same time OR 130 molecules alternate between absorbing and emitting.”
Sorry dude, doesn’t work that way.
blob, please stop trolling.
Nate,
Either a zillion atoms alternate between absorbing and emitting OR half a zillion absorb and half a zillion emit.
The timed average is still 200.
We’re specifically discussing red herrings. If you don’t think they exist, you probably shouldn’t be entitled to an opinion.
‘a zillion atoms alternate between absorbing and emitting’
Yep.
And the NET is 266-133 = 133. Works for me.
Nate gets an opinion,
He is fully capable of supporting his opinions with facts and observable evidence.
Unlike several other posters on this thread.
nate…”Nate,
Either a zillion atoms alternate between absorbing and emitting OR half a zillion absorb and half a zillion emit”.
Any truth to that applies only at thermal equilibrium. Does not apply to bodies of different temperature.
Nope, still applies.
You need to be more skeptical of your posts, Gordon.
nate…”Nope, still applies”
Your understanding of physics at the atomic level is null and void.
Clear. blue sky, bright sun:
Overhead –> 8.9 °F
Ground –> 88.3 °F
The Sun is warming the surface. The atmosphere is cooling the surface.
Nothing new.
Let the denial begin….
0.296634937
0.153512283
0.858906272
0.633388426
0.047883249
0.770474279
Excel gave me these numbers. I think they make the case. Seal the deal. Whadya think?
This morning:
Overhead –> 5.7 °F
Ground –> 80.1 °F
The surface warms the atmosphere, as usual. Just another bust for the CO2 pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
Ok. I’m pretty much convinced.
There is a lapse rate.
I’m pretty much convinced too. JD’s measurements continue to show the local GHE with the surface T as the data indicates. Unless you want to drink the kool-aid offered at JD’s 3 ring circus.
Well, at least “lapse rate” is real.
Lapse rate, atmosphere, and ground are all real. The GHE is the phony.
The temperatures indicated “overhead” are affected by liquid water, suspended in the air. When the air dries, indicated temperatures are extremely cold.
Notice that, even with a lot of water, the atmosphere can not warm the surface.
Let the denial continue….
The temperatures indicated “overhead” are affected by liquid water, suspended in the air & as wv. When the air dries, indicated temperatures are extremely cold and the local GHE reduces.
Notice that, with a lot of humidity, the atmosphere has warmed the surface, as measured by JD, to 80.1F with the current GHE from on avg. 47.1F with very low humidity, very little GHE, as measured by satellites.
fluffball, your response time dropped to 10 minutes, from your record 5 minutes.
And, you used to try to pretend you knew something about meterorology. But, now you are confused about liquid water, water vapor, and humidity.
You don’t know physics, meterorology, and now you can’t respond like an obsessed fanatic.
But, at least you still attempt to pervert reality with your comments.
JD, I turned down the offer of some kool-aid at your 3 ring circus but I enjoyed the comedy. I observe you did consume a massive quantity since your brand of pseudoscience is stronger than usual, nothing new.
The lapse rate is the greenhouse effect
“Well, at least ‘lapse rate’ is real.”
Good, and that is all your numbers are showing.
Not evidence of anything else
JDHuffman
There is no “bust” for GHE with your measurements. The only “bust” is that you think you know what you are talking about. You can’t understand the GHE no matter how many times it is explained to you. You are not capable of understanding rotation on axis. You fail to grasp heat transfer in its most basic levels.
You reject several decades of experimentally verified and established physics that is used on a daily basis by real engineers who do real work in the field of heat transfer.
No the only thing “busted” is your pretend expertise. You really are clueless but you pretend you are not.
Norman, your worthless opinions are not as funny as is your confused pseudoscience.
If time allows, please entertain us with some more links you can’t understand.
Thanks.
JDHuffman
You are “busted” you phony pretender. You read a paper on radiative heat transfer by Claes Johnson based upon some mathematical manipulation with zero experimental proof of his “new” ideas (that is where you got Poynting Vector from). Now you are this expert that knows actual physics is wrong. Calls well established physics pseudoscience in favor of the untested ideas of a math person.
Calls a well established and used equation “bogus”.
Can’t understand the implications of E. Swanson test or Roy Spencer test (both which show the same thing) IR from colder surfaces is causing a heated surface to increase in temperture.
Wrong again, Norman. I’ve never read any paper by Johnson. You just make up stuff because you can’t stand reality.
As I stated, your worthless opinions are not as funny as is your confused pseudoscience. So provide us with more of your perverted pseudoscience, supported by links you can’t understand. That’s when you are the funniest.
This morning’s readings:
Heavy haze overhead –> 25.8 °F
Ground –> 78.8 °F
No GHE. The surface continues to warm the atmosphere.
Just some more facts and logic for you to deny. You’re welcome.
Gordon Robertson, June 28, 2019 at 12:55 AM
You said (referring to “Heat Transfer” by J.P.Holman):
“cam…after reading much of chapter 8 on radiation I feel disgusted that this nonsense is being taught at universities.”
My field is quantum electro-optics in general and lasers and fiber optics in particular so I can’t claim to be an expert on heat transfer or thermodynamics.
That said, I have used worked examples in J.P. Holman’s book to solve problems such as modeling the Moon’s surface temperature. Thus far it has worked well given that my models are in good agreement with observations. Holman may be wrong but I will keep on using his equations until someone can show me something that works better.
cam…”That said, I have used worked examples in J.P. Holmans book to solve problems such as modeling the Moons surface temperature. Thus far it has worked well given that my models are in good agreement with observations. Holman may be wrong but I will keep on using his equations until someone can show me something that works better”.
I can see it working for you in a theoretical sense. The problem I have with Holman et all is the lack of practical problems applying their theories.
As I pointed out, S-B is not intended to be reversed. I have seen the equation:
I = e.fi.A(T^4 – T1^4)
applied to radiation from a hotter body T to a cooler atmosphere T1. That obeys the 2nd law, but when you try to reverse it to claim a two way net heat exchange, the 2nd law is disregarded.
I don’t think the equation I quoted above was intended to describe a two way heat transfer via radiation. The initial Stefan equation, I = fi.T^4 represented a heated filament wire in a temperature range from 700C to 1400C radiating into the atmosphere where steps had been taken to minimize conduction to air and convection of air.
Nothing in the work of Stefan suggested a two way heat transfer, he talked only of a one way radiation density from a body at temperature T. I think the extended version with T^4 – T1^4 is aimed at introducing a variable atmosphere which could affect the rate of heat dissipation at a surface hence the radiation density.
Somehow, over the years, people have presumed the equation works both way yet no one can demonstrate physically how that works. In Holman’s book, he is even redefinedg heat as being a process rather than energy. Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms and he went so far as to define internal energy, U, as internal heat and work. It is the Clausius definition of U that you see in the 1st law.
As I have pointed out, if you define heat as a process where energy is being transferred you have to ask which energy is being transferred. Ironically, that energy has to be thermal energy, therefore the definition of heat becomes a process of heat transfer. In other words, heat is the transfer of heat.
Makes no sense.
“try to reverse it to claim a two way net heat exchange, the 2nd law is disregarded.”
No! “EM IS NOT HEAT”. There occurs a net EM exchange, the 2nd law is regarded.
“to describe a two way heat transfer via radiation.”
No! “EM IS NOT HEAT”. There occurs a two way EM transfer via radiation in accord with 2LOT.
‘Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms and he went so far as to define internal energy, U, as internal heat and work. It is the Clausius definition of U that you see in the 1st law.’
U is internal energy, which is kinetic and potential energy of atoms. Why are you calling that heat?
What happened to his Q in the first law?
@Gordon Robinson:
You said:
“As I pointed out, S-B is not intended to be reversed. I have seen the equation:
I = e.fi.A(T^4 T1^4) ”
This equation could be used to quantify radiative energy transfer between two similar objects at different temperatures.
It implies that cold objects transfer energy via radiation to hot objects but the net energy transfer is always from hot to cold. IMHO that means Stefan-Boltzman obeys the second Law of Thermodynamics.
One of the biggest differences between the use of that equation in the Holman text as opposed to the Green Plate Effect is that in the Holman text, both plates are maintained at their temperatures. In that case the equation could tell you there is heat flow at steady state, between the plates. Without that, there is no reason for heat flow not to go to zero at steady state, between the plates (and that would be at 244 K…244 K…244 K).
“both plates are maintained at their temperatures. In that case the equation could tell you there is heat flow at steady state, between the plates.”
Good, you’re learning!
“Without that, there is no reason for heat flow not to go to zero at steady state, between the plates”
Bad, un-learning!
Does not matter whether Ts are fixed or Heat flow is fixed, either way the equation is obeyed!
In the heat flow fixed case, GPE, why are you saying the heat flow goes to zero?
When it clearly it is 200 W!
Nate, you are still trying to use that bogus equation. (The equation with the two “T^4”.) Maybe you do not understand the meaning of “bogus”. That equation is derived from an imaginary situation with imaginary bodies. It has NO application in the real world.
The bogus equation is only used in pseudoscience to try to “prove” cold can warm hot.
It fools many fools.
JDHuffman
Why so anti-science? What do your incorrect and wrong posts do for you.
I have actually linked you to an engineering site that uses (what you call bogus for no good reason except you are an ignorant person with no real knowledge of physics) the equation. It has real world application. You are just too ignorant to understand it or use it.
All in all you are just ignorant and don’t know what you are talking about. But that does not stop you from showing how little you understand.
JD, as DREMT just pointed out, the equation IS BEING USED to solve real problems.
You need to argue with DREMT and textbooks.
Norman proves me right, again: “It fools many fools.”
Then he goes on to pretend he knows anything about engineering. Very funny.
It reminds me of the time he was “teaching” Wien’s Law, but misspelled it 3 times! Just above, he tries to pretend he knows about Kirchhoff’s Law, but also misspells it.
And, with his constant display of ignorance, he goes around calling others “ignorant”!
What a clown.
Nate, when you look up the word “bogus”, also look up the word “real”.
Textbook examples are used to teaching. That does not mean they are always directly applicable to reality.
For example, d = rt. Distance is rate times time. So, if you enter 1000 miles, and one hour, in the equation, does that mean you can actually run 1000 mph?
You have to use your head, in the real world….
‘For example, d = rt. Distance is rate times time. So, if you enter 1000 miles, and one hour, in the equation, does that mean you can actually run 1000 mph?’
JDs brilliance is matched by very few 4th graders!
Yes Nate, I try to keep my comments simple enough clowns can understand them.
That way, you have no excuse for remaining ignorant, other than you’re “stuck on stupid”.
Every time we look, everywhere we look, we find the RHTE being used, and it seems to be REAL not BOGUS.
Every time JD looks, everywhere he looks, he finds….oh wait, he never looks or finds!
Nate, you can find anything you want on the Internet. Pseudoscience is rampant on the web.
You need to learn some real physics.
‘you can find anything you want on the Internet’
YEP, and though it should be quite easy, JD cannot find what he wants.
JDHuffman
As I have said before. You know zero actual science. I guess you know how to spell. You make a useful spell-checker. You make a terrible science blogger. You have to know real physics before you can blog it.
You know how to spell the names of scientists associated with different laws but you don’t understand anything about their laws.
I would think it much more valuable to know the concepts behind the laws than the word spelling. Obviously you find correct spelling to be the only thing of value since you don’t understand the laws.
Norman, your humor is still slipping.
You need to make your comments much longer, as you usually do.
More insults, false accusations and misrepresentations reveal your immaturity and desperation, adding to the humor.
And NEVER forget to include some links you don’t understand. Those are the funniest.
Hope that helps.
Poor Nate just can’t get his head ‘round the concept that “heat” (actually “energy”) flowing through a system (in other words 400 W energy in balanced by 400 W energy out) does not mean there has to be heat flowing between objects at steady state.
He’ll never learn.
‘ In that case the equation could tell you there is heat flow at steady state, between the plates. ‘
Isnt this you saying this, DREMT?
Notice, no energy other than HEAT is flowing in that textbook problem. And the heat that is flowing satisfies the RHTE (THE BOGUS ONE)
But you want us to believe that in a similar problem, NO HEAT is flowing. Some other ‘energy’ IS flowing in its place. But no known equation can tell us how much.
What is the evidence for this imaginary scenario?
“Isnt this you saying this, DREMT?”
…and what situation was I saying it about, Nate?
DREMT, are you really so unable to acquire new knowledge and then apply it (or imagine how it could apply) to slightly different situations?
As in Conduction problems, with radiant heat flow problems there are fixed heat flow boundary conditions, where temps must be found, OR there are fixed temp boundary conditions, where heat flow is found.
Neither of these types involve ‘reverse engineering’, just SOLVING.
With either type, the RHTE can be used. There is no sudden change to new equations with new NON-HEAT energy flows.
1LOT energy balance must be satisfied with either type, so heat flow in = heat flow out of each object.
Again, find an example problem from anywhere showing NOT-HEAT energy flows.
Boundary conditions: a real thing.
https://quickfield.com/help/QuickField.chm/html/Theory/BoundaryConditionsInHeatTransfer.htm
Nate requests: “Again, find an example problem from anywhere showing NOT-HEAT energy flows.”
Nate, maybe you missed this simple diagram. The blue arrows represent photons. Photons have energy. So energy is flowing between the blue and green plates.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
You appear to be responding to the voices in your head. All I asked you, was:
“…and what situation was I saying it about, Nate?”
‘All I asked you, was..’
Answered AND explained. I guess you missed it.
And you still havent answered my question – where are examples?
‘Photons have energy. So energy is flowing between the blue and green plates.’
JD, I also like science fiction/fantasy, but in this instance we need non-fiction examples.
DREMT, we commented simultaneously, again. This is a neat little trick to make the clowns question their belief that we are the same person.
Fools are so easy to fool….
The answer to my question was, “the situation where both plates are held at the same temperature”. Nobody is solving the GPE problem based on a “fixed energy flow through the system” of 400 W in and 400 W out, as is evidenced by the fact that whether you agree the answer is “244 K…244 K…244 K” or “244 K…290 K…244 K”, you still have 400 W in and 400 W out!
Should have been “held at different temperatures”.
Yes JD, were always tricking them like that!
Oh and even this question:
“In the heat flow fixed case, GPE, why are you saying the heat flow goes to zero?”
Diversion, distraction, denial of facts.
This couple hours of posts captures yours and JDs deep dive into deep denial very well.
Poor Nate gets tangled up in his pseudoscience, again. First, he wants “an example problem from anywhere”
So I give him the correct solution to the 3-plates. But he doesn’t like that one, so he moves the goalposts: “…we need non-fiction examples.”
The poor clown obviously doesn’t understand what happens when he turns on a light.
I could equally ask you why you don’t understand the principle that heat flow between objects spontaneously goes to zero? Then claim that your failure to answer involves a dive into deep denial. If I was going to debate like a Nate.
Nobody is solving the GPE problem based on a ‘fixed energy flow through the system’ of 400 W in and 400 W out.
Yes, we, the people who SOLVE problems, just like Eli did, are doing just that.
Again, heat flowing in, heat flowing out, but sensible people would find it odd that NO HEAT is flowing through the middle?!
Again, poor Nate just can’t get his head ‘round the concept that “heat” (actually “energy”) flowing through a system (in other words 400 W energy in balanced by 400 W energy out) does not mean there has to be heat flowing between objects at steady state.
Again, heat flowing in, heat flowing out, but sensible people would find it odd that NO HEAT is flowing through the middle?!
Nate, with not background in the relevant physics, you seem to be getting tangled up in semantics. There is “energy” flow from the blue to green plates, but there is NO “heat” flow.
Once again, for clarity, energy flow–blue to green, no “heat” flow.
“I could equally ask you why you dont understand the principle that heat flow between objects spontaneously goes to zero? Then claim that your failure to answer involves a dive into deep denial. ”
You are unable to show any laws of physics that requires or even ALLOWS heat flow going to zero and being replaced by non-heat flow of the same amount.
Which is just plain weird.
You are unable to show real world examples of non-Heat energy flows that you insist are happening.
I’s be happy to let an objective observer decide who is in denial and who is not.
“I’s be happy to let an objective observer decide who is in denial and who is not.”
Me too.
“flowing through a system (in other words 400 W energy in balanced by 400 W energy out) does not mean there has to be heat flowing between objects at steady state.”
Show me an example, or you are just spewing made up BS.
400 W of HEAT are flowing in, and 400 W of HEAT are flowing out, and yes 400 W of heat does need to be flowing between the objects as well, exactly as it did in the textbook example.
< know you’re obsessed with me, Nate, but try not to forget that JD is talking to you, too.
“You are unable to show real world examples of non-Heat energy flows that you insist are happening.”
Nate, you are so clueless. Do you know what an ice cube is? An ice cube emits photons, just as the blue plate does. The photons are NOT “heat”, in either case.
You have no understanding of the relevant physics, but you believe you do. Just like Norman and others, you are clowns and clowns are funny.
“exactly as it did in the textbook example”
In the textbook example:
“One plate is maintained at 1000◦C and the other at 500◦C.“
They are fixed at different temperatures!
Objective observer.
Well, I don’t understand the physics, but
SIDE 1 shows how they SOLVE the problem using physics.
They show a textbook example of something similar.
SIDE 2 cannot show how they SOLVE the problem from physics. They shows a cartoon of their answer. I cant tell where this came from.
SIDE 2 says energy that is not heat flows between plates.
SIDE 1 asks: What is this energy that is not heat?
What law of physics can be used to find it?
Can you show us examples which have it?
SIDE 2: No answers given.
Observer sumnmary:
“Well I dont understand the physics, but SIDE 1 shows how they solve the problem using physics, and they show a similar textbook example problem. Seems to be a legitimate textbook.
SIDE 2 shows their answer in a cartoon, but doesnt show how they get it or where its from. SIDE 2 seems very evasive, won’t answer basic questions, and is unable to show an example.
SIDE 2 must be the one in denial.
Your concession is accepted, Nate.
Now, learn some physics.
Nate,
“Of course he can give $266, oh dense one, hes getting $134 in return.
You never heard of getting change back?”
Bill got $400, threw $266 in the trash, and now has $134 left. Gary has Nothing. Where does Bill get $266 to give to Gary?
You have a circular problem. You invented $134 out of thin air to “solve” it.
“And the NET is 266-133 = 133. Works for me.”
Math is not bound by the laws of physics. Doesn’t work for the Sane.
Zoe,
“Bill got $400, threw $266 in the trash, and now has $134 left. Gary has Nothing. Where does Bill get $266 to give to Gary?
I see you put the transactions in a particular ORDER that works for your wrong narrative, but doesnt match reality.
Why not Bill gets $400 then gives $266 to Gary, then Gary gives Bill back $134 THEN Bill throws $266 in the trash?
Why not that, silly zoe?
As far as any of us know, all these exchanges are happening continuously and together!
Nate, please stop trolling.
What things make a cold world?
Insulation which prevent the energy of sunlight from being absorbed.
The Moon and Mercury are cold worlds.
If put something on such cold world which is not insulated and absorbs a lot the sun’s energy, then it’s warmer for whatever you put on the world, so one can imagine that the Moon and Mercury are not cold but are very hot. But if you are sentient creature you could control your environment, so it is not hot.
As example go to place on Moon and Mercury when it’s hottest- sun near zenith- and a meter below the surface it’s cold. So in hottest place one has easy access to cold conditions. So other than you not prepared or very incompetent, there is no area on Moon or Mercury which hot. And so main thing is they are cold and have very cold places [colder than any place or spot on Earth]
Gases [and anything] can insulate, but gases make a warmer world- Mercury and Moon are good vacuums.
Mars does not have a lot of gases, but it’s warmer because it has gases. Mars is cold because it far from the sun, but would colder if it have vacuum like Mercury does.
The warmest region of Mars when consider it’s distance from the sun, is it’s polar regions. Mars polar region are cold enough to freeze out the CO2 of it’s atmosphere, but it doesn’t get colder than that, or the freezing out of the CO2, warms the Mars polar region. If Mars had more water vapor, the polar region would be even warmer. Though at equator the nights always get cold enough to freeze out water vapor, but this would also warm Mars- it warms Mars equator region. And in non polar regions on Mars, both CO2 and water vapor does freeze at night, and this does make Mars warmer.
Anyhow main thing is Mars poles would be far colder if there was not CO2 and water vapor to freeze out of the atmosphere.
Or Mars gets a cold as -125 C or 150 K, and Moon or Mercury at night get down to 95 K in the equator.
Though Mars has faster rotation and has shorter night times- except Mars polar winter get longer night than either the Moon or Mercury. So a shorter day is something that cause planet to be warmer- on average.
So people would say Mars does not have much greenhouse effect, but latent heat [not something called a greenhouse effect] does have warming effect. And it’s 24 hour day also has warming effect.
Cold objects doesn’t warm warmer objects- unless there some energize system involved.
With refrigeration, the colder interior, warms the warmer air outside to the refrigerator. Or roughly if using electrical power, fuel combustion, nuclear power, or gravity, such things could be involve with some energized system.
A hydro-dam is using gravity. The higher the water [more force of gravity involved] the more energy that can harvested from the falling water of a dam.
Our atmosphere can viewed as a system which is energized by gravity.
It’s so dependent upon gravity, that you don’t have an atmosphere without having gravity.
Can a “colder atmosphere” warm the warmer surface?
Well, as I said, there is energized system involved.
But there are couple things.
Atmosphere could warm the surface, but one is referring to the surface as surface air rather surface of ocean or dirt.
But if surface air is warmer, the sunlight can warm the surface of ocean and dirt to higher temperature.
Another thing, is the higher elevation air is not cold or colder than surface air, it has lower temperature and this lower temperature is due to a lower air density [and lower air pressure].
With an atmosphere which is having the surface heating the air, the kinetic energy is being transported to a higher elevation. Or molecules of air aren’t rising as main energy transport. But you do have rising and falling air masses [in that case, air molecules are physically moving upward [or downward]. Such mixing of air are largely connected to clouds and other weather effects. Of course cloud themselves are large energy systems- having potential energy of nuclear bombs.
Anyhow the warm ground or ocean surface excites air molecules and the excited molecules transfer the to other air molecule which transfer to other air molecules- and kinetic energy moves up and molecules aren’t moving up. Though one can have air mass be lower density than cooler air mass, and less density mass moves up- but individuals are merely “going with the whole air mass” which is rising due to buoyancy [a force that exist solely from gravity].
So one could say what air is doing is equalizing it’s kinetic energy- and equalizing kinetic energy is what gases do, whether other air molecules, or liquid or solid molecules.
So the ground in the day gets warmer than air above it, and ground conventionally heats air above it. And in the night the ground cools which poorly conventionally cools the air, and surface air would be cooler, but higher air, kinetically transfer to surface air. Or energy goes up and energy goes down.
So effectively one needs to warm the entire height of the air mass during day, and cool entire height of the air mass during night, and lapse rate of temperature more or less remains during night and day at about 6.5 C per 1000 meters of elevation.
The idea that gases shine their light upon ground or air surface and warms it, is not what I am talking about.
Another aspect is ground shining it’s full spectrum of IR, and portion of that spectrum is absorbed by atmospheric gases.
Roy W. Spencer
“There is no realistic way to remove the very cold bias of the model without including an atmospheric greenhouse effect. If you object that convection has been ignored, that is a surface cooling (not warming) process, so including convection will only make matters worse. The lack of model heat transport out of the tropics, similarly, would only make the model tropical temperatures colder, not warmer, if it was included.”
When I said, “The Moon and Mercury are cold worlds.” you might think I agree with Roy. But I don’t think if you added a non greenhouse atmosphere to Mercury, that Mercury would be cold.
I think if Roy used his model for Earth at Mercury distance with a non greenhouse atmosphere, it possible his model might make it a bit on the warm side of things.
I don’t think 1 atm atmosphere with no greenhouse gases of Earth like planet at 1 AU, makes the average global temperature -18 C.
I don’t think the tropics is the heat engine of the world, rather I think the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world. Or if there wasn’t a tropical ocean, then no heat engine of the world.
In regard to:
“The lack of model heat transport out of the tropics, similarly, would only make the model tropical temperatures colder, not warmer, if it was included.”
If didn’t transport water vapor outside of tropics, one might have more clouds in the tropics. But don’t think one could have tropics with say 5% water vapor and rest of world with zero water vapor.
Or I don’t think you could 5% more of any type of gas in the tropics- and water vapor is a gas. But that this gas condenses is helpful aspect allowing less global uniform distribution of that gas.
Now, I think if covered Mars with uniform thickness of snow 100 meter deep, this would be warming effect. Until such time as most of the snow evaporated near the tropical region. Which could take centuries.
I imagine most think a global coverage snow, would make Mars colder. Perhaps they imagine global temperature would -100 C or colder.
Likewise if covered Earth with uniform depth of 100 meters snow on Earth, and didn’t have any water vapor because snow is cold and so there would no water vapor in atmosphere if it was cold enough.
Or in a dry atmosphere snow stops evaporating around -150 C. So if had near zero partial pressure of water vapor and it was -150 C at poles, then water vapor might be few parts per billion. And at such cold temperature CO2 also freezes out of atmosphere.
Having a world completely covered with 100 meter depth of snow, should be a simple model.
One has to have air temperature of 0 C or colder, in warmest part, which we can assume is tropics. Else we can’t have the snow.
So start with tropics at -1 C average. And lets say Antarctica average is -200 C, and Greenland -150 C [maybe colder].
Currently Canada is -4 C, so say it’s at least as cold as -100 C and Europe is about cold as Canada, and Russia a bit colder. But this is average. In daylight and particularly in summer in daylight it is warmer, and in winter and at night it’s colder than the average temperature. So despite covered with snow, at such cold temperature the water vapor going to freeze, and any CO2 also.
Air density at 15 C average is about 1.2 per cubic meter and -75 C
it’s about 1.7 kg per cubic meter. So troposphere height would lower a bit.
Say surface air somewhere is -10 C, lapse rate being 9 C per 1000 meter elevation, 2000 meter elevation would -28 C. 5000 meter being -55 C. Canada, -100 C, 5000 meter: -145 C. Anyhow.
So how sun would you get. Currently, Sun at zenith 1050 watts of direct sunlight and 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight, and cold world does not greenhouse gases absorbing any of the sunlight. and:
“Physical characterization of the snowpack included measurements of thickness, density, hardness (hand test), liquid-water content, and grain size and shape (from photographs of grains). The transmittance was <1% in the upper 20 cm and <27% in the upper 10 cm."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965213000066
So 1120 times .27 = 304 watts.
300 watts time 3600 seconds in hour is about 1 million joules within the 10 cm of snow.
334 joules to melt gram 334,000 joules per kg, 1 mm thickness of ice per square meter, 1 kg.
One could imagine if 1 million joules heat used melt snow 10 cm thick, one might may make dry snow be more damp snow.
And if 304 watts of diffused sunlight enter to depth of 10 cm, only .27 of it could leave [82 watts] but probably direct sunlight reaches deeper depth vs diffused sunlight, and so once sunlight enters snow, it become diffused and being diffused less gets diffused out of snow.
So one might get more sunlight energy evaporating the ice- 1 mm thickness evaporation: 2,230,000 joules to evaporate 1 kg of ice or water. And raising ice temperature it's about 2000 joules per kg. Wild guess, 1 million joules to melt, 2 million to evaporate, 1 million to raise temperature of ice/snow.
And below 10 cm to 20 cm depth the 1% [+10 joules second, is mostly warming the snow.
After weeks of sunlight, one get icy snow- transparent ice, and most sunlight will go thru the icy crust [be quite transparent], and later pools water [as Greenland sometimes gets in summer time}, than snow is gone [in tropics].
And get same thing with Mars but it's slower.
But anyhow before it melt, average global temperature.
So above 50 degree latitude, average should be say -120 C
And 30 to 50 degrees -80 C. Or half world is about -100 C
And other half: -10 C average. Global -55 C.
But per year might increase by 10 K until it's something like a glacial period.
With Mars, could freeze out most of atmosphere, snow evaporates from tropics, but doesn't get very far away the tropics and later melts so that some water ends up flowing to tropics, and it gets warmer than the present Mars.
Bob,
“The answer is that both the sun and the atmosphere warm the planet.”
Demonstrably false. A colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface (2LOT) .
The Earth is not warm because it has an atmosphere, it has an atmosphere because it’s warm….
I guess the insulation in my house must be violating the 2LOT as well because it definitely results in my house being warmer.
No bdg, your problem is that you don’t understand 2LoT, or insulation, or Earth’s atmosphere.
Nevertheless, here are some more facts for you to deny:
Bright Sun, clouds forming, but clear sky overhead –> 31.1 °F
Ground (shade) –> 89.6 °F
Concrete driveway, in full sun last 4 hours –> 128 °F
I bet there are some clowns that believe the 31.1 degree F sky can warm the driveway to 128 °F.
Like they say: You just can’t fix stupid….
“A colder atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface”
Sure it can, when cold atm. replaces even colder outer space, surface warms up to a new equilibrium. Just like JD reports, measures warmer surface with cold atm. in place not outer space in place.
fluffball, Norman, Nate, Svante, and several others, will suck down that nonsense quicker than you can say “pseudoscience”.
Nothing new.
Keep up your measurements JD, they are accurate & replicable by Norman, Nate, Svante, and all others proving the local GHE exists. Add them all up, take the mean and you get the global GHE.
We humans (and all the bots) do not suffer from the cold of outer space because the not-as-cold atm. has warmed the warmer surface air to a higher steady state equilibrium than outer space could ever do as your IR thermometer readings indicate.
Great JD 3 ring circus though, keep that going for great entertainment, just the kool-aid sales may not be very big around here. Your revenue from that item will be larger at climate sophistry blogs.
JDHuffman
Ball4 is totally correct and Roy Spencer experimentally verified that this view is the right one. Yours is the wrong made up one that you can draw cartoons to verify but you could never make an experiment to prove yours. Yours is total violation of Kirchhoff’s Law. Roy Spencer’s is not.
Here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
The rest of us use valid and real experimentally verified physics out of textbooks. Yours is worse even than pseudoscience. It is “junk” science. Wrong on all points and impossible to experimentally verify. That is why you and your imaginary friend, and Gordon Robertson know well enough never to do any actual science like do an experiment. It is easy to believe your junk science is valid when you never attempt to prove it right or wrong.
Norman, the only thing you got right was the correct spelling of “Kirchhoff”, which I had to help you with.
The rest of your comment was just your usual rambling opinions, which aren’t worth responding to. But they do verify your avoidance of reality.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Congrats on being right!
YOU: “Like they say: You just cant fix stupid.”
Yup no poster, who uses actual and real physics, can fix you.
You don’t even understand the GHE at all. About the same level as the bot Mike Flynn (at least a computer generated program has an excuse).
GHE does not claim that a cold sky will warm a driveway to 128 F. I do not know anyone making this claim. And the air that is emitting the IR back to the surface is Much warmer than 31.1 F. You instrument is not correctly designed to measure the DWIR. It is unknown what IR your IR thermometer is reading but IR outside the “atmospheric windows” does not travel far (a few dozen meters). The emitting IR is coming from much warmer air than you record. Not that you are able to understand that and will continue posting numbers that clearly do not give valid readings for DWIR.
Like you said. You can’t fix yourself. You don’t know how broken you really are but think the entire science world is messed up but you and a handful have the correct physics. Strange how you accept that when you absolutely will NOT do any experiments to support your delusional thoughts of grandeur.
Sorry Norman, but my IR thermometer is responding to the flux from the atmosphere. Clear skies are well below freezing. You just hate reality.
If you now admit CO2 cannot warm my driveway to 128 °F, what is doing it?
(Some links to things you don’t understand would add to the humor.)
JDHuffman
Wrong again. I am fine with reality. I think you are the one who is unable to accept reality.
You do not even know how your IR thermometer works or what it is actually reading. You pretend you do and will put out some post like you do. Facts are you don’t.
Will you learn? Up to you.
Here is the link that will explain what you are actually reading when you point your IR thermometer into the sky.
https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/Measuring%20the%20Temperature%20of%20the%20Sky%20and%20Clouds.pdf
I think you should know that clear skies are not well below freezing, are you wearing a heavy coat when you take your readings? The air is much warmer than that. It is emitting much more IR than your temperature would indicate.
Great comedy, Norman!
Not only don’t you understand the link you found, but it makes my point for me: “The difference is caused mainly by water vapor in the sky that has become warm by absorbing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth below.”
The Sun warms the surface, and the surface warms the atmosphere. You just made yourself look like an idiot, again.
I’m so far ahead of you, and I increase my lead every day. I even know who the lady in the photo is….
PhilJ,
Have you ever even taken a science class?
Don’t give me that second law hand jive.
You have the second law wrong, maybe ask your local community college if there is someone there who can explain it to you.
blob, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
“I guess the insulation in my house must be violating the 2LOT as well because it definitely results in my house being warmer.”
Insulation retards the flow of energy through its medium.
Oxygen is a better insulator in the atmosphere than co2…
Replacing oxygen with co2 decreases the insulating effect of the atmosphere…
CO2 does something a trillion times better than Oxygen, and that’s absorbing IR.
blob, please stop trolling.
Again you are wrong Humpty DREMPTY,
Just trying to help someone understand the greenhouse effect.
You could use some tutelage.
blob, please stop trolling.
Does evaporation rate increase at higher elevation.
And does evaporation rate decrease at lower elevation.
[Both are the same question, ie
Does evaporation rate increase at higher elevation?
If answer is yes. Then, question does evaporation rate decrease at lower elevation? Then answer also has to be, yes.
Or does boiling temperature decrease at higher elevation.
Yes. Does boiling temperature increase at lower elevation? Yes.
So, it seems to me if had pan of water at 20 C and air temperature was 20 C at sea level. And if then brought the 20 C pan of water to 1000 meter higher elevation, with air 20 C – 6.5 = 13.5 C.
Then the the 20 C pan of water at 1000 meter elevation will evaporate in the 13.5 C faster as compared to at sea level.
BUT if pan of water is 13.5 at 1000 meter elevation, then I would guess it has same rate of evaporation as a 20 C pan water in 20 C air at sea level.
Of course how much it will evaporate depends on how dry the air is.
But roughly the air should roughly the same driest in terms of it’s effect upon evaporation same location 1000 meter up- if you allow for colder air being able to hold less water vapor.
Or first question of does evaporation rate increase at higher elevation, is yes, if temperature of water remain the same- or water is being higher temperature as compared to the air temperature at the higher elevation, but not the case if water is cooled to same temperature as the air temperature at the higher elevation.
Now if on a mountain and air temperature is 20 C and water is 20 C and go 1000 meter lower and air temperature is 26.5, does water evaporate less as compared being 1000 meter higher elevation with air temperature the same as water temperature.
It might seems the warmer air will cause more evaporation, but it couldn’t because that would mean the warmer air cools the water- or water would not increase in temperature due to having higher “room temperature”. So it does evaporate less, as compared to 20 C air at 1000 meter higher elevation.
And once water warmed to 26.5 C, it would evaporate as pan water 20 C in air temperature of 20 C, which was 1000 meters higher.
Yes? No?
gbaikie…”And once water warmed to 26.5 C, it would evaporate as pan water 20 C in air temperature of 20 C, which was 1000 meters higher”.
************
https://sciencefeels.tumblr.com/post/58144543868/the-boiling-point-of-water-cooking-on-mount
Ball4,
“We humans (and all the bots) do not suffer from the cold of outer space because the not-as-cold atm. has warmed the warmer surface air to a higher steady state equilibrium than outer space could ever do as your IR thermometer readings indicate.”
You are looking at this backwards (the fundamental flaw in theGHE hypothesis).
The Earth haa a temp at some thousands of degrees C . you need to look at how that cools to space through whatever insulation might be present as physical and chemical changes occur as the Earth cools… Which enteopy dictates it must do…
PhilJ, JD’s posted Earth brightness temperature readings are contrary to your notion “The Earth haa a temp at some thousands of degrees C”. You will need to take that up with JD.
Ball4,
“PhilJ, JDs posted Earth brightness temperature readings…”
Jupiter’s brightness temp is around 260 K … Do you think Jupiters average temp is the same? Lol of course not… Jupiters average temp is thousands of degrees K , more than Earths…
JD isn’t measuring the surface temperature of Jupiter, only Earth.
Ball4,
“Sure it can, when cold atm. replaces even colder outer space, surface warms up to a new equilibrium.”
Here, you display the fundamental flaw in the GHE…
The atmosphere is already there!
As the atmosphere is lost to space or condenses out, the planet cools….. You cannot start with tje Earths ground state and add atmosphere to warm it… You have to start with a hot ball of gases and magama and COOL to the groind state…
Physical and chemical changes that occur as it cools can increase or decrease the rate at which it cools, but you cannot increase its temp without an increase in input… And you cannot continually increase its temp without continually increasing its input
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
PhilJ
Certainly you can increase the temperature of an object WITHOUT increasing its input energy. If you keep the input energy constant but decrease the outgoing energy, the object will increase in temperature.
Not sure what logic you use to conclude some of your ideas. I think you are an intelligent poster. Just not sure how you logically conclude things.
You think GHG cool the Earth’s surface. I do not see why you conclude this. GHG will cool the atmosphere (and they do) but I do not know why you conclude they will cool the surface. They are emitting IR toward the surface that would not be there with no GHG present. How could that effect cool the surface?
If you removed GHG and only had N2 or O2 that emit very small amounts of IR at room temperature why would that warm the surface. The surface would emit straight to space and get no return energy.
Norman,
“Certainly you can increase the temperature of an object WITHOUT increasing its input energy. If you keep the input energy constant but decrease the outgoing energy, the object will increase in temperature. ”
Indeed, Iv’e said as much about the growth of the polar ice caps…
Would you then say the ice caps warm the ocean?
Ludicrous…
Think about what happens when the ice cap covers ocean water, doesn’t allow evaporation.
???
um, yeah, and conduction gives very little heat to that cold wind blowing across the ice and snow….
The ocean below loses very little heat and the atmosphere above keeps pouring out towards low pressure areas…
I live in an area that frequently gets these blasts of arctic air pushing South and the temps can quickly drop to -35 C or more…
PhilJ
I would not say the ice caps “warm” the ocean. I would say the ice caps allow the water below to remain warmer than without the ice caps above. If water froze like most solids the entire water would freeze solid and the be much colder.
But your point again misses the major point. The Earth’s surface has a continuous input of energy.
Important point.
Thickman, desist.
First, an apology to everyone for the order of my posts… Happens. Whem im on my phone .
Bob,
“Have you ever even taken a science class?”
Yes. And the brightest man ive ever personally known, clarified the 2LOT for me when he said: to get a correct answer to an entropy problem, remember water always naturally runs downhill…
That definition work for you?
No, sometimes water hits a rock splashes upstream. To get your phone to work, look for the drop down box and check on: use desktop site.
Nope
It’s an oversimplification, and they always lead one astray.
“Its an oversimplification, and they always lead one astray.”
From my experience , the simplist answer is usually the correct one… especially regarding questions about the 2LOT.. no one has shown it to be wrong yet… (thats why we call it a Law!) 🙂
Law it is,
But it does not prohibit the transfer of energy from a cold object to a hot object.
Nor does it not allow a greenhouse effect.
The CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface by the emission of infrared radiation.
Bob,
“Law it is,
But it does not prohibit the transfer of energy from a cold object to a hot object.”
It DOES prohibit HEAT to transfer from a cold to hot object without compensation….
What work is being done to compensate for the transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface?
No one has shown 2LOT to be wrong yet but plenty commenters wrongly use the 2LOT & they are easy to spot.
The compensation doesn’t have to be work but the Sun is a source of energy
It could also be the transfer of heat from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere
bob,
“The compensation doesn’t have to be work but the Sun is a source of energy”
if its not work then it has to be heat… so yeah if you hgeat the atmosphere above the surface temp it will heat the surface (this can happen in a temp inversion…)
bob, I would urge you to listen to the co2 GHE believers that admit that the atmosphere does not and can not HEAT the surface, that all it can do is slow the output from the surface to space.like bdgwx…
it focuses our discussion on the nuances of atmosphere , insolation, insulation and modeling…
PhilJ,
I’m not listening to any GHE beliievers
“bob, I would urge you to listen to the co2 GHE believers that admit that the atmosphere does not and can not HEAT the surface, that all it can do is slow the output from the surface to space.like bdgwx”
Facts and evidence please, you don’t seem to want to supply any.
The Greenhouse effect is pretty simple and not refutable as yet though many have tried.
Simply put the CO2 in the air emits infrared radiation because some of the CO2 molecules are in elevated vibrational states and some of that radiation reaches the surface and adds energy to the surface which may at some point become heat.
The second law is really not necessary, and claims that the greenhouse effect violate the second law belong in the rubbish bin.
bob, the atmosphere cannot warm the surface.
You don’t understand the physics, and you ignore the observations.
Nothing new.
–JDHuffman says:
July 1, 2019 at 11:34 AM
bob, the atmosphere cannot warm the surface.
You dont understand the physics, and you ignore the observations.
Nothing new.–
I would say air warmed by the ocean transported over land surfaces, does.
Sorry JD, your lack of education hasn’t hurt me none.
But the atmosphere does indeed warm the surface.
Go ask a professor.
Bob,
“Facts and evidence please”
Fact: Heat can only flow from a warmer object to a colder object without compensation…
evidence: no observation to the contrary has ever been recorded….
if you then insist that heat is being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate the work being done on the atmosphere to bring this about…
Fact: Heat doesn’t exist except in PhilJ’s imagination, so energy can flow from a colder object to a warmer object without compensation
This was proven by Maxwell and Boltzmann after the work of Clausius.
evidence: no observation to the contrary has ever been recorded.
gbaikie says: “I would say air warmed by the ocean transported over land surfaces, does.”
Correct gbaikie, weather patterns and ocean oscillations can cause localized, or temporary and/or minor surface increases.
And nits can be picked….
bob, here’s some more observations for you to deny/ignore:
Overhead–> 15.8 °F
Ground –> 88.4 °:F
Avoiding reality fits in well with your immaturity, huh?
PhilJ,
I am not talking about heat, I am talking about radiation, ie, photons, which travel from the atmosphere to the surface, get absorbed by the surface, and then, and only then, can be available to heat the surface.
Good Job, JD
You are detecting the photons from the cold atmosphere, and what are they doing in your detector?
Releasing their energy to the detector.
You again provide evidence for the greenhouse effect, but you don’t know it, but your feet show it, they stink.
–JDHuffman says:
July 1, 2019 at 3:42 PM
gbaikie says: “I would say air warmed by the ocean transported over land surfaces, does.”
Correct gbaikie, weather patterns and ocean oscillations can cause localized, or temporary and/or minor surface increases.
And nits can be picked….–
Well, I would say most of global warming [perhaps all] of last 100 years are due to weather [weather patterns and ocean oscillations]
and I could extend it to glacial and interglacial periods].
And these weather patterns and ocean oscillations, warm or cool the entire ocean. And average temperature of entire ocean is global temperature.
And I think volcanic heat in the ocean also has effect upon the entire ocean average temperature. If added 1 C over period of say, 5000 years, it probably more than I consider as likely or “normal”.
Average volume ocean temperature is about 3.5 C, and I don’t think 1 C was added [or increase the temperature] from ocean volcanic heat in the last 5000 years. But had we had unusually low volcanic output in the ocean over last 5000 year, the ocean might have cooled a bit. And possible volcanic activity in ocean can effect “mixing” of ocean and even have some effect upon such things as “ocean oscillations”
bob contines with his childish ignorance:
“You are detecting the photons from the cold atmosphere, and what are they doing in your detector?
Releasing their energy to the detector.”
With no understanding of the relevant physics, bob believes the cold atmosphere photons are warming the surface. He believes photons from ice cubes can warm his room in winter, although he won’t try it, or admit it.
He just likes to babble, in his futile attempt to pervert science.
Nothing new.
Where did you study your physics again JD?
Just want to make sure no one I know goes there.
Wait, no problem, you went to NoWHere University, or was it Whatsamatta U?
Are you still working on that physics minor?
Try your local comedy club, you might do better.
He just likes to babble, in his futile attempt to pervert science.
Nothing new.
Hey JD,
How about today’s report the on the local greenhouse effect?
Linky-plink.
phil j…”And the brightest man ive ever personally known, clarified the 2LOT for me when he said: to get a correct answer to an entropy problem, remember water always naturally runs downhill”
Great advice.
BALL4,
Again I apologize for thw order of resonses…
You directed me to Dr. Spencer’s experiment, where he states this:
” The phenomenon can only happen, though, if the cool object replaces something that is even colder, and thereby reduces the rate at which the warm object loses infrared energy to its surroundings”
To which I have no objection.
The burning of fossil fuels, however, does not replace the cold of space with co2… It replaces oxygen with co2 and h20….
The ATMOSPHERE replaces the cold of space which is what Dr. Spencer is talking about:
The phenomenon can only happen, though, if the cool object (the atm.) replaces something that is even colder (outer space), and thereby reduces the rate at which the warm object loses infrared energy to its surroundings
Ball4
“No, sometimes water hits a rock splashes upstream”
You misunderstand, that CONFIRMS the 2LOT! The rock does work on the water, COMPENSATING for that splash…
No work, there is no f*d from the rock.
“No work, there is no f*d from the rock.”
Have you forgotten Newton’s laws now as well?
Wow… just wow…
Hey it’s my rock! my rock moved no distance, Newton’s happy since there was a force but no work f*0 by the rock on the water. Universe entropy increased in the splash, fully compliant with 2LOT and water went uphill! Go to a stream, watch some water flow. Wait for the splash.
“When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body”
That took about 2 seconds to find on wiki….
Now are you going to tell me the flowing water is exerting no force on the rock?
Again, PhilJ, there is a force and equal and opposite force, but my rock didn’t move so d was identically = 0, for zero rock work. Newton happy, Clausius happy as entropy of universe increased passing the 2LOT during the splash – water moved uphill and no external work done by my rock.
Haha,
Ok I’ll bite… if the displacement of the water is not work done on the water by the force from the rock, then what is doing the work to displace the water?
“..then what is doing the work to displace the water?”
Not my rock, the 2LOT doesn’t say anything about work (only that if work be done in a real process the process must increase universe entropy) which you started the thread by writing: “that CONFIRMS the 2LOT! The rock does work on the water”. In this discussion you might now, on your own, begin to question your lead off comment. Here we have a case where no work by my rock was done on the water, yet universe entropy increased so passes 2LOT.
Never speak again, globe.
Ball4,
“The ATMOSPHERE replaces the cold of space which is what Dr. Spencer is talking about:”
No it does not!
The cold of space replaces the atmosphere as it cools…
Then you don’t understand what Dr. Spencer is talking about.
The phenomenon can only happen, though, if the cool object (the atm.) replaces something that is even colder (outer space), and thereby reduces the rate at which the warm object loses infrared energy to its surroundings
Wrong fluffball.
Your busy trying to pervert 2LoT.
JDHuffman
Wrong again. Ball4 correctly understands the 2LoT. You are the one who perverts it. Actual real world experiments have proven you are the one perverting the 2LoT to try and fit your distorted view of Heat Transfer based upon nothing at all. I mean nothing. There is no textbook that supports your view. Clausius does not support your distorted view. Experiments prove you are wrong. Engineering Heat Transfer in the Real World proves you wrong. So far you have the opinions of Gordon Robertson and your friend to support you. NO science supports you. Ball4 is correct and you are wrong.
Norman,
“Wrong again. Ball4 correctly understands the 2LoT.”
As you can see above, Ball4 doesn’t even understand Newton’s laws… I’d be wary of using his arguments…
Norman, you got every sentence wrong, again.
That’s certainly funny, and reveals your fascination with your own faulty opinions, but always remember to include a link you can’t understand.
That’s when you become hilarious.
cam…re Stefan-Boltzmann version:
I = e.fi.A(T^4 -T1^4)
You said:
“It implies that cold objects transfer energy via radiation to hot objects but the net energy transfer is always from hot to cold. IMHO that means Stefan-Boltzman obeys the second Law of Thermodynamics”.
**********
1)the wiki definition says nothing about a two way transfer or an equivalent two way equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
“The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time j* (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T:
j* = fi. T^4
2)The Engineering Toolbox site claims that equation I stated is good only when a radiating body is interacting with its cooler environment.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
“If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = e.fi.(Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ah = area of the hot object (m2)
That is far different than a two way heat transfer. The equation should apparently be applied as the heat loss rather than the radiation density.
Therefore the S-B equation can describe the radiation density from a hot object or it can describe the heat loss, q.
According to quantum theory a la Schrodinger, there is no way for electrons to absorb and emit EM at the same time. The electrons are at a higher energy level and to push them higher to gain more energy an EM intensity, E, equal to the difference between energy levels including and ABOVE the existing orbital energy level is required.
If the electrons don’t move to a higher energy level, there is no absorp-tion.
That is not possible with EM from a cooler body. The incoming EM from a cooler body also lacks the frequency to resonate with an electron at a higher energy level.
“2)The Engineering Toolbox site claims that equation I stated is good only when a radiating body is interacting with its cooler environment.”
Yeah, it’s for ideal blackbody surface in vacuum of space.
And relationship of blackbodies [sun being blackbody and radiant effect at distance to other blackbodies] And it’s about the intensity of sunlight which diminishes over distance.
It sort of works living on environment with 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter,but convectional/evaporational and conductive heat transfers are normally a more significant or dominate factor, down here, as compared to radiant transfers, though high temperature things [high intensity radiant energy] becomes more related to radiant energy transfers. But human technology of electrical power, nuclear power and combustion of fuel is related to high temperature and involves intense radiant transfers.
phil j…”What work is being done to compensate for the transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface?”
Good point, Phil. The only means of which we are aware is work supplied by external power and a compressor in order to move heat from a colder space to a warmer space in a fridge or an air conditioner.
Bally doesn’t get the statement by Clausius re his own 2nd law, that heat can NEVER be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from a colder object to a hotter object.
Heck, bally doesn’t even think heat exists as a physical energy.
Gordon, couple guys names of Maxwell and Boltzmann later came along & showed Clausius was not quite right with “that a measure of the KE of the particles in an object can NEVER be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from a colder object to a hotter object.”
I’ve shown you that before but apparently your level of understanding in this field is not great enough to comprehend.
And Clausius believed in the experiments of his day showing heat did not exist as a physical entity which resulted in Clausius def. of the term as a measure which shows “EM IS NOT HEAT”.
ball1…”couple guys names of Maxwell and Boltzmann later came along & showed Clausius was not quite right with “that a measure of the KE of the particles in an object can NEVER be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from a colder object to a hotter object.””
You are sadly misinformed. Boltzmann tried to prove the 2nd law using statistical methods and failed. Both he and Maxwell were dealing with probability related to particle speeds in an idealized gas, not the 2nd law. Their work is more related to the kinetic theory of gases.
You are awfully screwed up with your misunderstanding of heat as the kinetic energy of atoms and the kinetic energy of moving particles in a gas. You don’t get it that temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles in a gas which is heat.
Take an ideal gas in a constant volume:
PV = nRT
P = (nR/V)T
This tells you the temperature of the gas is directly proportional to the temperature.
Why???
The pressure is the forces applied to the walls of the container by the gas molecules. The harder the molecules strike the walls the higher must be the temperature. Since temperature is a measure of heat, it becomes obvious that the kinetic energy of the moving particles is heat.
Any grade schooler could tell you that temperature is a MEASURE of heat. Why does it confound you so much?
You don’t get it Gordon, that temperature is a measure of the AVG. kinetic energy of particles in a gas which is NOT heat.
You don’t get it Gordon, that heat is a measure of the TOTAL kinetic energy of particles in a container gas.
Any grade schooler could tell Gordon that temperature is NOT heat because they can nowadays google better than Gordon. Also Gordon remember: “EM IS NOT HEAT”.
ball1…”You don’t get it Gordon, that temperature is a measure of the AVG. kinetic energy of particles in a gas which is NOT heat”.
What else could it be that temperature is measuring? How do you get a thermometer to rise…you add heat. To get it to lower, you remove heat.
Temperature is based on the set points of the freezing point of water and its boiling point. How do you raise water from 0C to 100C…you add heat.
Is that really so hard to understand? Why are you in such deep denial.
I mean what other energy would you add to water to raise it’s temperature?
“What else could it be that temperature is measuring?”
Nothing, temperature is and ONLY is a measure of the AVG. kinetic energy of particles in a gas (or any object) which is NOT heat.
Heat is a measure of TOTAL kinetic energy of the gas particles.
“How do you get a thermometer to rise…you add heat. To get it to lower, you remove heat.”
Put a thermometer in at the top of a diesel engine cylinder. As the piston moves up, the thermometer temperature of the compressed air rises. No heat (Gordon term) was added yet the temperature is observed to rise!
Is that really so hard to understand Gordon? Why are you in such deep denial of observed facts?
“I mean what other energy would you add to water to raise it’s (sic) temperature?”
Chemical energy would do, so would nuclear energy. You could also change the “cold” sink, like you know, removing outer space and adding an IR semi-opaque planetary atm. at 1bar warms the ocean surface waters.
Oh and remember “EM IS NOT HEAT”.
Hush now, orb.
We know the average temperature of the globe (about 15 ° C).
What is the real average temperature of the globe during the night?
Same question during the day?
That’s a really good question. I’ll see if I can look this up. I can tell you that the diurnal temperature range over land is about 11C on average. Its obviously much lower over the ocean.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
That’s interesting if difference of land is 11 C.
And agree it’s much lower over ocean.
AND ocean surface temperature is dominated by tropical ocean surface temperature. And in tropical conditions in tropics is quite uniform in terms day and night and seasonally temperatures [or lack of “normal” seasons of Temperate Zone- seasons in tropical is mostly raining season vs dry season- when rain a lot rather a less raining.
The main thing about tropics high average temperature is lack of cold temperature, it’s uniform. And this also applies to land air temperature of the tropics [in tropical regions of tropics]. But tropic zone land also has deserts- which cold and warm extremes, and entire area of tropical land is not as dominate in terms area of land outside the tropics.
Or 510 times .4 is tropics = 204 million square km. Tropical land is: 204 times .2 = 40.8 million square km.
Total land is 510 times .3 = 153 million square km.
So compared to ocean, tropical land is smaller percentage of total area- and tropical land has deserts.
Anyhow ocean are most of surface, tropic ocean of 26 C make average ocean surface temperature 17 C [or outside tropics average is 11 C]. So, globally the difference as guess, is about 2 or 3 C.
Yeah, a 2-3C DTR on a global basis is in the ballpark of what I was thinking too.
I imagine that satellite data must be able to easily give the average temperature of a hemisphere (land + ocean) during the day and the average during the night
Why are not these data easily found?
In normal science:
Cold emits little radiation
Hot emits lots of radiation
In climate “science”, emitting little radiation is “proof” of warming.
Norman is a moron.
“If you keep the input energy constant but decrease the outgoing energy, the object will increase in temperature.”
No, if you decrease outgoing energy, then the object will cool. Why don’t you learn SB law?
E ~ T^4
Reduce outgoing energy (E) and the temperature (T) will decrease.
More heat flow = Hotter.
Less heat flow = Colder.
Less heat flow is never evidence of a temperature rise. Never.
Zoe Phin
Your ideas are so poor and illogical I will pass on attempting to communicate with you. You are far to ignorant of any science to even attempt rational discussions with.
Norman, how about passing on “attempting to communicate” with me?
Why does Zoe have all the luck?
JDHuffman
I would be more than happy if you did not respond to my science based posts with your idiotic nonsense made up junk science.
The problem is you do not leave well alone. I did a good job of ignoring the endless stupid posts you were making to other posters.
You hated being ignored and would scour the blog looking for any comment I made and then you would post some stupid pointless comment.
I found you would not tolerate me ignoring your anti-science nonsense.
We can try again. If you don’t see your blog name in one of my posts then don’t respond. In time we will ignore each other and that would be wonderful.
There are a lot of intelligent people with good ideas and valued research. I find nothing of value in any of your posts. Not even humor.
Norman, as usual, all of that is just your delusional opinions. You have stated before that you would ignore me, but then you mentioned me in every comment. You don’t have the character to do what you say you will do.
But, go ahead and try again. I enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself. Just like now that you are trying to deny the sky has a temperature.
You’re such a clown.
JDHuffman
Just to correct one of your many pointless posts.
You claim I deny the sky has a temperature. Not sure where you conjured up that idea. Like all your other goofy ideas that is just one of the many.
Norman, just check some of your recent ramblings, where you tried to deny the sky readings. You may get to argue with yourself, again!
And I see you can’t ignore me for even one hour.
What a clown.
Zoe “norman is a moron” is a case study in psycholgical projection.
‘No, if you decrease outgoing energy, then the object will cool.’
Thus winter coats, oven doors, and closable windows all seem pointless for zoe.
But now all those mysterious uncooked turkeys, frozen pipes, and hypothermia events are explained!
Nate, please stop trolling.
ZP said…”No, if you decrease outgoing energy, then the object will cool.”
So if I put insulation in my home and I decrease the amount of energy escaping then my home will cool? Are you sure you want to stick with this argument? This is your opportunity to clarify your statement above.
bdgwx,
“So if I put insulation in my home and I decrease the amount of energy escaping then my home will cool?”
Put an IR camera out on the lawn, and watch your home cool.
Are you saying that reducing outgoing energy causes temperature to rise and, by SB law, more energy emitted through the windows? No IR camera has captured that.
Much better. And guess what…this is exactly what is being observed in the climate system. The stratosphere, being on the other side of the thermal barrier, is in fact cooling exactly as you would expect and conceptually the same as the effect of insulation in your home.
And on the inside (troposphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere) of the thermal barrier the climate system is warming exact as you would expect and conceptually the same as the effect of insulation in your home.
What I and Norman are saying is that temperatures rise on the inside of thermal barrier and decrease on the outside.
The mistake you are making bdg, is that the atmosphere is not insulation. It does not ‘”trap heat”. You have been well indoctrinated, but that just makes you unable to learn.
Check out GOES-16 channel 8 especially in the desert southwest of the US. The more H2O in the air the more the UWIR from the surface is shadowed. So if that radiation isn’t making it to the ABI instrument on the satellite and it’s not being returned to the surface then where does it go?
backdoor guy, how many times have you asked that same question?
I have answered it several times, and others have answered it as well. But, you can’t learn. Your head is filled with pseudoscience, and you reject reality.
You know where the backdoor is….
JD measures ground temp: 86.4, 77.3, 88.4, 89.6 so forth, no decline of 33K measured so the 33K of “heat” was observed trapped by the atm. as per JD. Who would ever have thought JD would be the one to demonstrate the atm. can trap heat!? Keep up the good work JD. More observations please.
fluffball, do you teach a typing class, by any chance?
Ball4,
“Again, PhilJ, there is a force and equal and opposite force, but my rock didnt move so d was identically = 0”
If your rock didnt move then no work was done by the water on the rock.
But the water most certainly is moved in the direction of the force from the rock, so the rock has indeed done work on the water…
“rock has indeed done work on the water”
To do work on the water my rock has to move but it didn’t. No work done by my rock on the water.
Haha,
Ok Ill bite if the displacement of the water is not work done on the water by the force from the rock, then what is doing the work to displace the water?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-361015
Ball4, I’m sure I told you to be eternally silent, disgrace. Why are you still making mouth parps come out of your pie hole? Abomination, cease.
No answer heh? I’ll let you figure out how all on your own….
Idiots and Liars,
“What I and Norman are saying is that temperatures rise on the inside of thermal barrier and decrease on the outside.”
But you still have provided ZERO evidence.
You can have an IR camera pointed to a radiator inside your home. No matter the insulation, the radiator will not emit more than its capabale of by the electricity supplied to it.
Insulation only changes the steepness of the thermal gradient, it doesn’t raise the higher end.
You are a scientific FAILURE.
Insulation absolutely results in higher equilibrium temperatures in the presence of an injection of energy into the system. The “inside” is the term I’m using to describe the side of the barrier receiving energy from another source.
I do agree that a thermal barrier will increase the steepness of the thermal gradient and locally lower entropy, but it only does this in the presence of external stimuli (usually an energy source). In other words, I put insulation in my home the inside won’t get warmer unless I also turn on the furnace. Sans an energy source the only thing insulation would do is slow down the rate equilibriation.
GHGs work in a similar way. Since they are transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation they allow this external energy to penetrate to the inside. This energy is then converted into outgoing longwave radiation that is intercepted by GHGs with part of it being returned to the surface. In this way the GHE would not work without the Sun just like insulation in your home can’t warm the inside without the furnace.
And by the way, the evidence is the UAH dataset. It clearly shows warming on the inside of the barrier and cooling on the outside.
No bdg, the “evidence” is in your imagination.
You’ve learned the pseudoscience, but you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics.
Nothing new.
bdgwx,
“In other words, I put insulation in my home the inside wont get warmer unless I also turn on the furnace. Sans an energy source the only thing insulation would do is slow down the rate equilibriation.”
The problem with this picture is that the furnace is outside your home… insulation keeps your home cooler…
Now oxygen is a better insulator than co2 (it absorbs nearly all the incoming UVB and UVC ). So if we replace oxygen with co2 we are decreasing the insulation. Decreasing insulation increases input to the oceans…
PhilJ
Your point is not exactly correct. The surface (that is absorbing the bulk of the solar input)…
Here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1280px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Of the solar input absorbed by atmosphere, the bulk of it is H2O. CO2 absorbs very little. It returns much more energy to the surface than it stops solar input reaching the surface.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg/1280px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png
Here is the spectrum of energy that returns to the Earth’s surface from the atmosphere;
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/longwave-downward-radiation-surface-evans.png?w=359&h=401
PhilJ, as you know, clowns will try to confuse you. They will link to things they don’t understand, just to try to mess you up.
One link they always attempt is the spectrum of IR from the atmosphere. They try to claim because IR is emitted by the atmosphere, it is absorbed by the surface. That, of course, is not true. All photons are not always absorbed. The cold sky cannot warm the surface.
They constantly try to pervert reality. We just have to enjoy their failed efforts.
Phil, the point is that the side of the thermal barrier with the energy source is the side that gets warmer.
That’s why the atmosphere is not a thermal barrier. Solar flux heats the surface, and the surface then heats the atmosphere.
Fairly straightforward, actually.
bdgwx,
“Phil, the point is that the side of the thermal barrier with the energy source is the side that gets warmer.”
you mean how the ozone layer gets warmer because its on the outside of a thermal barrier?
or how O, N , HE, and various other atoms and molecules get hotter on the other side of the mesopause?
note they are on the side of the energy source….
ah , but the earth surface has 2 SOURCES… so yes this side of the thermal barrier is colder than the other side of the mantel….
bdg….”GHGs work in a similar way. Since they are transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation they allow this external energy to penetrate to the inside…”
Once again, CO2 is an uber-trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is 95% from natural sources so why did it not cause these actions before anthropogenic CO2 became an issue?
WV itself makes up 0.31% of the overall atmosphere, as altitude increases, it becomes more scarce. How can such a trace gas cause all the problems caused by climate alarmists?
BY WV, I am not referring to clouds, which are actually small droplets of water. As droplets of water, they should be able to absorb incoming solar as well as outgoing IR.
It’s a lot more complex than it appears.
Retard,
“Insulation absolutely results in higher equilibrium temperatures in the presence of an injection of energy into the system.”
No evidence.
“And by the way, the evidence is the UAH dataset. It clearly shows warming on the inside of the barrier and cooling on the outside.”
UAH is great evidence of what reduced cloud cover did.
zoe,
Ever bake?
Do you turn on the oven, but leave the door open, in hopes that will get hot faster that way?
Ever go skiing? Do you take off your coat because you’re too cold and want to warm up?
Just wondering.
Zoe Phin
You seek evidence for the statement that insulation results in higher equilibrium temperature.
Here is your proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2bzGyc6WAg
Look at the hands when he first takes off the gloves. Warm. Then as they lose energy they cool. The insulation (gloves) resulted in warmer temperature with a heated source (the energy generated by body metabolism).
ZP said…”No evidence.”
Open the windows in your home on a really cold day. Then close them again. Record how much the temperature drops when they’re open and how much it rises when they’re closed. Post back and let us know how that works out.
Newly generated “serious, professional, and strictly only discusses ‘the science’” GHEDT avatar bdgwx has been “good as gold” since it was initiated. But, inevitably, “the snark” had to start creeping into its comments eventually. It will soon devolve into the abyss of deptavity that the rest of them find themselves operating in. The “Craig T” avatar went the same way, shortly before it was discontinued.
More reality for clowns to deny:
Overhead clear sky –> 15 °F
Ground –> 86.9 °F
Yep, ground 86.9 the GHE is observed & its “heat” is still observed “trapped”, the lapse rate in effect, and JD gets the credit for showing that with observational proof. Who would have thought JD could be so useful. But, back to your usually scheduled 3 ring circus JD, I like the entertainment more (not so much your kool-aid).
That’s some great denial, fluffball.
But, where’s the rest of your typing class?
Attendance appears to be dropping, huh?
Let’s see if anybody’s a bit brighter down here. Tried it a ways upthread but blob couldn’t get it. Just not intelligent enough.
There’s an alternative way to compare the “3 plates” to the “2 plates” scenario where it could be argued that instead of their ridiculous “244 K…290 K…244 K” answer, they could have come up with an equally ridiculous “205 K…244 K…205 K” answer. In thinking through why they didn’t, it reveals a few things about the whole “Green Plate Effect” scam.
So we start with the agreement between both “sides” of the debate that without the green plates present, in the “3 plates” scenario the blue plate, with its own 400 W electrical power supply, comes to a temperature of 244 K. So the very first question, which stumped blob, is:
Instead of the blue plate, what in the “2 plates” scenario could the blue plate in the “3 plates” scenario be compared with?
‘where it could be argued that instead of their ridiculous ‘244 K290 K244 K’ answer, they could have come up with an equally ridiculous ‘205 K244 K205 K’ answer.’
DREMT keeps revealing his deep ignorance of how science works.
He thinks people should just ‘come up with’ answers by guessing.
‘Yeah that looks about right. It sort of matches the other one’
He still doesnt get that these problems can be SOLVED with real physics, like the textbook examples we showed him.
And he keeps expecting people to answer his silly questions, while he REFUSES to answer ours:
How do you arrive at your ‘solution’?
What is the energy that is NOT HEAT that flows between the plates?
What law of physics can be used to find it?
Can you show us any examples which have it?
Instead of the blue plate, what in the “2 plates” scenario could the blue plate in the “3 plates” scenario be compared with?
I’ll fill in answers and DREMT can confirm or refute.
“How do you arrive at your ‘solution’?”
By guessing, then declaring new physics to justify it after the fact.
“What is the energy that is NOT HEAT that flows between the plates?”
Made up. Not found anywhere in real physics.
“What law of physics can be used to find it?”
Uhh…none. Its made up.
“Can you show us any examples which have it?”
Obviously not. Directs others to research it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359650
I said: “3) Constantly conflate heat flow with energy flow. Insist that energy can’t flow without a temperature gradient even though that is a reference to heat flow, and not energy flow.”
blob replied “3 is a straw man, there is no claim that energy can not flow without a temperature difference. Ask a professor to help you out.”
You might be on your own with your whole confusion about energy flow, Nate. Maybe ask a professor to help you out.
Ha ha!
‘on your own’
You still can’t find a name, a physics equation, or a real world example for the magical mystery energy thats NOT HEAT.
Im not to worried about it.
Worried enough to randomly bring it up again…
Humpty DREMPTY,
Ooooh, pick me pick me
I’ll tell you what the blue plate in the 3 plate problem could be compared to in the two plate problem, if and only if,
You can properly solve both problems, showing your works and calculations.
Try it, if and only if you are intelligent enough to do so.
So far you have proved only to be a witless troll.
Instead of the blue plate, what in the “2 plates” scenario could the blue plate in the “3 plates” scenario be compared with? Just the blue plate on its own, no green plates present.
HINT #2: There’s only two things it could be. The sun, or the green plate.
[this really isn’t that hard]
Hint: nobody cares.
Because whatever answer you are looking for will surely involve more made up physics, more confusion, and more denial of reality.
Humpty DREMPTY,
Wrong again, it’s neither the sun nor the green plate.
Go see your community college physics instructor and see if that person can explain it to you.
It must be really hard for you.
“Wrong again, it’s neither the sun nor the green plate”
Incorrect, blob!
The correct answer is: the sun.
In the “2 plate” scenario, the sun at the left of the diagram, the energy source, provides the blue plate with 400 W/m^2. All agree that without the green plate, the blue plate equilibrates to a temperature of 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. The 400 W/m^2 from the sun never changes (no implication that the sun can increase in temperature).
In the “3 plate” scenario, the “sun” in the middle of the diagram, the energy source, provides the “blue plates” to the left and right, with 200 W/m^2. To be consistent with the “2 plate” scenario, it could be argued: 1) The “blue plates” equilibrate to a temperature of 205 K, emitting 100 W/m^2. 2) The 200 W/m^2 from the “sun” never changes (no implication that the sun can increase in temperature). 205 K…244 K…205 K.
Now, as I said, “they could have come up with an equally ridiculous “205 K…244 K…;205 K” answer. In thinking through why they didn’t, it reveals a few things about the whole “Green Plate Effect” scam.
So, first question: what is wrong with 1) or 2)?
“To be consistent with the ‘2 plate’ scenario, it could be argued: yada yada yada”
Just as predicted: amateur hour.
Made up physics, guessing by pattern matching, wrong conclusions drawn from poor analogies.
“In the ‘3 plate’ scenario, the ‘sun’ in the middle of the diagram.”
‘no implication that the sun can increase in temperature’.
DREMT refuses to learn basic science.
Poor Nate doesn’t understand that a “thought experiment” is for thinking about! He didn’t even realize the right answer to the first question was “the sun”, let alone be able to think about the answer to the next question. The trouble for these guys is, it all requires independent thought…faculties they just don’t possess…
Humpty Drempty,
It is not the sun, because the sun does not increase in temperature from the radiation it receives from the earth, even though it does absorb the radiation from the earth.
In the three plate problem, once the green plates are apart from the blue plate, the blue plate is now receiving 200 watts from the green plate, as the green plate cools, so the blue plate gets 200 + 200 + 400 watts, so it has to increase in temperature.
Once back to steady state the correct answer is 244 290 244
“bobdroege says:
July 4, 2019 at 12:45 PM
Humpty Drempty,
It is not the sun, because the sun does not increase in temperature from the radiation it receives from the earth, even though it does absorb the radiation from the earth.”
When sun is near zenith and on Earth surface, sunlight is about 1050 watts per square meter of direct sunlight.
That energy can warm a object to the temperature of about 80 C [176 F]
That sunlight also has about 70 watts of indirect sunlight. So, sunlight is 1050 + 70 = 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight.
In terms radiant energy from object warmed by the sun, it depends upon it’s total area and the distant from it.
For example say had heated surface which was 80 C and it was 1 km square in area and one measuring it’s heat from 1 km distance and collecting radiant energy from another 1 km square area. It will receive less energy as compare to it being 1/2 distance, rather than 1 km distance. Or receive more energy at 1 km distance if 5 km square area rather than just 1 square km area.
Also, the 1 square km area receiving radiant energy 1 km away, will receive more intense energy in middle of 1 square km area as compared to outer edges of the 1 km area. Or middle area receives more “directed IR light” as to “not being in middle”.
And this not even taking into account an atmosphere, or this applies to a vacuum. Before sunlight entered earth atmosphere it was all direct sunlight. And sunlight roughly remains same intensity over such short distance of 1000 km. Or the radiant energy of sun heated surface is much more diffused.
Now with intense Ir heat source [something say 2000 K] you can reflect the IR light or you make it into directed light. And doesn’t really work {well} with something as cold as 80 C.
Anyhow, if surface of ground is 60 to 70 C, that is due to sunlight. If air is 40 to 50 C that is due the ground being 60 C of more [which warmed by sunlight] and the air is heated by convectional heat transfer [it’s not related to radiant transfer process].
‘He didnt even realize the right answer to the first question was ‘the sun’, let alone be able to think about the answer to the next question. ‘
No dimwit, the blue plate is not like the sun.
The Sun has a fixed temperature. The BLUE plate does not. Dumb analogy.
‘The trouble for these guys is, it all requires independent thought’
I don’t want the engineers building my buildings and bridges to use the kind of ‘independent thought’ you are talking about, which apparently involves NO training or expertise with the relevant engineering principles, NO application of physical laws and equations.
Instead involves intuition (guessing), hand waving, and matching patterns.
No thanks.
Again, DREMT is blissfully unaware of another key concept in heat transfer problems: boundary conditions (BC).
The thing that changes is not the laws that apply, RHTE, FL, HE, but the BC change. That changes the answer!
Thus, having a constant heat flow at a boundary like in the GPE problems, is NOT the same as having a constant temperature at a boundary.
DREMT, thinks he can just convert from constant heat flow BC to a constant temperature BC, just cuz he feels like it. That ‘feels right’.
That allows him to falsely claim that the BLUE PLATE’s temperature doesnt change, no matter what, as if its 244 K temperature is a BC.
Nowhere in the problem does it say the BLUE plates temperature is fixed, like the SUN. What is fixed is the HEAT FLOW into it.
DREMT and JD may be experts at SOMETHING, but it sure aint heat transfer.
No mention of the “sun” in the original “2 plate” setup being at a fixed temperature. Sorry, try again.
And he misses the point, and comfirms that he has no idea about boundary conditions.
The BC are what they are in a problem. You cant just change them to what you prefer.
And the SUN is at fixed temperature brainiac.
I’ve looked at the original Green Plate Effect problem many times. Nowhere does it state the temperature of the “sun” is fixed. Just as nowhere in the “three plate” problem is it said that the temperature of the “sun/blue plate” is fixed.
You are completely missing the whole point of this exercise.
All we know about the “sun” in the “2 plate” problem is that it is an energy source, at such a distance from the blue plate that the blue plate is receiving 400 W/m^2. In the “3 plate” problem, the “sun” plate is at such a distance from the two “blue plates” that they are receiving 200 W/m^2.
You need to be getting at something other than “the sun is at a fixed temperature”, Nate. You are nowhere near it, yet. But you’re so hung up on this “sun” thing that you will never progress. Never mind.
And ‘you are completely missing the whole point’ I made about boundary conditions. obviously, since you havent mentioned them once.
We get that you desperately want the temperature of the central BLUE plate to remain fixed at 244 K, and act like ‘the SUN’.
“The 400 W/m^2 from the sun never changes (no implication that the sun can increase in temperature).”
But it is not fixed at 244K as a boundary condition.
Instead, the heat flux to the BLUE plate is fixed.
That is DIFFERENT from FIXED TEMPERATURE BC that you would like.
With HEAT FLUX FIXED BC, the temperature of an object is free to adjust to what it needs to be.
Thus the BLUE PLATE in the center is free to warm until it produces 200 W of NET heat flow to each GREEN plate.
The GREEN plates must have 200 W output to space thus their temperature cannot be 205 K as you insist we would THINK, but will be 244K.
Then the BLUE must be 290 K in order for the RHTE for B to G to meet the 200 W NET requirement.
I literally just said, “Just as nowhere in the “three plate” problem is it said that the temperature of the “sun/blue plate” is fixed.”
I’m not arguing what you think I am arguing re: boundary conditions etc. Try again.
You literally said this “The 200 W/m^2 from the sun never changes (no implication that the sun can increase in temperature). 205 K244 K205 ”
So of course you are saying the BLUE plate must be at fixed T.
And then you ignore the rest of the valid BC argument.
By saying the BLUEs SB emission (ie T) never changes, you are declaring a FALSE BC!
Nate, I don’t think the “sun plate” in the “3 plate” scenario is at a fixed temperature, and I don’t think the “sun” in the “2 plate” scenario is at a fixed temperature. As I have continually been telling you.
By “the 400 W/m^2 from the sun never changes (no implication that the sun can increase in temperature)”, I meant that the “sun” doesn’t change temperature in that scenario, with the specific set up there. Not that the temperature is fixed so that it can’t change. Then I said that you could apply that logic to the “3 plate” scenario, but I asked the question, “what is wrong” with doing so? So you should have got the idea that I think there is an important difference between the “2 plate” and “3 plate” scenarios that makes such a comparison flawed. There is, but you have not got anywhere near what I was getting at, yet!
You’ve just been doing your usual thing of attacking a straw man, whilst being so arrogant that if I try to correct you, you actually tell me I’m wrong and that your straw man is my argument. You’ve invested so much time and energy into it in the last couple of days that now you can’t give it up and try to move on.
After telling us the blue plate is like the ‘sun’ for days, now you’re going to tell us whats wrong with that?
Ive already explained whats wrong with it.
“With HEAT FLUX FIXED BC, the temperature of an object is free adjust to what it needs to be.
Thus the BLUE PLATE in the center is free to warm until it produces 200 W of NET heat flow to each GREEN plate.”
☺️
See what I mean? He just can’t let it go…
Why would I have said, “they could have come up with an equally ridiculous 205 K…244 K…205 K…”
Why would I have said, “what’s wrong with 1) and 2)?”
Why would I have kept reminding you, the temperature of the “sun” is not fixed?
You’re still not getting it…and you most likely never will.
See next thread
blob hasn’t got a clue, as usual. He’s prattling on about the sun and the Earth, rather than the “sun” in the original “2 plate” problem (usually they are quite happy to assert that the Earth does heat the sun, but that’s another story).
Then he’s waffling on about “as the green plate cools”…what green plates? In the comparison we’re doing, there is a central “sun” plate, and two neighboring “blue plates”.
Now, I’ll ask again…what is wrong with 1) or 2)? Try to engage the brain before the mandibles flap.
Humpty DREMPTY,
What’s this again?
“Then he’s waffling on about “as the green plate cools”…what green plates? In the comparison we’re doing, there is a central “sun” plate, and two neighboring “blue plates”.”
So now there is two blue plates?
Changing the problem again when you can’t even solve the first one.
What’s wrong with 1) is that when things equilibrate, the center plate, I don’t know what color it is now, has risen in temperature due to the radiation from the was green now blue plate, or is it grue, or maybe bleen?
2) is wrong because the center, or sun, or blue plate increases in temperature so it is now emitting more than 200 watts to each side.
It’s not the Sun because the Sun is way more that a constant source of 400 watts.
So pose another problem and I’ll tell you what’s wrong with your muddled thinking.
Speaking of muddled, join me with a mojito?
If you can’t do science, might as well drink.
Might as well, might as well.
Maybe have another try when youve sobered up, blob. It really isnt that hard to follow.
Humpty DREMPTY,
If and only if, you read my posts, you will find out I am following you quite closely, and again and again you are wrong.
Incorrect, blob.
As concise as I can be, the answer to your question
“So, first question: what is wrong with 1) or 2)?”
What is wrong with 1) is that the plates can not be at 205 and emitting 100 watts because then the energy in is greater than the energy out, so the system has to increase in temperature.
What is wrong with 2) since with the answer to 1) there has to be an increase in temperature such that the energy in equals the energy out.
Balancing the equations leads to the conclusion that both the center and outer plates increase in temperature.
OK, I’ll give you guys a clue, since you’re both determined to be miles away from the point at all times…
…the initials V.F are important here…
Humpty DREMPTY,
You are not making a valid point.
So tell us how you arrive at 244, 244, 244 or any other combination.
Cause we think you just picked the one you wanted.
But you can’t or won’t defend it.
the initials V.F are important here
You have me stumped with the V.F. initials being very important.
Probably not, but I’m not into playing silly games.
blob, nobody’s asking you to keep responding…are they!?
No, but since you won’t defend your solution to any of the plate problems, I am going to keep pointing that out.
And since your last set of clues turned out to be bogus, I will keep pointing that out as well.
OK, blob.
‘Why would I have said, ‘what’s wrong with 1) and 2)?’
I have no idea, since you havent told us.
But whatever it is, I know it wont make any sense, because you are not dealing correctly with the actual boundary conditions given to us in this problem.
You want to have the BLUE plate be like the SUN, with a constant SB emission.
But SB Law says that if the SUN or the BLUE plate has a constant emission then they are at a fixed temperature.
You can’t insist on that, because we are not given a fixed temperature BC on the Blue plate.
What the BLUE plate needs to do is transfer a NET heat flux = its INPUT heat flux = 400 W, which IS REQUIRED by its BC.
Nate keeps telling me what I’m arguing, instead of actually listening to what I’m saying, and thinking it through.
Hopeless.
‘Thinking it through’
Yes, the parts that you told us — as always, my thinking about what is wrong with them has been thoroughly explained to you.
I have explained your misunderstanding of, and incorrect identification of the BC in our problem.
BC are a standard parameters, that must be correctly identified and analyzed in ANY heat transfer problem.
Have you been ‘thinking it through’?
Ever learned it in a course?
Or even bothered to look it up?
Of course not.
The other mysterious points that you keep alluding to, but never posting:
‘I have no idea, since you havent told us.’
Nate, all you’ve been doing is bashing the same straw men repeatedly over the head for the last couple of days…and you just will not move on to try and think about what I’m actually saying.
And yet, you keep avoiding telling us what you want to say that is SO IMPORTANT.
DREMT, I get it, you are always so misunderstood.
People just to read your posts again, think about them, etc.
Just like my teenager says: we just dont understand!
Even though we keep telling him we do, we just dont agree with him.
It’s crazy how far Nate’s come from “Hint: nobody cares”.
If you had something important to convey, you would have done so already.
No, we’re still not interested in playing your games.
Bye then.
Confirmed: all a silly game.
Confirmed: Nate reads whatever he wants to hear, not what is written.
“Of the solar input absorbed by atmosphere, the bulk of it is H2O”
Norman, you are incorrect. Oxygen (and ozone) absorb almost all the uvb and uvc solar radiation.
Without oxygen, that UV would be cooking off Earths h20 instead…
Retards,
“Do you turn on the oven, but leave the door open, in hopes that will get hot faster that way?”
Oven wall emits the same.
“Ever go skiing? Do you take off your coat because youre too cold and want to warm up?”
Skin temperature never exceeds 98.6F with or without coat.
“Look at the hands when he first takes off the gloves. Warm. Then as they lose energy they cool. The insulation (gloves) resulted in warmer temperature with a heated source (the energy generated by body metabolism)”
Skin temperature never exceeds 98.6F. The skin warms the insulation, not vice versa. FAIL
You’re both scientific FAILURES.
If insulation raised temperature inside, then inside will eventuly emit more radiation to outside (SB Law), but you claim outside will be cooler.
You are social degenerates.
‘Skin temperature never exceeds 98.6F with or without coat.’
Sure, but without a coat and gloves, skin temperature can reach 32 F.
Thats called FROSTBITE. Give it a try.
Norman: “If you keep the input energy constant but decrease the outgoing energy, the object will increase in temperature.
Zoe: “No, if you decrease outgoing energy, then the object will cool.”
Ok Zoe, try this:
1. Turn on oven to 500 degrees, energy input constant.
2. Leave door open. Wait 5 min. What temperature inside?
3. Close door to DECREASE outgoing energy. Wait 5 min. What temperature inside?
With decreased outgoing energy, did the oven COOL like you predicted??
Zoe Phin
You make a claim to have taken physics classes at College levels and aced them. Please show some of this knowledge and logic. So far you are a complete dud with logical rational thought and knowledge of physics. You do not have to act dumb to impress anyone here. I would like to see signs of this physics brilliance you claim to have.
So far you are an “F” student. You could not pass even the easiest exam in heat transfer physics. You do not get points for making up your own absurd ideas that have nothing to do with the real world.
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeT9x4lv31Y
This is a video about a turbo charger blanket. It keeps heat in and it keeps the outside cooler. The heat does not escape as you totally wrongly believe. Your insults do not bother me. Your ignorance is what I wish to help you with.
I am not sure if rational logical thought or even empirical information will alter the zany physics you think is correct and all of us are idiots for not accepting your crackpot version of reality.
Here is another one on the same subject with actual measured values. The temperature under the blanket went up 150 C. You are just so far off that you need to come back to Earth.
file:///C:/Users/Lori%20and%20Norman/Downloads/BICKLE-MASTERSREPORT-2016.pdf
Zoe Phin
Here is a valid link to the paper (I think). It is a pdf file.
You can maybe get it to download and see what it says.
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/43718/BICKLE-MASTERSREPORT-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Nate, Norman, please stop trolling.
Ball4,
You forgot about the dumb dumb effect. It’s what makes temperatures on Earth 101K higher then they would be without the dumb dumb effect. All of JDHuffman’s observations are therefore proof of the dumb dumb effect. Right, dumb dumb?
Nate is a moron.
“Sure, but without a coat and gloves, skin temperature can reach 32 F.
Thats called FROSTBITE. Give it a try.”
Why are you fixated on skin? The body’s thermochemical generator never exceeds 98.6F with or without insulator. FAIL.
“2. Leave door open. Wait 5 min. What temperature inside?
3. Close door to DECREASE outgoing energy. Wait 5 min. What temperature inside?”
The internal metal walls emit same amount, only based on electricity supplied to it, assuming no builtin “smart” feedback mechanism. FAIL.
“With decreased outgoing energy, did the oven COOL like you predicted??”
My quote in its context was talking about the outside. Yes the outside does cool. But since you believe the inside actually warms due to insulation, there should be a slow warming following the initial quick cooling.
Nate, Normal, et al.’s examples would serve well if they were arguing that GHGs prevent the Earth from slipping below -18C. But that is not what they are claiming. They are claiming GHGs ADD 33K beyond source of radiation – and none of their examples prove that.
‘3. Close door to DECREASE outgoing energy. Wait 5 min. What temperature inside?’
Z:”The internal metal walls emit same amount, only based on electricity supplied to it’
FALSE and weird.
Close the door, the temperature inside RISES, as anybody who has ever used an oven knows.
That’s why ovens have a door!
‘My quote in its context was talking about the outside.’
You already disagreed with this statement from bdgwx.
‘What I and Norman are saying is that temperatures rise on the inside of thermal barrier and decrease on the outside.’
So I call BS on that change of your story.
Come back to this planet.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Norman is a moron,
“This is a video about a turbo charger blanket. It keeps heat in and it keeps the outside cooler. The heat does not escape as you totally wrongly believe.”
Norman you had to prove that the blanket warms the engine and you utterly FAILED.
Here is my original comment: ”
If insulation raised temperature inside, then inside will eventuly emit more radiation to outside (SB Law), but you claim outside will be cooler.”
Notice the IF?
If the engine warmed due to the blanket then we should have seen it on the outside.
We did not see it on the outside and therefore your main thesis is completely incorrect: Blankets (or CO2) do NOT raise internal temperature.
Pay attention, retard: ”
Nate, Normal, et al.s examples would serve well if they were arguing that GHGs prevent the Earth from slipping below -18C. But that is not what they are claiming. They are claiming GHGs ADD 33K beyond source of radiation and none of their examples prove that.”
Zoe Phin
I think you might have a good imagination but you have zero logic process.
You fail completely at comprehension of data.
You are not correct, the blanket is not warming the engine. It is not an engine blanket. It is covering the turbo-charger. Download the link and you will see the temperatures under the insulation went up 150 C. Read the material before you make your ignorant comments.
In applications of covering a very hot pipe or other object, the insulation is keeping the heat in and very little is getting out.
Like I said, you talk but you have nothing of value to say. I guess they love you over at Joseph Postma’s blog. That is where the science rejects like to pat each other on the back. They also lack logical thought process and are immune to reason. Similar to you. I still do not see the slightest evidence you aced any physics. I think you just make that up. I am wondering if you even took a physics class. You seem very lacking in understanding even the most basic of ideas.
Here are some more videos you are not logical enough to grasp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbeNnUdiH3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBVFZ7vJppo
Zoe Phin:
YOU: “We did not see it on the outside and therefore your main thesis is completely incorrect: Blankets (or CO2) do NOT raise internal temperature.”
WRONG! And dumb. They will raise the temperature when an object is heated or has an energy input.
‘Nate, Normal, et al.s examples would serve well if they were arguing that GHGs prevent the Earth from slipping below -18C. But that is not what they are claiming. They are claiming GHGs ADD 33K beyond source of radiation and none of their examples prove that.
Zoe. You made GENERAL statements about heat transfer that were totally wrong and nonsensical.
That is what I was addressing with simple examples.
Now you change your story to the GHE.
How can you expect to persuade anyone about GHE, when you are showing us that you are so confused about heat transfer BASICS?
Norman, Nate, please stop trolling.
Norman is a moron.
“Download the link and you will see the temperatures under the insulation went up 150 C. Read the material before you make your ignorant comments.”
Let’s see:
“thermocouples installed to measure the temperature of the exhaust flow before it enters the turbine … these are called T3”
T3 is the hottest temperature (max radiation) available in the system. It is akin to the sun. And what happens to this max available radiation?
Table 3-1 shows us the results:
T3 goes from 537.5F to 534.5F, a net COOLING of 1.2F.
Congratulations, moron, you proved that blocking convection can decrease temperature loss, a fact no one disputed, and you totally disproved backradiation heating.
All your insults are projection. They are more applicable to you, so thank you for saving me the typing.
Zoe Phin says: “Norman is a moron.”
No, you got him mixed up:
https://tinyurl.com/yb7jcyne
Zoe Phin
You are most illogical. Your posts are senseless scrambles of partial ideas and incomplete points.
In the paper you used, note what the author of the article says about T3.
“The difference of the turbine inlet
temperature T3 is not significant for the discussion in this section and can be considered unchanged.”
It is not insulated so why would you think its temperature would matter in this discussion.
I am not sure what is wrong with your thought process. Seems like you put your brain in a blender and out comes a mixed up mess of unfocused ideas and illogical conclusions from vague points.
Obviously you make up the claim you aced physics. You could not get past the introductory page. I give your attempts at physics a hard “F”.
Svante, Norman, please stop trolling.
Noman,
T3 is the input, just like the sun.
The input is insulated down the line, and no backradiation heating occurs.
Go eff yourself, disgusting vermin.
Upthread, blob said:
“What is wrong with 1) is that the plates can not be at 205 and emitting 100 watts because then the energy in is greater than the energy out, so the system has to increase in temperature.”
I tried to hint to him that the initials V.F were important, but blob failed to understand the obvious reference to View Factors. Sheesh, what are these people on? I thought they were pretending to be experts on radiative heat transfer!?
Anyway, yes, the obvious difference between the “2 plate” and “3 plate” scenarios are the view factors involved. blob is saying that in the “3 plate” scenario, the “blue plates” next to the “sun plate” can not be at 205 K, emitting 100 W/m^2, since then they would be receiving 200 W/m^2, whilst losing only 100 W/m^2. However, in the “2 plate” scenario, the blue plate receives 400 W/m^2 from the sun, and does equilibrate at 244 K, only emitting 200 W/m^2. So why the difference? Well, this is where the view factors come into play.
In the “2 plate” scenario, the sun is only a tiny dot from the point of view of the blue plate, so the blue plate can lose energy from both sides. The side facing space (obviously), but also on the side facing the sun, in an entire hemisphere of directions bar the one directly facing the sun. So that’s why the blue plate can receive 400 W/m^2, yet equilibrate emitting 200 W/m^2 (200 W lost from both sides of the plate = 400 W).
In the “3 plate” scenario, the “sun plate” takes up the whole view from the p.o.v of the “blue plates”, since the view factors are equal to 1. So the “blue plates” can only lose energy from the side facing space. So that’s why the “blue plates” receive 200 W/m^2, and equilibrate emitting 200 W/m^2 (200 W lost from only one side of the plates).
With view factors and emissivity equal to 1, the RHTE (Radiative Heat Transfer Equation) is at zero when the plates are at the same temperature. The above is a clear explanation as to why that is.
Problem solved. 244 K…244 K…244 K, RHTE = 0.
Humpty DREMTPY
You are missing the points I am arguing completely. As I suspected view factors have nothing to do with the problems, they are considered to be 1 for the sake of simplifying the problem, so no extra calculations would be involved, but would not change the essence of the solution, only the value of the temperature increase.
What you are missing, or refusing to understand is that all plates emit equally from all side with view factors always 1, and emissivity always 1, all radiation absorbed, never reflected.
In the three plate scenario, the green plates have to receive 400 w/m^2 in order to emit 200 w/m^2 from each side, and since they have to receive 400 w/m^2 from only one side since the middle plate emits to both green plates, the middle plate has to be at 290 so it can emit 400 w/m^2 to each green plate.
It gets to 290 due to the radiation it receives from the green plates.
Which is not reflected, which is the whole point.
Reflection is verbotten
Ah, there he is. blob, I refer you to my previous comment, which refutes yours.
But your previous statement is wrong so it doesn’t refute anything.
Sorry charlie, maybe check with a professor at your local college.
OK, blob.
Humpty DREMPTY,
You know, well maybe you don’t, but now you are arguing that the diagram of JD’s is wrong.
So now we both agree that JD’s diagram is bonkers, only for different reasons.
JD is at least smart enough to see that the plates emit in both directions, which you are not smart enough to grasp.
blob tries bashing some bizarre straw man…
Nope, you and JD are now telling different stories, perhaps you should get a hotel room and hash it out.
JD’s diagram has 8 arrows, yours only 4.
Perhaps you two can figure it out.
Not likely though
JD and I are two different people, blob.
“…yours only 4”
Huh?
Hey, blob, remember when I asked you to produce a diagram for the plates pressed together, at 244 K…244 K…244 K? You know…I said you can draw it with the plates separated, just so you have room to put in the arrows for the energy flows, but we’ll know that it’s meant to represent the situation with the plates pressed together. Remember how I said to make sure you included the arrows for back-conduction?
How did it go with that? Been a long time, so you should have worked it out by now.
Let’s see the diagram. I wonder how many arrows yours has?
HUMPTY Lying DREMPTY,
Here is where you eliminate 4 of the arrows from JD’s diagram.
“So the blue plates can only lose energy from the side facing space.”
So you are saying there is no arrow from the blue plate to the “sun” plate, which means there is no reflection arrow from the sun plate to the blue plate.
My diagram would have 6 arrows.
I am not saying what you are saying I am saying.
OK HUMPTY DREMPTY,
If you are not saying there is no heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate, that must mean that you are saying there is heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate.
So which is it
1- heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate
Or
2- no heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate
Pick one or the other
How about you answer my question?
Dumbass HUMPTY DREMPTY,
If you read my post, I did answer your question.
at 11:58 today I said “My diagram would have 6 arrows.”
Can’t you read?
So answer my question
So which is it
1- heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate
Or
2- no heat transfer from the green plate to the blue plate
Pick one or the other
No, blob, the diagram for conduction, described to you just a few comments ago:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-363053
After telling us for days that the BP is like the SUN, he now gives another reason, added to the reasons Bob and I gave, why the Blue plate is NOT like the Sun at all!
You really never had a clue what I was getting at, did you!? Poor Nate.
What important things were you getting at?
Well there was the ‘ridiculous solution’ that you said we could have come up with by guessing, but we never actually did:
“they could have come up with an equally ridiculous ‘205 K, 244 K, 205 K’ answer”
Then there was similarity we should notice between the BLUE PLATE and SOMETHING else:
“The correct answer is: the sun.”
Which as it turns out, all of us agree, that the BLUE plate is not really like the sun.
Meanwhile our points about satisfying the first law, the RHTE, and the boundary conditions we’re given, were dismissed as unimportant.
What actually happened is still up there for anybody to read, if they wish.
“Problem solved. 244 K…244 K…244 K, RHTE = 0.”
Problem NOT solved. Where did you solve it? How did you solve it?
All you did was DECLARE some numbers with no indication where they come from?
How would any neutral observer be sure that these are correct?
Unlike you, I credit “neutral observers” with the intelligence and ability to follow the overall discussion.
‘You disagree the RHTE is at zero, as I described? ‘
I do.
Because that would mean 400 W of INPUT HEAT to the BLUE and NO OUTPUT HEAT from the BLUE.
An obvious first-law violation.
There is nothing wrong with the RHTE, but there is something wrong with your temperatures.
The RHTE is at zero with plate temperatures 244 K…244 K…244 K.
That is to say, it is zero between green at 244 K and blue at 244 K, and at zero again between blue at 244 K and the other green at 244 K.
Agree? Or have you suddenly changed your mind for some reason?
Already answered.
When you gonna answer our questions asked so many times?
How did you Solve the problem?
What equations did you use to find energy flow between plates?
What is the 200 W of energy flow between the plates that is NOT HEAT?
No, you did not answer what I actually asked you…and if you disagree that the RHTE is at zero, then you are wrong. Try again.
Anyone can invent an answer to a problem and ask YOU to follow it down a rabbit hole to nowhere.
Unless you can SHOW HOW you got your solution, which is really quite a reasonable request, then it deserves no credibility or effort.
Enough with the made-up BS solutions.
#2
No, you did not answer what I actually asked youand if you disagree that the RHTE is at zero, then you are wrong. Try again.
How did you Solve the problem?
What equations did you use to find energy flow between plates?
What is the 200 W of energy flow between the plates that is NOT HEAT?
for the 17th time.
No answers, NO credibility.
#3
No, you did not answer what I actually asked you…and if you disagree that the RHTE is at zero, then you are wrong. Try again.
Wow. Three people dedicated to misrepresenting every word I say. How did I get so lucky?
For my actual arguments, read my comments!
OK then please help the neutral observer wade through all the chaff to the exact place where you SOLVED THE PROBLEM.
If you had any integrity, DREMT, you would admit there is no such place.
You disagree the RHTE is at zero, as I described? Then you would be changing your mind from earlier…
Let’s see your formulas and calculations DREMT.
Sure, no problem.
With emissivity and view factors equal to one, the RHTE equation is simply:
Q = σ (Tb^4 Tg^4)
We know at steady state, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed) so a simple rearrangement:
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg
Gives the answer that Tb will be equal to Tg.
Now let’s see your formulas and calculations, for the 3-plate problem, Svante. I’ve never seen any of you actually solve it, that’s the funny thing. Not the 3-plate problem.
It has missed out a minus sign between Tb and Tg, but you get the idea.
That’s too funny for school DREMPTY.
Better ask all the kings horses to put your brain back together.
You missed out the 400 W input DREMT.
Not at all. That’s how we know the blue plate temperature is 244 K (assuming its 1m^2 per side). At 244 K…244 K…244 K, you have 400 W coming in to the system via the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W going out – 200 W from each of the two green plates.
Now let’s see your formulas and calculations, for the 3-plate problem, Svante. I’ve never seen any of you actually solve it, that’s the funny thing. Not the 3-plate problem.
Come on, Svante! Don’t tell me you’re busted again!
You had my formulas and calculations within twelve minutes, we’ve been waiting hours for yours! You’re letting the side down again. Don’t tell me you’re going to need Nate or blob to help you out!? It’s a bit ironic for the guy who’s always testing others about their math to not actually know the “right” answer himself.
Kind of reminds me of the time JD first brought up the “3 plate” scenario. Norman stormed in saying the right answer was 244 K…345 K…244 K. None of you realized that was wrong. I actually had to correct him…on what your answer should be!
Unbelievable.
“We know at steady state, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed) so a simple rearrangement:”
FALSE. Q = 200 W.
You know very well from the textbook example, that STEADY STATE does not mean Q = 0.
You don’t get to make up your own laws of physics!
Let me put it another way, DREMT.
We have plenty of examples of heat transfer problems where the heat flow, Q is NOT 0.
Thats why they are called HEAT TRANSFER problems.
Given that, what is your basis for ASSUMING, up front, that Q = 0 between the plates in this problem?
There is none that I can see.
STEADY STATE cannot be the reason, since there are ALREADY heat flows in this problem even though it is in STEADY STATE.
“You know very well from the textbook example, that STEADY STATE does not mean Q = 0.”
Nate knows very well that in the textbook example, the plate temperatures are fixed.
Predictably, he did have to try to come to Svante’s rescue…
…but we still haven’t seen their “formulas and calculations” for the “3 plate” problem!
“Given that, what is your basis for ASSUMING, up front, that Q = 0 between the plates in this problem?”
As you noted the temperatures are not fixed.
Are the heat flows FIXED between the plates at 0???
No.
Then what is your physics reason for assuming Q = 0?
Equlibrium? No. We are not in equilibrium.
The ONLY reason you have ASSUMED Q = 0 between the plates is because you desire a certain SOLUTION with Tb = Tg.
IOW you have applied textbook CIRCULAR LOGIC.
Congratulations.
“Given that, what is your basis for ASSUMING, up front, that Q = 200 W between the plates in this problem?”
As you noted the temperatures are not fixed.
Are the heat flows FIXED between the plates at 200 W???
No.
Then what is your physics reason for assuming Q = 200 W?
The ONLY reason you have ASSUMED Q = 200 W between the plates is because you desire a certain SOLUTION with Tb > Tg.
IOW you have applied textbook CIRCULAR LOGIC.
Congratulations.
Come on Humpty DREMPTY,
We have given the solution with calculations but here we go again.
400 watts in, and to have 400 watts out we need 200 watts out from each green plate.
Since the original 3 plate diagram had the Blue plate at 244, we calculate the area to be 1 square meter using Q = A sigma T ^ 4.
Since the green plates emit 200 watts/square meter their temperature is 244 by the same formula.
Now the blue plate gets 200 watts from each green plate and 400 watts from the heater for a total of 800 watts or 400 watts/m^2 from each side. So it has to emit that amount to stay at a constant temperature.
Using the equation gives 290.
‘Then what is your physics reason for assuming Q = 200 W?’
First Law of Thermodynamics.
Ever heard of it?
An object, the BLUE plate, cannot have 400 W of INPUT HEAT, without 400 W of OUTPUT heat, else its internal energy must INCREASE.
BASIC stuff, we’ve been over it dozens of times.
YOU are still left needing a REASON for your assumption, other than CIRCULAR logic.
So neither Svante, Nate or blob can actually solve the 3 plate problem.
Nate, there is 400 W in and 400 W out of the system in both of our solutions. So you are barking up the wrong tree there.
‘Nate, there is 400 W in and 400 W out of the system in both of our solutions. So you are barking up the wrong tree there.’
Round and round we go..
Clausius, Lord Kelvin, James Joule, etc call BS on that one.
The 1LOT applies to ANY object, even the BLUE plate. We’ve discussed this ad-nauseum, DREMT.
Apply a continuous flow of HEAT to an object. It will WARM, until it reaches a STEADY STATE temperature.
How does the object know when to stop warming? When its HEAT OUTPUT = HEAT INPUT.
1LOT AND common sense.
Nate does get himself stuck in a rut. I remember trying to explain all this to him a few arguments I won ago:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359260
There’s 400 W in, and 400 W out, in both of our solutions, as I said (although technically I should have said 400 W in, and 400 W out in my solution, and also in Nate’s “solution”; the scare quotes are important since he has never actually solved the “3 plate” problem, and apparently never will no matter how many times I mention that).
Heat isn’t going to “build up” in the blue plate to take it above 244 K. That’s what I was trying to get at with the “infinitesimal temperature difference” between blue and green, in my linked argument-winner. As soon as there were any sort of “heat build up” in the blue plate, resulting in even an “infinitesimal temperature difference” between blue and green, that “excess” flows through the green plates and out to space, and the temperature difference between the plates is back to zero. That’s probably the simplest way to understand it.
It’s kind of like how Ball4 accidentally admitted that the 244 K…290 K…244 K “solution” violates 1LoT. Remember that!? And then when he realized that was actually the position he had to defend, rather than it being JD’s position, he tried to shamelessly pretend that none of you were actually defending that position! And none of you would actually correct him when he did that (it has happened on many occasions).
☺️
“As soon as there were any sort of ‘heat build up’ in the blue plate, resulting in even an ‘infinitesimal temperature difference’ between blue and green, that ‘excess’ flows through the green plates and out to space, and the temperature difference between the plates is back to zero. Thats probably the simplest way to understand it.”
Simple but pure fantasy. Where does this idea come from? Show us an example like that from anywhere!
The ONLY relevant law of physics we have that relates the heat flow to ‘temperature difference’ is the RHTE.
For an infinitesimal temperature difference between the plates the equation predicts an infinitesimal heat flow, NOT 200 W!
In your scenario the heat (energy) flow is either 0 or 200, nothing in between.
That is contrary to all experience, and common sense. Do you have any?
Newton’s law of cooling for example describes the heat flow from a cooling object and temperature decrease as continuous, an exponential decay.
The smaller the Temp difference the smaller the heat flow, until as delta-T approaches 0 the heat flow approaches 0.
This applies to all forms of heat transfer.
Heat flow tends to zero between the plates, Nate, I’m not arguing otherwise. You’re the one who thinks Q is fixed at 200 W between them, remember? Not me. I am explaining how Q tends to zero, because the plate temperatures aren’t fixed.
It’s OK, nobody really expects you to understand, since you don’t know the difference between heat and energy, and you have never demonstrated any grasp of the relevant physics.
“Heat flow tends to zero between the plates”
Nope, why should it do that? Just CUZ?
You need a valid physics reason for it to do so that doesnt involve ASSUMING your answer, Tb = Tg is correct. That would be CIRCULAR LOGIC.
We have all given you a valid physics reason why it is NOT 0 in steady state. The 1LOT.
You have offered no answers, to rebut this.
“you have never demonstrated any grasp of the relevant physics.”
I admit it, I have never grasped your F*d-up Fake Fizuks.
Parroting JD now, when HE HAS NO ANSWERS. OMG Next you’ll be saying the RHTE is bogus and BB can be mirrors!
So, what can you offer in the way of evidentiary support for your made-up science?
-You offer NO examples of heat flow jumping discontinuously with an infinitesimal T-difference.
Not surprising, there is no such phenomena found in nature!
-You offer no examples of energy flow that is NOT heat between objects at the same temperature.
-You offer no equations or real laws of physics to account for this mysterious energy flow, which is not compatible with 1LOT.
-Your offer a faux ‘solution’ that is ‘found’ by circular logic, by assuming Q = 0 with NO EXPLANATION given.
What can you offer that has any credibility??
BS arguments thrown against the wall, nothing sticks, just keep looping back to already well-rebutted arguments.
Sad.
Yes, how does the blue plate shed its 400W input when its output to green is zero?
If it runs a surplus it has to get warmer, right?
Humpty DREMPTY,
You say
” I am explaining how Q tends to zero, because the plate temperatures arent fixed.”
The plate temperatures are fixed, because you have fixed them at 244, 244, 244.
You are obviously contradicting yourself, it’s like you are having an argument with yourself.
But the 400 watt input has to flow through the plates to satisfy First Law, so you have to have a temperature difference to drive that heat flow from the electric heater through the plates to space.
A load of waffle from Nate, Svante asks me the question that I already answered and explained in full at 11:22am, and blob tells me I am arguing temperatures are fixed, when I am not arguing that. In fact, temperatures being fixed would be the only reason Q would not go to zero!
I think they need reinforcements. They are struggling with only three against one. Maybe get Ball4 and bdgwx involved as well.
N: You offer NO examples of heat flow jumping discontinuously with an infinitesimal T-difference.
D: Yes Nate, because I am not arguing anything like that. Your whole spiel about the infinitesimal temperature difference driving 200 W heat flow etc is NOT what I am actually arguing. For what I am actually arguing, try reading my comments.
11:22 fantasy thoroughly rebutted already.
“As soon as there were any sort of ‘heat build up’ in the blue plate, resulting in even an ‘infinitesimal temperature difference’ between blue and green, that ‘excess’ flows through the green plates and out to space”
The excess you are talking about is 200 Joules input energy every second!
You now SEEM TO understand that 1LOT requires it to be removed.
No law of physics allows an ‘infinitesimal temperature difference’ to drive 200/m^2 W of heat flux through vacuum.
Then flip back to 0, when the infinitesimal Delta T goes back to 0 (why does it do that?)
As explained, that kind of discontinuity of heat flux is not found in nature. Thats why I call it fantasy.
Once again, you offer no evidence that it does!
The whole point of applying the RHTE, is to find out WHAT temperature difference is needed to drive the required 200 W of heat flow.
What other law is available?
Why do you resist using the RHTE, which so easily gives what is needed in this problem?
Thanks DREMT, I see your explanation now.
An infinitesimal temp diff opens up once every second and 400 J escapes from blue to green.
Now where is the physical formula that describes that?
Humpty DREMPTY,
You say
“blob tells me I am arguing temperatures are fixed, when I am not arguing that.”
You just argued that temperatures are fixed
“That is to say, it is zero between green at 244 K and blue at 244 K, and at zero again between blue at 244 K and the other green at 244 K.”
and both of those statements were made by you.
Are you a little confused?
Day drinking again?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-363517
There is no 200 W excess at 244 K…244 K…244 K. You are thinking of 244 K…290 K…244 K.
Nate,
‘Heat flow tends to zero between the plates
Nope, why should it do that? Just CUZ?
You need a valid physics reason for it to do so’
Uhh, it’s so disgusting to watch you invert reality.
Reality:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Heatequation_exampleB.gif
Your cult desires for heat flow to remain at y=1.
You have no physics reasons for it, yet you mock those that understand reality.
You are disgusting vermin.
Zoe
Do you know what these little things “”” mean when you put them around a sentence?
Nate was quoting Humpty DREMPTY.
I love how blob is never able to follow any discussion. He cant follow what Im saying, and he cant follow what others are saying about what I said! Poor old blob.
Humpty DREMPTY,
I quote you directly, how is that not following you?
OK, blob. Go back to sleep.
Another spicy ad-hom, red-herring sandwich delivery from clueless Zoe.
Sorry to tell you this Zoe, Grubhub stopped paying you months ago.
Your animation:
“Solution of a 1D heat partial differential equation. The temperature, u, is initially distributed over a one-dimensional, one-unit-long interval (x = [0,1]) with INSULATED ENDPOINTS.
IOW, irrelevant to the problem being discussed, that has heat flow IN and OUT of each end.
No INSULATED ENDPOINTS!
The blue plate has heat flow IN and OUT, and the green plate is its insulation.
Your cult half the time argues that insulation adds heat, and half the time argues that insulation keeps heat (which contradicts GHGs ability to add 33K).
Just for the record…once again, I am not arguing that an infinitesimal temperature difference drives anything other than an infinitesimal heat flow between the plates. I do love it though when people simply tell me what I’m saying…
‘an infinitesimal heat flow’ doesnt match what you said, nor does it satisfy the demands of 1LOT.
“As soon as there were any sort of ‘heat build up’ in the blue plate, resulting in even an ‘infinitesimal temperature difference’ between blue and green, that ‘excess’ flows through the green plates and out to space’
The ‘excess heat build up’ is not ‘infinitesimal’. It is a KNOWN QUANTITY, it is 400 J every second in the BLUE plate.
That is what we are given. You are not allowed to change that.
You are quite correctly saying it must flow ‘through the green plates and out to space’.
Now you need to follow your own logic to where it leads.
Will you?
Yes, it does match what I said, Nate. Because I am saying what I am saying, not what you are telling me I am saying! Why do I even need to explain that? I write my words. You do not write them for me. I never intended an infinitesimal temperature difference to imply anything other than an infinitesimal amount of heat flow.
I was talking about why heat cannot build up in the blue plate to take Q between the plates above zero. There could never be more than an infinitesimal “excess” since at every second, 400 joules is entering the system via the electrical supply and 400 joules are leaving via the green plates.
So where does your 400 W excess come from? You’re not getting 400 joules every second “excess” into the system to warm the blue plate unless there were either an additional 400 W suddenly entering the system (there isn’t), or if there were suddenly 400 W less leaving the system (also obviously false). At every second, 400 joules enters and 400 leaves.
That’s why Ball4 inadvertently admitted that your 244 K…290 K…244 K is what actually violates 1LoT.
How can this be so hard?
We agree you have 400 W into the blue plate and 400W leaving the green plates.
You understand it has to flow from blue to green, don’t you?
How does that happen when you calculated 0 W between them?
How can this be so hard? You have 400 joules coming into the system, and 400 joules leaving, each second. You want to claim there is a 400 W excess at the blue plate? Then you have to have a 400 W deficit somewhere else. At the green plates, basically. In other words, for the blue plate to warm, the green plates have to cool. Oh dear! Bit of a problem there…your 244 K…290 K…244 K solution has the green plates remaining at 244 K!
I look at the bigger picture, you guys try to focus attention just on the blue plate, neglecting to mention what would have to happen elsewhere in the system.
Your 244 K…290 K…244 K violates 1LoT.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
NOPE, not a violation of the first law, because
1- The whole system has 400 watts in and 400 watts out.
2- The blue plate has 400 watts in from the electrical heater and 200 watts from each green plate and 400 watts from each side to the green plates, so 800 in and 800 out.
3- Each green plate has 400 watts in from the blue plate and 200 watts out to each side, so 400 in and 400 out.
So no violation of the first law.
Unless you can describe the actual violation of the first law that you think is going down.
Again!?
Yeah, we keep repeating the same things to each other, someone’s right someone’s wrong.
We are not getting anywhere because you do not understand physics, heat transfer, the laws of thermodynamics or even what the hell you post.
Yes the 400 watts has to be transferred through the blue plate to the green plate to escape to space, there has to be a temperature difference to drive that.
If you could explain how to get heat transfer with out a temperature difference in a case where there is no phase change, I would like to hear it.
But it is not possible.
“Yes the 400 watts has to be transferred through the blue plate to the green plate to escape to space, there has to be a temperature difference to drive that.”
And yet, 400 watts is entering and 400 watts is leaving the system at 244 K…244 K…244 K, with no temperature difference.
Nope, with 244, 244, 244 there is no heat transfer from the blue plate to the green plate, hence no transfer to space.
What about that do you not understand?
dumbass
Yup. With 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W entering via the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W leaving to space, 200 W from each green plate. You are wrong, blob.
Precisely.
Again, the 400 J of HEAT entering the BLUE MUST be transferred to the GREEN, else it will simply stay in the BLUE plate and accumulate, and continuously heat it up.
These are simple words and simple logic. What do you disagree with, DREMT, and why?
“I never intended an infinitesimal temperature difference to imply anything other than an infinitesimal amount of heat flow.”
OK, OK, ok, fine.
My confusion came from the fact that an ‘infinitesimal’ heat flow seems to have no point.
If it cannot facilitate the 400 J of HEAT per second that is entering the BLUE plate, to MOVE through the vacuum to the GREEN plate, then it serves NO PURPOSE in this problem.
That leaves you still with NO explanation for the REQUIRED 400 W transfer.
Are we to believe it happens like this?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjC1DRqX4AE42F0.jpg
crossed msgs.
‘Precisely’ referring to Savnte’s quite reasonable question, which you continue to EVADE.
This is a heat transfer problem– everyone agrees it involves heat flows into and out of a system.
Yet without a good explanation, you insist there is NO heat flow THROUGH the system, between the separated parts of the system, which to us mere mortals, seems to defy both common sense, and physics.
What law or principle requires it to be 0? How do you know it should be 0? How can it be 0?
An unfortunate cross-post for Nate. How embarrassing for him.
And how embarrassing for you that you can’t say how 400 W flows from blue to green.
You don’t understand that you need a heat flow of 400 W from blue to green, do you?
You don’t understand that when temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects goes to zero, do you?
I do understand that.
1) We agree that the 400 W input to blue has to be output by green.
2) Initially there is 0 W between blue and green, as you correctly calculated.
3) That means blue has no output and must warm.
4) Green has no input and must cool.
5) This must continue until the RHTE gives you 400 W from blue to green.
“I do understand that.”
Good, then we are in agreement. Thus the rest of your comment is rendered null and void.
Unless you want to change your mind, and suddenly go back on yourself to state that you disagree that when temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects goes to zero?
Then I don’t understand.
I thought you meant two objects sitting next to each other with no difference in input.
In your example the blue plate has input like a radiator in your room. How can that radiator have the same temperature as the room?
Please go back and explain where I went wrong in 1) to 5).
No, I think I’ll just sit and watch you argue with yourself, without you even realizing it! Most amusing.
Whenever you have a response to my 9:46am comment below, just let me know.
Aha, yes there will be an initial temperature drop in the green plate (and a rise in the blue).
The blue plate temperature will continue to rise until its 400 W input is matched by a 2×200 W output to green.
Only a temperature difference can create this heat flow from blue to green.
Aha, the old classic “temperature drop then temperature rise” shuffle.
Well, I can’t argue with stuff you just make up. So I’ll just say:
“OK, Svante”.
OK, can you teach me where I went wrong in the 1) to 5) then?
Svante, you agree that with the plates at 244 K…244 K…244 K…there is 400 W going in to the system, and 400 W coming out, right?
Yes, except the middle number will drive 0 W from blue to green, as you already calculated.
“Yes.”
Good. Glad to see you haven’t changed your mind.
So, as you agree that there is 400 W coming in, and 400 W coming out…you must agree that there is 400 W flowing through the system. Right!?
I agree, when temperatures have stabilized.
But you computed 0 W between the blue and green, how does that work?
That makes no sense, Svante. How can you agree that at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 joules every second entering the system, and 400 joules every second leaving the system, unless you agree there is 400 W passing through the system?
You don’t like the way I explain it.
You don’t like the way JD explains it.
Yet you agree that it happens.
So I guess the obvious question is…how do you explain it?
And how embarrassing for Svante that he cant explain how there is a 400 W excess at the blue plate without there being a 400 W deficit at the green, resulting in a temperature drop that his solution does not allow.
Nope, still flailing trying to distract from a failure to answer very simple question, DREMT.
Recall, you used to be concerned with this question of how the 400 W got transferred.
And your answer was ‘the magical mystery energy’.
What happened to that?
Oh, I remember, you said no energy transfers when temps equal.
Then you said there is an infinitesimal delta T. But that only gets you an infinitesimal energy flow.
So here we are. Again with no answer.
Are we done?
My arguments have not changed, Nate. So, if you are not going to correctly represent them, then yes, we’re done.
We were done when Svante demanded I solve the “3-plate” problem, which I did, and then when I asked him to return the favor, he failed to do so. As did you all.
We were done when I asked blob how many arrows were in his “conduction” diagram, and he failed to answer.
We were done when blob falsely claimed that I was saying the plate temperatures were fixed, when I was not, and am not.
We were done when you twisted my words to try to suggest I was claiming an infinitesimal temperature difference would drive a 200 W or 400 W heat flow, when I was not, and when the heat flow between the plates at 244 K…244 K…244 K is zero, and not 200 W or 400 W.
And we were done when you kept fixating on a 400 W “excess” at the blue plate, without acknowledging the 400 W deficit that must necessarily exist at the green plates, resulting in s drop in temperature that your 244 K…290 K…244 K solution does not allow.
So yeah…we’re done.
But all three of you are going to carry on anyway, so why pretend any different!?
As always DREMT finds himself in a pickle and lashes out.
As always DREMT departs, when he has no answers.
As always he fails to understand that no answers means he’s lost the argument, for the 47th time.
He will return, calling it a ‘win’.
Guaranteed.
How am I in a pickle, and where am I lashing out?
Who said I’m departing? Why don’t any of you have to answer questions or respond to points raised?
Why are you just declaring I’ve lost the argument?
What do you mean return? When did I leave?
Humpty DREMPTY,
Now you are just a liar
“We were done when blob falsely claimed that I was saying the plate temperatures were fixed, when I was not, and am not.”
oh but yes you are repeatedly stating the temperatures are fixed.
“I was not, and when the heat flow between the plates at 244 K244 K244 K is zero,”
You have never shown how you arrived at the 244, 244, 244 solution.
You are in pants on fire territory.
Heat flow being zero does not mean temperatures are fixed, blob. I showed how I arrived at the 244 K…244 K…244 K solution.
No You did not show any calculation that produced the 244, 244, 244 solution, just did some hand-waving and declaring that you have solved the problem.
Care to show it again, or go ahead link to where you didn’t solve the problem.
Dumbass
blob continues to embarrass himself.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
You continue to embarrass yourself by refusing to show how you arrived at the 244, 244, 244 solution.
Care to run it by me one more time?
We have given you many reasons why it’s wrong, yet you refuse to respond to those criticisms.
#2
blob continues to embarrass himself.
Humpty DREMPTY,
This is another lie
“We were done when I asked blob how many arrows were in his conduction diagram, and he failed to answer.”
I have explained that there are 6, two out from the blue plate each side, 400 each, and 2 out of the green plates, one each side for 4, so that totals to 6.
Which is not the 8 from JD’s incorrect diagram, nor the 4 from your explanation.
Liar Liar pants on fire!
No, you did not answer, unless you have gone back and done so recently. 400 W out each side from the blue plate, in the conduction diagram, eh? So you are saying that pressed together, the plates are at 244 K…290 K…244 K? Interesting.
No Dumbass HUMPTY DREMPTY
With the plates pressed together it’s 244, 244, 244 same as just one blue plate.
Again dumbass
with the plates apart you need the center blue plate at a higher temperature than the green plate in order to drive the heat transfer.
blob got caught out. What did he think I meant by “conduction diagram”!? So instead of admit he was wrong, he swaps from “liar” to “dumbass”. Yet still expects to be taken seriously. Poor old blob.
Yeah dumbass HUMPTY DREMPTY
What did you mean by the conduction diagram?
Somethign you never linked to maybe?
I only know of the 8 arrow diagram JD made up.
So you think in your deluded mind that you have caught me out in something.
You are hopelessly deluded.
I mean what I explained to you in this comment, as you know:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-363053
DLUMBASS HLUMPTY DRLEMPTY,
You failed to explain anything in that post.
Nice try to confuse
“I said you can draw it with the plates separated, just so you have room to put in the arrows for the energy flows, but well know that its meant to represent the situation with the plates pressed together”
Why would anyone draw the plates together diagram with the plates apart, that would be stupid.
There is no confusion about the plates together problem, all agree the temps would be 244, 244, 244.
It’s when you pull them apart that you lose your marbles.
So again, how do you get the solution with the three plates apart?
How do you get 244, 244, 244 in that situation?
“Why would anyone draw the plates together diagram with the plates apart, that would be stupid.”
So you can fit in the arrows for the energy flows, blob. And so it is easy for people to mentally compare it to the diagrams they might have already seen, for the situation where the plates are actually separated. So they can understand the obvious point I’m making, that you are avoiding at all costs, and have been since I first brought it up
Humpty DREMPTY,
If they are the same temperature then they are in thermodynamic equilibrium and there is no heat flow.
So there would be no arrows, so the heat can’t flow out of the system, just a 400 watt heater heating the blue plate.
That’s in your solution to the 3 plate problem.
Is wrong.
“If they are the same temperature then they are in thermodynamic equilibrium and there is no heat flow.”
Thank you for directly contradicting Nate, who argued that with the plates pressed together, at the same temperature, there is 400 W heat flow between the plates:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359912
The mistakes keep piling up, as I give you guys all the rope you need…
Nope,
That’s for the plates apart problem, not the plates together problem, in which a miniscule temperature difference is all that is needed for the heat to flow through and out the green plates.
Which is what I believe Nate has said.
Remember, you are the one who has set the temperature at 244, 244, 244 instead of solving for the temperature, which is what should be done as it is an unknown at the start of the 3 plate problem.
…to hang yourselves.
blob, saying that plates either together, or apart, are at thermodynamic equilibrium, scuppers Nates argument.
Not to mention your own.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
When I am claiming thermodynamic equilibrium, I am following your argument that the plates are at 244, 244, 244, so if anything is scuppered, it’s your argument that the 244, 244, 244 temperatures are correct.
You see, my claim of thermodynamic equilibrium is what follows directly from your claim of 244, 244, 244.
So following that argument if you can, leads to a contradiction, which means your theory of 244, 244, 244 is false.
Sorry if you can’t follow that.
OK blob. You will literally just say anything. Understood.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
So you are not following where the 244, 244, 244 means thermal equilibrium, means no heat transfer means your solution is wrong.
Got it, you can’t follow the logic, so you bail on responding.
Thermal equilibrium = not thermal equilibrium.
Understood.
HUMPTY DREMPTY,
Right, so you arrive at a contradiction, so your initial assumption that the temperatures are 244, 244, 244 is wrong.
Now you see it right?
So try to solve the problem again, see if you can get a better answer than assuming the temperatures are 244, 244, 244.
I didn’t make any initial assumption that the temperatures are 244 K…244 K…244 K. I made an assumption that heat flow would tend to zero. Which is a pretty safe assumption, really.
You’re the one contradicting yourself by saying thermodynamic equilibrium isn’t thermodynamic equilibrium.
HUMOTY DREMPTY,
You are not understanding how I arrived at the position of contradicting myself, and why I did that. It was to prove that the 244, 244, 244 position is false. Now in science we can never prove something is true, but we can prove something is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
You say
“I didnt make any initial assumption that the temperatures are 244 K244 K244 K.”
But you never have revealed how you arrived at 244, 244, 244 so unless you do so, I assume it is an assumption, you can prove me wrong by showing how you arrived at 244, 244, 244 but I’ll bet you can’t
You also say
“I made an assumption that heat flow would tend to zero. Which is a pretty safe assumption, really.”
Pretty bad assumption really, as there is a 400 heat source, now if you unplug it, it may go to zero.
Lastly you say
“Youre the one contradicting yourself by saying thermodynamic equilibrium isnt thermodynamic equilibrium.”
Proof by contradiction, you should study it.
Yes, you have proved that you have contradicted yourself, and that you are unable to correctly either follow (if not deliberate) or represent (if deliberate) my argument. Well done.
By the way, I have moved this discussion to here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-365475
As I am getting bored having to keep coming back to this dead thread. You’re welcome to be either slow on the uptake/dishonest (delete as appropriate) over there, instead.
Say anything else here and I’ll probably just “OK, blob” it.
Up to you.
‘Who said Im departing? Why dont any of you have to answer questions or respond to points raised?’
DREMT, youve been asked these questions a number of times by now:
How does the 400 W transfer from Blue to Green, as required by 1LOT.
Why must Q=0?
What law of physics requires Q = 0?
But you now demand answers from us?
Nope. Why should we answer any of your questions when you refuse, repeatedly, to answer ours?
If you cannot answer these very basic questions, then you are admitting that you cannot support your case.
Another related question you refused to answer.
“Again, the 400 J of HEAT entering the BLUE MUST be transferred to the GREEN, else it will simply stay in the BLUE plate and accumulate, and continuously heat it up.
These are simple words and simple logic. What do you disagree with, DREMT, and why?”
“Nope. Why should we answer any of your questions when you refuse, repeatedly, to answer ours?”
Why should I re-answer your questions when you refuse, repeatedly, to answer mine? I have given you a response to the main question you keep asking. You have no response to that response.
Im sure weve shown you the 3 plate soln before.
Here it is again.
Each plate’s SB emission (or arrow in diagram) is called E, ie Eb, Eg.
1LOT for Blue plate:
1. 400 -2Eb +2Eg = 0
1LOT for each Green plate:
2. Eb -2Eg = 0
Algebra to SOLVE: Sum the 2 egns
400 -Eb = 0
Eb = 400W
From eq 2. Eg = 200W
Use SB law Tb = 290 K, Tg = 244 K
Note Net Q (BG) is 200 W
RHTE satisfied
sigma (290^4-244^4) = 200.05 W/m^2
So Ive answered one of yours.
What do you disagree with in this statement, and why?
“The 400 J of HEAT entering the BLUE MUST be transferred to the GREEN, else it will simply stay in the BLUE plate and accumulate, and continuously heat it up.”
AFAIK youve NEVER answered why Q MUST BE 0, according to laws of physics.
So yes, by assuming heat flow must be 400 W between the plates (200 W between blue and one of the green plates and 200 W between the blue plate and the other green plate), you arrive at the solution you want. With the blue plate having to be warmer than the green plates.
Only one problem. Unless the blue plate is actually fixed at 290 K, and the green plates fixed at 244 K, there is no reason for heat flow to between the plates to remain at that amount.
‘Only one problem. Unless the blue plate is actually fixed at 290 K, and the green plates fixed at 244 K, there is no reason for heat flow to between the plates to remain at that amount.’
Nope. Your desire to be confused has no limits, DREMT.
The temperatures remain at those values when it reaches a steady state.
Why is that a problem for OUR temperatures but not for YOUR temperatures?
Where did I did fix the heat flow between the plates?
I SOLVED for it.
As you can see, all I did was use the GIVEN 400 W input, and applied laws of physics, 1LOT, SB, and symmetry of the GREEN plates of course.
Now Ive answered a question of yours.
Answer mine.
‘ there is no reason for heat flow to between the plates to remain at that amount.’
Of course there is if you would simply allow common sense to guide you.
As explained so many times, 400 W of heat flows in, THROUGH, and out of the plates.
Your desire for it to cease flowing at the gap between the plates, then resume flowing on the other side of the gap, has no logical or physics or commons sense basis.
“Nope. Your desire to be confused has no limits, DREMT.
The temperatures remain at those values when it reaches a steady state.”
Nope. Your desire to be confused has no limits, Nate. You use the 400 W input, but falsely claim that this means there must be 400 W heat (not energy) flow between the plates at steady state.
Only if the temperatures were fixed would you end up with your 400 W heat flow at steady state. Just like with the Holman text problem from earlier, where plate temperatures were fixed at 1000 C for one plate, and 500 C for the other:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-360221
Even your steady state conduction example from way, way upthread has temperatures fixed both inside and outside of the wall.
‘Only if the temperatures were fixed would you end up with your 400 W heat flow at steady state. Just like with the Holman text problem from earlier, where plate temperatures were fixed at 1000 C for one plate, and 500 C for the other’
Oh I see, you see an example where fixed temps leads to fixed heat flow, so you deduce that must be the ONLY way for heat to flow at a steady rate??
Nope. We have steady heat flow INTO the BLUE plate of 400 W WITHOUT fixed temperatures! We have steady heat flow OUT of the GREEN plate to space, again WITHOUT FIXED TEMPERATURE!
Why are those heat flows ok without fixed temps, but the other one not ok???
Why do you believe heat must ‘cease flowing at the gap between the plates, then resume flowing on the other side of the gap’ ?
Why do you desperately insist on notions with no logical or physics basis?
‘You use the 400 W input, but falsely claim that this means there must be 400 W heat (not energy) flow between the plates at steady state’
No. Where did I ‘falsely claim’ that heat flow MUST BE something?
I simply solved the problem, making no assumptions about what the heat flow MUST BE, as you do when you ‘solve’ it.
Why is the heat flow I found FALSE? What is your logical or physics-based REASON?
As anyone can plainly see, it satisfies 1LOT, SB, and RHTE, because that’s how it was FOUND.
If you cannot backup your claims with a REASON, what is the point?
Nate’s at the point that he now even denies that he solves the problem based on heat flow between the plates being 400 W! I never expect him to represent my arguments correctly, but I guess if he can’t even be honest about what he’s arguing there’s really not much point talking to him.
‘Nates at the point that he now even denies that he solves the problem based on heat flow between the plates being 400 W!’
So tied in knots with no answers, so desperate, all you can do is straight up lie and obfuscate.
For the 3rd time, where did I do that?
For the 17 th time, why MUST Q = 0?
For the 47th time, how does the 400 W transfer from B to G to satisfy 1LOT?
Go talk to a priest, a psychic or an astrologer. Come back when you find answers.
“For the 3rd time, where did I do that?”
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359905
Would you like to remind everyone what position you were defending during that “discussion”, Nate?
Uhgggh, old posts taken completely out of context. Puleez!
You were referring to what I was saying in the CURRENT thread, DREMT, when you said I:
“falsely claim that this means there must be 400 W heat (not energy) flow between the plates at steady state
You were referring to my SOLUTION to the problem, which you asked for.
In my SOLUTION to the problem, I made no assumption about what the heat flow between the plates MUST BE.
So your statement is FALSE.
In contrast, in your ‘solution’, you specifically ASSUME Q = 0. Yet despite many queries from us, you can offer NO REASON for this.
Your ASSUMPTION has no logical or rational basis. And even you can’t come up with a reason!
Therefore, there is no other way to describe it, it’s BS.
Nate is completely shameless, as usual.
He simply tells me what I was referring to.
He describes comments under this article, on the exact same subject, as “old posts taken completely out of context”.
Then he tells me my “statement”, my description of what he was arguing, was “FALSE”, when it is clearly “TRUE”, as anyone can see by reading through the discussion linked to. You have spent, what, sometimes even days at a time, on that sub-thread and others, arguing that with the plates pressed together, at the same temperature, there is 400 W heat flow between them, so that when the plates are separated, there must still be that amount of heat flow, now via radiation.
So yes, you have “solved” the problem the exact way I described, and in fact you even went to great lengths to try to tell me that this was perfectly normal, that starting with your 400 W heat flow between the plates was just a “boundary condition”, and working back from there was the done thing! You did various calculations “solving” the problem that way for both conductive and radiative scenarios.
Then down here you expect me just to forget all about that, and accept you are solving it this way, and that this way is the right way to do it, all along!
No apology for this statement that was proven false:
“So tied in knots with no answers, so desperate, all you can do is straight up lie and obfuscate.”
This is why people say the things they do about you, Nate.
DREMT,
Now you’re just spinning a web of lies, because you are STUCK on the wrong side of the facts.
I have said 400 W of heat flow in steady state between the blue and green plates. Because that is the a FACT that came from SOLVING it.
When YOU asked for the solution, I did it without ASSUMING that result!
CAN you read?
For the 4th time, where in my solution did I assume Q (BG)?
”
perfectly normal, that starting with your 400 W heat flow between the plates was just a ‘boundary condition'”
Ugghhh
No, dimwit-troll-liar, never said that.
The BC is the 400 W INPUT to the Blue, which is all I have ever said.
People can read what you said, Nate. But please do continue disgracing yourself. This is all great, linkable material. Thank you.
”
People can read what you said, Nate.”
Yep, and obviously you wernt able to find me saying what you claimed, liar.
After all the smoke screens you keep posting, we are still left the basic issue.
You desperately want Q = 0.
Some blog idiot like JP told you that. But you still cannot find a REASON for it.
“As always Nate finds himself in a pickle and lashes out.”
Your pickle situation just worsened:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-364529
You could almost feel sorry for them…almost.
Sure, if you are a LIAR-DIMWIT-TROLL, and you IGNORE what people actually write..
Bob ” a miniscule temperature difference is all that is needed for the heat to flow through and out the green plates.
Which is what I believe Nate has said.”
..and substitute your own fantasies in your head.
Look DREMT, you want to make the argument ALL about who said what and when and why..
when the REAL ARGUMENT is about the facts, and about the fact that you cannot backup your ideas with facts.
Q = 400 W IN, OUT, and THROUGH the middle of the system, is common sense.
Q = 400 W IN, OUT, but Q = 0 THROUGH the middle fails common sense and physics.
Your requirement that Q = 0 is simple a declaration, with NO REASON ever given.
NO REASONS means you have no argument.
Yet you desperately want to keep arguing.
If you can’t own up to your own words, Nate, and the contradictions between what the two of you have said (let alone the internal contradictions in your own arguments), then that’s your credibility down the drain. Not my problem.
blob saying that with the plates apart (whilst at 244 K…244 K…244 K) they are at “thermodynamic equilibrium”, contradicts your previous argument, where you were saying that when you separated the plates, there would be a tiny temperature difference between them:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-360184
And in fact, if blob was implying that the plates are not at thermodynamic equilibrium when pressed together, then he’s contradicting himself from earlier, where he said:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-359673
“1 is wrong, it is no longer at equilibrium once you have moved the green plates apart from the blue plate, you have to wait until it returns to steady state.”
The thing is, Nate, you people aren’t going to be honest enough, and don’t have the integrity, to admit that you are wrong. So that’s why I have to keep a note of all these occasions where you guys slip up, and contradict each other, and point out that if I give you enough rope, eventually you will hang yourselves. And you have done. As Ball4 did before.
You can keep lashing out at me all you like. As far as I’m concerned, it would be easier for you to prove me wrong about heat flow going to zero than it would be for me to prove it right. People are going to have noticed that in all this time, you haven’t been able to prove me wrong. So again: that’s your problem.
“If you cant own up to your own words, Nate, and the contradictions between what the two of you have said (let alone the internal contradictions in your own arguments), then thats your credibility down the drain. Not my problem.”
Again distracting from YOUR PROBLEMS by trying to make the argument all about who said what and when and why.
Again lying and distorting and trolling, DREMT.
Again YOUR PROBLEM is that:
You cannot support your claims with FACTS and real science.
You have NO answers, and refuse to answer despite being asked 17 times.
Therefore your credibility is zero, and your arguments are just HOT AIR!
“Again lying and distorting and trolling, DREMT.”
Wrong, and frankly boring, Nate.
Prove me wrong, if you can.
Easy, we showed you that your ideas are not consistent with a known law of physics, for the BLUE PLATE, 1LOT.
You cannot refute this, you simply deny that its a problem. You say (sometimes) that there is energy flow that is NOT HEAT. Or you ignore the problem.
I asked you questions, about where in physics your ideas come from.
-Why MUST Q = 0?
-What energy that is NOT HEAT is flowing between the plates?
And you have NO ANSWERS. You refuse to answer.
Therefore these ideas are simply made up, by you or some other blog idiot.
They are proven wrong.
OK, so you are satisfied that I am making it up.
Discussion over then, right?
I mean, I said this:
“As far as I’m concerned, it would be easier for you to prove me wrong about heat flow going to zero than it would be for me to prove it right. People are going to have noticed that in all this time, you haven’t been able to prove me wrong.”
And you are basically saying…it’s on me to prove it’s right.
So if you’re satisfied I’m making it up, and you’re not going to prove it wrong, then the discussion is over.
Yes? Or do we need to keep responding to each other, forever?
See below.
Anyone can make up and declare anything they want on this blog, as you have done here with your Q = 0 nonsense. Then USE IT as if it is an established fact to argue something else.
Thats called argument by assertion. Not a valid argument.
You have NOT established this as FACT. Then it is just an opinion, nonsense, not a fact.
Your assertion has been challenged, with actual FACTS like 1LOT, basic logic, common sense, and many examples.
So…you’re satisfied that I’m making it up then.
OK then…so…no need for you to respond.
Yeah dumbass HUMPTY DREMPTY
What did you mean by the conduction diagram?
Somethign you never linked to maybe?
I only know of the 8 arrow diagram JD made up.
So you think in your deluded mind that you have caught me out in something.
You are hopelessly deluded.
I mean what I explained to you in this comment, as you know:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-363053
HLUMPTY DRLEMPTY.
If that’s what you mean by an explanation or how you solved the problem, it leaves a lot to be desired.
How about showing how you solved the 3 plate problem?
You haven’t done that yet.
No, it’s not what I mean by how I solved the problem, blob. Are you hoping that people won’t click on the link or something?
It’s a question, to you. Why don’t you answer it?
HLUMPTY DRLEMPTY,
I already answered your question more than twice.
My diagram would have 6 arrows, two from the blue plate one in each direction and 4 from the green plates one in each direction.
I have answered your question how about you answer mine.
How did you arrive at the 244, 244, 244 solution?
Do you understand that it violates two or more laws of physics?
So for the conduction diagram, you would have six arrows, as described. Six arrows, with plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
Interesting. Yes, you have to include the two arrows for the back-conduction, to make it up to six. But, you could run into a problem…since by having the two arrows for the back-conduction, people could argue that there is some sort of build up of heat at the blue plate, eventually resulting in the blue plate temperature being 290 K. And if you were to add two more arrows, reflecting back from the blue plate, to show that back-conduction can’t actually heat the blue plate, you run into even more problems, with people arguing that the blue plates can’t reflect, etc.
Tricky. But you’ve boldly gone for six. Good for you.
Dumbass HLUMPTY DRLEMPTY,
There is no diagram for the plates pressed together, the 6 arrows are for the plates apart problem.
The plates together problem is just like the one plate problem 400 watts heat in, and 200 watts out to each side, at the prescribed temperature of 244.
Remember you clowns set the temperature at 244.
Or should I say fixed the temperature at 244.
Back conduction, you make me laugh.
People who click on your links see what an idiot you are.
The people who click on the link will see this:
“Hey, blob, remember when I asked you to produce a diagram for the plates pressed together, at 244 K…244 K…244 K? You know…I said you can draw it with the plates separated, just so you have room to put in the arrows for the energy flows, but we’ll know that it’s meant to represent the situation with the plates pressed together. Remember how I said to make sure you included the arrows for back-conduction?
How did it go with that? Been a long time, so you should have worked it out by now.
Let’s see the diagram. I wonder how many arrows yours has?”
Then they will wonder why you have:
1) Repeatedly claimed that you have answered the question about how many arrows it would have, when you now admit you were not answering that question but were answering one about the plates separated, which was a question I never asked you.
2) Called me a liar when I said “We were done when I asked blob how many arrows were in his conduction diagram, and he failed to answer”…even though you did fail to answer, and continue to do so.
3) Continued to talk to me like you are a frustrated child.
So I’m guessing you are going for four arrows. Back-conduction does not exist, then?
HUMPTY DRLEMPTY,
Actually, no I do not remember when you asked me for a diagram for the plates pressed together, I don’t care to be you paint provider.
Though I have explained that there would be just two for that. I am considering the plates pressed together as one plate.
Yeah, I don’t think back conduction is a measurable thing, heat always flows from hot to cold, remember that?
Well I will start talking to you like a child as you are acting like a spoiled child who doesn’t understand his homework and can’t understand why he can’t have a lollipop.
Or since I believe you are an adult, all evidence to the contrary, if you are not willing to answer my questions when you I answer yours, then you are just an asshole. Or should I say alsshole.
You’re not talking to me like I’m a child, blob. You are talking to me like you are a frustrated child. Your comments come across terribly.
So anyway…back-conduction is not real, or not “measurable”, and can’t heat. So there are just the four arrows in your diagram (two from the blue plate to the green plates, and then two from the green plates out to space). Sorry blob, “two arrows” aren’t an option given how I set up the diagram.
According to blob: Back-conduction is not real, or not “measurable’, can’t heat; back-radiation real, measurable, and can heat.
Sorry, I just want to be sure I’m getting your double-standards correct, for the permanent internet record. Thank you for your co-operation, you have made yourself look absolutely dreadful here. Great work, please do continue indefinitely.
Humpty DREMPTY,
Yes it is frustrating dealing with someone who doesn’t understand the science, says there is no greenhouse effect, misunderstands the laws of thermodynamics and started the name-calling.
And yes, this is acceptable and not a double standard
“Back-conduction is not real, or not measurable, cant heat; back-radiation real, measurable, and can heat.”
Because they are two different things, conduction and radiation, something you apparently don’t understand.
Understand some science or continue to be an asshole on the internet for all to read.
So I ask you again, how did you arrive at the 244, 244, 244 solution to the 3 plate problem.
No answer means you are admitting that you pulled it out of your asshole, asshole.
Great stuff, blob. Please continue.
(Anybody can read that I have already gone to considerable lengths to defend my position, and that all your requests for me to repeat myself are just you, trolling).
No you didn’t defend your position, anyway, anyone with a little training in heat transfer knows your position is wrong, and anyone reading your posts knows you are an asshat.
244, 244, 244 means the three plates are at thermodynamic equilibrium, which means no heat transfer.
That means the 400 watts input to the plates, the separated ones in this case, can not transfer out to space.
What part of that do you not understand?
“244, 244, 244 means the three plates are at thermodynamic equilibrium”
Your concession is accepted, blob.
P.S: I’ll let you into a little secret…at 244 K, the green plates are emitting the required 400 W to space. You can screw up your little face in impotent fury and stamp your little feet In childlike rage, but those green plates will just keep on emitting. Sorry, blob.
Bob,
DREMT is hopelessly delusional, stuck down a deep rabbit hole with no way out.
He loops and loops apparently not realizing that he is using CIRCULAR LOGIC over and over again.
244^3 is his solution, and normaly DOES mean equilibrium. And equilibrium does mean Q = 0.
But when we go back and look at how he SOLVED the problem, he ASSUMED Q = 0, with NO REASON.
So with that magical ASSUMPTION, he finds 244^3, and EQUILIBRIUM which leads to Q = 0!
CIRCULAR LOGIC.
But he has no concern that Qin = Qout is not equal to 0.
Which is NOT consistent with EQUILIBRIUM.
He has no concern that Q = 0 violates 1LOT.
Qin = 400 W
Qout = 400 W
Try again.
Which is NOT consistent with EQUILIBRIUM.
And again you fail to get yourself out of your CIRCULAR argument.
Its not a circular argument, Nate, because you cant seem to find any evidence that heat flow between objects does not tend to zero!
‘because you cant seem to find any evidence that heat flow between objects does not tend to zero!’
On the contrary, we already showed you evidence that heat flow between the plates does not violate 1LOT, SB, RHTE, as the solution clearly shows.
You are claiming Q = 0 MUST BE TRUE. Then proceeding to use it to ‘solve’ the problem.
It is incumbent on you to show that this idea is a FACT, from some source, and not simply MADE UP.
It violates 1LOT, as we have demonstrated already.
So…you can’t prove heat flow between objects doesn’t tend to zero.
HUMPTY DREMPTY.
You say
“P.S: Ill let you into a little secretat 244 K, the green plates are emitting the required 400 W to space. You can screw up your little face in impotent fury and stamp your little feet In childlike rage, but those green plates will just keep on emitting. Sorry, blob.”
I’ll just focus on this
“green plates will just keep on emitting”
No they won’t, because the green plates are each emitting 400 watts, 200 to space and 200 to the blue plate, and only receiving 200 watts from the blue plate, so they will cool, emitting less and less.
Then the magic happens
“Then the magic happens”
You can say that again.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6503085690262216704
Very interesting thread. The only rational outcome that I see is : backradiation and GHE are dead. RIP.