The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2020 was +0.56 deg. C, unchanged from the December 2019 value of +0.56 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 25 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.07 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52 2018 02 +0.25 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.22 +0.35 2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76 2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.10 -0.14 +0.06 +1.02 +0.84 2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.02 +1.90 +0.14 -0.24 2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.10 +0.77 -0.41 2018 07 +0.30 +0.38 +0.23 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49 2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.11 +0.37 2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.23 +0.28 2018 10 +0.20 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43 2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.28 +0.46 -1.16 +0.68 +0.55 2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.15 +0.30 +0.24 +0.69 +1.20 2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15 2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.05 2019 03 +0.35 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.59 2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91 2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.40 -0.61 +0.98 +0.39 2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35 2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33 +0.87 2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.24 2019 09 +0.62 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57 2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.28 +0.31 -0.03 +0.99 +0.50 2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.38 2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94 2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.62 +0.73 +0.12 +0.66
The UAH LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2020 should be available in the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Coolest Arctic result since Jan. ’19
Anyone want to take bets on whether we will see that 13 month average creep above the previous record set in 2016 in the coming months? Now that would be hard to blame on a super El Nino right?
Dave,
Although your point is well taken, I’ll take your bet.
If I did the quick arithmetic correctly (ignoring differences in lengths of months), the high 13 month ave in 2016 is about 0.526. The average of the last 6 months is about 0.523, which is remarkably anamolous given the lack of a strong El Nino. The current 13 month mean is about 0.45.
With a fizzling weak El Nino, I think it is unlikely that the next 6 months will be warm enough to force the 13 month average over the 2016 level. Remember, there were three months in 2016 over 0.7 and one over 0.8 in that stretch. If the ENSO predictions are correct (a big “if” given the track record), 2020 will likely be cooler than 2019. But the current readings throw a huge error bar over all predictions for me.
I should note that with a few more readings above 0.5, the current 13 month average could surpass the 1998 high of about 0.46, which occurred during the largest El Nino “ever”. On the flip side, even a single monthly dip would derail that.
I think a more intriguing bet is whether Roy will release a version 7.0 UAH temperature in 2020 to “correct” the temperatures.
Finally, if you bother to compute running averages over 25 or 37 months, that “red line” takes out much of the wild El Nino spikes and shows how dramatic the warming is. It is not nearly as entertaining as Roy’s quickly abandoned cubic fit to the data, and I have often wondered if the 13 month window was chosen to make the “eye test” as ambiguous as possible.
Mike S.
Dr. ROYally disSPENCERing lies Version 7 will involve a linear fit across the whole data set, which will then have it’s slope removed and the fit itself set as the zero temperature point. Let’s see those dastardly climate doomers generate warming from that data set!!
insulting the person who created the site where you regularly live as a parasite. What kind of man are you? Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? Living alone with your cats must be dangerous for your mind, do you have sex with them?
Well said x. That is a totally brainless comment without the insults.
It’s interesting that there is this kind of camel double hump pattern which repeats throughout the record. It seems to repeat about every 7.2 years.
Looks like we are about to get the second hump of the latest cycle right now.
I guess it wasn’t worth mentioning that this was the warmest January in the UAH global record. OH, LOOK AT THE ARCTIC!!!
Equal warmest with January 2016.
barry, please stop trolling.
Well spotted, he’s always too skeptical, trying to downplay the risk again.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Something must be wrong with the measurements because everyone said that the cooling would start 2020.
No, that’s not correct. The Russian scientists said more than twenty years ago that cooling would start 2000, or maybe 2008, perhaps 2012. See, you don’t get it. It doesn’t matter whether cooling actually starts or not. It’s essential we keep saying it will soon start, not right now, but soon. The date is constantly revised and moved forward but the it’s the continuous discussion, year after year, that matters. That’s called the Russian method or socialist realism.
Not sure where did you see those Russian predictions, but the Western method of capitalist science is well documented in the Al Gore movies and it predicted the melting of the Arctic by 2008.
And Russia abolished socialism in 1989, so those predictions are maybe coming from Putin or primordial Russian mischief, but not socialist realism.
FWIW, the IPCC AR5 prediction for the timing of an ice-free Arctic summer is 2050 for RCP8.5 and 2080 for RCP4.5.
Colin,
In case you didn’t know, Al Gore is not a scientist.
Would you please link to a claim by the actual scientists of the IPCC that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2008.
“the Al Gore movies… predicted the melting of the Arctic by 2008.”
Transcript from An Inconvenient Truth (2006):
“Starting in 1970 there was a precipitous drop off in the amount and extent and thickness of the arctic ice cap. It has diminished by 40 percent in 40 years. There are two studies showing that in the next 50 or 70 years in summertime it will be completely gone…”
bdgwx, Des, barry, please stop trolling.
OK Doomer!
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2010/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2010/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2010
O.K., folks… The latest SSTs show that the northern hemisphere is dropping like a rock, HOWEVER, the southern hemisphere is taking up the slack. Interesting times. Maybe what is happening concurres with what Tom is saying at the top of the thread. ‘scuse me if i sound a little enebriated here. Carnival is in full swing down here in new orleans and st. ron of bacardi is ruling the day. (even in this state, i could still throw a yellow flag which is a lot more than i can say for the NFL) Happy Grardi Ma, i’ll see y’all in March, when lenten sobriety prevails…
Apparently a fall from +0.61 to +0.60 is “dropping like a rock”.
2019.83 0.787
2019.92 0.689
(midas, even drunk i can whoop ya… 😉)
Really??
You can “whoop me” by using December data to represent “the latest SSTs” ??
Midas, january won’t come out til later this month. How would you like me to phrase it to satisfy just you? (further more, should i really care about satisfying just you?)
You could always check the UAH NH ocean surface data.
Nov 0.59
Dec 0.53
Jan 0.56
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
barry, please stop trolling.
Seasonal drop
fonzie
It seems that you went now over to the Coolistas, huh?
Here you see what I see since 2010:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:2010/trend/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2010/trend/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2010/trend
fonzie
“Carnival is in full swing down here in new orleans…”
En lisant cela, je comprends mieux pourquoi vous nous écrivez de pareilles sottises.
Une bonne question!
fonzie
Oh sorry! I in fact wanted to show running means, explaining a lot more than lineaer estimates:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:2010/mean:12/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2010/mean:12/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2010/mean:12
Thank you, Bindi, i’m actually a warmist on steroids. (i’m one of those nutters that think CO2 warming took off in 1850)…
“CO2 warming”?
lol, go have another sip from your jug fozzie.
Bottle’s empty and there’s nothing left. (i’m dry ’til june; carnival was nice)…
When we saw temps rising again at the end of 2017, I remember people on this site were accusing NOAA of fudging the satellite data.
Krakatoa
“I remember people on this site were accusing NOAA of fudging the satellite data.”
You correctly remember. But one of them also accuses NOAA of fudging the surface data.
He is the most ignorant and therefore, not quite surprisingly, the most boastful commentator ‘evah’.
He also denies the existence of time dilation, of Moon’s rotation about its axis, and of lots of other similar ‘spurious’ things.
A really, really ‘good’ guy!
Bindidon says:
“He also denies the existence of time dilation …”
And time itself, since the second was originally defined based on Earth rotation!
A true denier would now ask what the first was based on.
Touche!
“A really, really ‘good’ guy!”
Good job you’re not obsessed with him.
For all of the past 5 years, the 13-month average has been beaten only by the peak of the super el ninos.
Des, please stop trolling.
Wormistas getting real cocky now
Instead of just complaining, how about putting a dent in the cockyness by posting the last time temps were this high more than 6 months after the end of an El Nino.
Who cares? No GPE, no GHE.
No worries.
Wouldn’t crack that champagne quite yet, there is some data taken from NCEP that hints at falling global temperature anomalies, and this data is taken 4 times a day and actually used to make real world forecasts which to me speaks volumes as to it’s reliability as compared say to GHCN data that has been homogenized by an algorithm that has been shown to produce different results for different runs and has never had a thorough vetting by multiple independent testers . . . but I digresss . . .
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/d3-gfs-grta-daily-2020-02-05.gif
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/d2-gfs-grta-daily-2020-02-05.gif
https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2020-02-05.gif
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
Jp66, Oh sure it fall again and rise again. Thats weather in action, not climate.
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
https://principia-scientific.org/postmas-climate-model-paper-discussion/
See? Nothing to worry about…
‘No worries’
Sure, no worries for the feckless and factless.
No worries for my cat or people in a coma either.
#2
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
https://principia-scientific.org/postmas-climate-model-paper-discussion/
See? Nothing to worry about
Oh a repeated post makes all the difference!
JSPP DREMT
#3
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
https://principia-scientific.org/postmas-climate-model-paper-discussion/
See? Nothing to worry about…
Dr Spencer:
Is UHI visible in the satellite series? If not where does the UHI heat from the surface go? If yes are there any estimations how much it is.
esalil
” Is UHI visible in the satellite series? ”
What about
– choosing an allegedly so terribly UHI-infested surface corner, e.g. Los Angeles,
– generating the UAH time series for the grid cell encompassing the town, and
– comparing it with a grid cell nearby, encompassing ‘the middle of nowhere’, e.g. the Grass Valley Wilderness Area, distant by 150 km?
Linear estimates, in C / decade:
– above LA: 0.15 +- 0.04
– above ‘nowhere’: 0.24 +- 0.04
https://tinyurl.com/tpcakyd
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I see the arctic is at +0.12. Coldest place on the globe, right where the cooling needs to start to change the earth’s albedo. I see they have a lot of snow this year too.
The tropics / ocean is still at +0.61. That is the 2nd highest number since the 2016 EL NINO ended. Note that was at -0.18 April of 2018. It is very likely the tropics are still in the 3.6 harmonic and will return to baseline. Blame the nino 4 region. What goes up fast comes down fast FYI. Do you guys really think the tropics won’t come down? Keep laughing it up the drop is coming.
As for past predictions of cooling… history shows that the AMO can not drop until after you get past the Jupiter / Saturn conjunction near earth’s aphelion. This conjunction location is reducing the summer melt in the arctic and allowing the ice to recover. Just getting past the Yoshimura style conjunction isn’t enough. Especially when you have the gleissberg cycle also peaking at the same time due to Uranus and Neptune being aligned with Jupiter’s perihelion location, amplifying it. The activity on the sun will finally be able to drop… including the rising min values.
And when the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
Wow, Svante! Das war ja echt Spitze, vraiment magnifique.
Ach ja, mein Wadenbeißermentalität.
Svante,
Please explain how it is that the sun has an 11 year cycle without mentioning the planets.
Also explain how it is that Milankovitch theory is completely mainstream regarding the albedo of the NH and interglacial periods. Please explain how that happens without the planets.
Now please explain why movement of the barycenter of the solar system caused by the planets would not effect our shorter period climate cycles.
The conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn affects the magnetic activity of the sun.
Do Milankovitch cycles contribute to climate forcing? Probable.
Do planetary orbits influence the solar cycles? Probable.
Does the solar barycenter wobble effect Earthly climate cycles? Highly unlikely.
bdgwx,
So you are saying there’s a chance? lol
You have argued with me respectfully over the last year and I appreciate it. If I could just direct you over to the AMO data with the conjunctions indicated. What ever the reason… the data matches. I also am mystified that a 0.1% change in TSI could do this, but as explained the longer dataset central England backs this theory up. Maybe that 0.1 is all it takes to bounce the earth back and forward between 2 modes. A regularly occurring tipping point. Perhaps there is another explanation.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2927219820630555&set=pcb.2927243367294867&type=3&theater
It’s a bit like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. Yes, there’s definitely a very slight chance we’ll survive. In the same way, there’s always a very slight chance that 150 years of successful physics will turn out to be wrong with respect to one of the most intensively studied questions of the period. That’s the nature of empirical knowledge.
The smart money is always with the consensus. In fact, there isn’t even science without consensus. Any fool can claim he has invented a perpetual-motion machine all on his own.
Scott R, solar effects do not explain observations. They are an order of magnitude too small, and are inconsistent with stratospheric cooling.
During the solar minimum, circulation of the Eastern Pacific is like during La Nia, and on the West Pacific as during the El Nio?
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadisst1_nino12a_2018:2021.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadisst1_nino4a_2018:2021.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
The beginning of the SSW in the central stratosphere over the North Pole.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/pole10_nh.gif
La Nina, which is waiting for the beginning of the new solar cycle, will cause sea ice to rise.
The situation will be similar to 2010.
Is this like the La Nina which you predicted for 2019?
Svante, Bindidon, bdgwx, Elliott Bignell, Des, please stop trolling.
The Eemian period had sea levels much higher than now indicating warming with low co2. I think Barry said the sun was warmer back when, defeating their argument it’s not the sun in charge now. With the sun in such a dormant state, pretty obvious we will have cooling. How long it takes is the question. Pretty obvious temps and co2 loosely linked if at all considering the pause while aco2 increased exponentially. The alarmists are all embarrassing themselves considering an ice age is geologically speaking right around the corner. Meanwhile, co2 not preventing one of the coldest winters in my lifetime here in Alaska (outside the city) as measured by firewood consumption. I suggest you alarmists get out of your magically heated homes and cities more often and consider the obvious implication that co2 is blocking as much heat as it absorbs and reradiates downward.
Darwin Wyatt
It is really strange to observe all these people in Norther America thinking that the Globe is cooling just because their little, tine piece of land is cooling down.
Moscow had in December 2019 10 C above average, and the entire Russia was much too warm.
Here in Germany, we experience for the third time in sequence a supermild winter with, for December and January, about 10 C over average as well.
And between these three supermild winters, there were – oh dear – two superwarm, much too dry summers…
There is something really morbid about this permanent americanocentrism.
Real winter will now begin in Europe. She is a little late. What will happen when spring is late?
ren
“Real winter will now begin in Europe.”
WHAT????
What’s that for on Coolista nonsense, ren?
Nowhere is there any sing for a beginning winter here in Europe.
Maybe in… Poland, hu?
A little??
Ren, have you ever noticed that whenever you have made a prediction about a 50-50 event, you have been right about 50% of the time?
Bindidon, Des, please stop trolling.
More evidence for #ClimateChange!
Tied for the warmest January in Dr. Roy’s data!
Like all main sequence stars the Sun’s luminosity increases with time. It was dimmer/cooler in the past. That’s actually the crux of the faint young sun problem. GHGs are an essential piece of the puzzle in solving the problem. It does not have much relevance to the Eemian though. At any rate GHGs are equally essential in explaining the magnitude of the glacial cycles including the Eemian interglacial.
Doh. Meant for Darwin Wyatt above.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Sorry guys but within the margin of error readings when your thumb on the scale agenda is so well known is meaningless to me. You all need to accept that a trace trace gas (aco2) isnt going to do squat. And if it is, its a long term problem and already being addressed by science and innovation. Your opinions mean little here when we can all see the recovery from the little ice age is the same as it ever was. Now expect it to get at least as warm as past warming or cooling periods and all within natural climate variability.
If a trace gas isn’t going to do squat then how did the 60-80 MtSO2 pulse from Tambora cause the year without a summer?
They don’t mention this fact on oil-sponsored denier sites. So deniers will be forced to rely on their famed “independent thinking”. In other words, they will have nothing.
bdgwx, Des, please stop trolling.
“You all need to accept that a trace gas (aco2) isnt going to do squat.”
And a trace amount of Cyanide wont hurt you…well maybe I’ll go with science on that one.
strawman. CO2 is not Cyanide.
Stands to reason:
https://tinyurl.com/vsb63o7
Mick
Why don’t you EXPLAIN why a trace gas can’t have a large effect instead of simply asserting it?
Learn what a strawman is. The reply was not caricaturing the position of the other, it was an analogy to expose the ludicrousness of the premise.
The ludicrous premise being that things in small quantities always have little to no effect.
Svante, Des, barry, please stop trolling.
Bidindon: how do you see UHI in anomalies? How much higher is the temperature in LA?
esalil
The inverse is the case: using anomalies, you see that UHI doesn’t play the allegedly major role so many people would like them to play.
But OK, I’ll generate tomorrow (it’s now 1:00 AM here) absolute UAH data for the two corners, using UAH’s climatology for the LT.
Berkeley Earth has a good write up of the UHI effect and how much it contributes to the global mean surface temperature.
https://tinyurl.com/szwhz8l
We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the
period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10C/century +/- 0.24 in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average.
Exactly, bdgwx!
So, your answer to my question is no. My second question was: where does the UHI heat go if it is not visible in the temperature series?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_(climate)
It is visible in some urban series like Tokyo for example. It’s just not visible in all urban series. And in some cases the effect is negative. I suspect UAH and other satellite datasets are less sensitive to the UHI effect due to the significant weighting above the planetary boundary layer.
A thermometer at an airport may not be at all affected by UHI, with enough space between it and the changing environment. Stations within a city can move, lowering or raising the baseline temp. Thermometers in large city parks may not be affected by UHI. A station that once stood in direct sunlight all day may later in its be partly shadowed due to nearby urban build-up, or because a small tree grew large enough to shade it.
There are many factors at work, but the simplest thing is to do what Bindidon has done and similar tests. Many different teams of researchers find that UHI contribution is negligible, non-existent, or even slightly negative. But some people seem desperate to have it explain away some, most or all of the warming.
Des, bdgwx, barry, please stop trolling.
Scott R
“I see the arctic is at +0.12. Coldest place on the globe, right where the cooling needs to start to change the earths albedo.”
Again this ridiculous nonsense.
Scott R, I just downloaded UAH’s grid data for the LT in 2020, and generated a time series of absolute data for the Arctic (60N-82.5N), by using their climatology. I’m sure you are clever enough to find it by your own.
*
Here is the top 25 of an ascending sort of the absolute monthly temperatures in the Arctic’s LT:
1989 1 -33.23
1982 1 -32.28
1993 1 -32.24
1990 1 -32.17
1994 1 -32.15
2000 1 -32.01
1999 1 -31.99
1984 1 -31.97
1986 1 -31.82
2008 1 -31.75
1997 1 -31.74
1983 1 -31.67
1988 1 -31.65
1979 1 -31.63
1991 1 -31.55
2019 1 -31.44
1987 1 -31.36
2001 1 -31.32
2006 1 -31.29
2012 1 -31.27
2015 1 -31.18
1998 1 -31.17
2007 1 -31.15
2020 1 -31.15
1992 1 -31.10
Do you see Jan 2020 in the list, with its horrifyingly low +0.12 C anomaly above the mean of 1981-2010? It is at position 24 of 41.
And you talk about “the Coldest place on the globe“.
When will you stop talking such incompetent nonsense, Scott R?
Isn’t one Robertson enough on this blog?
Is Robertson still around?
Midas
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/new-80-year-deep-ocean-temperature-dataset-compared-to-a-1d-climate-model/#comment-427448
That’s only one of many many…
Thankfully, yes.
Yeah – it must be comforting to no longer be the only science denier here.
Yes, that’s exactly right.
Thanks for finally admitting to be a denier of science.
Without MF, you were denying science all by yourself there for a while.
How is it possible to “deny science”?
Exactly! Finally you understand my bewilderment at your position.
What position?
Oh Noes.
I see the ascending sort contains only the Januaries! If we sort all months, January 2020 comes at position… 53.
I do not at all insist on warming, no interest.
But conversely, we are far far from any cooling, except for people like Scott R, ren, skeptical, Rob Mitchell, and a few others.
Bindidon,
You can not erase a 40 year warming trend overnight. The divergences we are seeing starting with the arctic sea ice recovering and NH snow mass is the crack in the ice of the whole global warming theory. That matches MY theory, not yours. Global temperature departures will SLOWLY roll over in the predictable 3.6 year pattern as the longer time frames take over and cause cooling. I’m sure AGW alarmists will continue to try to use the end of the mid century cooling to start their trends for years to come as they hang on to their theories until the bitter end.
Scott R
“The divergences we are seeing starting with the arctic sea ice recovering and NH snow mass is the crack in the ice of the whole global warming theory. ”
1. Where is your Arctic sea ice recovery, Scott R?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-429310
There is NO Arctic sea ice recovery at all, Scott R. You can’t give any proof of that.
2. What now concerns your ‘NH snow mass’, I explained you a few days ago that
– the NH snow surface is DECREASING, and that
– snow mass does by no means ncessarily presuppose that more snow felt down.
I’m sure you know that.
Feel free to continue talking about ‘the predictable 3.6 year pattern’. After all, this is a blog here, verybody can write what s/he wants.
But with such pretentious claims you will never impress me.
If you can not see that Arctic Sea Ice is unchanged for 13 years then you are wearing the biggest blinders known to man. 2019 full year cycle was EXACTLY the same as 2007 AND the current year is starting out higher than both of those. Yes, the last decade’s average was less than the previous decade, but given that we only have 4 decades of satellite data it is WAY too early to predict further decline and given the evidence of decadal variability in Arctic Sea Ice it is HIGHLY likely 2012 was the low for the next several decades.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JC002851
https://i.postimg.cc/XYG2jC4W/arctic-ice.jpg
Wanna bet that this Septembers minimum will be higher than 2007?
I’ll bet $100 to the charity of your choice.
Guten Morgen Bindi,
Jetzt verstehe ich. Sie sind Deutsch! Also, sie müssen immer richtig sein. (Hope I got that right haven’t used my German since college) (hey just noticed the auto correct even put in an umlaut cool . . .)
Anyways, was looking more at the Arctic Ice situation and came across some new info. Tres interesant.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/category/periodic-analysis/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/05/arctic-ice-natural-variability/
Looks like I can safely predict that there will be no further reductions in September Ice for decades to come. So I guess the IPCC will have to come up with some other bugaboo.
The trend of annual sea ice extent over the last 13 years is -0.4e6 km^2/decade. That is a -3.7%/decade.
The trend of just the September mean over the whole dataset is -0.80e6/decade. At that rate the Arctic will be consistently (not just the minimum) ice-free by around 2070. And that’s being generous. And the 2012 record of 3.56e6 will be consistently (not just one time) surpassed in less than 20 years. Assuming the trend holds of course. Considering the energy imbalance on the planet has been +0.6 W/m^2 or higher for decades, the Arctic has been warming consistently for decades and at 2x the rate of the global average, and because net radiative forcing is expected to rise in the future it would be foolish to think Arctic sea ice is going to make a miraculous recovery.
“If you can not see that Arctic Sea Ice is unchanged for 13 years then you are wearing the biggest blinders known to man.”
This is the same mistake the deniers made for years on end with the 1998 el Nino peak, just reflected around the x-axis. Your trend analysis sucks. Use the whole dataset, as one of our compadres often says, rather than just picking a couple of years that confirm what you want to believe.
P.S. Deine Mutter war ein Hamster und Dein Vater roch nach Holunderbeeren.
No change in 13 years???
https://tinyurl.com/uh2mfyn
The trend decrease is 48 000 sq/km per year for that period.
What is JP smoking?
Bindidon,
I looked at your data where you made the claim that the October departure was a new ice min. Problem is, you don’t measure the annual ice minimum during the polar night. (should be a no brainer) The absolute min has not been taken out since 2012 despite a super enso cycle.
I see the arctic sea ice index is at 13.65 right now. That’s the highest December reading since 2013. By the way, the absolute highest this index has ever been was way back in 1979 at the end of the mid century cooling. 16.34 right? The lowest was 3.57 back in 2012. Isn’t that roughly a 79% recovery? Anyways… the annual ice recovery dwarfs the maybe 15% decadal variability. Yeah… the polar winter does that sort of thing. No chance of the arctic ever being ice free.
bdgwx,
Have you ever considered study of a longer time frame to determine the trends and applying a sin wave as part of your equation? If you are only capturing 1/2 of a cycle, your linear trends could lead you to the wrong conclusion.
Best climate documentary ever
remarkably – the global warming propaganda is totally absent and CO2 only mentioned as a part of the life cycle
https://youtu.be/aU0GhTmZhrs
And here is the January 2020 Copernicus report which uses ERA.
https://tinyurl.com/usnvplg
0.77C warmer than the average January from 1981-2010, becoming by a narrow margin the warmest January in this data record
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
It’s half a degree C above the thirty year average and the alarmists are swarming the comments like a plague of cockroaches.
It will cool somewhat between 2021 and 2024… and then the anomaly will be so far below the CMIP projections that all these cockroaches will simply disappear.
Yeah, just like it was meant to cool after 2015, and before that 2010, and before that 2000. They just keep putting the start off 5 more years.
At least they’ve given up claiming 1998 was the peak now. Hey, what would a graph across time of the projected year for the imminent cooling look like? I’m betting y = n + 1, with units of years.
Midas, Elliott Bignell, please stop trolling.
Global trend over the last 25 months is definitely up, right? Or am I missing something?
Probably, but that is not climate. It is the fact that we have a positive trend over the entire 40 year record, and no sign of the oft-predicted reversal, that is the issue.
Mi-Des, please stop trolling.
So, remind me please, when is the imminent cooling period now projected? I keep losing track – sorry, dementia kicking in after too many afternoons bashing my head on the key-bored.
Maybe when the Arctic sea ice starts to expand again. The National Snow and Ice Data Center has observed a trend of the sea ice decline slowing down in the last 13-14 years while all of the global warming zealots were screaming the Arctic ice was going to melt away to oblivion. There is most certainly a pause in the sea ice decline. In fact, the current sea ice extent is higher now than the previous 10 years at this time.
So basically you are saying that sea ice (extent? area?) has declined unbroken for at least 13-14 years towards oblivion, plus that you are prone to wishful thinking. Not just extrapolating from a rate, but from a rate of change in a rate!
Well, you’d better hope that the rate of decline in sea-ice extent slows now and again, because the IPCC didn’t project its disappearance until the second half of the century. It all the ice were gone before then it would be, well, alarming.
Rob,
I’m not sure who the “global warming zealots” are that you speak of or what their prediction is but you can find the real prediction at IPCC AR5 WGI Technical Summary TS.17 pg. 92.
https://tinyurl.com/wh6mrsa
For < 1e6 km^2:
RCP2.6: never
RCP4.5: 2080
RCP6.0: 2065
RCP8.5: 2045
I will say that the IPCC has a poor track record with sea ice predictions though. In 2001 they predicted an annual mean < 10.5e6 would not be achieved until 2040. It actually happened in 2007. And at the current rate of decline their sea ice minimum prediction from AR5 might not do a whole lot better.
Yes, the rapid response of the Arctic seems to have caught most specialists by surprise.
Elliott Bignell, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Rob Mitchell
1. “There is most certainly a pause in the sea ice decline.”
Oh yes yes!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F6uQ_YOOyUOBsgSATxJiNYajB54PG9g3/view
And… the trends show ‘slower declining’ only because of the extreme drop in September 2012.
2. “In fact, the current sea ice extent is higher now than the previous 10 years at this time.”
Here are the (absolute) Arctic sea ice levels (extent & area) for the last Januaries, in Mkm2:
2010 1 13.74 12.04
2011 1 13.46 11.83
2012 1 13.73 12.21
2013 1 13.70 12.02
2014 1 13.65 12.10
2015 1 13.60 12.17
2016 1 13.46 11.80
2017 1 13.19 11.37
2018 1 13.08 11.70
2019 1 13.56 12.10
2020 1 13.65 12.11
You Coolism zealots are all the time telling the same nonsensical stuff.
*
Source:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
Where is Salvatore?
It would be good to know in advance when the next strong La Nina will begin and end. Then we would know when to expect the return of Salvatore, and also his subsequent re-departure.
Let me remind everyone that the trend value is only +0.32.
+0.56 is not “the level of the current climate”.
These high values cannot be sustained. There is certainly a good chance that we will go into the negatives again when we get the next strong La Nina. Again, those numbers will not represent “the climate”.
I think it’s safe to say that we will never again reach sustained values of -0.2, even during a strong La Nina, except with the aid of another Pinatubo. In fact, another Pinatubo would probably make -ve values the norm, though only for a couple of years. Again, that is not climate.
Mi-Des, please stop trolling.
Hey Bindidon, What makes you think you have the “absolute” data?
This is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center for 05 FEB –
2020 – 14,385,000 km^2
2019 – 14,077,000 km^2
2018 – 13,880,000 km^2
2017 – 13,871,000 km^2
2016 – 13,991,000 km^2
2015 – 14,243,000 km^2
2014 – 14,306,000 km^2
2013 – 14,403,000 km^2
2012 – 14,121,000 km^2
2011 – 14,149,000 km^2
2010 – 14,271,000 km^2
As of 05 FEB, there is one year that is higher than 2020, and that was 2013. So, the 2020 Northern Hemispheric sea ice extent is now running higher than 9 of the previous 10 years. The data does not support the idea that human-caused global warming is melting the ice to oblivion, and millions of people will become climate refugees, fleeing their coastal communities because of the rising sea level within this century. You global warming zealots are nothing more than yet another apocalyptic cult trying to tell everybody else how to live their lives, so the planet will be saved.
The term “ice-free” means < 1e6 km^2 at the summer minimum only. Oblivion means absolutely nothing indefinitely. Even under an RCP8.5 scenario that likely won't happen for hundreds of years. Nevermind that melting sea ice does not cause sea level rise anyway so this data has limited usefulness in adjudicating whether people will need to flee coastal communities.
Also, consider that even at 14.385e6 2020-02-05 is STILL below the 1981-2010 average. And that all years prior to 2005 were higher. Nevermind that in terms of climate arbitrary daily (or 5d means) are not particularly useful see they ebb and flow with weather patterns. It is more useful to use annual means as that discriminates the integrated albedo warming potential better.
And one last point…2012 actually went above the 1981-2010 average before descending to a record low minimum. The lesson…don't count your chickens before they've hatched.
bdgwx
In my native tongue they would say:
” Ne jamais vendre la peau de l’ours avant de l’avoir abattu ” .
Yes, but that’s bearly comprehensible.
Rob Mitchell
“What makes you think you have the ‘absolute’ data?”
When I read such a sentence, I get a big, big laugh. You don’t seem to have understood what I meant here with ‘absolute’. Great.
Moreover, I spoke about monthly data, as you easily can see above. And the newest monthly data is that of January, isn’t it?
*
How could I guess that you in fact mean daily data?
Only a Coolista like you can rely on such an arbitrarily fluctuating stuff like daily data to pretend anything valuable, reliable. Why not hourly?
I have no problem at all in looking at
https://tinyurl.com/yx7nut8c
when it makes sense for me, as you may see here (absolute values):
https://tinyurl.com/qs7k6ov
Looks pretty good like sea ice recovery, huh?
But, but: it’s always good to have a look at the departures from the 1981-2010 mean as well:
https://tinyurl.com/wj7my6n
My little finger tells me that it would be wise to await the end of March before trumpeting.
By the way: do you see the red 2012 plot, Mitchell? Who would have imagined on April 24 how the Arctic sea ice would behave just a few little months later?
*
All in all, it’s amazing to see how similar people like Scott R, ren and… Mitchell all behave.
A-maz-ing.
bdgwx, Bindidon, Elliott Bignell, please stop trolling.
@Dr Spencer
Did it ever occur to you it is contrails, rather than CO2 causing warming? There are a lot of profound reasons to this finding, but even if you only look at these satellite data it should raise some eyebrows.
– Most of the warming is in the NH, where most air travel takes place. Why so, if CO2 was the reason?
– Far less warming in the SH, where there is far less air travel.
– No warming at all in Antarctica, where there is no air travel.
And that is (among many more aspects) in the view, that autonomous warming of Earth (that can not be related to solar activity) started around the 1970ies and since then showed almost liniear correlation to the increase of air travel.
I’ve wondered about contrails from time to time for many years. I once had a plot of jet fuel usage over time, and the increase over the last several decades is dramatic. I suppose it’s a possible influence.
And since you are a satellite man, maybe you could help me with this one problem. According to NASA (and others) we have regions where clouds are warming and regions where they are cooling, as shown in the linked graph. Strangely it colors strong cooling “red” and warming “blue”. Anyhow..
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/cloudforcing.png
Among those red regions is the northern Pacific, right where the Aleut Islands are located. I was curious and looked up the data of 10 stations located there, reporting in the METAR format to the NOAA. Because honestly, given all I know so far, I could not believe clouds were actually cooling, neither there nor anywhere. This is what I got:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/aleuten1.png
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/aleuten2.png
An almost linear, POSITIVE correlation between cloudiness and temperature. The more clouds, the warmer it is. Since these are real life data, without assumptions, without modelling or anything, I dare to say we have a problem here (which might well be the solution..).
The IPCC uses a value +0.05 W/m^2 in AR5 for contrail and contrail induced cirrus. Refer to supplementary material for section 7.2.7.1.
Well, somehow I do not fully trust the IPCC 😉
Leitwolf
“… somehow I do not fully trust the IPCC”
Sorry, but… either you trust someone, or you prove him wrong.
There is nothing valuable inbetween.
The IPCC assessment regarding this topic was based on the review of 20 different studies.
Leitwolf (& indirectly: Roy Spencer)
I agree with you: at a (very) first glance, it looks like a possible major cause for warming indeed, and I believed that too some years ago, especially after 9/11, where Americans reported about ‘rediscovering a clear sky’ because flight activity was interrupted for a week or so.
But… Leitwolf writes ‘Most of the warming is in the NH, where most air travel takes place’.
And that is IMHO the point where he contradicts his, say, theory.
Simply because most warming is NOT in the NH: it is in the Arctic, be it at the surface or in the lower troposphere.
Even Roy Spencer’s data, though showing less warming than most other temperature series, gives for the Arctic a much higher trend than for the NH as a whole.
And if we look at Mr Spencer’s grid data, we see that UAH6.0’s uppermost active latitude band (80.0N-82.5N) regularly shows the highest trends worldwide, with some cells at about 0.5 C / decade.
Now let’s have all a look at a web site showing worldwide air traffic, namely flightradar24:
https://www.flightradar24.com/6.9,-34.97/2
We easily can see that apart from a few intercontinental flights optimizing their route by flying great circles over the Arctic, air traffic there is minimal to absent in comparison with the rest.
What do you mean, Leitwolf?
I agree on both arguments. The Arctic seems to show the strongest warming and it is not a region of dense air travel. However I do not think it contradicts what I was saying. There are two more things to consider.
1. The Arctic is not an isolated region. If temperatures in neighboring regions (North America, North Atlantic, Europe..) with dense air travel go up, then due to convection the Arctic will be affected too.
2. Temperatures in the Arctic are somewhat unstable by nature. The thing is, as long as the water is not frozen temperatures remain “sticky” around zero degree Celsius. Only once the sea is frozen, temperatures turn loose and it will get pretty cold. Effectively the icing serves as a feedback on average temperatures. And although I did not pay much attention to it, I does not surprise that a region a variable icing (80-82.5N) shows the strongest warming.
Leitwolf
I didn’t see your reply a few minutes ago when posting.
I fully agree in turn with your remarks.
And of course: we must consider the relative influence of the regions according to their real surface on the spheroid.
Leitwolf (cntnd)
As an addendum to my comment above, I have to put my opinion into the correct perspective when comparing the Arctic and the NH.
I just saw in a file that the area from 60N to 90N on the sphere is no more than 15 % (!) of that between 0N and 60N…
test
The distribution of ozone over the polar circle in winter during periods of low magnetic activity of the Sun is highly asymmetrical and leads to SSW.
Asymmetry of ozone distribution is visible throughout the stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z05_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t05_nh_f00.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/05mb9065.png
The Czech Republic reported major disruptions caused by snow. A tree that fell on a road north of Prague hit a car, killing the driver.
The major D8 highway that leads to Germany was blocked near the northern Czech city of Usti and Labem, causing several hours of delay.
A bus with 12 passengers overturned in the northwest of the Czech Republic, injuring three people. Some 16,500 households were without electricity for some time.
In Bosnia, heavy snow and storms caused several trucks to overturn, blocking traffic on different roads. Ski centers around the capital, Sarajevo, have been closed as high winds forced the closure of ski-lifts and cable cars running to the mountain tops.
Many drivers complained that road services in Bosnia have again not reacted well to the heavy snow, despite the fact that country is well known for its harsh winters.
https://apnews.com/4eba487561f52e5f963a354537d14b23
And… how many children died today in Poland because of the carelessness of car and truck drivers, ren?
Some stat?
A weather battle zone will continue to take place as winter fights back in the northeastern United States with areas of flooding rain, dangerous ice and a blanket of heavy snow through Friday.
The multifaceted and two-part storm will continue to affect the region just days after springlike warmth surged in. It is the same storm system responsible for heavy snow over the southern Plains on Wednesday and ongoing heavy rain and severe weather in the South during Thursday.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/northeast-is-next-up-for-barrage-of-precipitation-as-storm-barrels-across-nation/674895
Bindidon, I am not claiming cooling at all. I do make the claim that climate warms and cools over multi-decadal time periods. And that the warming and cooling trends do not occur with a perfect sine-wave regularity. I also claim that you global warming zealots are exaggerating the effect of CO2, and you are extrapolating the latest multi-decadal warming trend well into the future. All of you are making the classic correlation is causation mistake.
The fossil fuel age will only be a mere, insignificant blip on the paleoclimate time scale. There is much to be grateful for when you consider our fossil fuel use. Can you imagine what would happen to our forests if we were still burning wood to heat our homes and cook our food?
This whole human-caused global warming bandwagon is nothing more than a movement for Social Justice Warriors worldwide to subjugate others to their will. And they are using earth science as a tool to achieve their goal.
However, there is data out there. And, there are honest climate scientists like Dr. Spencer who don’t immediately knee-jerk to the idea that the human contribution of CO2 is the primary driver of our climate system.
Rob Mitchell
I’ll reply in detail tomorrow.
It’s more than just correlation is causation. We know the causative mechanism and in great detail.
The pulse of CO2 is so massive that our ancestors a million years from now will see clear and decisive evidence of it in their paleoclimate records. In fact, it will stick out like a sore thumb even among the high pulse events in our past.
“All of you are making the classic correlation is causation mistake.”
No, the causation was understood well before the predicted correlation turned up, and has been verified using an array of other methods. Direct measurement of the Earth’s radiation budget and observations of CO2-forced back-radiation are just a couple of the most incontestable thereof. It’s just you making the classic “correlation means everyone is making the classic correlation is causation mistake” mistake.
“the idea that the human contribution of CO2 is the primary driver of our climate system.”
Straw Man. Anthropogenic GHGs are the driver of the current warming. Palaeoclimate reconstructions largely confirm their effect as a FEEDBACK in which, for instance, orbital changes are the initial forcing.
bdgwx, Elliott Bignell, please stop trolling.
“The fossil fuel age will only be a mere, insignificant blip on the paleoclimate time scale.”
Ok, and all of human civilization is also a blip.
So what?
The point is that all of human civilization has had relatively stable climate.
Not anymore, humans have changed it in a significant way.
JP66 / Part 1
No need for your school German/French talk here, I have enough of it at home.
But conversely, I hope my poor school & job English will match your least requirements.
Now back to your very, very interesting sentence I split for a more convenient reply:
1. “If you can not see that Arctic Sea Ice is unchanged for 13 years then you are wearing the biggest blinders known to man.”
WOW! I’m impressed about your ability to detect how good my blinders are!
Here is a chart showing you, for the 13-year period 2007-2019 (Jan 2020 added), the monthly Arctic sea ice anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010, for both extent and area:
https://tinyurl.com/smc74v6
The linear estimates for anomalies over 2007-2020, in Mkm2 / decade:
– extent: -0.48 +- 0.11
– area: -0.35 +- 0.12
The estimates for anomalies over 1979-2020:
– extent: -0.55 +- 0.02
– area: -0.23 +- 0.02
*
You might be skeptical of anomalies! So let us show you the same sea ice data, this time in absolute form:
https://tinyurl.com/uqv5f3x
The linear estimates for absolute values over 2007-2020, in Mkm2 / decade:
– extent: -0.81 +- 0.73 (statistically poor)
– area: -0.66 +- 0.74 (statistically insignificant)
The estimates for absolute values over 1979-2020:
– extent: -0.57 +- 0.12
– area: -0.25 +- 0.12
As you can see,
– despite higher rough estimate values, the trend lines for absolute values in the graph are more flat than those in the anomaly graph (this is due to the higher value range);
– the standard errors for anomalies are much lower (due to the much smaller deviations when using anomalies because the annual cycles are removed. Roy Spencer is a good teacher).
*
I won’t reply using your desperado polemic, Mr JP66. But should you really think that Arctic sea ice was left unchanged since 2007… your problem, for sure!
JP66 / Part 2
Let’s continue with the second part of your so amazingly competent sentence.
2. “2019 full year cycle was EXACTLY the same as 2007 AND the current year is starting out higher than both of those.
Oh! Interesting. By accident, I have all SIDADS north/south daily data as well.
Here is a chart showing, for 2007, 2012 (added), 2019 and 2020, the absolute Arctic sea ice extent data (area is here unfortunately absent):
https://tinyurl.com/qra5334
Looking at it I would say: JP66 is more or less right.
But a closer look at the data using departures from the usual 1981-2010 mean shows this:
https://tinyurl.com/sq4t8wf
Sorry, but imho 2007 and 2019 differ by a lot.
At best, we could agree that 2020 will start pretty quickly! But … that’s why I added 2012 in the graph: we will see at the end of March at the earliest how 2020 really will behave.
*
3. Finally, you added a link to a WUWT article written some years ago by guest poster Javier. Did you really notice what he wrote:
“In fact, I can predict that the Arctic will gain between 9.3 and 9.7 million square kilometers from this past September to March 2018.
I think that was the worst prediction I have ever read in my entire life (I am 70).
Today, Javier concentrates on telling us that since 2007, the Arctic sea ice extent melting is stable.
Here is a comparison of extent plus area data for March vs. September since 1979, now till 2019 of course:
https://tinyurl.com/svevz5f
The estimates for the period 2007-2019 are as follows, in Mkm2 / decade:
– March: -1.12 +- 0.47
– September: -0.01 +- 0.65
As you can see, the September’s rough estimate looks correct, but due to the tremendous standard error, it is – statistically – absolutely insignificant.
*
Sie haben Recht, JP66! Man muss immer “alles richtig” machen.
Viele Gruesse aus Deutschland
J.-P. D.
Vielen Dank JPD 🙂
However, I must point out 3 simple aspects of your data and analysis that I think are mistaken and/or not relevant.
1) Everyone knows the last decade had less Arctic Ice than the 1981-2010 average. That’s wasn’t the point. The point was that the decade to decade downward trend is dead: https://climategrog.wordpress.com/category/periodic-analysis/
2) The sea ice minima vary both in amount and time. You can not use least squares regression on data that varies in both the X and Y axis. Doing so gives a false trend. This is taught in statistics 101 and is arguably the most frequent and most damaging mistake in Climate Science as it directly impacts most estimates of CO2 forcing:
Lindzen & Choi 2011
“[Our] new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative.
… but we see clearly that the simple regression always under-estimates negative feedbacks and exaggerates positive feedbacks.”
2) You didn’t take my bet? Are you not confident that sea ice minimums will continue lower because I am confident the opposite is true that September minimums have turned and will continue to increase for some time. As such, I will go one further now and bet $100 to charity that not only will September 2020 have a higher minimum than 2007 there will be no minimum between now and 2025 that is lower than 2007.
Any AGW enthusiasts interested in taking that bet and putting the money in escrow?
Thanks for your ever informative and entertaining additions to the discussion. I hope to be here in 2025 to discuss the situation again.
All the Best from NY
JP66
JP66
I can’t reply here directly, the blog’s scanner causes problems again.
Here is my answer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PT81PniBRFYxhgICOtqBgqtUJ71LJeU7/view
Regards
J.-P. D.
JP66,
Not an “AGW enthusiast” here as imho there’s not a whole lot to be enthusiastic about AGW so am not sure that I qualify yet there are still some questions about the bet itself.
First, wasn’t sure as are there two bets going on here?
A) being that Sept 2020 will have a higher minimum than 2007 and
B) that there will be no minimum lower than 2007 between now and 2025?
Also, does the bet end 1 Jan 2025 or is all of 2025 included?
Just wondering,
Atb from NC
JP66,
“The sea ice minima vary both in amount and time. You can not use least squares regression on data that varies in both the X and Y axis.”
The sea ice daily minima vary in time, but September is always the monthly average with the least sea ice cover. It’s perfectly reasonable to regress by month.
If you are placing your eggs in the daily minima basket to claim a slow down of decline, I would like to make a bet with you on precisely that metric, not the September monthly data.
I bet you $100 that, excepting 2012, the daily minimum coverage set in 2007 is beaten by 2025.
If you are willing to go up to $1000 I’m good for it. But $100 is fine if you want.
barry, please stop trolling.
Hello
from Valencia, Spain,
working in remote sensing of cirrus clouds,
how is it possible that satellite temperatures data from the lower troposfere are not considered by the IPCC?
Is this possible?
bets wishes
great blog,
keep going!
Juan
Because the IPCC are interested in temperature evolution at the surface. And how would they determine which (if either) of the two main satellite data sets is correct? Mr. Spencer has already admitted that the UAH temperature for a particular region (such as the USA) is not necessarily consistent with actual surface temperatures in that region.
“how is it possible that satellite temperatures data from the lower troposfere are not considered by the IPCC?”
They ARE!
You know how to use a search engine, right?
Google ‘IPCC reports’
Look in Chapter 2 of the 2001 3rd Assessment Report. Search under ‘satellite’.
Do the same for the next 2 assessments reports in chapters to do with observations of temperature.
And make sure you check stuff better in your work than you did for this silly question.
Midas, barry, please stop trolling.
Hey bdgwx,
“The pulse of CO2 is so massive that our ancestors a million years from now will see clear and decisive evidence of it in their paleoclimate records.”
Haven’t you heard Dr. Spencer make public comments about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? He said the remarkable thing about CO2 is how little of it there is in the atmosphere. Even though it is a molecule that is essential for life on our planet.
This so-called “massive pulse” of CO2 is a massive overstatement.
And Bindidon, this is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
“Within the overall decline, it is notable that the most recent 13 years, from 2007 to 2019, have shown very little decline.”
From 1979-2019, the NH sea ice extent has fallen at the linear rate of 82,400 km^2/yr. However, from 2007-2019, the sea ice decline has slowed to a crawl at 1200 km^2/yr. It looks like to me the Arctic sea ice decline is bottoming out.
You make no effort to refute the assertion that it will leave clear evidence. Why not?
“Even though it is a molecule that is essential for life on our planet.”
This seems to support the contention that it should have a fertilising effect. Are you denying that a fertilising effect would show up in palaeoclimate records a million years hence, despite the fact that plant growth and shell generation in molluscs both contribute to palaeoclimate proxies? If so, is this because you deny CO2 fertilisation outright, or because you believe its magnitude to be to negligible to leave a record?
If you look at PIOMAS, for volume, you see a triple bottom, so if it was the stock market I would say buy, cause it’s tested the bottom and can only go up.
https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2019/12/piomas-december-2019.html#more
But it’s not the stock market and the ice continues to thin, even as the extent seems to be stable.
2019 was still the second lowest in average extent for the year so both sides can continue to cherry pick which data supports their case.
Me, I don’t see any recovery.
bobdroege
“Me, I don’t see any recovery.”
I don’t either, regardless which series I observed.
My only problem with the PIOMAS stuff has been, as long as the Danish DMI published its own thickness data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-znQ31OLmNTPJ0oGHxIJjFmIzW70U-p5/view
Estimates for Jan 2003- Jun 2019, in Mkm3 / decade
PIOMAS: -3.1 +- 0.05
DMI: -1.9 +- 0.17
Hmmmh. Ho is right here? asks the old layman.
Unfortunately, DMI’s data seems to be accessible by scientists working in institutions only. And… the data is no longer ASCII, all NetCDF.
Falling temperatures in the Midwest.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00997/cjrlywdgfjim.png
Mitchell
For the nth time in sequence, you write about text and data you pretend to have obtained from the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
Within the overall decline, it is notable that the most recent 13 years, from 2007 to 2019, have shown very little decline.
From 1979-2019, the NH sea ice extent has fallen at the linear rate of 82,400 km^2/yr . However, from 2007-2019, the sea ice decline has slowed to a crawl at 1200 km^2/yr . It looks like to me the Arctic sea ice decline is bottoming out.
*
You should really publish right now a link to to all that, so everybody here can get convinced that it is a real, official information, and not some faked info of your own or coming from a ‘skeptic’ site.
Mitchell (ctnd)
I couldn’t publish the 2nd part due to this blog’s raging scanner.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sCoDWWVRINyRCOWoj7EIEA_4PMg267gn/view
Something interesting which seems somehow similar Simpson’s paradox:
UAH trend from Dec 1978 to Dec 1999 … +0.150
UAH trend from Jan 2000 to Jan 2020 … +0.153
UAH trend from Dec 1978 to Jan 2020 … +0.133
Could someone give me a mathematical feel for how the overall trend can be less than the trend in each of two partitions.
Midas
No paradox, as Snape made clear below:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:1999/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/trend/plot/uah6/trend
I already knew from my example that it can happen, so I’m afraid that graph tells me nothing new. I am hoping to understand in terms of least squares how this can happen mathematically. And I didn’t claim it to be a paradox – I was noting the similarity to “Simpson’s paradox” whose name I didn’t choose.
Midas,
You started and ended the first data set on la nina events.
You started the 2nd one on la nina, and ended on unofficial el nino.
For the overall you started on a la nina and ended on unofficial el nino.
Overall you are warm biased with your data selections. Perhaps the problem is that the data is not linear, so data selection matters. Try adding a SIN function to your linear trend. Period 3.6 years, amplitude 0.6 deg c and see if that is a better data match.
Midas
I’m afraid I don’t really understand your problem.
If I well remember, OLS builds the trend line such that the sum of all squared distances (from each considered point to the trend line) is minimal.
Yes, that’s it, Bindidon.
If we did not square the distances, we could find any number of linear trends that all have zero sum of distance between all data points and the straight line.
Squaring gets rid of the negative signs in anomalies, leaving only one mean trend for “ordinary least squares regression” that has the smallest possible sum of (squared) distances between all the data points and the trend line.
Yes, that’s the maths of it. I’m asking what happens in this calculation which allows this effect to happen. It seems you’re not the one who can answer my question.
“This effect”?
You mean that two linear trends within a series can be different from the overall series? Or that the two smaller segments each has a higher trend than overall?
If the latter, the fact that there is a step jump (downwards) between the first line segment and the other indicates that either one or both of the trends are higher than the long term trend.
There’s no way to work with the two independent time series mathematically to discover the trend overall. There’s no maths to explain it – it’s simply a product of lienear regression on 2 different data sets. The random nature of the data is bound to display different trends whenever you change start and end points.
It’s difficult to understand what you want to know – do you want to see the math?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_least_squares
I KNOW the maths.
This is like me asking people to explain what is happening in Simpson’s paradox, and being told how to compute averages.
Simpson’s paradox:
“Simpson’s paradox (or Simpson’s reversal, YuleSimpson effect, amalgamation paradox, or reversal paradox)[1] is a phenomenon in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in several different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined.
This result is often encountered in social-science and medical-science statistics and is particularly problematic when frequency data is unduly given causal interpretations. The paradox can be resolved when causal relations are appropriately addressed in the statistical modeling. Simpson’s paradox has been used as an exemplar to illustrate to the non-specialist or public audience the kind of misleading results mis-applied statistics can generate.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
I have no idea how “Simpson’s paradox” applies to your query.
I think you need to drill down to your query in ytour own mndm and not lean on some other idea that approximates it.
The first trend line was steepened by ENDING near the very strong 97/98 el nino. The second trend line was steepened by STARTING during the strong 1999 la nina.
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
In other words, the two trend lines do not connect. The second starts lower than the first.
The start of the second trend line is only one month after the end of the first.
Why do you think that the end points should join up?
Each segment has a higher trend than the whole – and this ‘step-jump’ between them indicates that they do not reflect the long term trend. That is a non-physical increase in temperature – thus, it is an artefact of the data processing.
I don’t think either of us said that we believe that the end points should line up.
You seemed to be indicating surprise that they were apart despite being only one month apart.
“…the two trend lines do not connect. The second starts lower than the first.”
“The start of the second trend line is only one month after the end of the first.”
(My emphasis)
It was a mere statement of fact, no surprise. I was hoping someone could give me some mathematical insight on what is happening in the least squares process, but everyone is telling me what they want to tell me instead of what I asked.
I’m pretty confident that this is because of a lack of clarity on your part.
The least squares process is easily explained, but the math is above high school level and out of my ken. What do you want to know, exactly. I’m sure I’m not the only one having trouble working that out.
Des, you could always try not being relentlessly unpleasant to absolutely everyone.
I don’t see anywhere in this thread where I have been unpleasant.
As opposed to “slurp, slurp, gurgle”.
You wouldn’t, Des.
And neither would you, given that you refused to address by second sentence.
OK, Des.
So why don’t YOU try not being relentlessly unpleasant to absolutely everyone?
I’m not. Just to Svante, David App.ell, MikeR, bobdroege, Norman, and perhaps a couple of others, in the time I’ve been commenting here – and they all have reasons they deserve it. David’s banned now anyway (much to the improvement of this site).
Now Des, why don’t you try not being relentlessly unpleasant to absolutely everyone.
Thank’s for putting me in that group but flattery will get you nowhere.
Here come the tricks…
Huh? A group of extremely unpleasant people?
Yeah,they don’t suffer fools gladly.
Why not try arguing from a different perspective, for a few months, just as a critical thinking exercise.
See how you find talking to these people, and how you would describe them, after that.
Good idea, I’ve been thinking I should do that.
I have disagreed with David, he’s a bit too quick sometimes.
He’s a lot more knowledgeable than us though.
MikeR is brilliant, bobdroege is great and Norman is rock solid on physics. I’m more alarmist than them, so that could be something to discuss.
No, I mean try arguing with various people here against the GHE, for a few months.
Of course people get annoyed if you argue that the Earth is flat,
or that the GHE violates the 2LOT.
It’s plain stupidity.
There’s no way someone like you would have the strength of character to endure all the cyber-bullying, I suppose.
Imagine, being relentlessly bullied for being right about something so trivially obvious as “there’s no GHE”.
Imagine, being relentlessly bullied for being right about something so trivially obvious as ‘the Earth is Flat’.
Yep, most likely thats just how Flat Earthers feel.
“Of course people get annoyed if you argue that the Earth is flat…”
Yes, believing in the GHE is akin to believing in Flat Earth Theory, quite directly. Thanks for reminding me, Svante:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/10/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Imagine, being relentlessly bullied …”
I thought you were a troll. I’ll treat you with more respect if you have a better answer to why you keep coming back with the same points over and over.
…and I will stop asking people to stop trolling if they stop coming up with the same points over and over.
Those infantile PSTs do not help your case.
…but you acknowledge that there are a team of people here who repeat the exact same points month after month? What else should I say to them?
Try physical formulas and calculations instead of hand waving.
I leave the hand-waving to you guys.
Something like this I mean:
ε * σ * (Tb^4 – Tg^4) * A = 200 W
You can try it with Tb = 244 K and Tg = 244 K.
Indeed you can.
Dont bother DREMT with simple physics and math — it doesnt apply in his world.
Magic, that does apply.
#2
Indeed you can, Svante.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“Indeed you can.”
OK, lets try:
200 = ε * σ * (244^4 – 244^4) * A =
ε * σ * 0 * A = 0
200 W = 0 W
Equal sign means that both sides are the same.
Zero is not the same as 200, that means that the solution is invalid.
It looks like you need a temperature difference to make the result greater than zero.
That is not how you use the RHTE…as you already know, Svante.
1) How do you calculate the heat transfer between the blue and green plates then?
2) We agree that the laws of physics apply between the plates, right?
3) You realize that the heat (net energy) flow is the same at:
– The blue surface.
– The green surface.
– Between the surfaces.
4) Equations, math and numbers please.
OK, I will show you again, no problem:
For the normal “3-plate” problem, with emissivity and view factors equal to one, the heat flow equation is simply:
Q = σ (Tb^4 Tg^4)
We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg
and this applies between each of the two surrounding green plates and the blue.
The 400 W input means that we know the blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 (assuming its 1m^2 per side). Then, using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
E = σT^4
Tb = (200/σ)^0.25
Tb = 244 K
So with Tb = Tg, at 244 K244 K244 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); so the system is in balance.
You have a contradiction there.
zero out of the blue plate here:
And 2×200 W here:
You don’t use the RHTE on inputs and outputs from individual plates. It is for inbetween the plates.
There ain’t no law that says that.
The laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe.
Even between a blue and a green plate.
How can you have a different flow between the plates than you have at the surfaces?
The flow goes from one plate to another, right?
Formulas please!
Do you understand this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
“Two physical systems are in thermal equilibrium if there is no net flow of thermal energy between them when they are connected by a path permeable to heat”
?
There is a path permeable to heat between the plates, right? And, no net flow of thermal energy between them when they are at 244 K…244 K…244 K…right?
You also can’t include the so-called “temperature of space”, 3 K, into your considerations, since a vacuum doesn’t have a temperature, and the CMBR is too insignificant to include. You just consider the (lack of) net flow of thermal energy between the plates. The RHTE already includes the SB terms for the green plates, so the fact that they are emitting to space according to their temperature and emissivity is already taken into account in the “(lack of) net flow of thermal energy between the plates” computed by the RHTE.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yes, but you have a net flow of thermal energy from green to space.
That same amount of thermal energy has to flow from blue to green, right?
You ignored my previous comment.
I agree the 3 K is a non issue.
Eli had it a 0 K, but it doesn’t matter.
OK then.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yes, but you have a net flow of thermal energy from green to space.
That same amount of thermal energy has to flow from blue to green, right?
“Yes, but you have a net flow of thermal energy from green to space.”
Space = the absence of a “physical system”.
Call it what you like.
You are losing 400 W of thermal energy in that direction.
That same amount of thermal energy has to flow from blue to green, right?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-439121
You have a thermal energy flow from green to space.
You have no thermal energy flow from blue to green.
Green is losing thermal energy and will cool down.
Space is not a physical system, Svante. Read the equilibrium definition again, and my associated comments, until you understand them.
You can go into a loop on some semantic issue all you like, but there is nothing more to say. This issue is resolved.
Let me summarize your argument.
1) You calculated a loss of 2×200 W to space.
2) You calculated 0 W between blue and green.
3) But 2×200 W is still carried between blue and green because space is on the other side of green, and space can not be named “a physical system”.
Here come the tricks…
Never a straight answer.
…see what I mean?
He NOW seeemingly accepts the standard definition of equilibrium:
“Two physical systems are in thermal equilibrium if there is no net flow of thermal energy between them when they are connected by a path permeable to heat”
But he so badly wants to BE in equilibrium, so he applies perfect circular logic:
“There is a path permeable to heat between the plates, right? And, NO NET FLOW of thermal ENERGY between them WHEN they are at 244 K…244 K…244 K…right?”
IOW they are in equilibrium when we assume they are in equilibrium.
However he hilariously forgets that he has repeatedly stated there IS energy flow of 400 W from the blue plates to space via the Green plates
“The 400 W in from the electrical supply can only flow one way, and that is out via the green plates as they radiate 400 W to space ”
which means NOT equilibrium.
DREMT ties himself in knots whilst trying to stay in equilibrium.
#2
See what I mean?
Yes we see that you are arguing with yourself, and neither of you have answers that work.
#3
See what I mean?
The paradox arises from imagining that the start of the second trend line is connected to the end of the first.
You don’t seem to understand – I’m looking for someone to explain in MATHEMATICAL terms. What is happening in the least-squares calculation.
People are trying to explain it to you but you’re just not listening. It’s not about what happens in least-squares…. it’s about the data in each part of the time series.
Create a simple dataset…
1 0.1
2 0.2
3 0.3
4 0.1
5 0.2
6 0.3
Now graph the first half of this series (first 3 values) and find the trend, then graph the second half and find the trend… then graph the entire series (all 6 values) and find the trend. Can you see now why each half can have a higher trend than the entire series?
Bindidon,
I like what you did there on that woodfortrees. Take it a step farther. Imagine for a moment that you take smaller and smaller samples for linear trends and you overlaid all of them to the same graph. What shape might the trendlines form? A SIN wave perhaps?
Scott R
“What shape might the trendlines form? A SIN wave perhaps?”
I learned a lot from reading many Svalgaard papers.
Especially to keep away from any cyclomania.
What of course does not at all mean to ignore those having been detected, observed and evaluated by scientists like Milankovitch and many others.
So feel free to do the game yourself.
Why does the fact you get an oscillatory pattern have to mean it can be represented by a sine curve? If I gave you data generated by a random walk process, I’m sure you would manage to find harmonics and believe you have found a cause.
It might be worth interjecting that ANY cyclical pattern can be decomposed into or composed out of a series of harmonics of any other cyclical pattern. This is the basis of Fourier transforms and of profound utility in signal processing, image compression and a bunch of other engineering fields. So a sine wave will be a primary harmonic of one particular series resulting from the decomposition of any repeating series, yes.
However, the point of trend analysis is precisely to filter out the seasonality to find the NON-periodic underlying rate of change. The sine curve on WoodForTrees is useful for illustrating the ways it is possible to make false inferences about trends from cyclical data, but its lessons don’t get through to the slurping Coolist zealots. They just say you set it up that way, and miss what you set it up to illustrate.
Yes, and in fact wavelet decomposition is a related technique used for reducing noise, especially in image processing. (If you’re into photography I strongly recommend trying wavelet tools for sharpening and denoising.)
My point was that GIVEN that there are cyles, you will be able to find a sine wave in there somewhere. I was not endorsing the given but rather urging caution.
Having said that, there clearly are periodic and aperiodic cycles in climate, and if one wants to be misled, these are a good place to look for comfort.
Ah Ok.
Elliot, hooray for Fourier.
Couple of points.
a. You can do Fourier analysis on random noise to see it has a broad spectrum frequencies in it.
b. Same goes for a perfect linear trend, just has more low frequencies in it.
Dont be fooled that these two are actually periodic.
‘cyclomania’ a good descriptor.
The above was meant for Nate.
Antarctica is an amazing corner, and so is the atmosphere above it.
When you compare, using UAH6.0, the Globe and Antarctica
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iX2YqcItYWTul-BWJjVIKkbS2myElWBR/view
you think ‘Huuuh! A little restless there!’
But then you compare, above Antarctica, the LT layer with the LS above it
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14iYG0aZujSl9zy7FBg2lCw_Yw2WPsABZ/view
and you suddenly see that the lower stratosphere is even a bit more restless…
Btw, on the right you see the most recent ‘sudden stratospheric warming’ which happened last September. Some grid cells there showed about 25 C above mean.
Hey Bindidon, the data and statement came from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Just because you don’t like the statement does not mean it was made up. That was silly.
http://nsi.org/arcticseaicenews/2019/10/falling-up/
Put the “d” and the “c” in after “nsi.”
Scroll down to “September 2019 compared to previous years”
There you can see the statement in the 2nd paragraph.
“Within the overall decline, it is notable that the most recent 13 years, from 2007 to 2019, have shown very little decline (Figure 3b).”
While at it, look at Figure 3b. Click on the high resolution image. There you can see the flattest 13-year trend. The last 13 years.
Note they are using monthly data, the kind you like.
Now do you see why the Arctic sea ice decline is slowing down?
You global warming zealots were alarming us for several years that the Arctic would become ice free during the summertime minimum. Well, that did not work out so well, so now you are using averages and volume to bolster the argument that the NH ice will melt away. But the bottom line is the summertime minimum. And that reached a multi-decadal minimum between 2007-2012.
Well, this is about September minimums, which you’ve not specified in all your comments. And you’ve left out the rest of the quote:
“Within the overall decline, it is notable that the most recent 13 years, from 2007 to 2019, have shown very little decline (Figure 3b). Both 2007 and 2012 were extreme low extent years, and variability has been high in this period. However, an earlier 13 year period, 1999 to 2012, shows a rate of decline that is more than double the overall rate in the satellite record. This illustrates the challenge of extracting a quantitative rate of decline in a highly variable system like sea ice, and the benefits of looking at decadal, and not year-to-year variations.”
I recommend using TinyUrl to convert links into a form almost always usable here. This goes straight to the page.
https://tinyurl.com/s9892uo
It is no accident that there is a smaller trend when it begins with the 2nd lowest September anomaly on record.
barry, please stop trolling.
In case you missed it , Green piece founder Patrick Moore
presentation at Freedom Talk
https://youtu.be/GXBBNcAvCsU
Yeah, he’s the guy that said 16 year-old Greta Thunberg is an evil puppet with a mental disorder. Not all at once, though. He spread these compliments out.
He’s also the one who claimed that Monsanto weed killer was safe enough to drink, but refused the offer of drinking it himself.
I watched it. Very comprehensive and sane discussion about climate.
In other words … he told you exactly what you wanted to hear.
Did you watch it Midas? If so, what do you refute?
Is it science from someone who does climate science? Or political advocacy by someone with an agenda?
If the latter, then it deserves no attention.
Climate science. The kind you don’t like Nate.
I like climate science from Moore in the same way and for the same reason I like to get a diagnosis on a lump in my arm from a dentist.
Yes, among many other distortions in his talk: he decides a 1 C rise in global temperature is insignificant by comparing it to biggest temperature differences he could find on Earth-between S. Pole and Sahara in July.
Which is of course a pointless comparison.
He should compare to the 5 C change in global temperature that caused NY city to be covered by a km thick layer of ice.
His talk is clearly intended as propaganda not science.
DREMT, please seek therapy for your OCD last-wording fetish.
barry, please stop trolling.
In a few days, the cold air will reach southern California.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00997/kyna5aarhayi.png
OK, trying the TinyURL.
https://tinyurl.com/ndhsnbu
OK, looks like it worked. I had a little trouble at first. OK, see the 1981-2010 median ice edge compared to the actual 07 FEB 2020 NH sea ice extent? Looks like a pretty tight fit. Is this anything to get all agitated about concerning the melting Arctic ice? Do we need a Green New Deal to correct this “problem?”
September 2007 is the 2nd lowest month of sea ice in the satellite record, beaten only by 2012. But the absolute minimum coverage in 2007 (September 18) was beaten in 2019 on September 19.
Winter sea has declined much less than Summer sea ice in the Arctic, so you will see days near or even higher than the average for that given day, but the overall trend is down.
You’re making the classic mistake of confusing short-term phenomena (weather) for long-term (climate).
Also, the extent graph you linked to is sea ice that covers at least 15% of the water area. Sea ice can spread out over more area or it can be compacted, just by the behaviour of the wind, and will produce a different extent measurement even if the total sea ice area is exactly the same.
Only paying attention to September in the sea ice record is like only looking at July in the Temp record.
The September minima depends on vagaries of the weather in late August, the temperature and wind patterns that can spread or bunch up the ice.
Makes more sense to average over seasons.
barry, please stop trolling.
Barry’s long gone from this thread DREMT. Just stop pointless posting.
#2
barry, please stop trolling.
JSPP, DREMT.
#3
barry, please stop trolling.
There is nothing going on with sea ice its exactly normal
https://sunshinehours.net/tag/global-sea-ice/
In what world is 1-sigma below normal the same as exactly normal?
Eben
Typical blah blah.
Everybody knows that the Antarctic sea ice is, apart from a recent drop, ‘rock solid’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tQ8o1qb3GPyJ2rtW6joy-Y17LOwyEOn7/view
Bindidon, The National Snow and Ice Data Center explains quite well what happened to the Antarctic sea ice back in 2016. It was basically an ice compaction event due to strong poleward wind components.
Scroll down to “Antarctic sea ice reaches winter maximum on a record early date”
https://tinyurl.com/w5y8gtj
It had nothing to do with the almighty CO2 molecule.
https://tinyurl.com/waorezh
Whoops, wrong month. Here is February:
https://tinyurl.com/r9wdtww
Yes, Snape!
Mitchell
It was a bit late for a reply yesterday night at 3 AM local time, and I have so much to do at home, too much in fact to keep busy with such ridiculous and arrogant blah blah.
barry gave an excellent answer anyway; nonetheless, I’d like to add a few lines.
*
https://tinyurl.com/uujujqk
Oh dear… OMG.
Are you really so unexperienced, so ignorant?
You remind me all these dumb people trumpeting all the time about ‘The Globe is cooling since 2016’, with no other proof than
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Do you see the thin green trend line, Mitchell?
It is of exactly the same vein as what the National Snow and Ice Data Center so cluelessly published on its own page, as an invitation for stupid skeptics to drive their nonsense away all over the Internet.
Yes, Mitchell, the Arctic sea ice melting trend INDEED is near zero for the period 2007-2019! That’s TRUE!
More exactly, it is:
-0.04 +- 0.36 Mkm2 / decade for the extent, and
-0.01 +- 0.65 Mkm2 / decade for the area.
{ Let us silently ignore how insignificant these trends are statistically. }
Absolutely flat. Yeeepeee! Sea ice melting stopped!
Says the ‚No warming‘ zealot (don‘t wonder that I use the same pejorative name calling as you do all the time).
But… a sort of the September extents for 2007-2019 tells us that nevertheless, 2019 was third lowest, just above 2007 and 2012… possibly not quite the place where you‘d have expected it.
2009 9 5.26
2014 9 5.22
2013 9 5.21
2010 9 4.87
2017 9 4.80
2018 9 4.71
2008 9 4.69
2015 9 4.62
2011 9 4.56
2016 9 4.51
2019 9 4.32
2007 9 4.27
2012 9 3.57
And moreover, when we build the yearly extent averages, we obtain this:
2008 10.990
2009 10.956
2013 10.919
2014 10.813
2010 10.734
2015 10.589
2011 10.506
2007 10.498
2012 10.420
2017 10.395
2018 10.350
2019 10.211
2016 10.162
What? Impossible! Why did these stoopid years 2007 and 2012 leave the bottom??
This, Mitchell, is simply due to the fact that, while you only consider the September trend, you ignore or discard the March trend, which is
-0.64 +- 0.25 Mkm2 / decade for the extent, and
-1.12 +- 0.37 Mkm2 / decade for the area.
Yeah. So are the numbers.
*
Don‘t misunderstand this comment, Mitchell!
It is NOT about sea ice extent decline, let alone about warming.
It is about YOUR desperate ignorance of facts.
Bindidon,
After 40 years of aviation/marine operational weather forecasting, the issue isn’t my inexperience, the issue is your blind devotion to the new age religion known as human-caused global warming.
Since the 2012 September sea ice extent minimum in the Arctic, the subsequent September minimums have closed higher 6 years in a row. Question for you bindyman – how many years in a row of September minimums closing higher than the 2012 minimum will it take before you come to the realization that maybe the Arctic ice is NOT melting away to oblivion like you think it is? How many years? 10? 15? 20?
I would not be surprised that after 20 years in a row, the likes of you will still be running around like chickens with your heads cut off yelling, “the ice is melting, the ice is melting, and we are all going to drown!”
Correction – make that 7 years in a row after the 2012 September minimum.
Well since even RCP8.5 does not predict sea ice will decline to oblivion (0e6 km^2) for at least 100 years I will go with well past 2100. Or did you actually mean ice-free (1e6 km^2) or the 2012 minimum (3.4e6 km^2)? For RCP8.5 I’ll go with 2040 for 3e6 and 2050 for 1e6. For RCP4.5 I’ll go with 2050 for 3e6 and 2090 for 1e6. Which RCP do you think is most likely?
bdgwx,
We are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age are we not? After all, that age has been going on for 21/2 million years. You think this brief little Holocene will stop the Pleistocene? I seriously doubt it. Especially when you consider the previous Interglacial Periods were warmer than the current Holocene.
As long as we are in the Pleistocene Ice Age, the polar ice will not melt away to oblivion like you Green New Dealers think.
We are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age are we not?
Yes.
You think this brief little Holocene will stop the Pleistocene?
I’m not sure I understand the question. I do think the anthroprocene may delay the next glaciation.
As long as we are in the Pleistocene Ice Age, the polar ice will not melt away to oblivion like you Green New Dealers think.
I think you might have me confused with someone else. I don’t think polar ice (meaning sea ice and land ice both) will melt away to oblivion anytime soon. And assuming that belief is a requirement to be one of these “Green New Dealers” then I can confidently say I’m not among them.
Hey Rob,
Why are you focussing on September sea ice to say that sea ice decline has stalled since 2007?
2019 Arctic sea ice extent was lower than 2007 for the months of January, April, May, June, July, August, October and November.
So let’s try annual sea ice figures and see how they measure up.
Here is the plot of 2007 – 2019 annual Arctic sea ice.
https://i.imgur.com/7qkFkBW.png
For annual sea ice, the lowest year is 2016. Three years ago. As you can see there is a lot of up and down year to year, and also a general downward trend. 2019 is the second lowest.
Do you understand that it would be a mistake to claim that Arctic sea ice is now starting a long term upward trend, based just on 3 years data?
And if you get why that would be specious, the monthly values are more variable – the swings are larger – so 7 years is too short to make such a call based on the evolution of a single month.
There’s another way to do this. I’ll plot Arctic sea ice trend from 1979 to 2007, and then 1979 to 2019. We’ll see if the long term trend is leveling out.
https://tinyurl.com/rg49jfk
Nope.
But none of that is definitive. But even less certain is any claim of a stopping or reversal of trend. The current null hypothesis is that NH sea ice is declining, and there is nothing statistical to indicate that this trend is easing.
Well Barry, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has noticed the slow-down of the Arctic sea ice decline. I can’t help but notice how the human-caused global warming alarmists are all trying to extrapolate the Arctic ice down to zero.
I think the late great Dr. William Gray was spot on with his assessment that the Arctic ice ebbs and flows with ocean currents over multiple decades of time.
N.S.I.D.C did not say there was a definite slowdown – you didn’t read the entry there properly. Here it is again.
“Within the overall decline, it is notable that the most recent 13 years, from 2007 to 2019, have shown very little decline (Figure 3b). Both 2007 and 2012 were extreme low extent years, and variability has been high in this period. However, an earlier 13 year period, 1999 to 2012, shows a rate of decline that is more than double the overall rate in the satellite record. This illustrates the challenge of extracting a quantitative rate of decline in a highly variable system like sea ice, and the benefits of looking at decadal, and not year-to-year variations.”
IOW, short term trends do not necessarily reflect the true underlying trend, and longer periods are better for “extracting a quantitative rate of decline.”
Added a trend line for fun.
https://i.imgur.com/75l5wQA.png
That’s an averagge loss of half a million square kilometers of annual Arctic sea ice cover over 13 years.
But probably not statistically significant. The variability is too high to get a decent fix over that short time frame.
It’s impossible to tell if the loss is acelerating or decelerating. from that short time frame.
And for fun, I extrapolated that trend line. It will take 247 years for the Arctic ice to melt away to oblivion. Question. Does anybody actually believe that?
That was a graph of annual mean Arctic sea ice. The annual mean is different than the summer minimum. Remember, the summer minimum isn’t expected to drop below 1e6 until well after 2050 for the more likely RCP4.5 scenario. Under that scenario an annual mean of 0e6 will never happen. Even with RCP8.5 an annual mean of 0e6 would take hundreds of years. 250 years is the absolute quickest I can envision. The reason is because sea ice will tend to cling to the north tip of Greenland in the winter. I think you’re building up strawmen here. But I don’t think its intentional. It sounds like these arguments are a product of insufficient understanding regarding the behavior of Arctic sea ice, the different metrics used, and the predictions of those metrics.
Yep, that was annual averages, not Sept minima. If ever the Arctic sea ice were to melt away to nothing all year round, I would not be surprised if that took more than twice as long as projections for Summer sea ice (ice free = less that 1 million sq/km extent basin wide.) Indeed, it may never happen in Winter.
Bindidon, bdgwx, barry, please stop trolling.
JSPP DREMT
Bindidon, bdgwx, barry, please stop trolling.
Ebens link to
https://tinyurl.com/wgbtb92
motivated me to build, for the daily sea ice extent climatology and absolute values for some years, the sum of Antarctic and Arctic, but in departure form (wrt the mean of 1981-2010, like for UAH) :
https://tinyurl.com/vuct6ek
We all see here that if the Alarmists and Warmistas were a bit more clever, they would complain about 2007 much more than about 2012!
2007 namely is, of all years represented here, tho one with the lowest absolute an anomaly values.
Ebens link to
https://tinyurl.com/wgbtb92
motivated me to build, for the daily sea ice extent climatology and absolute values for some years, the sum of Antarctic and Arctic, but in departure form (wrt the mean of 1981-2010, like for UAH6.0 LT) :
https://tinyurl.com/vuct6ek
We all see here that if the Alarmists and Warmistas were a bit more clever, they would complain about 2007 much more than about 2012!
2007 namely is, of all years represented here, tho one with the lowest absolute an anomaly values.
Ha! Got it.
I add:
Now what considers the black line, I hope that it keeps it steep slope.
Because while having nothing against moderate warming as we experience it in Germany, I have a LOT against warming in the Arctic.
Basta ya.
Thats pretty weak if Bindidong can’t even turn the chart into looking like a hockey shtick
Hmmmh, endlich mal wieder fetter deutscher Humor!
Could be my eyes, but 2007 isn’t listed on your chart, Bin?
barry
No your eyes are pretty good OK, It was me getting a bit tired.
I have an alternative graph in which 2007 is in…
barry
Now feel free to test your eyes again!
But in the comment, I meant 2016.
2007 certainly enjoys all ‘skeptic’s… though despite the sudden peak in December, the yearly avertage was lower than in 2012.
Ya, I thought it was 2016.
Now I need to get motivated to raise a hue and cry about the sky falling on our heads.
Bindidon, barry, please stop trolling.
NSW has gone from drought to floods. A little bit more rain and it will be Sydney’s wettest 3-day period in 22 years.
The Sydney rain has been unusually persistent and powerful. There’s a leak in my sunroom window – and I’m going to New Zealand for a month in 2 days. Fun with the real estate agent!
Your comments are the best but you need to fix that leak first.
The main dangers to a house:
– Water from above.
– Water from below.
– Water from outside.
– Water from inside.
“Your comments are the best”
Slurp, slurp, gurgle.
Please stop trolling.
Hush.
Today turned out to be the wettest day since 1992. Interestingly, that was on exactly the same date – February 9.
But they both pale into insignificance compared to our wettest day back in 1986, a day I remember well as I aquaplaned my way home from uni. Twice as much rain fell that day as today. As it’s been pouring all day day, I can only assume the rain was falling twice as hard that day.
I find it hard to fathom the world record for the most rainfall in 24 hours – 1825 mm. That is more than 10 times as much rain as fell in Sydney today.
1986 was the year before I moved to Sydney, so I missed that one.
That’s not rain. That’s a lake with slots in it.
Mitchell
Again: this is not a comment about sea ice, let alone about warming.
It is a comment about your ignorance, and also about your dishonesty.
I have explained enough that you are here the one who is blind on one eye, because you not only deliberately restrict your view on the Arctic sea ice data for September (below the link to data for both extent AND 100% pack ice aka area):
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/N_09_extent_v3.0.csv
but above all deliberately ignore the corresponding data for March:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/N_03_extent_v3.0.csv
If you would not be so fixated on your tendentious cherry-picking, you would evaluate BOTH series, and not only the one fitting to your narrative.
And then you would discover that during 2007-2019,
– while the September sea ice extent data indeed shows a flat trend of 0.01 Mkm² / decade,
– the March sea ice extent data shows a trend of -0.56 Mkm2 / decade, what is exactly the same trend as for the complete years during 1979-2019.
You are the prototype of the dishonest, disingenuous commentator. I think it is better to simply ignore what you write.
He’s basically the only person bothering to even try to talk to you people.
A ‘person bothering to even try to talk’ to some people never would name them ‘warming zealots’.
Such persons don’t talk with anybody. They just put up their self-centered narrative. No interest anymore.
Its only because he is new here
True. He will realize that resistance is futile soon enough.
That’s very Hitlerish of you.
Well I’m referring to you lot, but never mind.
Poor Bindyman, I guess global warming zealot hurt his feelings.
Here is University of Bremen data going back to 1972.
Arctic
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/ice_minmax_n.png
Antarctic
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/ice_minmax_s.png
You can see the multi-decadal trend downward for the Arctic. Not so much for the Antarctic. You can see the satellite era high on 2014. The ice edge was obviously pretty thin because it collapsed the following two years. I seriously doubt anybody can claim the almighty CO2 molecule did that to the Antarctic ice. Maybe the Bindi feller will try to make the case.
Now for the Arctic. You can see the summertime minimum trending down significantly faster than the wintertime mins. However, the wintertime is when most of the warming is occurring. Check out the DMI Euro temps for the Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Click on any of the years between 1958 and 2019. You can clearly see the summertime temps not budging over 274K. It will take a lot more the 274K to melt the Arctic ice in the summer. This is why the idea of the Arctic ice melting away is a big farce.
Why do you people always wear blinkers. Allow your eyes to stray from the summer maximum just for a moment, and look at how temperatures have evolved during the majority of the year.
And you DO understand that the Arctic doesn’t start at a latitude of 80 degrees, right? You have cherry picked 18% of the Arctic, and the coldest 18%.
So you don’t think that a constant amount of Summer melt combined with a relentless decline in the amount of Winter refreezing might have an effect?
Interesting.
Relentless decline of winter refreezing Elliott Bignell? All of you silly human-caused global warming alarmists love to overstate things a bit don’t ya think? Here, have a look –
https://tinyurl.com/ndhsnbu
Does that look like to you the winter refreezing is in a “relentless” decline?
Look at the Bering Sea. It has already caught up to the 1981-2010 median ice edge. The Chukchi Sea was way below normal last summer. And you global warming fanatics were making a big ‘ol frigging deal about it. Now the Chukchi Sea is frozen solid, and the Bering Sea ice extent is now “normal.”
There is no “resistance is futile” issue with me. I simply laugh at you global warming zealots.
Unfortunately for Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy, the laughing stopped with them when some Green New Dealer types shot at their office.
By the way Dr. Spencer, I don’t know if you are monitoring this, was anything resolved about that?
Here we see what for a disgusting person this Mitchel in reality is:
“Unfortunately for Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy, the laughing stopped with them when some Green New Dealer types shot at their office.”
There is absolutely no legal evidence to support such a claim. Huntsville police said it could have been a random shot:
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2017/04/shots_fired_at_office_building.html
But people like Mitchell nonetheless woefully disseminate their denigrating BS. Incredible.
What Mitchell would never write about, is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting
That, Mitchell, was real, and not an unproven claim arising from your sick brain.
Three persons died, three were injured.
But… the murder was no ‘Green New Dealer type’. Not so very interesting for you then, isn’t it?
And this:
https://www.wbrc.com/2019/03/22/car-chase-shooting-ends-downtown-huntsville/
Oh! So what…
That they are disgusting is not news to me. That he cannot tell a static picture of an extent at one moment in time from a trend aross time is a little distressing, however. But the main thing is that he can be seen to have no explanation for the decline in Summer ice nor any refutation for my observation about the effect of reduced Winter refreezing.
I emailed DMI about the Summertime temps, and they said that this part of the Arctic is still mostly icebound year round. Therefore, the temperature North of 80N is largely set by the temperature of the ice. You’ll notice that the temp is very close to zero degrees C – the freezing point of water (sea ice freezing point is a little different).
What’s interesting is that for the rest of the year, there is a clear upward trend over the long term North of 80N (with the expected interannual variability).
That is the wintertime warming trend barry. But there is no summertime warming trend, when it would really count for melting away the Arctic ice.
As I said, you have made that claim for the whole of the Arctic based on a cherry pick of the coldest 18% of the Arctic.
The Arctic UAH data for September shows a trend of +0.23 degrees per decade, just under the Arctic trend for all months of +0.25 degrees for decade.
But that is not the result you want, so you will decide that the satellite data is not appropriate for this purpose, despite clinging to it for dear life for global temperatures.
Latent heat of fusion, me old china.
Rob,
“But there is no summertime warming trend, when it would really count for melting away the Arctic ice.”
Here is a plot of Arctic Summers with a trend line included.
https://i.imgur.com/VCQmMeC.png
UAH cover the region 60N to 82.5N, so mostly the region NOT covered by DMI.
The overall warming for that region from Summer 1978/79 to Summer 2018/19 is 1.09 C.
Do you understand that the DMI temperature iis set ny the temperatyre of the ice, and that the region they measure (80N to 90N) is almost entirely icebound all year, including summer?
That’s why the Summer temps there hover around the freezing point of salt water (-1.8C).
Rob, to expand on Barry’s point. What is the temp of a pitcher of ice water? Turns out it will be very close to 0C. That is what happens in Arctic summer.
But what happens to your pitcher of ice water on an extra warm sunny day? It maintains ~ 0C, but its ice melts faster. Just like the arctic.
Mitchell
“Poor Bindyman, I guess global warming zealot hurt his feelings.”
No, Mitchell: it shows how poor-minded you are. No one with a brain under the skull uses such discrediting words.
Btw: no need to teach me about Bremen data, Mitchell.
– I live in Germany since over 50 years;
– I make such graphs by my own.
No need for showing DMI data: I did years ago already.
What you need: the ability to correctly, accurately interpret Bremen or DMI data.
From that you are light years away. This is probably due to the fact that you spend too much time with underestimating, discrediting and insulting others.
Des, Elliott Bignell, Bindidon, barry, please stop trolling.
Regarding the discussion of trend analysis, I would point out that a common approach is actually to discard “outlying” points caused by special circumstances. Arguably ENSO peaks constitute just such non-trend outliers and should not even be included in trend analysis, but at any rate they should not be cherry-picked to try and strangle a desired result out of the data.
As far as the least-squares fitting method is concerned, I would note that even quite unspecialised software, such as spreadsheet software, can compute a fit deterministically. I actually studied the method a long time ago, but just use software these days. The idea of trend-analysis is to build a model that predicts that part of variation that is systematic, such that when subtracted from the data the remaining variation is “random”, which for purposes of climate physics means events coming from outside the climate system and/or chaotic behaviour. A volcanic eruption would be a good example.
Linear regression, the simplest method, seeks to compute a trend line for which the sum of squares of the variation of the data away from the line is minimal. This basically means it goes through the y-middle of the data across its-range, as nearly as possible. if you have only two y-values 1 and 2, at one x-value, it can be appreciated that 1.5 is the middle AND the point of least-squares deviation: 2 *(0.5 ^ 2) = 0.5, whereas (0 ^ 2) + (1 ^ 2) = 1. You could prove this algebraically by solving for y’ where x’ is the set of y-middle candidates, and you would see that the curve reaches its minimum halfway between the two y-values.
If all x-values had 2 y-values equidistant around a mid-point lying along a straight line, then it can quickly be seen that the straight line is itself the line with the least-square deltas. In real data, least-squares produces a line which minimises this one way of computing deltas in a way which fits well “by eye” for highly trended data, but says less and less about the distribution of data the less it is characterised by a linear trend. How much it says about “fit” is itself quantified by the “coefficient of determination”, which basically says how much of the variation is reduced by subtracting the trend.
That’s as mathematical as I get these days, so for pity’s sake don’t ask about multiple regression.
Of course the other way of removing “random” variability to expose the long-term trend is to use a low-pass filter, the moving average being an example. Mr Spencer’s minimal 13-month moving average is designed to keep as much variability as possible while paying lip service to the concept of trend-seeking. “We can’t let 1998 and 2016 disappear and let everyone see the climate trend.”
Quite!
Des, please stop trolling.
Again a large increase in galactic radiation. There is a minimum of solar activity.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
So still not as high as 2009 then.
Enough to freeze eastern Canada.
Did eastern Canada freeze when these values were low?
Your silence means that it did.
Forecast Hour:108
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2020021006/gfs_T2ma_us_19.png
Forecast Hour:114
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2020021006/gfs_T2m_us_20.png
I see you’re avoiding the question ren.
HAS EASTERN CANADA FROZEN BEFORE WHEN THESE VALUES WERE LOW?
Show me your historical analysis of the correlation between Eastern Canada freeze and your neutron data going back to 1965.
Without such an analysis, you are only cherry picking to make your assertion.
Are you talking about yourself?
So you’ve done no such analysis and have no proof of causation.
Got it.
The percentages on the vertical axes are percentages of … WHAT?
“Are you talking about yourself?”
Who knows, when Des gets a bee in his bonnet about something…
Yesterday night I had some dozens of looks at Arctic sea ice, by following yearly, monthly, daily data.
I has a look at many many trends computed for single time units, and thought: what about moving this 2007-2019 window from 1979 till 2007, by the way creating something like a time series of consecutive trends.
In each year, the trend for the sea ice period ‘year: year + 12’ is computed.
I had done something similar for tide gauge sea level measurements, to show that their trend is not at all uniform over time, but on the contrary very slowly increases.
The result for the Arctic sea ice extent, measured in March resp. September, looks like this (apos: no 2 sigmas, no error bars, too much work):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rrxatHkMzNX8MfpwiLcgQ4U9olx1ex2V/view
I am no statistician at all, and thus I don’t know wether or not this graph has any significance.
But one thing I know: all these ‘skeptic’s (quotes needed here) will enjoy it, they will love it. It tells them exactly what they wanted to see, even if it might be no more than an artificial construct.
I hear them telling: “You see? I knew it all the time, I’m sure I told it to you hundred times with different words”, etc etc.
It would be interesting to know what a professional statistician means about it.
Yeah, Mr Mitchell: don’t underestimate the warming zealots.
They have a much closer look at data than you think, and above all… a much closer one than yours.
No comment on the “relentless decline” of the winter refreezing Bindyman? Instead you just go on an emotional rant about the shooting incident at the UAH office. And then you mention two other unrelated shooting incidents for God knows what. Maybe for obfuscation purposes.
Dr. Spencer did say that, “Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right by our building on a Saturday afternoon, I think this was more than a coincidence.”
Do you have any idea who was in that so-called march for “science?” I will tell you who. A bunch of hysterical Green New Dealers, that’s who. Since you are a kraut, you would not know that. But Americans like Dr. Spencer, Dr. Christy, and myself sure know.
It is so easy for you to dismiss the shooting. It wasn’t your office that got shot at.
What sort of effwit goes around using racial slurs.
Oh, you think kraut is as bad as the “n” word? In America, slang words for white people is permitted. Correct?
What about redneck? Is that OK? Any better or worse than kraut?
By the way, you can call me a redneck if you want. I’m an old Texas boy.
“Redneck” is not a racial slur. In case you hadn’t realised.
This one really is scum, isn’t he? I particularly like the way he tries to obfuscate by introducing an alleged shooting and then tries to bluster his way out when countered with far more credible and unarguable examples of the exact same.
You clearly need back-up. Another four of you arguing against the one guy should do it.
I see you miss the days when that situation was reversed, when you, Mike Flynn and co used to gang up on everyone.
Don’t be silly, Des. It’s always been an “alarmist”-dominated skeptic blog here at Dr Spencer’s. Most of the regulars here are on your “team”.
Absolutely untrue. The vast majority of people commenting fawn after Mr Spencer. It only evens up slightly when many of you guys vanish when the anomalies are high.
Most of the regulars here are on your “team”, Des. Wakey wakey.
To be fair, a lot of the deniers haven’t run off. They got banned instead. Mr. Excavated Natural Fabric and mpainter spring to mind. If there’s one thing you can say about them it’s that they do not operate well as a team. Half the deniers here over the years loathe Dr. Roy as much as they do any other scientific rationalist just for recognising that the GHE is a real, physical phenomenon, although Roy is well-known as being cautious about accepting anything that smacks of alarm.
It’s the same in the literature. The tiny rump of researchers that reject the consensus, where they haven’t already died out or given up, simply do not agree on any alternative mechanism.
“To be fair, a lot of the deniers haven’t run off. They got banned instead.”
Absolutely. This site has always been unmoderated, and hence full of people arguing against the GHE, since that is what people tend to want to discuss when there is no moderation. Gradually Dr Spencer’s iron boot stamped all that out with his wildly intolerant views on the subject, and hence we are left with a blog overrun by “alarmists”. Dr Spencer’s blog is now an “alarmist” echo chamber, hilariously, and that’s all his own fault. Oh well.
I was surprised “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team” wasn’t banned in the last troll purge, I thought he had it coming for a long time, must have slipped by luck
No GPE, no GHE.
No worries.
DREMT
You will continue to delude yourself that they were banned for their opinion on climate change rather than their mode of expression.
If people were banned for their mode of expression, you would have gone a long time ago.
And if people were banned for EITHER their opinion on the greenhouse effect OR their mode of expression, YOU would have gone long ago.
roy keeps deniers who he finds
useful.
I think Dr Spencer knows what he’s doing, really. He knows there’s no GHE, but isn’t ready to go public with that yet. My explanations regarding the Green Plate Effect were simple and clear enough that anybody could understand, so he kept me here. Also, by banning others for their opinions on it he just makes it all the more interesting and appealing to real skeptics to start investigating the “no GHE” position properly. The “alarmist” echo chamber here was an unfortunate side-effect though, I must say.
It’s a shame for some of the more “serious” skeptics on here (the ones who are desperate for credibility, etc) that they came down on the wrong side of the GPE issue previously. No easy way for them to walk it back now it’s been so obviously and completely refuted.
“He knows theres no GHE, but isnt ready to go public with that yet.”
So you’re calling him a liar.
I wouldn’t do that, if I were you.
I didn’t…you just did, on my behalf (and wrongly). I wouldn’t do that, if I were you…
“He knows there’s no GHE, but isn’t ready to go public with that yet.”
DREMT thinks he knows what people are thinking even when they tell him, No, actually its the opposite.
If reality doesnt fit his weird POV he just changes it.
DRsEMT wrote:
I think Dr. Spencer understands the basic physics of the GHE, which is the same physics as that in his work with the MSU/AMSU instruments. He doesn’t reject the GHE, but has claimed that the resulting AGW won’t be as large as the models project.
DRsEMT continued:
Your “explanations” used incorrect physics and were simply wrong, like those from G. Hughes and others in the denalist camp.
Swanson, all wrong, begone.
DRsEMT, All Wrong?? Prove it. Begone?? NYET!
Historically, of course, Dr Spencer does not reject the GHE, as anyone following this website is well aware. Clearly I’m talking with my tongue firmly in my cheek on that front.
For everything else, why don’t you “prove it”, if you think I’m wrong?
Midas
this word ‘kraut’ is not an expression of racism, and doesn’t bother me at all. The word ‘kraut’ was used during WWII by British soldiers to name German ones, like under ‘frog’ they meant French people, for obvious reasons. British soldiers were named ‘Tommies’.
People using such wording today undoubtedly love to denigrate and insult others.
Stupidity at its best…
Speaking as a European citizen, at least up until two weeks ago, I am particularly fond of the term “Inselaffe”. Whoever came up with it had clearly spent time on my island of origin.
“this word ‘kraut’ is not an expression of racism, and doesn’t bother me at all.”
Of course not. Just more Des-peration.
Thank you a lot for your honest work Bindidon!!
Thank you everybody for every honest work!!
And a million thanks to Dr. Spencer for your intense and patient work, also attending and reflecting on all the opinions expressed in the forum, go beyond political-economic trends, and discover with everyone what is really happening with the climate of our planet.
¡ Muchas gracias Adelaida!
Non c’e un problemo. Although I let Bindidon and a few others do the actual work.
No problem, Adelaida. I do what I can.
Here is one of my favorites. The Polar Portal.
http://polarportal.dk/en/groenlands-indlandsis/nbsp/viden-om-groenlands-indlandsis/
In the discussion, you can tell there is a considerable amount of concern about the gigatons of ice melt from Greenland, and the affects from climate change. But there is one little paragraph that does not seem to get a lot of attention. It is the 4th one down.
“In total the loss of mass from the ice sheet equals a 25 mm addition to global sea level since 1840.”
The global sea level has risen a grand total of one inch since 1840 due to Greenland ice sheet melt and calving. Now, is that anything to get real agitated about?
Once you factor in Antarctic and alpine melt, thermal expansion and projected future reinforcement of all these, obviously yes. At least if you are living close to sea-level or dependent on food grown anywhere near sea-level.
EB, isn’t Greenland the recent focus of most of the human-caused global warming zealotry? I was simply pointing out there is not a whole lot there to get hysterical about.
And I in turn pointing out that if one decomposes an aggregate into enough sub-components then one can always find spurious grounds for dismissing the whole. Now would you please focus on the substantive matters rather than simply trying to fit the maximum rhetorical content into each post?
Rankings of the last 5 months of UAH LT temperatures were, where 1=lowest, 1,2,1,1,1(tied).
Scipio
What does that mean??
You seem to be claiming that September, November & December 2019 and January 2020 were the coldest (“lowest”) September, November, December and January in the UAH record.
Yes, I am also a little in the dark as to the context and thrust of this ranking.
Rob said ‘The global sea level has risen a grand total of one inch since 1840 due to Greenland ice sheet melt and calving.’
you can’t seriously believe that, right? it’s bonkers.
and you can’t prove it with data.
Scipio, the Danish Meteorological Institute said that. It is from their Polar Portal link that you failed to open. When it comes to Greenland, I will side with the Danes. Not some global warming zealot in America.
Great to hear that, Rob. So let’s test that: “In 2002-2011, the ice sheet lost 215 Gt per year (0.6 mm annual sea level rise).”
This corresponds to a rate amounting to another 25mm in 42 years, so the amount of sea-level rise from 2002 to 2044 will equal all of that from 1840 to 2019. This represents a clear acceleration in trend rate, amounting to a little under 2% growth per year, which in turn extrapolates to a total of roughly 200mm by the end of the century, and the complete loss of the sheet by about 2250. As the IPCC projects about 1m of rise by century’s end, including Antarctic melt and thermal expansion, the Danish summary seems to confirm or slightly exceed IPCC projections.
So, do you side with the Danes and thereby endorse the IPCC? There are quite a few more isolated sentences in that article to go through, so get comfortable.
That is one huge assumption to make that Greenland will continue to shed 200+ gigatons of ice every year through the rest of this century.
Well, of course sooner or later it will have to stop. There won’t be any ice left at some point, after all. But no, no assumption at all. It follows from reading THE WHOLE ARTICLE, or the basis for IPCC projections, not just the sentence that stands out because it suits you. As barry shows just below.
It would be more correct to say that expecting anything else requires the huge assumption that much of basic physics is wrong.
Elliott, agreed. Considering that ice volume declines is an expectation based on physical law it would be a huge assumption to think otherwise.
What else do the Danes say?
“In total the loss of mass from the ice sheet equals a 25 mm addition to global sea level since 1840.
This development seems to have accelerated within the last decades. The largest ice loss rates since 1840 have occurred in the most recent decade. The mass loss in 2012 set a new record….
The explanation for the increasing loss of mass is the rise in temperature.
The average annual air-temperatures measured since 2005 are the highest since measurements started in the late 1800s. The summer air-temperature in the Arctic in the last two decades is higher than at any point in time in the last 2000 years…
How will the ice sheet respond to the even larger increase in temperatures we should expect in the future? So far, the air temperature in the Arctic has risen by approximately 1.5°C. Climate models predict an increase of up to 5-10°C within this century.”
Elliott Bignell, Des, bdgwx, barry, please stop trolling.
JSPP DREMT.
Elliott Bignell, Des, bdgwx, barry, please stop trolling.
The cyclone that is approaching the east coast of Australia generates strong storms.
http://pl.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php?map=20
A cyclone IS a storm.
Sorry, tropical cyclone.
A tropical cyclone IS a storm.
That produces a lot of THUNDERstorms.
ren, these global warming zealots sure are snooty!
So those were THUNDERstorms on ren’s map were they?
Official JTWC Forecast (click to enlarge):
https://www.metoc.navy.mil/jtwc/products/sh1520.gif
So that map shows the path of “the storm” (the cyclone).
Des, please stop trolling.
Valentine’s Day will be very cold in the east of North America.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00997/c4lve55l88st.png
I suspect Valentine’s Day is always cold for you, ren.
Well Midas, based upon your disparaging comments here on Dr. Spencer’s blog, one can also concluded that Valentine’s Day is extremely cold for you as well. But that’s just me, a casual observer. If I’m wrong, please dazzle us with your swooning abilities. Otherwise, stick to science, something you do know.
Thanks for your acknowledgement of my prowess in science.
And … your comment seems to indicate that you don’t understand who does the swooning.
Des, please stop trolling.
If you are brave enough to venture into cycle mania… I have something I want to show you guys. You have heard me mention here in this blog about the 3.6 year cycle in the UAH LT data numerous times. (1/3 of a solar cycle) Well, the rabbit hole goes deeper. Not only do we have a 3.6 year cycle, but each cycle position rotate in strength like this… weak, mid, strong, mid, weak, mid, strong following the progression of the proxy location in the last set of 3 waves. Let me know what you think please.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2972971856055351/?d=n
So you are claiming that each of those red lines are precisely 3.6 years apart?
Midas… thanks for looking. The chart with the red lines is comparing UAH Global to HADSTT3 ENSO 3.4 region to show that ocean temperatures are leading atmosphere and the significance of the ENSO 3.4 region. Those are NOT 3.6 years apart. That one simply was made to show how well they line up peak to peak.
The 1st chart I wanted you to look at actually was the comparison of UAH Ocean tropics to the global temperature. Not surprising it is a match as the tropics dominate the globe. Now if you take a look at the tropics at the top, I’ve divided it into solar cycles, and from there 3 3.6 year cycles each. Obviously there are other forcers as well which offset the beat slightly, we are interested in the highest amplitude forcers.
Let’s call the 1st 3.6 cycle out of 3 the RED cycle. The 2nd the GREEN cycle, the 3rd the BLUE cycle. The 3rd cycle should be the strongest in general, and the 1st the weakest because of where the solar minimum is. That lines up. Then we see that these cycles in themselves appear to have a 44 year cycle. So in the first solar cycle, the red cycle is low, the 2nd is mid, 3rd is high, 4th is mid. The next one should be red low.
When you use a low-pass filter to remove any “cycles” of period less than 10 years, what does the data show you about the trend?
Midas,
If you apply a 5 year moving average to the ENSO 3.4 region, or the Antarctic to suppress the 3.6 harmonic, you do indeed see the solar cycle on a delay.
We do not have enough data collected in the UAH dataset to draw definitive conclusions about long term trends over 10 years. We therefore do not know for sure if low, mid, high is enough. Maybe I have to add lower, low, mid, high, higher. Know what I mean?
I will look at a longer dataset and see if I can find that relationship there for the 3.6 cycle in the tropics.
Taking the HADSST3 north Atlantic data which goes back to 1850 as proxy, we know there is a 60 year cycle. There is also most likely a cycle around 84 years. How the 2 cycles combine or interfere creates the GSM cycle. (barycenter movement causing activity on the sun)
That certainly looks more plausible than the human caused atmospheric CO2 driving sea surface temperatures.
[Once you factor in Antarctic and alpine melt, thermal expansion and projected future reinforcement of all these, obviously yes.]
You left out my favorite…….sedimentation from cosmic dust. Explained to us a few years ago by the poster ger*an. Whatever happened to that guy?
Not sure how you think this fits into the picture, and I may have missed that discussion, but have you considered doing some vacuum-cleaning? He may just be under a pile of dust in a corner somewhere.
Snape, Elliott Bignell, please stop trolling.
Scipio wrote:
[Rob said The global sea level has risen a grand total of one inch since 1840 due to Greenland ice sheet melt and calving.
you cant seriously believe that, right? its bonkers.
and you cant prove it with data.]
*******
The figure comes from polar portal, a reputable source.
http://polarportal.dk/en/about-polar-portal/
Why do you think they are wrong?
Be careful that you are not speaking at crossed-purposes. One source gives a total SL rise from 1870 to 2009 of 250mm. The Greenland contribution would then be 10% of that, which is a bit high but reasonable when you consider thermal expansion and Antarctic/alpine melt. Scipio may consider the value too low for TOTAL rise and believe that Rob is treating this one inch as the total. To wit, he may consider the Danes right but Rob mistaken. Some clarification of positions might be helpful.
Well, all you have to do is open the link and look at paragraph 4 like I mentioned in my previous post. There is nothing confusing about it. And is straight-forward.
http://polarportal.dk/en/groenlands-indlandsis/nbsp/viden-om-groenlands-indlandsis/
The one inch sea level rise comes from Greenland since 1840. It didn’t say total sea level rise from all sources. I mentioned Greenland because this has been the focus of concern by global warming zealots in recent times. They think Greenland is the primary contributor to sea level rise. And I just simply pointed out that there was no need to get hysterical about Greenland.
The Polar Portal most certainly addresses the concerns of CC. They have to if they want to continue their research funding. But there are some honest geo-scientists over there who quietly slipped that paragraph in to quantify what is actually happening. Dr. John Christy has testified that science is all about numbers. And the numbers from Greenland are not that much. Even though they make some verbal noise about it to appease government officials.
Whoa…up to +10C change in Arctic air temperatures by the end of this century. I’m curious…what is the threshold of warming to be considered zealotry and alarmist? And are you okay with Polar Portal using the IPCC as a source?
bdgwx
The best is that these ‘no warming’ agenda specialists
– on the one hand fire red bullets on anything having a bit to do with models,
but
– on the other hand are never tired to show us entirely model-based temperature series, e.g.
– DMI Arctic data above 80N;
– WeatherBELL.
Great.
“They think Greenland is the primary contributor to sea level rise.”
Name one person who thinks this.
“And I just simply pointed out that there was no need to get hysterical about Greenland.”
It’s one of several contributors to sea-level rise. Putting aside your use of prejudicial language, they are all going roughly the same way – apart from perhaps one of the Antarctic sheets – and are all therefore equally grounds for concern. Even a denier should be able to understand that it is little comfort that a smaller contributor was even smaller in the past when all are accelerating in synchrony right now. It’ll be even smaller consolation when your crops are under a metre of water to know that “only” 10% of it came from Greenland.
Since the contribution of Greenland is consistent with IPCC projections, as I outlined, there is no comfort in that page for anyone seeking to reject the IPCC’s overall findings. Which is all that need ultimately be said.
“Dr. John Christy has testified that science is all about numbers.”
Well, one can see how he earned his doctorate, then. I am awestruck by this intellectual Brobdingnagian.
“The Polar Portal most certainly addresses the concerns of CC. They have to if they want to continue their research funding.”
Oh, grow up. As if no-one might be interested in exploiting the Arctic in any other state than following global warming.
“Even though they make some verbal noise about it to appease government officials.”
I said GROW UP
bdgwx, Bindidon, Elliott Bignell, please stop trolling.
The tropical cyclone is already close to the east coast of Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/ausf/mimictpw_ausf_latest.gif?fbclid=IwAR17HrelH84aUlIlYyaTFeEcQoZ1tRnTqQcLLtPNWbDjGesMttvr1p2Kaj8
We are quite capable of watching the news ourselves.
I congratulate
Speaking of news, the Horn of Africa is currently being eaten by locusts. Kenya is allegedly facing the biggest outbreak in 70 years, and it is getting perilously close to planting season in a region already threatened by food insecurity. At this point it is hard to say if any meaningful response will emerge in time.
I have seen only one commentary linking this to climate change, and we already know which way the deniers will jump, but they need the exercise so I thought I’d mention it.
Elliott Bignell
Northern and central parts of East Africa were many times visited by these monsters in the past.
There are actually four giant clouds, the biggest one being over 2500 km2.
They move by up to 150 km a day, and have reached Uganda as well.
Sure we have climate change. But blame climate change for this phenomenon? Was it climate change in earlier times as well?
I would rather see the problem in the inactivity of both politicians inside, and of sponsors outside. It is known since months; maybe right now it has become too late to eradicate.
Plagues of locusts have been recorded since Biblical times, of course, and linking any single event to a global climate trend is either a exercise in probability with very low certainty or a fools’ game, according to inclination. However, climate change must presumably have an impact on these as much as on any other invertebrate or pest species, just as it will on crop production. You’d need a specialist even to say whether the idea is plausible; for all I know AW could make locust plagues less frequent.
I mainly mentioned it just to wind up the fruitbats.
Elliott Bignell, please stop trolling.
Excess ozone over North America indicates a strong stratospheric intrusion and an unusual drop in temperature.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00997/byhwij4p6b03.png
Interesting that the fires in Indonesia have not been in the news so much recently. According to at least one source (see below), the burn area for 2019 was greater than for 2018. The 2018 burn, if I remember correctly, was for a time producing more CO2e emissions than the entire US economy. This is a potential tipping-point agency, therefore, that deserves closer attention.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southeast-asia-haze/area-burned-in-2019-forest-fires-in-indonesia-exceeds-2018-official-idUSKBN1X00VU
On the positive side, “Science” reports that efforts to limit the burn have had some effect: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/indonesias-fires-are-bad-new-measures-prevented-them-becoming-worse
Elliott Bignell
… and if no one stops this strange Bolsonaro in his will to open nearly the entire Amazon area for industry and agriculture, we will see that worldwide deforestation through man-made burning will bypass even China’s CO2 emissions.
In fact, these are less China’s than ‘ours’, as shows this graph:
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-05905-y/MediaObjects/41467_2018_5905_Fig6_HTML.png?as=webp
Source:
Consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions accounting with capital stock change highlights dynamics of fast-developing countries (2018)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05905-y.pdf
Concur with all the above. As the Amazon itself may have a tipping point at which it would transition to savannah, this is also a bit worrying.
I have zero interest in any kind of panic, but this corona virus stuff is now going harsh up.
It is today Feb 13, at 1360 death toll, and has bypassed the quadratic fit computed by my spreadsheet guy a week ago (prediction: 1111 at Feb 5 for Feb 12/13); it is still below last week’s cubic fit (1516), but for how long time?
Until yesterday, the number plot was kept ‘nicely’ inside of the two polynomials… duh:
https://tinyurl.com/uw8qq3h
This site informs very good (graphs not updated with today’s data yet):
https://tinyurl.com/ub9gvyc
I hope for all these dozens of millions of confined persons that it will come to a good end, but…
This is not your web site take your shitposting somewhere else
Eben
If it was yours I would try to understand the ‘convenient’ reply…
I haven’t tried graphing the cases, but I had perceived from the numbers that a real epidemic seems to be taking off. It was only a matter of time, of course. People consistently underestimate the power of logarithmic growth curves, and there are so many animals in contact with people these days that zoonoses must be crossing over every year.
The good news is that in its current state the virus does not appear to have a very high mortality rate, and we seem to be getting better able to respond. It’s all practice. (At least until it’s you!) I am more worried about the economic impact right now than I am about the risk of getting it.
More reason to put a price on carbon and commoditize carbon storage.
wrong thread..
Those pesky scientists are cooking the books Bindidon. There’s a new method of diagnosis. It’s a conspiracy. To go on more conferences.
Indeed. Some of the flights cost a grand. The scientists are getting a cool million in expenses when you lay on a do for 1,000 of them.
Svante
Thanks for the hint, understood. I’ll soon adapt my graph to this cooking.
Svante
Today I understand a posteriori that the Chinese Gov did not only come back to WHO’s evaluation procedure for infections; they manifestly had tried to lower the death toll as well.
Nice try.
This is why we need homogenization!
Apparently there is no need to cook books any more. You can just leave them lying in the open in the Antarctic.
“The Antarctic has registered a temperature of more than 20C (68F) for the first time in history, prompting fears of climate instability in the world’s greatest repository of ice.
“The 20.75C logged by Brazilian scientists at Seymour Island on 9 February was almost a full degree higher than the previous record of 19.8C, taken on Signy Island in January 1982.
“It follows another recent temperature record: on 7 February an Argentinian research station at Esperanza measured 18.3C, which was the highest reading on the continental Antarctic peninsula.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/13/antarctic-temperature-rises-above-20c-first-time-record
The polar regions are just SO uncool these days.
The meme that models are failing seems to have been wrong.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/tbp/inp_Hausfather_ha08910q.pdf
Hausfather shows that when given the correct inputs Hansen’s 1988 model was almost spot on.
Nate
Yeah. That’s due to John Christy’s very, very accurate, totally impartial comparison of models vs. (UAH) sat & sonde observations.
And when we compare radiosonde data with UAH’s, we see a big big gap, with the exception of
– a set of 31 radiosondes intercalibrated with UAH [sic] around 2006;
– RAOBCORE and RICH model-based (!) postprocessing of raw radiosonde data by Haimberger in Wien / Austria;
– RATPAC A/B postprocessed radiosonde data as well.
I never managed to extract data out of KNMI’s model corner, but a regular commenter named Olof Reimer (Olof R) did, and Tamino did as well. Both used RCP4.5 instead of the desperado blind-alley named RCP8.5.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/11/25/climate-models/
bdgwx, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I used a conveyor belt as an analogy for the flow of energy from surface to tropopause. The slower the conveyor belt, the more energy accumulates. Faster, less energy accumulates.
Same idea can be applied to any sort of flow, including the flow of ice (glaciers). Given a constant rate of input, a glacier will lose mass if it starts to flow faster. This seems to be happening at both poles:
https://www.egu.eu/news/100/greenlands-fastest-glacier-reaches-record-speeds/
snape…”Given a constant rate of input, a glacier will lose mass if it starts to flow faster. This seems to be happening at both poles:”
I fail to grasp your analogy between a glacier flowing downhill due to the force of gravity and the atmosphere behaving in the same manner.
A glacier also loses mass if the pre.c.i.p.i.tation feeding it is reduced. As polar expert, Duncan Wingham claimed, it’s far too cold in Antarctica for glaciers to melt and the only factor affecting their mass is precipitation.
A given glacier will not flow faster unless you change the friction factor under it, or increase the gradient of the slope on which it descends. Even at that, glaciers flow on a pla.st.i.c.i.zed ice layer that changes state due to the immense pressure of the ice above.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190920111355.htm
Some climate trivia:
[The average temperature of the Nio3.4 region has increased by more than 0.5C since 1950.]
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/ENSO-Blog_2_12_2020_Fig3_El-nino-3.4-Temps-1950-through-2020_620.png
Snape
Here we see how important it is not to solely rely on Nino3+4’s SSTs when trying to evaluate ENSO events.
MEI’s graph:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
speaks a well different language…
While the SSTs for 1982/83, 1997/98 and 2015/16 are increasing, MEI’s values for these years clearly decrease; so does the index as a whole, with -0.15 +- 0.03.
ENSO is much more than the 3 month-smoothed average of SSTs within the rectangle 5N-5S–170W-120W.
Folks I checked the HADSTT3 tropics data back to 1850 and found the same 1/3 solar cycle harmonic found in the UAH database. I confirmed the low / mid / high / mid / low pattern for each proxy data location goes back as well. Other forcers suppress or add to that baseline. So there is another 42-44 year cycle here I would say.
See for yourself.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2978030755549461/?d=n
Sorry here is a better screenshot…
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2979081735444363/?d=n
Bin,
I was interested to see the trend in an area we normally see detrended (I know you have shown the same thing but I had forgotten).
I agree that MEI gives a much better picture of whats going on. More on that later.
Snape
“I know you have shown the same thing…”
No, it was the AMO I guess. I have no knowledge of a detrended Nino3+4 series.
What I probably have shown recently (but not here) in relation to Nino3+4 is a plot of UAH6.0 grid data for exactly that region, compared with UAH6.0 Tropics ocean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-OoPIp2jzs3G7ti7W761iZsjYo2GNyev/view
The bigger blue spikes are due to much less data (80 cells vs. 2304) and hence less stuff averaged out.
*
“I agree that MEI gives a much better picture…”
Sure. But more interesting imho is the contradiction between MEI and UAH data: ‘skeptic’s always pretend that warming is due to El Nino only.
But if that was the case: why then is El Nino for 97/98 stronger than for 15/16, while UAH’s LT and JMA’s surface data clearly shows the inverse?
[I have no knowledge of a detrended Nino3+4 series.]
??
I was interested to see a series where the trend is visible, just like you have shown above.
Here is a detrended version, which I had already seen many times:
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.png
Snape
Do you have some explaining context? I don’t see what is detrended here when compared with ‘normal’, undetrended data.
@ScottR
You should show your work to Willis, at WUWT. He has been trying for years to find a correlation between sunspots and temperature/climate, and says he has so far been unable to:
[Undaunted, I continued to look for correlations, and Ive done so from time to time ever since. At this point Ive looked in more than 20 places, and found no correlation. I append these studies at the end of this post.]
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/04/sunspots-verse-25/
******
I argued with him in the comments section, saying the solar cycle MUST have at least a small effect, even if that effect is not visible.
Snape,
I just posted my study over there. The solar cycle does indeed impact the tropics, very much so. At least the 3.6 year cycle, 11 year cycle, 42-44 year cycle is solar forced.
My opinion is obviously that the 60 year is also solar forced (caused by 3 different Jupiter / Saturn conjunction types). I’m currently pondering this 42-44 year cycle I found in the data and wondering if the earth responds to that 84-88 year cycle in 2 waves.
I also found the 11 year solar cycle in the ENSO, southern ocean data by applying a 5 year moving average but I only went back to 1980 with that one.
This is the problem when you lack skeptics to counter the pseudo-science of alarmists like Bindidon, Barry, etc. Conversations above between hardened alarmists are not being adequately rebutted. Reminds me of nature, when you cull the predators, the vermin spread like wildfire.
Above, in a comment, Bindidon claimed John Christy’s appraisal of the UAH record in comparison to radiosonde data is wrong. As a source, he quoted the alarmist twit Tamino. Tamino has no scientific training in climate science, or any other science as far as I know, and he is a failed musician, along the lines of his compatriot at skepticalscience who is a cartoonist.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-tamino-grant-foster-identity.html
This is the reason I refer to Bindidon as an idiot, he cannot think for himself and he insults genuine climate scientists like John Christy (who has a degree in climate science) on this blog. He doesn’t get the simple fact, admitted freely by NOAA, that Bindidon’s database at NOAA has been long since discarded by NOAA, who now use less than 1500 surface stations globally as their database.
Again, where is JC and Mike Flynn? They were the one’s who could regularly keep twits like Bindidon in place. I don’t bother with him anymore since an exchange with him reduces my IQ several points, to about 180. ☺
Robertson
“He doesn’t get the simple fact, admitted freely by NOAA, that Bindidon’s database at NOAA has been long since discarded by NOAA, who now use less than 1500 surface stations globally as their database.”
How is it possible to behave so stupid, and repeat the same, absolute nonsense all the time?
You rant all the time like an aggressive, headless bull in a Spanish corrida and pounce on every red cloth that moves anywhere.
I repeat: you are an ignorant boaster, who does not understand anything, was never, is not, and will never be able to process existing data of any kind, and tries to hide that by discrediting, denigrating… and lying.
Only people visiting this site who are as ignorant as you are, and love to insult like you do, will read your desperate comments.
Poor Robertson!
How low can Gordon go? A link to a muckraking blog entry, apparently, to denigrate someone. How turgidly typical.
Grant Foster (Tamino) is a statistician who teaches the subject, writes books on it, and spent at least some of his career at the American Association of Variable Star Observers, providing statistics and analysis to astronomers aroud the world.
https://www.aavso.org/new-stats-book-grant-foster
https://www.aavso.org/services
He has 39 published papers on the topics of climate and stars with respect to statical analysis, his field of expertise.
barry…”A link to a muckraking blog entry…”
Hardly, Lubos Motl is a highly regarded physicist, which was the point of my post. You alarmists could not tell physics from basket-weaving. Motl recognizes scientific drivel when he sees it, the kind put forward by the mathematician Grant Foster, aka Tamino.
Don’t you alarmists have any sites run by legitimate scientists? You have:
1)realclimate…run by a mathematician and a geologist, the latter, Michael Mann, who is better known for interfering with peer review and fudging statistics than claiming unprecedented warming.
2)skepticalscience…run by a cartoonist with an undergraduate degree who claims to be a solar physicist.
3)Tamino…a statistician and wannabee musician whose understanding of physics is null and void.
4)Eli Rabbett…a physicist who teaches chemistry and who had to be schooled on thermodynamics by physicists, Gerlich and Tsceuchner, who teach and research thermodynamics.
5)Desmogblog…run by a public relations manager who sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation, climate alarm central. BTW…the site was funded at one time by a convicted criminal.
You alarmists have the temerity to criticize John Christy, a scientist with high integrity, based on propaganda from garbage sites like those just listed.
Gordo wrote:
Yes and I’ve actually published 3 papers (2 peer reviewed) on the MSU/AMSU data from Christy and Spencer documenting what I found to be discrepancies in their data. The first one in 2003 may be the reason that the group at RSS decided to eliminate data over the Antarctic from their version of the TLT, which S&C have long warned about but still include in their latest v6. In the second one (2017), I found what appeared to be a bias in the UAH data, as compared with that from RSS and NOAA STAR. The third, a presentation at the AGU 2017 meeting, was an update to the second with more recent versions of the three data sets.
I suppose that you will also label me as an alarmist, even as you have failed to exhibit any understanding of what S&C are doing. I’d bet that you can’t describe how the latest UAH v6 data is calculated, let alone offer a critique of that process.
This is childishly obvious BS. Whoever’s views you like are automatically intellectual giants, and those you don’t are automatically denigrated.
Here’s an alternative view of Lubs Motl.
“1) Motl has been out of the physics community for more than ten years, and this is reflected in his writing. His understanding of post-2006 work is often superficial, and his observations, which he seems to produce more or less off the top of his head, are often incorrect. This is especially the case when he is talking about things which are not related to his previous work. Looking at him as an “expert authority” is a mistake, and anyone with access to more reliable sources who does so is being intellectually lazy and irresponsible.
2) The unprofessional style in which the blog is written, with many personal attacks and repeated use of coarse language, is not appropriate for any kind of intellectual exchange. Many people seem to think that they can view this stuff as a mere distraction, which they can tolerate (or maybe even enjoy) and then screen out to focus on the physics content, but I do not think this is correct. It is not possible to repeatedly read such things without some of it rubbing off on you, at least subconsciously, and moreover the cost inflicted on those who are the targets of such ranting is substantial and anyone who reads it “for fun” is adding to that cost.
3) In particular many readers seem to think that they can separate his hateful political views, which include constant misogyny and racism, from his physics content. Again, this is false. First of all, whenever the target of one of his physics rants is a woman the unprofessional language is far more vitriolic. Words he has applied on the blog to women he disagrees with include “b–ch”, “wh–e”, “sl-t”, and “vermin”. I am sorry to reproduce such words here, but I think it is important to be clear about how severe the problem is. Use of such terms is more than unacceptable, it is fundamentally disqualifying.”
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl
It makes complete sense that you admire Lubs Motl. It’s enough to say that, like Foster, he is no expert in climate science, but unlike Foster, he is not an expert in statistics. That’s the important difference. Foster doesn’t make the mistake of pontificating on string theory. Motl makes the mistake of commenting on statistical analysis. And climate science.
barry…”Grant Foster (Tamino) is a statistician who teaches the subject, writes books on it, and spent at least some of his career at the American Association of Variable Star Observers, providing statistics and analysis to astronomers aroud the world”.
There are other statisticians who have made a far more important contribution to climate science than Tamino. In fact, Tamino has contributed nothing, all he has done is misapply statistics to pseudo-science with a typical result of garbage in – garbage out.
Steve McIntyre at climateaudit is a statistician and along with fellow statistician, Ross Mckitrick, brought down the house of cards known as the hockey stick. They had such a good case against MBB98 that the US government was forced to appoint the National Academy of Science, along with expert statistician Wegmann, who agreed fully with McIntyre and McKitrick.
Unfortunately, the NAS representation was full of people who had agreed with MBH98 in the first place. Even at that, they moved the 1000 year warming claimed by Mann et al up to 1600 and removed the tree ring proxies from the 20th century. The IPCC responded by moving the starting point of the warming to 1850 and discarding the hockey stick as presented by MBH. The IPCC replaced the Little Ice Agr and the Medieval Warm Period which MBH had removed to get a straighter shaft on the hockey stick.
Tamino is a lightweight for the simple reason he has allowed himself to be blinded by his devotion to ‘the cause’, as Mann put it in the Climategate emails. Tamino is an alarmist, and that means both Barry and Binny are alarmists, since both blindly accept alarmist propaganda without question.
What do you think the word “alarmist” means? It doesn’t apply to me or Bindidon, or pretty much anyone else here.
barry…”What do you think the word alarmist means? It doesnt apply to me or Bindidon, or pretty much anyone else here”.
To me, it means someone who buys into the sci-fi that increasing CO2 is warming the planet in a dangerous manner. Or, someone who supports the sites I listed as having any scientific merit.
I have never said the planet is warming in a dangerous manner.
I said Tamino’s site has statistical merit. His expertise in that field is not in doubt. Most of his published work is on statistical analysis of stars and his books in that field are reference material for astronomers.
There is nothing “alarming” about the above.
Your use of the term is reflexive. Mindless.
An d the same BS on the value of someone or the their work, based only on the results you prefer. You’re working backwards.
Are you really so dull you can’t see that this is what you do?
“alarmists like Bindidon, Barry”
The usual brainless rhetoric.
Neither Bididon nor I are alarmists, and you would be very hard pressed indeed to find anyone at this blog making ‘alarming’ comments about climate change. A feckless slur suits a feeble mind.
“…both Barry and Binny are alarmists, since both blindly accept alarmist propaganda without question.”
Rationalwiki!
Oh dear.
First and foremost they are communists , being alarmists is still only secondary to that
And the physical properties of CO2 follow naturally from that.
?
First you pick a political platform.
From that you decide what is true in science.
I didn’t know that. Interesting.
It’s evident from Eben’s comment.
It’s maybe evident that Eben thinks people like “Barry and Binny” first pick a political platform, and then decide what is true in science, I suppose.
Yeah, it’s evident from Eben’s comment that his judgement is not clouded by any political bias whatsoever.
OK Svante.
Thank you Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team.
What for?
For acknowledging my point.
When?
When you said “OK Svante” remember?
I know what I said, which is why I know I haven’t acknowledged your point. You’re just one of those that I say “OK” to because otherwise you go on forever. Like you are now.
By the way, what ideologies do you sympathize with?
Nothing you would expect.
What do you think I would suspect?
Oh, they’re “suspect ideologies” now, are they!?
Yeah, if it’s anything like your physics.
Stop being so rude.
I have often wondered who would win in an IQ contest, Flynn or Gordon? Hard to tell from the photo:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/7d/84/ab7d8471c60587d39826292d6b798438.jpg
snape…”I have often wondered who would win in an IQ contest, Flynn or Gordon?”
Snape is sore because I keep pointing out the pseudo-science in his many hair-brained thought experiments.
“Again, where is JC and Mike Flynn?”
I thought Mike Flynn was banned. But since we have both been able to write his name out OK, I guess the ban is lifted. So Mike can start commenting again, if he wants to.
@Bindidon
ONI values, as in the time series I linked to earlier today….
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.png
….are mostly detrended.
*********
Explained here:
[When computing Nio3.4 anomalies, we use an averaging period of the most recent 30-year period, updated every five years, to adjust to some of this warming trend. Right now, that averaging period is 19862015. Next year, well update to 19912020. Im running out of space to get into the hows and whys of this, but Climate.gov has a nice description here. Overall, though, the climate is warming rapidly, and that can have some effect on ENSO, particularly when we are getting close to updating the averaging period.]
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/february-2020-enso-update-mind-reading
Snape
Thanks, helpful stuff.
Bin,
Emily Becker has a new post, 2nd Thursday of each month. Always interesting.
https://www.climate.gov/author/emily-becker
snape…”Emily Becker has a new post, 2nd Thursday of each month. Always interesting”.
You’ll go blind of you keep reading NOAA propaganda.
In my part of the world, the southwest coast of Canada, we are more concerned with frigid air descending from the Arctic. Never mind a slight warming in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. If ENSO supplies us with a fraction of a degree warming it can be wiped out in a blink by Arctic Air.
We are not affected by global warming/climate change here, it’s the same old, same old, season after season. We have variations in the timing of annual weather systems but overall no one can point to evidence of climate change. As far as warming is concerned, we could use a couple of degrees C to help us with winter conditions.
Now, if we want to experience a change in climate, all we have to do is jump in the car and drive 150 miles northeast. We soon run into a desert climate with barren hills, sagebrush, mini-cactii, with temperatures up to 20C warmer in summer and 20C cooler in winter.
Real climate change is caused by weather patterns, not CO2. The rain on one side of the mountain ranges drenches our rain-forests and the moisture is lost over the mountains resulting in a very arid climate on the other side.
Snape
This sounds good:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/DiagnosticFlowchart_610.png
And I can’t stop repeating that in 2016, the warming has been all you want but ENSO-based: see
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp2016ane.png
compared with
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp1998ane.png
The very best is that e.g. at WUWT, there are still some CONUS dinosaurs claiming that ‘after erasing our 1930s, they have stolen us our warm 1998″.
A-maz-ing…
Note that I sometimes try to comfort them with this nice graph
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017-550×413.jpg
and intentionally omit to mention that the Globe rather looks like this
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
Snape [cntnd]
I suddenly see some good reason to mention that John Christy’s absolutely correct graph
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/US-extreme-high-temperatures-1895-2017.jpg
of course has been 100 % made out of NOAA station data (the USHCN data set).
Because USHCN is restricted to the US, I wrote a piece of software using the worldwide GHCN daily (40,000 stations inbetween):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view
and extended the stuff out to Earth as a whole.
Unfortunately, I was in 2018 too lazy to generate the ‘inverse’ data, namely the ‘Number of daily Minima Temperatures’.
Snape, Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Gordon, the refuting going on upthread isn’t gping to be any better with Flynn and his ilk joining in. they don’t answer on point, they insult and denigrate – like you.
When someone upthread says the Summertime temps in the Arctic haven’t changed, pointing out that they are cherrypicking 18% oh the region to make that claim, and showing that the whole Arctic has a warming trend in Summer (and using UAH data to prove it), is not sommething anyone can arguue against. That is simple facts, using data that ‘skeptics’ prefer.
When someone upthread claims Gore’s movie said Arctic would be ice free in a few years, quoting the film saying 50-70 years is merely correcting their error. That’s not a fact up for discussion once you see the actual text.
Reminding the hundredth drive-by commenter that just because they are experiencing cold weather in their part of the world doesn’t mean that the globe is getting cooler is not really debatable.
The sad thing is that these sorts of interactions are low-grade. ‘skeptics’ aren’t bringing interesting arguments very often. Just the same old “no greenhouse effect” BS and condenscension to a real scientist, Roy Spencer, who knows these views are crazy.
And you are part of that low-grade round of BS, continually lying about NOAA “deliberately deleting” data from weather stations in the latter part of the record. You’ve been told umpteen time what happened, and been given the actual 1997 research paper that explains it with the original station count graph included. Data was added, not deliberately dropped – added historically, growing the station count in the earlier part of the record, even while the original 1200 stations kept on updating in near real-time.
‘Skeptics’ have to do better than this.
barry…”When someone upthread says the Summertime temps in the Arctic haven’t changed, pointing out that they are cherrypicking 18% oh the region to make that claim….”
According to the UAH global temperature contour maps, that statement has merit. If you look at where the warming is in the Arctic, it is localized to hot spots that move around month to month. Not trying to speak for Roy, but I recall him explaining that as a result of the AMO.
I am not arguing that some warming has taken place in the Arctic since 1850 I am only claiming the propaganda about significant Arctic warming, that is slowly eroding Arctic ice, is just that, propaganda.
Here’s January 2020 for example:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
And here’s August 2019:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/august2019/201908_map.png
On the latter, I am seeing a range of -2.3C to +2.3C between Greenland and Alaska. If you look a month later, the contours will have moved. Global warming is not as depicted, it is not a blanket increase right across the planet. There are +5C hot spots at times in the Arctic and those have to be countered by at least a -4C cooling elsewhere to get a global average warming of less than 1C.
As far as NOAA is concerned, the IPCC announced in AR5 that a ‘warming hiatus’ had occured over the 15 years from 1998 – 2012. NOAA showed that hiatus in their own data over that period then they retroactively fudged the SST to show a warming.No satisfied with that, they continued to fudge the entire planet.
Why you continue to back these cheaters is the question. Wake up, and smell the coffee. It would not surprise me in the least if they were not intercepting the sat data sent to UAH, then running it through an algorithm to increase the UAH signal. I simply cannot accept that the planet has suddenly re-warmed after the 2016 EN just as it was showing a steady cooling.
The warming ‘hiatus’ in the IPCC report was based on Had.CRU4 data, not NOAA. The actual trend, as reported by the 2013 IPCC Report in the very same paragraph you have cited was 0.05 C/decade from 1998 – 2012. It’s still the same.
The old NOAA trend for that period, which the IPCC didn’t report, was 0.04 C/decade. It is now 0.08 C/decade after revising the data sets. The people working on it call this an improvement on the quality. You call it a conspiracy.
If you think that there methods are unsound, explain why. Their work is freely available for auditing.
Hot air is not an argument.
BTW, here are the trends for the US, from UAH and NOAA, for 1979 to 2019.
NOAA | 0.08 C/decade
UAH | 0.17 C/decade
How do you explain that, if NOAA are fudging the data.
The contour maps are showing you monthly weather averages. Of course the temperatures aren’t constant for any given location. But just because a day in Winter can be warmer than a cold day in Summer – that doesn’t mean the Summer is suddenly colder than Winter. That’s the difference between weather and climate.
That’s why you take all the data to determine if a region or hemisphere or globe has warmed.
https://i.imgur.com/P6m9bM5.png
Point is, the ‘skeptic’ upthread didn’t know that the data he was relying on only covered 18% of the Arctic. He thought it was the whole Arctic.
That’s not unusual of the level of ignorance ‘skeptics’ that drop in here bring to the table, and Mike Flynn can’t rescue that ‘argument’.
barry
If we want to keep at UAH data when looking above one single month, we just need to look at their trend map for 1979-2018:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/december2018/Trend_to_201812.PNG
And when I generate, out of UAH’s LT 2.5 degree grid, the trends for each cell, we see that apart from 19 cells in the Antarctic and one in Tibet, all cells with a trend higher than 0.4 C / decade are located in the Arctic, all above 70N.
Top 10 trends for Dec 1978 – Dec 2019:
80.0N-82.5N 52.5W-50.0W 0.50
80.0N-82.5N 50.0W-47.5W 0.50
75.0S-77.5S 37.5E-40.0E 0.49
75.0S-77.5S 35.0E-37.5E 0.49
80.0N-82.5N 47.5W-45.0W 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 180.0W-177.5W 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 177.5W-175.0W 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 177.5E-180.0E 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 175.0W-172.5W 0.48
80.0N-82.5N 175.0E-177.5E 0.48
Even during UAH’s absolutely flat trend period (1998-2015), chosen by ‘skeptic’s because of the so pretty favorable start year, the Northern Arctic regions were at 0.15 C / decade.
Thus yes: the Arctic is warming, even if BC’s weather sometimes gets a bit fresher through cold Arctic blasts (those coming down to eastern Canadian Provinces or to Northern CONUS, especially MN and ND, are way, way worse).
Nowhere better than in the Arctic you experience the difference between weather and… climate.
barry, please stop trolling.
DREMT, JSPP.
barry, please stop trolling.
swannie…”Yes and Ive actually published 3 papers (2 peer reviewed) on the MSU/AMSU data from Christy and Spencer documenting what I found to be discrepancies in their data”.
Having already witnessed the erroneous conclusions you postulated from your experiments I can only imagine how ridiculous your critique of papers by John and Roy might be. I forgot to include you in the alarmist list and you are a special kind.
ps. the fact you got published, when the likes of Lindzen, Spencer, and Christy struggle to get published shows clearly that the peer review process is corrupt.
Gordo, You are unaware how tough it is to get thru peer review. My J-Tech paper took nearly a year to get done and I didn’t attempt to publish my later one, giving it as a poster paper, because it was going to take lots more effort (and money). I had to pay the page charges myself, which was another reason I didn’t want to put the last one thru peer review.
Get off your damned high horse, moron…
swannie…”I had to pay the page charges myself, which was another reason I didn’t want to put the last one thru peer review”.
swannie, old boy, why don’t you just confer with Roy or John to get their modus operandi in their own field. Why are you so determined to prove them wrong? Why can’t you look out the window, so to speak, and see that the UAH record better represents what we are experiencing?
And why are you so determined to re-write the 2nd law when it’s so blatantly obvious that heat can never be transferred by its own means from cold to hot. Why do you read the current drivel from people who have misunderstood the Stefan-Boltzmann equation?
‘Why cant you look out the window, so to speak, and see that the UAH record better represents what we are experiencing?”
“…look out the window, so to speak…”?
This is the depth of your insight.
Your fallacy is Appeal to Common Sense.
“…common sense relies on the vague notion of ‘obviousness’, which means something like ‘what we perceive from personal experience’ or ‘what we should know without having had to learn.’ In other words, common sense is not necessarily supported by evidence or reasoning. As such, beliefs based on common sense are unreliable.”
Gordo’s often repeated claim that the GPS (and Global Warming) violate the 2nd Law completely ignores what happens to the thermal IR EM which leaves the Green plate in the direction of the Blue one. He apparently can not understand that the radiant energy doesn’t vanish, it must go somewhere, else the First Law of Thermo would be violated. The surface of the Blue plate doesn’t magically change from an emitter to a reflector, based on the temperature of the Green plate. The Blue plate’s absorp_tion depends only on the wavelength of the photons, not the temperature of the source.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
Gordo, reverts to his denialist stance, ignoring what I found in my Green Plate Demo because of his failure to understand the well accepted physics of thermal radiation heat transfer. The GPE doesn’t violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Allow me to repeat my point that you have so far demonstrated no clue about what S&C have/are doing with the MSU/AMSU data. As usual, you change the subject to avoid your obvious lack of understanding.
Let’s see what Gordon makes of these…
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
d…”Let’s see what Gordon makes of these…”
I agree but it’s a shame people like the author have to go to so much trouble to disprove this pseudo-science. There are two proofs already available:
1)heat can never, BY ITS OWN MEANS, be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object.
2)energy can never be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from a lower potential energy source to a higher potential energy source.
1) – correct
2) – that’s the point of contention, which is frankly unconvincing from the ‘skeptic’ point of view.
Clausius agrees thst there is a two-way exchange of energy, as has been quoted here many times. No one to my knowledge has adequately explained how a photon from a cooler source cannot be absorbed by a blackbody with a higher temperature. Clausius, the fathter of the 2nd Law, certainly does not forbid it.
And any infrared camera can differentiate objects much colder than the instrument itself. According to the notion that photons from colder objects cannot be absorbed by warmer ones, the infrared camera should see nothing but blackness wherever the environment is colder than itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO-pcBeupmI
FLIR cameras operate at room temp by the way – they’re not cooled. When the ambient room temperature is in above 20C, nothing in the freezer or fridge should be visible, and it shoiuldn’t be able to produce different temperature grades beneath the temperature of the instrument. The freezer should be black, and the fridge compartment should have no colour variation. Not if photons from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one.
DRsEMT, G. Hughes’ two exercises only prove that he doesn’t understand the problem. The first is hopelessly flawed and the second isn’t much better.
In the second version, he limited his run times to 10 minutes and in all cases, his measurements never reach steady state, i.e., stop increasingg. His thermometer is simply standing inside a brass pipe fitting, with contact only on the probe’s tip and a the sharp edge of the top of the fitting. He doesn’t attempt to measure the temperature of the top plate, i.e. the green plate, so we have no clue what’s happening there. His vacuum gauge is a mechanical one, which can not indicate whether the low vacuum needed to minimize convection is achieved. He also doesn’t measure the temperature of the tube, so again, he can not claim that his apparatus has reached steady state. Thus, all his work is trash.
Of course, you also have no clue, which is clear because you have pointed to Hughes’ work as if those results are proof of something other than Hughes’ incompetence.
No, barry, it would have to involve a transfer of heat from cold to hot, which is why the GPE is impossible. Heat, not energy.
I asked Gordon, Emotional Swansong. We already know you are deeply upset by the experimental debunk of your ideas. Since you have decided to be obnoxious, however…
“In the second version, he limited his run times to 10 minutes and in all cases, his measurements never reach steady state, i.e., stop increasingg.”
And? So what? They did in his first version.
His thermometer is simply standing inside a brass pipe fitting, with contact only on the probe’s tip and a the sharp edge of the top of the fitting. He doesn’t attempt to measure the temperature of the top plate, i.e. the green plate, so we have no clue what’s happening there.”
Obviously wrong…as he explains in the opening text, the thermometer is going right through a hole in the second plate.
“His vacuum gauge is a mechanical one, which can not indicate whether the low vacuum needed to minimize convection is achieved.”
Wrong again, as he explains in the comments; he knows exactly what his vacuum is, and it is low enough.
“He also doesn’t measure the temperature of the tube, so again, he can not claim that his apparatus has reached steady state. Thus, all his work is trash.”
Tube temperature is an uncontrolled and unknown variable in your experiments, too.
DRsEMT noted, referring to the thermometer:
Look at the video and notice that the thermometer ,moves quite a bit without the top plate. When the top plate is in position, the probe rests against the side of the hole.
DRsEMT continues:
You (and Hughes) don’t understand a vacuum system and the limits of a mechanical gauge. Here’s the newest gauge from the company which made the one I used, which was similar to this one. There are others and used ones may be found on eBay, etc.
Finally, DRsEMT ignores the fact that I measured the temperature of my bell jar with a thermocouple attached at one location. My graph included a trace of that measurement.
“Look at the video and notice that the thermometer ,moves quite a bit without the top plate. When the top plate is in position, the probe rests against the side of the hole.”
Point?
“You (and Hughes) don’t understand a vacuum system and the limits of a mechanical gauge. Here’s the newest gauge from the company which made the one I used, which was similar to this one. There are others and used ones may be found on eBay, etc.”
So you think he should have used an electronic gauge. I suppose he might, in future experiments, given all the desperate denigration over the mechanical gauge. Talk about clutching at straws.
“Finally, DRsEMT ignores the fact that I measured the temperature of my bell jar with a thermocouple attached at one location. My graph included a trace of that measurement.”
So you know the temperature of the bell jar made no difference. Good for you, good for us.
DRsEMT wrote: “…Talk about clutching at straws.”
No, it’s just part of the normal process of critiquing some results from a scientific point of view.
Also, without knowing the temperature history of the main elements of Hughes’ device, one can not conclude that his results represent anything even close to steady state, which invalidates his results. If the top plate (the Green equivalent) isn’t at steady state, it’s thermal IR EM will be less and therefore the effect on the lower (Blue) plate will be lessened…
You’re clutching at straws…easy to tell, because I’m calling you on specific things and you’re coming back with nothing.
Not being at steady state does not invalidate his results. Why would it? You believe the results would be different if there was more time? The temperatures are recorded continuously over the ten minute intervals and there is just no evidence that the second plate makes any difference. You think a difference will suddenly start to show up after 10 minutes? It didn’t during the first version of his experiments, in which he left things significantly longer.
DRsEMT, G. Hughes’ results don’t “prove” anything. The back radiation from the second plate has minimal impact until the second plate has had enough time to reach maximum temperature, as the emissions are a function of T^4. Since it’s impossible to know the temperatures of both plates from Hughes’ work, it’s also impossible to reach any valid conclusion from his results…
That’s right, they don’t prove anything…they disprove the GPE…
swannie…”The GPE doesnt violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”.
Of course it does, it allows a transfer of HEAT … repeat … HEAT…from a colder source to a warmer source by its own means.
Nope, it is a transfer of energy. A transfer of heat from a cold object to a hot object is not allowed – under the strict definition of heat in classical physics, which only pertains to NET transfers between two bodies and the different equilibrium states.
Uncooled infrared cameras can see objects much cooler than the instrument.
https://www.flir.com/products/t1010/
FLIR T1010 HD Thermal Imaging Camera
Detector Type : Focal plane array (FPA), uncooled microbolometer
Object Temperature Range : -40°C to 650°C (-40°F to 1202°F)
This should not be possible according to you – because you think that radiation from a cold object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object. This is barking mad wrong. This is where ‘skeptics’ become lunatics.
Nope, it is a transfer of heat from cold to hot that makes the GPE impossible, not energy. Infrared cameras have their own power source so of course we are not talking “by its own means” any more. Straw man.
An infrared camera is not a heat pump. Your fallacy is red herring.
Another straw man.
No point in debating someone trollish like DREMT who wont debate honestly and wont acknowledge facts presented to him.
#2
Another straw man.
Where the hell is Nurse Ratched?
I don’t know about nurse ratched but we have just issued an alert for a missing patient with initials GR.
aha…so snape is nurse crotchrot.
The latest on climate from Australia
https://youtu.be/HAwbW3K9C8o
Graphic language warning
More fuel for the idiocracy from Eben.
Could not get this to post in original position.
barry…”The actual trend, as reported by the 2013 IPCC Report in the very same paragraph you have cited was 0.05 C/decade from 1998 2012. Its still the same”.
As usual, you obfuscated the error margin provided by the IPCC by reporting only the possible +ve error in the range. There was a negative part to that error margin which indicated a possible cooling.
The point is, the IPCC did not know but they stated in words that the flat trend over 15 years was a ‘warming hiatus’.
BTW had-crut gets a lot of it’s data from the fudged NOAA data.
****
Placeholder to test link…will post later of a problem exists.
****
As we learned in the Climategate email scandal, the head of had-crut at the time was a focal point in the scandal. Phil Jones claimed to have employed Mike’s trick of hiding declining temperatures, he threatened to block papers from skeptics from reaching the IPCC review, he applauded the death of skeptic John Daly, and he refused to release Had-crut data to Steve McIntyre for an independent audit.
After all that chicanery, the had-crut data showed no warming for 15 years. NOAA did show a trend AFTER THE FACT. Once it was learned that no warming had occurred, NOAA went back and fudged the SST to show a trend.
There are problems with the link…remove * in link, copy and paste to browser.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/c*r*u/data/temperature/crutem4/station-data.htm
Had.CRU get a third of the land station data from NOAA (nearly a fifth is all from the US), and zero NOAA data for sea surface temperatures.
The result from 1998 to 2012 remains 0.05C for Had.CRU. The result is statistically non-significant. I’ve quoted you the full numbers with uncertainties many times – every time that I’ve quoted the IPCC directly on this.
Why do you suppose that the results don’t change for Had.CRU for that period, even though some of their data is from NOAA and NOAA have revised their data?
“There was a negative part to that error margin which indicated a possible cooling.”
The result for NOAA was statistically non-significant with their data in 2013, and is still statistically non-significant with their revised data set. Check it out for yoursewlf.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
There is still a possible negative trend in both data sets for that period. So according to your own argument, nothing has substantially changed.
Which you obviously did not know. As usual.
It’s plain from the following link that had-crut pa.r.a.llel’s NOAA with their fudging techniques:
It’s plain from the following link that had-crut pa.r.a.llel’s NOAA with their fudging techniques:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
1)they fab.r..icate temperatures for the c.e.lls into which they have subdivided the planet. Where there are no temperature measuring devices, they inte.r.p.olate temperatures from cells farther away which have measuring devices.
They have only 4800 re.p.or.ting stations covering the surface and they admit most are in the US and Canada.
2)They ‘ca.l.c.u.late’ temperatures based on some kind of alg.o.r.ithm.
All in all a perfectly fudged record.
1)they fab.r..icate temperatures for the cells into which they have subdivided the planet. Where there are no temperature measuring devices, they in.te.r.p.olate temperatures from cells farther away which have measuring devices.
They have only 4800 re.p.or.ting stations covering the surface and they admit most are in the US and Canada.
2)They ‘c.a.l.c.u.late’ temperatures based on some kind of algorithm.
All in all a pe.r.f.ectly fudged record.
Security! security! …I have found the missing patient!
The medications have worn off and he is hallucinating again about the temperature record.
If NOAA and Had.CRU are doing the same thing, why did the trennd for 1998 to 102 change for NOAA but not Had.CRU?
Also, they have 5583 stations in the database, of which 4842 have data that cover their baseline period (1961-1990).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258662924_Hemispheric_and_large-scale_land-surface_air_temperature_variations_An_extensive_revision_and_an_update_to_2010
That station count was also included in a link you yourself provided just upthread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-435295
Clearly you are skimming and pasting as fast as you can not properly read your sources.
Not only do you get the facts wrong time and again, you are unwilling (probably uable) to actually read about the methods and criticise them from at least some position of knowledge. All your guff is just waffle.
it’s odd that c*r*u posts some times without the asterisks and not at others.
It is really amazing to read that some people still try to pretend that ‘it is a transfer of heat from cold to hot that makes the GPE impossible, not energy’.
1. The GHE is nothing else than an energy imbalance due to the fact that IR-sensitive molecules like H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O and some (much more powerful) CFCs
– absorb LW radiation produced by Earth in response to Sun’s SW radiation
AND
– reemit it in all directions.
2. This imbalance moreover is growing tiny bit by tiny bit, as more CO2 becomes resident in higher atmospheric layers up to 50 km (H2O, by far the main GHE actor, begins to precipitate above the tropopause).
Due to radiation released to outer space from higher, thus cooler locations, the energy radiated out lowers.
*
No heat transfer from cold to hot.
Only lack of radiative energy transfer to outer space.
Try to translate the stuff linked to below. I’m sad of spending half a week in translating documents which are then intentionally misinterpreted.
https://tinyurl.com/uqgxgpt
GPE. The “P” is for “Plate”…and it most definitely does indeed necessitate heat flowing from cold to hot. Not possible. Sorry, Bindidon.
“… …and it most definitely does indeed necessitate heat flowing from cold to hot.”
No. Swanson’s experiment is based on radiative transfer, a matter definitely ignored by those ‘skeptic’s who think Clausius’ work was all about heat, work and nothing else.
Almost all Anglo-Saxon Physics teachers who taught all those engineers 50 years ago, who are now about 70, knew nothing else than Clausius’ knowledge from 1854.
What he wrote in 1887 about radiative transfer was unknown to them and was therefore kept invisible to all those they taught.
Believe what you want … I don’t really care.
“Swanson’s experiment…”
…has been experimentally debunked.
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Believe what you want … I don’t really care.
binny…”Swansons experiment is based on radiative transfer, a matter definitely ignored by those skeptics who think Clausius work was all about heat, work and nothing else”.
Clausius stated in one of his papers on the mechanical theory of heat that radiative transfer must obey the 2nd law. I think you alluded to the fact that scientists of his times knew nothing about the properties of electrons and electromagnetic radiation, which is correct. Till at least the times of Planck, in the 1890s, no one even knew about electrons because they were just discovered in the 1890’s.
Even Planck referred to EM from a heat source as heat rays, the implication being that heat could be transferred through space via some kind of aether. It was not till 1913, that Bohr/Rutherford put it together and got it that electrons absorb and radiate EM. It was Bohr who applied Planck’s quantum theory to the single electron in the hydrogen atom and postulated that electrons lived in quantum level orbits around the single proton that makes up the hydrogen nucleus.
Still, it was another 10 years before Schrodinger tied it all together mathematically, describing the electron/nucleus interaction using the Newtonian wave equation. There was a lot of work to do following his equation but it was mainly about tinkering with and explaining the intricacies of atoms with multiple protons/electrons.
Nothing has changed much since those days even though those dabbling in sci-fi have drawn inferences from quantum theory that don’t exist. Clausius had it right, radiative transfer of heat between bodies of different temperatures must obey the 2nd law. That makes the guy even more impressive.
It’s not a matter of the old-style teacher being wrong as it is modern scientists misinterpreting the 2nd law as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that covers radiation. Swannie has gotten himself caught up in the misinterpretation of S-B which has nothing to do with a two-way transfer of radiation. And, yes, any text book teaching that drivel is plain wrong.
S-B is about the relationship between the temperature of a body and the EM intensity radiated. That’s it. However, the rate of heat dissipation can be affected by the environment in which a body is found. That has nothing to do with S-B although S-B can be used in situation to account for variance in the rate of heat dissipation, provided the direction of heat transfer is from hot to cold.
Nowhere in the works of Clausius, Planck, or S-B do they talk about a two-way transfer of heat, or radiation, between bodies of different temperatures. S-B obeys the 2nd law, it was derived in Tyndall’s experiment from a very hot body radiating to a cooler environment.
“experimentally debunked” in the same way all those videos have debunked perpetual motion and the spherical Earth.
For those who go for that sort of thing..
#2
“Swanson’s experiment…”
…has been experimentally debunked.
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Believe what you want … I don’t really care.
JSPP DREMT.
#3
“Swanson’s experiment…”
…has been experimentally debunked.
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Believe what you want … I don’t really care.
binny…”It is really amazing to read that some people still try to pretend that it is a transfer of heat from cold to hot that makes the GPE impossible, not energy”.
There are two energies involved in the transfer, thermal energy, aka heat, and electromagnetic energy. What is being transferred? Heat!!! How is it being transferred? By EM. There is no mysterious generic energy involved which is required to be balanced.
There are no other energies involved in the transfer!!! However, we are focused on the heating of one plate by the other. There are only three sources of this heat: one from the external source that heats the blue plate, the blue plate itself, and the other from a theoretical source, the green plate.
part 2…
Since this processes is theoretically taking place in a vacuum, the only means of transferring heat is radiative transfer. Both conduction and convection require mass as atoms and in a pure vacuum there are no atoms for such a transfer. So the question arises as to how EM can transfer heat from one body to another.
The short answer is that it cannot transfer heat per se since that would mean transferring atoms from one body to another. A heat transfer via radiation requires the loss of heat in a hotter body as it emits EM and the gain in heat in a cooler body when it absorbs that EM.
There is no mythical ‘balance of energy’ that can offset the 2nd law in this case. There is no requirement that EM energies from each body be balanced, neither knows about the other. There is no system between the bodies that requires a balance of energy.
part 3…
One body emits EM while losing heat. It radiates isotropically and its radiation is subject to the inverse square law. The body is not radiating as part of a system, it is just radiating. If a cooler body should intercept that EM, it will absorb it, forcing the absorbing electrons to a higher orbital energy levels, which translates to an increase in kinetic energy, hence heat.
That process is not reversible for the same reason that water cannot spontaneously flow uphill nor can a bolder spontaneously raise itself onto a cliff. External forces are required to move mass against a potential energy gradient and the same applies to radiative energy.
When EM from a cooler source is intercepted by a mass at a higher temperature than the source, it lacks both the intensity and the frequency to affect electrons in the hotter source. Electrons are the only particles in an atom that can generate or absorb EM. In order to be absorbed by an electron, EM must have a minimal energy/frequency to raise the electron to a higher energy level.
The reason it is called quantum theory is that electrons in atoms live at a theorized quantum orbital energy level. There are no in-between energy levels, it is one level or the other. Therefore, EM lacking the E = hf to raise an electron one complete quantum level has no effect on the electron. It cannot raise it a little bit, or quite a bit, it must raise the electron one orbital energy level or more. EM from a cooler source lacks the required energy and frequency to be absorbed.
That’s why EM from the green plate has no effect on the blue plate.
“When EM from a cooler source is intercepted by a mass at a higher temperature than the source, it lacks both the intensity and the frequency to affect electrons in the hotter source. Electrons are the only particles in an atom that can generate or absorb EM. In order to be absorbed by an electron, EM must have a minimal energy/frequency to raise the electron to a higher energy level”
Wrong…wrong…and…wrong again.!
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You obviously do not understand that black bodies emit and absorb over a range of frequencies. Nothing to stop radiation from a cooler object being absorbed by a warmer object. The net effect though, is still a transfer from warm to cool.
Please stop posting rubbish.
GR,
That is wrong. Radiation from a cooler body emitted towards a warmer body is absorbed by the warmer body.
If you look at the spectral irradiance curve from Planck’s Law what you’ll see is that at every point on the curve the intensity of the radiation of a cooler body is less than a warmer body. What this means is that a warmer body is emitting more photons per spectral line than it is absorbing. Therefore it continues to cool. However, it cools at a slower rate than it would have otherwise. The net flow of energy away from the body has been reduced.
What you describe, however, is a violation of the 1LOT.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
Gordo wrote:
Your latest rant repeats your magic physics, ignoring what happens to the photons from the Green plate on the side facing the warmer Blue plate. Where do they go, as it were? Your explanation violates the First Law of Thermo. Let us know when you’ve figured it out
swannie…”Your latest rant repeats your magic physics, ignoring what happens to the photons from the Green plate on the side facing the warmer Blue plate. Where do they go, as it were? Your explanation violates the First Law of Thermo. Let us know when youve figured it out…”
For one, there is no such entity as a photon, it is a human invention trying to particalize EM. Einstein claimed before his death that no one knows whether EM is a wave or a series of particles. It’s not helpful to think in terms of single photons since even if there is such a thing they have to behave like waves anyway.
Where does the EM go? Who knows? Why does it have to go anywhere? All I know is what Bohr’s theory and Schrodinger’s equation claims, that an electron in an atom absorbing EM can only absorb EM of a frequency that matches it frequency and an intensity that can move it to a higher energy level. That’s basic quantum theory, argue with it at your peril.
The 1st law has nothing to do with EM. Some claim that the 1st law is a conservation of energy theory but that’s true only for heat and work. Where do you see a reference to EM in:
delta U = Q – W
It tells you the change in internal energy of a system equals the heat added to the system minus the work done. If you have a mass of iron atoms and you add Q calories of heat, there is more work done in the vibration of the atoms (the iron expands). Therefore the change in internal energy equals the heat added minus the work done causing the atoms to vibrate harder.
Of course, you could irradiate the iron with infrared and that will cause it to heat. However, the heating is caused by the electrons absorbing the IR and moving to higher energy levels. The heating is due to the electrons having a higher kinetic energy in the higher energy orbital.
Makes better sense, Swannie, than heat being transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. My explanation respects the 2nd law, yours seeks to change it.
GR: For one, there is no such entity as a photon, it is a human invention trying to particalize EM.
Seriously?
GR: Where does the EM go? Who knows? Why does it have to go anywhere?
Seriously?
GR: The 1st law has nothing to do with EM.
Seriously?
GR: My explanation respects the 2nd law, yours seeks to change it.
Says the guy who is challenging the existence of photons, says that energy can disappear, and that the law of conservation of energy does not apply to EM.
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290…244K”
Oh dear. That is the answer that you people support for the 3-plate GPE. 244 K…290 K…244 K. So, studentb, bdgwx, E. Swanson, barry and Svante…Ball4 must be wrong. Right?
Gordo continues his magic physics delusion, writing:
We know that the Green plate(s) emit thermal IR EM radiation from both sides. The energy represented by those photons must go somewhere, else it violates the First Law. You have no case until you can answer your own questions…
OK, Swanson is one. Who else disagrees with Ball4?
Hi Again B,
Quick question.
If the Earth’s atmosphere had no GHG, would the temperature of the atmosphere increase or decrease and why?
To achieve radiation balance with space, Earth’s effective radiative temperature has to be 252 K, so that’s the surface temperature with an IR transparent sky (disregarding ice albedo feedbacks etc.).
Convection leads to cooling with altitude, and no heat accumulation since an equal amount of falling air will be cooled at the surface elsewhere (poles, night side, sea side …).
What did I miss?
“To achieve radiation balance with space…”
I assume you mean, “…with the sun…”
Yes, or just “To achieve radiation balance, …”.
Thank you for correcting me.
Bin
[2. This imbalance moreover is growing tiny bit by tiny bit, as more CO2 becomes resident in higher atmospheric layers up to 50 km (H2O, by far the main GHE actor, begins to precipitate above the tropopause).]
******
CO2 molecules are increasing at lower levels of the troposphere as well. These molecules also absorb LWIR and reemit in every direction.
I think it is very misleading to suggest that the GHE is altitude dependent.
snape…”CO2 molecules are increasing at lower levels of the troposphere as well. These molecules also absorb LWIR and reemit in every direction”.
Which raises interesting questions. Since a CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, how much do you expect that single CO2 molecule to raise the temperature of the 2500 surrounding molecules?
If you were in a park, surrounded by 2500 people with the ambient temperature at 15C, and you were wearing a heated suit capable of transferring heat, could you heat the other 2500 even if you were allowed to mingle?
Supposing you were in a cooler suit, internally air conditioned, to keep your body at 14C. Could you radiate enough IR to heat the other 2500 people around you, even if tightly packed?
Don’t go away the GHE theory gets even sillier. After immediately giving up its acquired heat via collisions with neighbouring N2/O2 molecules, the CO2 molecule is supposed to back-radiate a fraction of its energy to raise the temperature of the surface BEYOND the temperature it is heated by solar energy.
There is a fly in the ointment, however. CO2 molecules get cooler the farther they are above the surface. By 30,000 feet, they are at least -20C. How, pray tell, can colder masses like that transfer heat via radiation to the surface? And how much can radiation from the surface warm them?
None of this has been thought out, the GHE is sheer conjecture in its current form.
Snape
You should better read what others write:
“ 2. This imbalance moreover is growing tiny bit by tiny bit , as more CO2 becomes resident in higher atmospheric layers up to 50 km (H2O, by far the main GHE actor, begins to precipitate above the tropopause).
Due to radiation released to outer space from higher, thus cooler locations, the energy radiated out lowers. ”
*
Nobody wrote here that ‘the GHE is altitude dependent’.
What I meant is that the uniform repartition of CO2 lets it play a role at altitudes where H2O no longer is able to.
The blog again gets infested by miserably long ‘comments’.
This is sooo boring!
Why can that not STOP ?????
That was a short comment, Bindidon. See, you can do it if you put your mind to it.
Bindidon says: “Why can that not STOP ?????”
Because Gordon likes gish gallops.
DREMT will also never give clear answers to key questions, so the sum total is similar.
DREMT gets bored repeating clear answers to key questions asked 100 times already.
[Nobody wrote here that the GHE is altitude dependent.]
I disagree. You wrote:
[Due to radiation released to outer space from higher, thus cooler locations, the energy radiated out lowers.]
Snape
Sorry Snape: it should be clear that I did not mean here not this GHE as a whole, but its small increment due to… CO2 increments.
Please don’t tell me that you believe CO2 would be the main GHE factor…
Bin
What you described is accepted at RealClimate, Skeptical Science, Moyhu – just to name a few. I disagree, but probably lack the background to fully understand the argument.
[Please dont tell me that you believe CO2 would be the main GHE factor]
No, of course not. But I argued at a blog called andthentheresphysics that even in the lower troposphere, water vapor and Co2 could produce warmIng via the GHE.
The regulars there are very knowledgeable and they all disagreed.
student b…”You obviously do not understand that black bodies emit and absorb over a range of frequencies. Nothing to stop radiation from a cooler object being absorbed by a warmer object”.
Do you have even the slightest idea that a black body is a theoretical entity invented by Kircheoff in an application to bodies in thermal equilibrium? The 2nd law does not apply to blackbodies which theoretically absorb and emit all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. I said theoretically because they can’t. They don’t exist.
If you have two theoretical black bodies side by side you cannot talk about an interaction between them outside of thermal equilibrium. You’ve had your head filled with nonsense either by someone teaching you who is out to lunch or due to a misinterpretation of blackbody theory.
Let’s get back to reality and talk about real bodies and their properties with regard to heat transfer via radiation. Have you ever heard Bohr or Schrodinger talking about blackbodies? No!! They talked about real protons and real electrons and quantum theory is based on that reality, not on the hocus pocus of blackbody theory.
Do yourself a favour and get out of your head and into reality. Do some real observations rather than swilling incorrect garbage in your mind.
Sorry this got posted in the wrong place.
student bYou obviously do not understand that black bodies emit and absorb over a range of frequencies. Nothing to stop radiation from a cooler object being absorbed by a warmer object.
Do you have even the slightest idea that a black body is a theoretical entity invented by Kircheoff in an application to bodies in thermal equilibrium? The 2nd law does not apply to blackbodies which theoretically absorb and emit all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. I said theoretically because they cant. They dont exist.
If you have two theoretical black bodies side by side you cannot talk about an interaction between them outside of thermal equilibrium. Youve had your head filled with nonsense either by someone teaching you who is out to lunch or due to a misinterpretation of blackbody theory.
Lets get back to reality and talk about real bodies and their properties with regard to heat transfer via radiation. Have you ever heard Bohr or Schrodinger talking about blackbodies? No!! They talked about real protons and real electrons and quantum theory is based on that reality, not on the hocus pocus of blackbody theory.
Do yourself a favour and get out of your head and into reality. Do some real observations rather than swilling incorrect garbage in your mind.
bdg…”If you look at the spectral irradiance curve from Plancks Law what youll see is that at every point on the curve the intensity of the radiation of a cooler body is less than a warmer body. What this means is that a warmer body is emitting more photons per spectral line than it is absorbing”.
Planck’s curve has nothing to do with absorp-tion and neither does the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. In fact, Planck admitted to fudging the math to get his curve. It worried him for years that there might not have been a physical explanation for it.
There still is no physical explanation, it’s just the way the universe works. Prior to Planck’s curve, scientists worried about the ultraviolet catastrophe. As temperatures rise, bodies emit more intense radiation at higher frequencies. The relationship is described by E = hf and based on that equation, intensity, E, should rise toward infinity as frequency increases.
Planck reasoned that as frequency increased the amount of energy available should drop off. In other words, he applied an exponential factor to his equation to ensure it did. It turned out that he was right. You can see the natural logarithm e in the equation, causing the intensity to drop off as f increases.
Prove your claim that radiation from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body. Explain how EM can transfer heat from a cooler body to a warmer body in a contradiction of the 2nd law.
Before he expressed the 2nd law mathematically with entropy, Clausius stated it in words. He stated that heat can never be transferred by it’s own means from a colder body to a warmer body. Prove he was wrong.
Conversely, the results in Swannie’s experiment can easily be explained by the effect of raising the green plate in front of the BP on heat dissipation of the blue plate. The BP’s temperature is dependent on it’s ability to radiate IR. When the IR is blocked by the GP, the BP warms up.
No need to question the 2nd law.
Gordo wrote:
I’m sure that you would agree that if the emissivity of the cooler body was zero, then the warmer body would absorb the reflected energy. Now, if the emissivity of the cooler body were increased toward 1, the cooler body would also warm and then both reflect and emit thermal IR EM. The warmer body would absorb that energy, which is the basis of radiation shields and multi-layer insulation. That’s the basis of engineering applications of radiation heat transfer theory and practice. If it didn’t work, it would be obvious by now, after more than 100 years of success.
Gordo continues:
Your magic physics appears again. Please provide some published references to support such a dubious claim.
My point was that a warm body can absorb photons and thus energy from a cool body. That does not mean the warm body gets warmer. But it does mean that the warm body is now cooling at a slower rate. I thought visualizing this with the spectral irradiance curves of the two bodies would help you see why the warm body still cools just at a slower rate despite absorbing energy from the cool body.
And I never claimed that heat could transfer from a cool body to warm body. I did claim that energy could transfer from a cool body to a warm body though.
I am also claiming that in a configuration with a warmer body (surface) shielded by a cool thermal barrier body (GHGs) from an even colder background body (space) will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature when that system is receiving an external injection of energy (Sun).
This is consistent with the 2LOT because…
1) The Earth system of bodies is not isolated. It is receiving energy from the outside. Thus it is not allowed to evolve by its own means. Entropy can decrease in this system. This is consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT.
2) The combined Sun-Earth system of bodies is isolated (mostly anyway). It is not receiving energy from the outside. Thus it is allowed to evolve by its own means. Entropy increases in this system. This is consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT.
“That does not mean the warm body gets warmer”
Contradicted by
“…will achieve a higher equilibrium temperature.”
You will not acknowledge this contradiction.
There is no contradiction.
The first statement is in reference to a configuration without an external energy injection and only 2 bodies in play: warm and cool.
The second statement is in reference to a configuration with an external energy injection and 3 bodies in play: warm (surface), cool (GHGs), cold (space). You can also model this as a configuration without an external energy injection but 4 bodies instead: warm (surface), cool (GHGs), cold (space), hot (Sun).
See?
No. I don’t see.
Scenario 1: Heat is transferred from the warm body to the cool body.
Scenario 2: Heat is transferred from the hot body (Sun) to the warm body (surface).
What’s the problem?
Quote from a radiative heat transfer text book approving the “energy injection” clause you all so frequently invoke, please.
It comes from the 2LOT. Phrases often used include “by its own means”, “spontaneously”, “isolated system”, “without external stimuli”, “uncompensated”, etc. I happen to use “external energy injection” in this case to mean the same thing as all of the phrases above just with more descriptive language to better convey how the Earth system is being stimulated from the outside. Afterall the Sun is injecting energy into the Earth system. Therefore the Earth system is not isolated, it is being compensated, and not allowed to evolve by its own means.
Couldn’t find a reference, huh? Quelle surprise.
I gave you a variety of different wordings.
Do you want to know who is responsible for these wording choices?
Is your challenge here with the clause itself or with the wording of the clause?
Same sort of thing I’m asking barry for, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-435934
Only barry is limited to Clausius. You are allowed any radiative heat transfer textbook, so your task should be much easier. No more BS please, just find the reference. Thanks.
I brought up Clausius to respond to Gordon’s inane proposition that EM radiaitonh from cold objects cannot be absorbed by warmer objects. Nothing of what Clausius says explicitly forbids the ‘green plate effect’. Indeed, we all agree that there must be a NET flow of hot to cold, but where we seem to trip up is that there is a “simultaneous double heat ecxhange” that can result in warmer objects becoming warmer when colder objects are introduced – if the heat loss of warm to cold is “compensated” by an extarnal source.
Clausius words support the GPE (simultaneous double heat exchange), and do not explicitly forbid it.
That looks like a different question. No?
Can we focus on the 2LOT for a moment since that was the topic in this branch of the thread?
And if you’re wanting to focus on a single source/reference would it be okay to use Clausius’ statement “an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur”?
Are you challenging the word choice?
Are you challenging the underlying concept?
Are you challenging the fact that an injection of energy into a system is “compensation”?
“That looks like a different question. No?”
Yep, it’s a differet question under the same topic.
No, it’s exactly the same question, only giving bdgwx a broader range of reference material to work from. Here’s a place to start, bdgwx: respond to me with a link, and a quote.
Both of you are avoiding doing so, because you cannot find anything.
DREMT,
The Clausius statement comes from his 1879 Mechanical Theory of Heat.
A large portion of this work is devoted to what he calls the “Second Main Principal”. The actual quote from which the more succinct statement is derived is:
This proposition, laid down as a Fundamental Principle
by the author, has met with much opposition; but, having
repeatedly had occasion to defend it, he has always been able
to show that the objections raised were due to the fact that
the phenomena, in which it was believed that an uncompensated passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body was to
be found, had not been correctly understood.
https://tinyurl.com/rpo6gmm
Presumably you believe this supports you, somehow?
“For one, there is no such entity as a photon, it is a human invention trying to particalize EM.”
This is currently the scientific level of this blog… it is less than pseudoscience, it is antiscience.
Good grief!
Hi Again B,
Quick questions.
If the Earths atmosphere had no GHG, would the temperature of the atmosphere increase or decrease and why?
The top of our atmosphere is hotter than the surface obviously because it absorbs UV. Why can’t it cool off?
binny…”“For one, there is no such entity as a photon, it is a human invention trying to particalize EM.”
This is currently the scientific level of this blog… it is less than pseudoscience, it is antiscienc”.
You should stick to stuff you understand, which doesn’t leave a lot of room for you to comment.
A photon is DEFINED as having momentum and no mass. Since conventional physics defines momentum as mass x velocity, that means the photon has no momentum. Either someone is lying or someone is playing with thought-experiments. A photon is classified as a particle yet it has no mass. Not possible.
I grew up studying electromagnetic energy as part of my training in electrons then applied it in the field. Without EM, we could have no electric motors, no transformers, and no communications systems. We know for a fact that electric charges, related to electrons, create a magnetic field around a conductor as the electrons/charges move through the circuit. If we arrange the conductors into a coil, with a metal core, we can amplify the magnetic field to make it do serious work.
The combination of an electric field with the magnetic field it creates is referred to as a ‘near-field’. In electric motors, the field stays close to the conductors. If we increase the alternating frequency of the electric current beyond a certain point, the electromagnetic field can be radiated through space and become a ‘far-field’.
In my day, EM was considered a wave since it is made up of an electric field with a magnetic field at 90 degrees to it. That’s how it propagates through space, as a field, not a series of particles.
In the audio field, sound is known to propagate as a wave through air molecules. Sound energy compresses and rarefies the molecules causing wavefronts of energy at a specific frequency. There was a need to do that in the study of EM at the atomic level so the concept of a photon as a particle of energy was defined.
Ask yourself this: if EM is a parcel of photons, how does it have a frequency and wavelength that can be propagated isotropically from a source? This is far more complex than you are willing to envision so you resort to insults and ad home.
I did not claim the concept of a photon is not useful, it can be, In the photoelectric effect, it is useful to visualize photons as packets of energy causing electrons to be freed from a metal surface. All I am doing is agreeing with Einstein, that no one knows if photons exist or not.
I use the concept myself in a ridiculous example of how an electron absorbs a quantum of energy. I have no idea how it works and neither does anyone else.
Clausius on the 2nd Law: https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog/page/n9/mode/2up
Page 295….
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
SECTION XII
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.
——————————–
Note the phrase “as regards the ordinary radiation of heat.” This is not a special condition or about heat pumps. That’s clear.
(I would not use the term ‘heat’, which is really a hangover from Kristian’s strident adherence to physics as he learned it (I suppose), and which would absolutely reject Clausius’ terminology here.)
The result of this ‘simultaneous double heat exchange’ between a cold and warm object is that the NET flow of heat (radiative energy in our context) is from hot to cold.
As has been said from the very beginning of this looooong debate.
An infrared camera is not a heat pump either, and uncooled infrared cameras can detect temperature variation as low as -40C when the measuring instrument itself is at room temp. This should not be possible if a warm object cannot absorb radiation from a cooler one. But that’s exactly what happens to the bolometer.
barry
Thanks, exactly.
{ This Clausius corner has been detected years ago by my Pangolina girlie, who despite some claims of sockpuppetry, ha ha, still is alive, but got sad of Robertson & Co. }
Yes, barry, cold bodies do radiate to hot bodies. They just don’t make them warmer still, as Clausius makes clear; the colder body gets warmer at the expense of the hotter. He does not state anything in your quote about how much energy is actually absorbed by the warmer body. You just infer that which you wish to believe.
Now, please find where Clausius mentions your oft-repeated magic “but when a warm body has a constant source of energy, the presence of a cooler body can make it warmer than it would otherwise be” clause.
“the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
Clausius’ words are clear without any interpretation.
No response to my points. Understood.
To answer the thrust of your argument instead of the bit I focussed on which pertains to what I’m pointing out for Gordon’s benefit, we need to introduce an external heat source continuously providing energy.
But before we proceed with that, I want you to confirm that you agree energy is imparted and received by both warmer and cooler bodies (with the result being that cooler bodies receive the bulk of the transfer at the expense of the warmer body).
Now, please find where Clausius mentions your oft-repeated magic “but when a warm body has a constant source of energy, the presence of a cooler body can make it warmer than it would otherwise be” clause. I have set bdgwx a similar challenge. Off you pop, little one.
ERsEMT, Most every text book I’ve seen has a discussion of the energy transfer between two parallel plates. The calculations usually begin with measured temperatures of the two plates and ask the student how much energy is being transferred between the two. Obviously, the hotter plate is being supplied continuously with energy at a some fixed rate in order for this exercise to have any meaning. One such text is Craig Bohren’s “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation” (2006), Figure 1.6.
Every such example I have seen brought up has one of the plate temperatures fixed.
Confirm what I asked for or reject it. Don’t ignore it. Last chance.
I acknowledge your concession.
DREMT,
I presented you with a variety of different wordings for that crucial “by its own means” clause in the 2LOT already above.
And in regard to “but when a warm body has a constant source of energy, the presence of a cooler body can make it warmer than it would otherwise be” I want to make sure you understand exactly what that means. The absence of this cooler body implies that the warm body is surrounded by nothing or more realistically the cosmic microwave background. The presence of this cooler body presents an interface to the warmer body that is still warmer than the CMB. It is shielding the warmer body from an even colder body. Both the CMB and cooler body radiate toward the warmer body. Its just that the cooler body is radiating more energy than the CMB. That is why the warmer body has a lower net energy flux with the cooler body present than with just that CMB. And if that warmer body has a constant energy source it WILL achieve a higher equilibrium temperature with the cooler body present than with just the CMB. If you take away the energy source the warmer body will equilibriate with the cooler body (if present) or the CMB (if not present).
Note that this explanation is consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT. So what specifically are you challenging here?
☺️
You people are unbelievable. Am I talking a different language!? No.
I made it perfectly clear what I’m asking for. It is perfectly clear that you cannot provide it, because it does not exist.
The inventors of uncooled microbolometers have already done that. Give the prize to them.
https://www.flir.com/products/t1010/
FLIR T1010 HD Thermal Imaging Camera
Detector Type: Focal plane array (FPA), uncooled microbolometer
Object Temperature Range: -40°C to 650°C (-40°F to 1202°F)
These devices operate at room temperature, and read the temperature of very cold objects from the radiation they give off. They even gradate the temperature spectrum from -40°C to room temperature (and higher).
If radiation from colder objects cannot be absorbed by warmer objects, this should not be possible – according to you.
Will you alert the Nobel Committee?
Not what I’m asking for, barry.
barry, why don’t you and bdgwx just admit it? All of you people frequently comment along the lines of: when there is a constant input of energy to a warmer object, the presence of a cooler object can make that object warmer.
Yet you cannot support that statement with quotes from either Clausius, or radiative heat transfer textbooks. It is just made up.
DREMT,
I think we’re confused by the question because all text books contain verbiage concerning the “by its own means” or “uncompensated” clause of the 2LOT albeit with different levels of thoroughness and wording.
I didn’t realize that you where challenging its very existence until now.
I did provide the link to Clausius’ Mechanical Theory of Heat above for your review. Here it is again.
https://tinyurl.com/rpo6gmm
The “uncompensated” clause is not the same thing as “a constant input of energy”. Please stop lying.
DREMT,
It most certainly is. A compensated transformation of the system occurs when work has been performed on the system. A system receiving an input of energy is being compensated.
More modern wordings of the 2LOT use entropy and isolation as the key verbiage. An isolated system is one in which there is no passage of mass or energy into or out of the system.
The statement…
– Entropy increases in an isolated system.
…is equivalent to…
– Heat flows from a warm to a cool body in an uncompensated system.
…is also equivalent to…
– Heat flows from a warm to a cool body in a system left to evolve by its own means.
It most certainly is not. You make a lot of unsupported claims. Back it up.
DREMT,
What specifically are you challenging?
– The wording of the 2LOT?
– The “by its own means”, “uncompensated”, or “isolated” clause itself?
– The fact that an input of energy necessarily means the system is compensated, not isolated, and not evolving by its own means?
You know what I’m asking you to support, because I have written it out a few times now, in plain English. The best you’ve done so far is to post a link to a document of several hundred pages, and not even point me so much as towards the direction of a specific chapter, let alone a page.
You’re not impressing anyone with your ability to support your claims.
I picked that specific link because it was an English translation and because it is digitized/searchable. Did you not think to search the document?
Still got nothing, then.
DREMT,
The chapter labeled “Second Main Principle of the Mechanical Theory of Heat” is on text pg. 69 or pdf pg. 83.
Downthread you go, bdgwx:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-436270
barry…”gain as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”.
I have tried many times to offer an explanation for what Clausius meant in that statement. Your buddy, Binny, even alluded to the fact that scientists in those days lacked a full understanding radiation.
Heat cannot be radiated and neither Clausius not his peers knew that at the time. They envisioned heat moving as ‘rays’ through space via an aether. He was talking unknowingly about electromagnetic radiation. Neither did he have the means to measure a heat transfer from cold to hot and that is still true today. If you have the means, there is a Nobel awaiting you.
Clausius is not talking about a mutual heat exchange, he is talking about electromagnetic energy and calling it heat. If you read him more closely he talks about heat being radiated, and one of his peer group, Planck, referred to EM as heat rays.
Clausius had no idea how heat was converted to EM at the source by electrons, then converted back at the target. He was in good company, neither did Stefan, Boltzmann, Maxwell, Planck, Kircheoff, or even Einstein in the early days.
Clausius does mention in the statement above that heat in the colder body increases at the expense of the hotter body. If you read him further on the same subject, he claims that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law. It does. Heat is converted to EM as the source radiates and that heat is lost. The EM can be intercepted by a colder body, which can absorb the EM, and the colder body warms.
What he had no way of knowing is that the process is not reversible due to the requirements of the electrons that radiate and absorb the EM. The truth behind that did not come till at least 1913 when Bohr got it that electrons in discrete quantum orbits were radiating and absorbing EM only at a specific frequency and intensity.
The frequency and intensity of radiated EM by an electron is proportional to the quantum energy level (orbital kinetic energy) in which the electron resides. There are stringent rules and conditions for moving an electron to a higher energy level and EM from a colder source lacks both.
Answered you here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-436070
Snape
You wrote upthread
“No, of course not. But I argued at a blog called andthentheresphysics that even in the lower troposphere, water vapor and Co2 could produce warmIng via the GHE. ”
*
Of course: CO2 is present near surface as is WV. { Hum… they don’t produce warming, but rather inhibit cooling, even it superficially might appear as the same thing. }
But we should consider that WV is most present where there is the most heat: that is in the Tropics, where its abundance near surface is up to 4 % of all gases present there, i.e. 100 % more than CO2.
This is easy to understand, as the Sun’s irradiance is highest in the Tropics: it decreases with the square of the cosine of the incidence angle, what means that the Sun hits surfaces between 20N and 20S 16 times stronger than between 70-90 N or S.
Moreover, a spherical ‘square’ of 5×5 degree is 308716 km2 at latitudes 0-5 degree, whereas it is only 40334 km2 at latitudes 80-85 (the top triangle at the Poles has only 13479 km2).
The Tropics between 20 S and 20 N thus represent 33 % of Earth’s surface, and there, WV is with 4 % of the atmosphere 100 % more present at surface than is CO2 (the polar regions where WV is much less present are way, way smaller, about 10 % of the Tropics’ surface per Pole).
Combining all that lets me think that CO2’s influence near Earth’s surface is not very high: WV’s LW interception in the Tropics seems to be about 100 * 16 * 5 = 8000 times higher than that of CO2 at the Poles.
That’s only a layman’s opinion, of course.
Typo
‘100 % more than CO2’
Should be ‘100 times instead’.
I’m not a fan of Willis Eschenbach when he unscientifically rants on satellite-based altimetry, but that doesn’t mean at all that he is an ignorant, as opposed to some writing here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/24/can-a-cold-object-warm-a-hot-object/
Great to see an ugly-souled, continent-sized-ego’d argument-loser like Willis getting torn to shreds in the comments by his superiors.
Oh,this damnd blog…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13hiaezOGdnHQn2YW7LgoP8v-8NE2NM8n/view
You’re an even bigger hypocrite than I am.
binny…”Im not a fan of Willis Eschenbach when he unscientifically rants on satellite-based altimetry, but that doesnt mean at all that he is an ignorant, as opposed to some writing here”.
The definition of heat by Willis is just plain wrong. The notion of heat as a net flow of energy is sheer nonsense. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and its relative level is measured by the human invention of temperature.
You can’t mess with the 2nd law, it is both intuitively and scientifically correct. As defined by Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law, heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.
Those who try to get around that by using mysterious energies in a net balance of energy are living in a universe other than ours. There can only be two energies in a transfer of heat, heat itself, and electromagnetic energy as a transporting agent. EM has nothing to do with the direction of transfer that is determined by the potential energy difference between bodies of different temperatures.
@Bindidon
[Of course: CO2 is present near surface as is WV. { Hum they dont produce warming, but rather inhibit cooling, even it superficially might appear as the same thing. }]
That is not what they meant. They asserted that only GHGs located in the ERL (effective radiating layer) or higher (roughly 5 KM and higher) would create a radiative imbalance. No warming or slower cooling from GHGs located at lower altitudes.
Coincidentally, Nate just referenced the same idea:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/corrected-rcp-scenario-removal-fractions/
Ah, that’s another version of the GHE that they switch to when the standard one is debunked.
d…it’s called moving the goalposts, I think.
bdg…”And in regard to “but when a warm body has a constant source of energy, the presence of a cooler body can make it warmer than it would otherwise be” ”
I don’t know why this point is so misunderstood.
The temperature of a body, whether it is heated or not, depends on the ability of the body to dissipate heat.
If you heat a body electrically with 100 watts of electrical power, it will warm to a certain temperature commensurate with the size of the body, the material, etc., but also to a level which is dependent on its ability to dissipate heat. So, it becomes a balance of heat in = heat out.
If you stifle it’s ability to dissipate heat by interfering with its ability to conduct heat to air, interfere with convective currents to carry the conducted heat away, or interfere in it’s ability to radiate heat, the body will rise to a temperature natural to the amount of heat supplied electrically. It may even burn out or explode in that case.
part 2…
Simply placing a colder body anywhere in the vicinity of a hotter body will not cause it to warm. Placing a hotter body near it will definitely cause it to warm. If the colder body interferes with convection or radiation to a significant degree, the body will warm but only because it is being heated electrically. It will warm toward the temperature the electrical heating creates but no higher.
If the body is not independently heated, it will not warm. The nearby cooler body may reduce the rate of dissipation, allowing the body to remain warm longer but that has nothing to do with a transfer of heat from the colder body to the warmer body.
The argument among alarmists is that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere can slow the dissipation of heat from the surface. Highly unlikely, as the IPCC likes to claim. The rate of dissipation of the surface is controlled by the temperature of the air adjacent to the surface and that air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
As I see it, as the surface is warmed by solar energy, the air adjacent to the surface warms and rises, being replaced by cooler air from above. That cooler air increases the dissipation rate. On hot summer days, where the warmed atmospheric air extends further above the surface, the rate should be lowered due to a decreased temperature differential.
Put in a nutshell, the larger the temperature gradient between a body and it’s surroundings the faster it will cool. That is, it will cool to the point where heat out = heat in.
GR: The temperature of a body, whether it is heated or not, depends on the ability of the body to dissipate heat.
Yep. That’s what we’re trying to say.
GR: Simply placing a colder body anywhere in the vicinity of a hotter body will not cause it to warm.
It will if that colder body is directing more energy towards the hotter body than the alternative and if the system is compensated by a constant source of energy.
My home is the perfect counter example to your claim…
Right now the windows are cold; colder than the inside in fact. If I open the windows my house WILL cool. If I close the windows my house WILL warm as long as the inside is being compensated by the furnace and its source of energy. This is an example of a cool body (windows) being placed in the vicinity of a warm body (inside) which necessarily results in the warm body (inside) achieving a higher equilibrium temperature than it would have otherwise. All of this because the warm body (inside) is being shielded (thermal barrier) by a cool body (windows) from an even colder body (outside) while the flow of heat comes from an even hotter body (furnace) being compensated by a constant source of energy (electricity).
…in perfect accordance with the 1LOT and 2LOT.
This is as everyday example of what the GPE is exemplifying – how a cold object can cause a warmer object or environment to become warmer, when there is an source of energy supplying the system, conpensating the heat loss from the 2 bodies. I cannot fathom how, when presented with this every day example, something that everyone has experienced, ‘skeptics’ can’t see that a colder object causes a warmer object to get even warmer in this scenario, just by moving the position of the cold object.
Yes, bdgwx…keeping your windows closed will result in your house being warmer than it would otherwise be. By limiting convection. Just like how a greenhouse actually works.
Now, anyway, back to the GPE…
Just to clarify…
You agree that a cool body placed in proximity to a warm body can indeed result in an increase in temperature of the warm body in the presence of a constant supply of compensating energy?
I wrote what I wrote.
Yes bdgwx, that’s what he just said. He clearly agreed with you on your house example. He just couldn’t bring himself to admiot it when you pressed him.
And it seems he was about to suggest that the laws of thermodynamics apply differently to radiation than they do to convection, but he bailed out of further clarification.
Gordon has also made the connection:
“If the colder body interferes with convection or radiation to a significant degree, the body will warm but only because it is being heated electrically. It will warm toward the temperature the electrical heating creates but no higher.”
Groan. That’s what we’ve been saying all along.
The sticking point now is “back radiation.” Gordon doesn’t think warmer objects abosrb the radiation of cooler ones, so it is a puzzle how he imagines cooler objects “interfere” with the radiative dissipation of warmer objects.
DREMT agrees that warmer objects absorb the energy of cooler ones, but seems to be hanging his denial on a question of degree:
“Yes, barry, cold bodies do radiate to hot bodies. They just dont make them warmer still, as Clausius makes clear; the colder body gets warmer at the expense of the hotter. He does not state anything in your quote about how much energy is actually absorbed by the warmer body.”
That’s in reference to Clausius’ “siultaneous double heat exchange.” So DREMT doesn’t disagree with Clausius that it happens, he has some as yet unclarified objection to the GPE, where the energy absorbed by blue plate from green has zero effect. In contravention of the 1st LoT.
barry, I leave the games to you guys.
Object A has a constant, internally-generated source of energy.
Object A has a temperature x where its only means of cooling is via radiation (i.e the object is in a vacuum). Object A now has an atmosphere around it – it can now cool via radiation and conduction/convection. It now has temperature y.
Temperature y is lower than temperature x.
If you reduce the rate of convection, Object A can move closer from temperature y to temperature x.
You people effectively argue that Object A can get above temperature x, radiatively. That is where we part ways.
“You people effectively argue that Object A can get above temperature x, radiatively.”
You understand that in the GPE, the temperature of the blue plate will never rise above that of the input – the sun?
Object A is not an Earth-like planet in your set up there. In the real Earth system, the vast bulk of the energy isn’t internally generated, it comes from the Sun.
The effective temperature of the spherical Earth (no atmosphere) is -18 C. That’s a product of distance from the sun and albedo.
What is your calculation of temperaturew X for the real Earth if not this?
No, barry…
In the 2-plate scenario, we are not told the temperature of the sun.
In the 3-plate scenario, your blue plate does indeed go above temperature x.
It’s not that the blue plate temperature is fixed. It’s the constant input of energy from the electrical source that is fixed. However, as I was describing, exactly like Object A – in the 3-plate scenario, on its own, the temperature of the blue plate in vacuum is 244 K. You add the two green plates either side, and the temperature increases to 290 K (according to your Green Plate Effect logic). That is above x by 46 degrees.
What is your calculation of X for planet Earth? How do you derive it?
I’m curious, because I think your conception of what X should be (temperature of the whole surface of the earth without an atmosphere) is already being eclipsed by the actual average temperature of the surface.
So what is X for our planet, DREMT? How do you calculate it?
Trying to take it down this track is a good way to deliberately avoid the point I made, barry.
[Put in a nutshell, the larger the temperature gradient between a body and its surroundings the faster it will cool. That is, it will cool to the point where heat out = heat in.]
Well said, Gordon. Maybe you could ask Roy to leave this paragraph, delete the 24 volumes of gibberish that preceded it?
We could pretend youre playing with a full deck!
snape…”We could pretend youre playing with a full deck!”
It would be nice if you had the slightest idea what I have been talking about. You are one of the alarmists who thinks putting a cooler body in the vicinity of a hotter body causes the hotter body to warm due to a transfer of “energy’ from the colder body to the warmer.
Your superior attitude is unwarranted, you are yet another legend, in his own mind. Or are you a thought experiment in the minds of others?
“You are one of the alarmists who thinks putting a cooler body in the vicinity of a hotter body causes the hotter body to warm due to a transfer of energy from the colder body to the warmer.”
Nobody is saying that.
As sure as the sun rises every day, ‘septics’ misconstrue the point, omitting the compensating force.
The system starts with a heat source and a body receiving heat from it. Then a cooler body is brought into the system beyond the warmer body.
If you’re going to argue the point, get the point right to begin with.
Now all you need to do, is back it up:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-436094
GR: You are one of the alarmists who thinks putting a cooler body in the vicinity of a hotter body causes the hotter body to warm due to a transfer of energy from the colder body to the warmer.
Not quite right.
What we are saying is that in a system with a warm body and which is being compensated by a constant supply of energy the warm body will exhibit an increase in temperature if a cooler body is placed between the warm body and the even colder body that it was originally interfaced with.
Make sure you understand exactly what is being said before challenging it.
bdgwx…you just basically repeated barry’s comment. In which case, I repeat mine.
Behave, and they might let you watch Wapner again.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/e9aa222f-e830-4d6e-a494-c0389fa1dbf4
Snape, please stop trolling.
barry…”Answered you here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-436070 ”
***
Sorry…you did not. You are still claiming, based on a FLIR IR camera having a range from -40C to 600C that heat must be able to transfer naturally from a colder body to a warmer body, otherwise the FLIR camera would not work.
Here’s what FLIR had to say at the link below:
1)IR cameras inherently measure irradiance not temperature…
2)Entry level IR cameras with microbolometer detectors operate according to non-quantum principles. The detectors respond to radiant energy in a way that causes a change of state in the bulk material (e.g., resistance or capacitance)….
3)the calibrated cameras electronics convert radiance values to temperature using the known or measured emissivity of the target object.
4)The calibration curves are stored in the camera systems memory as a series of numeric curve-fit tables that relate radiance values to blackbody temperatures. When the system makes a measurement, it takes the digital value of the signal at a given moment, goes into the appropriate calibration table, and calculates temperature.
NOTE: the the temperature is CALCULATED from lookup tables in the camera’s memory.
***placeholder to see if link in preventing posting****
Gordon, you have completely missed that article is all about IR Cameras “thermal imaging” NOT IR thermometers. Find an article on uncooled IR thermometers to learn how they work by absorbing radiation from cooler bodies.
Gordon, what I am showing you with the IR cameras is that warm bodies DO absorb radiation from colder bodies. That’s it.
That’s the point of bringing up IR cameras with uncooled bolometers.
YOU don’t believe radiation from cold bodies can be absorbed by warm ones. Well, they can, otherwise these cameras could not detect temperatures below their own.
Forget everything else and just learn that you are wrong on this specific point. It’s a starting point to wisdom. Don’t overleap it.
Ball4, barry, please stop trolling.
yep…it was something in the link. I’ll try again by inserting * in parts of the link. Remove any *, copy/paste to browser.
BTW…it’s worth the effort. Very good article on the theory of IR detectors.
https://www.hoskin.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/flir_thermal_camera_guide_for_research_pro*f*essionals.pdf
BTW..Barry…you are confusing the transfer of heat to the effect of IR radiation on semiconductor material. IR radiation in certain frequency bands can affect the ability of semiconductors to conduct free electrons and it does it without heating the semiconductor. This is more about quantum theory than thermodynamics.
In the article at the link above, they distinguish between IR detectors, called quantum detectors, that operate based on electron’s ability in atoms to transition between energy levels. They distinguish between free electrons, that have escaped the forces of the nucleus and electrons still bound to the nucleus.
In order for quantum detectors to work, the detection device has to be cooled to a very low temperature using liquid nitrogen. Otherwise, it would never respond to a target with a cooler temperature.
The other detector, the less expensive one, they incorrectly call a thermal detector. They have already claimed it detects IR then succumb to the incorrect visualization of heat as an entity that can flow through air. In that sense, they are still mired in the mid 19th century.
So called handheld thermal detectors, are actually optical detectors, although even that is not right. IR is not in the optical band but it can be collected by lenses. Once collected, it is focused on a semiconductor cell where the materials of the cell are chosen due to their ability to respond to IR in a narrow IR band.
IR does not heat the semiconductor it affects it’s ability to conduct an electrical current. The current through a semiconductor devices is factory calibrated to a known IR frequency band. That factory data is stored in the camera memory and can be used to convert the current through the semiconductor device to a known blackbody temperature.
Ypou’re missing the point. Focus.
You’ve stated that radiation from a cooler body canot be absorbed by a warmer one. That’s the statement from you I’m addressing, not any other – yet.
That’s why I’ve introduced you to uncooled microbolometers, which can detect temperatures much colder than the instrument – because they absorb radiation from colder bodies.
Forget about heating or cooling, and just admit that you’ve been wrong about this. An uncooled microbolometer detects temperature by absorbing radiation from objects it is pointed at, and differentiating between them. It could not possibly detect temperatures lower than itself, if your statement were true. it could not possibly absorb radiation from cooler bodies and ‘see’ them, much less gradate them down to -40 C.
but they do that, and this means you are wrong about warmer bodies being unable to absorb radiation from cooler bodies.
Please respond to that and not some other idea or extension of it.
You’re missing Gordon’s point. Focus!
Gordon,
“IR does not heat the semiconductor it affects its ability to conduct an electrical current.”
But according to you IR from cold obects cannot possibly be absorbed by warmer objects. If the semiconductor is warmer than the source IR, the semiconductor cannot absorb it, and uncooled IR devices cannot measure temperatures lower than themselves.
And yet they do. Because the warmer semiconductor is not impervious to IR from lower wavelengths.
This isn’t about heating anything. This is about whether IR from cold objects can be absorbed by warmer ones. If you’ve changed your mind on this, let us know.
barry, please stop trolling.
DREMT, though it took you a while, you’ve basically confirmed you agree energy is transferred and absorbed between warmer and cooler bodies.
Clausius never considers, as far as I am aware, the particular description of the GPE or similar. He also never dealt with the mechanics of time in his calculus of the laws of thermodynamics. He mostly dealt with the end points of equilibrium states, and rarely the intricacies of the mechanics of transmission.
But you asked for a quote, so, keeping in mind his words of a simultaneous double heat exchange, here is Clausius on the equilibrium state achieved with a cold body, a warm body, and a compensating factor – in our GPE example, the sun.
“On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring.”
IOW, they both remain at different temperatures. How?
“In this case we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat, as it may be called, but two connected transmission of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other.”
(Once again affirmng that cold and warm bodies receive energy from each other)
“It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.”
A permanent change replaces the descending transmission from the warmer object. That is a continuous replenishment of heat energy to the warmer object. That is the sun in our GPE example.
“Now it is to these compensations that our principle refers; and with the aid of this conception the principle may be also expressed thus: an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur. The term uncompensated here expresses the same idea that was intended to be conveyed by the words “by itself” in the previous enunciation of the principle, and by he expression “without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time” in the original text.”
Clausius gives us the final equilibrium state of the GPE, but does not discuss the transition from no-green-plate to green plate.
But the green plate must have an effect because when it appears in the GPE thought expewriment, there is a simultaneous double heat exchange between the green plate and the blue plate, energy can’t be created or destroyed, so it must have an effect on the blue plate, which is receiving continous energy from the sun.
The only way radiation from green plate to blue could not have an effect is if it was totally reflected by the blue plate: but then you’d have to deny Clausius’ “simultaneous double heat exchange.”
The only way radiation from the green plate absorbed by the blue (continuously replenished by the sun) could not have an effect is if the enrgy absorbed from the green plate by the blue was destroyed upon being absorbed by the blue plate.
What actually happens is that both plates emit and absorb radiation, and they both warm, but at all time the green plate warms less than the blue – more radiation always flows from blue plate to green, the NET flow of heat is from hot to cold, and 2nd Law is in no way violated in this “simultaneous double heat exchange.”
Once again you read what you want to read into both my words, and the words of others.
If that’s too long, try this: Clausius says,
“an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur.”
In the GPE the transmission of heat between the two bodies is compensated by an external source – the sun. 2nd Law as Clausius states it, is not broken by the GPE.
bdgwx has been using the same language as Clausius.
Now if you can find a Clausius quote where he affirms:
“when a warm body is continuously warmed by an external heat source, the presence of a cooler body can NOT make it warmer than it would otherwise be”
That would reallhy help your argument.
It’s not my argument that needs helping, barry.
You (and bdgwx) are trying your very hardest to claim the “compensation” clause relates to the “continuous input of energy”. You have not succeeded.
Instead, it relates to e.g. the workings of a refrigerator.
And all of this comes from Clausius’ 1879 Mechanical Theory of Heat treatise.
https://tinyurl.com/rpo6gmm
Here is another great gem contained within.
Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body.
and…
This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction, or this special change entailing an opposite passage of heat, is then
to be treated as a compensation for the passage of heat from
the colder to the warmer body; and if we apply this conception we may replace the words” of itself” by “without compensation”
and…
A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot
take place without compensation.
and…
This proposition, laid down as a Fundamental Principle
by the author, has met with much opposition; but, having
repeatedly had occasion to defend it, he has always been able
to shew that the objections raised were due to the fact that
the phenomena, in which it was believed that an uncompensated passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body was to
be found, had not been correctly understood.
It’s all right there in the document. The document is searchable. Have it!
bdg…”Here is another great gem contained within”.
You are making fool of yourself by cherry-picking statements from Clausius without having carefully read his entire book. It is essential to understand his description of heat engines to get it why heat, by itself, cannot flow from cold to hot.
“Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body”.
This essentially the 2nd law as stated by Clausius.
“This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction, or this special change entailing an opposite passage of heat, is then to be treated as a compensation for the passage of heat from the colder to the warmer body; and if we apply this conception we may replace the words of itself by without compensation”
This is part of his explanation of ‘of itself, or ‘by its own means’, as stated elsewhere. He is trying to explain that an uncompensated transfer of heat from a colder body to a warmer body is not possible.
He does not say anywhere in your quote that heat flows spontaneously from cold to hot. Please read the entire chapter, at least.
We all know that. An air conditioner cannot cause heat to be transferred from a colder region to a hotter region without the compensation supplied by electrical power, a compressor, a special compressible gas, etc. That’s what he is talking about.
I have claimed there is no such compensation in the atmosphere, ergo, heat cannot be transferred from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to a hotter surface that warmed them in the first place.
“…he has always been able to shew that the objections raised were due to the fact that the phenomena, in which it was believed that an uncompensated passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body was to be found, had not been correctly understood”.
He is saying essentially there are dumb-a**es in the world who cannot read and comprehend.
“An air conditioner cannot cause heat to be transferred from a colder region to a hotter region without the compensation supplied by electrical power, a compressor, a special compressible gas, etc. Thats what he is talking about.’
No – he was not talking about any of that because those things had not been invented. He was speaking purely theoretically, and not about electrical heat pumps.
The compensating power in the Green plate scenario is the sun. This is the thing that you continually ignore.
It is not the green plate that heats the blue – it is the sun.
All the green plate does is interfere with the rate of radiative loss from the blue plate. It is the sun providing power to the 2-plate system that causes the temperature rises of both plates when the green plate is introduced.
As the green plate is shaded from the sun by the blue plate, it receives its energy from the blue plate, which is less than what the blue plate receives from the sun. The system eventually achieves a steady state condition with a temperature gradient of hottest (sun) 2nd hottest (blue plate) 3rd hottest (green plate). This holds steady as long as the sun continues to shine. Remove the sun and both plates cool to the temp of the universe eventually, always with the blue plate shedding more radiation to the green than the reverse. The NET flow of heat is always hot to cold.
…and all of that is debunked by the 3-plate scenario.
Plus Hughes’ experiments (shhh, we mustn’t mention them).
DRsEMT, The results from Hughes’ don’t prove anything, since his efforts are so obviously flawed. His second is a bit better than his first, but then he doesn’t allow enough time for things to reach steady state and he doesn’t provide a measurement of the temperature of the top plate (aka., the Green one). All of his runs stop at 10 minutes, thus he hasn’t achieved steady state.
Worse, he can not prove that his device reaches a vacuum high enough to stop convection, since his mechanical gauge can’t measure really low pressures. For example, the HVAC gauge I used in my Green Plate demo indicates 9 pressure ranges in microns, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, and lastly, atmospheric down to 29″ hg. The mechanical gauge Hughes used stops at around 29″ hg, so he has no clue about the actual vacuum his device achieves.
No need to repeat ourselves, Swanson:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-435534
DRsEMT, Since you haven’t the slightest interest in truth, allow me to point out that my comment was not a repeat, as I added the information about the vacuum gauge I used. As you might surmise from the list of ranges, 29 inches of vacuum is just the starting point for a vacuum low enough to suppress convection within Hughes’ vertical tube.
If you had the slightest interest in truth, you would admit that your point about the vacuum gauge had already been brought up in the set of comments under the first article. It is not new.
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
Have what?
“bdg…”What we are saying is that in a system with a warm body and which is being compensated by a constant supply of energy the warm body will exhibit an increase in temperature if a cooler body is placed between the warm body and the even colder body that it was originally interfaced with.
Make sure you understand exactly what is being said before challenging it”.
I understood you very clearly it is you who still fails to understand why the body warms. A radiating body does not care whether a body is placed between it and a colder environment, it simply depends on radiation, conduction, and convection to dissipate heat. If you interfere with any one of those three means of heat dissipation it’s temperature will rise toward a natural temperature it would reach with the heating source alone.
This is a test post, there is a word or words being blocked and I’m trying to find which one.
bdg…part 2…a r.eal-world example
I have worked with those pri.nc.i.ples most of my life in the electrical/electronics/computer fields. A typical power tran.s.i.s.tor was the 2N3055 a tran.s.i.s.tor rated to dis.s.ipate power of 115 watts at 25C. The tran.s.i.s.tor is claimed to allow a current through it of 15A but I would not want to try that without a heat sink and maybe a fan blowing on it.
test part 2…
The specs for this trans.i.s.tor claims it can take a maximum of 60 volts from col.l.ector to em.i..tter. So, P = EI and with P = 115 watts, the max current it can take at max power di.s.s.ipation is 1.9 amps, say 2 amps. A more typical voltage across the tran.s.i.s.tor, like in a pu.sh/pu.ll au.dio amp.l.i.fier, might be 15 volts. I = P/E = 115/15 = 7.7 amps. say 8 amps.
If you ex.c.eed the rec.o.m.mended temperature, the ability of the tran.s.i.s.tor to dis.s.ipate heat drops lin.e.a.rly till it is 0 watts at 200C. Of course, that’s silly, the tran.s.i.stor would blow up from the.r.m.al run.a.way by then and the circuit board would fry.
Are you getting my point, this is a r.eal-world example? If we take that same tran.s.i.s.tor and attach it to a good heat s.ink, which is thick alu.m.i.num with fi.ns that enhance convective and radiative co.ol.ing, the tran.s.i.stor can dissipate heat much more efficiently and carry about twice the current. If you add a fan to en.hance convection, things get even better, up to the rated collector current of 15 amps.
Makes no sense, you split a post in two and it posts with the same material. Sigh!!
The transistor is normally mounted with a layer of heat conducting compound between it and 1/4″ aluminum, which has several fins protruding from it about 1/2″ to 1″. The thickness of the aluminum and its overall size, plus the fact it is a good conductor of heat, aids in the conduction of heat from the transistor to the environment. The fins also aid in conduction while at the same time increasing the surface area at which the heat is dissipated to the environment.
Under load, say the transistor is now carrying 10 amps with a continuous power rating of 200 watts, well in excess of it’s rated power due to the heat sink carrying off the heat faster.
Suddenly, you detach it from the heat sink, and you’d better not touch it and get out of the way. It will heat instantly to the point where it will burn your flesh and it will likely blow the metal top of the transistor, all due to a dramatic rise in temperature.
Where did that heat come from? Not from the envi.r.o.nment or an object placed near it. It came from the power supply driving the current through the transistor. I have seen this kind of heating burn holes in circuit boards and bl.ow the tops off transistors. It happened because the transistor could not longer dissipate the heat created by a higher current than it could handle.
I am trying to tell you that a heated body, like the transistor in question, heats to a na.t.u.ral temperature based on the current through it.
Nothing whatsoever to do with external objects or a heat transfer from a cooler object to the heated object.
Gordo again posts more or his magic physics lunacy. There’s no such thing as a “natural temperature” of a body, only the temperature of the body when the energy entering it matches that leaving it, i.e., the equilibrium temperature. Of course, if one adds too much energy to said body, such as a transistor, it will self destruct.
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
It looks like we’re making progress.
Do we all agree that a warmer body can indeed get warmer by placing a cool body which acts as a thermal barrier and in proximity to the warm body when a continuous supply of energy is available to compensate the system as a whole.
The challenge being made now is in regard to what “isolated”, “by its own means”, “uncompensated”, “spontaneously”, and the various other phrasings of that crucial clause mean and imply. Is this correct?
☺️
I have to laugh, because bdgwx is clearly listening to what barry is saying I am saying, rather than what I am actually saying myself.
…and people accuse me of arguing dishonestly!?
GR: I have claimed there is no such compensation in the atmosphere, ergo, heat cannot be transferred from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to a hotter surface that warmed them in the first place.
The Earth is NOT an isolated system. There is a passage of energy both out of and into the Earth system. The Earth system is being compensated by this energy. The Earth system is NOT allowed to evolve by its own means.
Therefore the Earth system can and does experience local decreases in entropy. Warm bodies can get warmer and cool bodies can get cooler.
It is the same scenario for a refrigerator. The cool body (evaporator/inside) gets cooler and the warm body (condenser/outside) gets warmer. It works because the refrigerator is being compensated by a continuous feed of energy. Remove the compensation and entropy within the boundaries of the refrigerator system increases and the cool body (evaporator/inside) begins to warm while the warm body (condenser/outside) begins to cool.
bdgwx: “The Earth is NOT an isolated system.”
Right, the universe is the one and only natural isolated system.
“Warm bodies can get warmer and cool bodies can get cooler.”
An atm. ideal gas cooling process increases universe entropy as does similar warming process which attests to the peculiarity of entropy. That beginning thermo. textbook realization ought to shock Gordon.
ball4…”An atm. ideal gas cooling process increases universe entropy as does similar warming process which attests to the peculiarity of entropy”.
You are confusing entropy with randomness and entropy is not a measure of randomness, it’s about heat transfer. Randomness is a result of an irreversible process in which heat is released. It is not about a reversible process in which entropy averages to zero.
Entropy is not peculiar. Clausius defined it clearly as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at the temperature T at which they changes take place. It is you and other modernists who have made it peculiar through your misunderstanding of what it is. It is a summation of heat changes during a process.
In the same manner, you and your crowd have obfuscated heat to be a measure of energy transfer. You fail to understand that the energy being transferred is thermal energy, otherwise known as heat. Therefore your obfuscated definition states that heat is a measure of heat.
Some of us think temperature is a measure of heat.
“Clausius defined it clearly as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at the temperature T at which they changes take place.”
Yes, the solution of which shows universe entropy increases for both heating and cooling processes of an atm. ideal gas. To learn about that which you are writing, consult a basic thermo. textbook; I always suggest Bohren 1998.
bdg…”The Earth is NOT an isolated system”.
That is a red herring argument. Forget isolated/non-isolated, the difference is so minimal it’s not worth mentioning.
Clausius did not mention an isolated system because it doesn’t matter. If you have a heat transfer between bodies of different temperature, the 2nd law applies.
The distinction between isolated and non-isolated is a barrier through which heat can pass but not matter. There are no barriers in the atmosphere just as their are no greenhouse walls or roofs.
Why do you introduce these concepts? It’s like claiming a vertical column of air in the atmosphere is adiabatic. Where are the insulated walls to prevent heat moving in and out of that column?
“If you have a heat transfer between bodies of different temperature, the 2nd law applies.”
How can any heat transfer exist between solids of different temperature, Gordon, when you correctly write “heat is the kinetic energy of atoms” and no atoms transfer between the solids?
The answer is heat does not physically transfer Gordon, thermal kinetic energy physically transfers. Which is why IR thermometers and the atm. can work by absorbing radiation from cooler bodies.
“There are no barriers in the atmosphere just as their (sic) are no greenhouse walls or roofs.”
The tropopause is a decent barrier to convection Gordon, you just don’t know what you are writing about.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Forget isolated/non-isolated, the difference is so minimal its not worth mentioning.”
What?? Goodness me!
The difference of these conditions is profound. One condition is where no energy enters or leaves a system, and in the other energy (in the green plate set up) is continually passing through it.
A non adiabatic (non-isolated) system can maintain a temperature gradient, like the GPE. This is a steady-state scenario where there are constant temperature differentials when the system achieves balance with the input (eg, the sun).
An adiabatic (isolated) system can never result a steady-state condition, because there is no energy passing through it. It can only come to equilibrium – where everything in the environment ultimately ends up at the same temperature.
Analogy by conduction:
A metal rod in heated at one end. As long as the heat source remains continuous in a non-isolated system, the rod will be hotter at one end than the other. As long as the heat source is constant the rod will have a temperature gradient along its length – this is a steady-state condition. The rod will never have a uniform temperature in this non-adiabatic system.
Now place the rod in an adiabatic container. No energy is entering or leaving this isolagted system. The heat source is no longer replenishing the heat loss of one end of the rod. The rod will ultimately come to equilibrium – an even temperature along its whole length.
If you do not understand the fundamental difference between an isolated system and a non-isolated one, then you cannot posibly understand the GPE. Or how Earth’s atmosphere keeps the average (day/night) surface temp warmer than it would be with no atmosphere at all.
Minimal difference between an adiabatic and non-adiabatic system?! Jeez, Robertson.
You are effectively arguing that equilibrium cannot exist in nature, only ever “steady state”.
Disagree? Show me a real-world situation where there is no energy entering or leaving a system (other than, as Ball4 would have it, “the Universe”).
You are re-defining the whole concept of “equilibrium” out of existence.
The Earth-Sun system is close enough to isolation that we can effectively model it as isolated. It is very close to evolving by its own means. Very little compensation is occurring.
The Earth-only system is so far away from isolation that it cannot reasonably be modeled as such. It is no where close to evolving my its own means. A lot of compensation is occurring.
BTW…The GHE isn’t the only mechanism by which localized decreases in entropy (increasing warm/cool gradients) are occurring. The build up of convective available potential energy for deep moist convection, frontogenesis, thermal wind, etc. are but a limited sampling of other processes that are occurring as a result of the compensation that is ultimately traced back to the influx of energy from the Sun. The GHE is but one among many mechanisms that reduce entropy. Why are contrarians not challenging all of these other mechanisms?
“The GHE is but one among many mechanisms that reduce entropy.”
No. The GHE is a real atm. process and all real processes increase universe entropy.
I did not say or mean to imply that universe entropy descreased. In fact I made it a point to use the word “localized” to limit the boundary of the system I was referring to.
Within the boundaries of your refrigerator (non-isolated) entropy is decreased. But within the boundaries of the universe (isolated) entropy is increased.
This is perfectly consistent with the 1LOT and 2LOT.
“Within the boundaries of your refrigerator (non-isolated) entropy is decreased.”
The planetary atm. GHE is not a refrigerator since pistons and cylinders do not inhabit that atmosphere. Your analogy is not constructive, better to discuss an actual atm. process.
I’m not saying the atmosphere is a refrigerator. I’m saying it is a system just like the refrigerator is a system. I use the refrigerator as analogy because (presumably) everybody understands it. They implicitly understand the boundaries. They understand that the electricity that is feeding it comes from a power plant outside the refrigerator. I don’t (or shouldn’t) have to dedicate an entire post to describing the system boundaries and other nuances of the refrigerator system. And the analogy is valid precisely because the 2LOT applies to all systems regardless of whether they have pistons and cyclinders or not.
And the GHE does lower entropy within the locality in which operates just like the refrigerator lowers the entropy within the locality in which it operates. The GHE makes the atmosphere warmer down low and cooler up high. That is a lower entropy state than equilibrium. It is the same with frontogenesis, thermal wind, the build up of convective available potential energy, or refrigerators. But all of these processes, despite lowering entropy on a small scale, always come at the expense of raising entropy on the large scale.
…and all of this is perfectly consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT.
“And the GHE does lower entropy within the locality in which operates..”
Describe a natural planetary GHE process that does so in the atm. ideal gas on which it operates with no pistons, no cylinders, no refrigeration being allowed in the description.
On Earth when the effectiveness of the IR thermal barrier (CO2, CH4, etc.) increases the lower part of the atmosphere and surface warm while the upper part of the atmosphere cools. This occurs because the compensating energy entering the Earth system from the outside is converted into heat and is more effectively trapped. This warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top is a low entropy configuration. If you remove the compensating energy then the GHE stops and entropy in this locality begins increasing again. The 2LOT is perfectly happy with either configuration.
“This warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top is a low entropy configuration.”
No. Both the gaseous lower warming regions and the upper cooling regions due added CO2 ppm (et.al. IR active gas ppm) always increase local gas entropy. These are real natural processes thus 2LOT says they must do so & this is proven by first principle theory in beginning atm. thermo. text books.
If you dream up a totally isolated (universe to itself) say 1m^2 layer of the atm., the layer initial entropy can be shown to increase until entropy reaches a maximum for that layer.
I guess I’m not understanding your point.
Warm over here and cool over there is a lower entropy state than the same temperature everywhere.
If in your 1 m^2 cross section it gets warmer on one side and cooler on another then that is an example of a decrease in entropy.
One clue that the GHE yields a lower entropy configuration is that the fact that the removal of the compensating energy (from the Sun which is outside the boundaries of the atmosphere) that contributed to its occurrence will necessarily result in a movement towards thermal equilibrium…an increase in entropy.
It’s the same concept for a refrigerator. If you pull the electrical connection the evaporator and condenser will move towards thermal equilibrium…an increase in entropy.
bdgwx, my point is for an ideal gas in the atm. a natural process to lower its temperature results in an increase in its entropy. Your comments seem not to allow for that.
“The Earth-Sun system is close enough to isolation that we can effectively model it as isolated”
That’s it? That’s your example? You might just as well have stuck with “the Universe”.
So…”equilibrium” cannot exist in any Earth-bound system, it’s always “steady state”, apparently.
In the context of the GHE the Earth-only system contains 3 bodies. These include space (cold), atmosphere/GHGs (cool), and surface (warm). That’s pretty manageable, but it is not even remotely close to isolated.
Expanding our system to include the Sun (hot) we only add 1 extra body for a total of 4 so it is both manageable and nearly isolated. The amount of mass/energy entering/leaving this system is small so the compensation is small. It is small enough that it can be effectively ignored.
We could expand our system to the universe. It would be completely isolated, but it is also unmanageable since there are orders of magnitude many more bodies to consider.
Don’t you think the Earth-Sun system is isolated enough? If no then where do you propose to draw the boundaries of our system?
Except…that’s wrong:
https://tll.mit.edu/help/equilibrium-vs-steady-state
The entire universe could be said to be the most perfect isolated system.
Equilibrium will occur at the end of the universe. Until then, everything has been in transiton and will continue to be so for as long as theory X Y or Z. No, as yet, equilibrium doesn’t exist in nature, unless you ignore miniscule effects. On a coarse level, one coud say the solar system is in thermal equilibrium. But then we are quibbling over which degree of thermal transference we are willing to ignore.
The Blue plate/Green plate system is most certainly not isolated (as is the Earth’s atmosphere and surface). There is an external energy source constantly supplying energy to that 2-body system. Amd the rest of the universe provides the outlet for the externally provided energy.
“On a coarse level, one coud say the solar system is in thermal equilibrium.”
Well that’s completely wrong. Never write and edit while drunk.
“No, as yet, equilibrium doesn’t exist in nature, unless you ignore miniscule effects.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-436446
“You are effectively arguing that equilibrium cannot exist in “nature, only ever steady state”.”
I’m not arguing that at all, but I agree with the statement.
“You are re-defining the whole concept of ‘equilibrium’ out of existence.”
A perfect equilibrium is as extant in nature as a perfect black body.
Classical physics uses these concepts as fundamental building blocks to explain the laws of thermodynamkics.
We don’t have perfect equilibria. but we have plety of coarse equlibria that we speak about well enough colloqiinally. When we refer to the equilibrium level of a dam, say, there are tiny fluctuations in pressure, humidity of the air and temperature that affect it, but when we speak of an inlflux matching an outflux, a passing familiarity with the fundamentals of physics roots us in the physics being discussed.
This conversation is easily bpogged down in semantics and the quibbles of degree. Those that trade in these quibbles aren’t proceeding in the discussion in good faith.
Watch the video.
It describes the difference between steady state and equilibrium just as I did. The narrator also mentions that there is no such thing as a perfect insulator. There is always some residual heat transference.
Theoretically, it takes an infinite amount of time for an object to achieve equilibrium with its environment, and practically, there are no perfectly closed systems, except, perhaps, for the universe itself. There is always heat transference in real life. We ignore the tiny residuals for almost all practical purposes, and we ignore them for theoretical purposes when we use blackbodies and perfectly adiabatic systems to explain the laws of physics.
“It describes the difference between steady state and equilibrium just as I did.”
OK, barry.
You don’t think so?
He isolates the pan from the room and it achieves equilibrium because the pan/system is receiving nor emitting any further heat. The handle and the pan comeinto thermal equilibrium with eachother.
In contact with the room – a non-isolated system – the handle has a temperature gradient to the pan, because the pan is receiving heat directly from source, but the handle is not – it’s receiving energy from the pan and emitting it to the room. This is the steeady-state situation.
This is the analogy to the GPE. The green plate is the handle. It doesn’t get energy directly from the source (the sun), but the blue plate does. The blue plate is the pan, giving heat to the handle.
There is a temperature gradient (steady state) because of the continuous flow of energy through the pan/system. this gradient resolves to equilibrium when the pan is isolated from the room and no energy is flowing, as the video says and diagrams.
But in the GPE, the energy never stops flowing – the sun is always there giving energy to the system. There is a temperature gradient because the blue plate is receiving energy directly from source but the green plate isn’t. Just like the pan and the handle in the room.
I see no difference between his explanation and mine, other than that he adds that equilibrium (all temps the same) is a special version of steady state but steady state (continuous temp gradient) can never be called equilibrium.
There are no temperature gradients through the plates, because in the thought experiments they are perfect conductors.
GR: Forget isolated/non-isolated, the difference is so minimal its not worth mentioning.
The difference is huge. The Earth system is receiving a very large influx of energy. The amount of compensation the Earth system is receiving relative to its own internal evolution is astonishing. The internal geothermal and tidal sources of energy are on the order of 0.1 W/m^2. The compensating energy from the outside is 240 W/m^2. The Earth system is so far away from isolation it is laughable that anyone would suggest that we ignore it.
GR: The distinction between isolated and non-isolated is a barrier through which heat can pass but not matter.
That is not correct. An isolated system is one in which no passage of matter or energy (including in the form of heat) occurs through the boundary.
Let’s take the 3-plate scenario, as that generally debunks the whole thing in the simplest way possible.
In the real world, it would be a steady state problem. It is the simplifications that are made in the thought experiment/s that make it an equilibrium problem.
In the real world, the central, heated blue plate would not be isothermal, the middle part (closest to the heat source) would be hottest, and the edges of the plate slightly cooler. There would be a continuation of this gradient across the green plates, whilst pressed against the blue, such that they were hottest on the side next to the blue plate, and then cooler as you get to the other side, further away from the blue. Using realistic materials, such as aluminium, this might only be a slight temperature gradient overall, of 1 K variation or less, but it would be there. Separate the plates, and due to radiative losses past the edges of the plates, the temperatures of the green plates would decrease further, whilst still having a gradient across them.
In the thought experiment/s, the simplifying assumptions are:
1) The plates are perfect conductors. So, temperature variations within and across the plates themselves disappear. 2) The plates are treated as infinite in height and width (not breadth) such that you can ignore radiative losses past the edges of the plates, on separation. So, there is no green plate temperature loss on separation.
Effectively, due to those simplifying assumptions, there is no reason for there to be any difference in temperature when the plates are pushed together, and reach equilibrium:
244 K…244 K…244 K.
And when they are pulled apart, and reach equilibrium:
244 K…244 K…244 K.
You people agree on the temperatures when pushed together, but disagree on the temperatures when separated, erroneously thinking it should be:
244 K…290 K…244 K.
It’s an equilibrium problem because there are no fixed temperature gradients. You don’t include the background “temperature” of space (3 K) into your reasoning, since the plates are simply radiating out into the vacuum of space as per their temperature and emissivity. The tiny amount of CMBR they are receiving needn’t be considered.
“So, there is no green plate temperature loss on separation.”
This is an unsupported & incorrect assertion. DREMT has never supported his assertion with the same principles used by Eli. If DREMT could do so, then DREMT would have shown his work long ago.
Why would there be?
DREMT, your lack of skill in this field shown by your comments & responses around here indicate why you need to ask. Your answer in the real world is entropy. In your ideal world the answer is 1LOT. To encourage your learning, think about the energy upon separation that now occupies the vacuum and where that energy was located with the plates together.
Ball4, you are the only commenter on this blog who thinks the green plates equilibrate at less than 244 K in the 3-plate scenario.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
#4
You don’t include the background “temperature” of space (3 K) into your reasoning, since the plates are simply radiating out into the vacuum of space as per their temperature and emissivity. The tiny amount of CMBR they are receiving needn’t be considered.
“Its an equilibrium problem because there are no fixed temperature gradients.’
FALSE.
As explained ad-nauseum to you: heat transfer problems can have different boundary conditions (BC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxO9NGWIxk4
such as:
a. Fixed temperatures
b Fixed heat flows
c. mixed
This one is c.
On one side we have Fixed heat flow 400 W. On the other side we have fixed temperature, space @ 3 K.
These BC can only be satisfied with the BP temperature >> 3 K.
Hence there IS a temperature gradient in this problem from BP to space.
Because we have
-Temperature gradients
and
-Non-zero heat flows
we CANNOT be in equilibrium.
Sorry, you cannot change what equilibrium means to make it fit your erroneous beliefs.
#2
You don’t include the background “temperature” of space (3 K) into your reasoning, since the plates are simply radiating out into the vacuum of space as per their temperature and emissivity. The tiny amount of CMBR they are receiving needn’t be considered.
“You don’t include the background ‘temperature’ of space (3 K) into your reasoning”
Riiight.
I do get to include it because I understand that physics doesnt obey your arbitrary made-up rules.
To the point, heat is flowing from the plates to space, therefore the plates are connected thermally to space.
“Two physical systems are in thermal equilibrium if there is no net flow of thermal energy between them when they are connected by a path permeable to heat. Wikipedia”
Sorry but that means the plates are also not in equilibrium with each other.
The plates can only reach equilibrium when the supply of heat is turned off and they cool to 3 K.
#3
You don’t include the background “temperature” of space (3 K) into your reasoning, since the plates are simply radiating out into the vacuum of space as per their temperature and emissivity. The tiny amount of CMBR they are receiving needn’t be considered.
“Two physical systems are in thermal equilibrium if there is no net flow of thermal energy between them when they are connected by a path permeable to heat. Wikipedia”
So lets see, the BP and GP are connected by a path permeable to heat (via radiation). And there is a net flow of thermal energy between them.
The GP and space are connected by a path permeable to heat (via radiation). And there is a net flow of thermal energy between them.
And thus, per the standard definition above, this system is NOT in thermal equilibrium, is it?
Yet you somehow declare this system is still in ‘equilibrium’?
Pls explain how. And Just Cuz, is not an explanation.
#4
You don’t include the background “temperature” of space (3 K) into your reasoning, since the plates are simply radiating out into the vacuum of space as per their temperature and emissivity. The tiny amount of CMBR they are receiving needn’t be considered.
Im DREMT. If facts are facts I keep losing the argument.
No problem! I can just change em.
#5
You don’t include the background “temperature” of space (3 K) into your reasoning, since the plates are simply radiating out into the vacuum of space as per their temperature and emissivity. The tiny amount of CMBR they are receiving needn’t be considered.
bdgwx, would it be possible for you to argue against what I am actually saying, rather than what you seem to think I am saying? You exhaust me.
“You people agree on the temperatures when [plates are] pushed together, but disagree on the temperatures when separated”
Because you now have twice the emissive surface area.
If you keep the power constant but double the emissive area, the power emitted per unit area is halved.
In the GPE, 2 surfaces are emitting to each other, the other 2 to space.
A square meter blackbody plate receiving 400W/m2 from the sun will radiate 200 W/m2 from each of its 2 surfaces (ignoring edge effects, assuming perfect conduction). It can’t emit 400 W/m2 from each of its 2 surfaces, because that would mean it’s total energy rate is 800W. Can’t break the 1st LoT by creating energy.
It can’t emit 400W/m2 in only one direction, because that would make it transparent or a perfect reflector, and not a black body absorbing and reemitting all incident energy. Can’t disprove the experiment by changing it.
If we want to increase the temperature of this plate, there are 2 ways to do it. Either increase the energy it receives, or slow its rate of energy loss while maintaining the energy input.
When we introduce the green plate in the old thought experiment, it is receiving half the energy from the blue plate that the blue plate is receiving from the sun. And the green plate is losing energy from both of its 2 surfaces as is the blue plate.
We know from Clausius, that regarding the ordinary transfer of heat, there is a “simultaneous double heat exchange” going on between the cooler and warmer body.
The green plate “interferes with the rate of heat loss” as Gordon puts it. The blue plate is now receiving energy from the sun AND the green plate (simultaneous double heat echange). Its rate of energy loss is now slower than its gain, so it MUST heat up until the blue plate is losing energy at the same rate as it gains.
Because it heats up, so does the GP until the flow of energy into the 2 plate system stabilises with the solar input.
Those who think the blue plate can’t heat up further when the when the green plate slows its rate of heat loss must disagree with Clausius that there is a “simultaneous double heat exchange” between cold and hot bodies in the ordinary transfer of heat. They must think that the energy is reflected.
Or else they must think that in this exchange, the energy from the cooler body is destroyed upon being absorbed by the warmer body.
In either case, they don’t understand physics as Clausius does.
Notice, at no time did I say that the green plate heats the blue. The green plate is not an energy source. It’s function is to slow the rate of heat loss of the blue plate. It is the sun that heats them both. At all times, the net flow of heat is from hot to cold.
As we already saw further upthread, barry particularly struggles with the 3-plate scenario. So, he switches back to the 2-plate scenario, sets his comment down thread a bit, and then waffles at length, claiming people are “creating energy”, and all sorts, when in fact that’s exactly what the 244 K…290 K…244 K gang do. Even Ball4 agreed with that…
I haven’t read the 3 plate scenario, I’m talking about the original GPE.
Ok, I’ve read your post in full, and yes, you would have a temperature gradient for the exact same reasons as I described for the GPE.
W/m2 is derived from dividing Watts by surface area in square meters. Once you pull the 3 plates apart you have tripled the emissive surface area. W/m2 cannot remain a constant value when you pull the plates apart – or you have just created energy.
4 surfaces are now emitting to eachother in a “simultaneous double heat exchange,” while 2 faces are emitting to the void. The 2 external plates are losing heat more efficiently than the central, heated plate, which is losing heat less efficiently than them.
Therefore, the 2 external plates will be cooler than the central plate.
I think what you’re forgetting, DREMT, is the RATE of energy. I’m guessing that’s what is up, because you are talking in terms of temperature rather than power.
In your set up we had perfect conduction with the 3 plates pushed together, so we didn’t worry about those effects. Nothing was impeding heat loss from the central plate. Essentially, it was one plate.
But once you pull them apart, the outer plates are no longer receiving the full Wattage of perfect conduction, they are each receiving half the power from each side of the central plate. Thus they should cool when pulled apart. But as they are the only means by which the incoming energy powering the blue plate can be lost from the system, they must heat back up to the temp required to shed heat at the matching rate.
We’ve seen that the green plates must be cooler than the blue plate, because the green plates are losing energy to space, while the blue plate is not. The heat loss of the blue is impeded more than the heat loss of the greens. The blue must always be warmer than the greens.
Therefore, in order for the 2 green plates to shed the energy of the whole system at the correct rate, they have to be the temperature of the blue plate. The blue plate, as we’ve seen, must be warmer than them to achieve this. It can’t possibly be the same temperature. Not if we’re talking about blackbodies (or greybodies).
The amount of power is the same – but the RATE of energy loss from the central plate changes. And that change in rate changes its temperature.
The 3-plate scenario uses exactly the same logic as the original GPE. I’m astonished that you have somehow missed the months of discussion of it. In fact, I simply don’t believe you.
I’m well aware of the difference between flux, power and temperature, barry. It’s you that’s getting it wrong, e.g:
“A square meter blackbody plate receiving 400W/m2 from the sun will radiate 200 W/m2 from each of its 2 surfaces (ignoring edge effects, assuming perfect conduction). It can’t emit 400 W/m2 from each of its 2 surfaces, because that would mean it’s total energy rate is 800W. Can’t break the 1st LoT by creating energy.
It can’t emit 400W/m2 in only one direction, because that would make it transparent or a perfect reflector, and not a black body absorbing and reemitting all incident energy. Can’t disprove the experiment by changing it.”
The blue plate, at 290 K (which is what your team believes is the correct answer to the 3-plate scenario) is emitting 400 W/m^2…x 2 surfaces means it is emitting 800 W total (if we assume a 1 m^2 surface area for simplicity. The blue plate at 244 K is emitting 200 W/m^2, so 400 W total. In other words, you are the ones “creating energy”.
For a refresher on the discussion, you can start with this comment from Ball4, then read both up and down through many of the prior conversations about it. It has been discussed even further during the months since:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
I’d rather start fresh with you than read through reams of blog comments. I really haven’t followed the 3-plate discussion.
You can have the same amount of power passing through a system, but if you provide a reistace to the flow you can get rise in temperature. Gprdon describes it well enough above in his comments about resistors.
This is also abundantly clear in the many daily examples that have been mentioned on this blog. The sweater is not a heat source but the air next to your skin warms up (radiating at a higher RATE). Is your body producing more energy? No, the rate at which it yields its energy to the ambient air has been reduced. Same with house insulation, same with overheating cars on hot days, and old laptops doing the same (an experience I have quite regularly).
We’re not changing the amount of energy, we’re changing the RATE of its passage through a system. Power and temperature are different properties. A skin of a light bulb with 3 cm radius receiving 100W will be much hotter than a light bulb of 3 meters radius with the same filament and power input. Power is equal, temperature changes with surface area and/or distance. It also changes with resistance – slowing the unit time it takes for the energy to pass through.
In none of these examples is energy increased – it is always that the fow of energy is changed, causing some part or all of a system to change temperature, so that the system can once again shed energy at a sufficient RATE to match the input.
In the 3-plate setup, we KNOW that the outer plates must be cooler than the central plate.
The central plate’s RATE of energy loss is impeded by the green plates, but the green plates rate of eergy loss is impeded only by the blue plate on one side. The void permits more rapid energy loss to one side of the green plates.
But you disagree. So I ask for some clarity on the actual physical processes you think are happening.
As Clausius says, there is a “simultaneous double heat exchange” in the ordinary transfer of heat.
If all 3 plates are exchanging “heat” (I prefer to call it energy), how do you arrive at the conclusion the central plate is at the same temperature as the green ones when it is exhanging “heat” on both sides when the green plates exchange “heat” on only one side? What physical mechanism is preventing a temperature gradient? I don’t understand how you picture the real-world physics here.
If all 3 plates are exchanging “heat” (I prefer to call it energy) via conduction when pressed together, how do you arrive at the conclusion the central plate is at the same temperature as the green ones when it is exhanging “heat” on both sides when the green plates exchange “heat” on only one side? What physical mechanism is preventing a temperature gradient? I don’t understand how you picture the real-world physics here.
In the real world there is a temperature gradient in the compressed plate system.
YOU made the system perfectly coducting, thin plates to achieve a theoretical equal temp throughout. That’s fine for the purposes of our thought experiemnt. I acept the premise to simplify.
When you separate the plates, there is now 3 times the emissive surface area. If the power remains the same it is physically (and mathematically) impossible for the power rate per unit area in the system to remain the same.
And yet your version of this system triples its emissive area while maintaining the original rate of energy flow from all surfaces.
Numbers.
400W / 2 square meters = 200 W/m2
400W / 6 square meters = 66.66 W/m2
Right?
But this is your version.
400W / 6 square meters = 200 W/m2
Please explain.
barry, when the plates are pressed together, at 244 K…244 K…244 K:
There is 400 W entering the system from the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W leaving to space from the green plates.
With the plates separated, at 244 K…244 K…244 K:
There is 400 W entering the system from the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W leaving to space from the green plates.
The only thing that has changed is the intermediary mode of energy transfer.
No, the system has changed as well.
Whereas you had 2 surfaces only emitting to empty space, you now have 4 surfaces emitting towards each other as well.
Some energy is being returned to the blue plate when it wasn’t before (because we had perfect conduction).
No, barry, nothing has changed but the intermediary mode of energy transfer (unless you believe in back-radiation, but not back-conduction?).
As I said, there would be a temperature gradient from conduction in the real world. but even if we forgo that for the purposes of simplification in the conductive structure, that doesn’t mean it automatically translates to the radiative structure.
What if we agreed that there was a temperature gradient when the plates were pressed together, as it would be in real life? Would that mean you could now accept a temperature gradient for the 3 plates split apart?
If you said it was 244 K…290 K…244 K with the plates pressed together as well as separated I would at least applaud your consistency…but you would still be wrong.
DREMT forever returns to his plates pressed together and conduction as if the plates separated situation must, inexplicably, behave exactly the same way.
While we have explained over and over and over thst conduction and radiation do not give the same results, to no avail.
Why should they, given that they have different laws?
Why should they, given common experience that contact produces much greater heat transfer (hence the OUCH on the touched pan).
On this key point DREMT has never explained his logic.
…and don’t forget your comment from further upthread, barry:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-436206
“And it seems he was about to suggest that the laws of thermodynamics apply differently to radiation than they do to convection, but he bailed out of further clarification.”
No reason for the laws of thermodynamics to apply differently to radiation than they do to conduction.
Good. We can all agree then that the 1LOT and 2LOT apply equally to both conduction and radiation. Specifically that energy transferred via radiation does not disappear and that a system that is radiation dominated can have warm/cool components that get warmer/cooler when a supply of compensating energy is utilized by that system to make it happen. Therefore the GHE is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Thermo is constant. Yet heat transfer differs for conduction and radiation.
But DREMT will continue to evade the question of why plates in contact and conducting, must behave identically to plates separated and not conducting. He has no logical answer.
…it’s also important to remember, barry (the commenter I am actually trying to converse with, alone), there are a lot of dishonest commenters out there. Some of them even try to take advantage of the fact I’m no longer responding to them, if you can believe it…!
…and some of them (like Svante, for instance) have tried to make points before about how conduction and radiation have different equations for heat transfer, and have tried to compare results from these equations to show differences relating to our good old 3-plate GPE. Be careful, though, barry…these people tend to conveniently forget that the equation for conduction relates back to temperature differences across or through objects, whereas the equation for radiation relates back to temperature differences between objects.
That’s a crucial difference when you’re considering something as silly as your position on the GPE…which is effectively such that if you split a solid bar of aluminium, heated in the middle, into three pieces…you think the middle piece would magically heat up some more, as a result, due to radiation from the other bits!
Give it all a good think over before responding.
Ha! Im DREMT and I will use every trick to evade uncomfortable truths.
Such as the very annoying truth that plates separated in vacuum cannot transfer 400 W by radiation without a large temperature difference between them.
No matter, I will just declare that they can.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
“That’s a crucial difference”.
And yet you told us that plates pressed together (conduction) would be the same as plates with a small vacuum gap (radiation).
That’s right, Svante. There are times when you people ignore the similarities between conduction and radiation, that might (for instance) result in the plates being the same temperatures pushed together, or pulled apart. Then there are other times, when you people ignore the differences between conduction and radiation, to suit your arguments. It just depends who you are trying to con, and on which point.
Very nice semantic argument there.
Unfortunately it got stuck in my BS filter.
Perhaps if you could provide the physical formulas and math that show net energy transfer between plates of the same temperature.
Or ask barry to put me right, I trust him completely.
Huh?
DREMT,
“If you said it was 244 K… 290 K…244 K with the plates pressed together as well as separated I would at least applaud your consistency… but you would still be wrong.’
Can’t tell if you are answering my question or the one you made up there. I’ll ask it again…
What if we agreed that there was a temperature gradient when the plates were pressed together, as it would be in real life? Would that mean you could now accept a temperature gradient for the 3 plates split apart?
“With the plates separated, at 244 K…244 K…244 K:
There is 400 W entering the system from the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W leaving to space from the green plates.”
Nope, sorry the 400 W cannot magically leave from the green plates to space without first transferring from blue to green.
The plates being separated and in vacuum, can only transfer the 400 W by radiation.
But there aint no magic to make that happen while the plates are at the same temperature.
The Rad Heat Transfer equation says nyet.
You cannot simply declare it is so when it clearly isnt.
Why ask a question about something I already explained, barry?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-436940
…plus…an important point for you to consider (or ignore, more likely, I guess):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-438136
1 – We are dealing with more than one thread and I don’t knoe if you’ll read the question, so I make sure.
2 – I’ve already answered manetioned the difference between heat and energy to you. Energy is conserved, heat is not. But you are using temperature and energy interchangably when you describe the temperature of the 3 plates rather than their energy exchange.
I have recapped 2 pints you haven’t yet dealt with. i’m curious how you will explain your view on these.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-438875
I am not using temperature and energy interchangeably. No more false accusations, please.
swannie….”Gordo again posts more or his magic physics lunacy. There’s no such thing as a “natural temperature” of a body, only the temperature of the body when the energy entering it matches that leaving it”,
What amazes me about you is the limitations in your thought processes. You ignore a 170 year old law of thermodynamics and claim you can get around it with your own perverse conclusions.
Now, you can’t understand what I mean by a natural temperature. If you block off a body’s ability to dissipate heat, what would be its temperature if a 100 watt electrical heater was applied to it? We have cut off energy out, and we know energy in, so what temperature will the body be at steady state?
That’s what I call it’s natural temperature based on the natural temperature it would reach with a 100 watt heater and heat dissipation blocked completely.
If you then allow normal heat dissipation, the natural temperature will drop to a point where heat in = heat out. In your experiment, the heat comes from an external source and the BP has to radiate it away. Before you raise the GP to block that radiation from on side of the BP, there will be an energy balance at a lower temperature than the temperature due to the heat supplied.
When you block the dissipation with your raised GP, the BP’s temperature has to rise, not because of heat supplied by the cooler GP, but due to it’s reduced ability to dissipate heat via radiation.
“When you block the dissipation with your raised GP, the BP’s temperature has to rise, not because of heat supplied by the cooler GP, but due to its reduced ability to dissipate heat via radiation.”
Precisely!
At last.
The GP is not an energy source. The sun is.
However, because the GP slows the rate at which BP loses energy, the introduction of the GP results in the temperature of the BP being raised.
While the sun is the source of all the power in the system, it is responsible for the overall heating, but not for the change in rate of heat loss of BP. that’s all the GP.
Colloquially, a cooler body has caused a warmer body to get warmer.
So much of this has been a quibble about semantics.
barry…”The GP is not an energy source. The sun is.
However, because the GP slows the rate at which BP loses energy, the introduction of the GP results in the temperature of the BP being raised”.
****
Don’t know where you’ve been Barry but I have argued this with swannie at least a dozen times. He thinks the GP is radiating energy to the BP and the BP is absorbing the energy and warming it.
That’s also the theory of Eli Rabbett, whose fantasy stimulated Swannie to do his experiments. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both with expertise in thermodynamics, argued against Rabbet’s claim that back-radiation from a colder body to a warmer body could raise the temperature of the hotter body.
When G&T quoted the 2nd law as a source of their argument, Rabbett insisted that in a two body system, one hotter, both radiating, that a one way transfer of heat would mean one body was not radiating. His team actually stated that.
The problem with climate alarm and the AGW is that EM is confused with heat. They do not exist simultaneously. When a body radiates EM, heat is lost and when a cooler body absorbs EM, the EM is lost as heat is created. They cannot be summed as a net balance of energy. G&T argued that only heat quantities can be summed to satisfy the 2nd law.
There is no net energy flow as those alarmists claim to support a heat transfer from cold to hot.
“He thinks the GP is radiating energy to the BP and the BP is absorbing the energy and warming it.”
I’m curious to know how you would describe the actual physical mechanism whereby the BP emissions are reduced by the GP. The actual physical, real world physical processes that make this happen.
Me too.
” When a body radiates EM, heat is lost and when a cooler body absorbs EM, the EM is lost as heat is created.”
Thermo textbooks today say a similar thing, with ‘heat’ replaced by internal energy. The term ‘heat’ is used for the flow of energy between objects.
You can use your own terms if you want, but seems to be just asking for confusion.
“He thinks the GP is radiating energy to the BP and the BP is absorbing the energy and warming it.’
Well the question is Gordon, do you believe in the rad heat transfer equation, which includes a Th^4 term for the hot object and a Tc^4 term for the cold object?
That law regulates the rate of heat transfer from hot to cold.
If you do, then you and Eli will get the same answer, with the Blue plate warming up.
“The problem with climate alarm and the AGW is that EM is confused with heat. They do not exist simultaneously. When a body radiates EM, heat is lost and when a cooler body absorbs EM, the EM is lost as heat is created. They cannot be summed as a net balance of energy. G&T argued that only heat quantities can be summed to satisfy the 2nd law.
There is no net energy flow as those alarmists claim to support a heat transfer from cold to hot.”
I think the simplest way to define “heat” is a type of energy that flows when there is a thermal gradient. Without a thermal gradient, it’s just EM radiated based on temperature and emissivity of the objects.
You also can’t count the “temperature of space”, 3 K, into your considerations of what constitutes a “thermal gradient”, since a vacuum doesn’t have a temperature, and the CMBR is too insignificant to include. You just consider the thermal gradient between or within the plates, if there is any.
barry et al….the reason I claim an isolated/non-isolated system is irrelevant is that we are always talking in this blog about an open/non-isolated system in the case of the Earth’s atmosphere/surface interface.
EM energy enters freely and IR leaves freely. Matter even leaves in small quantities. However, we are not talking about the system per se we are talking about interactions within the system.
A thermos is an example of an isolated system. Leave it for a day and boiled water put in the thermos will be cold. There is essentially no such thing as an isolated system since such a system would be idealized. So why are we even talking about such a red-herring argument?
Clausius did not specify whether a system is open or not because it does not matter. The 2nd law applies to heat transfer therefore heat has to be transferred before the 2nd law applies. The fact that heat is transferred in the atmosphere, and between surface and atmosphere, one way only, rules out the closed system concept.
We are talking about the surface radiating IR to the atmosphere where it is absorbed by GHGs then the GHGs radiating IR back toward the surface. That is an open, non-isolated system but who cares. The point is that there is a heat transfer between the surface and the GHGs therefore the 2nd law applies.
I am arguing there is no transfer of heat from the GHGs back to the surface because the temperatures of the GHGS are either equal to surface temperature or colder. The 2nd law states clearly that cannot happen.
It is important in the surface/atmosphere scenario that we never lose sight of the fact that this system is continuously receiving energy from an external source – the sun.
If that relaitonship is conveniently forgotten, all else falls apart It DOES matter.
When you just upthread describe the GP reducing the enrgy loss from the BP and the resulting rise in BP temperature, that can ONLY happen if the BP is receiving energy from an external source.
The moment you remove the sun from this picture, the BP energy loss can still be reduced by introducing the GP, but the BP cannot heat up.
The continued presence of external energy (non-isolated thermal environment) is ESSENTIAL to understanding the enhanced ‘greenhouse’ effect on Earth.
barry…”When you just upthread describe the GP reducing the enrgy loss from the BP and the resulting rise in BP temperature, that can ONLY happen if the BP is receiving energy from an external source.
The moment you remove the sun from this picture, the BP energy loss can still be reduced by introducing the GP, but the BP cannot heat up”.
***
That’s exactly what I have been arguing. Swannie does not agree.
However, some alarmists like physicist Stefan Rahmstorf have claimed that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface so as to raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar energy. He has claimed the 2nd law is satisfied as long as the net energy balance is positive.
That is nonsense. When you introduce a generic term like energy, without specifying the energy, you cannot claim the 2nd law is satisfied. Only when the energy is heat can a term like a net balance of energy apply, as claimed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. The 2nd law applies to heat transfer and not to EM, therefore a net balance involving both EM and heat is nonsense.
I know you are likely talking about the other theory that GHGs act as in a manner to slow dissipation from the surface by slowing surface radiation. However, that makes no sense either since it suggests a heat-trapping blanket. All GHGS account for only 0.3% of the entire atmosphere and claiming that as a blanket would imply a threadbare blanket with a few threads.
Even with Swannie’s GP, if it was made of a material that passes EM, the BP would not warm, even if heated. I have presumed his GP is made of metal, which blocks IR, or a form of glass that blocks IR. He has placed the GP right in front of the BP which ensures the IR is blocked.
bdg….”GR: I have claimed there is no such compensation in the atmosphere, ergo, heat cannot be transferred from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to a hotter surface that warmed them in the first place.
The Earth is NOT an isolated system. There is a passage of energy both out of and into the Earth system. The Earth system is being compensated by this energy. The Earth system is NOT allowed to evolve by its own means”.
***
As I said before, isolated/non-isolated is a red herring argument. Clausius explained clearly what he meant by compensation (by its own means) and he meant that whenever heat is transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, an immediate replacement of that energy is required. That does not happen in the atmosphere.
With an air conditioner or a fridge, heat is transferred from a cooler compartment to a warmer compartment (the atmosphere) by compressing a refi-g-e-rant then allowing it to cool to the atmosphere is a condenser. In the process the gas is converted back to a cooled low pressure spray where it absorbs heat from the cooled compartment.
Nothing like that in the atmosphere.
EM energy into and out of the solar/Earth system has nothing to do with heat transfers within the system. SW solar heats the surface where it is converted to LW IR. That radiated IR is claimed to warm GHGs in the atmosphere. I can accept this part of the theory.
The 2nd law applies to heat from the Sun being transferred to the much cooler Earth. It’s ludicrous to presume heat is transferred from the Earth to the Sun. Within that system, IR is transferred to GHGs in the atmosphere, causing them to warm, which satisfies the 2nd law. It’s the notion that the same GHGs, existing at a temperature equal to or less than the surface temperature, can transfer heat to the surface so as to increase the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy, that is haywire.
That’s called perpetual motion.
There is no compensation in either of the systems as described by Clausius. Transfer of heat from a colder surface to a warmer surface relies on a heat engine effect involving changes in pressure, volume, and temperature. It cannot occur ‘by its own means’.
“Clausius explained clearly what he meant by compensation (by its own means) and he meant that whenever heat is transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, an immediate replacement of that energy is required. That does not happen in the atmosphere.”
There is plenty of energy hitting the atmosphere from the sun. The flow is constantly replenishing the energy of the system.
The troposphere has a temperature gradient. It is not in equilibrium with the surface, it is in a steady state with the surface. Averaged out that is – there are always weather effects.
With any stabilized steady state, if you heat any part of it, or reduce the rate at which any part of it loses heat, the whole steady state system heats up in response, because the entire steady is thermally connected.
With the GHE, the rate of surface emission to space is reduced, which is why the average (day/night) surface temp of the earth is 15 C and not -18 C. (Atmosphere also reduces direct solar heating of surface, but the GHE wins that battle and keeps the surface warmer rather than colder as a spherical average)
If you heat any part of that steady state, from surface through the troposphere, or reduce the rate of energy loss from any part of that system, the whole system warms in response.
The enhanced GHE is the increased reduction in RATE of energy loss from the surface to space.
Barry…”There is plenty of energy hitting the atmosphere from the sun. The flow is constantly replenishing the energy of the system”.
Yes…but but the 2nd law applies to heat being transferred ‘by it’s own means’. I have tried to illustrate that as water running down a slope due to gravity. It cannot reverse itself, by it’s own mean and start flowing up the slope. Incoming solar has no effect on the direction of heat transfer between the cooler GHGs and the hotter surface.
We seem to be talking about two different theories. I am talking about one AGW theory wherein GHGs in the atmosphere are capable of back-radiating IR that is absorbed by the surface, warming it. That’s where the 2nd law comes in.
You seem to be talking about GHGs acting to slow down the rate of heat dissipation at the surface. The 2nd law has no application there but the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does. Although S-B is normally written as Q = e.sigma.A.T^4 I have also seen it written as Q = e.sigma.A (Th^4 – Tc^4). In that form, however, it is not referring to radiation from two bodies warming each other, it applies to a hot body Th radiating to a cooler environment Tc. It suggests a one-way heat transfer and heat would not be transfered in the other direction till Tc > Th.
EM radiation and heat dissipation go hand in hand and they cannot be confused. You are either talking about radiation intensity or heat dissipation, not both. It’s not entirely clear to me how the 2nd equation is applied other than with reference to a temperature gradient between a radiating body and its environment.
If you are using Tc in reference to the atmosphere, you cannot use the temperature of the GHGs since it is nitrogen and oxygen at 99% that accounts for the temperature of the atmosphere. It’s the temperature of the N2/O2 that determines the rate of heat dissipation not the GHGs.
Were it not for convection, the surface would not cool very well since the atmosphere’s temperature would be equal to the surface temperature. You need a negative temperature gradient that that is created when heated air rises and cooler air replaces it. Lindzen has claimed that without convection, the surface would rise to about 70C.
“You need a negative temperature gradient that that is created when heated air rises and cooler air replaces it.”
The cold air is at the top of the troposphere, and the warmer air is at the bottom. Convection is not powerful enough to reverse the actual thermal gradient of the troposphere.
Let me quote you from upthread snd ask a question for clarity?
““When you block the dissipation with your raised GP, the BP’s temperature has to rise, not because of heat supplied by the cooler GP, but due to its reduced ability to dissipate heat via radiation.”
The plates are a distance apart.
So how does the GP reduce the rate of the thermal emission of the BP? What is the nuts and bolts phyical mechanism? In what way does the BP experience the presence of the GP in order to have its rate of radiative emiission change?
For the record, this is where myself and Gordon disagree. Gordon still sees the blue plate as increasing in temperature.
Swanson’s results agree. Hughes’ results do not. If you read through the comments at the first of Hughes’ experiments, there is plenty of discussion about Swanson’s experiment:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
I read the comments there, and here.
Let’s take the 3-plate experiment slightly differently.
There is one BP receiving energy internally, emitting at 200W/m2 from each of its 2 surfaces.
To simplify the next bit, we’ll make the plates 1 meter squared for now. The total blue plate power, then, is 400 Watts.
Now introduce a green plate each side, perfectly conducting blackbodies. Each 1 meter square green plate is receiving 200W/m2 over 1 meter surface (ignoring edge effects), therefore receiving 200 Watts of power.
These plates, like the BP, have a surface area of 2 meters square, so if they are receiving 200 Watts, they must emit 100 W/m2 each side.
They cannot possibly emit at a higher rate without receiving more energy.
But you have the 3 plates emitting all at the same power of the blue plate at the same rate.
Where does that extra energy come from to warm the green plates, DREMT?
Where does the extra energy come from to enable the blue plate to emit 400 W/m^2, at 290 K, barry?
That would means it would have to be emitting 800 W in total.
With plates separated, at 244 K…244 K…244 K, you have 400 W entering the system via the electrical supply, and 400 W leaving to space (200 W from each green plate).
The 200 W from each green plate directed back to the blue plate can not raise the temperature of the blue plate, because that’s where the energy came from, in the first place.
Again, you are not seeing that the RATE of energy flow is changed from the blue plate, not the total amount of energy.
the blue plate is being insulated from sspace by the green plates. The blue plate is no longer losing energy directly to space.
Because we know from Clausius that energy is exchanged between all surfaces at different temperature (“simultaneous double heat exchange”), we know that the BP is receiving radiant energy from the blue plates as well as the internal energy source, which is constant.
In order for the BP to now lose energy to match the rate at which it is receiving it, it must warm up to do so.
DREMT, do you actually disagree with Clausius that there is a “simultaneous double heat exchange?” It seems you do.
“The 200 W from each green plate directed back to the blue plate can not raise the temperature of the blue plate”
If the blue plate is receiving energy from the electrical source AND energy from the green plates, why should it not respond to these inputs? What actual physical process prevents it? You haven’t explained that yet.
Steady on, barry, one thing at a time (although everything has already been discussed at length previously).
“…the blue plate is being insulated from sspace by the green plates. The blue plate is no longer losing energy directly to space.”
The blue plate is as “insulated from space” by the green plates when they are pressed against the blue plate as it is when they are when separated.
In the real world there would be a temperature gradient when the plates are compressed together. YOU constructed the experiment to have perfect conduction and no temperature gradient.
And that’s fine. But that perfect conduction disappears when the plates are separated. The centtral plate is now insulated when it wasn’t before.
You seem to want to believe that that perfect conduction is still happening when the plates are spearated.
No barry, it switches from “conduction” to “radiation”…
…and no barry, the conditions of perfect conductivity and no radiative losses past the edge of the plates (i.e. assuming “infinite parallel plates”) are conditions from the original 2-plate scenario (check in the comments under the original Eli Rabett article). They are not something I have created.
Ok, you’ve gone along with perfect conduction and edge effects.
The crux of our disagreement isn’t any of those things. The crux is what you have not yet answered.
Clausius says there is a simulataneous double heat exchange between objects of different temperature in the ordinary transfer of “heat” (energy).
But you seem to think that no energy is transferred from the green plates to the blue.
You seem to disagree with Clausius. Could you please clarify?
I already explained. You can’t treat an output as an input:
“If the blue plate is receiving energy from the electrical source AND energy from the green plates, why should it not respond to these inputs?”
The energy from the green plates is not an input to the blue plate. That energy came from the blue plate in the first place.
You’re still not answering the question.
Does the blue plate absorb the radiation from the green plates?
If no, you disagree with Clausius.
If yes, somehow that energy is destroyed when absorbed by the blue.
What happens to the radiation emitted from the green plate when it strikes the blue, as you see it?
The answer is: whatever you want to consider is happening at the quantum level (about which we can never be 100% certain since we will never directly observe it), that energy cannot raise the temperature of the blue plate, since the energy ultimately came from the blue plate in the first place. An output cannot be an input.
DRsEMT repeats his denialist physics:
Sorry to bust your mythical physics, but in your 3 plate model, if the temperatures are the same, there’s no mechanism available to transfer energy from the middle plate to the outer two. It is an absolute requirement that there must be a difference in temperature for the energy transfer.
Then that’s a bit of a problem for your “plates pressed together: 244 K…244 K…244 K”, eh, Swanson!?
DREMT,
Yesterday I was thinking that you avoided answering the question about the physical process seversal times, and that you were unable to deal with it because to do so would put you at odds with Clausius on the 2nd law, or at odds with the 1st law. today you have answered,
“The answer is: whatever you want to consider is happening at the quantum level (about which we can never be 100% certain since we will never directly observe it)”
You are unable to commit to the idea that radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed by warmer bodies. Even though it is a staple of physics that radiation is absorbed at a surface dependent on the properties of the absorbing material, not on the temperature of the emitting body. Even though the property of a blackbody is that it absorbs all incident radiation. Even though Clausius clearly states that cool and warm bodies exchange heat simultaneously in the ordinary transfer of heat. You can’t bring yourself to confirm what “everyone knows” (as Clausius says himsewlf), because that would make defending your argument much, much harder.
“…the energy ultimately came from the blue plate in the first place. An output cannot be an input.”
Well you’ve just eliminated the entire field of understanding known as “feedback.”
The output from a speaker is sound waves that hit the strings of the guitar and the pickup, feeding outout back through the input. This is but one example of myriad in nature and the man-made world.
This contention of yours is rubbish. Feedback exists. The radiation from the green plates IS absorbed by the blue, resulting in the rate of energy coming into the blue plate exceeding the rate of energy out of the blue plate. The temperature of the blue plate has to rise to compensate. The green plates are not “heating” the blue plate (in the strict language of the 2nd Law), they are slowing its rate of energy loss by feeding back some of the energy from the blue plate. All heating is supplied by the electrical source, which is ultimately responsible for all heating in the system.
Furthermore, at no time does the NET flow of heat go from cold to hot during the continual simultaneous double heat exchange. Feedback is real. A stable steady state is ultimately achieved. No laws of thermodynamics are broken.
barry, if you want to think that all (or part) of the radiation from the green plates is absorbed by the blue plates, please do. Just be aware that whatever you want to consider is happening at the quantum level (about which we can never be 100% certain since we will never directly observe it), that energy cannot raise the temperature of the blue plate, since the energy ultimately came from the blue plate in the first place. An output cannot be an input.
An output, or some part of it, can feed back to an input. Have you never seen an electric guitar and speaker do exactly that? This mantra of yours is belied by common experience.
The blue plate is not the input. It is receiving input. The green plates feed back to the blue plate, which is a component of the system that the energy is flowing through.
This feedback increases the ‘gain’ on the BP. The constant input from the electrical source heats the BP further, because its rate of heat loss is impeded by the greens in the feedback.
That’s really simple. An outout CAN feed back to become an input to some part of the system. That is extremely common in nature and the man-made world. Guitarists rely on this principle to modify the sound they make. Your mantra is a complete furphy.
DRsEMT wrote:
No, you (and your sock puppet buddy, Huffingman) are the one(s) who promoted this three plate nonsense, not me.
The numbers don’t add up in DREMT’s 3-plate scenario.
The central plate receives X amount of energy. The green plates each receive half that, because the central plate can only radiate half its energy in either direction. A 400W plate a meter square in area can only radiate 200W to each side.
So where does the extra energy come from to heat up the green plates to the same temperature as the central plate? The only energy being supplied to the green plates is from the blue plate. And they are each getting half the energy that the blue plate is getting. Green plates can never be receiving the same amount of energy EACH that the plue plate is getting. There simply has to be a thermal gradient.
Just as there would be IRL with the plates compressed together.
Yes, barry, I’m aware of feedback.
Now, back to the Green Plate Effect…
…Swanson misses the point (no surprise there). barry mentions that “the numbers don’t add up”. That’s right, barry…they don’t…for you guys. You guys accept that when the plates are pressed together, they are at 244 K…244 K…244 K. Then, when separated, you believe the blue plate increases in temperature to 244 K…290 K…244 K.
Take it away, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K
When the givens are the same as the GPE, then upon separation the middle plate increases in temperature closer to 262K and the other two green plates decrease in temperature i.e. they don’t stay at 244K as JD shows, they decrease closer to 220K to conserve system energy. JD is just as confused as ever, nothing new.
JD should learn some physics or continue to be the blog entertainer.”
You see, Ball4, unlike the rest of you, tried to argue that for the blue plate to increase in temperature there would have to be a permanent decrease in the energy to the green plates to compensate. Whereas the rest of you lot are creating energy from nothing! The blue plate, at 290 K, is emitting 400 W/m^2, so 800 W in total.
DRsEMT reminds us all that he (and his alter ego, Huffingman) first posted this 3 plate nonsense about a year ago. And he continues to ignore the fact that when those 1 m^2 plates are separated, the middle (Blue) one must warm to a higher temperature in order for the 400 watts supplied to it to be transferred to the two outer (Green) plates. A year now gone and DRsEMT’s cartoon physics has NEVER BEEN CORRECT.
Wrong, as usual, Swanson. You are confusing heat flow (where you need a thermal gradient for heat to flow) with energy flow…the plates simply radiate based on their temperature and emissivity…no thermal gradients required.
Ayatollah DREMT has settled the science.
It’s the intelligent photon asymmetrical U-turn.
The usual drive-by misrepresentation from Svante, typically delivered late in a discussion, out of nowhere. Especially necessary when there is a comment they are trying to distract attention away from (the 4:32am).
You will never get it, but there is a difference between transient and steady temperatures.
Ball4 is talking about transient temperatures upon separation.
The blue plate gets zero loss and the surplus warms it up.
The green plates get zero input but lose the same, so they have an initial heat deficit and cool off.
This is where the total system gains energy, because the total output goes down. There’s no magical extra energy, it comes from the 400 Joules that you pump in every second.
When temperatures stabilize the total output has to be like before.
It’s normally a good idea to look at extreme cases like plates pressed together. In this case it’s a fallacy because perfect conduction is much more efficient than radiation.
“Ball4 is talking about transient temperatures upon separation.”
No, Svante, he isn’t. Stop trying to put words into other people’s mouths.
Anyway, for plates pressed together, to drive 200 W/m^2 through a 1 mm aluminum plate you need a temperature difference of …
Conduction: dt=sQ/k
s=0.001 m (plate thickness).
k=237 W/K/m
Q=heat 200 W/m^2
dt=0.001*200/237=0.0008 K
I think you know how to calculate the temperature difference required for a 1 mm vacuum gap.
Oh, what a coincidence!
I was just talking about that:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-438191
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
And in our example we have the same temperature and the same emissivity on both sides, so what is the net energy flow between the plates I wonder?
Now you’re getting it.
Yup, the blue plate gets zero loss and the surplus input warms it up.
The green plates get zero input but lose the same, so they have an initial heat deficit and cool off.
No, I meant there’s no thermal gradient required for energy to flow via radiation. The 400 W in from the electrical supply can only flow one way, and that is out via the green plates as they radiate 400 W to space between them according to their temperature and emissivity.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
And while they have the same emissivity and temperature there is perfect symmetry and the net result is zero.
The 400 W in from the electrical supply can only flow one way, and that is out via the green plates, as they radiate 400 W to space between them according to their temperature and emissivity. The net result is that 400 W enters the system, and 400 W leaves.
DREMT,
Tell me, if we abandon the perfect thermal conductivity conceit, and the plates of infinite size have a temperature gradient pressed together (as they would)…
Would you then accept that this gradient continues when they are pulled apart?
And why?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-436940
Now…is there any reason why I am the only one who has to answer questions, or respond to points made?
DRsEMT wrote:
That’s because your cartoon physics is both illogical and impossible, yet you continue to post your denialist BS nonsense.
For example, if your two Green plates exhibit a temperature of 244 K, each must emit 200 watts from each side, for a total of 400 watts per plate and 800 watts total. But, your energy supply is only 400 watts. Where does that extra energy come from and where does the emissions from the inner side of the Green plates end up? For more than a year, you’ve repeated this cartoon logic, ignoring real world physics.
Yet you are so short-sighted you cannot see why this is a problem for you guys, not me…you are the ones creating energy from nothing…
But I just explained it to you.
The green plates get zero input upon separation because there is zero input from blue when there is no temperature difference.
They lose the same to space, so they have an initial heat deficit and cool off. This is where the total system gains energy, because the total output goes down. There’s no magical extra energy, it comes from the 400 Joules that you pump in every second.
But I just explained it to you…
…there’s no thermal gradient required for energy to flow via radiation. The 400 W in from the electrical supply can only flow one way, and that is out via the green plates as they radiate 400 W to space between them according to their temperature and emissivity. The net result is that 400 W enters the system, and 400 W leaves.
“The 400 W in from the electrical supply can only flow one way, and that is out via the green plates ”
DREMT seems remarkably content with this process, of 400 W getting from BP to GP, happening by pure magic.
Since no physics can explain it.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
No, but it is required for net energy, aka heat.
You know the formula, just put in equal temperatures and calculate Q.
No, not while temperature and emissivity is the same at both sides, you have the same flow in both directions.
You know the formula, just put in equal temperatures and calculate Q.
Yes, but you have zero flow between the plates.
The blue plate runs a surplus and warms up.
The green plates have a deficit and cool off.
You know the formula, please calculate the Q for each plate by itself.
Yes, the laws of physics apply universally.
Even between blue and green plates.
“No, but it is required for net energy, aka heat.”
That’s right, but we’re not talking about heat flow, we’re talking about energy flow.
Quoting me: “The 400 W in from the electrical supply can only flow one way, and that is out via the green plates as they radiate 400 W to space between them according to their temperature and emissivity.”
Svante responds: “No, not while temperature and emissivity is the same at both sides, you have the same flow in both directions.”
You’ve misunderstood. It can only flow one way. EM energy cannot flow from the green plates to the blue plates, convert itself back into electrical energy, and flow back down the cables from whence it came, now can it!? It can, ultimately, only flow in one direction…from the electrical supply, to the green plates, and then out to space.
Quoting me: “The net result is that 400 W enters the system, and 400 W leaves.”
Svante responds: “Yes, but you have zero flow between the plates. The blue plate runs a surplus and warms up. The green plates have a deficit and cool off.”
Incorrect. The green plates cannot heat the blue…you have to realize they are “downstream”, as it were…and, the green plates cannot “cool off”. Were they to decrease in temperature, there would be 400 W coming into the system via the blue plate, but less than 400 W leaving via the green plates, so they would simply warm back up to 244 K again.
DREMT has two objects at the same temperature but the energy somehow ‘knows’ which way is “downstream”.
More magical thinking in place of physics.
DREMT,
“Now… is there any reason why I am the only one who has to answer questions, or respond to points made?”
I am having a conversation with you, not with anyone else.
I saw your longish post. It kind of answers my question. You’re saying that there would be a temperature gradient IRL in both situations, but a stronger one with separated plates when including edge effects etc that we ommitted for simplicity.
I agree.
But I don’t agree that if we keep the simplifying conditions the temperature would be the same in the separated structure, for reasons I’ve made clear. I don’t think you’ve addressed the substantive points I’ve made. I’ll number them in summary recap and see if you have a direct response for them. All plates are perfect conductors, infinite in size.
1) BP only radiates half its energy each way. How is it possible for GPs to receive the same energy that the blue plate is receiving, if the GPs receive half the BP energy? Pleas explain how.
2) When pressed togather, GPs have no impact on BP. The energy flows in one direction (outward from BP), uninmpeded. But when separated, not being transparent, GPs now emit energy back to the BP. You cannot maintain perfect conduction between the plates. What was purely an outward flow from BP thru GPs has now changed into some returned flow from GPs to BP. Output from BP is returned as input from the GPs. There is no avoiding that – it’s a very simple feedback process. You can’t confer the conductive condition onto the radiative, as much as you might hope for tht to be the case. The system now has 3 times the surface area, which absolutely MUST change flux rates or energy is not conserved.
(As an aside, noting some comments of yours, the laws of thermo apply equally for convection, conduction and radiation. But heat transfer rates and flux vectors are different for each even with the same energy input and the same quantity of matter. Also, energy is a coserved quantity – temperature is not, and this is precisely the flaw in using temperature as if it is energy, as you have been doing)
“I am having a conversation with you, not with anyone else”
I wish I could say the same. You may have noticed some interaction I have had with others. Read that first, as your points in 1) are covered in those interactions.
I note from 2) that you do not believe in back-conduction.
I would appreciate it if you could find some time to respond to the multitude of points, and questions, from myself that you have ignored throughout.
“the green plates cannot ‘cool off’. Were they to decrease in temperature, there would be 400 W coming into the system via the blue plate, but less than 400 W leaving via the green plates, so they would simply warm back up to 244 K again.”
Right! Interesting idea there DREMT.
Consider if the BP was initially at 290K and GPs initially at 244K.
There would be 2*5.67e-8*(290^4-244^4)*1m^2 of heat flowing from BP to GPs, which works out to 400 W.
Yes?
There would be 400 W emitted from the GP to space. So the GP are happy.
Now imagine the BP tries to ‘cool off’ below 290 K to try to reach your 244 K. There will now be < 400 W NET emitted from BP to the GPs. There would still be 400 W coming into the BP from the heater.
So the BP will warm up. Back to 290 K. It cannot cool off!
Hence it MUST BE at its steady-state temperature of 290 K.
DREMT,
“I would appreciate it if you could find some time to respond to the multitude of points, and questions, from myself that you have ignored throughout.”
You’ve just ignored – again – 2 of my points, which are specifically addressed to you to.
Different people are coming at the issue differently to me, and I have no interest in joining up to those conversations. I’m keeping it streamlined, and have no inclination to trawl the many comments to eke out where you have made points to others that you might want me to engage with.
Every point you have brought up with me I have answered.
Because you haven’t responded to some significant ones I’ve put to you, I’ve numbered them.
1) BP only radiates half its energy each way. How is it possible for GPs to receive the same energy that the blue plate is receiving, if the GPs receive half the BP energy? Pleas explain how.
That’s the question I don’t think you can answer directly. asserting some equivalence between the conductive version and the other isn’t an explanation, it’s an assertion.
2) When pressed togather, GPs have no impact on BP. The energy flows in one direction (outward from BP), uninmpeded. But when separated, not being transparent, GPs now emit energy back to the BP. You cannot maintain perfect conduction between the plates. What was purely an outward flow from BP thru GPs has now changed into some returned flow from GPs to BP. Output from BP is returned as input from the GPs. There is no avoiding that – it’s a very simple feedback process. You can’t confer the conductive condition onto the radiative, as much as you might hope for that to be the case.
In real life there would be a temp gradient for the conductive model, but I didn’t make up the parameters. Regardless, each of the 3 plates can maintain their perfection conduction in the separated model, but now you have surfaces emitting and absorbing towards each other. There is now impedence of energy leaving the system, hence a change in the temperature of the system. If the rate of cooling slows with a stable input, the object must warm up. That’s thermo 101.
False, barry. You have avoided responding to point after point after point.
For your point number 1), scroll up ever so slightly and read my response to Svante, 4:06pm.
I don’t have the time to repeat myself because you refuse to read comments that not addressed to you personally.
I then have a counter-point to your 1), before we move on with anything else. Which I am raising for the second time, because you avoided it initially.
I refer you (again) to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-438004
We are not getting anywhere because you guys cannot even get past the fact your 244 K…290 K…244 K violates 1LoT. There are three options here:
Ball4’s [closer to] 220 K…262 K…220 K. Does not violate 1LoT. Does violate 2LoT.
Mainstream GHEDT: 244 K…290 K…244 K. Violates 1LoT and 2 LoT.
The correct solution: 244 K…244 K…244 K.
Ball4’s solution does not violate 2LOT as universe entropy is increased in the process “When the givens are the same as the GPE”.
The ill-conceived electrically powered version JD introduced has no closed form solution as there are more unknowns than eqn.s.
Entertaining though to follow DREMT’s various incorrect solution attempts (with JD’s givens) which so obviously botch the basic thermodynamics. As dear departed screen name JD would write: Nothing new.
DREMT,
If you are saying you answered my point 1) in this reply to Svante,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-438711
that’s a different argument – about direction of flow. Completely off point to my argument.
You haven’t answered the question. Here it is again.
1) BP only radiates half its energy each way. How is it possible for GPs to receive the same energy that the blue plate is receiving, if the GPs receive half the BP energy? Pleas explain how.
I don’t think you can answer this directly, as I said in my last post. This is a big flaw in your view.
Nope, it answers your point, and I await a response to mine.
Though, frankly, you are starting to bore me a little.
No, that post does not answer my question at all.
This was a good conversation and I thank you for it, but it looks like I am correct in thinking you can’t deal with this question directly, are avoiding a salient point by pointing elsewhere.
One more try, hoping you answer honestly and directly.
1) BP only radiates half its energy each way. How is it possible for GPs to receive the same energy that the blue plate is receiving, if the GPs each receive half the BP energy? Please explain how.
It does, barry. Try the last paragraph, particularly. You do have to do a bit of thinking for yourself, but it really isn’t that hard.
Still waiting for your response.
That paragraph does not answer my question. Let’s put them together.
1) BP only radiates half its energy each way. How is it possible for GPs to receive the same energy that the blue plate is receiving, if the GPs receive half the BP energy? Pleas explain how.
“The green plates cannot heat the blue…”
That’s not the point I’m asking you about.
“… you have to realize they are “downstream”, as it were… and, the green plates cannot “cool off”.”
Not my point yet…
“Were they to decrease in temperature, there would be 400 W coming into the system via the blue plate, but less than 400 W leaving via the green plates, so they would simply warm back up to 244 K again.”
Still not answered.
HOW do the GPs get as warm as the BP if they are each receiving only half the energy that the BP does?
Saying (correctly) that they MUST to balance the input does not answer the question of HOW this happens. Where is the extra energy coming from when each GP only receives half the BP energy?
“Saying (correctly) that they MUST to balance the input does not answer the question of HOW this happens. Where is the extra energy coming from when each GP only receives half the BP energy?”
If I asked you the same question, about where the BP gets its extra energy (to, ultimately, raise in temperature by 46 K), you would respond, “from the 400 joules coming in each second from the electrical supply”.
Surely you can now see that the “predicament” you believe I am in, applies equally to your position?
Although, actually…I am only saying the green plates maintain their temperature. It’s worse for you. You say they do that, and the BP gets warmer!
Still you do not answer the question.
“If I asked you…”
Deflection. Again.
“Surely you can now see that the “predicament” you believe I am in, applies equally to your position?”
I disagreed with that proposition the first time you mentioned it and explained why. I also said that you can’t keep simply asserting that energy flows through the system must remain the same for both conditions – conductive/radiative. You must explain why you think this is so.
There is no added energy to my system, there is only a buld-up of energy in a part of the system due to impedence.
Any object receiving continuous energy that has its rate of energy loss impeded or reduced must heat up. Do you disagree with this statement?
And when will you answer this question without deflecting?
1) BP only radiates half its energy each way. How is it possible for GPs to receive the same energy that the blue plate is receiving, if the GPs receive half the BP energy? Please explain HOW.
If you can’t answer that directly instead of pointing at other things, then the validity of your position will be very clear.
Huh? Whatever you think I just said (judging from your reaction) is not what I intended.
Try reading the comment again. Take time to think it over, before responding.
Your question is answered.
Still pointing elsewhere. Thanks for the conversation, but we’ve reached a dead end when you wont answer directly.
To recap most of the main points, I pointed out Clausius on mutual double heat exchange, saying that this is about energy exchange. You quibbled over whether the BP receives energy from GP, and I clarified again that this is about energy, not heat – Clausius didn’t have the language we have, but he was describing the same phenomenon. You referred to 3-plate thing, i read abot it. You said that the equilibrium in the compressed version necessarily must be maintained when plates are separated. I explained why this was not so and then you simply repeated the original assertion. I said that there is now triple the surface area, which necessitates a change in w/m2 because the area is larger for the same power. You did not respond to that point. We clarified that the perfect conduction set-up was not your idea. I said that whereas perfect conduction meant no impedence, once surfaces faced each other you get impedence. You said an output cannot be an input, and I said that was nonsense, mentioning feedback and exemplifying with the well-known guitar/amp feedback. Your final response was “yes, I’m aware of feedback,” and you didn’t clarify or rebut further. I pressed you to acknowledge or deny Clausius on mutual exchange between hot and cold bodies (and you knew then that we were taking about energy) and your response was I could think what I liked – you had no opinion on that. You started telling me to go look for your answers in other discussions. I said you conflate energy and temperature, you said you don’t. You quibbled about Clausius using the word ‘heat’, when earlier we both had been speaking of energy in relation to that quote, and whether it was absorbed by BP. I ased you to describe how the GPs warm up to the temperature of the BP when they each receive half the BP energy. You pointed to an answer to Svante which didn’t answer my question. The closest that paragraph comes is the notion that the GPs must warm up to BP temp to compensate the input to the system, but you don’t explain HOW this happens with the GPs receiving half the BP energy.
I can explain how the BP warms up without violating any thermo tlaws. Plus, I have Clausius as back up. But you can’t explain how the GPs warm up in your version without creating energy and violating the 1st Law. And you have to argue that Clausius didn’t know what he was talking about with “mutual double heat exchange.”
You have your answer. You just don’t like it.
You also missed some important points from much earlier on, and later. But anyway, moving on…
“I said that whereas perfect conduction meant no impedence, once surfaces faced each other you get impedence.”
Which is where you deny back-conduction. “Perfect conduction” does not equal “no back-conduction”. It just means k is essentially infinite. But be aware that whilst I believe in both back-conduction and back-radiation, neither have the ability to heat.
“You said an output cannot be an input, and I said that was nonsense, mentioning feedback and exemplifying with the well-known guitar/amp feedback. Your final response was “yes, I’m aware of feedback,” and you didn’t clarify or rebut further.”
Because obviously I am aware of the concept of feedback ��…but that does not mean it applies here, or that your analogies are apt. Of course I still stand by statement that the energy returned from the GPs cannot raise the temperature of the BP, since it ultimately came from the BP in the first place. Of course, you will never accept that…and that’s fine. We will agree to disagree.
“Which is where you deny back-conduction.”
The impedence of conduction is real, though calling it ‘back condiction’ is a litle strange. I will accept that, however, if it eases the way.
In the perfect conducton setup there is no impedence. No “back-conduction” if you will.
But when you separate the plates you no longer have conduction as the thermo method of heat transference between the three plates. You can maintain perfect conduction for all 3 plates individually, but now you have another method of energy transport – radiative. You now have surfaces emitting towards each other instreads of only emitting away.
You want to have the same lack of impedence in the separated construct as in the compressed. But you have to construct fake physics to do so. Where the energy flow was outwards from the blue plate, unimpeded, you now have surfaces facing each other that weren’t before. The perfect conduction does not translate to radiant energy heading off in one outward flow. Now you have back radiation. Which you ‘believe in’.
Perfect conduction can remain for the solid matter in the system, but that doesn’t buy some strange radiative equivalent where the flow from BP to GP incurs no return of energy. The system has changed. There is return of energy to the BP where there was none before. In real life there would of course be impedence, but the fact that there isn’t impedence in conduction doesn’t mean that that holds true for radiation in the separated system. Rather, it t doesn’t hold true at all. The flow of energy within the system has changed, reasons outlined above.
My version makes sense. Outputs can be returned as inputs. Here are some definitions:
“The condition for positive feedback is that a portion of the output is combined in phase with the input…”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Electronic/posfe.html
“Feedback is an event that occurs when the output of a system is used as input back into the system”
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/7159/feedback
“Feedback occurs when outputs of a system are routed back as inputs…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback
The GPs redirect energy back to the BP. This energy is absorbed by the BP. Now that it is receiving more energy (because of feedback) than it is yielding, it must warm up to compensate. And it also must warm up because the GPs need to radiate sufficient energy to match input (the input that goes first through the BP).
The GPs can never be as warm as the BP, because each GP receives half the energy that the BP does. And that extra energy can only come via the BP. To match input, the GPs need to be as warm as the BP when they were one plate (with perfect conduction). The only way they can do that is if the BP gives off twice the energy it did before the split.
This makes sense. The maths add up. No laws werebroken, because energy can be transferred both ways. Heat flows in one direction, and that is satisfied because the BP never gets warmer at the expense of the GPs.
barry continues with his GHEDT tactics. First, he tried a long, unnecessary, and mostly false summary or “recap” of events, as he sees them, which also serves as an effective Gish Gallop.
I’ve noticed the GHEDT doing this more often, recently.
The second thing he has done, just now, is basically repeat himself from before. I can repeat myself too, barry:
You have your answer. You just don’t like it.
You also missed some important points from much earlier on, and later. But anyway, moving on…
“I said that whereas perfect conduction meant no impedence, once surfaces faced each other you get impedence.”
Which is where you deny back-conduction. “Perfect conduction” does not equal “no back-conduction”. It just means k is essentially infinite. But be aware that whilst I believe in both back-conduction and back-radiation, neither have the ability to heat.
“You said an output cannot be an input, and I said that was nonsense, mentioning feedback and exemplifying with the well-known guitar/amp feedback. Your final response was “yes, I’m aware of feedback,” and you didn’t clarify or rebut further.”
Because obviously I am aware of the concept of feedback 🙄, but that does not mean it applies here, or that your analogies are apt. Of course I still stand by statement that the energy returned from the GPs cannot raise the temperature of the BP, since it ultimately came from the BP in the first place. Of course, you will never accept that…and that’s fine. We will agree to disagree.
“Of course I still stand by statement that the energy returned from the GPs cannot raise the temperature of the BP, since it ultimately came from the BP in the first place.”
Of course I still stand by statement that the sound returned to the guitar by the speaker cannot raise the volume of the guitar, since it ultimately came from the guitar in the first place.
Yes, I definitely agree to disagree.
I don’t know what your issue is with perfect conduction. K is infinite. Energy flow-through when plates are compressed is instant and unimpeded. There is no ‘back-conduction’. No thermal gradient. Great. But now we’re talking about radiation, and k only holds for the solid matter in the system.
Barry,
Its like an abusive relationship we have with this guy, DREMT.
He can appear to be briefly rational, and seemingly interested in debate, and he lures us in. Again we think we can change him, and lead him logically step by step down the track to enlightenment.
But he always derails the train before we reach the destination. The closer it gets the more he denies facts, changes definitions, makes up new physics, alters reality, as needed to keep his weird beliefs intact.
We have to admit that he will never leave his wife Joe Postma, nor his family JD, PSI, and Sophistry.
I repeat my previous comment…since that is apparently the game you want to play, barry.
You complained I hadn’t responded to your point about k being infinite and ‘back conduction’. I think the point is irrelevant, but I responded to it for the first time because it seems important to you.
And you reply that I am repeating myself.
I’m done.
“You complained I hadn’t responded to your point about k being infinite and ‘back conduction””
No, I didn’t. And yes, ultimately all you did was repeat what you said the first time. And there are multiple points you haven’t responded to.
But…OK, barry. Good bye. Don’t forget to talk to tonyM.
I am worried about Barrys mental health. Picturing that poor fellow, Dreyfus, from the old Pink Panther movies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v30HUOx6SYk
Snape, please stop trolling.
Inspector Clouseau’s Emergency Moderation Team.
Ever so rude, these days…
I’m reading a discussion going on on YouTube where a warmist states that the lower tropo trend of 0.13 deg c per decade is not supported by radiosonde data. Can someone kindly tell me if that’s correct? Thank you.
It’s complicated, but in a nutshell yes, there is truth to the claim that the UAH dataset does not provide as good a match to radiosonde data as compared to other satellite datasets.
https://tinyurl.com/rlykp5j
Thank you. I understand UAH is 0.13 and RSS is 0.19, but I can’t find what the radiosonde decadel trend is. I Googled RATPAC mean trend but I didn’t get any results. Any idea? Thanks.
The radiosonde decadal trends are on the page linked above. Look to the right under the section Mid Troposphere, where you’ll also see the satellite decadal trends for that region of the atmosphere.
Thank you – didn’t see that!
Barry, is there not a data trend for the lower troposphere by balloon?
Mikey,
Yes. The data files can be found at the following link. They are plain text easy to read files. The data is presented for the standard levels including the sfc and on up to stratosphere.
https://tinyurl.com/r2..bqj
(replace .. with d and c for the link)
bdgwx, sorry, I don’t understand the link. It just goes to tinyurl.comr2 Please explain, thanks.
The blog filters d and c letter combinations. Replace .. in the link with d and c in that order.
Mikey,
I did a quick google and came up with a blog page (take it how you will… seems like a legitimate comparison) presenting some figures from 1979 to 2014.
http://hpklima.blogspot.com/2015/11/weather-balloons-confirm-global-warming_24.html
Surface temperatures:
0.165°C/decade (BEST)
0.159°C/decade (Had.CRUT4)
0.158°C/decade (GISTEMP)
0.147°C/decade (NOAA)
Radiosonde (balloon) temperatures lower troposphere:
0.166°C/decade (RATPAC-A)
0.130°C/decade (RATPAC-B)
Satellite temperatures lower troposphere:
0.121°C/decade (RSS)
0.112°C/decade (UAH)
Both satellite data have undergone a major revision since then, and the current trends for that period are:
0.190°C/decade (RSS)
0.109°C/decade (UAH)
Lower tropospheric for the satellites means a calculation based on the depth of the atmosphere from ground to 12 km in height, with the greatest weight placed on brightness temps at about 4km altitude. I don’t know at what height ‘lower troposphere’ is for balloon radiososndes, but I imagine it should be more representative of the satellite temps than of the surface.
Thank you.
barry…”As Clausius says, there is a “simultaneous double heat exchange” in the ordinary transfer of heat”.
He did not say that, he was talking about ‘heat rays’, obviously a reference to EM which he knew nothing about at the time or how it worked. He also added that heat transfer by radiation must obey the 2nd law, meaning heat cannot by its own means be transferred cold to hot.
d.r.e.m.t”'”I meant theres no thermal gradient required for energy to flow via radiation”
That’s what is being missed here. Bodies of a temperature T radiate despite a temperature gradient. If there is one presented due to a heated body at 500C being immersed in a room of air at temperature Tc = 25C, then the gradient becomes T – Tc and the greater the gradient the faster the body can cool. However, the heat transfer is one-way, hot to cold.
In Swannie’s experiment, there can be no temperature gradient since the works are in a vacuum. Therefore the BP has only radiation to dissipate heat and sticking a GP right in front of the BP interferes with the radiation. Ergo, the BP warms toward the temperature produced by the electrical supply.
Please explain the actual physical process that interferes with the BP radiation. The real, physical world actions.
…and in Hughes’ experiments, the BP does not warm:
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.org/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
DRsEMT continues to post links to G. Hughes’ work, even though his flawed experiments don’t prove anything. Why is that? Is DRsEMT (aka, Huffingman) actually Mr. Hughes???
Is DREMT really JD?
Is DREMT really Hughes?
Is Swanson really paranoid?
DREMT is loyal to his tribe at PSI, and the dear leader Joe Postma. No matter how dumb their posts, he defends it.
I heard an interesting NPR program about ‘Truth’.
Apparently, it was useful for paleolithic people to deeply trust their tribe members, and to distrust outsiders.
This carries over to today.
It explains why Flat Earthers, AntiVaxxers, and Climate Deniers, are distrustful of anyone outside their tribe offering contradictory facts.
Thus, DREMTs trust of his PSI tribe is nearly absolute, regardless of how dumb their claims.
A good example of this is his refusal to understand ‘equilibrium’, in precisely the same weird way that JP misunderstands it.
He will never accept facts and evidence from us, non tribe members, no matter how accurate, if they contradict JP and PSI.
#2
Is DREMT really JD?
Is DREMT really Hughes?
Is Swanson really paranoid?
Gordon,
Yes, Clausius was talking about radiaiton.
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
An exchange of heat occurs between bodies of different temperature in the ordinary radiation of heat, AND this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists of the NET flow being from hot to cold.
Are you now going to argue that Clausius did not know what he was talking about when he said this simultaneous double heat exchange was “well known?”
This is how Gordon answered that the first time:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-435961
(Well, the first time during this particular discussion, anyway ☺️)
I read that, and responded to it, if you’ll notice below.
I just want more specificty.
I also want toknow how Gordon imagines the GP interacts with the BP to slow its rate of heat loss. He’s not clarified that one in the slightest. I’m looking forward to dispelling abstract notions and getting down to the nnuts ad blots. EG, Bohr never said that a warm body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler body – but that is what Gordon seems to be saying.
Clear direct replies are good ti move disciussion forward. Trying to fan away the waffle. Can gordon just not say clearly that he believes warm bodies cammot absord radiatrion from cooler ones? Or how else does the BP get its radiation flow impeded by the GP? Still unclear from GR.
You do realize that you go further than anyone else on the Greenhouse Effect Defense Team by pushing this “simultaneous double heat exchange” phrase from Clausius!? The rest of the GHEDT are happy enough arguing “energy flows both ways, but heat only one”. Clearly Clausius was having an off-moment, or perhaps something just got lost in translation. Personally I find Gordon’s explanation more plausible than the idea Clausius is actually saying “heat can flow both ways at the same time”. Most of the GHEDT would not disagree.
“You are confusing heat flow (where you need a thermal gradient for heat to flow) with energy flowthe plates simply radiate based on their temperature and emissivityno thermal gradients required.”
Ok, lets go with that and try to understand it with equal plate temps.
The BP simply radiates toward the GP.
The GP simply radiates toward the BP an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE amount.
By any measurable quantities, a completely symmetric situation.
But by some kind of unexplained magic, DREMT says only the radiation by the BP matters.
Where did the GP radiation go?? DREMT says it just goes away.
While ordinary logic, math and physics says NO, there is no NET flow of energy in this symmetric situation. No heat flow.
This is the problem, DREMT thinks ordinary rules of logic, math and physics dont apply to him.
I’ll just leave this down here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-439002
Where did the GP radiation go??
DREMT has no idea where it went. Oh well. Looks like itd time to find someone to blame. Lets go with the messenger..
#2
I’ll just leave this down here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-439002
Note to readers: for a while now, I no longer directly respond to commenter “Nate”. He crossed the line of “stalker” some time ago.
Yep. Calling DREMT out on his BS. That definitely crosses a line!
Fortunately Barry, Svante, and Swanson have strong BS detectors.
DREMT,
“The rest of the GHEDT are happy enough arguing ‘energy flows both ways, but heat only one'”
In my earliest posts on this upthread I made that distinction and qualified that i would say energy instead of heat. A couple of my subsequent posts also entioned that caveat.
It’s tempting to asdk you to go back up and find those posts yourself….
I’ll repeat what I said: largely because of Kristian’s pedantic adherence to the language of thermo and tired agreement from most to adhere, I prefer to use the term energy instead of heat. The topic heading of Clausius’ quote is about radiation. ‘Heat’ in the classic sense flows only one way, but at the same time there are discrete energy fluxes (and many vectors) beneath the macroscopic view. The latter is what Clausius refers to, even as he makes the proviso that the mutual exhance ultimately obeys the second Law, which is, was and will ever be about the NET flow. Clausius didn’t have the language ‘electromagnetic radiation’, thoughhe understood about discrete fluxes and exchanges.
Since then, for brevity, I’ve assumed you’d read those posts and have foregone the caveat assuming it was mutually understood.
OK, barry. Seems you have been flogging a dead horse, then.
We were doing pretty well there for a while. But here come your non sequiturs.
I mean really? That’s your reply? For a while there you didn’t resort to rhetoric and tricks and games. You’ve been interesting.
I leave the games, non-sequiturs, rhetoric and tricks to you guys, barry. It was interesting talking to you too, initially, being as how you claimed to be unaware of the 3-plate scenario. Thought it might be a worthwhile conversation.
In the end, I realized you’re just the same as the rest of the GHEDT. You constantly play the “answer me this” game, when what you have asked had already been answered, whilst quietly managing to dodge responding to points yourself. All the while, the false accusations and misrepresentations creep in.
Plus, we had some disgruntled GHEDT members that just had to keep butting in, due to their frustration over losing previous arguments, which just ruins it for both of us, and anyone reading.
Oh well.
DRsEMT wrote:
Perhaps it’s you, DRsEMT, who fails to understand that science is based on facts which can be proven valid against rational critique in an effort to find the truth. And:
That’s because you repeatedly refuse to accept rational refutation of your magic cartoon physics. The prime example (which you continuously repeat), is your 3 plate solution where the 1 m^2 Green plates emit 200 watts on each side, but your physics doesn’t allow your Blue plate to provide for 400 watts to each Green plate. You can not simply assert that something is true or that someone is wrong without providing proof while ignoring the obvious facts. This is an issue of scientific truth, one which may have momentous importance on a global scale.
You are either a complete moron hiding behind one or more fake names or an anti-science troll with devious intent. Which it is one can not say.
Definitely not disgruntled…
☺️
DRsEMT, As I said: “Thats because you repeatedly refuse to accept rational refutation of your magic cartoon physics.”
You say a lot of things, Swanson…
…doesn’t make them right.
Plates
Why is it no surprise that BP and GP are still clanging here?
Barry introduced it as a thought experiment from Eli Rabbett (what’s up Doc?). There are no plates in the sky; no clanging, no solid surfaces other than the enigmatic ice crystals in clouds.
The concept is useless for GHG prediction as its hypothesis is in the opposite direction to the plate suggestions. If we lower the absorp.tivity/emiss.ivity of the GP then it increases the T of the BP which is in direct contradiction of the GHG idea that it should reduce the T (or alternatively increasing the absorp.tivity reduces T of BP but would increase GHG hypothesised T effect).
Now Barry knows all this for Eli came in on our exchange here. I put it to Eli that he try to rebut the Gerlich et al physics paper with it. After receiving a daft cryptic response I called Eli out for being “hoist on his own petard.” That Gerlich paper is still not rebutted. Instead Eli has, it seems, been happy to control events from his own web site. He would have had his butt kicked in even more than had already happened when Eli et al formally tried to rebut that Gerlich paper.
I don’t knock Ed Swanson’s experiment; it is the hallmark of science to resolve contested issues with controlled experiments. Problem is if the experiment works as suggested it defeats the GHG hypothesis as I have highlighted under different emiss.ivities. Given the other experiment referred to by DREMT there is doubt on the outcome. Both cannot be right. Both may have shortcomings with the experiment.
Instead, the experiment should be conducted with gasses CO2 vs Argon. They are of similar Mol wt and also will allow these gasses to stay in an insulated cooler (ie polystyrene) while doing the T temperature profile much like the plates (protected T instrument close to bottom and heat source from above (black painted) cooler.
There is another consideration re the issue of whether pure back radiation from a colder surface does anything much particularly under a “powered” source (i.e. sun). It certainly will not “heat” the hotter surface.
Years ago Norman and I tried to establish a way to test whether a lower T can add to the higher T body to increase the “heating” effect on a third body. Each idea always brought in the field of view which could not isolate the two “heat” sources. I have a few thoughts to test this in practice in quite a simple way. My observations are that it fails but will cover it some other time.
Prof Happer has done a detailed analysis and finds the pressure broadening effect is small and certainly not of ‘alarmist’ magnitude. Gerlich et al also said the effect of extra CO2 was small.
You mentioned CO2 vs. Argon…you may find some other experiments conducted by Hughes to be of interest:
https://principia-scientific.org/vacuum-chamber-temperature-test-debunks-climate-crisis-claims/
tonyM, wrote:
Yes, if the Green plate has a low emissivity and the Blue one has a high emissivity, the thermal IR EM radiation reflected back to the Blue one will cause it to warm. That’s the basis of Dewar Flasks and multi-layer insulation. For the the case of a Green plate with emissivity near 1, there’s still back radiation, but the intensity is less, the result being a cooler Blue plate. That does not “defeat the GHG hypothesis”.
Perhaps you’ve not seen my Ice Plate experiment’s results, in which I compared surfaces with different emissivities. I found that a slab of ice would warm a heated plate under the right conditions.
Ed:
I am not questioning your experiment per se; it stands as an experiment. You are to be commended for doing them and sharing with us. Equally both Hughes and yourself have made a genuine attempt at such experimentation which is quite distinct from the sham experiments one sees on the net (in this field). The divergent result is a matter for investigation and not a question of the integrity of the experimenters.
My point is that such an experiment has no relevance to the CO2 hypothesis because of the anomalous behaviour. The whole plate concept is irrelevant to the GHG effect because the properties are so different. This is particularly so at the temperatures we experience. At high enough T then perhaps it is a different story as gasses then behave like a black body viz. sun.
Of course it defeats the GHG hypothesis of increasing the ground T by increasing CO2 (i.e. higher absorp.tivity) when your experiments indicate the opposite holds.
tonyM, My demos were intended to counter the claims, such as the G&T paper, that thermal IR EM radiation from a cooler body can’t cause a warmer body’s temperature to increase. These comments are based on early thermodynamic studies which produced the Second Law of Thermo and have been relentlessly repeated on this and other blogs.
My “Ice Plate” experiment showed that for transparent materials, those with higher emissivity caused greater temperature increase. I did use aluminum foil, which has high reflectivity, but that’s not the same as low emissivity, as it’s not transparent in the IR range. For the GHE, reflection isn’t part of the problem, though I might expect there could be some “back scatter” from the gases at shorter wavelengths.
E. Swanson:
You will need be more specific re your assertions of what G&T said. They were pretty meticulous so I doubt they would use the language you suggest. For example, I have no idea what you mean by “thermal IR EM radiation ” (particularly thermal).
Without a clear understanding of what you were trying to counter I am at a loss. To suggest that you wish to teach
G&T about Thermo is a bit presumptuous. But I am all ears on what you feel they got wrong as long as it is verbatim quotes from them.
Here is something they did say:
Once again, we never claimed – allegedly with reference to Clausius – that a colder body does not send radiation to a warmer one.
Rather, we cite a paper, in which Clausius treats the radiative exchange [19, 20]. The correct question is, whether the colder body that radiates less intensively than the
warmer body warms up the warmer one. The answer is: It does not.
tonyM, FYI, the last sentence quote from G&T’s reply to Eli, et al. is simply an unsupported assertion. G&T apparently don’t consider the fact that there’s a constant supply of energy being added to the Blue plate, which is different from a case without added energy. Without that energy input, of course, both the Blue plate and the Green one cool down and for this situation, their statement is correct.
Much of the G&T paper focuses on the problems of modeling aht atmosphere and the energy from the sun flowing thru the Earth system and back out to deep space. Of course, it’s well known that modeling such a complex system ids difficult and that also applies to weather models which use similar math but can run with much finer grid spacing, given the shorter period of interest. The fact that the computer models have problems has nothing to do with the GPE or the theory and measurements of atmospheric radiation transmission and absorp_tion.
BTW, my name isn’t Ed…
But Swanson, wouldn’t you have said, of whatever paper G & T were referring to in which “Clausius treats the radiative exchange”, that:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-435960
“Obviously, the hotter [object] is being supplied continuously with energy at a some fixed rate in order for this exercise to have any meaning”?
…
E.Swanson:
Apologies for for referring to you as Ed.
You say:
..is an unsupported assertion. G&T apparently don’t consider the fact that theres a constant supply of energy being added to the Blue plate, which is different from a case without added energy.
Not so; the 2LOT is universal. It has been put to the test more often than any other Law in science. It has always passed. This is what gives it its robustness in science (this is the Scientific Method Laws etc are never “proved” but to use the term “unsupported assertion” is absurd in this scientific context). Even the two areas where it was thought 2LOT may not apply have lost their substance viz. Big Bang which is now considered flawed and Black holes where now it is recognised they emit considerable energy.
But you wish to believe you have KO the mighty 2LOT. Good luck. One can always live in hope I guess.
I have looked briefly at your experiment using various materials. I won’t comment in detail.
They claim is that “back radiation” is not possible because the 2nd Lawof Thermodynamics states that energy can not be transmitted from a body of lower temperatureto another body of higher temperature in thermodynamic situations.
Who is “They?” It is not correct. 2LOT is about heat not energy. Your whole paper essentially falls on this issue because you confuse energy with heat.
Never the less, it’s easy todemonstrate this warming effect, as this author presented using a vacuum in his Green PlateDemo (2).
No, your concept of “warming effect” is meaningless when trying to describe it in Thermodynamic terms. Thermo deals with “heat” not some undefined warming effect.
Further it is not a demonstration of the back-radiation “warming ” the hotter plate. The T response is due to the source of the new energy into the system heat being defined as the transient phenomenon of thermalization. You yourself actually concede this by saying that your “warming effect” does not work once the power is turned off.
Let us change your second the experiment a little. Simply have a rigid sheet of perfect insulation ready to insert (ON)/remove (OFF) in auto slide fashion between plate and object. Then introduce the energy in incremental steps. By suitable design this will ensure heating of the plate occurs only when the power is on and perfect insulation slide is ON. Then the heating of its surrounding (including covers or bodies of different materials) happens when the the power is off and slide is OFF. This is repeated.
The outcome will be similar to what was observed in your experiment with bodies of different materials. None of these bodies were involved in increasing the T of the plate but broadly similar end results occur. This disproves your idea that these lower T bodies do any heating.
Separately we could even shorten the intervals and have more steps so that in the limit and ideal conditions it would be close enough your experiment. The various materials never heated the plate.
The likes of professionals like G&T would solve this in their sleep. I am puzzled why you actually ran this experiment. It is simply a restatement of the materials that you used which would have already been subjected to absorp.tivity/emissivity evaluation under more stringent control and measuring conditions. The S-B T^4 difference formula would apply; that’s why those values exist!
“2LOT is about heat not energy.”
2LOT is about entropy not energy.
“heat being defined as the transient phenomenon of thermalization.”
That is incorrect defn. of heat according to Clausius and subsequent respected authors. tonyM will improve both his understanding of heat & his comment using Clausius’ precise defn. of heat and sticking with it.
“a rigid sheet of perfect insulation”
Not going to find one of those for a real experiment; tonyM needs to use such a device in a thought experiment guided by real experiments.
“This disproves your idea that these lower T bodies do any heating.”
Strawman or please point out where E. Swanson actually writes that idea.
G&T were not professional meteorologists nor graduates in thermodynamics. Much (~most) of their work is copied from other authors. Anything that might qualify as novel in their work on the atm. is not backed by experiment nor observation.
tonyM wrote:
Call it what you will, the temperature of the heated plate increases as a result of changing to materials with higher emissivity which have a temperature lower than the heated plate.
Also you wrote:
You apparently have missed the argument, often repeated around here, that the S-B relationship does not apply because of the 2nd Law, that is, adding the cooler body can not be the cause of the higher temperature of the heated body in the Green Plate model. This argument is extended to the Green House Effect in the atmosphere (here and elsewhere, such as the G&T papers), claiming that the GHE violates the 2nd Law and therefore is impossible.
E.Swanson:
Call it what you will you say. Whoa…hang on! You have used loose language in your paper please don’t use it here. I have shown clearly that such an experiment (if modified – even cleaned up more if you wish) confirms that such T increases in your test slab only occur when the lower T objects cannot do any of the heating. You have no option but to accept that the source and cause of the heating is from the hotter object if you wish to be logical.
You say:
Call it what you will, the temperature of the heated plate increases as a result of changing to materials with higher emissivity which have a temperature lower than the heated plate.
Emissivity of Aluminium foil is very low about 0.04 which refutes the thrust of your assertion re increasing emissivity see:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
You are confusing reflection which is a totally different beast to back radiation due to emissivity.
You say : claims by others that .that the S-B relationship does not apply because of the 2nd Law, ..
Show me the actual quotes. You invoke G&H ; show me the quote. I doubt whether you have read their paper as you have insisted on referring to them this way a few times and I did specifically ask you to provide actual quotes.
You complain ‘people’ say.cooler body can not be the cause of the higher temperature of the heated body in the Green Plate model
Your use of the term CAUSE makes the statement CORRECT if it is meant to imply that heat is transferred to the hotter from the cooler object via emr thermalization. Heavens we are talking about Thermodynamic systems with bodies and surroundings. Change the system or surroundings and you change the vectors. To make it right change the wording to say:
.cooler body added to an open system in the stated configuration will result in a higher temperature of the BP heated from the same external source.
This is nothing new. Cave man invented the fur coat. Igloos keep eskimo warm. Birds fluff their feathers. Insulation of various forms in buildings. These features restrict energy movement as the case may be.
@TonyM
[The concept is useless for GHG prediction as its hypothesis is in the opposite direction to the plate suggestions. If we lower the absorp.tivity/emiss.ivity of the GP then it increases the T of the BP which is in direct contradiction of the GHG idea that it should reduce the T (or alternatively increasing the absorp.tivity reduces T of BP but would increase GHG hypothesised T effect).]
I disagree.
As a follow-up thought experiment, imagine the trillions of CO2 and Nitrogen/Oxygen molecules in the atmosphere as being tiny plates. The former absorb a portion of LWIR, the latter let it pass through undisturbed.
The earths surface in this situation would represent the blue plate, absorbing both LW and SW.
[If we lower the absorp.tivity/emiss.ivity of the GP then it increases the T of the BP…..]
We could lower the absorp.tivity/emissivity of the GP by making it more transparent to infrared. How would this increase the temperature of the blue plate?
Snape:
You disagree (about what??). It would help if you quote me precisely including the clear context so that I may know where you take issue. My comments relate specifically to the Eli thought experiment and the discussion which took place with Barry and Eli and the experiments conducted by Ed and Hughes.
Of course you can wonder about new experiments including your multi plates CO2 or even camels and weasels in the sky as Hamlet suggested to Polonius. It does not refute my specific comments.
Would it not be simpler and more appropriate to put CO2 in the sky and talk about it rather than metaphors? This is what Happer and Gerlich et al address.
tonyM: Would it not be simpler and more appropriate to put CO2 in the sky and talk about it rather than metaphors?
We are doing just that. And the planet is warming…
And after decades of trying no one can identify a set of natural-only factors that can explain this warming.
On the flip side the consideration of all factors (natural and anthroprogenic) can explain the warming with reasonable skill.
bdgwx:
You have it wrong: since 1950 the T increase correlates very closely to my age. My existence did this. In the same way Julius Caesar caused the Roman warm period. The Mediaeval warm period was caused by whom – pity I wasn’t around to be blamed. There is fundamentally nothing that is happening now that has not happened before in broad terms.
In any case I see it as a blessing for many.
Who tried to refute this? Is that why Lindzen says to defund the whole field. He has slightly modified this to defund 90%. From some good science evolving around 1990 the field has been turned into a religion. Would you be suggesting you understand this area better than he does?
Post hoc rationalization is meaningless. Why is it that models fail if it is so clear? What’s worse they are not even much good in hindsight even with database tampering.
Boeing ought employ this level of sophistication in building planes. It would be much, much safer ; the planes could never get off the ground!
tonyM,
I’m going to ignore the rant about your age and temperature. It is not relevant to this discussion.
Lindzen believes CO2 puts a postivite radiative forcing on the planet with the same magnitude as is accepted by the rest of scientific community. He believes humans are the cause of the current era of warming.
Models do a pretty good of matching reality. In fact, our most sophisticated models, the GCMs from the CMIP5 and CMIP6 suites, match so well that since 1880 there have only been 4 or 5 excursions outside the 95% confidence envelop and all of those occurred prior to 1940. In the last 80 years there has not been a single excursion outside this confidence envelop even though 4 such excursions would have been expected to happened in that period.
Can you present to us a theory that does a better job of matching reality than what we already have?
bdgwx :
A rant you say. Not relevant you say! Really: you either did not grasp its full significance or it worries you.
You say: Models do a pretty good of matching reality. Really? I must have been looking at the wrong predictions.
You say they match til 1880 very well. They may indeed and that makes them good according to you?
John von Neumann : ‘give me 4 parameters and I will draw an elephant. Give me 5 and I will make its trunk wiggle.’
Says it all really. Meaningless pointless belief system of curve fitting buffoonery. You call this good.
That is the relevance of my age…or Caesars age; correlation is easy to find but it is not necessarily causation.
Science is very much about hypothesis testing ..not on curve fits. So start providing all the evidence of predictive capability. Show me how they have been validated. Well you can’t. For they are mince meat extrusions..the spaghetti meanderings of chaos.
“Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.” Edward Lorenz
We had Pat Frank’s paper which outlines one key substantive error in accuracy. That is not all the story. I suspect he accepts the precision simply to avoid argument. In any case it is swamped by the errors in accuracy. Having tram lines as guidance is quite meaningless.
But you are a true believer. Why don’t you help the cause and go claim a $million prize for the complete solutions for equations on which models rely – Navier Stokes. Last I looked it was on offer from Clay Inst to solve these by mathematics or computers. How well do you think they can perform without that solution…. not very well at all I’d say. Errors just keep compounding but you are sold on the worthiness. Right, belief is all that is needed.
Now you want to drag Prof Lindzen into this deluded world. Nope, he has made it very clear where his position stands. He accepts a doubling of CO2 or its equivalent will cause about 1C. He certainly does not agree with the 3C or 5C or whatever else is the flavour of the month. He is so impressed with this field that he has called for a complete de-funding and start again as it has turned into a religion. He has seen the errors of his way and asked for only a 90% reduction.
“So start providing all the evidence of predictive capability.”
Sure, beginning with Hansen et al, Science, 1981. Correct prediction (within stated error bar) of next 40 y. Both the magnitude as well as spatial pattern of the global temperature rise, in the context of a flat trend over previous 40 y.
Correct prediction of drastic Arctic sea ice decline, of W. Antarctica warming and ice sheet destabilization.
We do not need a solution to the NS existence and smoothness problem to be able to run GCMs. Obviously…because GCMs existent and do quite well at making predictions with useful skill. Nevermind that GCMs are not the only kinds of models used for climate research.
For a brief summary of all evidence available (and do mean brief) I recommend the IPCC AR5 WGI Physical Science Basis. It collates the massive amount of evidence down to a manageable 1500 page summary. You can cross reference the citation to branch off for the details if desired.
And yes, scientists are well aware of chaos theory already. They understand the implications and constraints it puts on some types of predictions.
I’ll you ask you the same thing ask everyone. What alternative model of the climate system can you present to us for review that does a better job than what we already have?
bdgwx:
Lindzen is now clearly off your invitation list. What happened? Reality has sunk in that he proposes defunding 90% of this field, considers it has turned into a religion and wants to start afresh. How dare he! Off with his head!
You say: “We do not need a solution to the NS existence and smoothness problem to be able to run GCMs.”
Yes they can run. Who needs steering wheels and brakes on a rickety car with square wheels when one can put barriers along both sides of a road?
“Useful skills,” you say. Bit like beauty is in the eye of the beholder and also the deluded. How do you test “useful skill” if that is not defined clearly to be “useful” in objective terms?
Looking at the output in spaghetti form is inspiring in that it just needs a giant fork to twist them together for some sort of usefulness. Does it not strike you as a bit odd that the model which has closest fit to reality is the Russian model and it places the least emphasis on CO2?
Science, if this field is to be considered as such, needs to follow the Scientific Method and that means hypothesis testing. All you are doing is referencing gibberish for I have yet to see a clear quantified falsifiable hypothesis and the testing of such. Selective outcomes that succeed after the event are nigh on useless.
You ask: “What alternative model of the climate system can you present to us for review that does a better job than what we already have?”
Let’s get this clear: the onus is on the proponent to show its validity. The experiment test is against reality with criteria predetermined and not rationalised after the event. Thus far they fail. Judith Currie has also voiced her view that basically spending more money on climate modelling is a waste.
I pointed out the issues raised by Pat Frank’s paper. You blithely walk by.
I wont tell you what is better for I don’t know. But as equally useful for T measures is to get some schoolboys to draw some tram lines. They are great until they are no longer great. Then just change the tramlines or shorten the period. Can go to infinity that way. Curve fit with altered parameters in the past, homogenize and change past T and presto we have wondrous models.
Had you asked about weather models and predictions I would say I am satisfied with their worth for short periods. In fact I think they do an “excellent” job. Further they are essentially tested on a daily basis. But beyond five days and I think that the value rapidly diminishes. Some other very short term weather events like cyclones/tornadoes/hurricanes perhaps not so good.
@tonyM
I probably should have left the first post as a comment, rather than a specific disagreement.
The GHE is about absorp.tion/emission, as compared to transparency. It has little to do with reflection.
Likewise, the above experiments are about a plate that absorbs/emits LWIR, as compared to no plate at all (or equivalently, an IR transparent plate). They have little to do with reflection.
barry says:
“the BP never gets warmer at the expense of the GPs.”
On separation the GPs drop in temperature and output.
This drop in output must correspond exactly to the rise in BP thermal energy.
Don’t you agree DREMT?
To be clear…Svante is disagreeing with barry, but wanting me to confirm his version of events is correct…obviously, I disagree with him, too, as he knows.
Yes, I was just trolling your silly idea about energy from nothing.
“barry says: “the BP never gets warmer at the expense of the GPs.”
On separation the GPs drop in temperature and output. This drop in output must correspond exactly to the rise in BP thermal energy.”
If it did…where would you be getting the energy for the GPs to also rise in temperature!?
This is what I have been trying to get across to you all…your 244 K…290 K…244 K solution ultimately creates energy from nothing.
It comes from the same saving in output.
For the GPs it’s a zero sum game in the end.
You just said: “On separation the GPs drop in temperature and output. This drop in output must correspond exactly to the rise in BP thermal energy”.
Now you are saying the same drop in output can also provide the GPs with energy, Yet, obviously, the GPs drop in output is only ever going to be enough to provide energy for…a subsequent GP rise in output back to 244 K.
No, the drop in output is a global saving for the system as a whole.
The 400 J/s input does not change, so during the drop the system accumulates thermal energy.
At first, on separation, the GP has full output and no input.
It loses thermal energy and it’s output drops.
The blue plate has full input and no output.
It gains thermal energy and it’s output goes up.
This continues until both plates have equal input and output.
So you could say that the restored GP thermal energy came from the BP.
I suppose you have to do the math to understand that.
Anyway, you can see that this mechanism will produce a lasting net saving, because system input is 400 W all the time, but the system output is less than that while a new equilibrium is found.
This is where the added BP thermal energy came from.
The GP gains thermal energy when the increased input matches its the lowered output.
Fun watching you try to wriggle out of your own words.
Anyway, you can see that this mechanism will produce a lasting net saving for the system as a whole, because system input is 400 W all the time, but system output is less than that until a new equilibrium is found.
☺️
Svante writes: “(BP) gains thermal energy and it’s output goes up.”
Not necessarily. Only with the givens the same as Eli’s original. JD’s ill-conceived electrical thought experiment doesn’t specify the construction details of the power supply. DREMT imagines there is a power controller circuit keeping the BP at 400W after separation by reducing the current a bit to compensate for the energy “received” (DREMT term) from the GP instead of deep space. So DREMT can get away with imagining the BP still at 400W after separation, this is in part what I meant above by not enough eqn.s for the unknowns. There is no real solution to JD’s original.
What DREMT cannot get away from is with any separation at all the GPs reduce in T, from hardly any reduction in T at nil separation to experimentally complete reduction at 10 light year separation.
DREMT, as a true sophist, simply feeds on the debate so always takes the other side whether incorrect or not & and always will do so. The entertainment will be endless figuring out why DREMT is wrong in his latest sophist comment. If you need even more entertainment, DREMT types power the climate sophistry blog.
He is entertaining, but he has never disputed the constant electrical input.
MikeR solved it here (confirmed by Tim Folkerts):
https://tinyurl.com/sk4jxrk
Svante, that is just a solution making certain assumptions about JD’s electrical power supply that JD did not specify in his original problem statement. There is no real solution.
This iss DREMT’s solution (as far as I can tell):
https://tinyurl.com/vjd2kyo
That cartoon is for entertainment only, shows how unbalanced DREMT has become. The 400W electrical current change is unknown, the GPs are in disequilibrium; it’s a 3ring circus from the dear departed JD who apparently lost an arm in an unfortunate aircraft propeller accident awhile back. I hope he recovered.
I agree it’s a joke.
It doesn’t add anything to the original except confusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product
Presumably that cartoon is the current state immediately after separating the GPs from the BP. Either way that arrangement is not in steady-state yet. I think that cartoon proves that the BP must warm.
You can add the additional green arrows if it helps you understand.
bdgwx, yes, as I wrote in the original post with the givens the same as Eli’s original which is what the incompetent JD presumably meant not realizing his change to electrical power added unknowns.
“What DREMT cannot get away from is with any separation at all the GPs reduce in T, from hardly any reduction in T at nil separation to experimentally complete reduction at 10 light year separation.”
When the plates are treated as infinite in size, to eliminate for “edge effects” as per Eli’s original instructions (see comments from first GPE article), the amount of separation becomes irrelevant.
That makes sense DREMT, it actually does.
Incorrect DREMT 7:37am, not a decent try at sophist deception: “per Eli’s original instructions” there was 400W/m^2 of sunlight powering the m^2 plate systems as illustrated w/separation shown; Eli’s original plates were not infinite in size.
Important theoretical point no matter how the sophistry of DREMT twists in deception: “What has been proved is that colder bodies can warm a hotter body through back radiation” & which Dr. Spencer has demonstrated experimentally using the actual atm. and surface water.
Eli specifies infinitely large plates in the comments under the first article. Sorry, Ball4.
No such thing DREMT, doubly sorry. Apparently DREMT can not even understand Eli’s illustration let alone the theory Eli employs.
#2:
Important theoretical point no matter how the sophistry of DREMT twists in deception: “What has been proved is that colder bodies can warm a hotter body through back radiation” & which Dr. Spencer has demonstrated experimentally using the actual atm. and surface water.
Page 2 of the comments, from Eli himself. Look it up.
Looked it up, not there, triply sorry. No change in illustration.
#3:
Important theoretical point no matter how the sophistry of DREMT twists in deception: “What has been proved is that colder bodies can warm a hotter body through back radiation” & which Dr. Spencer has demonstrated experimentally using the actual atm. and surface water.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
19/10/17 5:13am
EliRabett said…
“Just to concentrate minds. The problem assumes infinitely thin, infinitely large, perfectly conducting, flat plates with two sides.”
Typical DREMT the sophist distraction since leaves out in the same comment Eli’s: “Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides.”
“as per Eli’s original instructions” from DREMT’s comment the original instruction illustration with finite m^2 plates remains the same.
#4:
Important theoretical point no matter how the sophistry of DREMT twists in deception: “What has been proved is that colder bodies can warm a hotter body through back radiation” & which Dr. Spencer has demonstrated experimentally using the actual atm. and surface water.
I am right, but Ball4 waffles on.
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
#2:
“Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides.”
#5:
Important theoretical point no matter how the sophistry of DREMT twists in deception: “What has been proved is that colder bodies can warm a hotter body through back radiation” & which Dr. Spencer has demonstrated experimentally using the actual atm. and surface water.
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
#3:
“Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides.”
#6:
Important theoretical point no matter how the sophistry of DREMT twists in deception: “What has been proved is that colder bodies can warm a hotter body through back radiation” & which Dr. Spencer has demonstrated experimentally using the actual atm. and surface water.
#2
More fluff from fluffball. Nothing new.
“If it did…where would you be getting the energy for the GPs to also rise in temperature!?” “energy from nothing.”
There is 400 J of NEW energy per second flowing into this system.
Thats a whole lot more than nothing!
Anyway another DREMT already explained where new energy to warm plates comes from.
“Were they (GP) to decrease in temperature, there would be 400 W coming into the system via the blue plate, but less than 400 W leaving via the green plates, so they would simply warm back up to 244 K again.”
They can argue it out with each other.
#2
You just said: “On separation the GPs drop in temperature and output. This drop in output must correspond exactly to the rise in BP thermal energy”.
Now you are saying the same drop in output can also provide the GPs with energy, Yet, obviously, the GPs drop in output is only ever going to be enough to provide energy for…a subsequent GP rise in output back to 244 K…
That’s not obvious.
Image a river flow of 400 l/s. Put a dam across it.
The water level rises upstream and falls downstream.
When the dam is full you get 400 l/s downstream.
The water level is higher in the dam.
Where did the extra water come from?
Was it created from nothing?
No, it came from upstream and matches the temporary flow reduction downstream.
Why do you always argue against something other than what I’m saying?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
While the dam is filling is up, the reduced flow downstream will only ever be enough to restore the downstream water level.
It will not be able to raise the water level in the dam.
Huh?
See what I mean?
No.
You always argue against something other than what I am saying. You provided another good example of that.
You argue that the BP/GP temperature increase means energy from nothing.
Let me try an analogy.
Energy [J] Water [l].
Power [J/s] Water flow [l/s].
Temperature Water level.
Plates together A free flowing river.
Vacuum separation A dam.
Adjustment time:
BP temperature rise Dam water level rising.
GP temperature drop Downstream level falling.
New equilibrium, full flow restored:
BP at 290 K Dam full.
GP at 244 K Downstream water level restored.
No energy/water is created from nothing here.
You said:
“It comes from the same saving in output”
The “saving in output” is however much you reduce the GPs temperature by. That cannot be enough for GPs and BP.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I did say that.
Let me paraphrase that:
The reduced flow downstream correlates with the water level.
That reduced flow cannot be enough to fill the dam and restore the water level downstream.
And yet it all has to add up. The water in the dam can not have gone downstream. The water level downstream is restored when the dam is full.
Svante continues trying to talk his way around his own words.
Gotcha! Provided water can not be destroyed or created.
Your analogy has no real connection to the point I am making, about your earlier words.
Never mind. Believe what you want.
Don’t be sour, it fixed a major misunderstanding of yours.
Believe what you want.
Yeah, you thought energy had to be created to warm the BP.
When really it was flowing in all the time.
Reduced output was all that was needed to accumulate it.
Not enough for the GPs and the BP.
OK, what is your problem? You agree that the river flow will be as I described if you put at dam in it, do you?
Your analogy has no real connection to the point I am making.
And your analogy is flawed even for the point you are making.
The analogy is pretty good. The dam acts a barrier to the flow of water. The level of the water drops downstream of the dam and rises on the upstream side. At some point though the water will top the dam at which put the ingress flow and egress flow will be equal again. The two bodies of water will be in steady-state but the level will still be lower on the downstream side and higher on the upstream side of the dam. Most people should be able to intuitively understand the analogy.
I understand it fine. That is how I know the point I made has been missed.
Which of these likenesses can you not see?
Temperature should have been thermal energy?
Please elaborate!
Energy [J] => Water [l].
Power [400 J/s] => Water flow [400 l/s].
Thermal energy [J] => Water level [l].
Plates together => A free flowing river.
Vacuum separation => A dam.
Adjustment time:
BP temperature rise => Dam water level rising.
GP temperature drop => Downstream level falling.
New equilibrium, full flow restored:
BP at 290 K => Dam full.
GP at 244 K => Downstream water level restored.
Energy/water amount must add up.
The energy/water in the BP/dam corresponds to energy/water that did not flow space-ward/downstream (obviously).
The drop then rise in GP/downstream temperature/water level correspond to changes in downstream inflow/outflow.
Note that the BP/dam can have any heat/volume capacity, with a steady influx of 400 [J/s]/[l/s] it is only matter of time before it reaches its maximum.
Just assume you are right. I do not have the patience.
Your standard playground strategy for dodging defeat, DREMT. Quit the game as your opponent scores…
Just stay home next time.
#2
Just assume you are right. I do not have the patience.
(although, you can also just scroll up to read why you are wrong, any time you wish).
I did scroll up, and only find you being owned and having no response.
#3
Just assume you are right. I do not have the patience.
(although, you can also just scroll up to read why you are wrong, any time you wish).
barry…”So how does the GP reduce the rate of the thermal emission of the BP? What is the nuts and bolts phyical mechanism? In what way does the BP experience the presence of the GP in order to have its rate of radiative emiission change?”
The nuts and bolts are simple. Swannie has the GP raised right next to the BP and I presume he has used metal, or something that won’t pass IR freely. Metal will not pass EM of any frequency.
If the GP can freely pass IR (EM) then dremt and I are in agreement. The BP would not warm in that case. However, if you block IR from the BP almost entirely, it will warm from the temperature it was before the GP was raised because it can no longer dissipate heat at the same rate.
I agree.
Actually you don’t, Svante, because in the thought experiment the plates are perfectly-conducting BBs. They don’t “block” or “reflect” any IR at all. “Block” has to ultimately mean “reflect”, right? It can’t mean, for instance, “absorb” and then not “emit”.
Aha, I thought he meant the opposite of “freely pass”.
Like it is used here:
http://www.icc.dur.ac.uk/~tt/Lectures/Galaxies/Images/Infrared/Windows/irwindows.html
True, he might have done.
Then again, when you have a perfectly-conducting, very thin, BB plate, is there really any difference?
Gordon finally comes in from the dark side writing: “(BP) will warm from the temperature (BP) was before the GP was raised because (BP) can no longer dissipate heat at the same rate.”
Very well, carry on Gordon.
Gordon can now extend his new planetary atm. physical insights learned from experiment to: (Lower planetary atm.) will warm from the temperature (lower planetary atm.) was before the (atm. CO2 ppm IR blockage) was raised because (lower planetary atm.) can no longer dissipate heat at the same rate.
Gordon has not changed his position on the plates since the very beginning.
Just a little reality for you.
#2:
Gordon finally comes in from the dark side writing: “(BP) will warm from the temperature (BP) was before the GP was raised because (BP) can no longer dissipate heat at the same rate.”
#2
Gordon has not changed his position on the plates since the very beginning.
Just a little reality for you.
#2:
Desperate wand wavers continue wand waving…
#3
Gordon has not changed his position on the plates since the very beginning.
Just a little reality for you.
Gordon shows common sense and tries to account for reality, while DREMT descends further into magical thinking, waving away standard radiative heat transfer with his Harry Potter wand.
Desperate stalkers continue stalking…
Desperate wand wavers continue wand waving…
#2
Desperate stalkers continue stalking…
What is your definition of a stalker. Let’s see how you carefully craft the definition to exclude yourself.
Repeatedly jumping in on my discussions even though I never directly interact with them, (including PSTs), for months now.
So you made no attempt to exclude yourself from the definition.
I’m an equal opportunities stalker. I don’t obsess over one person, I jump in uninvited on anyone’s discussion. But mostly only with PSTs.
I don’t specifically hound and follow one person around everywhere they comment, jumping in on their discussions and even using the fact I know they won’t respond to me to my advantage.
Equal opportunities??
So you also stalk your fellow deniers?
It’s always funny watching someone like you squirm in an attempt to spin a reason for why they are in the right and everyone else is in the wrong.
Yes, I enjoy watching you do that all the time.
You seem to be claiming that I am “someone like you”.
Sure, just a more unpleasant and less intelligent version.
OK…if you really want to know, the problem with your analogy as regards the point I was making is, the location of the dam. All plates should be upstream of the dam. You have downstream of the dam representing the green plates. That is the mistake. There is never going to be enough water built up behind the dam to account for the GPs rise in temperature and the BP, since the level is set only by the reduction in GPs temperature/output.
There are still separate flaws with your analogy for the point you are making, which is different to my point anyway.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
That is only a matter of time since the supply is endless.
You have to multiply the reduction by the time.
The reduction will last until it is finished.
That’s right, Svante…but the reduction is only the from the GPs output. So there will only ever be enough energy to get the GPs back up to the correct rate of output, not the BP as well. Rate already includes time, you see…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
GP thermal energy [J] is not the only output contributor.
The reduction is in the flow [J/s] which is endless.
The input is endless [400 J/s].
It keeps filling until there is equilibrium.
Temperature is proportional to thermal energy [J].
Fixed temperature means fixed thermal energy [J].
It’s just a matter of time until the equilibrium temperature is reached.
The reduction you refer to is of course only equal to the drop in the GPs output (power per unit area).
That leaves you with a build up in energy that is insufficient for GPs to increase back to 244 K and for the BP to rise to 290 K.
It is like Ball4 said from the beginning: the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution violates 1LoT.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Yes, power [J/s] * time [s] = energy [J].
The time is whatever it takes to achieve equilibrium, i.e 244 K.
So you can have whatever energy [J] you need for that.
There is no shortage of energy [J], you get 400 [J/s].
Same for the BP.
You do not have enough power for all three plates.
Let’s try an analogy:
You earn 400 Joules/month and you spend 390 Joules/month.
When do you have a million Joules in your bank account?
Another analogy!
Svante, if you reduce the temperature of the GPs such that they are only now emitting 190 W each…do you think you have:
a) 10 W to play with
b) 20 W to play with
c) Infinity W to play with
You seem to think it is c)…
“You do not have enough power for all three plates.”
DREMT is willfully ignorant when it comes to power vs energy, salary vs savings.
Let me see, that would be a 10 W surplus, it would give me:
– One second => 10 J.
– One minute => 600 J.
– An hour => 36000 J.
– A month => 25920000 J.
– A year => 311040000 J.
The plates heat capacity can be next to nothing,
but let’s say we have aluminum 1 m^2 * 0.001 m = 0.001 m^3.
Density 2.71 kg/m3 => 0.00271 kg.
Specific heat capacity roughly 910 J/(kg K)
To take it from 0 K to 244 K would cost:
910 * 0.00271 * 244 = 601 J
So that would take one minute.
After a year I could reach 128246400 K : – )
Yet to keep each plate at 190 K would “cost” 380 joules every second, continuously, each, as well as you needing to somehow find an additional 400 W power to increase the BP to 290 K. That is another 400 joules every second, that you need.
Sorry, not 190 K…at a temperature where they emit 190 W/m^2.
No, I do not need 400 W to increase the BP to 290 K.
I need 115 J, i.e. 11.5 seconds with your 10 W surplus.
All the plates need to be continuously supplied with power (joules/sec) to maintain their temperature. Not just a one-off blast of energy.
OMG…
Remember, this is barry’s comment, that started all this:
“The GPs can never be as warm as the BP, because each GP receives half the energy that the BP does. And that extra energy can only come via the BP. To match input, the GPs need to be as warm as the BP when they were one plate (with perfect conduction). The only way they can do that is if the BP gives off twice the energy it did before the split.
This makes sense. The maths add up. No laws were broken, because energy can be transferred both ways. Heat flows in one direction, and that is satisfied because the BP never gets warmer at the expense of the GPs.
Here we are, with Svante et al arguing the opposite, that the BP does get warmer at the expense of the GPs, and ignoring the fact that barry has a problem with the amount of energy the GPs receive in the first place, after the split. It’s not enough to keep them at 244 K, according to barry. So the GPs should fall in temperature…but the BP is not allowed to get warmer at the expense of the GPs, otherwise laws are broken, according to barry. So…if the BP cannot get warmer, that only leaves the GPs…and if they get warmer, then there is no longer a deficit in output.
But as usual Team GPE wants to have their cake and eat it too. Both barry and Svante can’t be right…can they? I expect they will find a way to claim they are…
Oh what a tangled web he weaves, when he strives to self-deceive.
I missed the end quotation marks for barry’s comment. I will put them in, below:
Remember, this is barry’s comment, that started all this:
“The GPs can never be as warm as the BP, because each GP receives half the energy that the BP does. And that extra energy can only come via the BP. To match input, the GPs need to be as warm as the BP when they were one plate (with perfect conduction). The only way they can do that is if the BP gives off twice the energy it did before the split.
This makes sense. The maths add up. No laws were broken, because energy can be transferred both ways. Heat flows in one direction, and that is satisfied because the BP never gets warmer at the expense of the GPs.”
Here we are, with Svante et al arguing the opposite, that the BP does get warmer at the expense of the GPs, and ignoring the fact that barry has a problem with the amount of energy the GPs receive in the first place, after the split. It’s not enough to keep them at 244 K, according to barry. So the GPs should fall in temperature…but the BP is not allowed to get warmer at the expense of the GPs, otherwise laws are broken, according to barry. So…if the BP cannot get warmer, that only leaves the GPs…and if they get warmer, then there is no longer a deficit in output.
But as usual Team GPE wants to have their cake and eat it too. Both barry and Svante can’t be right…can they? I expect they will find a way to claim they are…
“but the BP is not allowed to get warmer at the expense of the GPs, otherwise laws are broken”
according to sameless liar DREMTs ever increasing list of completely made up arbitrary rules, and twisting of other peoples words.
#2
I missed the end quotation marks for barry’s comment. I will put them in, below:
Remember, this is barry’s comment, that started all this:
“The GPs can never be as warm as the BP, because each GP receives half the energy that the BP does. And that extra energy can only come via the BP. To match input, the GPs need to be as warm as the BP when they were one plate (with perfect conduction). The only way they can do that is if the BP gives off twice the energy it did before the split.
This makes sense. The maths add up. No laws were broken, because energy can be transferred both ways. Heat flows in one direction, and that is satisfied because the BP never gets warmer at the expense of the GPs.”
Here we are, with Svante et al arguing the opposite, that the BP does get warmer at the expense of the GPs, and ignoring the fact that barry has a problem with the amount of energy the GPs receive in the first place, after the split. It’s not enough to keep them at 244 K, according to barry. So the GPs should fall in temperature…but the BP is not allowed to get warmer at the expense of the GPs, otherwise laws are broken, according to barry. So…if the BP cannot get warmer, that only leaves the GPs…and if they get warmer, then there is no longer a deficit in output.
But as usual Team GPE wants to have their cake and eat it too. Both barry and Svante can’t be right…can they? I expect they will find a way to claim they are…
Mixed in with all the nonsense, you slipped up and let one fact thru:
” because energy can be transferred both ways. Heat flows in one direction”
The fact that allows the thing that youve insisted cannot happen, that the GP can transfer 200 W back to the BP, and thus 0 NET.
#2
But as usual Team GPE wants to have their cake and eat it too. Both barry and Svante can’t be right…can they? I expect they will find a way to claim they are…
“only ever be enough energy to get the GPs back up to the correct rate of output, not the BP as well.”
Whatever arbitrary completely made rules DREMT needs to get the result he wants…
Starting to get predictable.
#2
Another analogy!
Svante, if you reduce the temperature of the GPs such that they are only now emitting 190 W eachdo you think you have:
a) 10 W to play with
b) 20 W to play with
c) Infinity W to play with
You seem to think it is c)
Should read…that leaves you with a build up in power…
dremt…”Svante, if you reduce the temperature of the GPs such that they are only now emitting 190 W eachdo you think you have:”
Remember, I am on your side as a skeptic.
You have to be careful when you claim any body is emitting so many watts. The emitting surface does lose a certain amount of watts of heat and that is a kosher measurement for heat or work. Actually, the watt is a measure of work, based on the horsepower equivalence, and the only reason it is used with heat is the equivalence between heat and work established by Joule, the scientist.
Heat is actually measured in calories, wherein the mount of heat required to raise the temperature of one cc of water by 1C at a specific temperature is one calorie. Since Joule established that 1 calorie of heat is equivalent to 4.18 joules of work (takes 1 joule of work/force to raise 100 grams by 1 metre), scientists have been referring to heat in equivalent terms of watts, where a watt is 1 joule/second of energy.
Nothing has been said about electromagnetic energy, the result of a body losing so many watts of heat. EM certainly carries the potential to raise the heat in a cooler body by so many watts but to claim an equivalence between the heat lost in a body as it radiates ‘electron volts’ of EM strikes me as being far-fetched.
An electron-volt is the energy gained by an electron (charge) moving through a potential difference of 1 volt. Therefore the work done can be measured in joules since the electron has mass and can do work. However, when the electron falls between orbital energy levels and emits a quantum of EM, how can anyone claim the energy related to the electron can be measured in eV for the EM?
There is certainly energy in the EM since it can be transferred to a cooler body or induced in an antenna in such a manner as to cause electrons in the antenna to move, forming a current. However, in space, it has no apparent energy till it contacts a mass and is absorbed. The energy it produces in a receiving electron can then be measured in watts. In between its emission and absorp-tion, I don’t see how it can be measured in watts, since no work is being done.
All you can say about EM is that it has the potential to do work. It’s like the electromotive force in a battery with no circuit connected. Talking about the voltage of a battery is meaningless till you connect a load to it. You can call a battery a 9 volt battery but until you connect a load you cannot tell what the voltage driving a current will be.
If you start using actual measures of EM in watts, you will soon end up contradicting yourself since EM cannot be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures. Only EM from a hotter body has the POTENTIAL to induce power in a cooler body with the EM from the cooler body having no effect on the warmer body.
I don’t think we disagree on what causes the BP to warm since we both seem to agree that thermal energy cannot be transferred from the cooler GP to the warmer BP. We both agree any warming in the BP cannot come from the GP. It can be caused by the GP indirectly, however.
It comes back to the conversion of heat in a body to EM. If that body is electrically heated with an input of x watts of electrical energy and no thermal energy is allowed to escape the body, that body will warm to a temperature in which it is in equilibrium with the heat input.
After all, temperature is the average kinetic energy of the atoms in the BP which is a measure of the heat in the body. That heat is represented by work done in the atoms of the body as they vibrate and the heat required to maintain the work. Therefore any electrical power applied only serves to raise the state of internal vibration (energy).
If too much power is input, the electrons in the atoms will start to leave the nucleus, bonds will break, and the atoms will fall apart. So, there is a maximum temperature the body can take before it falls apart, or explodes. I have seen it happen many times in the field and it can be violent. I have heard of large 6″ x 2″ diameter fuses being ejected from their holders and flung across a room. That’s what happens when electrons get ornery.
So, we are presuming the heat in the BP due to added heat from the electrical source will rise to a point equivalent to the heat injected electrically. That heat level is measured by the temperature at that point relative to the freezing/boiling point of water as set points. Remember, we have insulated the BP so it cannot radiate EM and dissipate heat.
In the case of Swannie’s experiment, if the BP is allowed to radiate, which is its only means of dissipating heat in a vacuum, the temperature described above will drop till heat in = heat out. Now the GP is raised in close proximity to the BP on one side and it blocks off half of the EM the BP can radiate. The BP’s temperature has to rise back toward the temperature it had with no means of dissipation.
This is about the state of the electrons bonding the atoms together in the BP. The vibration in the atoms of the body is due to interaction of the +vely charged protons in the nucleus repelling other +vely charge protons in nearby nuclei while the -vely charge orbiting electrons pull them together. A natural vibration is set up based on the energy in the protons and electrons which is relative to the heat in the body, measured by temperature.
If the energy in those atoms cannot be dissipated through radiation, they will maintain the state of vibration at the level equivalent to heat input. When they are allowed to radiate, at least the surface and near-surface electrons, they lose energy, those atoms vibrate less, and the body cools. If you interfere with that heat dissipation via the GP blocking radiation, the energy in the atoms rises and the body heats.
No contradiction of the 2nd law.
You cannot stop a body from radiating, other than if you, say, wrap it in a different material. Then the body is no longer radiating, yes, but it is conducting through the material, and that new material has effectively become the radiating surface for the body.
But bringing the GP near the BP does not stop the BP from radiating. It is not touching the BP. I guess I do not understand what you mean by blocking the EM.
No worries though, I have no problem with us disagreeing on this!
dremt…”But bringing the GP near the BP does not stop the BP from radiating. It is not touching the BP. I guess I do not understand what you mean by blocking the EM”.
In the electrical, electrons, and computer fields, metal is used to block EM. Look up Faraday Shield as one example. I have presumed Swannie used metal for the GP. And I think Eli originally specified thin metal sheets for both. It would be hard to heat a non-metallic plate electrically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
When EM strikes a metal surface it interacts with the electrons in the metal and converted to heat. Tiny currents are induced in the metal called eddy currents and they produce the heat.
I can hear howls of derision from the alarmist gallery with claims that I claimed EM cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. This is not a case of the 2nd law being contradicted, whenever an EMI shield is applied it is usually in an environment where the radiating source is warmer than the shield or in thermal equilibrium with it.
We are not concerned with a colder shield radiating EM back to the source of the EM and raising its temperature.
OK, thanks for clarifying what you mean by blocking EM…
…but bringing the GP near to the BP still does not stop the BP from radiating. It just means it radiates a shorter distance.
dremt…”…but bringing the GP near to the BP still does not stop the BP from radiating. It just means it radiates a shorter distance”.
That’s right. It can also radiate from the other side.
It’s similar to the space blankets they use on people suffering hypothermia. The blanket has a metal foil that blocks radiation from cooling the body as well as slowing the loss due to conduction and convection.
So by “block” you mean “reflect”, as well as “absorb and heat”?
dremt…”So by “block” you mean “reflect”, as well as “absorb and heat”?”
Reflection to me is something else. With optics, like with glass, reflection seems to involve light being redirected so it is emitted from the surface. That could be the result of electrons and atoms in the glass directing the electric and magnetic field in the Em in an arc without absorbing it.
I am talking about EM being absorbed by an electron and ceasing to exist as EM. There is nothing left to reflect.
I should say that heat dissipation is blocked. It’s like in a perfect thermos. The convection and conduction of heat is blocked by the vacuum around the inner container and radiation is blocked by the metallic silver lining. I mean the energy is absorbed completely.
In an electronic circuit at high frequency, like in a wave guide, electrical energy can be both absorbed and reflected. The load is only able to absorb electrical energy at certain frequencies while at others it cannot absorb the energy and reflects it. That’s how I see an electron interacting with EM frequencies. It can absorb some but not others.
In fact, that how we see objects in colour. Atoms in the body absorb some frequencies of EM and reflect others. We see the reflected frequencies.
I don’t know the intricate theory of blocking EM, I wish I did. I just know that heat can be dissipated via conduction, convection, and radiation. Although no thermos is perfect which can be seen by the fact boiling water cools in a thermos over a day. All the thermos can do is slow the heat loss.
In Swannie’s experiment, I see a metallic GP doing the same as in the thermos. How it works is still not clear to me at an intricate level and I really don’t think this problem is clearly understood unless you use quantum theory. When you do, you forsake the physical reality and get into supposition with regard to how electrons emit EM and what causes them to vary their output of EM.
In electronic high voltage circuits, like the older flyback transformers in TV sets with 40 kilovolt voltages, lower voltages at about 1200 volts were rapidly switched in a transformer causing electrons to accelerate and produce high voltages across the coil. At such speeds, the electrons would emit xrays, very high frequency EM.
Physicist David Bohm, hypothesized via quantum theory that electrons seemed to ‘sense’ their environment. He was referring to the apparent ability of an electron to interact in a quantum manner with a narrow slit through which it was travelling in such a way as to cause the electron to change direction, acting essentially like a wave. I don’t know about that but it is entirely possible based on such a theory that electrons can sense…somehow…the boundary conditions of their environment.
When an electron falls from a higher energy level to a lower level, emitting a quantum of energy, which some like to call a photon, is there some kind of feedback to the electron to let it know the radiation is being blocked?
May sound weird, but that’s exactly what happens in coils (inductors) when an electric current runs through one. The very current running through the inductor sets up a back EMF (voltage) that creates a current which opposes the current creating it. You might say the electron is creating a self-limiting feedback loop that limits the rate it can transfer charge.
Maybe that applies with radiation being blocked. Maybe the fact that the EM is not moving off as expected is sensed by the electron through some kind of feedback mechanism.
Inductors as chokes are used to self-limit an alternating current through the inductor. It’s called reactance as opposed to resistance because it acts as a frequency dependent resistance without using resistance.
I know I get dissed here for equating EM to electrons but that’s the fact. You cannot talk about the behavior of EM without equating it to electrons. That applies equally to protons, like in the solar wind, but protons in atoms are bound to a nucleus. In a solid it means they are unable to move wrt to the electron.
When you talk about EM having power, you are actually talking about the electrons that emit it and absorb it. I can’t get involved with the debate you guys are having about the BP and GP emitting and absorbing so many watts. AFAIAC, the focus should be on how the EM affects electrons or how electrons affect EM.
If you look at that closely and apply the 2nd law, it becomes apparent that the only heat or power transfer is one way, between the BP and the GP. There is no reverse transfer of heat or power.
dremt…”Yet to keep each plate at 190 K would cost 380 joules every second, continuously, each, as well as you needing to somehow find an additional 400 W power to increase the BP to 290 K. That is another 400 joules every second, that you need”.
Remember, the 390 joules/sec applies locally. That is what is going on at the surface of the radiating body and it is a measure of heat loss only. It has nothing to do with EM. That’s why I harp on about the use of the generic energy term. You need to keep tract of the heat and the EM separately.
The BP is being injected with energy continuously via the electrical supply. If it is allowed to radiate, it loses x joules/sec of heat at the surface. That loss has reduced its temperature. When the radiation is blocked by the GP, the BP can no longer radiate x joules/second, therefore it must warm.
It warms because of the injected electrical power, the thermal energy for the warming comes from there. If there was no warming source for the BP, then the BP would continue to cool, albeit at a slower rate due to the interference of the GP.
If Swannie is right, then removing the source of warming for the BP, then raising the GP, should not cause it to warm. That would contravene the 2nd law.
correction…should read…”If Swannie is right, then removing the source of warming for the BP, then raising the GP, should cause it to warm. That would contravene the 2nd law.
BTW…this can seriously complicated based on the initial conditions. If the BP is in a state of thermal equilibrium with its surroundings it has to be presumed it is getting energy from somewhere to maintain a steady temperature. Therefore, if it is receiving energy from somewhere and it is in thermal equilibrium due to its ability to dissipate heat via radiation, then raising the GP might also cause it to warm, if the BPs temperature is dependent on a heating source of some kind.
Again, the warming is not due to heat being transferred from the cooler GP. Even if both were in thermal equilibrium, the temperature of the BP would not increase due to radiation from the GP.
It appears that everything in the universe that is not heated by something maintains a temperature near 0K. That’s why this problem can move beyond the none trivial. If Swannie’s BP is sitting in an evacuated chamber at temperature T, where is it getting the energy, without an external source, to maintain that temperature?
Theoretically, a body in a vacuum in a room at 20C, should be isolated from the room and it’s temperature should continue to drop. We know that does not occur spontaneously in our experiences and it must be due to heat transfer from the environment through supporting structures and walls. It would seem impossible to isolate a body in a vacuum from external heat.
There is no such thing as a perfect insulator, however. Even if one sealed a body off in a vacuum, heat would eventually seep through the walls of the container and the atoms in the walls would radiate to the body inside the chamber, warming it.
Gordo, I think you are getting it. Yes, a body in a vacuum will reach an equilibrium temperature with it’s surrounding environment, since the environment, such as my bell jar, exchanges thermal EM radiation with said body. Now, add some energy to said body and it’s temperature will increase. But, when a second body intervenes, the temperature of the heated body will increase. However, your explanation does not fit the physics, since both bodies radiate, depending on their respective temperatures. You have not explained what happens to the energy radiated by the cooler body back toward the heated body. That energy does not vanish, that would violate the First Law, but is absorbed by the first body and is the cause of that body’s temperature increase.
Swannie…”your explanation does not fit the physics, since both bodies radiate, depending on their respective temperatures. You have not explained what happens to the energy radiated by the cooler body back toward the heated body. That energy does not vanish, that would violate the First Law….”
I’m getting it??? I have been saying the same thing since I started critiquing your claim that IR from the GP was warming the BP.
I don’t have to explain what happens to the EM from the cooler body. All I have to explain is the mechanism of the electrons that absorb EM. They are incapable of absorbing EM from a source that cannot supply the required intensity and frequency to force them to a higher energy state.
E = hf. E is the difference in energy between orbital energy levels, E1 – E0, in electron volts, and f must satisfy the frequency at which the electron orbits in the lower energy shell. If E < (E1 – E0) the electron won't absorb it and if F < Forbit, it won't be absorbed wither. That is the case with EM from a colder object.
With quantum theory it's all or nothing. If you match the E1 – E0, the electron will jump to the next level. However, E1 – E0 will not get it to the next higher energy level. To do that, you must apply the required E1 – E0 representing the required energy to make a double orbital energy jump.
That's why absorp-tion and emission spectra for a particular atom appear as discrete lines rather than a continuous energy curve.
The energy from the GP does not violate the 1st law since the 1st law addresses the heat into a body of temperature T and the work done BY THAT BODY. If there is no work done, the absorbed EM simply adds heat to the body, IF IT IS ABSORBED.
The 1st law has nothing to do with two bodies radiating independently. They do not constitute a system, they are simply radiating, therefore conservation of energy does not apply. It does apply to a body where heat in must equal the rise in internal energy minus any work done by the body.
“The BP is being injected with energy continuously via the electrical supply. If it is allowed to radiate, it loses x joules/sec of heat at the surface. That loss has reduced its temperature. When the radiation is blocked by the GP, the BP can no longer radiate x joules/second, therefore it must warm.”
It will still radiate the x joules/second. Bringing the GP closer to the BP does not stop it from radiating according to its temperature and emissivity. Only if the plates touch will the BP stop radiating, and start conducting, on the touching side.
Someone said this:
‘because energy can be transferred both ways. Heat flows in one direction’
Oh yeah it was another DREMT.
The fact that the GP can transfer 200 W back to the BP, and thus 0 NET J/s are being radiated by the BP , if both plates are at 244K.
So Gordon is absolutely correct that the GP has blocked the BPs ability to loose energy by radiation.
#2
It will still radiate the x joules/second. Bringing the GP closer to the BP does not stop it from radiating according to its temperature and emissivity. Only if the plates touch will the BP stop radiating, and start conducting, on the touching side.
“does not stop it from radiating according to its temperature and emissivity”
Nor does the BP stop the GP “from radiating according to its temperature and emissivity” back to the BP.
because as YOU NOTED “energy can be transferred both ways”.
So unless you find a new way to twist or deny simple math and your own statements, this argument has reached an ignominius dead end.
#3
It will still radiate the x joules/second. Bringing the GP closer to the BP does not stop it from radiating according to its temperature and emissivity. Only if the plates touch will the BP stop radiating, and start conducting, on the touching side.
PAathetic..
“I should say that heat dissipation is blocked. It’s like in a perfect thermos. The convection and conduction of heat is blocked by the vacuum around the inner container and radiation is blocked by the metallic silver lining. I mean the energy is absorbed completely.”
Radiation is reflected by the silver lining, in which case it is blocked from being absorbed and thus having the possibility of conducting through the material to radiate out the other side. Reflectivity can make a difference when the view factors are other than reciprocal (which is true in most real life situations, and even in the original GPE thought experiment). That’s how radiative insulation works. I’m still not sure I agree with your “blocking” principle since you mostly seem to indicate you just mean “absorbed”. The problem with that is, the plates also emit.
In Swanson’s experiment, a certain amount of radiation will be reflected by the aluminium plates. It might not be a lot, but then there’s not really a lot of BP warming to account for. Also there is the issue with the lead pipe, as discussed in the comments under the first Hughes experiment. In neither Hughes experiment is there any mysterious warming to account for.
DRsEMT wrote, RE: Hughes experiments:
That’s because Hughes’ experiments were flawed. I noted several problems in the comments for the first, but did not learn of the second until after the comments were closed. I posted some of my objections HERE, HERE and HERE.
Good for you, Swanson.
DRE continues to evade the obvious ‘blocking’ mechanism:
“Nor does the BP stop the GP ‘from radiating according to its temperature and emissivity’ back to the BP.
because as YOU NOTED ‘energy can be transferred both ways’.”
#3
I missed the end quotation marks for barry’s comment. I will put them in, below:
Remember, this is barry’s comment, that started all this:
“The GPs can never be as warm as the BP, because each GP receives half the energy that the BP does. And that extra energy can only come via the BP. To match input, the GPs need to be as warm as the BP when they were one plate (with perfect conduction). The only way they can do that is if the BP gives off twice the energy it did before the split.
This makes sense. The maths add up. No laws were broken, because energy can be transferred both ways. Heat flows in one direction, and that is satisfied because the BP never gets warmer at the expense of the GPs.”
Here we are, with Svante et al arguing the opposite, that the BP does get warmer at the expense of the GPs, and ignoring the fact that barry has a problem with the amount of energy the GPs receive in the first place, after the split. It’s not enough to keep them at 244 K, according to barry. So the GPs should fall in temperature…but the BP is not allowed to get warmer at the expense of the GPs, otherwise laws are broken, according to barry. So…if the BP cannot get warmer, that only leaves the GPs…and if they get warmer, then there is no longer a deficit in output.
But as usual Team GPE wants to have their cake and eat it too. Both barry and Svante can’t be right…can they? I expect they will find a way to claim they are…
Repeated garbled and misrepresented nonsense is still just garbled nonsense.
And as usual, DRE tries to make it about the messengers, while always evading the obvious facts.
The obvious facts are that the GP DOES block the BP from radiating directly to space which is F-ing cold.
Gordon gets what the RHTE makes absolutely clear: that heat loss from an object is dependent on the temperature of its surroundings.
Why cant you?
Just as standing next to an OPEN freezer mskes one’s skin COLDER than if the freezer door is closed, the BP directly exposed to space will be colder than if space is blocked by a relative warm GP.
Just basic common sense that DRE seems to always lack.
#2
Note to readers: for a while now, I no longer directly respond to commenter “Nate”. He crossed the line of “stalker” some time ago..
Dont like the responses to your posts? Awwwwww. Maybe stop posting then.
Or at least stop inviting ridicule by posting ridiculous BS.
DREMT shamelessly quotes Barry,
“The GPs can never be as warm as the BP, because each GP receives half the energy that the BP does. And that extra energy can only come via the BP. To match input, the GPs need to be as warm as the BP when they were one plate (with perfect conduction). The only way they can do that is if the BP gives off twice the energy it did before the split.”
But he neglects to say that he NEVER acknowledges that this quote is a BIG problem for his (244K)^3 scenario, that he cannot explain.
He twists Barrys words “because the BP never gets warmer at the expense of the GPs.” which simply means that the GP are not transferring HEAT to the BP, and thus the 2LOT is not violated.
And he falsely claims that Svante disagrees with this, which he doesnt.
And Svantes point that DREMT fails to acknowledge is that there is plenty of energy coming into the system, 400 J/s, to heat the BP to whatever it needs to be (it doesnt need to come from the GP)
There is no contradiction between what Barry and Svante are saying.
But DREMTs scenario violates several laws of physics, and when challenged on this by Barry, Svante, or anyone else, he simply evades answering by tossing out chaff.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-439875
#4
See what I mean?
DREMT, you will not understand this, but I’m sure barry agrees that energy must add up.
Increased BP thermal energy corresponds to a saving in the flow downstream.
It’s the difference between upstream and downstream integral of flow over time.
It has nothing to do with the plates own heat capacity, it can be next to nothing or immense, that will only affect the time taken to build up to equilibrium temperature. If they weigh a million tons it can take a thousand years. The input is never ending.
You directly contradicted barry, Svante.
I stretched the meaning of “expense”.
You directly contradicted barry, Svante.
Besides, any increase in temperature of the BP would result in heat flow from BP to GPs until they are all at the same temperature again. Heat flow tends towards zero wherever possible, and with the idealized conditions of the GPE thought experiments, it is possible.
Sure with magic fairy dust, almost anything is possible.
Even continuous heat flow into a plate, zero heat flow out of the plate, yet the plate remains at the same temperature!
But in the real world, where physics applies, NO, THAT NEVER EVER HAPPENS.
Svante, DREMT will always take any nuanced answer and misconstrue into maximum obfuscation. He has a talent for that.
Meanwhile, he seemingly gets off scott free for murdering laws of physics.
Barrys point (he can correct me) is simply that there is no heat transfer from cold to hot.
Your point (correct me) is that on separation the gp cools and the bp warms, by ~ equal amounts of internal energy.
This is NOT a contradiction.
Why? Because the energy gain of bp ALL came from the 400 W heat source.
But this sort of discussion is simply over the head of simpleton DREMT.
Nate says:
“Your point (correct me) is that on separation the gp cools and the bp warms, by ~ equal amounts of internal energy.”
That would be true momentarily, but then T^4 will create an asymmetry.
My point was that GP will provide BP with energy by virtue of its drop in output, which is a secondary effect of its temperature drop.
In the end, the increase in BP internal energy will match the saving downstream.
So in a manner of speaking, GP provides energy for the BP (and for the system as a whole).
Ok so lets see:
On separation, initially ~ zero net heat flow from BP to GP because they are at the same temp.
But BP still has 400 W heat input, so it should heat up, while GP has zero input so it should cool down. Together loss of GPs internal energy = gain of BP.
Then BP to GP NET flux increases, and GP warms back up until it gets to steady 244k, while BP reaches steady 290K.
‘In the end, the increase in BP internal energy will match the saving downstream.’
OK, because 400 W was always flowing in, but the output from GPs temporarily dipped below 400.
Agrees with your ‘GP will provide BP with energy by virtue of its drop in output, which is a secondary effect of its temperature drop.’
And your dam analogy is helpful.
“My point was that GP will provide BP with energy by virtue of its drop in output, which is a secondary effect of its temperature drop. In the end, the increase in BP internal energy will match the saving downstream.
So in a manner of speaking, GP provides energy for the BP (and for the system as a whole).”
The plates are separated, then magic happens.
Your dam analogy fails because separating the plates does nothing but switch the mode of energy transfer from conduction to radiation. The correct dam analogy would only work if the GPs decrease in temperature for some reason…but then all the plates are “upstream” of the dam, in that case…there would be no reason for “water” to build up at the BP any more than it would at the GPs (thus closing the deficit in GPs output).
Shriekers gonna shriek, but that’s how it is.
“And your dam analogy is helpful.”
Thanks Nate, you got it. As for the other guy I think it did show that he’s some sort of religious fanatic, and that’s as much as you could hope for on that front.
I usually avoid analogies, they tend to get more complicated than the original problem. To improve it there should be two dams, one for each vacuum interface, with holes at the bottom to create a pressure dependent leak…
“Your dam analogy fails because separating the plates does nothing but switch the mode of energy transfer from conduction to radiation.”
The free flowing river has some difference in upstream/downstream water level, so that’s like conduction.
A vacuum gap is a serious obstacle, just like the dam, so that increases the difference difference in level.
If you think vacuum prevents conduction that is.
A vacuum gap enables radiation.
And in the real world conduction could transfer 200 W with a temperature difference of 0.008 K.
A vacuum gap requires more than a thousand times that temperature difference.
If you would care to do the math or an experiment.
‘Your dam analogy fails because separating the plates does nothing but switch the mode of energy transfer from conduction to radiation.’
I dont know why D clings so hard to the notion that radiation thru vacuum is just as efficient as conduction through metal. Just makes 0 sense, but hes consistent.
“And in the real world conduction could transfer 200 W with a temperature difference of 0.008 K.
A vacuum gap requires more than a thousand times that temperature difference.
If you would care to do the math or an experiment.”
I’m happy with the math…your problem is with the physics.
You take the idea that there should be a temperature difference to “drive” energy through the system when the plates are together, which leads you to falsely conclude the situation when radiation takes over should be the same. Then you compare the formulas, etc.
But the formula for conduction is applied through the plates, the formula for radiation applies between them. To understand the difference, picture a more realistic, thick plate, made of aluminium, with a heat source in the middle. There would be a temperature gradient from the middle to the outside edges of the plate. Now split the plate into three equal sections, so you have three thinner plates, the central one containing the heat source. According to your physics, the middle one now heats up due to the radiation from the non-heated plates!
In reality, the temperature gradient through the plates means that at the moment of separation, the side of each plate facing each other has the same temperature, or only an infinitesimal difference between them…and this is only now equivalent to the formula for radiation between the plates at the same temperature.
Thinking that splitting a plate into three makes the middle part warmer is a bit “special”.
Many words, that in the end can be summarized as a feeling of discomfort with our result that the heated plate warms upon separation.
A feeling that is not supported by any math, formulas, or physics, which we can offer.
NONE of your words explain why radiation thru vacuum should be just as efficient at transferring energy as conduction through metal.
That still makes 0 sense, and yet that is at the center of your claims.
“According to your physics, the middle one now heats up due to the radiation from the non-heated plates!”
Misrepresentation supremo.
As explained ad nauseum, it heats because vacuum is a far better insulator than metal!
#2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-439875
Nope, I only see your normal confusion there.
If I can’t be left to talk to Gordon and/or Svante, without this weird, desperately obsessed little yapping thing following me around, then I guess I’ll just have to restart the discussion in the comments under the newest article. No skin off my nose. More people will likely be reading there anyway.
Yes find an audience that is accepting of BS. Try Sophists.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2020-0-76-deg-c/#comment-441954
How did you happen to come in contact with that site?
I had no idea the first experiment had been posted there. I forget who first mentioned Hughes’ experiments (I think maybe MF). That led me to find the first one. I wasn’t the first to mention the second experiment either.
In any case, where they are posted is irrelevant. The original GPE thought experiment was just posted on a blog, and Swanson’s experiment was only posted in the comments here.
A plate is in a dark room, warmed to the rooms ambient temperature, 80 F. Is this temperature mostly the result of conduction?
Assuming yes, what happens if you suspend the plate within a vacuum…… warmer, cooler, no change?
snape…”Assuming yes, what happens if you suspend the plate within a vacuum warmer, cooler, no change?”
That’s a good question. Let’s presume the plane is suspended in a container with air at 80F, with no means of heating it. Then you suck all the air out so fast that the atoms making up the plate have little time to respond. I would guess that the plate would maintain 80F for whatever time then begin to cool by radiation.
The question is, how much would it cool? I asked that question the other day while ruminating. Obviously, it would be virtually impossible to isolate the container from the room, still at 80F, and I am guessing heat will enter by conduction to the inner wall then radiate to the suspended plate. Some heat would enter via the suspension mechanism.
It would make an interesting experiment but a horror show to do quality control.
If you did the same experiment with a container is space, away from any solar radiation, I am guessing the suspended plate would radiate itself down to 0K or so.
Just to be clear….. the vacuum chamber is located within the 80 degree room.
@Gordon
Another variable I forgot to mention….. what is the vacuum chamber made of? If glass, then it is mostly opaque to infrared.
The glass would warm to around 80 degrees through direct contact with the air in the room. It would radiate from both sides, the inner side heating the suspended plate.
snape…”The glass would warm to around 80 degrees through direct contact with the air in the room. It would radiate from both sides, the inner side heating the suspended plate”.
That’s what I thought. Theoretically, the plate inside a vacuum should eventually lose all of its heat due to radiation, but obviously that’s not the case on our planet. In a non-ideal case such as you describe, there has to be heat entering the vacuum by radiation via the walls and directly by leakage through support structures.
“there has to be heat entering the vacuum by radiation via the walls”
This from a commenter who likes to shout: “EMR IS NOT HEAT”.
ball4…”there has to be heat entering the vacuum by radiation via the walls
This from a commenter who likes to shout: EMR IS NOT HEAT.”
That’s correct. Heat is converted to EM and EM to heat, neither can exist during a radiative heat transfer at the same time. So, the outside of the chamber heats to room temperature, heat is transferred through the walls then converted to radiation on the inside. That radiated energy can warm the suspended plate if the plate is cooler and absorbs the EM.
So once it is pointed out, Gordon then corrects himself from:
“there has to be heat entering the vacuum by radiation via the walls”
to:
“there has to be heat converted to EM entering the vacuum by radiation via the walls.”
Good job Gordon.
Now drop the useless, imprecise heat term: “there has to be (wall thermodynamic internal energy U) converted to EM entering the vacuum by radiation from the walls.”
That radiation also “enters” (Gordon term) the suspended opaque plate. If the opaque plate is defined as a black body then ALL the radiation at every frequency incident on the plate “enters” & is emitted by the plate at room temperature equilibrium.
Nate has constructed a black body radiation generator!
NB: the only way the photon gas in Nate’s room temperature vacuum container can come to equilibrium is by interaction with mass at the suspended plate and at the walls. The incoherent photons do not equilibrate with each other as would a container filled with ideal gas (the gas molecules then themselves possess mass).
“Theoretically, the plate inside a vacuum should eventually lose all of its heat due to radiation, but obviously thats not the case on our planet.”
Theoretically and in reality, the plate should reach the temperature of its surroundings, the walls.
That requirement should guide your reasoning. In this case with vacuum, that means incoming and outgoing radiation from plate must sum to 0.
And the RHTE agrees, 0 = sigma(eTp^4 -eTw^4)
nate…”Theoretically and in reality, the plate should reach the temperature of its surroundings, the walls”.
It’s more complicated than that. It depends on the initial temperature of the plate and the walls.
“And the RHTE agrees, 0 = sigma(eTp^4 -eTw^4)”
That equation does not apply to the walls in a vacuum. It’s an expression of a heated body radiating to a cooler gaseous atmosphere surrounding it. It’s actually an expression of heat dissipation, not radiation per se.
The equation did not come from Stefan-Bolzmann, all they ever wrote was I = sigma.T^4. The S-B equation applies only to a body emitting to an environment. It gives the intensity of the radiated energy. Furthermore, it should not be written as you have written it. It should be written:
I = sigma.e.A.(Th – Tc)
Yours suggests a two way transfer of heat whereas the one I have just written describes a body radiating into an environment that sets up a temperature gradient between the emitter and the absorber.
There’s a big difference. The original S-B came from an electrically heated platinum filament wire between temperatures 700C and 1500C radiating into a room presumably at room temperature. There’s no way you could apply your equation so the room air molecules was radiating back to the filament wire.
“It depends on the initial temperature of the plate and the walls.”
Not if by “it” Gordon means final equilibrium temperature. Snape’s suspended plate can start at any temperature.
If plate warmer than the walls, plate radiates away (and conducts through the suspension mechanism) to the walls. If plate cooler than the walls, plate absorbs radiation (and conducts through the suspension mechanism) from the walls. The processes eventually arriving at photon gas & plate equilibrium temperature with the walls, amount of time dependent on enthalpy considerations.
Nate’s RHTE nonequilibrium state can simply be plus or minus depending on the initial temperatures until at steady state equilibrium with constant temperature RHTE=0.
“The equation did not come from Stefan-Bolzmann”
Nate’s RHTE eqn. is the 1LOT for two body (plate & wall) S-B radiation in a vacuum.
“That equation does not apply to the walls in a vacuum.”
Of course it does, that is exactly a situation it is intended to apply.
Happy to look at any source that agrees with you Gordon.
“It’s an expression of a heated body radiating to a cooler gaseous atmosphere surrounding it.”
It applies to any surfaces, not just gases.
“It’s actually an expression of heat dissipation, not radiation per se.”
It is an expression for heat loss via radiation.
Here is a cite
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c1
nate…”The thermal energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by…”
Nonsense, Utter modernist rubbish. The S-B equation, originally derived by Stefan was based on an electrically-heated platinum filament wire. The temperature varied from about 700C to about 1500C, a totally real-world scenario. If the temperature range is different the T^4 factor has to be modified.
This nonsense about blackbodies is theoretical garbage being foisted on us by unscrupulous modern twits. That filament wire was radiating to a cooler environment and there could be no back-radiation from that environment.
The real equation you got wrong is found here under the heading Net Radiation Loss.
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.sigma.(Th^4 – Tc^4).Ah
This makes far more sense than claiming the hot body and the cooler environment are exchanging radiation and heat.
“there could be no back-radiation from that environment.”
“the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as”
Gordon, your silly comment is totally inconsistent. If there really were “no back-radiation from that environment” your Tc^4 term would be zero and you wouldn’t need to use the word “net”.
Your eqn. is 1LOT which makes far more sense than your writing the hot body and the cooler environment are not exchanging radiation.
“The real equation you got wrong ”
You lost me there, since it is the same equation.
Then you quote Hyperphysics and say it is “Nonsense, Utter modernist rubbish.”
But then you quote your own cite and it says exactly the same thing!
Nate,
That seems right. So to my original question….
[what happens if you suspend the plate within a vacuum warmer, cooler, no change?]
….. the answer is no change?
Yep, no change.
This plate IS in equilibrium with its surroundings.
No T differences. No heat flows.
Unlike the GPE situation, where there definitely is heat flowing continuously.
Thats the thing DREMT seems unable to grasp–not every situation is equilibrium.
…and how is the temperature of the room maintained at 80 F?
Its in Key West..
But the plate inside cares not a whit.
The reason I ask, Snape (and Snape only), is that for the room to remain at 80 F of course implies a heat input that is not being considered.
We’ve been told before that wherever there is a system with a heat input, there cannot be equilibrium, only steady state…
If the room is warmer than its immediate surroundings, then a heat source is required for it to stay at 80 F.
If the room is in Key West, and the outside temperature is also 80 F, then the room obviously doesnt need to be heated.
Right, so you get the point I’m making…?
(P.S: Key West needs a heat source to be 80 F itself)
OMG, The heat transfer problem is posed with a fixed 80 degree boundary condition!
That is the assigned problem. It doesnt state, nor needs to state what goes on outside the boundary.
One can imagine it is sitting in a giant vat of 80 degree oil, or at the center of the Moon, or that there are exotic dancers out there, or whatever, but that would be silly and quite pointless.
Now solve it, or change your major to communications!
(P.S: Key West needs a heat source to be 80 F itself)
Usually true, because the atmosphere has a lapse rate. During an inversion though, the temperature at 2 meters altitude might be the same as the layer directly above it. In which case the lower layer would likely stay at 80 F without being heated.
“If the room is warmer than its immediate surroundings, then a heat source is required for it to stay at 80 F.”
So then you have heat flows.
I have no problem with the situation you describe being an equilibrium problem.
Historically, going by what they have argued before, others should.
That’s all I’m saying…
And you have a heat source (BP) that is not hot (same as GP).
Brilliant!
”
So then you have heat flows.”
Well, no heat flows are specified, and no temperature gradients are in the problem as given.
So nope, there are no heat flows in the assigned problem.
“And you have a heat source (BP) that is not hot (same as GP).
Brilliant!”
You can think of it as being infinitesimally warmer, if it helps you sleep at night.
Or you can just solve the problem correctly and find the actual temperatures instead of guessing. And lose no sleep over it!
Infinitesimally warmer means an infinitesimal rate of heat transfer.
That’s right. You think there needs to be 200 W heat transfer between the plates when separated. There doesn’t. Radiative heat transfer is not conductive heat transfer. The plates radiate based on their temperature and emissivity, so 400 W leave the system even at 244 K…244 K…244 K. Energy can only flow one way (from the electrical supply to the blue plate, through the blue plate, to the green plates, then out to space). Energy cannot flow from space, through the green plates, back to the blue, convert itself back to electrical energy, then flow back down the wire.
Assuming that the blue plate is infinitesimally warmer than the GPs makes this a little easier for some to understand and follow.
“You think there needs to be 200 W heat transfer between the plates when separated.”
Yes! After all the GP is at 244K, well above the temperature of its surroundings, space.
Therefore, as YOU just stated, a heat source is required to keep it at that higher temperature than its surroundings!
Why? Because it is losing 200 W of heat to its surroundings.
Theefore it is PLAINLY OBVIOUS that the heat source needs to supply it with 200 W of heat.
And FYI, in the case of the GP, your desire is to call the 200 W of heat, NOT HEAT, but you make no such distinction in Snapes problem.
Whether you call it heat or not, it behaves just like heat!
“Energy can only flow one way (from the electrical supply to the blue plate, through the blue plate, to the green plates, then out to space). Energy cannot flow from space, through the green plates, back to the blue, convert itself back to electrical energy, then flow back down the wire.”
Actually energy CAN do so. Obviously DREMT does not understand how radio antennas work.
…but not in the case of the GPE, so your comment is as irrelevant as it is obnoxious.
DREMT, the objects in the GPE are radio antennas though not so efficient. Try to study up on antenna theory to discover how energy CAN flow from space, through the green plates, back to the blue, convert itself back to electrical energy, then flow back down the wire.
T-roll on, Ball4…
DREMT’s comment is as irrelevant as it is obnoxious.
T-roll on, Ball4.
Now I get what you are saying Svante.
D claims if an object is warmer than its surroundings, as the GP clearly is, then it “a heat source is required” to stay at that temperature.
And there will be ” heat flows”.
Both true!
But he inexplicably thinks NO heat flows from the BP, the heat source, to the GP.
Very confusing indeed.
“If the room is warmer than its immediate surroundings, then a heat source is required for it to stay at 80 F.”
Let’s get back to this, Snape. If you have heat flowing into the room to keep it at 80 F, then there is heat flow across the boundary. I have been told before that if there is such a heat flow, then the problem cannot be an equilibrium problem.
Seems that was erroneous information.
“If you have heat flowing into the room to keep it at 80 F, then there is heat flow across the boundary”
Key word is ‘if’. As in if A then B. In Snape problem there is no A given in the problem. Therefore no B.
But main point is your huge contradiction with yourself, when you claim NO heat is flowing from the heat source. BP, to the GP yet GP is at a higher temp than its surroundings and you say therefore that ‘heat flow’ is required.
Nate, Snape: You two, goaded by DREMT, are discovering the hard way why the heat term should be retired from thermodynamics.
Heat cannot flow because heat does not exist in a real natural body. No matter how hard you two try to give heat corporeal existence, you will fail and DREMT will get the last laugh. Try commenting exclusively with the energy term and you two will get the last laugh from DREMT’s incompetence in this field.
T-roll on, Ball4.
Ball4, you have a particular semantic issue with the standard thermo definition of heat. Most scientists and engineers are fine with using the standard definitions.
Competent scientists and engineers (like Dr. Spencer) use the heat term consistent with Clausius original defn. and do not get into semantic issues as is so obvious around here. It is possible to do so but the easier way is just don’t comment using the term “heat”. Accomplished students of thermo. will more likely end up on the correct side of the debate doing so & will make them think through why Clausius appropriately defined the term as he did.
Give it a try, in dropping the term no heat will be harmed as heat does not exist in natural objects. Something that does not have corporeal existence cannot flow between objects except in the imagination.
“The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, as heat and as thermodynamic work, and relating them to a function of a body’s state, called Internal energy.”
You are an outlier.
What the writer means is distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, 1) by virtue of a temperature difference and 2) as thermodynamic work.
Temperature can be measured; heat cannot be measured (as heat doesn’t have corporeal existence) & temperature is NOT heat. Heat can be anything Nate or any commenter imagines heat to be & so semantic issues always pop up. Go with Clausius’ definition of heat, be consistent with it, and you cannot ever be wrong or get into semantic fights as you display around here.
“What the writer means”
I assume what the writer means is what he or she said, while you assume the writer means what you think…
“temperature is NOT heat.” Yes and no one is saying that.
“Heat can be anything Nate or any commenter imagines heat to be & so semantic issues always pop up. ”
Nope. I am only using it as it is defined. No imagination involved.
I see nothing wrong with science defining a word, Heat, the way it wants to.
There have long been courses and textbooks on Heat Transfer. I dont know how it can be true that Heat is an imaginary il-defined concept.
“Temperature can be measured; heat cannot be measured”
Nonsense. It is measured all the time in calorimeters.
If heat cant be measured than neither can energy.
And ALL those modern textbooks (no matter the title) will explain heat does not have corporeal existence in any object.
“I am only using (heat) as (heat) is defined.”
No. You are using Nate’s definition of heat, the one Nate likes to imagine & read about. DREMT uses DREMT’s defn. that DREMT likes & neither of you are using Clausius’ defn. No one can prove either of you wrong OR right experimentally as Clausius knew from experiment heat has no corporeal existence with which to experiment.
“(Heat) is measured all the time in calorimeters.”
Calorimeters measure enthalpy changes. If you really were using Clausius defn. of heat you would be enabled to understand why heat cannot be measured.
Better: And ALL those modern textbooks (no matter the title) will explain heat does not have corporeal existence in any object.
“I am only using (heat) as (heat) is defined.”
No. You are using Nate’s definition of heat, the one Nate likes to imagine & read about. DREMT uses DREMT’s defn. that DREMT likes & neither of you are using Clausius’ defn. No one can prove either of you wrong OR right experimentally as Clausius knew from experiment heat has no corporeal existence with which to experiment.
“(Heat) is measured all the time in calorimeters.”
Calorimeters measure enthalpy changes. If you really were using Clausius defn. of heat you would be enabled to understand why heat cannot be measured.
“No. You are using Nate’s definition of heat, the one Nate likes to imagine & read about.”
Not sure why you’re being such an asshole here, Ball4.
Where am I saying heat exists in a material? Nowhere.
Where have I used my own made-up definition? Nowhere.
Heat is transferred thermal energy.
It is Q in the 1LOT and the diagrams and equations describing the Carnot Heat Equation.
Q makes it possible to analyze the efficiency of heat engines, refrigerators, furnaces.
Q is universally understood, and it can be written into universally understood and widely used equations.
It is well-defined.
Get over it.
“Where am I saying heat exists in a material?”
I quickly found a few Nate comments on that, for instance at 5:23pm:
“D claims if an object is warmer than its surroundings, as the GP clearly is, then it “a heat source is required” to stay at that temperature. And there will be “heat flows”. Both true!”
1:56pm: “Non-zero heat flows”
8:38pm: “The plates can only reach equilibrium when the supply of heat is turned off”
So, according to Nate, heat can flow from material in which heat does not exist, heat can be sourced from an object in which heat does not exist, and heat can even be supplied from material in which heat does not exist. Confusing? Yes. Lead to semantic issues? Yes.
If Nate would simply go with Clausius’ definition of heat exclusively then Nate would understand all this and comment more precisely on thermodynamics of the atm. Easier to just drop the heat term and use enthalpy, or in some cases energy, and Nate cannot go wrong, invoke semantic issues or comment confusedly.
The enthalpy changes in a material can be measured. Temperature can be measured. One can be experimentally proven right or wrong with those terms. The sign of the measurement tells which way the thermal energy in the material changed, increase or decrease.
If Nate wants to remain confusing, & invoke semantic issues (like incompetent Gordon and DREMT), then carry on using the heat term as a noun which works way better to provoke food fights. What would this place be without food fights? Quieter, more science discussion.
NB: Modern Q is well defined as thermal energy transfer between certain objects by virtue of a temperature difference.
In each quote Im using heat as, Q, as it is commonly defined in standard physics.
I never claimed it exists as heat in material, your strawman,
Q is commonlt described as Heat as in Heat Engines.
See eg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
Your linked article states right up front: “heat or thermal energy”.
Thermal energy is all you need, dispose of heat as a noun unless intent is to confuse. Just use thermal energy which is short for therm-odynamic intern-al energy if you want to communicate accurately.
Do change heat to thermal energy * all in that article and it will be easier to understand. You may even find some misuses of heat that way (I didn’t look).
Nate, again look at your article “heat or thermal energy” statement.
Thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy is given the symbol U (by Clausius long ago).
Yet YOU write: “I”m using heat as, Q, as it is commonly defined in standard physics.”
So how can you cite an article claiming heat is U but then write heat is commonly Q and imply this makes sense?
Maybe this is how you begin to understand the almost universal confusion inherent in using the term heat as a noun. Best defn. of heat was by Clausius, use that one and poke fun at authors that misuse the heat term. Applaud authors that do not use the heat term at all, there is never added clarity invoking the term
If two or more objects are in physical contact, or are in view of each other – and are the same temperature – they are said to be in thermal equilibrium.
If two or more objects are part of a temperature gradient, and there is heat flow, then it follows that they are NOT in thermal equilibrium.
Does this mean the situation is not an equilibrium problem? Strange choice of wording but I understand the intent.
In the case of GPE, there is heat flow of 400 W as stated in the problem.
The surroundings are at 3K, to keep a heat flow of 400 W requires a thermal gradient.
Therefore, per your definitions, GPE, not an equilibrium problem.
“If two or more objects are in physical contact, or are in view of each other – and are the same temperature – they are said to be in thermal equilibrium.”
Just like in the GPE, with the plates separated, yes…and being as how there are no surroundings (just a big vacuum, the absence of surroundings), that’s that. GPE solved. Equilibrium is equilibrium.
Equilibrium is equilibrium indeed, but per YOUR earlier definition was
“Two physical systems are in thermal equilibrium if there is no net flow of thermal energy between them when they are connected by a path permeable to heat”
Since we ALL agree that the BP and GP have a net flow of 200 W between them (whether we call it heat or not!), they are NOT in equilibrium, per your stated definition.
Thats that.
So, since DREMTs and our agreed-upon definition of ‘equilibrium’ does not fit the plates in the GPE problem, can we put that ‘equilibrium’ issue to bed?
@Nate
The system comes to a steady temperature when output equals input. So an equilibrium problem from this point of view.
Which problem?
The GPE problem or your plate in a vacuum problem?
In the GPE problem, at steady state, there are 3 different temperatures in the system and heat flow between these.
That cannot be equilibrium.
Im defining system to be all parts that are in thermal contact (heat can flow between them).
DREMT,
The absence of surroundings (a big vacuum) does not prevent the green plate from radiating, it just prevents the green plate from getting anything in return.
I didn’t say it “prevents the green plate from radiating”.
As you agree there is an absence of surroundings, you have already agreed my point, though, whether you understand that or not. Thanks.
Snape has an actual point that is useful, which is that nothing in the problem changes as a result of your pointless red herring point.
Heat transfer laws are no different for spacecraft than for objects in a vacuum chamber on Earth.
Radiation is emitted by warm spacecraft to space @ 3K.
Radiation is emitted by plates in vacuum chambers to walls.
If the walls are black and at 3K, the plate will behave exactly as it would in space.
Reason why NASA can use giant vacuum chambers to test spacecraft.
Which problem?
Stop trying to confuse me!
The GPE problem.
GPE cannot be in equilibrium.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2020-0-56-deg-c/#comment-445541
Snape gets it. With the plates separated, at 244 K…244 K…244 K, they are connected by a path permeable to heat, and there is no net flow of thermal energy between them. So, they are at equilibrium. No surroundings to confuse matters.
Here we go, you respond to me when you have a ‘point’ to make. You dont respond when you cannot refute what I post, then whine ‘Im not responding to him’
Here you go denying obvious reality and your own contradictions again.
“they are connected by a path permeable to heat”
Yes.
“and there is no net flow of thermal energy between them.”
FALSE. Even YOU have acknowledged that there is NET 200 W of thermal energy flowing from BP to GP.
Obviously it is ‘thermal’ since it is BB radiation generated by the thermal energy of the plate (see SB law).
Declare up is down, 8 > 13, the plates are in equilibrium.
It will not change the facts.
And lets be clear:
When you say:
“With the plates separated, at 244 K244 K244 K”
That is a PREMISE that you assume.
That can be evidence of equilibrium, but that is circular logic.
“they are connected by a path permeable to heat”
Yes, the BP and the GP are connected by a path permeable to heat.
Now if you apply continuous heat to the BP, that heat has no choice but to flow out through that permeable path.
Now equilibrium is no longer true, and the premise no longer valid.
they are connected by a path permeable to heat, and there is no net flow of thermal energy between them.
Ignore last sentence, should have been deleted
@Ball4
A downwelling IR flux of 300 w/m^2 has corporeal existence and can be measured.
An upwelling IR flux of 400 w/^2 has corporeal existence and can be measured.
The difference, an upwelling IR flux of 100 w/m^2, is commonly referred to as heat.
********
Profit:
[a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.]
Am I forbidden from using the word profit because you think it doesnt have corporeal existence??
This is the nutty argument you are making regarding the use of the word heat.
ball4…”The difference, an upwelling IR flux of 100 w/m^2, is commonly referred to as heat”.
I’d like to discuss this with you over a beer so we could swear at each other.
Heat is not the same energy as electromagnetic energy. It is an EM flux rising, not heat. Heat was lost at the surface the moment the heat was converted to IR. Furthermore, you cannot measure EM directly with a mercury thermometer.
Heat is a reference to thermal energy, an energy related to atoms and their energy content. However, the word energy means little in the world of physics unless it is used in a context. You could apply the word energy to an electric circuit but what’s the point when we already have a perfectly good word for that energy, electrical energy.
With an electric motor, where you have an electric field, a magnetic field, mechanical energy as friction, thermal energy, and gravitational energy all operating, it would become seriously confusing if all we had was the word energy to describe the effect of each type of energy.
There are no units in which to measure generic ‘energy’ until we specify the kind of energy. Heat is measured in different units than mechanical energy (work) but the scientist Joule found an equivalence. If so much mechanical work is done with a paddle turning in water, the water becomes hotter. Joule found an equivalence between the amount of work done and the amount of heat produced.
If you claimed simply that the paddle in Joule’s experiment was producing energy in the water it would be ambiguous. We know the water temperature rises because so many calories of heat have been added. Those calories are a measure of the agitation of the water molecules, which raises their kinetic energy level. Heat is that kinetic energy and that’s why it rises.
You can actually feel it!!!
The base unit of heat is the calorie and the base unit of work is the joule. The joule was derived from horsepower via the watt (1 joule/sec = 1 watt) where 1 HP = 740 watts. An early experiment had horses turning a large drill bit immersed in water and a a rudimentary relationship was found between the work done by the horses and the heat produced in the water. At that time, they only had the means to note that the water boiled.
A calorie is defined as the amount of heat (not energy per se) required to raise 1cc of water by 1C at a specific ambient temperature. A volt is the electromotive force (not energy per se) required to produce 1 amp of current through a 1 ohm resistance. The joule is defined based on mechanical energy whereas as is the watt and both can represent mechanical energy or electrical energy because we’re talking about a mass being moved, albeit in different contexts
In all my years in the electrical, electronics, and computer fields, I have seldom used the word energy or heard it used by others. We normally talk about volts, watts, and amps where the energy is implied. However, we talk a lot about heat because it can seriously burn you and can affect the longevity of components, even destroy them. We don’t mess around calling it energy, we call it what it is, heat.
When you get heat stroke, it’s not called energy stroke. When you get into a hot bath or shower you don’t talk about the energy content in the water, you talk about the type of energy involved, thermal energy.
“Am I forbidden from using the word profit because you think it doesnt have corporeal existence??”
Well put, Snape.
Snape: The difference, an upwelling IR flux of 100 w/m^2, is commonly referred to as heat.
As one commenter around here correctly screams: EMR IS NOT HEAT.
You have here a net power per m^2 calculation.
“Am I forbidden from using the word profit because you think it doesnt have corporeal existence??”
Profit is a number simply made up from the estimates of management following their accountants insistence on their using something known as GAAP (or if you are Bernie Ebbers disregard your accountants advice at your peril). So, no Snape, you are not forbidden in using the term profit as it is correctly defined by GAAP. Likewise, you are not forbidden from using the term heat as correctly defined by an acknowledged experimental expert in the field AKA Clausius.
If you want to be accurate in accounting profit & stay out of prison, then stick to GAAP according to latest FASB rules. If you want to be accurate in thermodynamics, then use Clausius as improved by subsequent theory/rules found from proper experiment.
Since Snape writes my argument to use Clausius def. of heat and stick to it is nutty, then Snape should consider commenting in a different field than climate thermodynamics. Or, you know, read up on how Clausius came to his definition experimentally.
If Snape wants to have a corporeal “thing” in accounting, then stick to analyzing the cash flow statement. Cash can be counted, exactly. Cash in the bank is tangible asset.
Gordon 7:46pm, that is one of your better epistles.
“When you get into a hot bath or shower you don’t talk about the energy content in the water, you talk about the type of energy involved, thermal energy.”
Well Gordon just wrote/talked about how “hot” it is. More technically though, yes, very good Gordon, the type of energy in the water involved is thermal (shortened form of therm-odynamic intern-al) energy. I do note Gordon avoided the word heat in that clip, that is good progress toward more accuracy in commenting on climate stuff.
A nitpick: “The base unit of heat is the calorie and the base unit of work is the joule.”
No, both of those units are derived units from SI base units adopted in science today.
The four SI base units most applicable around here in climate discussions are time (sec), length (m), thermodynamic temperature in kelvin (K) and luminous intensity in candela (cd).
Note that this intensity is per steradian which has confused Gordon in reading Planck curves (intensity on the left, ordinate) in the past. So pay attention to just what per steradian does mean.
I don’t run into the word calorie in science much anymore after the adoption of the SI system. Mostly I run into the word calorie at the gym.
If Snape, Nate, Gordon et. al. continue to use the word “heat” as a noun in climate discussions after all this effort, their intent must be to confuse the reader. If they really have the intent to communicate to, & think accurately for, the reader, then they will avoid the antiquated heat term or at very least use the term exactly as Clausius defined.
ball4…”If Snape, Nate, Gordon et. al. continue to use the word “heat” as a noun in climate discussions after all this effort, their intent must be to confuse the reader”.
Nice try, I’ll bet 99.999999999% of the world uses the term heat and that you are in the 0.000000001% who don’t, which means all 7.5 of you based on the 2017 census.
Would you care to elaborate on what that stuff is in a substance that can burn your fingers? Please don’t call it internal energy, or worse still, kinetic energy. Did you not read the part in the Clausius book in which he explained internal energy, U, as the sum of heat and work energy in a body?
Clausius used the word heat, his book being titled The Mechanical Theory of Heat. Planck used the word heat in his book. Trouble is, he also referenced it as heat radiation, as did Clausius, Stefan, and Boltzmann, who all thought heat flowed through space in some kind of aether.
We can excuse them that error since nothing was known about the quantum relationship between heat in a mass and the radiation produced by electrons in the mass. What we cannot forgive are dogmatic fools who twist the description of heat into an intangible based purely on thought experiments in warped minds.
Even Einstein succumbed to that delusionary state when he claimed, based on a thought experiment, that time can dilate. We know time is a constant defined by humans and based on the periodic motion of the planet. Even Planck acknowledged that. Was Einstein not listening…we invented time as a constant, making Newton right and Einstein wrong.
“Would you care to elaborate on what that stuff is in a substance that can burn your fingers?”
The stuff is molecules vibrating in a solid substance or moving in a gaseous substance & measured with a thermometer in degrees F high enough to do the job with on avg., as Gordon wrote, an energy related to atoms and their energy content.
“Please don’t call it internal energy, or worse still, kinetic energy.”
The stuff in the substance that burns your fingers has an avg. energy related to atoms and their energy content.
I did read the part in the Clausius book in which he explained thermodynamic internal energy, U, as the sum of heat and work energy in a body where Clausius used the word heat per his definition unlike many commenting on this blog who make up their own defn. of heat.
Time is defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
When two of these clocks are set running together and one orbits the earth and comes back to be set aside the other one, the two clocks read a different duration in seconds. Proof time is not a constant. Instead, the speed of light has been proved a constant to within precision instrument measurement error. The clocks on planetary probes return a signal where this time dilation is taken into account.
nate…”But he inexplicably thinks NO heat flows from the BP, the heat source, to the GP.
Very confusing indeed.”
You are the one who is confused. Heat cannot flow through a vacuum therefore there is no heat flow between the plates. There is a flow of electromagnetic energy, which is a different form of energy than heat. When a body radiates, heat is lost in the conversion of heat to EM, ergo, it is EM travelling through the vacuum, not heat.
Heat is lost at the radiating body and gained by a body absorbing the radiated EM. The heat loss/gain is local. Between two such bodies, the 2nd law must apply TO THE HEAT loss/gain. In other words, the heat lost by a hotter body can be transferred to a cooler body via the conversion of heat to EM and gained in a cooler body re the reverse conversion. The reverse process is not possible without considerable compensation.
WRT the 1st law, it has nothing to do with generalized energy conservation, it is all about the conservation of work, heat and internal energy. As Clausius explained, internal energy is a combination of the heat in a body and the work produced by vibrations in the atoms. He should know since the U in the 1st law came from him.
There is an argument above about the meaning of heat and temperature. Temperature is a human invention designed to measure relative levels of heat. That’s not just my opinion, the same opinion is offered by Planck in his book on heat. He states:
“164. Natural Units. All the systems of units which have hitherto been employed, including the so-called absolute C. G. S. system, owe their origin to the coincidence of accidental circumstances, inasmuch as the choice of the units lying at the base of every system has been made, not according to general points of view which would necessarily retain their importance for all places and all times, but essentially with reference to the special needs of our terrestrial civilization.
Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us”.
Heat is not a human invention as implied by Ball4, and I have several times pointed out to him the inconsistencies in his definition of heat as a measure of energy transfer. Heat is a physical phenomenon in nature and is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms. No mass, no heat.
It’s no coincidence that temperature is also a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms, the difference being that heat occurs naturally and temperature is a human invention to measure its relative level.
It is absurd to call heat a measure of energy transfer simply because heat is the energy being transferred. According to B4, heat is a measure of heat transfer.
Gordon,
“Heat cannot flow through a vacuum therefore there is no heat flow between the plates. There is a flow of electromagnetic energy, which is a different form of energy than heat. When a body radiates, heat is lost in the conversion of heat to EM, ergo, it is EM travelling through the vacuum, not heat.”
Fine, go with that, makes no difference what you call the energy while transferring. However standard textbooks disagree.
Youve got bigger fish to fry. You falsely claimed The RHTE that I used doesnt apply in a vacuum. It does.
You called it “Nonsense, Utter modernist rubbish.”
You said heat flow should be proportional Th -Tc.
Then you turned around and quoted the RHTE as being correct!
All in all a lot of rubbish, Gordon.
nate…”makes no difference what you call the energy while transferring. However standard textbooks disagree”.
I was not aiming my ‘utter rubbish’ at you but at the modern science community who have taken it open themselves to re-write modern physics based on thought experiments. I have nothing against you.
In my field, electrical engineering, modern textbooks still claim an electrical current runs from positive to negative. They admit it’s only a convention yet they justify teaching utter rubbish based on convention.
You cannot implicitly trust any textbook verbatim. From my experience, you have to compare what you learn in textooks to what you experience applying it in the real world.
I implied that heat DISSIPATION is proportional to Th-Tc. The point of my post is that heat cannot flow via radiation. It is lost when heat is converted to EM.
My point is subtle. We talk about heat flowing from a heated body into space but that is not possible. Heat is related to atoms and their energy. Unless atoms flow through space, no heat can be transferred by the atoms.
Heat transfer via radiation is indirect. Heat, as kinetic energy, in a mass, is converted to EM when electrons in the mass drop to a lower energy level. This reduces the kinetic energy, aka heat, and produced EM. That is, an electron emits EM as it drops to a lower energy level.
EM and heat are not the same thing and what we call heat flow through space is actually EM flow. There is no heat flowing physically between the BP and the GP, either way.
Einstein showed long ago that the EM in blackbody radiation behaves statistically like atoms in a gas, and this led to his photon idea.
The photons in bb radiation have a distribution of energies that depend on temperature, just like atoms in a gas.
This is why the radiation in space can be characterized as having a temperature, 3 K.
The bits of gas in space equilibrates with that radiation eventually to 3 K, just as it would if it was in contact with matter.
So space behaves just like matter at 3K.
Gordon: “According to B4, heat is a measure of heat transfer.”
No Gordon. Heat is as defined by your fav. author Clausius. Stick with Clausius defn. of heat and you cannot go wrong in field of thermodynamics. Gordon’s comments would then show a much needed improvement in accuracy.
Nate: “This is why the radiation in space can be characterized as having a temperature, 3 K.”
Background radiation in space is measured as having a brightness temperature, ~3 K
nate…”The photons in bb radiation have a distribution of energies that depend on temperature, just like atoms in a gas”.
Einstein’s photoelectric effect is not about photons, rather it is about electrons boiled off a surface due to absorbed EM. He described a work function that is the energy required to pry the electrons loose. The fact that it’s not the intensity of EM, but the frequency, that causes the electrons to eject, lends to my other theory about electrons requiring the correct frequency of EM before they are affected.
ball4…”Heat is as defined by your fav. author Clausius. Stick with Clausius defn. of heat and you cannot go wrong in field of thermodynamics”.
That’s what I am doing. He said heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. He has given a name to the particular energy in atomic motion, whether than energy is internal to the atoms, between the electron and the nucleus, or externally in a gas as entire atoms/molecules move about.
With regard to Nates point about the temperature in space, it’s due entirely to the lack of mass. Heat, and it’s measure, temperature, is dependent on mass. The temperature in any gas in a constant volume is entirely due to the pressure, which in turn is dependent on the number of atoms/molecules in the container.
Heat is not a measure of temperature per Clausius defn., Gordon.
Clausius defined heat as the total kinetic energy of atoms in a substance. That energy in joules can come about by 1) virtue of a temperature difference or 2) working.
Temperature in SI base unit K is the average kinetic energy of atoms in a substance at the location of measurement. The kelvin is defined by setting the fixed numerical value of the Boltzmann constant Kb to 1.38064910^-23 J⋅K^-1, (J = kg⋅m^2⋅s^-2), given the definition of the kilogram, the metre, and the second.
Kb to 1.38064910 x 10^-23
“Clausius defined heat as the total kinetic energy of atoms in a substance. That energy in joules can come about by 1) virtue of a temperature difference or 2) working.”
Yes, but that has since been modernized, and replaced by eg enthalpy, gibbs free energy,etc
Yes, you can eliminate that antiquated 1800s term completely and use enthalpy to enable more accurate comments & improve understanding of atm. thermodynamics.
Gordon
You and Ball4 have been blabbering for years about what you think is the correct usage of the word heat. Semantics.
[A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word or phrase,]
Some more words for the two of you to discuss:
Tedious
Trivial
Trite
Inane
Banal
Boring
snape…”You and Ball4 have been blabbering for years about what you think is the correct usage of the word heat. Semantics”.
What you call semantics has lead to a gross misinterpretation of the Stefan-Boltxmann equation and lead to a misrepresentation of the 2nd law. If you fail to grasp that heat is real and that S-B and the 2nd law treat it as real then you can get caught up in illusions that heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot and that EM can transfer heat both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
I’d hardly call that trivial since the modern hysteria about catastrophic warming/climate change is based on that misinterpretation.
Some good points Gordon in that there is substantial confusion not the casual dismissal by Snape.
But Gordon continues to be wrong about “you can get caught up in illusions that heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot and that EM can transfer heat both ways between bodies of different temperatures.”
That is no illusion as has been shown experimentally and in theory. Gordon can start to understand by considering this: do all molecules in a solid at steady temperature have the same vibrational KE? do all gas molecules in a gas at steady temperature have the same velocity?
When the answer to that consideration & realization hit both Maxwell & Boltzmann at around the same time (early 1880s iirc) they published that the 2nd law is in agreement with thermal energy can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot and that EM can transfer thermal energy both ways between bodies of different temperatures (remember Gordon: EMR IS NOT HEAT.)
The 2LOT is really an entropy law of the universe in which a system under consideration is located.
@DREMT
My dispute with Nate is even more trivial than the arguments about heat definition. I wish I could take it back.
Referring to the original green plate set up (rabett run), when the green and blue plates have reached a steady state, they are at different temperatures – so NOT in thermal equilibrium.
At the same time, the two-plate system would be in RADIATIVE equilibrium with the incoming solar (400 in, 400 out).
In other words –
Is the GPE an equilibrium problem?
No, WRT temperature. Yes, WRT radiation.
Classic Snape.
☺️
Snape, equilibrium requires no thermal energy flows between thermally connected objects ..see above definitions.
Equilibrium:
[a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced.]
When the blue plate is at a steady temperature, the energy emitted has reached an equilibrium with the energy absorbed. Same for the green plate, same for the system as a whole.
One plate is warmer than the other, so they are not in thermal equilibrium (refers only to temperature).
Sure. But look up ‘thermal equilibrium’.
So the Earth is not in thermal equilibrium with the sun, since their is heat flow between them.
The GP is not in thermal equilibrium with space, since there is heat flow between them.
The BP is not in thermal equil with the GP because there is heat flow between them.
And none are at the same temperature.
…and when the three plates are separated, at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W in, and 400 W out of the system, overall…and they are all at the same temperature.
Equilibrium.
Remember, Snape…no surroundings (you agreed).
🙂
Yes perfect circular reasoning, your specialty.
Meanwhile, you violate 1LOT, RHTE, 2LOT, and Kirchoffs Law. But thats ok with you.
Nate
Why do you think I need to look up thermal equilibrium again? I paraphrased the definition here,
[If two or more objects are in physical contact, or are in view of each other and are the same temperature they are said to be in thermal equilibrium.]
And I already agreed with you about the blue and green plates,
[One plate is warmer than the other, so they are NOT in thermal equilibrium… ]
*****
The two plate problem still involves RADIATIVE equilibrium, because the final temperature for each plate is only reached when radiation in = radiation out.
Ok, I see that ‘radiative equilibrium’ is another thing as you say.
It is not thermal equilibrium, which has net heat flow Q = 0.
DREMT has confused the two, arguing often that the plates are in thermal equilibrium, and claiming therefore that Q must be 0 between the plates, and therefore T must be equal, which is clearly FALSE.
DREMT
Could you link a diagram for the 3 plate set up?
No, I’m good, thanks.
Gordon,
This seems to be your reasoning:
a) heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a cold to hot body.
b) EM is not heat.
Therefore…… EM cannot be transferred by its own means from a cold to hot body!
******
Where is Nurse Ratched?
snape….”Gordon,
This seems to be your reasoning:
a) heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a cold to hot body.
b) EM is not heat.
Therefore…… EM cannot be transferred by its own means from a cold to hot body!”
That is correct. To understand why, you need to look at the mechanism at the atomic level that is responsible for the conversion of heat to EM. A better word for this example might be the kinetic energy of an electron because that is ultimately what heat is. However, kinetic means ‘in motion’, therefore describes any energy in motion.
As a quantum of EM contacts an electron, the electron is travelling at a very high rate around the nucleus and the number of times it revolves per second is its frequency. In a particular energy orbital it also has a certain kinetic energy, and cumulatively, all of those KEs add up to the heat of the body. The hotter the body, the higher the energy level all of the electrons maintain, and the higher the frequency of the electrons in the body.
part 2…won’t post as a whole.
That’s why hotter bodies give off EM of higher frequencies. Conversely, EM emitted by a cooler body is done from a lower energy level at a lower frequency. Electrons in orbit behave as resonant systems with their frequency being the centre frequency of the resonant state. If you supply that system with energy lacking the proper resonance conditions the energy is rejected. That explains why the spectra of certain atoms show emission and absor.p.tion in very narrow frequency/wavelength bands.
I have no idea what happens to the EM and I don’t care, all I know is that EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency, hence the intensity, to excite an electron in a hotter body. If the EM cannot be absorbed the electrons won’t jump to higher orbital energy states and the body won’t heat.
That satisfies the 2nd law and explains it.
“all I know is that EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency, hence the intensity, to excite an electron in a hotter body.”
True for bulk of Earth’s atm. but not true for the recent exoplanet found condensing out “i.e. raining” liquid iron.
To add to Gordon’s “all I know”, Gordon should learn about atm. molecules absorbing EMR less than that quantum energy needed to kick an electron up a level from base electronic energy state.
Hint: Gordon should learn about the quantum energy available in collisional activity at Earth atm. STP than can excite an atm. molecule rotational quantum level up above the base rotational energy state.
ball4…”Hint: Gordon should learn about the quantum energy available in collisional activity at Earth atm. STP than can excite an atm. molecule rotational quantum level up above the base rotational energy state”.
Exoplanets are sci-fi. No one has ever seen one visibly.
Rotation in a molecule is based on the electrons bonding the atoms together. If there is a collision, the electron shells will encounter the electron shells on the other molecule first and there will be a tendency to repel them. By collision, I don’t think they means a head-on collision between particles.
If accelerated atoms due to gravity strike a solid bottom in the container, how do they bounce off the material? Are they repelled due to the electrical fields the electrons provide or do nuclei bounce off nucleii? In that case, there would have to be elecrons dislodged in the bottom material and that should eventually cause the bottom material to wear away. Same with the walls.
There are far more important questions for me such as the reason the molecules are moving in the first place. I am reasoning that the attraction of gravity accelerates molecules/atoms to the bottom of a container then they bounce of the bottom and start behaving like a pinball machine.
ball4…True for bulk of Earths atm. but not true for the recent exoplanet found condensing out i.e. raining liquid iron”.
What do you think iron is made of, liquid or otherwise? Electrons, protons, and neutrons, if you ignore subatomic particles.
And the observed iron vapor in that exoplanet has enough collisional energy being shared to kick one of those electrons up a quantum level above electronic base level. There is not enough collisional energy in Earth’s troposphere being shared to do that. Earth’s atm. emission is mostly from de-exciting the air molecule rotational quantum levels toward base level.