The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C.
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
Right on time, the maximum impact from the current La Nina is finally being felt on global tropospheric temperatures. The global average oceanic tropospheric temperature anomaly is -0.07 deg. C, the lowest since November 2013. The tropical (20N-20S) departure from average (-0.29 deg. C) is the coolest since June of 2012. Australia is the coolest (-0.79 deg. C) since August 2014.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 15 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.12 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.79 -0.79
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 2021 should be available within 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
That is a big drop. Using the 1981-2010 baseline this is equivalent to a +0.11C anomaly. Will it go lower?
If I were a betting man. I would think there would be another drop for April followed by a slight increase as ENSO has gone neutral. Then a few more drops as ENSO has a plus 50% of returning to La Nina conditions for Summer/Winter.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/strengths/index.php
As La Nina means -0.5C or less, your link indicates only a 15% chance of returning to La Nina.
If I understand their table correctly, you sum the probabilities of each category. So FMA is 100%, dropping to 36% in MJJ but going back up to 86% for the Fall.
Target < -1.5°C < -1.0°C < -0.5°C < -0.5°C
FMA 0 2 98 100
MAM 0 2 59 61
AMJ 0 2 38 40
MJJ 0 4 32 36
JJA 1 7 34 42
JAS 2 12 39 53
ASO 4 17 44 65
SON 7 22 48 77
OND 9 26 51 86
Please let me know if I am missing something.
Thanks
The link says 51% chance of a return to La Nina
Thanks Bill, I see the error of my ways. 51% for Fall.
less, your link indicates only a 15% chance of returning to La Nina.
UAH global is tracking the NOAA ENSO index quite closely with a 6-month lag at the moment, so it should go lower or at least stay as low for a couple of months. ENSO started moving up again in December so, if the 6-month tracking pattern holds, UAH global could be back in low positives again by July.
UAH generally follows SST values with the 6 month lag. This also tends to track ENSO because ENSO is a big part of SST variability. Global SSTs had a moderate drop in October and have continued to slowly drop since then. I would expected UAH to follow.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1973/to/offset/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1973/to/offset/trend
This data is only published through January. Normally, I would expect to have already seen the data for February. No idea what this means.
Also consider the Nino 1-2 area has seen a significant cooling over the past couple of weeks. This could be a sign we are going to see La Nina conditions throughout 2021 and into 2022. That would mean more upwelling cold water and a continued drop in SSTs.
I expect much of the warming of the previous 6 years will now be lost. It now appears it was all ENSO driven. What happens next will likely depend on what happens with the PDO and AMO.
If the main ocean oscillations go negative then the Monckton pause is likely to extend longer and longer.
The average over the last 6 years is +0.26C. The average over the preceding 6 six years was 0.00C. Do you think the next 6 years will be around 0.00C? Given that the EEI is +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 (Schuckmann 2020) I seriously doubt the average will be 0.00C or even 0.26C.
6 years? you are talking weather not climate.
Nobody can predict the weather out more than a few weeks. You have a far far better chance though of predicting the climate say warming for your entire working career and be right, coincidentally.
No disagreement here. I didn’t pick the 6 year period though. That was from Richard M.
The 6 recent years (into the first half of 2020) have been a +PDO. Prior to that was 8 years of -PDO. Overall, the 21st century has been fairly balanced as far as the PDO is concerned. It looks like we could be moving back into a -PDO regime.
Your EEI was recently eviscerated on WUWT. Sorry.
You mean the WUWT that predicted thins in 2016?
“UK’s topsy-turvy climate is in for a chilly twist within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger “substantial cooling”. Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come. This cocktail of climate threats, paired with “hasty climate policies”, could mean “rolling blackouts” in the UK over the next few years, plunging the country into long period of darkness.”
The same WUWT that said this in 2012:
“Over the last 10 years or so as new data have accumulated the general trend and likely future course of climate change has become reasonably clear. The earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer. The major natural factors controlling climate change have also become obvious.”
Or this in 2008:
“The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!”
That WUWT?
the problem with predicting cooling is clearly there are long term sources of natural climate change that we don’t have a good handle of what the causes are.
Akasofu drew out his view of a long term cycle (recovery from the LIA) and superimposed on it shorter multidecadal oscillation.
Very clearly all that exists and is not explained by anthropogenic emissions. But we can’t even predict ENSO yet and we have some good experience with it because of the mean life of an ENSO event is somewhere between one and two years and it has a definite random -like quality to its frequency. Its randomness seems to form our concept of a Pacific multi-decadal oscillation. This is associated with bunches of ENSO events with a single sign with events of a different sign less common. Akasofu, a scientist who rose to the top of the field in his specialties, worked extensively with the dynamics of the ocean in areas where the PDO signature is formed and the Arctic. Being the head of an institution within the umbrella of an Alaskan university these were the things on the minds of Alaskans as they have great economic impacts on activities originating in Alaska.
We already went through decades of climate science ignoring these effects to now they incorporate them to try to explain why models aren’t working out. But that is just an exercise common in science of writing paper that really has little data to support it that can lead to some actual investigation to obtain an answer.
Meanwhile all the amateurs and newbs immediate wrap their arms around anything that comes out that fits their belief system.
The big problem with predicting long term cooling is the positive planetary energy imbalance.
Predicting is easier than betting:
https://notrickszone.com/join-the-climate-bet-for-charity/
That’s quite unexpected coming from NTZ. I have no objections using a composite of UAH and RSS. In fact, I track this composite quite closely. It is +0.1766C/decade +/- 0.0063. I’ll be surprised if those on the cooling side of the bet actually pay up though.
bdgwx says:
The big problem with predicting long term cooling is the positive planetary energy imbalance.
———————————-
Dang thats funny bdgwx. The positive planetary energy imbalance is a plug figure after assuming the heat was disappearing into the ocean. Before that it was an assumption the ARGO buoys were leaking. Couldn’t find any leaking buoys so they mixed ARGO data with the older XBT data and part of the missing heat was found, so they plugged in an energy imbalance for what they couldn’t create a hypothesis for. I mean the whole thing is built on a house of cards and they can’t just go around making stuff up as that would expose what they are doing. Can’t have both an imbalance plug and cooling because you lose some of the hypothesized warming if you do that.
bdgwx says:
I’ll be surprised if those on the cooling side of the bet actually pay up though.
———————–
they are all deplorables right bdgwx?
“missing heat was found, so they plugged in an energy imbalance for what they couldnt create a hypothesis for. I mean”
More conspiracy theories from the denialist blogosphere, that faux skeptics here are completely unskeptical of.
bill,
Heat isn’t “disappearing” into the ocean. It is getting taken up by the ocean. The ocean takes up a lot of the excess heat/energy (~90%) because it is very efficient at absorbing both SW and LW radiation and because it has a large thermal mass. The most comprehensive analysis of the planetary energy imbalance is from Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj). I looks pretty robust to me.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve never called anyone a deplorable or used any derogatory name against them nor do I think anyone is beneath me or deserving of such a name. You or anyone else are free to call me whatever you want though.
Richard M: Your EEI was recently eviscerated on WUWT. Sorry.
It’s not my EEI. It is from Schuckmann et al.
If you have a peer reviewed publication which comes to a substantially different conclusions by all means post it.
You need to understand the complexity of the situation. Energy imbalance is essentially unrealized feedback. If heat is going into the ocean it may or may not currently being expressed as a temperature. The complexity of this problem led researchers to ignore the issue and assumed that the ocean caught up in 7 years. At the time feedbacks weren’t known. I don’t see how that situation has changed any except that warming hasn’t kept up with models. One explanation can be ocean take up at a rate higher than expected. But that doesn’t mean the ocean wasn’t warming before it just wasn’t estimated. So now it is suspected that the ocean is warming in general. JMA has an estimate. But the middle half of the ocean is estimated to be a hodge podge of leaking buoys and thus insertion of old technology XBTs to bring the ocean warming rate up to expectations robbing the atmosphere of its warming quota.
The bottom third of the ocean isn’t even measured. We don’t know if its cooling down there or warming down there. The little investigation we have done has shown both its cooling in places and warming in other places. And there may not be a lot we can do for a long time to really know what is going on.
Meanwhile you get from Schuckmann and Hansen exactly what they have always done, namely provide the best possible rationalization they can think of to explain a problem away with the original Hansen theory. Nothing wrong with that. They are just defending a point of view. I have said repeatedly I like James Hansen. I think he is honest. I also think he is a nut, but I like lots of nuts. I am more interested in integrity. Same thing for Schuckmann when she tossed Argo buoys for leaking. She didnt try to hide what she did. She came right out in her paper and said what she did. Her rationale was they were reading colder than she thought they should be.
I understand the complexity and I know nobody can explain what is really going on, quite simply because there is a big distrust in all the direct measurements and as a consequence the assumed ocean warming rate affected by squishy, quantitative wise, continental uplift prompts adjustments in tidal gauge readings resulting in an ocean expanding too fast for it to be cooling. And how would it be cooling? The same way it always has! The ocean is cooler than the surface atmosphere its wrapped in. The ocean average temp is below 4C and the atmosphere as we know is 15C. And the core of the earth isnt an escape route for heat so the cold is undoubted down welling in the high latitudes to make up for all the heat it expresses elsewhere.
This could be a major climate stabilization system with ice sheets that insulate the ocean surface melting back and accelerating cold water into the bottom depths. That water is very highly saline and very cold. Its saline because ultimately its the brines that sink and the fresh water that floats.
We simply dont know what the net is. For every bucket going down some bucket must surface. We dont know if the ocean is warming or cooling. JMA says its warming but thats from scanty data and scanty data only in the top 2/3rds of the ocean. Worse it comes from essentially those modeled ideas of how much continents are uplifting to suppress tide gauge readings and adjust the rate sea level is rising upwards. Again no crimes here just folks expressing their points of view. To learn this stuff you have to dive deep into the reference material.
After another gish gallop of imagined ‘facts’ from the mind of Bill we arrive at:
“We dont know if the ocean is warming or cooling.”
Yet another thing that science understands quite well (The ocean IS warming ),
but Bill is thoroughly ignorant about, thus, WE cannot possibly know such things.
Minor technical issues that arose in the massive Argo project become ‘major’ and cancelling, in the imagination of denialists like Bill.
We have loads of measurements that call BS on Bill, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
Nate knows what his daddy tells him only.
I know what science has evidence for.
bill, Are you using “daddy” as a euphemism for evidence?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
bill, Are you using “daddy” as a euphemism for evidence?
————————————
Nope its a euphemism for getting an education and then never putting it to good use.
For the third month in sequence, the Tokyo Climate Center produces an outlook with positive ENSO values (10, 20, 20%):
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Meanwhile, the La Nina forecast was reduced from 100 down to 10 %.
This is certainly not a hint on any La Nina revival later in the year.
J.-P. D.
Imo, we will see a long La Nina as sunspots will favor the northern hemisphere of the sun for around the next 17 years. In the near term the next La Nina should drop to below -2C and last into 2022. This current solar cycle is very likely to remain a weak cycle.That in itself will lead to cooler temps. The next La Nina will drive global temps into minus territory. It will be a big strike against the agw theory.
If you say so, goldminor, if you say so.
I prefer to trust in JMA’s very long experience: Japan is, like is Australia, highly affected by ENSO signals.
J.-P. D.
It will be interesting to see what happens as there has been a change over the last couple of months that is similar to what happens prior to El Nino events. I suspect this is what drove the JMA prediction.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
However, in the last two weeks cold water upwelling appeared and that is what generally precedes La Nina events.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Being just a very simple amateur weather observer, can any one tell me where I can purchase a thermometer which can show a temp change of 0.11 degrees C?
If I breathe on my one it shows a change of 1 Degree.
Give me a break!!!
Patrick,
The current US birthrate is 1.73 babies per woman.
We can’t and probably shouldnt even try to measure 0.73 of a baby.
OTOH, if there is a long-term rise in the birthrate of 0.1 or 0.2, that is significant for the country.
Thats the magic of averaging.
Yes the logic is that reading errors on whether it was all whole babies that were being born isn’t likely an issue. e.g. no half babies or 3/100th babies were observed.
Guess that went over Nate’s head. The rule of thumb standard is don’t report results at a finer level of accuracy than the data you are averaging.
For babies the individual data point is to an unlimited number of decimal points. Each baby will be no more or no less than 1.000000000000000 babies. Thus reporting 1.73 babies per woman isn’t an issue.
But averaging temperature readings that are simply integers 20,15,17 etc. The computed average is most likely between 16 and 18 degrees if you had no other information. A lot of thermometers read tenths but I suppose that might not be universal.
“The rule of thumb standard is don’t report results at a finer level of accuracy than the data you are averaging.”
Got a source?
Of course not. Because there is no such rule.
No-ones reading thermometers here. It’s a couple of satellites reading microwave radiation at various frequencies, using complicated formulae to convert this to a temperature for various areas of space, then using another equation to estimate the temperature for the lower troposphere, then aggregating all these values to give an estimate for the global average, and then averaging all the daily global averages to get a monthly average.
How accurate this is could be debated, but the precision can be a lot more than 1 degree.
Bellman et al,
Thanks for your explanations. The point I tried to make was is it not ridiculous to be measuring temperatures down to 2 or 3 decimals
no matter by what means they are measured? Could anyone notice?
measurement uncertainty for satellite readings is certainly smaller than for the monstrous mishmash of dropping stations and dramatic adjustments to past decades hat GISS has morphed into
although satellites also introduces other uncertainties such as the exact orbital position, etc, which have been debated in the literature
still, satellites can probably be trusted within .1 degrees, at least wrt to decadal trends
TallDave,
No, I’m sorry that’s not correct.
GISS: https://tinyurl.com/4tmprfeh
Measurement uncertainty for GISS is +/- 0.05C. This is true for other station datasets as well. Refer to BEST (https://tinyurl.com/3jcutohd) for another example.
RSS: https://tinyurl.com/4kk999yu
Measurement uncertainty for RSS is +/- 0.15C. This is likely true for UAH as well though I know of no rigorous uncertainty analysis like what we have for RSS and GISS
The uncertainty in the decadal trends is pretty low for all kinds of datasets. The real question is what kind of bias is accompanying these datasets? Keeping in mind that surface datasets do not measure the same thing as satellite datasets we still see that UAH is a significant outlier relative to the others.
bdgwx,
“Measurement uncertainty for GISS is +/- 0.05C”
lol sure, that’s why so many past temperatures been changed by up to a degree that just since 1999
realistically, measurement uncertainty for GISS is more than a degree and probably closer to 2-3 given all the massaging… see the many many papers on the subject, you cannot average away error
satellites are again debated in the literature, one paper barely scratches the surface
TallDave,
Where are you seeing that GISTEMP global mean surface temperatures have changed by 1C since 1999?
Also, understand that in this context the uncertainty is aleatoric. There is epistemic uncertainty which I briefly I touched on above. This includes systematic bias like would be the case when GISS was using GHCN-M data that had not yet had station moves, time of observation, and instrument change biases corrected. GISS started using the corrected GHCN-M dataset in the early 2000’s I think. This lead to a large change in the global mean surface temperature provided by GISS.
Also, understand that temperature records get incorporated into the various repositories with some lag. This lag can be months, years, or even decades. I run the GISTEMP code daily and I get different result each time because the data repositories are constantly assimilating new observations. This is expected and desired. We want observations to be included in the underlying repositories regardless of their age. For example, GISS switch to GHCNv4 in 2019. GHCNv4 now includes ~27,000 stations instead of the ~7400 stations that existed in GHCNv3 due in part to the digitization of old records. We want this kind of thing to be happening. It’s a good thing.
I’ve never seen a GISS even remotely close to 1C though.
Yes I seriously doubt 1C also. Maybe .5C
lol again the colossal stupidity
ffs just google GISS adjustments
Heller and Watts alone have publicly documented dozens of such changes to GISS temps far in excess of .05
Zeke was even asked about one from the 1930s
“we know the temperature within .05 but we changed it by 10-20 times that”
lol in fact at this point you’d be quite hard-pressed to find very many values that have NOT been adjusted by more than .05
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/thirteen-years-of-nasa-data-tampering-in-six-seconds/
The animation above shows four versions of GISS 1930-1999 US temperatures from 1999, 2001, 2012, and 2013. NASA has repeatedly tampered with the data to hide the decline in US temperatures since the 1930s. Each successive alteration makes the past cooler and the present warmer.
at some point this is just Orwellian
lol there are dozens of posts like these, giyf… yes GISS readings have been changed by as much as a degree
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/
—-
Without getting into semantics, Id like to ask Zeke these simple questions:
What is the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 today?
What was it a year ago?
What was it ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
What was it in late 1936, when all the data had been first compiled?
We already know the answers to questions 1 and 2 from my posting here, and they are 76.43F and 77.4F respectively, so Zeke really only needs to answer questions 3 and 4.
——-
.05? rotflmao
lol did the red and blue lines shift by more than .05?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
Patrick, Yeah, those 2 or 3 decimal points do matter. Those decimals represent degree days where crops can be grown.
A drop of 0.1 anomaly might mean 1 day less for crops to ripen and eventually that means crops don’t get picked.
During Mini Ice Age lots of land that had been marginal then failed completely leading to famine enough for Europe to eventually lose half its population.
So yeah it matters and we would notice.
TallDave,
0.05C is not equivalent to 1.00C.
NASA does not tamper with data. The only adjust they make is for UHI. It is GHCN that adjusts data. These adjustments are necessary to correct for station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, etc. The GHCN repository is constantly incorporating observations. As a result a the GISTEMP output constantly changes as well. All of this is completely transparent and open for examination.
You can download the GISTEMP source code here. https://tinyurl.com/8fxnks9m
You can download the GHCN-M source code here. https://tinyurl.com/ev56dvk
GISS’ global mean temperature has changed by 0.05C from one version to another. A big change occurred when GISS switched from the QCU to the QCF file in the early 2000’s. Other minor changes occur to the incorporation of past observations not previously contained in the ERSST or GHCN-M repositories. None of the changes have been fraudulent or inappropriate.
It should also be noted that neither Watts nor Heller produce a global mean temperature dataset that is significantly different than GISS, NOAA, Had.CRUT, Cowntan&Way, Copernicus, JMA, many others.
I should also point out that at least in regards to Heller I frequently cannot reproduce his graphs. When I track things down, which itself can be difficult since he does not always cite sources, I often find that his graphs have been photoshopped incorrectly. Sometimes it looks as if they’ve been made up.
You had 4 posts there in succession. I’m not sure which point you want to focus on, but I’d be more than happy to dive deeper into anyone them if I have not adequately addressed them. We can analyze one of Heller’s graphs if you want too.
bill said: Yes I seriously doubt 1C also. Maybe .5C
I’ve never seen an annual mean change by 0.5C. I have seen them change by 0.05C though.
lol totally unresponsive trolling, again
gave you numerous examples of far larger adjustments than .01
you clearly know nothing about GISS, there are literally DOZENs of documented adjustments, not just UHI
TallDave said: gave you numerous examples of far larger adjustments than .01
0.01 is not the same as 1.00.
TallDave said: you clearly know nothing about GISS, there are literally DOZENs of documented adjustments, not just UHI
Maybe you an help me out then.
The source code can be downloaded here (https://tinyurl.com/8fxnks9m) with a brief summary of the steps and references to official methods publications here (https://tinyurl.com/5my2zuw2).
Can you provide a list of all the adjustments GISS makes?
Or how about just 12 of the “literally DOZENs”?
“Sometimes it looks as if theyve been made up”
lol wow desperate, but ok if you don’t like Heller or Watts try McIntyre or for that matter GISS itself
in fact your thesis is so trivially easy to prove you can use any public source you like from 1999 or before
then you just have show that none of the published values for monthly temps have ever changed by more than your claimed +/- 0.05C in subsequent publications
lol but of course you already know they have, many time, even before I gave you around a dozen links showing it
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/
https://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/
https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2007/08/17/Global-baloney/stories/200708170241
for any non-trolls reading, there are even an entire cottage industry of papers devoted to explaining why surface and satellite diverge, e.g.
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Evid_Based_Climate_Sci/Ev_Based_Climate_Sci_Chap3.pdf
Can you provide a list of all the adjustments GISS makes?
Or how about just 12 of the literally DOZENs?
lol over a dozen adjustments were detailed in the links even before I just posted more
but of course we both already knew that, didn’t we troll?
TallDave said: then you just have show that none of the published values for monthly temps have ever changed by more than your claimed +/- 0.05C in subsequent publications
Not quite. The +/- 0.05C figure is the aleatoric uncertainty. It does not include epistemic uncertainty.
Epistemic uncertainty would be biases that contaminate the measurement. Examples of biases would be the underweighting of the Arctic region or overweighting urban stations in the spatial average, station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, etc. Epistemic uncertainty is actually pretty hard to estimate because it can be hard to identify and quantify all sources of biases.
The way science deals with this problem is via review and replication, anomaly analysis, and pairwise homogenization, and ensembling. When a potential source of bias is identified it is quantified and corrected. The problem is with unknown sources of bias. Anomaly analysis is useful because any static biases cancel out. Pairwise homogenization is useful because it can identify and correct dynamic biases (like station moves, time of observation change, instrument changes, etc.) Ensembling can be done with Monte Carlo simulations or modeling with stochastic perturbations.
Because epistemic error can be so hard to deal with science encourages independent replication using wide variety of techniques and subsets of available data. We can estimate the epistemic error by looking at the range of possibilities different groups have published.
TallDave said: lol over a dozen adjustments were detailed in the links even before I just posted more
You must be looking at something else.
I have the GISTEMP source code and I do run it on my machine. I only see one routine for making adjustments…step 2 of only 5 steps. That is the only adjustment I see being done by GISS. And for GHCN-M they run pairwise homogenization to correct for station moves, time of observations changes, and instrument changes. PHA does dynamically adjust for unknown biases as well. But no where do I see a list of dozens of adjustments being made in your links or in any of the documentation I’ve seen.
lol aleatoric or epistemic, it’s all part of the measurement error
by the time GISS publishes a monthly number, the associated uncertainty has grown far larger due to the many layers of adjustment between measurement and publishing — many taking place before GISS even gets the data
two to three degrees is reasonable
one degree is an extremely aggressive claim given the cumulative adjustments have been in that range
.05 is just rotflmao
but again, this is trivial to prove
in fact I’ll make it even easier for you
let’s see the 100% matching values within .05 degrees for ANY pre-1999 GISS publication of global temperature vs the current numbers
hahahahaha good luck, we already both know I’m right
TallDave said: lol wow desperate, but ok if you dont like Heller or Watts try McIntyre or for that matter GISS itself
I should address this. Neither Heller, Watts, or Mcintyre publish a global mean surface temperature dataset with accompanying uncertainty analysis that is substantially different than what we already have. If they want to make a claim that GISS (and by extension everyone) has significant errors then they need to actually quantify the error and provide instructions on how they did it so that their work can be reviewed and replicated. Otherwise we’re left pondering “nuh-uh” arguments that at best have an unquantified effect or at worst have already been shown to be unjustified.
yes oddly skeptic bloggers don’t receive the same billions of taxpayer dollars GISS does so few of them publish their own global temperature datasets
but again, their claims are trivial to prove
just show us the 100% matching values within .05 degrees for ANY pre-1999 GISS publication of global temperature vs the current numbers
hahahahaha good luck, we already both know I’m right
happy trolling
TallDave said: two to three degrees is reasonable
If you don’t mind can provide a link to a publication which quantifies the uncertainty and provides support for the claim that the true uncertainty is +/- 2-3C?
TallDave said: one degree is an extremely aggressive claim given the cumulative adjustments have been in that range
Something isn’t clicking here. Adjustments remove error; not add more of it.
TallDave said: .05 is just rotflmao
Can you provide a rigorous analysis showing a substantially different aleatoric uncertainty?
TallDave said: yes oddly skeptic bloggers dont receive the same billions of taxpayer dollars GISS does so few of them publish their own global temperature datasets
There are dozens of global mean temperature datasets available. These include satellite, radiosonde, reanalysis, SST, oceanic heat content, and surface station datasets.
You don’t need billions of dollars to do this. In fact, you can do it right there from the comfort of your own home in a matter of minutes. Just download the code and run it. Nick Stokes gets no funding (AFAIK) and invented his own method. You can find his results here.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/
TallDave said: just show us the 100% matching values within .05 degrees for ANY pre-1999 GISS publication of global temperature vs the current numbers
I’m not sure what you are asking here. Can you clarify the request?
bdgwx,
If you don’t mind can provide a link to a publication which quantifies the uncertainty and provides support for the claim that the true uncertainty is +/- 2-3C?
lol I do mind troll, as I just gave you over a dozen, read them instead of asking for more
Something isn’t clicking here. Adjustments remove error; not add more of it.
lol they try, but every new attempt to remove error by changing the past data has its own error margins, sometimes larger than the error they’re supposed to remove
TallDave correctly said: .05 is just rotflmao
troll trolled: Can you provide a rigorous analysis showing a substantially different aleatoric uncertainty?
again, aleatoric is irrelevant, and I already cited several analyses that show .05 is roflmao to anyone with functioning neurons
There are dozens of global mean temperature datasets available. These include satellite, radiosonde, reanalysis, SST, oceanic heat content, and surface station datasets.
lol yes, and every one of them already HAS adjustments
starting from the actual raw data and developing your own dataset is not remotely a DIY effort
TallDave said: just show us the 100% matching values within .05 degrees for ANY pre-1999 GISS publication of global temperature vs the current numbers
troll said: I’m not sure what you are asking here. Can you clarify the request?
for a fourth time now, all you have to do is find any pre-1999 publication of GISS data you like (you know, the thing you desperately claimed was “made up” when Heller tried to show you various graphs of it) and then compare the pre-1999 values published in 1999 to what GISS reports now, and see if any monthly values changed by more than the claimed accuracy of .05C
lol is that still too complicated?
the rotflmao part comes in when you realize cumulatively there are hundreds of published changes larger than .05 to pre-1999 temperatures just since 1999… but the claimed error to those measurements is supposedly smaller than any of those changes
thus 2-3C is a reasonable guesstimate of the GISS error
and .05C is rotflmao
TallDave said: you know, the thing you desperately claimed was made up when Heller tried to show you various graphs of it
Here is an example of something Heller published which I cannot replicate.
https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU
It is a graph of NCAR 1974 data with NASA 2016 data. The problem is that the NASA 2016 data does not look like that.
http://web.archive.org/web/20161201101225/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
TallDave said: and then compare the pre-1999 values published in 1999 to what GISS reports now, and see if any monthly values changed by more than the claimed accuracy of .05C
We can do that with the wayback machine.
1999: http://web.archive.org/web/19991105135002/http://www.giss.nasa.gov:80/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt
2021:https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Consider 1963. The 1999 version says -0.25C. The 2021 version says -0.20C.
Consider 1976. The 1999 version says -0.23C. The 2021 version says -0.10C.
NASA provides a pretty good history here as well.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
Pay special attention to the notable changes. These changes include the incorporation of adjustments and new observations which improves accuracy, but not necessarily precision. These adjustments and new observations can have an effect on the results much larger than the statistical uncertainty envelope because these changes improve the accuracy of the dataset which is independent of the statistical uncertainty.
I find it particularly interesting that GISS went from 1000 stations in 1981 to 7200 in 1999 to 26000 in 2019. You can clearly the effect these large record digitization efforts have had on the station counts. Record digitization is STILL ongoing so expect a lot more changes to past data as GISS updates continue in the future. That’s a good thing. We want that.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
patrick healy,
Accurate or precise? Those are different concepts.
Anyway, for a spatial average (either 2D or 3D) you have to use multiple thermometers. One unintended benefit of this is that you gain precision the more thermometers you use. For example, if you want +/- 0.1C precision on the mean surface temperature in a metro area have 100 volunteers space out evenly with a +/- 1C or better calibrated instrument (they are cheap). This works because the error of the mean is E = S/sqrt(N) where S is the standard error of the individual samples and N is the number of samples. +/- 0.11 precision isn’t that impressive.
lol now you’ve confused sampling error with measurement error
embarrassed for you
the absurdity of claiming a one-foot measuring stick with no inch markings could accurate measure inches if we just averaged the errors could only find traction in climate science
The thing in climate science is you are only allowed to do that if the results are in compliance with the deemed ‘best science available’
TallDave,
I never said a one-foot measuring stick with no inch markings could accurately measure inches if we just averaged the errors. Nor did I say an instrument a thermometer without Celsius markings could accurately measure temperature if we just averaged the errors. That does sound absurd.
lol that is exactly what you said troll
you just lack the wit to understand it
to illustrate this absurdity for the slow-witted, suppose you do just what you said
“For example, if you want +/- 0.1C precision on the mean surface temperature in a metro area have 100 volunteers space out evenly with a +/- 1C or better calibrated instrument (they are cheap).”
so you come back and tell everyone “the temperature is 10.5C +/-.01 degrees”
whereupon an assistant runs up and informs you he has just tested all 100 instruments against a far more accurate instrument, and it turns out every single instrument you used tests exactly .9 degrees too warm
oops
sorry, you come back and tell everyone the temperature is 10.5C +/-.1 degrees
this is why it’s quite obvious measurement uncertainty can never be reduced below the accuracy of the measuring instruments
I think you have me confused with someone else. If you look up slightly to the post at April 4, 2021 at 3:25 PM that was from me. I’m responding to patrick healy’s post at April 3, 2021 at 1:37 PM regarding measuring temperature to within 0.11. If want to chime on that line of discussion I would be more than happy to engage.
TallDave said: whereupon an assistant runs up and informs you he has just tested all 100 instruments against a far more accurate instrument, and it turns out every single instrument you used tests exactly .9 degrees too warm
This is a great talking point.
First…I specifically stated that each participate should provide a calibrated instrument. I did this specifically because I wanted these instruments to be unbiased.
Second…Let’s go ahead and talk about your scenario instead in which each of the 100 were not calibrated but instead were found to have a 0.9C high bias. This is a great illustration of two important points.
Point 1…biases are easily corrected. We just subtract 0.9C off of the 10.5C and report a mean of 9.6C +/- 0.1. In fact, this is how instruments are calibrated. That is they often have an offset parameter (or table of parameters if the non-linear) that gets adjusted by a laboratory operator to correct the bias.
Point 2…biases cancel when doing anomaly analysis. The cool thing about this is that you don’t need to know the magnitude of the bias or whether a bias exists at all. For example, if our participants are asked to report how much it has warmed/cooled between two different times they can do so using anomalies as opposed to absolute readings. In this manner they report a single dT value instead of the T1 and T2 values. Watch what happens. dT = (T2+B) – (T1+B) = (T2-T1) + (B-B) = T2 – T1. Do you see how the bias B cancels out? Note that caveat here that the B from T1 and the B from T2 must be equal for this to work.
bdgwx — thanks, this is a great example of what a moron you are
I specifically stated that each participate should provide a calibrated instrument.
your calibration is within 1 degree, therefore nothing prevents every instrument from being off by the same .9 degrees warm
1. biases are easily corrected lol the whole point of measurement error is that you don’t know the bias, if you knew you’d just correct it
biases cancel when doing anomaly analysis.
rotflmao no you’re just assuming they do
in my example, none of the .9 biases cancel out
the correct claim about your temp is “10.5 degrees +/- 1 degree”
since you really do seem a bit handicapped mentally, let me explain further how this plays out
after you’ve published your data with the error bar, and your assistant runs up with the news about your .9 degrees too warm (or cold, if you like) instruments, one of two things happens
if you told everyone the error was .1 degrees, you are fired, laughed at, and scorned forever, as the actual error turned out to be nine times higher than you claimed was possible
if you told everyone the error was 1 degree, you just pat your assistant on the head and tell him not to worry, the bias he discovered was within your published error margin
TallDave said: your calibration is within 1 degree, therefore nothing prevents every instrument from being off by the same .9 degrees warm
The instruments are calibrated to read true. That’s the whole point of calibration. If they are found to be off by 0.9C then they weren’t actually calibrated.
TallDave said: rotflmao no youre just assuming they do
No. That’s how the math works out.
dT = (T2+B) – (T1+B)
dT = (T2-T1) + (B-B)
dT = T2 – T1
Notice that the bias B from T2 and T1 cancel to zero.
TallDave said: in my example, none of the .9 biases cancel out
First…you failed to calibrate your instrument prior to observation. In the future you should do this both before and after observation.
Second…Yes, that 0.9C bias cancels out when doing anomaly analysis. See the dT formula above. For example, if you record 10.0C at T1 and 11.0C at T2 for a difference of 1.0C. And notice that the true values would have been 9.1C and 10.1C respectively. Again, the difference is 1.0C. It didn’t matter if the bias was considered at all. That’s just the way the math works out.
TallDave said: the correct claim about your temp is 10.5 degrees +/- 1 degree
No. It is +/- 0.1C with no bias. Remember all instruments were calibrated prior to observation.
TallDave said: after youve published your data with the error bar, and your assistant runs up with the news about your .9 degrees too warm (or cold, if you like) instruments, one of two things happens
I wouldn’t ever publish data with a known bias without disclosure. That is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.
Yet that is exactly what contrarians like Tony Heller do. They know about the biases caused station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, etc. because they’ve been told about them repeatedly. But they don’t tell their audience the purpose behind the adjustments is to remove bias and instead strongly imply that the true temperature best reported via the unadjusted data. That is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst.
Don’t hear what I didn’t say. I am not indicting Tony Heller of fraud. Fraud requires a standard of credibility. Heller is held to a much lower standard than bona-fide publishing scientists therefore nothing he reports will ever rise to fraud. But I am indicting him of unethical reporting.
The instruments are calibrated to read true. Thats the whole point of calibration. If they are found to be off by 0.9C then they werent actually calibrated.
lol again, this is beyond moronic… yes of course all instruments are calibrated to the correct temperature, not the wrong temperature, great insight there… their accuracy is still (in your example) +/-1 degrees.. which means (again) every single one of them could read .9 degrees warm and you’d have absolutely no grounds to complain to the manufacturer
No. Thats how the math works out.
moron, I already proved it doesn’t using your own example
your wrong equation has nothing to do with the actual error discovered after your publication, which was .9, much larger than your wrong equation came up with
TallDave said: after you’ve published your data with the error bar, and your assistant runs up with the news about your .9 degrees too warm (or cold, if you like) instruments, one of two things happens
troll somehow managed to outdo himself with: I wouldnt ever publish data with a known bias without disclosure.
MY GOD HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE THIS STUPID IT SAYS RIGHT IN THE QUOTED TEXT YOU ALREADY PUBLISHED IT ***BEFORE*** YOU KNEW WHAT THE BIAS ACTUALLY WAS, NO ONE CAN BE THIS DUMB
That is unethical at best
so is your ridiculously dishonest trolling
troll better or I’ll indict you for being a waste of oxygen
TallDave said: their accuracy is still (in your example) +/-1 degrees
Accuracy and precision are different concepts. The +/- 1C is the precision or random error. Specifically it is the value at which 68% of measurements deviate from true by random chance.
TallDave said: which means (again) every single one of them could read .9 degrees warm and you’d have absolutely no grounds to complain to the manufacturer
That’s not how this works. The probability that 100 instruments would simultaneously read 0.9 warmer than true by random chance is 0.18^100 = 3e-75. This is a statistical impossibility.
TallDave said: I already proved it doesn’t using your own example
No you didn’t. You are conflating statistical or random error with systematic or bias error.
Statistical error does NOT cancel out when doing anomalies. In fact, it gets larger. Specifically you use the summation in quadrature rule Etot = sqrt(E1^2 + E2^2). So for a standard error of the mean of E = S/sqrt(N) = 1/sqrt(100) = 0.1 the total error for dT is Etot = sqrt(0.1^2 + 0.1^2) = 0.14.
We trade a slightly higher statistical error for systematic error. We still have time dependent epistemic to worry about though.
TallDave said: IT SAYS RIGHT IN THE QUOTED TEXT YOU ALREADY PUBLISHED IT ***BEFORE*** YOU KNEW WHAT THE BIAS ACTUALLY WAS
No. I specifically said the instruments are calibrated before the observation takes place. This means we know before the observation that there is 0 systematic or bias error. The only error we have is statistical or random error. It is +/- 0.1C.
You might consider reading through the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
“the absurdity of claiming a one-foot measuring stick with no inch markings could accurate measure inches if we just averaged the errors could only find traction in climate science”
GISS averages N > 10,000 daily measurements of temperature. Suppose the thermometers with 1 degree markings are used, which have error of plus-minus 0.5 degrees.
The standard error (error on the average) is defined to be
(measurement error)/sqrt(N), for N independent measurements.
Thus statistical error on the the GISS global mean would be 0.5/sqrt(10,000) ~ .005.
Apparently math is absurd to you.
Now this is not considering systematic errors..which are another story.
Yes systematic errors would include all non-random errors. Like how tall was the guy reading the thermometer, did he bend over to read it perfectly parallel or did he have a bad back. Or maybe he was short, did he get a step stool.
Was the station manager aware of the possibility of reading the same temperature 2 days in a row, did he account for that or did he read it like a robot would?
All my years of auditing I never did an audit at my desk. I never did an audit without talking to the people who actually did the work or at least supervised it. I did some forensic accounting where people weren’t available to talk to. But in those audits we weren’t trying to figure out stuff to a decimal point. So should I have automatic faith that the adjustments were materially correct (knowing they aren’t going to be perfect). Hahaha! Yes I could be convinced to some degree of accuracy! But not just by some guy who has a dog in the fight telling me so and notating on the paper he is educated.
” did he bend over to read it perfectly parallel or did he have a bad back. Or maybe he was short, did he get a step stool.
Was the station manager aware of the possibility of reading the same temperature 2 days in a row, did he account for that or did he read it like a robot would?”
Riight, those ‘possibilities’ raise serious doubts about global warming trends……in Bill’s imagination.
In Bill’s view, really no science project is trustworthy because of all the things that he imagines that can go wrong…
I expect you also would have trouble reading a thermometer from a thousand miles away and 70 years later.
But I suppose you don’t think there is any problem with that. Bet you would if folks were adjusting them to lower trends.
Ha ha..
The point is REAL systematic errors can matter, such as time of day of readings, whether thermometers were screened or not, whether ocean temps are measured by buckets or engine intakes.
These kinds of systematic errors need to be dealt with, hence some corrections, IOW adjustments, are NEEDED.
But according to some here, making any such adjustments = fraud.
Nate I have been auditing scientists for over 20 years. Before that I was auditing professionals and executives in other fields for 15 years, with similar issues to the trade of science.
The fact is these are really the ONLY kind of people that need to be audited.
Others simply aren’t impacting lives at the same rate certain professions and academics are so there is no need for audit except in the case of solving crimes.
I have long made a point that fraud is rare at this level. At the levels that need auditing there is an ego-driven hubris. Its all over financial markets despite reliance of those industries on employees with PhDs and JDs. That ego generally prevents these people from out and out committing fraud. They have too much pride to do something thats going to destroy their credentials.
But bias is rampant and it becomes a game of using uncertainty to make outrageous claims in a form of advocacy. A form of advocacy even when revealed is not considered to be a firing offense or a crime.
Often all I can do is show the levels of uncertainty for what they are. But that makes the work worthwhile as uncertainty if potentially material should be disclosed.
Only newbs, morons, and sycophants are unaware of the real uncertainty. If you don’t understand uncertainty in your profession you don’t belong in that profession. But in the interest of supporting outside of the box thinking in the process of inventing new ideas, ignoring and not acknowledging uncertainty is often exactly what the employer wants. And additionally in the eye of the professional/expert in question he is fully aware of what he wants.
I find it bizarre that contrarians equate adjustment to fraud. But, if you know about these biases and errors and ignore them then to me and pretty much everyone else that is unethical at best and fraudulent at worst. How did we get to the point where this dichotomy even exists in the first place?
One more thought on that.
fraud is actually something deemed to be illegal. professionals and experts seldom commit fraud. Perhaps some of things they set off to intentionally do should be fraud. But if you had any experience in legislation or making of laws and regulations you would be aware of the ”law of unintended consequences” in all law making. Laws are imperfect as you want to avoid prosecuting somebody for what they should know but didn’t know. The bad guys on TV and in some real life are always doing that to their own employees. . . .but its not socially acceptable to the good guys.
TallDave,
Here is a graph, Fig 1, from the source of GISS, showing the changes in their temperature graph, over time.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
The changes are are all < 0.25 C.
lol no, that page does not show any of the actual adjustments to published individual monthly values since 1999
here’s a page that looks at just one single value
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/a-question-for-zeke-hausfather/
——-
Without getting into semantics, Id like to ask Zeke these simple questions:
What is the CONUS average temperature for July 1936 today?
What was it a year ago?
What was it ten years ago? Twenty years ago?
What was it in late 1936, when all the data had been first compiled?
We already know the answers to questions 1 and 2 from my posting here, and they are 76.43F and 77.4F respectively, so Zeke really only needs to answer questions 3 and 4.
——-
so yes, these temperatures can and do change by at least a degree F just over a single year
lol or you can go the troll route and just claim they made it all up, seems to be a popular choice
“lol no, that page does not show any of the actual adjustments to published individual monthly values since 1999”
Lol, for climate change why do individual months matter?
The page shows the adjustments that affect 5 year averages. IOW it shows the adjustments that actually matter for climate change.
Looking at the changes over time I am seeing about .35 degrees of enhancement to the trend since the 1920’s to the present in the link you provided eyeballing it.
The decade 1925-1935 appears to have been lowered by as much as ~ 0.25 since the first GISS data sets of the 1980s. Other decades not so much.
GISS is one of 5 or 6 such surface data sets. Pick your favorite, it will make little difference to the overall warming trend.
The most important question is…is the newer GISS version more correct than the older? The evidence says yes. Since 1981 and 2019 the number of stations GISS analyzed jumped from 1000 to 27,000. They’ve also incorporated ERSST data and learned about the biases that station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, and UHI induce. Sure, it would have been nice had GISS laid the golden egg on the first attempt, but as is ubiquitous in all attempts at measurement in all scientific disciplines that didn’t happen. The next best thing is to refine and improve.
bdgwx what makes you think science was used to make those adjustments. Individual stations were adjusted so they need hundreds it not thousands of individual peer reviewed studies to give it scientific legitimacy, right? After all science is a self correcting process and unless individually documented it just ain’t science.
Of course I can understand why individual studies aren’t available. They needed adjustments immediately and there simply wasn’t the time available.
bill,
Then by all means use what you think qualifies as science and produce a global mean surface temperature dataset accompanied by a rigorous uncertainty analysis and publish it so that the entire world can review it. Let’s see just how different it is.
Sure I will do that. Just send a check!
I don’t think you need a check. You can start with the published code provided by GISS and NOAA and fix whatever problems you find. I will say that Nick Stokes created all of his materials from scratch without a check. But if you really feel it is necessary then you could probably hit up some of the same donors that contributed to Berkeley Earth. Judith Curry has a lot of pull maybe you can see if she would lead the effort.
Well bdgwx I suppose you could do the same thing for the purpose of actually lending some real expertise and value added to go along with your sycophantic cheerleading that everything is okie dokie.
bdgwx says:
”I dont think you need a check. You can start with the published code provided by GISS and NOAA and fix whatever problems you find. I will say that Nick Stokes created all of his materials from scratch without a check.”
——————————–
In my view thats the problem not the solution bdgwx.
adjusting individual weather stations isn’t something you can do reliably from an office a thousand miles away.
The bottom line is to support an adjustment you need to first understand the process by which data was actually recorded. Managers make corrections on the fly. If they didn’t then they had a useless job. . . .replace them with a computer.
Some meteorologists consider the effort as station managers being treated like idiots.
I am not as concerned about the stuff you constantly harp on such as homogenization. Computerized adjustments across the board does need its own justifications but you don’t end up with very specific new data for individual stations, which the focus of my concern.
Thus when Berkeley Earth comes along gathers up all the adjusted individual station data and runs the same programs borrowed from somebody else, whether they review them or not, and come up with the same results is merely a distraction and it isn’t another individual and separate effort to construct a temperature record. I get how and why politicized science pays for replicated work on the same data and claims that as some kind overall endorsement of the weather data. Such behaviors makes a professional auditor cringe.
And your constant harping on that is like somebody was paying you as a cover up artist to hide the actual individual station data changes by constantly pointing to other duplicative processes that endorse outcomes that don’t amount to a complete review of the issues.
Comparing satellites to surface stations is an apples to oranges comparison. But it is disconcerting that surface station data bases are not in agreement.
I can say the same thing about satellite data those should be top priority efforts to identify specific differences and while one might not be able to fix past data its a big problem if the disagreement goes on forever without a major investigation into
what the problem is.
Actually I could give a shitt about historic temperature data. The weather today is fantastic. If you don’t know that perhaps you should get outside more, unless of course you are living in a Quonset hut on some Antarctic or Arctic island where if you go outside often you are apt to get eaten by an animal with a better fur coat. However, its not advisable to live in a shell and judge weather by what comes with a headline at the top of the media you use.
What I am concerned about is if and when people think mankind should start managing the actual weather rather than simply managing the impacts of weather variation we will need tremendous accuracy and consistency in temperature records to inform our efforts.
bill,
You’ve been informed of the biases that station moves, time observation changes, instrument changes, etc. induce. If you don’t like the way the various participants in the global mean surface temperature space have dealt with these issues then you’re going to have to figure out a different way of handling it because ignoring the issues and publishing a knowingly contaminated GMST is not right and not ethical.
Uh there is another way bdgwx.
You can deem it unreliable. After all its not a dataset that was envisioned when the weather stations were established in the first place. So toss it and double down on satellite technology, or if you feel whenever the system became reliable start the temp record from there. As I understand it a huge amount of weather stations and their records were destroyed in WWII.
“adjusting individual weather stations isn’t something you can do reliably from an office a thousand miles away”
I use the original unadjusted station data. I can use the data adjusted by NOAA, but it makes very little difference. The task of getting a global average is just spatial integration. My methods are different to GISS, but get very similar results.
“But it is disconcerting that surface station data bases are not in agreement.”
They do agree very well. Far better than satellites.
Nick,
Interesting. Somehow I totally missed the fact that you were using the unadjusted data. I guess I just assumed you were using the adjusted data like GISS. If fact, I almost posted on your blog yesterday asking you to do a run with the unadjusted to see what happens.
Nick, nice work. This graph is the most in interesting,
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/01/uahadj30.png
showing the changes between different versions of satellite data, and different versions of GISS.
Nick Stokes says:
‘They do agree very well. Far better than satellites.’
A. I have little doubt its warming. My own theory supports warming.
B. Agreement isn’t what we are looking for.
I actually still use Had-crut3 because it is convenient for me. I am very disappointed that they didn’t continue the 80-80 format as that is the only existent format for which you actually rely on purely observational data and not some always biased modeling approach.
I have concerns about that data considering who compiled it. Those concerns are the similar to the ‘sacred tree’ issue emanating from the same institution and they don’t concern my approach significantly as once adjusted OK if it was its going to probably come back and bite you as time goes on and you are going to need another adjustment. . . .kind of like how something rather benign overtime turns into Bernie Madoff as you rush to keep it afloat.
So Had-crut3 likely serves for me like what it sounds like you are doing for yourself. Just that I am a bit frustrated with the end of record. Consistency is critical in what I do.
I realize there is recently a big gap emerged from satellite data. Even the reasoning for the sudden jump in it sounded political.
I just think that a major effort needs to be made to move to satellites as the primary global temperature measuring technology by fixing as quickly as possible existing issues with the intent to rely upon such an improved system going forward. I am certainly not looking for some way for it replace HC3 for me.
As I said my confidence in the surface record can be greatly improved via a truly honest and auditable effort to deal with UHI but one cannot get away from the problems of temperatures by committee in a vastly diverse political world using surface data.
So I think funds to do that (unless say the US has another need for better non-global climate US data) would likely be misspent.
Certainly there are more needs for US climate data than just global climate constructions. So what would probably be misspent would be big bucks to bring surface systems into some kind of global compliance scheme. . . .stuff that gives bureaucrats opportunities to build their own empires.
Lowest since 2013? Perhaps that is a typo? Looks to be 2018 on the graph…
Off topic but I would like people to comment on this paper from the University of Oslo. CO2 forcing tested and doubted.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
Interesting.
The measure that Co2 abs*rbs roughly the predicted amount. They measure that CO2 in the front produces back radiation to the rear of roughly the expected amount (17 W/m2)
But they find that the rear box does not rise in temperature much at all. They have found an additional heat input does not produce the expected rise in temperature.
They claim this shows that CO2 doesnt produce the expected Forcing.
But they also have shown an apparent violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics! IOW they cannot account for 17 W/m^2 of heating causing no effect on temperature.
Since 1LOT is well established, there must be an unaccounted for loss of heat in the experiment.
Havent found an obvious error. Except that convective heat transfer between the chambers must be there, and they dont discuss this.
Interested to hear what Swanson thinks.
Hmmmmm, didn’t recheck calculations but am I reading a sensitivity factor of .005 as opposed to 1.8 or 3.0?
Kind of sounds somewhere within .5% of the ballpark that Swanson should get after calculating out the tinfoiled trailer with a 47% boost in backradiation using current residential heat loss calculations.
Here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662262
Nate calling out a violation of 1LOT considering only one means of heat transfer. LMAO!!!
Thats the point, they are not considering other heat transfer, such as convection.
Well you don’t need the details when you can measure the results.
They measure a reduction in outgoing IR by 30 W/m^2 with CO2 replacing air, yet they find no warming as result. They offer no good explanation for this.
They have ‘lost’ this extra heat flow somewhere.
They measure an extra 17 W/m^2 of back radiation, calculate it should have produced ~ 2.4-4 C warming in the back chamber but only find ~ 0.15 C.
Where did the extra heating go? They have no explanation. Clearly they have made some wrong assumptions in their calculated temperature rise.
For example the air in the back and the front is heated from the plate by convection, not radiation. They don’t calculate how much is lost by this.
They mention changing to an electrically heated plate. But they never indicate how much power is input.
Thus they have a problem with their experiment, not with the theory.
Nate waves his hand to make it go away.
Bill has nothing to add…just trolling.
I can’t find a mistake thats not there Nate. And neither can you.
” cant find a mistake thats not there”
You KNOW there is no mistake how? Cuz ‘Your Daddy’ told you?
Nate its peer reviewed science! No more handwaving R.Woods away! No sun/insulation model, no backradiation anti-2LOT magic!
“No more handwaving R.Woods away!”
Intentionally missing the point! You’re a faux skeptic.
“No sun/insulation model, no backradiation anti-2LOT magic!”
OK so you are a sky dragon.
“The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is
assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).”
So what are they saying here? Something wrong with SB-Law? C-mon!
“The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase.”
But they MEASURED the extra radiant energy hitting the back-wall of 17 W/m^2. So what are they saying here? That the radiant energy hitting the back wall cannot heat??? Why?? No explanation given??
Really pathetic that a paper can have these conclusions, and get through some sort of peer-review.
Nate says:
” This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is
assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).”
So what are they saying here? Something wrong with SB-Law? C-mon!
—————————–
the reason has nothing to do with the SB Law. The key word there is ”assumes”. S or B didn’t assume anything. Only the people who are applying the law are making assumptions about the results they should obtain. You are trying to unscrew a slot screw with a phillips driver.
Nate says:
Really pathetic that a paper can have these conclusions, and get through some sort of peer-review.
——————-
Its an experiment Nate not a study of somebody’s figment of their imagination like the 3rd grade model. Its real science!
The authors don’t have a model to reproduce the results and obviously, like I said, neither do you.
Seems to me if you are going to model climate you probably should have one that replicates the simplest of climates regarding the transfer of heat. At least thats where I started out green learning how to do it in the modeling work I have done. I don’t try to start out modeling canards.
Bill,
“The key word there is ‘assumes’. S or B didnt assume anything. Only the people who are applying the law are making assumptions about the results they should obtain.”
Yes, as I said, they have made some wrong assumptions. And that is the problem.
Lets face it. If it fits with your politics, you buy it.
Nate people don’t apply the laws of physics. Nature applies the laws of physics. By definition you can’t do an experiment that violates the laws of physics.
The only thing weird happening is you suggesting the laws of physics have been violated.
Ooops I probably confused Nate with that last comment.
The only kinds of studies that violate the laws of physics are models, assumptions (including those reasoning why results should not have been obtained that were obtained).
Heat can only disappear or laws violated in a model, statistics, and an unproven theory. . . .never in a physical experiment.
Its the physics of your greenhouse effect that has never been seen by a human. Its the Big Foot of science. Actually a Big Foot that is unprecedented in size. The biggest science hoax in history.
“Heat can only disappear or laws violated in a model, statistics, and an unproven theory. . . .never in a physical experiment.”
Glad you agree. Then you must agree that the findings of the experiment are erroneous, as I have been saying.
So Nate how can this experiment which is physical and not a model and not statistical study and not a theory, violate the laws of physics?
“violate the laws of physics?”
Now you are just trolling. Just stop.
If you can’t answer the question just say so Nate.
Don’t just try to deflect it back. Why do you think you have something to prove?
bdgwx says:
I can echo Nates comments. The CO2 experiment reduces the OLR by 29.8 W/m^2 vs the control.
———————————-
LMAO! It hasn’t reduced the OLR from the surface, not has it warmed it. Not acting as insulation here.
Obviously didn’t warm the CO2 either or that would have warmed the surface. Sort of disqualifies it as insulation, completely disqualifies it as it is being taught in the 3rd grade to and including the university level.
> disqualifies it as it is being taught in the 3rd grade
You must be speaking from experience, Bill.
bill said: It hasnt reduced the OLR from the surface
Yes it has. Here is what S&O say in their own words on pg 176 paragraph 2.
“In Figure 7, we see an IR radiation reduction of 29.8 W/m2 out of the front chamber when filled with CO2.”
bdgwx says:
bill said: It hasnt reduced the OLR from the surface
Yes it has. Here is what S&O say in their own words on pg 176 paragraph 2.
“In Figure 7, we see an IR radiation reduction of 29.8 W/m2 out of the front chamber when filled with CO2.”
———————–
bdgwx if OLR is not reduced from the surface bdgwx there is no insulating effect on the surface. If the gas warms in the chamber it will also warm the surface. The OLR is not in the chamber bdgwx and it is only a very narrow-minded person that will conclude it still is in the chamber because of it not being seen on an IR detector.
> it is only a very narrow-minded person that will conclude it still is in the chamber because of it not being seen on an IR detector.
A very narrow-minded person might also argue that unless we have a laboratory experiment of what the atmosphere we can’t conclude anything about the Tyndall Gas Effect, Bill.
Perhaps not the same very narrow-minded person as the one you have in mind.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bill said: bdgwx if OLR is not reduced from the surface bdgwx there is no insulating effect on the surface.
The front chamber is like the upper atmosphere and the rear chamber is like the lower atmosphere. The window in the front chamber is equivalent to TOA. The heater in the back of the rear chamber is equivalent to the surface. The ~30 W/m^2 reduction is measured coming out of the front chamber at the window. This is equivalent to a TOA measurement. OLR is reduced in this experiment. The equivalent of the surface in this experiment is being insulated.
They give all the details on the heating plate and how it was used.
Section 2.1
Figure 3
Table A1
What else could you want?
bill,
OLR is reduced in their experiment. I don’t know to make that any more clear. I’m not the one needing something else to be convinced here.
bdgwx, OLR leaving the box wasn’t measured.
Also significant, the back scatter was much smaller than the total absorbed which isn’t the case for multi-layered models that retain 90% of the IR shooting a large hole into the theory that CO2 isn’t at or very near saturated already. If the back scatter had been 27 instead of 17 then that would be consistent with current theory.
You just don’t want to deal with the notion.
I have given a good deal of thought to this TOA model and wonder how much CO2 blocking occurs in the mesosphere and stratosphere and how that affects the outgoing IR in the CO2 spectrum. Do you have any information on that?
bill,
Yes it was. There is a window in which detector IR1 was observing the OLR leaving the apparatus. The experimenters reported a 29.8 W/m^2 reduction when the apparatus was filled with pure CO2 relative to when it was filled with air.
bill,
Regarding backscatter…IR2 observed close to 500 W/m^2 of backscatter with 17 W/m^2 difference between air and pure CO2. They don’t tell us how much was absorbed directly but we might infer it to be 30 – 17 = 13 W/m^2…maybe. This would be the amount thermalized. In other words, the switch from air to pure CO2 caused an OLR reduction of 30 W/m^2. 17 W/m^2 or 56% was scattered back to the rear wall while 13 W/m^2 or 44% was thermalized (presumably anyway). It is rather unfortunate that they don’t discuss the 30 – 17 = 13 W/m^2 difference.
that is so incorrect bdgwx. You are imagining the boundary to be just before the heat touches anything and heat transfers again.
For all intents and purposes the apparatus is the entire box. Heat leaves that apparatus via both OLR and convection. If it were in outer space it would leave exclusively by OLR.
The only thing being measured is heat arriving at the boundary via OLR and it ignores all the molecules colliding with the inside of the box. With the heavy insulation of the box the outside of the box heated by 1C with the lamp turned on with or without CO2 (like the earth does without or without greenhouse gases.) Reduce the insulation on the box and the exterior will remain the same and the interior temperature will go down because real insulation is being used. Changing air for CO2 doesn’t do squat for insulation value. Why do you expect to suddenly do so when it arrives at TOA? Oh!!! there is no convection above that point you say!!!
Eat my shorts! Outerspace doesn’t start at TOA, gases are still capable of convecting above TOA there is just no sufficiently active ghg there sufficient to do it. . . .at least until it gets beyond the stratosphere.
All the heat departs the box with or without CO2. Backradiation is measured and the heating response from it doesn’t exist or is at a minimum far less than what is claimed widely and broadly on the media, on University websites, From Kiehl and Trenberth, the list goes on.
So we have in this TOA theory is a theory without a description or even a logic attached beyond blindly attributing the current ghe to multiple layers of absor-ption in the atmosphere. . . .which Nate no longer believes in. Either that or he pleaded the 5th amendment here. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-671584
bill,
I’m saying OLR was observed to be reduced when air was exchanged for pure CO2. This observation took place via the IR1 detector which is mounted outside of the front chamber facing toward the rear chamber looking through an IR transparent window. Are you still challenging that OLR was not reduced in this experiment?
bdgwx says:
Im saying OLR was observed to be reduced when air was exchanged for pure CO2. This observation took place via the IR1 detector which is mounted outside of the front chamber facing toward the rear chamber looking through an IR transparent window. Are you still challenging that OLR was not reduced in this experiment?
————————–
You are correct on that point but you are avoiding the obvious.
Since the window wall isn’t insulated a higher proportion of heat will go out through that wall. Really basic Title 24 stuff.
It doesn’t have to be IR and it doesn’t have to be convection either. Either is adequate to cool the chamber
Figure 5 shows another perspective of no backradiation effect. The rear chamber is warmer because of being partitioned by 2 convective barriers(10K vs 5K) the front chamber is the same as a gap within a double glazed window.
The front chamber is less warm but 5k warmer than outside the box.
I can echo Nate’s comments. The CO2 experiment reduces the OLR by 29.8 W/m^2 vs the control. This was what they were expecting. They also measured an increase of IR backscatter of 17 W/m^2 with CO2 vs the control. They get the expected results when observing the IR radiation flux, but unexpected results when observing the temperature. They make a few attempts at isolating the discrepancy, but in the end are unsuccessful and offer no explanation as to where the -29.8 W/m^2 at the front went and what effects the +17 W/m^2 at the back induced. Nor do they account for the missing 29.8 – 17 = 12.8 W/m^2. It all just goes poof in violation of the 1LOT and with the conclusion that fundamental forcing assumption of the IPCC must be wrong.
Lol, thanks for that analysis work bdgwx.
Uh molecules move too.
Give credit where credit is due. Nate discovered this first. I’m just agreeing with him.
bdgwx says:
It all just goes poof in violation of the 1LOT and with the conclusion that fundamental forcing assumption of the IPCC must be wrong.
===============================
Hardly. . . .you wish.
You are talking about a peer review study published in a journal from two credible science sources.
Are you guys now lending yourself in strong support for the propriety of such dismissals? LMAO!
If so I hope I never see any additional intellectual dishonesty rise its ugly head on that anytime in the future.
“from two credible science sources.”
Lol. You mean the ones that admit they don’t understand their own experiment…and peers of that level of accomplishment. Good luck with your admonishment bill.
Oh they understand their experiment alright. They are just stunned by the outcome.
Bill,
We are skeptics of this result, even though it is ‘peer reviewed’. We gave good reasons for that skepticism. You have no answers. But defer to what ‘your Daddy’ tells you?
And you seemed to have missed the point of our criticism.
What they have done is to study ordinary heat transfer and thermodynamics. They find a result that they cannot explain even in terms of those!
They are either missing something in their analysis or they have found a flaw in basic thermodynamics! Which one is more likely?
And it is curious why they never tell us the measured heat input?
In fact, that is essentially what they say in their conclusions. Either the SB law or their use of it is wrong with the implication that the fundamental forcing assumptions used by the IPCC is also wrong or their experimental setup is wrong. The wording makes it sound like they lean towards the former.
It is also important to note that peer review does not mean that a publication is correct. Peer review just means that there was a good faith attempt to keep egregiously incorrect or low quality works out of the journal. It is basically a spam filter. The ultimate review happens after publication when the entire world is invited to review it. BTW…this journal has a relatively low impact score. Journals with low impact scores typically have a lower bar for acceptance.
Exactly, this is a pay-to-publish journal that has lower standards.
My oh my look at all the hand wringing and anti-journal antipathy!
You guys just need to get some real world experience in applying the principles of physics. That is what cuts through the sophistry of a physics education. The only thing going on here is the reality of your narrowness of vision. Horse blinder science is what I call it having been fighting it for over 30 years. Too many folks thinking they are smarter than everybody else about everything, when in fact their isn’t any smartness their at all. Just a ego built up due to expertise with an extremely narrow focus.
Its thinking that the moon rotates on its own axis. . . .same thing, same reason, same mistake.
Its just too much fun here and I really need to get back to work!
Bill still doesnt address the criticism. Has no answers.
Defers to ‘his Daddy’s’ authority.
What a hypocrite!
Nate says:
Bill still doesnt address the criticism. Has no answers.
Defers to his Daddys authority.
What a hypocrite!
——————————
Since I haven’t told you how I think it works you are just fishing. Pretty frustrating huh? Calm down!
> Since I havent told you how I think it works you are just fishing.
TO DEFER
transitive verb
: to delegate to another
he could defer his job to no one J. A. Michener
intransitive verb
: to submit to another’s wishes, opinion, or governance usually through deference or respect
deferred to her father’s wishes
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defer
Willard please stop trolling
Let’s work it out like you’d do with your grand children, Bill:
A Sky Dragon denies the Tyndall Gas Effect.
Like this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268507883_The_Greenhouse_Effect_and_the_Infrared_Radiative_Structure_of_the_Earth's_Atmosphere
See?
Sky Dragon.
Willard, please stop trolling. #2
Both your syntax and your semantics are a bit off, Bill.
Revisit kiddo’s best practices.
To fortify you:
https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
Willard, please stop trolling #3
Sky Dragon:
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20200402
Need to get a clear statement on the record from Bill here.
Are you stating that because a paper is peer-reviewed and published, its conclusions must be believed???
That depends.
Physical experiments like this that are peer reviewed are reliable.
Its attempting measure the greenhouse effect as you guys see it and how its being sold to the public.
But most skeptics were already aware of this as its the not the first attempt. R Woods did this a 100 years ago and it is handwaved away on a variety pretty much cooked up control issues.
This experiment has a very much better designed control. The controls used by Woods, Pratt, Spencer et al over time came up with numbers like 1C was likely a control issue of using two separate designs. These guys figured a way to do it with a single simpler design and just change the gas and obtained about a 1C difference which was probably error using different setups like glass, rocksalt, saran wrap etc. Maybe somebody should check the atomic number of the CO2 he used to see if it really is anthropogenic in origin [/s]
“This experiment has a very much better designed control.”
And yet they have no explanation for their result, other than a violation of SB law and 1LOT.
Sounds like the statement from Bill is, it depends.
Because a paper is peer-reviewed and published, its conclusions must be believed, IF it is anti-GHE.
Papers that are peer-reviewed and published, but are supportive of the GHE, should be treated with loads of skepticism.
Nate says:
Papers that are peer-reviewed and published, but are supportive of the GHE, should be treated with loads of skepticism.
===========================
Papers should always be treated with loads of skepticism no matter the outcome. Experiments are another matter.
Now if there had ever been an experiment able to create a greenhouse effect that didn’t involve trapping convection then you would have something.
“Papers should always be treated with loads of skepticism no matter the outcome. Experiments are another matter.”
Good, and yet you didnt for this one!
Experiments are hard.
They can be done wrong, or people can analyze the data incorrectly, and draw wrong conclusions, as is most likely here.
Understand Nate the experiment merely destroys the canard of the layered insulation in the atmosphere. It doesn’t prove CO2 has no effect on climate. It just rightfully so inserts a sharp blade into the heart of a sophist model being taught to our youngsters.
Deception is never justified in a democratic society.
Yet that will not have any effect on folks who consider themselves as crusaders for the cause. They are the ones who intentionally are supporting sophistry. . . .an intentional fallacy brilliantly designed to divert eyes from the better argument.
“the experiment merely destroys the canard ofthe layered insulation in the atmosphere.”
Wachu talkin bout Billus?
This paper seems to be designed for gullible sky dragons, who will eat up anything supportive of their anti-GHE beliefs.
The main result of this paper is that the authors have somehow lost 17 W/m^2 of energy flux. They are bad at accounting for all heat in the system.
The experiment is not like the real atmosphere. What layers?
There are no separate chambers in the real atmosphere.
They even note:
“However, we do not expect such a large
temperature response, since many atmospheric factors influence the constants in Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).”
Thorstein O. Seim, Borgar T. Olsen
1
Inst. of Physics, University of Oslo, Norway; Inst. of Physics, University of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway
Neither of these guys are currently affiliated with these institutions, that they claim to be.
They appear to have been students at them ~ 30 y ago.
Also I emailed them a couple of days ago with my questions about there paper discussed here. No response.
Nate the study is merely yet another replication of an already established fact.
CO2 has no insulating value. The heat merely convects away from the backwall as ‘real’ physicists already knows what happens.
And they didn’t lose it they proved the energy was there and that it wasn’t operating as climate morons expect.
The experiment does not prove CO2 is not involved in the GHE (I think it is in a very minor way). The only thing being destroyed here is a canard designed by smart sophists to bring dim donating rich suckers into the game and to avoid inconvenient questions about how the effect came to be.
Heat has to stick around for a while to actually warm anything, you know like accumulate over time?
This is stuff that guys in the heating and air industry that but have a high school education, if that.
I suppose you either are too stupid to know the answer or you are afraid to admit it.
In Trenberth’s budget you can see it listed in the transevaporation and thermals category freely convecting to TOA.
Just that Trenberth omitted the dynamic nature of the system giving a mean view of the entire process with a flat earth model that doesn’t explain how the surface got to the temperature it is other than through a ‘plug’ number in his analysis which he says is a plug number in the text and improperly labels it as a radiant effect.
If you think you can build an experiment properly you should do it. There are billions available for climate research to do such experiments Nate. Why aren’t they even trying?
I will make my point one more time. Heat captured momentarily low in the atmosphere is a fleeting event in the diurnal cycle. The heat does not overcome natural cooling systems on the surface of the planet, fails to warm the atmosphere to the same temperature as the surface and thus the system continues to strive to do that. Sun goes down and all daytime efforts prove to be of no use. Thus as specified by physics heat moves up in the atmosphere to TOA. From there radiant insulation does work looking down. Downward IR in the frequencies of that intercepted on the way up does not get a convective assist going back down and is blocked by being colder as well. Double blocked from returning to the surface as a radiant forcing.
They don’t want to admit this why? Because you must introduce so called ‘feedback’ into the system then all bets are off. Its discovered the flat earth model is a fraud and everybody who was taken in by it jumps ship along with tons and tons of money.
So do you want to take it from there and describe how it warms the surface? Nope all death ray Nate is going to do is sit in this forum and continue to look like an idiot.
G&T didn’t get an intellectually honest response either. And they noted as much in their last rebuttal. So you can run around here Nate looking like death ray Nate, some idiot who lost his mind blabbering anonymously about stupid stuff until the cows come home Nate. But why is that we have to expect some nutcase to explain the GHE in terms of real physics instead of folks just pointing at parameterized black box models? We have there stories of scientists puttering around hundreds of different ideas of how the climate works incessantly pushing parameters around like so many shuffle board pucks that never affects the bottom line of future predictions?
Any accountant with half a wit is going to expect Bernie Madoff to be at the key board.
“The heat merely convects away from the backwall as ‘real’ physicists already knows what happens.”
Thats what I said already days ago. The problem is, they simply neglect convection and dont attempt to even explain where the ‘lost’ heat went.
But actual GHE models do account for convection, as discussed ad-nauseum, for example as MW do.
This experiment, in many respects, is nothing like the real atmosphere (as they admit), thus it is worthless for testing the real GHE.
Like you and deniers, it seems to be trying to ‘test’ a cartoon strawman version of the GHE that is a radiation-only. And sure enough, the cartoon model, in a non-realistic atmosphere model, does not work.
Quite pointless.
“CO2 has no insulating value. The heat merely convects away from the backwall”
And in the real atmosphere, all energy must escape thru the TOA via radiation. No convection takes part there.
Nate says:
Like you and deniers, it seems to be trying to test a cartoon strawman version of the GHE that is a radiation-only. And sure enough, the cartoon model, in a non-realistic atmosphere model, does not work.
——————–
Well Nate it is a real mini-environment and not a cartoon.
You must be feeling jealous since all you have are cartoons, cause obviously thats where you got the idea of cartoon experiments right. LMAO!
Nate says:
CO2 has no insulating value. The heat merely convects away from the backwall
And in the real atmosphere, all energy must escape thru the TOA via radiation. No convection takes part there.
—————————–
And radiation can’t reach the surface from there either. So I guess it just hangs around waiting its turn all night long on standby waiting for the cloud to descend to get sent packing to space.
“And radiation cant reach the surface from there either. So I guess it just hangs around waiting its turn all night long on standby waiting for the cloud to descend to get sent packing to space.”
Riiiigght.
How an imbalance at the TOA must heat the Earth/ocean/atmosphere is clear to anyone with half a brain…Do you qualify?
Yes, any idiot can do an experiment on anything, even a dog-pile.
According to you a dog-pile is a “a real mini-environment”.
Wonderful!
Nate 17w ended up there thats the imbalance.
Nate says:
”And in the real atmosphere, all energy must escape thru the TOA via radiation. No convection takes part there.”
—————————–
Well I am record here of the notion that GHG are a necessary condition for the greenhouse effect. And you just described that necessity.
However, you need to consider the ramifications of what you are saying. . . .there is only one TOA! What happened to the multi-layered model everybody hawks around here?
Layers and TOA????
Nate is having difficulty writing an entire sentence.
Bill, why do you keep fantasizing about things never stated by me?
If I say NOTHING about layers, layered models, etc, you imagine I am saying something about layers, layer models, etc.
I spoke to your Mom. She said to tell you, if you cant post something accurate, dont post!
Well getting older my memory of what you have said Nate does fade. Rather than waste time sorting through the volumes of barf you spew I will just apologize and take your comment as a statement that you are not at all in support of multi-layered CO2 atmospheric models like Modtran.
Thats good enough for me so welcome to the skeptic side of the argument.
Bill, stop booming.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No.
bdgwx I am shocked. I considered you level headed. Now I have to reconsider.
How can an experiment violate a law of physics?
Again, Bill, you are turning around what people are saying into the opposite of what they are saying.
None of us are saying we think the laws of physics are violated, we are saying the analysis of the experiment has flaws.
It sees now, you agree.
Well then the answer is clear Nate follow the tried and true approach to physical experiments you have doubts about. . . .replicate it!
Doesn’t look at all complicated. Probably could do it for a few hundred dollars. Go for it! With all the institutions out there invested heavily in climate change there should be a hundred completed by now.
Really unnecessary. Basic thermo is well tested. Basic heat transfer is well tested.
Obviously there is a tremendous amount of ignorance among the physics educated regarding an unjustified belief in the idea that layers of the atmosphere amount to the equivalent of insulation.
The S&O experiment shows once again there is no insulation there.
this experiment has been replicated many times but apparently inculcation runs deep and folks are appealing to authority in the absence of an experiment that does demonstrate the insulation effect in a gas.
Give it up Nate. Its fine to wonder what happened to the missing heat, I know what happened because I worked with this stuff for years. The people who actually have studied the issue are talking about stuff not happening in the first layer but at the top of the troposphere.
The one thing that can be said with certainty the forcing of the GHE doesn’t involve backradiation and if you think it does I challenge you to find an experiment that establishes that.
You just got caught up in the big propaganda machine run by Trenberth as deputy director of a unit whose mission is to
promote the transfer of new knowledge to society.
“The S&O experiment shows once again there is no insulation there.”
You are not making sense here.
How?
Are we back again to the ordinary Radiative Heat Transfer laws are invalid?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-665957
Nate says:
None of us are saying we think the laws of physics are violated, we are saying the analysis of the experiment has flaws.
=====================
You are just annoyed because the objective of the experiment was to solve the climate riddle, when in fact the objective was to put to a lie the flat earth model.
In that endeavor the experiment succeeded and your sour grapes about the fate of energy absorbed and observed in the system that did not warm the target surface as expressed in the flat earth model means you have to look elsewhere for a different model to explain the GHE.
“In that endeavor the experiment succeeded”
Cmon, the experiment is just plain dumb.
It ‘succeeds’ only for deniers who turn-off their skepticism when convenient.
Nate says:
The S&O experiment shows once again there is no insulation there.
You are not making sense here.
How?
Are we back again to the ordinary Radiative Heat Transfer laws are invalid?
————————-
No insulation and its zoom off into space ala Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation eager to get going considering how cold space has been since first being in the sun, then targeting a warm planet and then finally on a relaxing journey through space.
I thought you understood what insulation does and how it works?
Looks like you really don’t.
“Nate the study is merely yet another replication of an already established fact.
CO2 has no insulating value.”
Well, as matter of fact in this experiment, they found that CO2 reduced the outward flow of heat by 30 W/m^2.
But you still insist it has ‘no insulating value’??
Weird.
Nate says:
Well, as matter of fact in this experiment, they found that CO2 reduced the outward flow of heat by 30 W/m^2.
But you still insist it has no insulating value??
Weird.
—————
Not weird Nate, the 30w/m2 radiant heat has simply been absorbed into the CO2 and diffused. the radiation on the front window was reduced by 29.8w but the heating wasn’t because the heat was carried there by convection. . . .like Duh!!
Your problem when you see a problem with that is the failed flat earth model is a complete failure and your mind cannot wrap around the entirety of what that implies and you continue to rely on it to feed your doubt.
And finally ‘insulating value’ is very specific concept related to heat transfer. It is agnostic to how the heat travels.
“And finally insulating value is very specific concept related to heat transfer. ”
Uhhh, the 29.8 W/m2 was reduced heat transfer.
Insulation in action.
But selling that as insulation would be a violation of the law and get you trouble. I realize the science community has the protection of not selling anything and it is the only protection they have. So while you aren’t offering for sale but instead just spewing; I wasn’t in the market for anything like that anyway.
Denying that something that IS insulating, that is an insulator is not your finest hour, Bill.
Some answers from the authors who kindly responded:
“Hello Nathan,
Some answers to your questions:
Question: 1. You measure a back radiation of 17 W/m^2 at the rear wall of the apparatus from the CO2 in the front section of the . But you don’t measure the expected rise in temperature of the gas in that rear section of 2.4-4.0 C. Instead you measure ~ 0.25 C rise. I am puzzled by this. Do you have any physics explanation for this?
Sorry, we have not found a physical explanation. The paper would have been much better if we had such an explanation! But we decided to publish it anyway and hope for some response from other scientists, with more knowledge about radiation theory than we possess.”
More:
2. The 17 W/m^2 is hitting the rear wall, which is ~ a black body, thus it should be absorbed and heating the wall. It seems you are finding that it is not? Isnt this a violation of the First Law and of Kirchoff’s Law?
We agree that the following response to increased IR radiation, absorbed in the back wall should be:
– The absorbed energy should rise the temperature of the back wall. Thermal energy transfer to the air in the back chamber should rise its temperature. This process should continue until balance is obtained with the incoming IR energy and the loss of energy due to higher IR radiation from the back wall. This conservation of energy is expected from the first law of thermodynamics and Kirchoff’s Law. But these laws are valid, so some other explanation must exist!
– One explanation is that so much energy is lost due to losses through the walls and windows in the boxes. But the measurements of losses done by us do not support this.
– The loss of energy due to expansion of the gas during heating (First Law) was also discussed, and found not to be the cause of the missing heating.
3. “The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b).” So then are we to conclude that the Stefan Boltzmann Law has a problem? I don’t understand?
We do not state that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is wrong, but that there must be some other physical mechanism(s) that can explain the experimental results.
4. “The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC.”. But there is extra heating of the walls that should be coming from the back-scatter radiant power hitting it. So it seems you are casting doubt on basic radiative heat transfer principles here. No?
Note that the walls inside the two boxes are covered with thin, high-polished Al-foil. They reflect all IR radiation efficiently (based on tests done by us). IR radiated out from the back wall is mainly reflected out the front window. The walls are heated thermally, and the temperature is close to identical to the air temperature.
5. Is it possible that the expected rise you calculated is incorrect? I didnt see any indication of the total heating power input to the experiment? If it is much larger than the emitted black body radiation power from the rear wall, then the SB-law calculate temperature rise from eq 2 will be an overestimate.
The heating of the back wall was done in several different ways to ensure that energy loss through the rear side of the source did not influence the results. For the black-painted metal plate and the Al-foil the temperature was close to 100 oC. The back wall around the plate was heated from ca 20 to ca 50 oC. As you mention more IR radiation is emitted by the IR source than from the Styrofoam back wall. But when the IR radiation out of the front window was measured, the detector scanned the IR out the front window and the presented value is the average IR value. So we did not use the Eq. 2 to compute IR from the plate, but measured IR output directly through the front window!
I hope the answers to your questions is satisfactory! If not, please contact me again!
Best regards,
Thorstein Seim
Nate it sounds as if we should withhold judgements about the cause of the greenhouse effect until somebody provides such an explanation.
” it sounds as if”
Or we could do a better experiment that keeps track of all heat and matches better the atmosphere.
Thats pretty tough when you are just looking for heat landing in the one place that the theory suggests. Good idea to put the whole enchilada on hold until we find out where it is.
Declare whatever you want, Bill. If it is based on nothing but your feelings and biases, then it will be properly ignored.
Science will keep calm and carry on.
Indeed Nate science will move on. The question is are you.
Regarding the ‘peer reviewed publication’, Barry found this link,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing
discussing the publisher, as a ‘predatory’ Chinese publisher who
“This publisher exists for two reasons. First, it exists to exploit the author-pays Open Access model to generate revenue, and second, it serves as an easy place for foreign (chiefly Chinese) authors to publish overseas and increase their academic status.”
Nate, please stop trolling.
Is it? No not really?
Nate says:
Bill said: “Nate the study is merely yet another replication of an already established fact. CO2 has no insulating value.”
————————————-
Well, as matter of fact in this experiment, they found that CO2 reduced the outward flow of heat by 30 W/m^2.
But you still insist it has ‘no insulating value’??
===========================================
Absolutely Nate. It didn’t do what insulation does which is retain heat in the emitting surface.
Any moron knows the gas absorbs some of the energy but their is no ”insulating effect” unless it forces the surface to warm. Where he heck did you learn about insulation Nate?
What has happened here is the heat left the surface and transferred the gas and then boarded a train for a tour of the cosmos from there. Insulation retains heat Nate. It isn’t a ride from one place to a different place and then on to another stop on the tour.
LMAO! Who taught you Nate? Did they strap you down on a board and give you a water drip torture to pound it into your head that CO2 gas has insulating properties? Were you conned early in life with the 3rd grade description of global warming and have never outgrown it?
Bill,
“Any moron knows the gas absorbs some of the energy but their is no ‘insulating effect’ unless it forces the surface to warm.”
You have a level of dedication to ignorance that could almost be admired.
If I add fiberglass insulation to my house, and the temp inside remains the same, you gonna claim fiberglass has no insulation effect???
What did change is that the heat loss from my house and my heating bill were both reduced.
In the experiment, the temp did rise, just < than expected because the experimenters had other heat loss that they could not find nor explain.
Nate says:
You have a level of dedication to ignorance that could almost be admired.
If I add fiberglass insulation to my house, and the temp inside remains the same, you gonna claim fiberglass has no insulation effect???
What did change is that the heat loss from my house and my heating bill were both reduced.
—————————————
Hmmmm, you heating bill went down? Yeah thats a good indicator of insulation. What was your solar bill last month Nate?
As expected, Bill is again proven wrong, cant deal with it, tosses out chaff.
Nate it was just difficult to fathom how stupid your argument was that adding insulation to your house doesn’t cause it to warm when your thermostat simply turns the heat down more.
Are you arguing that the insulation value of CO2 will automatically turn the sun off more often?
LMAO!
This is definitely headed down well beyond the 3rd grade level of comprehension. Perhaps we should invite Greta to give you some help?
No just an example proving your requirements for what insulation MUST achieve, to qualify as insulating, is wrong.
If heat flow out of a system is reduced by adding something to the system, that is something that insulation can achieve. And it qualifies as insulating.
that is incorrect Nate.
Insulation slows heat transfer.
https://www.astm.org/Standards/thermal-insulation-standards.html
Heat is slowed down by this apparatus but it makes no significant difference if 100% CO2 is substituted for
common air.
Thus the CO2 does not add insulation value.
Seim and Olsen successfully debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect experimentally. Could their result have been foreseen?
Yes, and moreover very easily. Back radiation cannot explain the greenhouse effect because as the whole atmosphere warms, lapse rate remains constant. Hence in any slab of atmosphere, the bottom of the slab radiating heat upwards into the slab warms (increases in temperature) by the same number of degrees as the top of the slab radiating heat downwards.
But because the bottom is warmer than the top, an increase of one degree throughout the slab must radiate more heat up from the bottom than down from the top. This follows from the fourth-degree dependence of radiation on temperature, though it would still be true if the dependence were cubic or even quadratic (but not linear, for then the two directions would cancel exactly).
Hence in any slab of atmosphere, increasing temperature in the slab can only increase net radiation upwards, never downwards.
A natural question then would be, how come the IPCC attributes the greenhouse effect to back radiation when it can be debunked so easily with theory, and with somewhat more effort experimentally as done by Seim and Olsen?
The answer is that nowhere in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, AR5, is there any mention at all of back radiation.
Gosh, well how could the IPCC account for the greenhouse effect if not with back radiation?
Great question. The glossary at the back of WG1 of AR5 defines the greenhouse effect as follows.
“Greenhouse effect: The infrared radiative effect of all infrared-absorbing constituents in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, clouds, and (to a small extent) aerosols absorb terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earths surface and elsewhere in the atmosphere. These substances emit infrared radiation in all directions, but, everything else being equal, the net amount emitted to space is normally less than would have been emitted in the absence of these absorbers because of the decline of temperature with altitude in the troposphere and the consequent weakening of emission.”
That is, with more CO2 Earth must radiate its heat to space from a higher altitude, which being cooler due to lapse rate radiates less strongly.
Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.
Seim and Olsen should be commended for confirming theory in this way.
“Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a cartoon version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.
It seems logical to bookmark this. Now Nate thinks its only skeptics that believe the S&O experiment was flawed. LMAO!!
Weird non-sequitur Bill.
The only thing weird Nate is your flipflop on S&O.
Seems your only criticism of S&O arises out of great concern about awakening skepticism. Those 3rd graders being taught the failed model every day in school, can’t have those folks thinking independently on their own right? That would be blasphemy right?
One needs to protect the death by innumerable invisible cuts M&W mathematical function from blasphemous thinking and direct inspection.
After all any natural theory of warming wouldn’t be nearly the fund raiser for science that one is when you can impugn groups of persons and turn them into dogs worth kicking.
“S&O arises out of great concern about awakening skepticism. ”
Still a Non sequitur.
Translation for the intellectually impaired: IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
from anything I’ve said.
But if are truly dedicated to this weird belief, pls quote me saying any such thing!
Your refusal to acknowledge that the authors themselves do not claim what you make them claim is far from being weird, Bill.
It’s part for your auditing course.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-664675
Nate says:
Well, if you are saying that the real GHE must include lapse rate, I agree. As does climate science. And in fact the true GHE theory does incorporate it. The notion that it is purely radiative is over-simplified, a cartoon version that ignorant skeptics think, if debunked, then climate science is debunked. Not so.
======================================
Well here is a much shortened list of your ‘ignorant skeptics’ Nate.
Check Appendix D:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/a-note-on-fourier-and-the-greenhouse-effect.pdf
On the list: (partial)
Harvard University
Pennsylvannia State University (Home of Michael Mann)
University of Chicago
University of Washington
Columbia University (James Hansen)
Kiehl and Trenberth
NASA (James Hansen striking again)
US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey
Real Climate
UK Government website
Boston University
No doubt you could add hundreds more if one put the effort in.
> Check Appendix D:
First strike already in the title, Bill:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/a-note-on-fourier-and-the-greenhouse-effect.pdf
Back in my days, accountants where not mechanics.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop conflating theories and models, Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling. #2
I hope people aren’t overlooking my paragraph “Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk the greenhouse effect. What it can do is debunk the back radiation account of the greenhouse effect, as theory predicts it should.”
There is nothing in the S&O paper that debunks the greenhouse effect. Although Nic Lewis feels that TCR is in the range 1.0-1.5 C/doubling, it is based on data limited to this century. Using a much wider window suggests a TCR closer to 1.85 C/doubling.
Seems a lot of university websites and textbooks need correcting.
Including any backradiation or whatever it is you want to call it tomorrow without actually demonstrating it within a lapse rate is in for a lengthy wait what with the lack of assurance it has nothing to do with natural climate change.
“Seems a lot of university websites and textbooks need correcting.”
Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.” Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley continues to believe in the back radiation theory, though his source for this (a 2003 book on the earth’s biosphere) says nothing more than what’s in the IPCC’s definition in AR5, namely that when CO2 traps heat it reradiates it both up and down. Connolley overlooks that even more heat is radiated up from below as temperature rises.
While I have a number of textbooks on modern climate I don’t have any that support Wikipedia on its back radiation theory.
Since this comes up often:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/wg2TARannexB.pdf
wow, another month that’s going to fall outside the 95% bounds of a lot of older model predictions
amusingly there were warmer months than this in 1988, when Hansen predicted Earth would see about 2 degrees of warming by now (in his “business as usual” emissions scenario)
The CMIP5 and CMIP6 95% range is about +/- 0.4C. The March value of -0.01 is only 0.22 below the trendline. It is well within the 95% envelope. And this 0.22C excursion below the trendline is right at what we expect for a La Nina of this magnitude.
Is that correct? The CMIP6 trend line is close to GISTEMP which shows this month 0.4C warmer than the peak in 1999, so way above 0.2C you are stating. Roy Spencer posted a comparison of the UAH data with CMIP5 and CMIP6 not that long ago and it was close to the lower range before this significant cooling. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/06/cmip6-climate-models-producing-50-more-surface-warming-than-observations-since-1979/
don’t feed the troll
CMIP6 was literally submitted LAST YEAR
CMIP6 has been around for over 5 years now.
I recommend reading Eyring et al. 2016.
https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/9/1937/2016/
CMIP6 is still underway
” the upcoming 2021 IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6) will feature new state-of-the-art CMIP6 models.”
lol so no, we probably can’t judge the CMIP6 results yet
TallDave,
Scientists have been judging CMIP6 results for quite some time. There are a lot of publications available for review. This is how we know about the concerns with the new cloud microphysics schemes.
again, moron, the point is that they cannot predict the future
not the past
CMIP6 definitely makes predictions about the future. That’s kind of the point actually.
The KNMI explorer is a good place to download the predictions.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip6.cgi
ffs you absolutely retarded troll piece of excrement my whole point was that you are NOT judging them against future predictions
lol but since you enjoy pretending to do research, do tell us how many LT monthly temps in 2021 were lower than multiple months in 1988 in the CMIP3 ensemble means (last updated 2006, claimed “high confidence” in projections for 50 years)
hint: it’s a round number
extra troll hint: very round
TallDave,
Why would anyone bother trying to assess the skill of a model using observations that haven’t happened yet? That’s not even possible.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Yep these CMIP6 exercises are designed to whitewash what they don’t want you to look at. Either we can predict the climate or we can’t. Its a sorry state of affairs to adjust data and cherry pick models as an endorsement of the models that endorsed the 1976 Charney Report. Its so politics. . . .really folks we are doing a great job at this. . . .keep sending the checks. Oh that pesky little hockey stick that advertised the Charney Report? Move along folks nothing to see here.
I made my statement using Dr. Hausfather’s article here.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
A couple of points…
– The CMIP predictions you see are usually for the surface temperature.
– UAH TLT is not the same thing as the surface temperature.
– The CMIP predictions you see are usually for a full sphere global mean temperature.
– Had.CRUTv4 is a partial sphere global mean temperature and thus underestimates the warming since it excludes a large portion of the Arctic warms is warming 2-3x faster than the global mean.
– I’m not really sure where Dr. Spencer got his graph. It does not match up with other comparisons like those from Dr. Hausfather.
Anyway…my main point here is that the CMIP 95% envelope factors in a large amount of variability. A 0.22C excursion below the UAH TLT trendline isn’t that large. Specifically, the 2-sigma envelope for UAH TLT excursions is 0.36 so a 0.22 excursion isn’t even noteworthy among the UAH dataset itself.
People who compare UAH with CMIP know enough to compare CMIP models for troposphere where UAH observations are made.
The current observation is outside 95th percentile of statistical mean of 102 models used by CMIP. Which only demonstrates the models are profoundly wrong.
Yeah I was wondering about that. Haven’t read up on the CMIP analysis but I was noting Zeke was discussing ocean heat uptake models making for some level of atmospheric imbalance. Since that seems to be a rather dodgy assumption they probably ought to graph that in the CMIP analysis if my take is correct about what is included in it.
Others have the same concern.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/28/a-pertinent-climate-question/
Ken said: The current observation is outside 95th percentile of statistical mean of 102 models used by CMIP.
No they’re not. Look at the article by Dr. Hausfather I posted above.
Also refer to the publication Hausfather 2019. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378
Ken — true, and those are *current* models
past models are *really* going to take a beating this month
look at some of the AR1-4 predictions, or (for a really good laugh) Hansen’s “business as usual” Scenario A
models with predictions so dire Hansen chained himself to coal plants
but not in China lol
TallDave,
Read Hansen’s 1988 paper.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
What is scenario A?
What is scenario B?
What is scenario C?
Which scenario did Hansen feel was most likely to occur?
Which scenario actually occurred?
Next read Hausfather’s paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378
How well did Hansen’s 1988 model perform when given the inputs for the scenario that actually occurred?
How well did the other past models perform?
bdgwx,
read Hansen’s Senate testimony
compare Scennario A to last month
2 degrees of predicted warming vs none
troll better
TallDave,
First…scenario A did not predict 2C of warming.
Second…there has been significantly more warming than none since 1988.
Third…why would I want to compare scenario A to last month?
My intent is not to provoke, but to open a dialog concerning what Hansen actually wrote and how well or poor his primitive model (by today’s standards) actually performed. If my questions cannot be answered then we probably aren’t at a point at which this can be discussed yet. You are, of course, expected to ask me questions as well. I’ll try to answer to the best of my ability. Just understand that I don’t have all of the answers, but I might be able to at least point you to the publications which might contain them.
> compare Scennario A to last month
side-eyeing-chloe.gif
lol ask YOU questions??? demonstrably one of the stupidest, most dishonest people ever to troll this board? lmao sure, that sounds like a great idea
or I could just point again that you are lying very stupidly, Hansen predicted roughly 2 degrees of warming by Mar 2021 as literally anyone can see from his Senate testimony
there has been roughly zero
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/12/getting-skeptical-about-the-claims-made-by-skepticalscience-about-skeptics/
—
The Rebuttal: Any reasonable person reading Hansens testimony would understand him to be speaking about emissions, which the EPA says have grown exponentially in line with Scenario A. While it is true that the models themselves had greenhouse gas concentrations as inputs, Hansens testimony makes it clear those concentrations were chosen to represent emissions scenarios, and Hansens failure to predict how concentrations would respond to emissions caused his temperature predictions to fail as well.
TallDave said: Hansen predicted roughly 2 degrees of warming by Mar 2021
Look again. Refer to figure 3 in Hansen 1988. His predictions are for annual means ending in 2020. Scenario A, B, and C end at 1.6, 1.1, and 0.6 respectively. From 1988 these represent a warming of 1.2, 0.8, and 0.5 respectively. Scenario A being at 1.2C is far less than 2.0C.
TallDave said: as literally anyone can see from his Senate testimony
I don’t see that in your link.
TallDave said: there has been roughly zero
The 5yr mean in 1988 was 0.23C. The 5yr mean in 2020 was 0.96C. This represents 0.73C of warming.
The trendline in 1988 was 0.30C. The trendline in 2020 was 0.91C. This represents 0.61C of warming.
These values are substantially different than 0.0C of warming.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
TallDave said: which the EPA says have grown exponentially in line with Scenario A.
That is not correct. Scenario A is not what actually played out. Even Hansen himself did not expect scenario A. I refer you to pg. 9345, 2nd paragraph, last sentence where he says and I quote “Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the 3 cases”. But even scenario B overestimated the true forcing since Pinatubo 1991 erupted and cooled the planet by 0.3C and the Montreal Protocol began curtailing some GHGs in the 1990s. Neither of which were included in scenario B.
I’ll also refer you to Hausfather 2019 (https://tinyurl.com/rc7px28f) for a more rigorous evaluation of Hansen’s 1988 model and several others dating back 1970.
lol at the risk of further spreading your ridiculous excrement, Hansen’s Scenario A, B or C were *policy choices* — in predicting B, Hansen was predicting a policy result, not a physical climate result
the actual policy choice that emerged was clearly A, as the world continued conducting “business as usual” (and in fact China exceeded even that)
so Hansen clearly got his emissions policy prediction wrong
but, as it happens, Hansen ALSO got the relationship between concentrations and emissions wrong (due to carbon sinks)
and due to the coincidentally offsetting errors, it turned out that B was pretty close to actual concentrations
Hausfather’s whitewash is a joke, completely ignores the actual temperature prediction Hansen made
so, once again, your claims are totally unresponsive to my original assertion, which you have not laid a finger on
amusingly there were warmer months than this in 1988, when Hansen predicted Earth would see about 2 degrees of warming by now (in his business as usual emissions scenario)
TallDave said: Hansens Scenario A, B or C were *policy choices*
Yes and No. Yes in that his selection of scenarios have a policy dependency…specifically the regulated emissions. No in that his selection of scenarios have natural dependency as well including the variability volcanic and solar forcing.
TallDave said: in predicting B, Hansen was predicting a policy result, not a physical climate result
His preferential treatment of B was based on predicting 1) human behavior and 2) volcanic and solar forcing.
TallDave said: so Hansen clearly got his emissions policy prediction wrong
Correct. That means an important input in his model had a substantial deviation relative to what actually happened. In other words, his skill at predicting human behavior was not perfect.
TallDave said: but, as it happens, Hansen ALSO got the relationship between concentrations and emissions wrong (due to carbon sinks)
You can see in the paper that he uses GHG trajectories provided by Ramanathan 1985. This puts 630 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere at around 2060 for scenario B. Obviously scenario B overestimates CO2 concentrations as well. But as indicated this is taken from Ramanathan. The H88 model does not appear to be coupled with carbon cycle model. Hansen just feeds the CO2 forcing from Ramanathan in as an input.
TallDave said: and due to the coincidentally offsetting errors, it turned out that B was pretty close to actual concentrations
Ramanathan 1985 lists 450 ppm at 2030. We’re probably closer to a 430 ppm trajectory. Can you provide a reference for the claim that there are offsetting errors here? I’d like to review that.
TallDave said: Hausfathers whitewash is a joke, completely ignores the actual temperature prediction Hansen made
Hausfather was trying to determine if the H88 model deviates from observations because of model physics or because of scenario inputs. The conclusion is that the model physics is pretty close and most of the deviation is the result of scenario inputs.
TallDave said: o, once again, your claims are totally unresponsive to my original assertion, which you have not laid a finger on
Here are your assertions in this subthread.
1. Hansen predicted 2C of warming from 1988 through 2020. False. Scenario B shows 0.8C of warming.
2. No warming has occured from 1988 through 2020. False. Using 5yr means the warming is 0.7C or using linear regression it is 0.6C.
3. Human and natural emissions have followed scenario A. False. The true forcing trajectory is just slightly below scenario B.
TallDave said: amusingly there were warmer months than this in 1988, when Hansen predicted Earth would see about 2 degrees of warming by now (in his business as usual emissions scenario)
First…that’s 0.8C; not 2.0C.
Second…the highest anomaly is the GISS record in 1988 is 0.57 in January. We have to go back to Feb of 2014 before we find a month that is below this value.
Third…the GISS record has about 0.15C of variability in the departures from the trendline. In 1988 the trendline was at 0.28C. The trendline in 2014 was 0.78C. That gives the 0.55C value a z-score of -1.5 or about 6%. Therefore over a 12 month period surrounding Feb 2014 there was a 53% chance of this happening. And over a 24 month period there was a 78% chance of this happening. And over a 36 month period there was a 90% chance of this happening. The point being that variability makes it extremely likely that La Nina will induce drops that go below El Nino’s from 30 years ago. In other words, this is expected.
> amusingly there were warmer months than this in 1988
side-eyeing-chloe.gif
bdbwx, the paper you want me to read is paywalled. Must not be considered important.
bill,
Which paper are you trying to read?
Hausfather 2019
I posted this link above. https://tinyurl.com/rc7px28f
BTW…when you google for “Hausfather 2019 pdf” it is the first link.
bdgwx says:
Read Hansens 1988 paper.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
What is scenario A?
What is scenario B?
What is scenario C?
Which scenario did Hansen feel was most likely to occur?
Which scenario actually occurred?
—————————-
Gee no peak oil, no runaway warming? Wow we fixed the problem without doing anything at all! I suspect we ought to stick with the winning strategy!!!
GCM Models indicate lower-troposphere average global anomalies to be HIGHER that the surface temp anomalies. Therefore surface anomalies are even lower than the UAH values, according to current models.
Yes. The mid-troposphere tropical hotspot is especially a zone of enhanced warming shown in most models that deviates significantly from observations. This has been a known problem for almost 2 decades now. Clearly the CMIP suite of models have a deficiency in this area and other areas. I will say that the overall energy budget of modeling seems reasonable which makes me wonder if the overestimation of warming in some areas is balanced by the underestimation in others. In other words is the modeling distributing the heat incorrectly. Anyway, I haven’t seen the results of CMIP6 yet, but given that the cloud microphysics has been implicated as being subpar I’m not holding out much hope that this has been improved much. We’ll see.
bdg…” The CMIP predictions you see are usually for the surface temperature.
UAH TLT is not the same thing as the surface temperature”.
1)Unvalidated models cannot ‘predict’. they can only ‘project’.
Here’s the IPCC jargon, and I mean jargon, from the Mother of all Double-Talkers. Note below that their scales of “most likely” are created by the IPCC and have nothing in reality against which they can be calibrated.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/definitions.html
“When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections”.
“A scenario is a coherent, internally consistent and plausible description of a possible future state of the world. It is not a forecast; rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future can unfold. A projection may serve as the raw material for a scenario, but scenarios often require additional information (e.g., about baseline conditions). A set of scenarios is often adopted to reflect, as well as possible, the range of uncertainty in projections. Other terms that have been used as synonyms for scenario are “characterisation”, “storyline” and “construction””.
2)the UAH TLT is essentially the same as surface temperatures because it can be directly correlated with altitude. That fact has been corroborated with radiosondes.
UAH TLT is about -9C. Surface temperatures are about 15C. They definitely are not the same. And RSS matches radiosondes better than UAH. https://tinyurl.com/3hww42re
The ratpac data set is just one subjectively processed set of many others that are in line with UAH. None have been proven to be superior to the others. In fact most radiosonde data trends are often lower than the UAH or RSS value. Christy has written extensively on this here and elsewhere. See for example
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/05/comparing-models-with-observations/
The point is, the UAH global average lower troposphere anomaly can be taken as an upper limit on the same surface anomaly, unless the models are unreliable.
m d mill,
Yes. Christy has written extensively on this. Here is an actual publication.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
Notice that this publication is focused on the IGRA dataset.
And notice what IGRA has posted in the Recommend Uses and Limitations section on their homepage.
IGRA is useful as input to air pollution models, for studies of the detailed vertical structure of the troposphere and lower stratosphere, for assessing the atmospheric conditions during a particular meteorological event, and for many other analyses and operational applications. NCEI scientists have applied a comprehensive set of quality control procedures to the data to remove gross errors. However, they did not attempt to remove jumps and other discontinuities caused by changes in instrumentation, observing practice, or station location. Users studying long-term trends may wish to use the NOAA Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Assessing Climate (RATPAC) or one of the available non-NOAA IGRA-derived, homogeneity-adjusted radiosonde datasets.
https://tinyurl.com/e52j2jnw
And here is commentary from experts regarding Christy’s graph.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/comment-page-3/
As per is standard Dr. Christy needs to address these issues and resubmit for review. It is preferred this be done through the normal process so that issues like these can be addressed before the work is used for official purposes and before it is duplicated along with any errors ad-nauseum over the internet.
if you read closely, sometime around AR4 or AR5 they started adding an optimistic caveat that there might someday be developed a quantitative method for evaluating the physicality of the models
so there’s hope for the future
*snort*
Please, the so called expert here is Gavin Schmidt who is no more expert on these data sets than Christie. The “critisisms” of Schmidt and others referenced from REALClimate here(not peer reviewed either) are either ridiculous or weak. The Christy plots referenced there average 4 Balloon data sets and 3 satellite and are in general compelling and no evidence has been given to prove they are wrong. The critisisms amount to “I don’t like the way you presented that or the data set values you use.”, not that anything presented is proven incorrect.
The ratpac data set is just one subjectively processed set of many others that are in line with UAH. None have been proven to be superior to the others. In fact most radiosonde data values are often lower than the UAH or RSS value.
The main point again is, the UAH (and RSS) global average lower troposphere anomaly can be taken as an upper limit on the same surface anomaly, unless the models are simply unreliable. And the satellite and radio sonde balloon data indicate the models are indeed significantly over estimating observed warming. The 7 averaged satellite and balloon data sets MIGHT be wildly wrong, but is it really likely? Probably not, IMO. It is telling that theoretical models (unproven and questionable over multi-decadal time periods–see the Lewis-Currie conservation of energy based sensitivity analysis using IPCC “sanctioned” forcing and temperature data) are taken as unquestionable, but 7 averaged actual observed data sets are quickly dismissed as rubbish. The results of Christie’s compelling 4 plots you referenced may be wrong, but no more likely so than the 102 model average, of models which exhibit a roughly factor of 2 difference even among themselves! That is the point, the question is not settled, not nearly. It would be good if Schmidt and other AGW propogandists simply acknowledged that fact. Not that they are wrong but that they reasonably could be.
You are right on that bdgwx. I was expecting this too.
lol the deadline to submit CMIP6 was 2020
so it’s nice to know the model that is being used to drive multi-trillion-dollar global policy for the next 50-100 years survived… three months
meanwhile this value is probably outside the range of nearly every IPCC-endorsed model from more than 20 years ago (also used to drive multi-trillion-dollar global policy)
lmao I mean you seriously just tried to claim CMIP6 predictions still being in bounds after ~.1% of the model lifetime meant something
TallDave,
Observed surface temperatures haven’t fallen outside the 95% CI envelope of the CMIP6 suite since 1929. Since that time there have been 91 consecutive annual mean values that have stayed within this range. We should have expected about 4 excursions, but got none. In fact, the odds of going 91 consecutive years without an excursion is about 1%. That means the +/- 0.4C 95% range indicated by CMIP6 is an overestimate. In other words, the model has more skill than advertised.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
BTW…notice how well both CMIP5 and CMIP6 perform. They certainly aren’t perfect. No modeling will ever be perfect here, but it is reasonable and better than most other models out there. And they absolutely destroy contrarian models in skill. In fact, most contrarian models are so bad they can’t even get the direction of the temperature change correct.
are you seriously this stupid?
CMIP6 was under active development LAST YEAR
you really think it’s at all impressive to predict the PAST?
lol troll better
TallDave said: are you seriously this stupid?
I don’t claim to have superior intelligence or insights. And I’ll be the first to admit that I make more than my fair share of mistakes. I’ll also be the first to admit that those doing the actual research are far smarter than me. The more I learn the more I realize how little I know.
TallDave said: CMIP6 was under active development LAST YEAR
Yeah, that’s correct.
TallDave said: you really think its at all impressive to predict the PAST?
Of course. It’s remarkable that it performs so well given the complexity of the climate system. But being impressed is not the reason hind.casting is performed. It’s done to test, validate, and quantify the uncertainty and biases in the model. The obvious concept here is that models that have the least skill in matching reality are ranked lower in terms of the confidence in their ability to predict the future. This concept is ubiquitous in all disciplines of science. In fact, it is one of the core mechanisms by which scientific understanding and ability to predict progress. Scientists should test models against past data. That’s a good thing. We want that to happen. Be suspicious of those that aren’t doing it.
lol troll better
scientists make predictions about the future
be suspicious of stupid trolls who don’t do that
Hello Tall One,
Sometimes scientists make predictions about the past, but then they call it retrodictions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction
You’re welcome.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yes, september 1988 had a higher anomaly… +0,04 K! Wow, what a difference!
And just like that , we are below the zero line
That is using the new 1991-2020 baseline. Using the 1981-2010 baseline it is still +0.11C. Remember…all of those posts predicting below zero were based on the 1981-2010 baseline. We are not there yet.
Of course another way of looking at it is the current anomaly is the same as it was in February 1980 more than 41 years ago.
February 1980 was -0.10°C, not -0.01°C.
Ooops you are right. Have to go to March 1983 when it was +.02. thats just a mere 38 years.
March 1983 was the first positive (using new baseline) month. The next wouldn’t be till June 1987, and then there was another in December 1987.
In contrast March 2021 is the first negative month since September 2018, and then you need to go back to April 2015 for the next negative month.
Of course 1983 and 1987 were El Nino years, whereas 2021 and 2018 are La Ninas.
Well what that tells me is that we are still within the range of short term natural climate variability. Unfortunately the satellites are still restricted to the ranges of short term natural variability.
We already know that ocean oscillations feature a dominance of one sign of short term natural variability over the opposite sign. Whether its a result of the same unknown source of causation or not could matter. As Dr. Syun Akasofu stated to understand anthropogenic warming you first must understand natural warming. Figuring out the cause of the warming of the first half of the 20th century could give us fantastic information regarding that uncertainty. The question is does anybody want to find that. Probably about as much as they want to find the cause of UHI trends and their amplitude. As it is they are flailing to maintain concern with CO2 as the control knob. . . .can’t be upsetting that apple cart. . . .as good as killing the goose that lays the golden egg. . . .noting that the Emperor wears no clothes and all those other marvelous parables that have arisen throughout the recorded history of mankind.
bill said: Have to go to March 1983 when it was +.02. thats just a mere 38 years.
That isn’t out of line with expectation. At +0.1365C/decade we expect the trendline to move up 0.52C. And with the standard deviation of the departure from the trendline being 0.18 the z-score for a 0.22 excursion below and 0.33 excursion above are -1.2 and 1.8 respectively. These are probabilities of 12% and 3% respectively. Therefore the odds of randomly selecting 2 such values 38 years apart that would happen this way is 1-in-275. And with 51 attempts the odds of this happening by March 2021 is about 17%.
If, however, there was no +0.1365C/decade trend we would get a radically different result. The probability of any two randomly selected anomalies of the same month from different years being >= +0.02 and <= -0.01 from the mean in that order is about 20%. And with 51 attempts the odds of this happening by March 2021 is 99.998%.
In other words the secular warming (whatever it may be caused by) changed this event from a near certainty to one that would have only been expected 17% of the time.
Probability calculations can be tricky so if someone wants to double check my work that would be appreciated.
You are right bdgwx. Just shows we are still in the range of natural variation.
bill hunter
So you feel the need to compare a La Nina to a very strong El Nino?
Sure why not?
thats clearly within the range of natural variation. As we know there other drivers of natural variation, such a multi-decadal oscillations that ostensibly favor a persistence of single phases of the shorter termed oscillations. there are likely other variable that lead to other natural variances. Picking a temperature that is in the range of any observed natural phenomena is fine as we know nothing of its persistence or its trigger. NWS believes it understands some of the mechanisms that make these oscillation short lived, the primary one being the piling up of water in the western Pacific and the propensity to slosh back over the entire Pacific and knowledge that wind patterns can change over time to facilitate that slosh back. They include data on all that in the ENSO forecasts but disclaim offering it as the cause or limit it in anyway absent science that demonstrates its limits.
For example in the early 20th century a decades long warming occurred that models have failed to duplicate. Take home message on that is models are deficient.
The real truth is we can’t verify the claim that none of the warming we have seen isn’t natural nor can we reject the claim that all of it is natural.
The range of natural is the range of natural and without understanding its limitations all we can say about warming beyond the range of natural is we suspect it must be manmade.
Early on a lot of propaganda was being spread, especially by Al Gore, that we had moved beyond the range of natural variation. A claim that cannot in anyway be validated.
Its as bad as claiming any hurricane or any group of hurricanes being influenced by AGW. There simply is not the data to support that. If you believe climate models tell you so then you know very little about climate models. Climate models are merely assumptions about estimated primary effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and estimates about the feedbacks arising from them. Change the variables that aren’t set in stone by science and you will get different results.
I make it 0.12C under the 1981-2010 baseline. This would have been a slightly bigger drop from February than under the new baseline.
bdg…”That is using the new 1991-2020 baseline. Using the 1981-2010 baseline it is still +0.11C”.
Let’s not cherry pick over a tenth of a degree, which you could not measure reliably on a typical room mercury thermometer, let alone sense.
The global SSTs have dropped an additional .18 C since the 6 month lag cut off. UAH usually reacts even stronger to these changes so I would expect another .2-.3 drop in UAH. Keep in mind that each month has a + or – error of about .1 C so some of that may already be within this months anomaly.
With the Nino 1-2 area now dropping again we could see more drops again in the future.
Its going to be hard to convince people of technical common sense that there is a climate crisis being caused by CO2 emissions.
Well indeed, if you only give them half the story Ken. It was predicted that this La Nina would induce a drop.
Is this going to affect the long term trend?
No matter how you look at it, going below zero is very bad news for climate alarmists.
“No matter how you look at it, going below zero is very bad news for climate alarmists.”
What a load of old cobblers, mate. The zero line is arbitrary (it was changed 2 months ago). A negative value is meaningless without the context of the rest of the data.
“The zero line is arbitrary”
Competent scientists never use “arbitrary” zero lines. They always use non-arbitrary zero lines, that is, zero lines that are conventional but also rational. “Conventional” and “arbitrary” are not synonymous.
Thanks for the assertions, but you missed the point.
UAH changed its baseline 2 months ago. If they had not, the negative value would not have occurred.
The fact that the value is negative is purely to do with the baseline, and nothing else. In terms of climate and climate change, a negative anomaly is meaningless without the trest of the data to put it in context.
Eg, my friend is 10 cm shorter than me. If my height is the baseline then my friend height anomaly is -10cm!
But I’m 2.2 metres tall. My friend is 1.8 metres tall, nearly a 6-footer.
Your comment was all about how things look, ands nothing about how things are. Politics concerns itself with the optics of a matter, science doesn’t care.
Galaxie … the problem of half the story is that it was also predicted that El Nino would induce a rise but nowhere is that mentioned; its automatically attributed by the non technical people in the audience as being due to human emissions. Double Standard.
ENSO is mentioned all the time as being a significant contributing factor to the variability of the UAH TLT anomalies both positive (El Nino) and negative (La Nina) phases. If you didn’t see it mentioned then you had blinders on.
Furthermore, ENSO occurs regardless of what the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) is or what is causing the EEI to be what it is. Just like a positive EEI does not stop the seasons from happening it also does not stop ENSO from happening.
The media practice a scandalous double standard: they present the effects of El Niño as proof of global warming, but it never occurs to them to present La Niña as proof of global cooling.
They also pin every weather extreme on climate change as well and tend to overrepresent the more extreme predictions as well. These are all good reasons to stop using the media as a source of information.
Its like Mark Twain said: “If you don’t read the paper you’re uninformed. If you do read the paper you’re misinformed.”
Clearly, the more things change the more they stay the same.
After the adjustment of the baseline up a few months ago, it was predictable that someone would come along and say a silliness like:
“No matter how you look at it, going below zero is very bad news for climate alarmists.”
Don’t you like the new baseline? Worse for you.
“REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.”
The linear trend could be the same for 100 y, giving a rise of ~ 1.4 to 2.1 C.
But if we keep adjusting the baseline every 10 y, then the anomaly will continue to oscillate near 0.
As if there was no warming!
Basic math you guys.
How is it worse? Baseline choice is arbitrary, meaningless.
Do you not get that??
Nate, think a bit. When the thermal values are below zero, the job of the climate alarmists becomes much more difficult.
That’s not how that works Rawandi. UAH could have arbitrarily picked a baseline such that all anomalies are below. The warming trend would still be +0.14C/decade.
“UAH could have arbitrarily picked a baseline such that all anomalies are below”
Yes, but that choice is irrational and therefore unscientific.
The baseline chosen by Roy Spencer is the one advocated by the World Meteorological Organization. This choice is obviously conventional, but not irrational. And one obvious consequence of such a rational choice is that falling below zero is a nightmare for alarmists.
I don’t think something is fully clicking here. The choice of baseline is arbitrary. It doesn’t matter at all what the baseline is. It could be 1951-1980 like what GISS uses, 1979-1998 like what RSS uses, 1971-2000 like what NOAA uses, 1991-2020 like what Copernicus, or something entirely different. There is no consistency here in climatic datasets and that’s okay because it doesn’t matter at all. The warming trend is exactly the same regardless of the choice.
And I don’t know who the “alarmists” are that you refer to but understand that the UAH TLT trendline is at +0.21C and the departures from the trendline have a standard deviation of 0.18. That means we expect departure below 0.0C about 16% of the time or about 9x every 5 years. In other words, this is not unexpected at all. Actually, it is expected with some regularity actually.
“The choice of baseline is arbitrary.”
No. That statement is flatly false. All the baseline choices you mentioned in your last comment (GISS, RSS, NOAA, Copernicus, and UAH) are rational conventions, and therefore cannot be “arbitrary”. “Conventional” and “arbitrary” are not synonymous.
Rawandi,
Let me see if I can explain it this way.
Using the 1979-1998 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Using the 1981-2010 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Using the 1991-2020 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Using the 1979 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Using the 2020 average the trendline is 0.55C higher than it was 40 years ago.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Nate says:
After the adjustment of the baseline up a few months ago, it was predictable that someone would come along and say a silliness like:
No matter how you look at it, going below zero is very bad news for climate alarmists.
=================================
Makes sense to me Nate. If after 30 years you have discovered anything alarming about the present climate, a new baseline makes a lot of sense. Doncha think?
“a new baseline makes a lot of sense.”
Not if the point is to detect the magnitude of the global warming trend.
Nate says: ”Not if the point is to detect the magnitude of the global warming trend.”
Trend doesn’t tell us shiit. 30 year baselines give us basically a more current view on recent warming. 40 year baselines can minimize an accelerating trend.
But it all is pretty meaningless unless you can equate a trend or an anomaly to something negative occurring.
“Trend doesn’t tell us shiit. 30 year baselines give us basically a more current view”
So you think we should be paying more attention to baselines, for some reason, and disregard trends.
Obviously Roy Spencer, and anyone with common sense, disagrees.
Nate says:
Trend doesn’t tell us shiit. 30 year baselines give us basically a more current view
So you think we should be paying more attention to baselines, for some reason, and disregard trends.
Obviously Roy Spencer, and anyone with common sense, disagrees.
===============
Thats so ignorant of you. I just went over why trends are important for the purpose of identifying change. What I meant by a trend not telling us shiit is once you know you have a trend you still don’t know if its a good trend or a bad trend.
Over a 150 years the anomaly gets bigger and propagandists love that, but when you have gone 150 years and the general trend in human suffering indicates its a good trend, a long term anomaly can only mean something to the ignorant.
Get less than 30 years and its more uncertain that any trend in human suffering might be due to war, depression, or something else mankind tends to do to increase suffering, usually resolved in the modern era within 30 years. So you can say with more confidence the last 30 years have been good years too. That’s certainly my perspective anyway. Go beyond that and you are in danger of transposing any belief you have that your parents, grandparents, or great grandparents had fewer obstacles to success than you.
“What I meant by a trend not telling us shiit is once you know you have a trend you still don’t know if its a good trend or a bad trend.” “human suffering might be due to war, depression, or something else mankind..”
As usual you drift way off-topic.
The topic was whether crossing ‘zero’ is meaningful , when arbitrary baseline choice affects where ‘zero’ is.
Logic and math say NO.
You said ‘makes sense”, but cannot defend this with relevant logic.
Then just stop posting.
You wanna talk about something else??, then don’t post HERE.
Nate says:
You wanna talk about something else??, then don’t post HERE
————————-
Sour grapes masquerades as wannabee moderator. Goodness!!
You called dropping below baseline silly. Well I got news for you going below baseline means the climate has been cooling for a month you also seem to fancy yourself as an enforcer of the effect of the 15 second soundbite making sure it always points in the same direction until little teams of circular reasoners can find an excuse to alter the observations. LOL!
Suffer Nate. . . .Suffer! I can’t think of anybody here who deserves it more than you.
“You called dropping below baseline silly.”
Yep, and explained the logic of the non-significance of it.
You objected, but have no logic.
Case in point:
“going below baseline means the climate has been cooling for a month”
LOL
The temperature had been kept elevated by consistent El Nino conditions for much of the last 6 years. We are now correcting for that situation.
We are likely sequestering some ocean energy that will return after the La Nina comes to an end. However, a lot of energy was lost over the past 6 years and I doubt we will come close to replenishing it.
Well they always have the black box in which alarming warming has been disappearing beyond sight into the bottom of the ocean glaring us in the face.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/28/a-pertinent-climate-question/
> Its going to be hard to convince people of technical common sense that there is a climate crisis being caused by CO2 emissions.
I heard something similar recently:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-652049
Sometimes, a a few per cent of the several hundred Wm-2 in the natural flux to space fail to convince contrarians with technical common sense. Some other times, a monthly drop convince contrarians with technical common sense.
Contrarians who appeal to technical common sense are very hard to convince when it does not suit them.
well 40 years into that 100 year journey to in excess of 3 degrees warming the scientists in charge say we have .6 to .9 tenths of it unrealized to date getting buried out of sight mostly at the bottom of the ocean. When can we expect that to rise like a phoenix bird? In 1,500 years?
All very pertinent questions, Bill.
The Earth already enjoyed five mass extinctions. What’s a few Cs in a few hundred years?
Yep, I think I mentioned in the previous monthly update that asteroids were a much larger threat.
I like the way you’re thinking, Bill.
There are larger threats, therefore AGW isn’t one.
Willard says:
”I like the way youre thinking, Bill.
There are larger threats, therefore AGW isnt one.”
Hmmm, thats a figment of your own imagination.
I see.
If you accept that AGW is a threat, Bill, on what grounds have you come to the conclusion that an asteroid strike is a bigger threat than AGW?
There is not much upside from 500 meter diameter space rock hitting Earth. Lot’s up side to warming if you are in an Ice Age.
The world has spent trillions of dollars related to irrational fear of global warming and less than 100 million dollar relate to finding impactors 1 km in diameter or larger which could hit Earth. And it’s international effort, and didn’t require endless and expensive conferences like global warming seems to need.
There is zero proof that any further warming will be severely drastic to life on this planet.
> The world has spent trillions of dollars related to irrational fear of global warming
Citation needed.
Willard says:
”I see.
If you accept that AGW is a threat, Bill, on what grounds have you come to the conclusion that an asteroid strike is a bigger threat than AGW?”
Well they seem to be the most plausible theory of the cause of mass extinctions Willard.
By that logic an asteroid strike would be a bigger threat than say obesity, Bill.
But do continue to equivocate. No rush.
Bjorn Lomborg has done extensive research on the cost of climate change studies and policy fronts. If you want to get a good idea how many billions of dollars that have been spent on “fighting” climate change, Lomborg has this pretty well documented. He is an economist by the way. I think those billions are already getting to the trillions.
–Willard says:
April 2, 2021 at 5:17 PM
> The world has spent trillions of dollars related to irrational fear of global warming
Citation needed.–
Do you know how much Germany has spent?
I think Germany does some things right, such as in terms of accounting for such costs.
Now, Germany also does really crazy stuff, like solar energy.
[[Trying to be solar capital of world was quite mad.]]
Germany Solar and Wind is Triple the Cost of Frances Nuclear and Will Last Half as Long
https://energycentral.com/c/ec/germany-solar-and-wind-triple-cost-france%E2%80%99s-nuclear-and-will-last-half-long
“Frances nuclear energy spending was 60% of what Germany spent on renewables. France gets about 400 Terawatt hour per year from nuclear but Germany gets 226 Terawatt-hours each year. 45 Terawatt-hours of Germanys renewable power comes from burning biomass which generates air pollution.”
“France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion (290 billion). The complete buildout of the 58 reactors was less 400 billion. Germany has spent about 500 billion over the last 20 years to get to 35% renewables. 7% of this is burning biomass.”
Frances cost was $1 billion to build each terawatt hour per year of clean energy.
Germanys cost is $2.5 billion to build each terawatt hour per year of relatively clean energy.
“Chinas cost is $0.5 billion per terawatt hour per year of clean energy. Chinas nuclear buildout is over 5 times cheaper than Germanys.”
> If you want to get a good idea how many billions of dollars that have been spent on “fighting” climate change, Lomborg has this pretty well documented.
Even if this was true, which I doubt so I welcome your sources on this Rob, he’s still trillions short for gb’s pontifications to hold.
Here’s what trillions look like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
Willard says:
By that logic an asteroid strike would be a bigger threat than say obesity, Bill.
But do continue to equivocate. No rush.
============================
Haven’t thought about it. But is this a precursor to you telling me you voted to outlaw the sale of extra large sodas in you muncipality?
–Even if this was true, which I doubt so I welcome your sources on this Rob, he’s still trillions short for gb’s pontifications to hold.
Here’s what trillions look like:
The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per US citizen.–
I am talking about world, US is not the world. Nor is federal government all of US government.
And since 1975 when stupid religion began.
Why does Germany have such a high cost of electrical power and what do costs of having your nation having a higher price of electrical power.
It is said global warming market is currently about 1.5 trillion dollars a year and going increase according to some to tens of trillion.
That it’s it’s cost trillions of dollars is a under statement.
And all a waste of time and money- in comparison to say, the 300 billion dollar global satellite market. Which might climb to 1.5 trillion in a couple decades.
> I am talking about world, US is not the world.
I showed you numbers, gb, and can show you more:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/08/six-big-tech-stocks-down-1-trillion-in-three-days.html
Keep saying stuff.
Willard says:
”The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per US citizen.”
Thats a darned good example there Willard. $1.9 trillion dollars on a war in Iraq that one dime probably shouldn’t have been spent. . . .all to get rid of non-existent WMDs. Perfect dude!
“Lomborg has this pretty well documented. He is an economist by the way.”
Yes Economics is different from the physical sciences, in that the results you get in Economics seem to depend on one’s political agenda.
There are schools of economics that always find government regulation is bad, and others that find the opposite.
Nate says:
There are schools of economics that always find government regulation is bad, and others that find the opposite.
———————————–
Yes Nate believes anybody should just know a couple a degrees of warming is bad and anybody who doesn’t simply isn’t in any legitimate school of thought.
Nate you are such an inspiration with your super acute way you see things.
Do you know the difference between an ice age and our times, Bill?
5C.
So yes indeed, “a couple a degrees” can indeed matter.
Willard says:
Do you know the difference between an ice age and our times, Bill?
5C.
So yes indeed, a couple a degrees can indeed matter.
————————–
Hmmm, Willard I suspect an ice age is pretty cold. Are you expecting a couple of degrees of warming is going to trigger one?
LOL!
Whats the matter had a little problem of digging up how the Eskimos fared in the Arctic 6,000 years ago? Wasn’t that when some pre-Iraq civilization invented a wheel?
And indeed Willard aren’t we actually now talking about something around a half that? Seems to me nothing but better has happened so far.
Keep throwing squirrels, Bill.
You still tried to minimize the impact of “a couple a degrees.”
Willard says:
Keep throwing squirrels, Bill.
You still tried to minimize the impact of a couple a degrees.
———————
Well in truth the perspective doesn’t matter.
1) Scenario 1: I am shivering in the 19th century, yeah a couple degrees would be great!
2) Scenario 2: I am now and 1 degree is in the can. Since my favorite places are S. California, Florida, and Hawaii and I live in CA. Those other places have a mean climate 8C higher than LA. So I am still going yeah a couple of degrees would be great.
3) Scenario 3: It warms another degree and I start changing my mind. Well in 3 decades we could be back to half way between Scenario 1 and 3. That thousand years for feedback to playout by the ocean bottom waters upwelling to the surface would never be more than slightly realized as 3 decades will wipe out the imbalance and cut into the primary.
So what should I be worried about. What are you so worried about?
don’t forget the thousands to millions of excess deaths already attributable to climate change policy
raising energy prices to chase carbon fairies has deadly consequences for the poor
> don’t forget the thousands to millions of excess deaths already attributable to climate change policy
Got a cite for that, TallDave?
“So I am still going yeah a couple of degrees would be great.”
“So what should I be worried about. What are you so worried about?”
As long as Bill is comfortable, the world will be happy.
Nate the world is comfortable with 2 degrees thats clear. where worries exist is when zealots start claiming twice to six times that amount.
> zealots start claiming twice to six times that amount.
C’mon, Bill. 2 x 2C = 4C.
You don’t think its zealotry claiming twice the observed warming rate?
Do you even statistics, Bill?
Willard I got an award for being the best stat guy in my class.
But went into the field of finance and long term unique assets and learned a different style of auditing that doesn’t extrapolate with statistics and is far more reliable and possible to do when dealing with fewer transactions.
Statistics simply isn’t adequate when your standard of completeness and materiality disallows you from having any errors or in situations where the population isn’t random nor representative as it is with surface stations and sacred trees.
If the surface station records would address UHI far more honestly I would have more confidence in them. But to do that you have to properly identify the source of UHI trends and then audit using the stable records as a control sample. But there is a group that will resist that as long as the day is long because all it can do is subtract from their paltry alarmism as it is.
The corruption is so high in highly politized science issues you find yourself arguing with people being intellectually dishonest.
I found it interesting that Roy found the UHI trend variable and that BEST and others didn’t even try to find it. They didn’t want to find it.
But scientists have zero qualms about referencing another study as the foundation of their study without independently verifying the other study or at least knowing the details of how it was validated completely. So BEST UHI BS study gets quoted over and over again.
Auditors are prohibited from doing that they are required to form opinions by examining everything.
Even their peer review has standards of covering everything.
Peer review in science is whatever the peer reviewer decides it to be. So do I have mistrust? You betcha and a helluva a lot of education about why I should as well.
Bottom line here is that standards are established for consistency. But there is no formal single entity that promulgates standards in science. In science its just any old science paper peer reviewed any old way or sometimes not at all and when they decide to set a standard, politics is what gets the panelists selected.
Independent auditors don’t have that problem. They don’t sit on a panel to set a standard for a government unless they are getting paid by that government to do it. Auditors pay for their own standards by paying a membership fee. And they have a huge interest in it being the right standard because of huge liability concerns. Do you think scientists are going to pay for the damage they do? LOL! The only way that happens is in a revolution where they get carted off to the guillotine.
The IPCC is a case in point for which they got a professional opinion that their structure didn’t have the protections of independence. The IPCC rejected the notion that lead authors should not be the final arbiters of what the wording will be in various communications, documents, and reports if its their own work that is being featured. At least they did for AR4. I didn’t follow it after that but that was an eyeopener for everybody and it appears to some degree the message sank in.
but the deal is Willard I probably have more experience in my littlest finger with this sort of stuff than you do.
> the deal is Willard I probably have more experience in my littlest finger with this sort of stuff than you do
Which begs the question as to why you would rely on all these silly tricks, Bill.
My guess for now is that it always takes an ounce of machiavellianism to swindle investors.
Willard says:
My guess for now is that it always takes an ounce of machiavellianism to swindle investors.
——————–
Well that certainly wrong. My experience suggests that not knowing what you are doing is how the vast majority of investors effectively get swindled, depending upon a lot of people to go beyond their skill and experience set to get a job done.
Doctors, accountants, passenger for hire pilots,drivers,captains, building contractors, and many other professions entail both passing tests and establishing actual experience over a fairly decent period of time say 2 years. Then comes in bonding and insurance to ensure performance, along with accepting near unlimited liability. For the purpose of protecting the population from those who would harm them.
Interestingly the government doesn’t need to do any of those things.
Myself I built and worked exclusively on a basis of recommendation with zero marketing efforts on my behalf, today is the same as yesterday in that. My results speak for themself and thats all the marketing I need. Whereas the government has bunches of scientists being paid to do really nothing but sell what they are trying to sell, haven’t successfully produced any end products in the field and neither have their scientists. But they love to advertise the `17th through 20th scientists that did produce stuff in other fields of endeavor.
> My experience suggests that not knowing what you are doing is how the vast majority of investors effectively get swindled
And you’ll never guess by whom, Bill.
You know, that kind of grammatical swindling works better orally. On the Internet, everyone can pay due diligence to the fast ones you’re pulling. Not that you care, mind you.
I can understand Clint and Mike’s abuses. They have little else. Why you’re playing these silly games is still hard to explain.
At least you know my working hypothesis.
there is no swindle when your message is solely caution.
I am just a guy that stands up for the little guy. The guy that always gets trampled.
It doesn’t matter what it is that the government involved. healthcare, social security, taxes, all regulations, many laws.
the principle is sold as helping the little guy but the guys that get helped are a small fraction of the least motivated, totally bottom of the barrel to earn a check in that box. Then the system is designed for the rest of the little guys to take care of the bottom of the barrel. Limits to contributions on healthcare, social security and social security; tax deductions; disproportionate compliance cost for the smallest operators in obeying regulation; payroll taxes; unemployment insurance; corporate income taxes, even income taxes disproportionately come out of the pocket of the little guy. Investors and royalty recipients skirt many taxes. No wealth tax to keep the disparity in place.
The same deal exists with environmental policy. Oh we will raise energy prices to take care of the issue, cap and trade, and all of it is targeting the lowest classes. We hold our citizens to higher standards on the real environmental issues and thus our poorest suffer the most.
Yes we are all created equal but that doesn’t mean we should be equal. But in that there is an element of equal opportunity and its in the form of taxation and regulation that equal opportunity dies on the vine succumbing elitism and the mob mentality.
Fact is most of those that beat those odds aren’t subservient to what their daddies told them. Questioning authority is perhaps the best lesson I have learned from my years of investigation.
> there is no swindle when your message is solely caution.
That’s not solely your message, Bill, in fact I’m not sure that’s the main part of your message.
And that’s not even true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
If you look at Cambridge definition of “swindle,” you get:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/swindle
My little finger has more experience in parsomatics than you.
You explained what a swindle is but you didn’t produce anything I said that was a swindle.
Earlier that subthread there is this splendid one, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-657993
Your D’Souza impersonation remains my favorite so far in the thread.
You want more?
not to worry, they’re also hard at work dismantling the concepts of scientific rigor and empirical accountability
sort of turns “nullius in verba” on its head, doesn’t it?
Good afternoon Dr. Spencer,
Thanks for your work. I have tried to send you an email asking what are probably simple questions, but the email address at the foot of your page won’t deliver it.
I don’t want to bother you, but as a non-scientist I’m interested in getting answers to the greatest policy shift in my lifetime.
Many thanks and happy Easter.
You can ask questions here.
I’m not even going to mention it this month. Bet you that you all still end up arguing about it anyway.
42 base 2
x 17 fort 9
La Nina is back.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
ren
No it isn’t back:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Alarmism isn’t good, whichever its direction.
J.-P. D.
Sunspots still show extremely low magnetic activity, so TSI is also lower.
https://i.ibb.co/xswmhk6/AR-CH-20210331.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Dr. Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue)
Temperature analysis (T319) from Japanese Met Agency (JRA-55 Reanalysis) on a 2-day Delay. Current climatology for data is 1981-2010 but maps were shifted to 1991-2020.
http://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55_temperature.php
How low will it go?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMdZ4ZPq8Rw
Beautiful!
Winter conditions will continue in Canada and the northern US.
https://i.ibb.co/0C1sm3c/gfs-toz-NA-f120.png
BTW, regarding the shift to a new 1991-2020 baseline…this is exactly what the European (Copernicus) Global Temp did. Seems like standard industry practice.
The only ‘standard’, such as there is, is that the baseline be at least 30 years long. You see plenty of variety among global temp data sets, and even between UAH and rival RSS satellite temps.
It really doesn’t matter which period you pick or where you put the baseline, the trends remain the same. And the trends are the point when you’re talking about climate.
E. Swanson said on April 2, 2021 at 9:10 AM: And, how did they derive their equation used to calculate the LT product?
In a post a couple of months ago I showed that even an incredibly small change to the weighting function can have a large impact on the trend.
For example, using the current weighting function…
LT = 1.548*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.010*LS
…we get a trend of +0.1378C/decade.
But using an ever so slightly changed weighting function…
LT = 1.548*MT – 0.538*TP + 0.000*LS
…we get a trend of +0.1446C/decade.
Just by increasing MP by 0.01 and decreasing LS by 0.01 we changed the trend by 0.007C/decade.
Obviously the trend is hyper sensitive wrt to the weighting function.
Gee bdgwx that sounds like a lot less sensitivity to the sensitivity of misreading surface station thermometers.
I guess we should say surface station thermometer gridding and kriging are like ‘super hyper sensitive’?
“a lot less sensitivity to the sensitivity of misreading surface station thermometers.”
Actually the opposite is true.
Averaging all the thousands of surface station measurements means problems with a small subset of stations makes little difference to the global average.
A change to the analysis of the LT data potentially affects temperatures measured everywhere on Earth at the same time.
That is why the updates to LT analysis, like from UAH 5 to 6, or RSS 3 to 4, can have a more dramatic effect on the trends.
where did you find an analysis of that Nate? Thats the sort of stuff I would love to read.
You need a basic understanding of how the two measurements are done. Do you have that?
Comparison of Trends here: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Switching the goal posts Nate?
A 140 year temperature trend of .07 per decade kind goes along with the other subthread about changing baselines every 30 years.
Over the past 140 years there is no question mankind has prospered and isn’t losing any fight with the climate. It might be less clear over 30 years, so a lack of evidence seems to be a good reason to change the baseline. In another 140 years the same thing may be able to said with clarity as for the past 140 years. . . .unless of course government make some disastrous choice that changes the direction.
Off topic, Bill as usual.
From that link 1978-2019 Trends for various analyses of
surface data Trends (degC/decade)
GISTEMPv3 0.175
GISTEMPv4 0.185
Berkeley 0.188
Had*CRUT4krigv2 0.187
with HadSST4 0.187
Lower Trop. data Trends (degC/decade)
RSSv4.0 TLT 0.208
RSSv3.3 TLT 0.134
UAHv5.6 TLT 0.155
UAHv6.0 TLT 0.127
Do you see the difference?
Different analysis of LT trends are much more scattered.
Surface: stand. deviation = 0.0054
TLT: stand. deviation = 0.037
The standard deviation is 7x larger for TLT data sets, as compared to surface data sets.
Yeah well the question does have some real answers.
Satellites seem to be a more robust way of getting a representative sample.
But all this mine is bigger than yours back and forth isn’t science at all.
And worse trends can just tell us if its warming or cooling. It tells us zero about the impacts of what the climate is doing.
Fake numbers are a managers worst nightmare as they so frequently lead to failure of management. Inaccurate data, if it doesn’t bite you one way it will bite you another way. That is the big lesson managers learn the hard way with experience.
This is why accuracy and transparency is so important. Another big problem is consistency. If the data isn’t consistent because of too much fiddling here and there the data begins to lose touch with the important stuff. I am frustrated that the UK Met stopped processing v3 of their temperature sets. Going to v4 gave you more complete coverage but using models to manufacture the historic data to infill the high latitudes is a consistency problem because essentially you are choosing a new set of instruments to record the record and you are only left with another concern that the manufactured data might be polluting the message. It would have been better to continue v3 and then get v4 up and running with non-manufactured data only likely shortening the record. But no doubt politics played into the silly decision they made.
Managers must know all the details both to improve the science and to successfully manage. Any thing else puts blind folds on the scientists motivated to improve the science and the managers motivated to improve outcomes. Not a good deal which I have seen occur many times.
“Satellites seem to be a more robust way of getting a representative sample…Then yada yada…no answers…more yada yada…the standard Bill Shtick”
Uhhh, thats again the opposite of reality.
How can a ‘more robust’ method give so wildly variable results depending on choice of analysis??
Nate says:
Satellites seem to be a more robust way of getting a representative sampleThen yada yadano answersmore yada yadathe standard Bill Shtick
Uhhh, thats again the opposite of reality.
How can a more robust method give so wildly variable results depending on choice of analysis??
==================================
there is a difference between the robustness of method and the robustness of the results. Good methods lead to a faster pace of solving problems.
Certainly the approach to an argument that consists of mine is larger than yours is so ignorant of the role of methods in achieving the desired outcome and doesn’t get you anywhere near the desired results faster.
So absolutely I favor satellites and it would probably be very worthwhile to swing everything in that direction.
hunter
I followed your discussion with Nate above, ending with
” So absolutely I favor satellites and it would probably be very worthwhile to swing everything in that direction. ”
*
1. Well: firstly, I’m afraid this is not quite honest, because IMO you should have rather written
” So absolutely I favor UAH and it would probably be very worthwhile to swing everything in that direction. ”
Simply because you very probably won’t agree with NOAA’s, let alone with RSS’s satellite reading results, as they show much more warming than does UAH.
This is due to different, even opposite opinions about which satellites are doing “biased” work, and hence, depending on that opinion, were included in / excluded off the data sources.
*
2. Now let us have a closer look at UAH’s satellite readings on land, because I want compare them with surface data.
There will be three. One is NOAA land-only, highly homogenized, together with two evaluations of the rawest surface data available, namely GHCN daily.
One evaluation is mine,
– based on a plane grid, with of course both latitude and area weighting;
and the other one was made two years ago by Clive Best,
– based on a very accurate, 3D spherical triangulation (which makes both weighting functions superfluous), together with some decent infilling.
1. Comparing NOAA land with GHCN daily by Clive and by Bin for 1880-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18RJTDnYp0wgNS8CUJ0-ADheNit3WlN1p/view
2. Comparing UAH6.0 LT land with NOAA land, GHCN daily by Clive and by Bin for 1979-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oACrb0PNvtiBwK9Xuw0rhVBngdQp_032/view
Hopefully you will think a bit more than Robertson when looking at these graphs, and hence might have something more to say than his stoopid, eternal ‘fudged’ blah blah.
J.-P. D.
lol why do so many people in climate science seem to think sampling is the only possible source of measurement error? it’s not even the most important
doesn’t matter how many samples you take if the instruments and siting aren’t reliable (and few are, see Watts surfacestations.org), even before you start massaging the data with adjustments that each introduce their own additional errors
note this is all PUBLISHED data
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/thirteen-years-of-nasa-data-tampering-in-six-seconds/
——-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/giss-hockey-stick-adjustments/
In the graph below, the blue dots are the differences in hundredths of a degree C for the same months between GISS data as of May 2014 versus GISS data as of August 2009. GISS provides data as an integer representing hundredths of a degree C. The blue (1880-1909) and red (1910-2005) lines show the slope of the adjustments for the corresponding periods. Hundredths of a degree per year equal degrees per century. The slopes of the GISS adjustments are
1880-1909 -0.520 C degree per century
1910-2005 +0.190 C degree per century
The next graph is similar to the above, except that the analysis is more granular, i.e. 1910-2005 is broken up into 5 smaller periods. The slopes of the GISS adjustments are
1880-1909 -0.520 C degree per century
1910-1919 +0.732 C degree per century
1920-1939 +0.222 C degree per century
1940-1949 -1.129 C degree per century
1950-1979 +0.283 C degree per century
1980-2005 +0.110 C degree per century
——-
https://manicbeancounter.com/2015/03/15/understanding-giss-temperature-adjustments-in-southern-africa/
Of note is that the adjustments in the early 1890s and around 1930 is about three times the size of the change in trend. This might be partly due to zero net adjustments in 1903 and partly due to the small downward adjustments in post 2000.
Regarding the surfacestation.org website here is a really good assessment and quantification of the bias related to the station classification in regards to the USHCN warming trends.
Menne 2010: https://tinyurl.com/pp4hf5f4
Pay particular attention to table 1 and the conclusion document in paragraph 19.
It is also important to note that USCRN is consistent with USHCN.
Hausfather 2016: https://tinyurl.com/4y62vxxm
Pay particular attention to the conclusion in section 4.
So it seems as though the PHA methodology employed by USHCN had already adequately addressed the concerns of Watts. Actually, if anything USHCN is probably still underestimating the conus warming trend.
lol and yet again, totally unresponsive to the point, which is that there are much larger adjustments to the past data than the claimed accuracy
the fact they looked at the adjustments and decided they didn’t affect trends much does not in any way increase the accuracy of the measurements
TallDave said: which is that there are much larger adjustments to the past data than the claimed accuracy
Don’t confuse precision with accuracy. Adjustments make things more accurate, but they don’t make it more precise. And the magnitude of the adjustment does not by itself invalidate a claim on accuracy. If anything an adjustment should increase the confidence regarding a claim of accuracy because that adjustment works to improve it.
TallDave said: the fact they looked at the adjustments and decided they didnt affect trends much does not in any way increase the accuracy of the measurements
That is not even remotely close what these publications said. In fact, these publications say the opposite. Adjustments DO affect the trends and by a significant amount. This is plainly obvious if you read the papers.
I want you to read these papers thoroughly. If you do not understand the contents please ask questions. I (or someone else) will try to answer them as best I can.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Given the close agreement with global SSTs it appears UAH satellite data is far better than any other satellite metric or surface data set.
Lets be honest here: ‘far better’ does not mean objectively the most accurate, for you.
It means LOWEST TREND.
Nate, when you finally accept real science you will realize the oceans drive our climate variations. Then you will look to data that best agrees with the oceans. That’s all I have done.
Land cannot warm more than the oceans over long periods of time. Obvious logic.
“Obvious logic.”
Nope. Already proven wrong.
Nate, let me know when the land temperature is 10 C above the oceans or is that too “obvious” for you?
Most of think that this evidence that UAH is underestimating the warming. Land warms faster than the ocean so if they are in close agreement then one of them is likely wrong. And considering that most SST datasets agree with other and that UAH is an outlier compared to global datasets it is more likely that the problem is with UAH. Or at least UAH cannot be considered as a reliable proxy for a global mean surface temperature anyway.
Actually only partly true bdgwx. Surface ocean catches up in a few years. So it could be an issue back to 2010, but to say its a longer term issue is an assumption for which no support seems to exist.
Better understanding UHI could provide a major part of an explanation why long term ocean trends are so much slower. You already agreed it should be redone better identifying the source of UHI trends. Work so far seems so perfunctory and unimaginative avoiding the most likely measure the cause of UHI trends. Then that perfunctory and unimaginative estimate of UHI results in finding nothing significant and the issue is handwaved away.
John and Roy should be funded to oversee such a project as Figure 1 of Roy’s really appears to nail where to look and thats true despite efforts to dismiss his initial and under funded effort to identify UHI. If somebody found something like that supporting ocean uptake and the .87 EEI unrealized warming, money would be pouring in by the bucketful.
” Surface ocean catches up in a few years. ”
Ohhh?
More declared ‘truths’ from Bill, a skeptic who has no self skepticism.
Nate please stop trolling. Make an argument if you have one.
According to UAH TLT the atmosphere over land warms at a rate 50% higher than oceans. It is generally accepted that UHI effect does not contaminate land average in any significant way.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
In February/March 2021, the stratospheric polar vortex resurfaced, so Arctic air masses are expected to flow down later in April. Now such a wave will flow down to central Europe.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_JFM_NH_2021.png
Yes, that’s because if there is no LS term, the weighting function actually has a small amount of negative weight in the lower stratosphere. When combined with cooling there, it inflates the warming trend. You can’t arbitrarily change one of the 3 terms, because they are derived together. Look up “deconvolution”.
I’m not saying that you should arbitrarily change the terms nor am I am saying the current choice is wrong. I’m just saying that the warming trend is sensitive to the choice.
bdwgx I would suggest the difference between being sensitive and not being sensitive is easy to determine.
If the output is less than the perturbation, the general rule of thumb is it is at least somewhat not sensitive (e.g. negative feedback)
So if you want to suggest something rather vague about the process keep it to its ‘not sensitive’. If you are sure that’s wrong, Roy suggested you read the paper on it. Do that and then come back.
A 1% change in the weighting function creates a 5% change in the warming trend. I did read their paper. That’s how I know what the weighting function is.
I haven’t read the paper but isn’t what you did was remove 100% of the LS distortion. Better check your math too. Looks like your formulas aren’t correct.
bill,
Refer to http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/ for the weighting function.
The first formula in my post matches exactly.
The second formula in my post is a small perturbation. I adjusted MP up by 0.01 and LS down 0.01. Notice that I was careful to keep the net weight at 1.000.
Furthermore, I actually laid out MT, TP, and LS into columns A, B, and C in Excel and then entered the official formula into column D and reproduced LT exactly. I then entered the perturbed formula into column E and computed the trend.
No, my perturbed formula is not removing 100% of the LS value. It is changing +0.01*LS to +0.00*LS and -0.548*TP to -0.538*TP.
Roy…if you get a chance sometime, will you clarify the meaning of weighting function? May be wrong, but I am comparing them to the bandpass responses of devices like graphic equalizers. Such an equalizer is a complex tone control that can adjust the tone over a narrower frequency range in individual tone (frequency) ranges.
In an equalizer, the audio spectrum is broken into bands. An octave equalizer breaks the spectrum into octaves, which are a doubling of frequency. The A above middle-C is 440 hz. An octave above is 880 hz and an octave below is 220 hz. A professional equalizer is broken into 1/3 octave bands.
Each band is tuned to a centre frequency at which frequency it is most responsive. If a band is tuned to 440 hz, its response will drop off as the frequencies deviate from the centre frequency. So, each band has a bell-shaped response curve with adjacent curves for adjacent bands overlapping.
That means a frequency that is within the bandpass of both response curves will affect each band response to varying degrees. Obviously, the narrower the response curve (1 octave versus 1/3 octave) the better the device is able to filter sound wave frequencies more accurately.
Is that what the channels in the AMSU unit do? Are the weighting functions actually bandpass response curves?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
bdg…if you look at the telemetry, the weighting function curves are related to channels on the AMSU telemetry. The article to which you linked does not explain weighting functions on that basis.
Each channel’s weighting functions seems to be centred on the centre frequency of the channel. They all overlap, and as I see it, the functions represent the EM radiation received by the AMSU units at various frequencies.
I have been saying since 2006 that we have a serious period of cooling cooming, Volcanos are now going off everywhere. While fraudsters try to extort money out of us for CO2 fraud. Why not deal with the litter in our countryside and oceans. As for the sheep wearing masks, there are mask droppings everywhere.
Back in 2006 where did you see the 2021 UAH anomalies being at?
Can’t speak for Tim but I anticipated a cooling trend between 2010 and 2020.
It is a bit later due to oceanic thermal inertia but it does seem to be coming.
If La Ninas continue to dominate relative to El Ninos then the current trend should continue and intensify.
The balance between La Ninas and El Ninos appears to be related to solar activity via effects on global cloudiness but not from the so called Svensmark effect.
More likely it is a consequence of changes in jet stream meridionality which involves solar induced ozone variations above 45 km over the poles which force the polar troposphere downwards so that polar air flows equatorward more often thereby increasing the length of the lines of air mass mixing hence cloudiness changes.
I expected them to be lower, but then again there has been a big lag. It was enough for me to put my money where my mouth is and walk out of a carbon management company.
The 5yr mean in March 1991 is -0.18C.
The 5yr mean in March 2006 is +0.03C.
The 5yr mean in March 2021 is +0.26C.
If 2006 was a pivot point you might expect the 5yr mean in March 2021 to be -0.18C like it was in 1991. Instead it is 0.26C. That is a difference of +0.44C. I’m not suggesting you were thinking the post 2006 change would be cooling of equal magnitude as the warming that preceded it. But for those that did make that prediction ended up being 0.44C too low.
But had you used the +0.1516C/decade warming rate as of 2006 you would have predicted exactly +0.26C and would have nailed the March 2021 value to a tee.
And lest I be accused of cherry picking here I’ll point out that I didn’t pick 2006 or 2021 which occurred 15 years later. I’m just presenting what the data says for the parameters given to me.
Perople here have been expecting a cooling trebd around the corner since 2010 at least.
After all these years, it looks more like wishful thinking than anything else, as each disappointment spurs zero reconsideration in the proponents.
barry, please stop trolling.
> I have been saying since 2006 that we have a serious period of cooling cooming,
That’s, like, 15 years ago.
I’ve been pointing out from about 2007 that since 2000 the jet stream tracks have been becoming more meridional which is a cooling indicator.
My stopped clock is right twice a day, Stephen.
My clock has been successfully applied through the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Mediaeval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Modern Warm Period.
The stopped clock is the AGW theory which is going awry following the cessation of warming around 2000.
Retrodicting the past is indeed easier than predicting the future, Stephen.
Unless you’re older than I presume?
There is good evidence of differing climate zone positions back through to the Roman Warm Period so I don’t need to have been personally present.
In particular, the LIA has jet stream tracks very variable as compared to the Mediaeval Warm Period during which latter time the Scottish Isles were more settled and equable than at present.
We were discussing predictions, Stephen. I don’t mind if you switch to Da Paws, but if it’s just to say stuff that won’t be very helpful.
Got anything I can read?
No reason to thing the pause has ended Willard. The great El Nino of 2014/15 was insignificantly more robust than the one in 1998.
Projected warming then was what .87degrees higher than realized? Now just for the last 20 some years this unrealized warming figure appeared virtually out of nowhere. One with a skeptical mind just might think basic CO2 physics of warming needs a much closer look.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/28/a-pertinent-climate-question/
And remember folks, El Ninos are the trend fakers.
La Nina’s: nothing to see there…
Right guys?
> No reason to thing the pause has ended
Pause? What pause, Bill?
You might like Bart’s thread on this:
https://twitter.com/bverheggen/status/1355216469991317504
Nate says:
And remember folks, El Ninos are the trend fakers.
La Ninas: nothing to see there
Right guys?
=======================
Nope they are both trend disrupters that isn’t considered to be climate. If you want to see trends in climate you absolutely have to smooth out the data to eliminate the ENSO cycle.
However, doing that still doesn’t assure to any degree that other natural variation isn’t also present beyond the length of ENSO cycles.
> doing that still doesnt assure to any degree that other natural variation isnt also present beyond the length of ENSO cycles.
You’re asserting something that is very unlikely, Bill:
https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/education/pd/climate/factsheets/canwarming.pdf
Willard says:
Youre asserting something that is very unlikely, Bill:
It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes.
——————————–
One just has appreciate the stupidity and hubris of experts talking in absolutes. Its like saying the CO2 pulse will be around for hundreds of thousands of years as some body of water tries to hunt down the last molecule of anthropogenic caused CO2. Probably would make a great detective movie doncha think?
> One just has appreciate the stupidity and hubris of experts talking in absolutes.
Which part of “very likely” you don’t get, Bill?
Willard says:
Which part of “very likely” you don’t get, Bill?
———————————–
Passe! Willard
FAQs do not get approved in detail thus amount to a good deal of politicization. And it got tossed in AR5, despite FAQs still not being approved in detail, showing the improvement in the IPCC processes. Good riddance.
Quite simply science does not prove negatives it merely disproves explicit ‘hypotheses’. Science can claim to rule out natural change. The moron that wrote that passage doesn’t understand science.
Such junk should never ever see the light of day in anything connected to science, no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on.
In the IPCC’s deliverables, Bill, “very likely” has a statistical meaning, so your editorializing on certainty has no leg to stand on.
Funny you say that you value integrity.
Dr. Curry takes apart what the IPCC deems highly likely from a climate perspective. I didn’t need a climate perspective to see the BS. You say statistics. Indeedy do! With statistics you can argue any level of certainty you want and come up with a statistical analysis to support it.
I worked in a trade where liability was attached to being wrong. Where a person depending on my work could sue me and win it I had failed to adequately address all the issues outlined by Dr. Curry. Academia and government is completely 100% shielded from such recourse and responsibility. So instead of being a robot and believing everything you are told perhaps you ought to learn a little bit about it. Steve McIntyre’s blog has a long historical record of how you screw with statistics with regards climate issues. But its probably all about 20,000 feet over your head.
Bill knows what his mommy tells him only.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The next 15 years should be the period where this cooling trend will reach its deepest point. I see similar to what S Wilde sees. That is the cyclical nature of climate shifts. Takes some time to gain a proper perspective of what future years should mean for global weather patterns. There are enough clues though in all of the climate data produced over time though to correctly assess climate shift points, where temps move from cooling to warming.
It actually helps to have some idea of the causation of the various suspected drivers of natural climate change before getting into the prediction business.
NWS has been struggling with that for a long time on ENSO. They do a 9month forecast only but actually the way it has worked is it should be a 9month forecast given once a year on the same month as when it moves to subsequent months the forecast for month 9 months out begins to deteriorate each month to the point of no skill.
Solar folks haven’t shown much skill yet, if any, predicting solar cycles. Though they do like embracing the model that comes the closest the following cycle, something that the IPCC is wont to do for political reasons.
bill,
I agree with you here. ENSO is very difficult to forecast. We’re making progress slowly, but it is slow going and still subpar IMHO. Solar is the same or even worse. Forecasters (for the most part) cannot demonstrate skill with dynamic or statistical approaches. The only thing that seems to work is persistence (just assume the next cycle will be the same as the current one) and that’s not much of forecast really. I still think we’re due for a grand minimum anytime. I’m rooting for one because it would be a great opportunity to better calibrate the magnitude of the solar influence.
Yeah I hear you bdgwx. I can’t root for cooling because I think it would be harmful. But its hard to not want to experiment with the climate to learn more about it. So i often feel torn about it.
I realize that in effect we are in the midst of the human experiment but carbon in the atmosphere really isn’t an experiment it was pursued to improve lives from the availability of energy providing more time and resources to pursue science.
I understand why some people feel uneasy about all that. Watched Val Kilmer in Thunderheart last night. Been many years since I saw that film and it makes it clear we really probably don’t know what we are doing most of the time. Long story but its the reason I work for the environment and search for the best possible answers.
A cooling trend would be very educational. . . .as long I don’t wish for it. In the modeling work I do it would be a disaster to not have reversals of fortune as its the only way to determine if you are doing the right thing. And the true fact is, its not at likely we would be doing anything if it weren’t the case that most of the players weren’t feeling negative impacts from not doing anything.
Literally nothing is happening.
The March value continues to agree with the values of global SSTs lagged by 6 months. The 9/20 drop in SSTs was about .1 C with a value of .58 C. The last global SST value was .36 C in January. This predicts a continued reduction in UAH over the next few months.
With La Nina now looking likely to continue through 2021, we will get a chance to see if the climate industry continues to generate massive propaganda as has happened over the past 6 years. All the 21st century warming is gone.
Yep definitely absent. Soon the proponents of CAGW will be agreeing on the need for at least a couple of decades of data before saying anything. . . .again; unless the climate bails them out of having to do that.
Whats next? Extending the blanket hypothesis to a warming of the core of the earth? But no doubt that will have to wait until we get a good number of thermometers to the bottom of the ocean. And no doubt they probably won’t give the details of that either (e.g.
magma super heated by CO2 convecting downwards to the core)
bill said: Soon the proponents of CAGW
I see CAGW thrown around a lot. Can you objectively define what CAGW is?
CAGW is the central square of the Climateball Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
I’m sure Bill will be helpful in filling the gaps.
Cool page.
Are you thinking most contrarians use 4C has a threshold for the C part?
I guess we’ll see where bill puts the target.
Thanks, b.
FWIW, Judy never responded to what she thought about a 4C world.
Searching back my notes, the best I could find is from NG:
https://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2010/11/yale-exam-part-2-what-do-scientists-believe/
So once again contrarians are earning their epithet.
If you never read NG, you’re in for a treat.
first the definition of global warming if googled, is:
–noun
a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.–
Or:
“What is global warming in simple words?
Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels. Jun 3, 2010
Or:
–What is Global Warming?
Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.–
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
Or not merely that Earth average temperature increases, rather it’s the increase caused human activity. Global warming is another word for AGW. Though AWG would include stuff other than adding greenhouse gases. So deforestation is not [per definition} Global warming but is AGW.
CAGW generally tied runaway effects or consequence of human activity warming Earth. An example, having ice free arctic ocean polar sea ice- if all melts in summer, less grows back in winter,
and various other wild ideas of the consequences.
Another example of CAGW is Greenland and Antarctica losing a lot glacial ice, causing meters of sea level rise. Perhaps seen pictures on magazines of NYC completely flooded. Another thought is that warming ocean could release massive amounts of Methane gas. Ocean acidification. And many other end of world type stuff.
“FWIW, Judy never responded to what she thought about a 4C world.”
I don’t think anyone seriously thinks the world will have average global of about 19 C by 2100 AD. But Judy worried about CAWG effects which don’t require the world to warm by 4 C. Basically she worried about unknown weather effects which might occur from even from say 1 C of warming.
I don’t think anyone believes in CAGW, but probably everyone believes unknowable stuff could happen. Stuff like Texas can happen. As guess I would say Judy probably more interested in, can it be predicted. And how could one do this.
a)Catastrophic adjective
involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
> I dont think anyone seriously thinks the world will have average global of about 19 C by 2100 AD
I don’t think I mentioned “by 2100,” gb, in fact I’m not even asking about what’s being perceived as plausible.
Since you made two blunders in your first two jabes, here’s the deal. You want to entertain science-fiction scenarios about anything you fancy? Fine with me. You want to spout Freedom Fighter crap in response to my comments? You’ll get a response.
Hey Willard you sound like a wannabee task master of the socialist uniform briefcase drill team!
Did you ever consider lending your skills to being a DI?
How do you feel about a 4C world, Bill?
Even luckwarmies can’t really pretend it’s not in the cards:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/
The main goal is to reach carbon zero, and I dare you stand in the way.
Willard says:
How do you feel about a 4C world, Bill?
———————
Freaking Cold!!
169, Bill.
169:
https://xkcd.com/169/
“I don’t think anyone seriously thinks the world will have average global of about 19 C by 2100 AD.”
BUT what does Earth which has an average temperature of 19 C, look like.
Earth has in the past has had average temperature an average temperature of 19 C.
But the Earth in the past was different world, and our world is presently in an Icehouse climate {for the last 34 million years}.
and icehouse climate is cold oceans and having glaciers in polar regions.
Our current interglacial period, the Holocene has been colder than the last interglacial period, Eemian.
One could ask, during the warmest period of Eemian, how close to 19 C did it get to in terms short time periods of say, less than 100 years. Wiki:
“The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E.” And:
“The climate of the North Cape is subarctic, with very cold winters and very cool to quite cold summers.
The North Cape (Nordkapp in Norwegian) is located on the northern coast of the island of Magerøya, in Finnmark county (which in 2020 became the county of Troms and Finnmark), at the 71st parallel, so, much further north of the Arctic Circle. Consequently, the sun never rises (polar night) from November 20th to January 22nd, while you can watch the midnight sun from May 13th to July 31st, and the white nights, in which it is not completely dark even at midnight, from April 8th and, after the midnight sun, again until September 4th.
Given the position exposed to ocean currents, in winter, the temperature only reaches -15/-17 °C (1/5 °F) on the coldest days, while in southern Finnmark the cold records are around -40 °C (-40 °F) or below.
Sometimes, the temperature can rise above freezing even in the middle of winter, and rain can fall instead of snow.
On the other hand, even in the height of summer, there can be cold days, with highs around 7/8 °C (44/46 °F), in addition, the wind can increase the feeling of cold. In May (and October) it is normally cold, and sometimes it can snow.
Occasionally, in the summer the temperature can reach or exceed 20 °C (68 °F), but sometimes it only does so for a day. In July 2014, it reached 26 °C (79 °F).”
So, it seems greater axis tilt is not going make much darker in winter {night is night} and could make it warmer in summer, or in year period one should get more sunlight reaching surface- more light for plant growth. And our greatest axis recently was 10,700 years ago, and becomes least 9,800 years in the future.
But Eemian had warmer ocean than our present 3.5 C ocean. And warmer ocean would make North Cape a lot less cold in the winter
And it seems North Cape would be much warmer within our holocene period more 5000 years ago. And a significant aspect of earlier
within our Holocene, was Sahara desert was green- lots trees and grassland. Hmm:
“About 130,000 years ago, a warm phase moister than the present began, and this lasted until about 115,000 years ago, with greater rainforest extent and the deserts almost completely covered with vegetation.”
So warmer time of Eemian also had green Sahara region.
And:”…A resumption of warm, moist conditions led up to the Holocene ‘optimum’ of greater rainforest extent and vegetation covering the Sahara. Conditions then became somewhat more arid and similar to the present.”
https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercAFRICA.html
So it seems before we can get 19 C, Sahara has to green.
And many people imagine a greening Sahara would cause a global warming effect. But even with a sahara warming effect, it seems it wouldn’t cause average global temperature to become 19 C. It’s more on order of about .5 to 1 C.
Oh, what happens if all deserts in the world, green.
I don’t think ever seen any kind analysis of that, but rising global water vapor, should not just effect the Sahara desert.
So instead of at most 1 C, it might be around + 2 C.
And we could also count warming effect from loss of glaciers {though more water vapor could cause some glacial growth. Or it’s known that shrinkage of Mount Kilimanjaro is due to lack moisture. But rainfall can wipeout glaciers rapidly, so the net effect of temperate glaciers of global warming with higher water vapor, should glacial net loss. So one expect more rainfall in Himalayas, replacing lower frozen wasteland with vegetation, and eliminating runaway cooling effects from glacial formation. Though with highest elevation and/or coldest average temperatures, more snow, though more melting, and nets to increase in glaciers- or weather could shrink them though weather could also grow them- or more year to year different in snow pack levels. So that might account for more than .5 C to warming.
Anyhow, if ocean warms to 5 C and with all these factors, it could get around 19 C. So doubling global forest area, big increase in grasslands, less temperate area with glaciers.
And what about Greenland and Antarctica. Well 5 C ocean from thermal expansion alone is somewhere around 1 meter sea level rise which by itself have significant effect upon these ice sheets. But if deserts green, that means more water added to desert regions, Sahara desert is longer all about fossil water, it’s adding to this ancient water. But one could still looking at say +2 meters of sea level rise.
But addition of .5 to ocean temperature within century seems very likely.
–Willard says:
April 3, 2021 at 12:04 PM
> I dont think anyone seriously thinks the world will have average global of about 19 C by 2100 AD
I don’t think I mentioned “by 2100,” gb, in fact I’m not even asking about what’s being perceived as plausible.–
Ah, I got around to addressing idea of “it ever getting to a average global temperature of 19 C” before seeing this post.
But obviously before 2100 AD is related to government policy, and we were talking about governmental policy.
But to summarize it, we currently living in 34 million year old ice age, and our present interglacial period has been cool.
Earlier in the Holocene, it was warmer, and Sahara Desert was green.
And when Sahara desert was green, it does seem like the global average temperature was anywhere close to 19 C. And after Sahara desert is grassland and forests, it’s possible Earth could reach an average temperature of about 19 C.
What failed to mention was details regarding average land and average ocean. So currently our average ocean surface is about 17 C and average land surface temperature is about 10 C and when average gives the average global air surface temperature of about 15 C.
Anyhow, one can’t get average global temperature of 19 C, without ocean surface temperature warming higher than about 17 C.
Perhaps ocean surface temperature only needs to warm to +19 C and land surface has dramatic increase of more than 15 C.
Deserts are both hot and cold, and whenever they get wetter, the average temperature increases- you get warmer nights. And in addition largest countries in world are fairly dry- Canada, Russia, US, China, can have very low temperatures during night and winter. Russia average is -4 C and Canada minus 3 C, because of this.
And snowfall can be warming effect. Though obviously raining is warmer than snowfall.
Or California has average temperature 15 C but if had rainfall it would have higher average temperature. And if ocean average temperature was about 19 C, California will get a lot more rain {probably even more snow in the winter and in the mountains}.
> But obviously before 2100 AD is related to government policy, and we were talking about governmental policy.
No it’s not, and no we weren’t. It’s related to and we were talking about how you feel about a 4C world. You’re tap dancing instead of answering directly.
3C is only a best estimate. The range is from 1.5 to 4. It has not changed much since Charney.
Whether or not we’ll get 4C by 2100 is immaterial. If 2100 is too soon for you, add a few decades. Luckwarm feelings won’t change the fact that the Earth won’t stop warming unless and until we get to carbon zero.
“No its not, and no we werent. Its related to and we were talking about how you feel about a 4C world. ”
I would feel pretty good about living in world which was 19 C.
Though can’t imagine living for all centuries that would be needed to possible live in such a world.
Though with an extremely huge/insane amount ocean volcanic activity {or something worse} it could happen within a short period of time.
And currently in southern California and California has average temperature of 15 C, I would guess it would mean the average temperature of California could be about 19 C.
India has average temperature of 24 C, and has always been 19 C or warmer {or least for last couple hundred million years}- and over billion people live there and they like the place. And Mexico currently has average temperature of about 21 C. And Germany instead of about being about 9 C, could be close to California’s average temperature.
Canada instead most people being within 200 km of Canadian/US border could more comfortably live in all parts of Canada.
Anyhow where live, it would mean I wouldn’t have any winter heating bills. And could likely have lower highest temperatures in the summer. But it would probably be more cloudy- which not the case, now.
And not having much cloudy weather is nice aspect of where I live, presently. But it seems that in California, it does not rain and instead can pour. And it seem likely it would rain much more often- and not pour.
But even with all the rain, we probably still get forest fires, at least during the drier summers. Probably be as wet as Oregon- though much warmer- and Oregon has forest fires- even the very rainy Washington State sometimes has some fires.
I guess it is a matter of personal opinion for than anything, but I just do not interpret “catastrophic” to include any consequences that can be reasonably expected by 4C of warming (or 4.5C using the IPCC upper range for 2xCO2). And I’ve posted about this before. The IPCC does not make definitive statements regarding whether 1.5-4.5C of warming will be “catastrophic”. In fact, the word is seldom used in their official publications and when it is used the context is not in reference to expected consequences of warming.
That was kind of the basis of my question…”Can you objectively define what CAGW is?” Follow-up questions might include “Who is advocating for them?” and “Is there evidence to support CAGW?”.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
”bill said: Soon the proponents of CAGW
I see CAGW thrown around a lot. Can you objectively define what CAGW is?”
Sure thing bdgwx. The word catastrophic to me would be the standard that would justify government intervention. Rather simple don’t you think?
IMO, the government shouldn’t involve itself in regulating something that hasn’t yet been established as a widespread imminent catastrophe.
After all that was the primary purpose of establishing a system of federal government to guard against a catastrophic attack by another nation. Without that we don’t need a federal government. But like anytime you grant power the power becomes very difficult to contain. Government can rise to the level of a catastrophe in its own right.
So to complete the line of thought. There should be a large gap between the where government addresses catastrophe and where the government becomes the catastrophe. A narrow gap almost assures a catastrophe.
Unfortunately that gap in the last 40 years has been whittled down to something about the size of a puddle jump. And by that mean in just about everything the government involves itself in. Empire building is just too irresistible.
I suppose you disagree by virtue of your question and your position on the matter.
> After all that was the primary purpose of establishing a system of federal government to guard against a catastrophic attack by another nation.
You got a cite for that, Bill, right?
W,
Your’e still trolling, right?
No cite needed. Maybe Bill doesn’t care what you think either!
Why should he?
Good morning, Mike.
You are terrified to attempt to provide the citation that I am asking, because you know it wont give the answer you would like.
Not my fault, sorry.
Live well and prosper,
W,
You really should spend more time talking to your imaginary playmates. How is Charlie?
You don’t seem to realise you asked Bill for a citation (God alone knows what goes on in your bizarre fantasy) rather than or your imaginary Mike.
Oh well, if you think I am Bill as well, good for you!
Any additional people to add to your list of my supposed alter egos? I can’t keep up with the contents of your fantasy. You even seem confused yourself.
You really need to either lift your game, or seek help from a more effective troll. The trolling standard here is not very high, unfortunately.
bill,
I honestly didn’t know. I’m not sure there is any amount of warming within reason that I would personally categorize as catastrophic. That’s why I was asking.
> You really should spend more time talking to your imaginary playmates.
I’m sorry to break it to you, son, but you’re real to me.
Yes I have a source go to the library of Congress and read about the debates leading up to the US Constitution.
bdgwx says:
bill,
I honestly didnt know. Im not sure there is any amount of warming within reason that I would personally categorize as catastrophic. Thats why I was asking.
=================================
Well we are in the same boat. We will know when it gets there.
The mentality of some prevents learning. Its like overly protecting a child, the child never learns. You have to pay out the leash. Proper regulation doesn’t stop the experiment but instead seeks the data to learn about the results. Human ingenuity hasn’t come close to reaching its limits. All you can do is stop it by not allowing people to do anything out of fear of them making a mistake.
And when you do make a mistake you don’t want to overdo the cure but instead just pull back on the reins to move more cautiously. Just out and out stopping the activity because of a mistake ends the experiment of learning how to do it in a sustainable manner.
Its almost obscene that the objective of some is to end the burning of fossil fuels, at least at this point in time. Its obscene to oppose all nuclear development. We want and need to do this and do it relatively safely.
first job is to properly educate people. This article paints a sad picture. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/01/perceptions-of-climate-impacts-at-odds-with-scientific-data/
> Yes I have a source go to the library of Congress and read about the debates leading up to the US Constitution.
Your source doesn’t need to move their armchair, Bill:
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html
Here’s a TL;DR:
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-of-confederation/the-great-debate/
The Constitution has nothing to do with the C in CAGW, contrarians’ favorite meme.
Bill-
The federal government does stuff to predict the weather.
https://www.weather.gov/
It’s about only thing the federal govt does somewhat well.
Another thing it does is:
U.S. Geological Survey
https://www.usgs.gov/
History:
“Created by Congress on March 3, 1879, the U.S. Geological Survey was originally dedicated to exploring the geology and mineral potential of western lands, but over its 139-year-history, it has evolved to dramatically expand our knowledge of natural science.”
I wish NASA would do 1/2 as well as these two government departments have done, but NASA does better than most of Federal government.
Willard, you forget that all the non-enumerated powers were reserved for the states.
Bill, you got caught saying stuff and you won’t succeed in rope-a-doping out of it.
Governments are not created because of any catastrophic threat. That’s just your way of coatracking libertarian crap.
Nope Willard far from being a libertarian am I.
Many decades now what I work toward is representing a large group persons who share common perspectives and working hard to develop open and transparent processes where differences between groups of people with different interests can be worked out fairly and where the benefits and costs of compromise are fairly shared.
Your technique of going along with listening to the 15 second soundbite is just the exact opposite of my approach. And why would that be Willard? Its because the power of the 15 second soundbite is the power of the 1%ers. It actually takes a big effort to listen a lot more closely and find solutions that deal with only the issues at hand and more fairly distributes the benefits and costs of government decisions.
The word catastrophic is a scalable word. Catastrophe happens to individuals a lot more frequently than to nations. If your ears are turned off all you hear is the 15 second soundbite and you aren’t getting anywhere near enough information to be able to be fair. Fact is that information is not available in any database anywhere.
So indeed catastrophe is striking many thousands of times a day on scales you are apparently totally unaware of, or are aware of and you just don’t care. The decisions of governments and the courts in common law need to listen incredibly closely to understand what the real balance of catastrophe means to a nation.
That should be enough explanation of what I mean by CAGW. So its great that none of us believe catastrophe will strike from increasing carbon, but in the narrow way you desire to frame it, you can’t be more wrong, more committed to authoritarianism than you ever even imagined you are.
> far from being a libertarian am I.
Then cut the minarchist crap.
There are many reasons why we have goverments, and raising armies is far from being the main one. Think Sierra Leone.
Willard says:
> far from being a libertarian am I.
Then cut the minarchist crap.
———————————–
What minarchist crap! You do realize that saying the primary purpose of establishing a system of federal government in no way says the only reason. It merely recognizes that war is the primary thing that a state can’t manage on its own. You can include in that of less consequence to war immigration control and foreign trade.
Is English your second language?
The primary reason I left private enterprise was through an awareness that somebody had to do something about the stupid stuff that gets done in the regulatory arena, an arena that favors the big bullies in the world. . . .creates banks too big to fail. . . .puts small up and coming competition at a huge disadvantage to the mega corporations who can afford big teams of compliance lawyers and especially the international ones that get a free pass to skirt enforced compliance with the regulations altogether.
Willard says:
There are many reasons why we have goverments, and raising armies is far from being the main one. Think Sierra Leone.
———————————–
Governments? Sure governments are necessary for lots of things. The best kind of government is one just big enough to get the whatever job it must do and no more.
I don’t see it as a toy for wannabee despots to manage the people like they were an antfarm.
> You do realize that saying the primary purpose of establishing a system of federal government in no way says the only reason.
You got the primary purpose wrong, Bill.
It’s really not that complex.
But keep ripping off your shirt.
form a more perfect Union.
establish Justice.
ensure domestic tranquility.
provide for the common defence [sic]
promote the general Welfare.
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity.
Those are the 6 reasons provided in the preamble. However providing for the common defense was the biggest problem.
If you want raise and army and provide a defense of the nation its good to have a good track record on honoring your promises.
The Shay’s Rebellion was the most immediate motivator to replace the Articles of Confederation.
That involved a debt to soldiers that fought in the Revolutionary War having their farms being foreclosed upon at least in part because of the failure of the US government to pay the debt owed to these men. In addition most of the problems the US was experiencing under the articles involved war debt. Meanwhile tensions with Britain was escalating and had no money to raise an army or a navy but would have to depend upon the generosity of the States to provide military units at the State’s cost.
Ensure the blessings of liberty is kind of a repeat of providing a defense. Unless you can make a case that there was something else brewing at the time that was getting people off the dime.
Shay’s Rebellion probably provided the clause to ensure domestic tranquility as a direct result of the US being unable to financially support a defense or borrow money for one.
And establishing justice and tranquility also have overtones on the problems the government was having. It was an injustice that the Shay’s rebels hadn’t been compensated and the rebellion was certainly not tranquil.
So rather than just throwing spears at what I said how about you make a different case for something more important in your view and of course with evidence of that as well.
C’mon, Bill.
The **Declaration of Independence** was, wait for it, to declare Independence. So the main reason why people create countries is sovereignty. Ask any nationalist. From that follows everything I mentioned to you.
A government’s role is first an foremost to establish a Rule of Law. Taxes help make sure the country has enough services and infrastructures that the most prosperous citizens pay more taxes.
Nations are internal affairs first. AGW is an international thing. This leads to a problem that has been known since at least Kant: nations are floating in some kind of legal semi-void.
We can’t even say that your analogy breaks, for there’s nothing that works in it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I thought I answered this earlier.
The catastrophic word in CAGW to me means the level at which government should begin to consider taking preventative action.
The only reason the Colonies created a federal government was for the purpose of mitigating the high potential of catastrophic impacts. . . .back then a war with another nation was pretty much it.
So in that regard I don’t have a number in mind. I have lived in deserts, tropical and temperate beaches, cool rainy valleys and that spans a wide range of mean temperatures. .7 degrees per century doesn’t even register a concern with me.
It is my opinion we can’t even accurately measure the warming, much less identify its cause, and even far far much less than that if its going to be good or bad. Judith Curry says all we can measure about anthropogenic climate change is the sign.
It way premature to start putting numbers on it. What we need to see are impacts. Will impacts from warming from emissions be more or less than the impacts of mitigating warming from emissions?
One cannot deny the human presence on this planet is a grand experiment. We should do it and learn from our mistakes.
lol sure, objectively define “catastrophe” for people who say the most favorable climate conditions, crop yields, and general living conditions in human history are a “crisis”
then slap a price on your speculative nightmares and call it the “social cost of carbon”
oddly “staving off the end of the current interglacial (civilization-ending event at our current technological level) and oh yes also the next 500,000 years of glaciations” never seems to make it onto the debit side of that equation, even though IPCC has insisted for some decades that this is the case
Oops, That’s embarrassing !!!
The rope holding up your pants snapped?
Tell this to Dr Schwab. No need for the great reset I suppose..
The the rope on his pants snap?
You’ve read the terms Schwab and Great Reset on the intertubes, haven’t you? I hear they’re trending.
barry, please stop trolling.
Typical ‘Richard M’ nonsense:
” With La Nina now looking likely to continue through 2021, we will get a chance to see if the climate industry continues to generate massive propaganda as has happened over the past 6 years. ”
Look at how strong La Nina is this year:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
The La Nina power moved from
– a 100% forecast for November 2020 till March 2021
down to
– a 10% forecast for April 2021 till August 2021
confirmed by
– a 10% forecast for May 2021 till September 2021.
*
” All the 21st century warming is gone. ”
That is really one of the most laughable statements since many many months.
Even UAH6.0 LT shows since January 2000 a trend of 0.17 C / decade.
And the surface time series of JMA, Japan’s Met Agency, which shares with UAH6.0 LT the lowest trend for 1979-2020 (namely 0.14 C / decade) shows since January 2000 at trend of 0.18 C / decade.
*
I don’t know why some people urge in claiming any global cooling ahead all the time. Are they paid by Heartland and GWPF?
Alarmism is BAD, regardless its direction.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon gives us all a great example of pure denial. The current month is below the average anomaly of the 21st century. Why do you deny obvious facts? And, it’s likely to continue to drop for at least the next 4 months as that is what the SSTs have done.
The current La Nina now seems to be strengthening. Is it short term or will it carry throughout 2021? We are right at what is normally called the ENSO prediction wall which makes this a rather unusual event. My guess is it will continue.
Check those ENSO forecasts in a couple weeks.
I said nothing of the future although I have pointed out many times that ocean cycles are likely to move into their negative phases relatively soon which would also make lower temperatures more likely.
This discussion about UAH’s new reference period (1991-2020) IMHO is complete nonsense.
Simply because the previous period (1981-2010) was chosen by Roy Spencer (as the successor for the deprecated 1979-1998) years before the revision 6.0 came out: revision 5.6 was already wrt 1981-2010 as well.
At that time, WMO’s official reference period still was 1971-2000.
*
What would be interesting for me would be
– to download the new anomalies and the climatology for 1991-2020
– to generate a time series of absolute temperatures out of them
– to compare that time series with what I generated in the same way for anomalies and climatology wrt 1981-2010.
In theory, the two absolute time series should be nearly identical…
If commenter MrZ still is watching Roy Spencer’s blog, he could do exactly the same job.
J.-P. D.
Binni
Bit of alarm seems to be creeping in, it is what it is. If the speed limit is 50km and I drive at say 80km and the police catch me I can.t demand to be let off because the last 100km my average works out to be 47km. Right now the temp is more or less the same as 20years ago we have to wait to see what the future holds as you know trends change all the time
Regards
Harry
> Right now the temp is more or less the same as 20 years ago
See for yourself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2021_v6.jpg
Toy with it yourself:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2021
Willard
I’m not 100% sure that WFT’s conceptor Paul Clark had time enough to take into consideration the change of reference period for UAH since Jan 2021…
Stopping in 2020 might be more secure:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:2001/to:2020
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Ooops!?
My bad: I wrote nonsense above. WFT takes the anomaly file ‘as is’, of course.
JP,
Quite sure Paul didn’t.
Someone close to Roy should tell him.
Willard
He doesn’t (need to) care about that, because he never considers anomalies as numbers wrt a given period.
The problem is on our side: if we had made last year a WFT graph showing GISS and UAH plots such that via the ‘offset’ attribute, GISS is plotted wrt 1981-2010 instead of 1951-1980, it is now… wrong.
J.-P.
Harry
I understand what you mean, but you made here the typical mistake of looking at anomaly levels between two points in time, instead of looking at… the trend for that period.
Even if the anomalies were identical (I didn’t check), the trend for the 20 year period is, within UAH LT: 0.17 C / decade, a tiny bit higher than for the complete sat era.
Anomaly levels don’t matter, trends do. Sorry.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon appears to be the hiker who after long, long walk up hill comes to a cliff. His friend tells him to be careful but Bindi says not to worry. He calculated the trend including the next 6 feet and found it only drops a few feet so they can proceed without worry.
The truth is trends can be useful if you know the real causes and whether those causes are still present. Projecting trends of unknown origin is a fool’s game.
That’s a metaphor for a prediction, which is not what is being discussed.
Somewhere upthread, I read a fantastic prediction…
Stephen Wilde says:
April 2, 2021 at 3:12 PM
” Cant speak for Tim but I anticipated a cooling trend between 2010 and 2020.
It is a bit later due to oceanic thermal inertia but it does seem to be coming. ”
*
Oh well oh well!
Did top forecaster Mr Wilde ever have a look at any time series for that 2010-2020 period?
1. UAH 6.0 LT Globe: 0.33 +- 0.05 C / decade
2. JMA surface Globe: 0.33 +- 0.03 C / decade
Yeah.
So, “it does seem to be coming” ?
My humble guess is that Mr Wilde will have to be a bit patient.
J.-P. D.
For those who are interested about how absolute global average temperatures for UAH 6.0 LT look like (the graph ends with Dec 2020, due to a change in the reference period and hence to the climatology):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GYWNHBLQFRetPEJ-83c1Oeh-n8PbERt0/view
Please compare the black 2020 plot with
– the 1981-2020 mean (grey);
– the years 1998 (gold) resp. 2016 (red).
J.-P. D.
Update below the Drive link: mean 1991-2020 (light blue) added.
Co2 is not a GHG and man does not cause the climate to change.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming/
…and the surface temperature data is being altered.
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/rewriting-the-climate-at-nasa/
It’s not every day I see the two worst climate blogs cited in the one comment.
You must work for the IPCC.
Barry:
Is that meant to be a falsification of two papers?
These can be replicated in almost any lab. Yet years ago you were a little upset when I slammed the BBC experiment as totally deceptive and useless on YouTube and gave my reasons.
As for Tony Heller I’m certainly thankful to him for doing the work which highlights certain issues. Certainly the key one is why do all the T adjustments correlate with CO2 changes with an R^2 of 0.99? Perhaps you can answer that.
(BTW Siem + Olsen are wrong with the IPCC back-radiation formula conversion to K change which includes H2O feedback. This does not affect the actual results -just the expectation.)
The BBC experiment has nothing to do with the present experiment which I hope will be replicated and verified soon.
The data is being altered, which if you followed climategate, is premeditate to show a correlation with the rising atmospheric co2 level to promote the man caused warming theory.
What is wrong about the conversion?
S.K.
What is wrong about the conversion?
————–
From Hansen (must have been 1987 or 88) and also concurs with Charney:
The sensitivity C per W/m2 corresponds to 3C for doubled CO2 forcing (4 W/m2). If Earth were a blackbody without climate feedbacks the equilibrium response to 4 W/m2 forcing would be about 1.2C (Hansen et al., 1981, 1984)
It’s a bit of hocus pocus as to when equilibrium is established and what are all these feedbacks (H2O is prime one).
Prof Happer uses a slightly different sensitivity factor but has a similar conversion (0.75 K per W/m2). He suggests 2.2C for doubled CO2 + fixed relative humidity which compares well with Charney and others.
Seim + Olsen is only working on CO2 with NO feedbacks so would result in a CO2 sensitivity of just over 1K per doubling instead of 3K they suggest.
Oh there will be the usual complaints and excuses but thus far the warmists have NO controlled experiments to rely on.
They keep harping on Tyndal and whilst he did meticulous work he did not test any back radiation. Instead they propose blue and green flying saucers as their theoretical experiment.
There is no reason to spend any time looking at either of these two sources. I sometimes do it for fun, to see how wrong they get things. The second link is so wrong it’s not even interesting.
The first link has two papers, one from a predatory journal, so you can’t even be sure it’s been peer reviewed.
The other paper was not linked – instead the blog author links to a picture of the front page of the paper.
Why?
The blog author could easily link to the paper – here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chunhua-Liu/publication/243492513_Climate_change_in_a_shoebox_Right_result_wrong_physics/links/5b5177410f7e9b240ff0ad1a/Climate-change-in-a-shoebox-Right-result-wrong-physics.pdf
Now because I know this blog author’s tricks, the first thing I did was look up the paper and head straight to the conclusion.
“Our results apply only to the interpretation of classroomscale demonstrations; they do not call into question the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the Earths climate or existing models of those phenomena.”
THAT is why the blog author only showed a picture of the paper.
The two websites are the worst climate blogs out there. both authors are deceitful.
The point of such blogs is not to shed light on the climate debate. realclimatescience lies and distorts the story of climate data, and notrickszone scours the scientific literaturte from any source and publishes anything he can find that argues against AGW – even when it doesn’t actually argue against AGW.
They are propaganda mills. Only good for practise how to debunk, but not very challenging.
b,
Feynman wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You can’t even formulate an AGW theory. Typical cultist thinking – faith will become fact, if you repeat it often enough.
Keep repeating the assertions. They still won’t magically become true.
Barry:
So I guess you found nothing wrong with those papers.
Nor do you have an explanation for the delta CO2 vs T adj R^2 of 0.99. Normally one would want to find out why.
Having problems with authors, publishers or sites does not affect the validity unless you show something is wrong with the work like even the retracted Lancet paper on Covid 19. Those simple experiments are amenable to testing in simple labs.
I might add I was already aware of the second paper and actually posed a version from the top of my head here. I specifically asked Norman what predictions he would make about it.
Yet in contrast, about the same time I think, you were quite supportive of the BBC junk CO2 experiment. You have been quite supportive of blue and green flying saucers with solid surfaces in the sky where I might bump my head. Do you see any solid surfaces in the sky?
You have been quite supportive of the junk published by Mann – no questions asked despite clear breach of statistical methodology in Mann 98. He is a recidivist; his 2008 paper is similar junk. Despite his boasts McIntyre writes:
When challenged to show results without either stripbark bristlecones or upside-down mud , Mann (and Gavin Schmidt) stuck their fingers in their ears, with the larger climate community obtusely refusing to understand a criticism that was obvious to any analyst not subservient to the cause.
(NB: this relates to Mann et al 2008; the upside-down mud had been contaminated).
Dr Curry sums up Mann’s latest peee reviewed junk :
https://judithcurry.com/2021/03/06/canceling-the-amo/
“..Brilliant! Almost as ‘brilliant’ as the Hockey Stick.
Relying on global climate models, which dont adequately simulate the multi-decadal internal variability, to ‘prove’ that such multi-decadal internal variability doesn’t exist, is circular reasoning (at best). How does this stuff get published in a journal like Science? Peer review is sooooo broken.”
Yet this climate clown is feted as some guru.
…that should read..
I already knew about the 1st experiment ..ie…Wagoner 2010 comparing Argon; I had read the full paper.
“So I guess you found nothing wrong with those papers.”
So I guess you don’t want to deal with what I wrote.
With the amount of BS out there (who posts a picture of the abstract of a paper?!), you have to get discerning on what you follow up. I know not to bother with those two websites because the ratio of dross to quality is 50 to 1.
But I followed up anyway because others chimed in. I even read a review paper on classroom CO2 experiments while I was doing it. Enjoy.
https://tinyurl.com/ve77daws
You may still choose to deal with what I wrote and not ignore it. I will certainly ignore the substance of your replies until you do me the courtesy.
Barry:
The difference is I did read what you wrote.
I pointed out I was already familiar with the first paper including your comments. I took no note of what the reference site that you disclaim said as I read both papers in toto for myself.
I also addressed your concerns about the peer review itself by showing that “reputable peer review” is hardly robust; many more damning illustrations can be given. I may add that peer review is NOT a requirement of the scientific method so why would I give it much thought when I have done my own review.
How else do I tell you that you have no argument? The only requirement is whether that controlled experimentation is robust.
As for Tony Heller I gave you my views. He made no assertions re the delta CO2 vs adj to T other than calculating the R^2 so why should I accept your aspersions which may totally relate to your own prejudices.
“Mann… He is a recidivist”
And you want me to take you seriously with political rhatoric casually tossed in to your avowals that you’re only here for the science.
Not to mention that you failed to follow the conversation – a typical foible of those with an axe to grind.
I’ll remind you.
“Co2 is not a GHG” – cried S.K.
Did you correct S.K? No, you ground your axe.
The BBC experiment? Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Does that not demonstrate that CO2 absorbs radiation, and therefore is a greenhouse gas?
S.K’s cry of no AGW, no GHG is what I replied to. It seems you strayed off-topic.
The first paper attests to the greenhouse effect. Kind of fucks up S.K’s claim. I guess S.K. isn’t interested in reading like you are. Pity.
I provided a link to a review of classroom experiments because it includes one of the ones at notrickszone’s links – the paper from the predatory journal.
What did you make of the review paper?
The experiment proves there is no GHE in a classroom demo.
It doesnt prove “Co2 is not a GHG” in the Earth atmosphere.
Why would co2 act like a GHG in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory?
It should be easier to confirm the sensitivity in a controlled environment than in an uncontrolled one if co2 is a GHG.
“Why would co2 act like a GHG in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory?”
Because the atmosphere is kilometers deep and a classroom is not. Angstrom made the same mistake 100 years ago when trying to replicate the GH effect using a short tube.
Short answer: ‘optical depth’.
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ese148a/lecture8.pdf
b,
You should read what you link to.
If you calculated the optical depth of a column of 100% CO2 (1 million parts per million) at 1 bar, and compared it to a column of atmosphere at 400 parts per million CO2, also at 1 bar, which would absorb the most radiation? Choose any wavelength you like.
Continuing on, what happens to the absorbed radiation? It cant just vanish – not without violating conservation laws, anyway.
You really don’t know, do you? Your faith is admirable.
Your ignorance, not quite so.
Try again.
All else being equal (including an atmosphere at 1 bar for its entire depth!), the more CO2, the more absorp.tion and re-emission/collision would occur. ‘Saturation’ would have little impact, as each layer would absorb and re-emit. That energy of that radiation can’t just disappear, after all.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry says:
”Because the atmosphere is kilometers deep and a classroom is not. Angstrom made the same mistake 100 years ago when trying to replicate the GH effect using a short tube.”
That was accounted for in the experiment Barry when they calculated the expected range of greenhouse effect.
If you calculate the length of the CO2 tube and concentration it was expected to produce about 1/3rd of the greenhouse effect that CO2 is blamed for in your atmosphere.
So your short tube argument would suggest that increasing the density of CO2 in the atmosphere would have zero effect due to the shortening of distance between the layers as is done with a tube with 2500 times the density of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you doubt that you should duplicate the experiment with a longer tube.
“That was accounted for in the experiment Barry”
I’ve lost count of the times you haven’t been able to follow the conversation. My point replied to:
“Why would co2 act like a GHG in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory?”
> Ive lost count of the times you havent been able to follow the conversation.
That’s a generous way to put it, Barry.
Bill throws squirrels and expects readers not to notice the tracks he leaves.
barry says:
Ive lost count of the times you havent been able to follow the conversation. My point replied to:
Why would co2 act like a GHG in the atmosphere and not in the laboratory?
————————
Its pretty sad when the most popular argument is essentially total BS. Why would anybody wonder for even one second as to why skepticism is all over the place?
Skepticism and contrarian crap isn’t the same thing, Bill.
Contrarians are on the wane. Troglodytes die.
Rejoice while it lasts!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Non-scientist here. Basic question:
If the linear warming trend since January 1979 continues at +0.14 C/decade, and 2021 temperatures come in exactly in line with that trend, will they average about 0.42 higher than the 1991-2020 average? And 2031 about 0.56 higher, 2041 about 0.70 higher, etc.?
Thanks.
Michael G,
The trendline sits at +0.21C right now. In other words, if 2021 comes in line with the trend then it will average 0.21 higher than the 1991-2020 average. 0.35 for 2031, 0.49 for 2041 and so on.
NASA
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
Tells us:
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
It’s difficult to say what the actual rate of global temperature rise is just looking at the data from the various government agencies NASA, for example, that are responsible for tracking that sort of thing for the simple reason that they change it every month. Over the past 12 months GISTEMP made over 4,000 changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index [LOTI].
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
These changes go on every month, and although they are small 1 or 2 hundredths of a degree, they do add up and make a difference. The earliest publication of LOTI that can be found on the Internet Achieves Way Back Machine is from 1997. Compared with LOTI today the rate over that 47 year period was increased by 0.25° per century. Here’s what that looks like:
https://i.postimg.cc/Hx7sZhkT/image.png
On top of that, taking a 40 year sample when you have 140 or 170 years of data is dishonest. After all, if you look at the data the 1905 to 1945 has a similar rise in temperature. Was CO2 responsible for that?
Are you able to describe what material differences there are between the 1997 data set and current? Because that may explain why there is a change.
If you haven’t bothered to find out, then I don’t see what your issue would be except that the rate of warming has increased along with the change.
Is that what the issue is? Would the changes be satisfactory if the change led to a cooling of the record? I know for damned sure you would not complain about it.
Are you able to describe what material differences there are between the 1997 data set and current? Because that may explain why there is a change.
bdgwx Pretty much covered it.
If you haven’t bothered to find out, then I don’t see what your issue would be except that the rate of warming has increased along with the change.
“…the rate of warming has increased along with the change.” You are really good at turning words around. The issue is that the changes caused the rate to increase. There’s a theme in climate science that repeats over and over and over again and that is: “Worse than previously thought.” Thought being the operative word.
Is that what the issue is? Would the changes be satisfactory if the change led to a cooling of the record? I know for damned sure you would not complain about it
Well it’s nice to be damned sure. All I know is what it looks like. And what it looks like is if the changes did produce a cooling of the record, it would never see the light of day.
Speaking of changes in the plural my incomplete files (ask me why they’re incomplete) document 54,366 changes to the monthly entries to LOTI since June 2003.
And I see you ignored the comment about 1905-1945 looking very similar to the 41 years of data since 1979. And what caused that?
“And what it looks like is if the changes did produce a cooling of the record, it would never see the light of day.”
And yet that’s exactly what happened when the oceanic portion of the record was adjusted, making the long term trend LESS than with all raw data, and even with the land part corrected.
Total adjustments have cooled the long-term record.
“And I see you ignored the comment about 1905-1945”
We’ve discussed it many times. You want to go another round? I’m tired of repeating myself, but for old time’s sake, if you insist…
barry says:
April 5, 2021 at 6:45 PM
And yet that is exactly what happened when the oceanic portion of the record was adjusted, making the long term trend LESS than with all raw data, and even with the land part corrected.
Total adjustments have cooled the long-term record.
How about some links to charts and before & after data.
You mean I provide a link to the data held by NOAA, and you don’t say that it’s all fiddled and fudged and completely unreliable?
Am I not wasting my time giving you what you ask for, when you’re just going to rubbish it anyway?
Here’s an explainer – you can do the rest if you’re genuinely interested.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Barry says:
April 12, 2021 at 11:14 PM
Am I not wasting my time giving you what you ask for, when you’re just going to rubbish it anyway?
Thanks for the link, you don’t have to look any further than the comments section to find the rebuttal:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
The notion that climate science has been adjusting the data has been going on for a long time:
Chip Bok cartoon 2009
The headline “Worse Than Previously Thought” is a common denominator. It doesn’t take much imagination to connect the dots to come up with a skeptical view point as to what is going on.
Regarding the bucket over the side of the ship issue, I’ve never seen the study where they actually went out on a ship and compared bucket and intake water temperatures and report the numbers.
This You Tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFO-mfH0SkA
was used in Zeke’s “Explainer” link
First up was the bucket issue and the claim that: “…the water tended to heat up as it was slowly pulled on to the deck making these measurement warmer than those taken using other methods.” And then they go on to absolutely ignore exactly how much warmer those bucket measurements tended to be. My short critique is, “All words and no numbers.”
And “Slowly pulled…” Who at Carbon Brief decided to put that spin on it?
Besides that, if canvas buckets much like desert water bags, were used, the water would have cooled not warmed.
The reality is the bucket and intake water temperatures probably didn’t vary any appreciable amount, so they weren’t reported, but we were treated to a word salad that “…the water tended to heat up…” not warm up, but heat up.
Several years ago I did a search to find a “Bucket vs. Intake” temperature comparison in the literature, and all I ever found was a model of a bucket with calculated time vs. temperature curves, but no actual data. Doesn’t mean it’s not out there.
So after all these years a search on “sea temperature bucket vs intake” Turns up this paper:
Comparing historical and modern methods of sea surface
temperature measurement – Part 1: Review of methods,
field comparisons and dataset adjustments
J. B. R. Matthews
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/191081342.pdf
About ten pages with overwhelming data that bucket temperatures are cooler than engine intake water:
In general, bucket temperatures have been found to average a few tenths of a ◦C cooler than simultaneous engine intake temperatures.
…
One of the most observation-rich bucket-intake comparisons ever conducted was that of James and Fox (1972). They analysed 13,876 pairs of near-simultaneous bucket and intake temperatures obtained aboard VOS ships between 1968 and 1970. Although of global distribution, reports were mainly from the North Atlantic and North Pacific shipping lanes. From a compilation of all observations, intake temperatures averaged 0.3 ◦C warmer than bucket readings.
But Hausfather and Carbon Brief tell us, “…the water tended to heat up as it was slowly pulled on to the deck making these measurement warmer than those taken using other methods.”
Carbon Brief posted the You Tube July 2017 and the Mathews paper above was published July 2013. I didn’t find the Mathews paper when I looked a few years ago, but surely Hausfather and Carbon Brief knew about it. Besides, where did they get the notion that the buckets would warm up compared to “other methods” I note that they didn’t say “engine intake water.” or define the “Other methods”
So Barry, you can go ahead and “rubbish” the Mathews paper
The paper you linked does not once exanmine raw SSTs, so it does not reply to my point, corrobrated in the explainer.
Adjusting SSTs cooled the long term record (since 1880s). Adjustments to the land surface records results in a long term trend that is warnmer than the raw data. Your paper merely corroboratesd what I said, but only half of it.
Combined, adjustments to SSTs and land surface data have cooled the record since 1880.
Let me know if your skeptic friends, with their references to blogsites, have done THAt work.
Meanwhile, skeptics that have done the work to construct their own data sets – the hard yeards, not just copy-pasting from blogs – have validated the temp records.
I expect you’ve forgotten the many exmaples I’ve linked you. Here are some again, to help you remember.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146
http://berkeleyearth.org/methodology/
Barry says: April 19th:
The paper you linked does not once exanmine raw SSTs, so it does not reply to my point, corrobrated in the explainer. Adjusting SSTs cooled the long term record (since 1880s). Adjustments to the land surface records results in a long term trend that is warnmer than the raw data. Your paper merely corroboratesd what I said, but only half of it.
What it does is disagree with the short video in Hausfather’s Explainer about buckets cooling or warming when they are brought up on deck.
Combined, adjustments to SSTs and land surface data have cooled the record since 1880.
That would be cooled the past right?
Let me know if your skeptic friends, with their references to blogsites, have done THAt work. Meanwhile, skeptics that have done the work to construct their own data sets – the hard yeards, not just copy-pasting from blogs – have validated the temp records.
So you provided me with a blog post that is over ten years old.
I expect you’ve forgotten the many exmaples I’ve linked you. Here are some again, to help you remember.
Besides the ten year old blog two more links that old.
What I have is files from NASA’s GISTEMP that extend back to 1997 that can be compared to what they said last month. Here are two links to what that looks like:
https://i.postimg.cc/brVBw6nb/image.png
https://i.postimg.cc/sD1ZKVF3/image.png
You don’t have to search very far in the popular press to find a reference to NASA’s GISTEMP here’s one from 17 hours ago:
2020 was one of three warmest years on record, study says
NASA’s GISTEMP made 338 changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) last month.
“That would be cooled the past right?”
Nope, the adjustments to raw SSTs warm the past, making the long term trend cooler. The adjustment to the past is large anough that it overwhelms the warming adjustments made to the land data, so the combined global trend is cooler than raw.
There is now more coverage, so the skeptic-made data set would have to include the new raw data. But ‘skeptics’ were complaining a decade ago that the official temp records were too warm ,and according to these skeptics, they weren’t.
Skeptics didn’t learn anything then that didn’t fit with their worldview, and they won’t learn anything now. You are the living proof.
Steve said: NASAs GISTEMP made 338 changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) last month.
Actually they make well over 1000 changes every single month. The reason is because GISTEMP downloads the new ERSST and GHCN-M files each month and reprocesses the entire 1880-present time period each time. If you modify the gio.py file and add a few more decimal places to the output files you’ll see that each value changes every single time. In fact, the ERSST and GHCN-M files are posted daily so this all changes on daily basis as well assuming you run the GISTEMP code daily.
LOL! Sort like relocating weather stations once a month.
> Sort like
Look, squirrel!
Willard, please stop trolling.
LOL! Looks like Bill has no more card in his hands.
Willard, please stop trolling.#2
bill said: LOL! Sort like relocating weather stations once a month.
With over 27,000 stations in the repository now there is a pretty good chance that at least one gets relocated each month. Stations get added each month as well. Observations are being added continually even for months, years, and decades in the past. Record digitization efforts are still ongoing.
Wow thats some reanalysis. Move one station and it affects 26,999 others? Where is the master station? In the Lab at GISS?
barry says:
April 22, 2021 at 11:05 AM
“That would be cooled the past right?”
Nope, …
I put links to data and charts showing that the NASA’s Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) over the span of a decade or more has been changed enough that LOTI’s overall temperature trend has increased. Barry puts up a word salad.
bdgwx says:
April 22, 2021 at 11:23 AM
Steve said: NASAs GISTEMP made 338 changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) last month.
Actually they make well over 1000 changes every single month…
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.
bill said: Wow thats some reanalysis. Move one station and it affects 26,999 others? Where is the master station? In the Lab at GISS?
I didn’t say that.
I suggested changing every station with every monthly run was like changing the location of every station. You are the one that suggested they change at least one every month.
One huge change is that GISS switched from using the GHCN-M QCU file to the QCF file. The QCU file is the unadjusted data. The QCF file contains the pairwise homogenization adjustment to correct for non-climatic biases caused by station moves, time of observation changes, and instrument changes. Other change include digitization of old records. These often include areas that are sparsely covered.
Wow, temperatures are back to 1982 levels. Clearly, the increase in CO2 is causing warming.
Dr Spencer, I just completed a controlled experiment that every climate scientist should be running.
Material:
2 Plastic Containers
Aluminum Foil
2 Scientific Thermometers
2 1000 lumen LED Lamps
2 12 oz bottles of water
Long-Pass IR Filter
I put the Long-Pass IR Filter in front of the 2 1000 lumen LED lamps and pointed them 6 inches away directly at the 12 oz water in the aluminum foil lined plastic container.
I then placed the other container in the near vicinity but blocked it from the lamps’ LWIR. This is the control.
I them placed the thermometer sensor in the water and recorded the temperatures over 3 days.
After 3 days of blasting the water with LWIR between 13 and 18µ from 2 1000 lumen lamps there was absolutely no uptrend in temperatures and no difference between the two water samples that could be considered warming. I had a slight calibration error where one thermometer consistently showed a 0.1 degree difference.
Anyway, this is a very very very very easy controlled experiment that anyone can run in any University Lab. When controlled for the LWIR between 13 and 18µ you will see that CO2 can not warm water even if you use extreme lighting like 2 1000 lumen lamps.
This is what was expected because LWIR between 13 and 18µ is consistent with -80C°. If those wavelengths could actually warm water, Ice would melt itself.
BTW, I would appreciate everyone running the same experiment and confirming or refuting my findings. If my findings are confirmed, it totally debunks the AGW theory.
CiL, you’re on the right track. 15μ photons cannot raise the temperature of ocean surface water. But your demonstration has several weak points.
The first concern, as Ken mentioned below, is using LED lamps. Because the photon emission is different from an LED than from a filament, you don’t know if enough IR is even been emitted. I would use an incandescent bulb, to eliminate any doubt.
Next, what are you using for a “long-pass IR filter”? How do you know the photons passing through are in the band you want? If you have access to a spectrum analyzer, that would help. If not, an inexpensive hand-held IR thermometer that can read temperatures at least as low as -60F would do.
Finally, I would recommend 3 plastic containers — One being heated directly by a bulb, one being “heated” by a second bulb, thru the IR filter, and one in the shadow of both bulbs, i.e., only being affected by room temperature. That last container would be your “control”.
ClintR, thanks for the comments. LEDs do produce IR but at a reduced level. I’ll re-run the experiment using an actual IR LED to remove any questions. Using 2 1000 lumen LEDs I assumed would easily output far more LWIR than the 0.94 W/M^2 of CO2 Backradiation provided by Industrial Era CO2. Anyway, great point, and I’ll make the adjustment meant.
When you buy the Long-Pass IR Filter they provide the spectrum. You buy them depending on the wavelengths you want to allow to pass. That is why they are called Long-Pass Filters.
I’ll work on the last part. I think if I simply put the samples in insulated coolers with a hole cut in them and cover the holes with the filter. Place them in a dark room so only IR back radiation is present, and then shine an IR LED through the filter on the one container that we should be good.
Once again, thanks for the comments. My only question is why hasn’t the rest of the scientific community run such a simple experiment. It should have been the first experiment run before all this CO2 drives climate change nonsense started.
Believing that thermalizing 1 out of every 2,500 atmospherica molecules can change anything is a stretch to begin with.
You’re still going to have trouble getting as low energy photons as 15μ, with any IR emitting LED. Good quality “long-pass IR filters” are expensive.
Save yourself some money by just using ice cubes to heat your water. Ice emits a spectrum peak at about 10μ, which is 50% “hotter” than the CO2 15μ photon. If you can’t warm something with ice cubes, you can’t warm it with CO2.
Be careful with ice cubes, as the idiots tell us the flux adds and you could burn your house down with enough ice cubes!
“You’re still going to have trouble getting as low energy photons as 15μ, with any IR emitting LED. Good quality “long-pass IR filters” are expensive.”
Clint, you are dead on and seem to be one of the few that seems to understand how complex this issue.
I can’t even find filters that cut-on around 13µ. I accidentally thought 1300nm was 13µ and bought the wrong filter. Problem is CO2 emits 2.7 and 4.3µ which are consistent with 330C° and 800C°. Even if I buy a CO2 lamp it will still emit those wavelengths.
In reality the best way to do this would be to find a blackbody radiator and warm it to -80C°, but CO2 isn’t a blackbody, it only emits 13 to 18µ.
In reality it basically comes down to trying to warm water by adding ice. There is no way radiation from a blackbody of -80C° is going to warm anything.
Clint, these are the specs for a Long-Pass Filter:
Material: Plastic
Shape: Rectangular
Size: 75mm*25mm
Thickness: 0.8mm
Transmittance at 800-1600nm: 90%
Transmittance at 680-800nm: 10%
Transmittance at 400-680nm: 0%
Quantity: 2 pieces
You need a filter that will pass 13 to 18µ
You can get more expensive photographic filters to narrow the filtering down even more to specifically 13 to 18µ.
Here is the exact filter you need:
1300nm High Performance Longpass Filter, OD >4.0 Coating Performance
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/1300nm-250mm-dia-high-performance-longpass-filter/32123/
Bit pricey, but it would finally put an end to all this debate on CO2 causing climate change.
My understanding is that LED emissivity is about emitting a very narrow band of energy. Those 1000 lumens probably don’t include any IR energy.
Correct Ken. An LED emits based on characteristics of a “p-n junction”, not thermal energy. The S/B equation doesn’t apply to an LED.
Ken, we will re-run the experiment using an IR LED. LEDs do emit the IR spectrum, just not as much as the visible spectrum. That is why I used 2 1000 lumens. I wanted to make sure we exceeded the small amount of back radian provided by CO2.
I had not considered there would be application for LEDs in the IR spectrum. I learned something today; you can buy LEDs that put out light at 15 um.
Ken, I just went ahead and purchased ceramic very very very hot IR Lamps. I’ll use aluminum foil to concentrate the IR light and keep the lamps at a distance. The lamps put out enough energy to revive lizards, so I know it provides more IR than the back radiation than the existing back-radiation from CO2. Otherwise, the lizards wouldn’t be in hibernation.
Not sure what you mean by controlled experiment.
Two days and no evaporation/condensation ??
No heat exchange with surroundings losing any heating almost on the fly??
(would expect the plastic wall facing the lamps ought heat a little – if any IR was coming through)
Hard to get comments through
CO2isLife Use science .
Not pointless hand waving
” LWIR between 13 and 18 is consistent with -80C.”
‘-
You believe in radiation. That is good.
This experiment is done every day in homes around the world.
Pour a cup of hot tea. Turn the lights on. Go out for the day.
Result the tea cools down.
–
Hint it is not as cold in the room with the lights on.
Angech, not sure your point. This experiment was done in the dark with continual addition of LWIR applied to one sample. Very similar to the light and bean plant experiment you run in 1st grade.
“Not sure what you mean by controlled experiment.
Two days and no evaporation/condensation ??”
Can you name a real-world example where that wouldn’t happen? The key is the samples were basically sided by side with the only variable being changed was the application of the LWIR. All other factors were controlled. They may have varied a bit, but the variation was equal on both sides.
Thanks Tony, I’m rerunning the experiments adjusted for all the comments.
Tony, we are addressing all your issues.
“I put the Long-Pass IR Filter in front of the 2 1000 lumen LED lamps and pointed them 6 inches away directly at the 12 oz water in the aluminum foil lined plastic container.”
You should use an incandescent bulb that has a blackbody spectrum like the sun. LED lights emit very little long wave IR.
That is one fatal error in your experiment.
Just use one of these:
https://www.amazon.com/Reptile-Ceramic-Emitter-Infrared-Aquarium/dp/B017RCQ4JO
Nate, that is the Lamp I just bought. A ceramic lamp.
This is the one that I may buy for the next version.
Carbon Dioxide Spectrum Tube
https://www.flinnsci.com/carbon-dioxide-spectrum-tube/ap1331/
One way or the other we will get answers to these questions.
OK, I’ve addressed all the issues and improved the experiment:
1) I’ve purchased 2 100 Watt IR Lamps that do get very hot.
2) I’ve purchased 2 Styrofoam Coolers
3) I’ve purchased a 1300nm cut-on LWIR Filter to truly isolate the 13 to 18µ LWIR effect on H20.
I should have the results by next week assuming delivery of all products.
Why not just buy LEDs that emit energy at the desired spectrum? No mucking about with LWIR filters which subsequently removes the issue of whether the filter is working as expected.
Ken, the problem is isolating the 13 to 18µ wavelengths. H20 absorbs more IR below 13µ than CO2 does. You can’t really find a lamp that emits specific wavelengths without paying up for them.
That may be the next phase, however. A CO2 gas lamp bulb costs $45.20 and the lamp costs $242.00. That way we will be 100% certain we are dealing with the proper wavelengths because CO2 will be the gas-producing them.
Once again, this is such a simple and relatively cheap experiment that I can’t believe every high school in the world isn’t running.
“Once again, this is such a simple and relatively cheap experiment”
Well, as you learned, not so simple.
There is a problem with the CO2 Lamps, they are to be used for no more than 30 seconds at a time. It looks like filters are the best. Also, CO2 emits SWIR which isn’t relevant to the GHG Effect, so the lamp would be adding too much energy anyway.
CO2 absorbs and emits 2.7 and 4.3µ which aren’t emitted by the earth, except over volcanos and fires.
4.3µ is 330C°
2.7C° is 800C°
How about an alcohol flame, “Ethyl alcohol’s flash point is 55°F, its ignition temperature is 685°F, ”
And wiki, cool flame:
“A cool flame is a flame having maximal temperature below about 400 °C (752 °F).”
I think normal candle is fairly hot:
“Temperature. The hottest part of a candle flame is just above the very dull blue part to one side of the flame, at the base. At this point, the flame is about 1,400 °C”
And:
“Medium-wave and carbon (CIR) infrared heaters operate at filament temperatures of around 1000 °C”
It seem alcohol flame might best. Maybe have it heat something, small blackbody surfaced disk, in which you could point at a target.
wiki:
“An alcohol burner or spirit lamp is a piece of laboratory equipment used to produce an open flame. It can be made from brass, glass, stainless steel or aluminium.” And:
“Alcohol burners are preferred for some uses over Bunsen burners for safety purposes, and in laboratories where natural gas is not available. Their flame is limited to approximately 5 centimeters (two inches) in height, with a comparatively lower temperature than the gas flame of the Bunsen burner.”
Amazon:
Sunnytech Mini Brass Metal Alcohol Lamp for Stirling Engine Steam Engine Alcohol Burner Can Be Used to Boil Tea Coffee M095-1
Price: $10.99
1300 nm cut in = 1.3 um. That will do quite a poor job of isolating 13-18 um light.
Tim, you are right. I need to adjust my order. Thanks for identifying that error.
CO2isLife, How do you plan to remove the effects of convection from your test setup?
HERE’s what I did to cancel out convection while allowing the effects of IR emissions to have a measurable impact. When you have your test setup finished, I would suggest that you provide photos for all to see.
E. Swanson, both of the water containers were exposed to the same convection. The samples are next to each other. Remember, the objective is to see if LWIR will warm H20. My hypothesis is that it will likely COOL the water through extra evaporation.
Anyway, next phase will use coolers to control many more factors, and I may buy CO2 lamps to isolate everything.
E. Swanswon,
That is a well designed experiment with convincing results. (And actually quite similar to something I started building a while back, but then got sidetracked by other things.)
The fact that foil is SO much better than clear plastic wrap is pretty much irrefutable.
* The difference cannot be due to convection — both stop air flow.
* The difference cannot be due to conduction — plastic would be a better thermal insulator.
* the difference must be due to radiation.
Bravo. (Now I may have to see if I can find my ‘stuff’ and perform my experiment to independently confirm your results with slightly different conditions.)
Yes, Tim, the difference is due to radiation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
Note the “reflected rather than absorbed”. Radiative insulation works via the reflectivity of the material, not back-radiation.
Wikipedia is (usually) a great source for learning the basics. It is not always a great source for deeper or more subtle points.
Reflection of thermal radiation back to its source is certainly one way to limit heat loss. A quite effective way, actually, which is presumably why it is highlighted. So if you are an engineer designing something specifically to reduce heat loss by radiation then you use reflectors (eg space blankets).
But you once again latch on to one sentence and ignore broader issues. Like the first line in that wiki article. “Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence. ”
That is their defining statement. A layer that absorbs radiation, warms up, and then emit some of that radiation back ALSO provides a ‘reduction of heat transfer’. And is ALSO ‘thermal insulation’ (by the definition of your article).
Obviously not, Tim, because the layer which warms up is being warmed by the initial layer. It can’t then warm up the initial layer further. Not without violating thermodynamic laws.
Look here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the Stefan–Boltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
As they note, the initial layer still radiates 460 W, in other words, does not warm up.
P.S: note that theoretical example was with emissivity = 1, in practice MLI uses reflective materials so emissivity will be less than 1.
DREMT, you missed a couple key statements in that quote you provided.
1) “held at a fixed temperature of 300 K”
So you are right that it does not warm up, but that is because it was designed to stay at 300K using some sort of thermostat mechanism.
2) for a net [radiative] loss of 230 W
SO as they ACTUALLY note, the loss in NOT still 460 W!
There is a net radiative loss of 230 W from the original surface to the new layer. There is a net radiative loss of 230 W from the layer to space. A nice steady situation. The outer layer is 300 * 0.5^(0.25) = 252 K. So in this example, they could maintain the temperature at 300 K, but needed only half the power!
If, on the other hand, they had kept a fixed POWER of 460 W into the original surface (similar to the experiment mentioned above), then the temperature would have risen. The net loss from both the outer layer and the original surface would have been constant at 460 W. The *outer* layer would have been 300 and the inner surface would have risen to 300 * 2^(0.25) = 357 K.
I am curious which law of thermodynamics is violated by any of this.
"So in this example, they could maintain the temperature at 300 K, but needed only half the power!"
Imagine how useful this would be if the real world worked like that. Sadly, it doesn’t.
Of COURSE the real world works like this! If you add more insulation, you need less power to maintain a given temperature! The article you were using says exactly this!
“The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
Right there. Literally in the passage you quoted. An external heater of one half of 460 W = 230 W can keep the original surface at 300K when there is an outer, passive, unheated layer intercepting the radiation. Without the layer, a 460 W external heater would be needed to keep the original surface at 300 K.
There is simply no other way to read the article you presented as correct.
Then the article I presented is wrong.
You can’t "need only half the power" to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer. You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.
If you can’t trust your own judgement regarding a simple scientific article like this, why should anyone else trust your scientific judgement?
Oh, I disagreed with the article beforehand. I just wanted to be the one to link to it first, and for you to be the one to explain what was wrong with it.
You can’t "need only half the power" to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer. You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.
OMG, DREMT quotes the MLI example that thoroughly demolishes his beliefs. But fails to notice.
How is that possible?
The two layers reduce radiative flux by a factor of two. IOW two layers are more insulating than one.
The layers are simply black bodies, so that destroys his argument that radiative shielding can only be done by reflection.
It is another astonishing DREMT display of 1+1 = 1 .
You can’t "need only half the power" to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer. You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.
“You cant ‘need only half the power’ to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional layer of”
R10 insulation to an existing layer of R10 insulation.
“You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.”
No surprise that DREMT lacks the basic understanding that all insulation is passive, and yet it still INSULATES!
Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread, you can’t "need only half the power" to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer. You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.
I await your response, Tim.
“I just wanted to be the one to link to it first, and for you to be the one to explain what was wrong with it.”
No one is buying THAT, DREMT!
(And even if they did buy it, you would be admitting 1) you post false information and 2) you turn to me to explain things properly.)
“You said yourself, the outer layer is passive.”
What does “passive” have to do with anything?
Adding a ‘passive’ lid lets me keep a pot of water boiling, but turn down the stove.
Adding ‘passive’ insulation lets me keep my house warm with a smaller furnace.
Adding a ‘passive’ coat keeps me warmer in the winter.
Adding ‘passive’ layers with varying impacts on radiation in Swanson’s experiment made the temperature rise varying amounts (which you agreed with!).
Tim, all arguments at this blog have been had many, many times before. Normally, when I link to the “Thermal Insulation” wiki and make the argument that, as they note, radiative insulation works via the reflectivity of the material, the response is to link to the article on MLI (which is ironic, because in practice all MLI uses highly reflective materials anyway). This time I thought I would spice things up by linking to it first. In general, the article is fine, the only error appears to be in that one section I quoted (which lacks any citation, I notice), in which their logic leads to the absurd conclusion that adding a single BB layer means you only need half the power to maintain the same temperature.
I mean…imagine if it really worked that way in real life. That would mean, with one single layer with emissivity less than 1, you could do even better than only needing half the power to maintain the same temperature! Then start adding other insulative properties to your single layer, or alternatively add more layers, and it gets even better than that…where does it end? Needing only one millionth of the power to maintain the same temperature!? Insulation is just not that effective, Tim.
” the only error appears to be in that one section I quoted (which lacks any citation, I notice), in which their logic leads to the absurd conclusion that adding a single BB layer means you only need half the power to maintain the same temperature.”
except that it agrees with the equations given, which in turn can be found in the cited textbook Savage, Chris J. (2003). ‘Thermal Control of Spacecraft’ and elsewhere.
“Then start adding other insulative properties to your single layer, or alternatively add more layers, and it gets even better than that…where does it end?”
Indeed DREMTs denial of facts doesnt seem to ever end.
The stated MLI equation gives heat transfer proportional to 1/N for N layers. For N approaching infinity heat transfer approaches 0. How absurd is that!
Having made this erroneous GPE argument for the last 2 y or so, DREMT has run out of options.
Even when caught in logical pickles, such as here, or presented with facts he cannot refute, such as here, he sees no option but to double down on stupid and dishonest.
And thus he goes all in, declaring ever more ridiculous and ever more dishonest things.
I await your reply, Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread.
“Tim, all arguments at this blog have been had many, many times before.”
An apparent realization that it is quite pointless to KEEP BRINGING THEM UP.
And yet he still does!
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
March 3, 2021 at 9:32 AM
This was the original Green Plate Effect:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
One of the many ways it was debunked was..”
Once again, I await your reply, Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread.
“Tim, the only person I am responding to”
As if inconvenient facts just vanish when I dont respond to them!
Again, I await your reply, Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread.
“I await your reply, Tim,”
What Nate said. ^^
“Tim, all arguments at this blog have been had many, many times before.”
Yes, for centuries. And the best ideas survive and get put into the thermodynamics textbooks. And your interesting-but-misguided ideas get discarded.
“the only error appears to be in that one section …
Science doesn’t work that way. Sure, undergraduate-level textbooks have errors sometimes (almost always just typos), but that is not the case here. That ‘one section’ is embedded within the fabric of thermodynamics. That ‘one section’ and only be discarded by unravelling many other adjacent parts of the fabric.
“I mean…imagine if it really worked that way in real life. That would mean, with one single layer with emissivity less than 1, you could do even better than only needing half the power to maintain the same temperature!”
I don’t have to imagine — it is sitting on my desk right now!
If I put a 500 ml hot coffee into a simple metal container, it would stay hot for only a matter of minutes. But I have a wonderful double-layer metal coffee mug that keeps the coffee hot for hours. The interior is shiny metal with a low emissivity. Heat loss for this double layer container is easily 1/10 that of a single layer, due to the low radiative transfer from the first layer to the second layer. The outer layer doesn’t even feel warm when boiling water is added! I could use 1/10 (or less) as much power to keep this coffee warm as would be required without the second layer.
“What Nate said.”
I no longer respond to Nate, and he knows that. Haven’t done for nearly two years now. So, if you want responses to any points Nate has raised, you will have to raise them yourself.
“That ‘one section’ is embedded within the fabric of thermodynamics. That ‘one section’ and only be discarded by unravelling many other adjacent parts of the fabric.”
Typical TF waffle and rhetoric.
“The interior is shiny metal with a low emissivity”
Exactly. Radiative insulation works via reflectivity. Another example of that, thanks.
You keep trying to wiggle out of what you said.
“I mean…imagine if it really worked that way in real life. That would mean, with one single layer with emissivity less than 1, you could do even better than only needing half the power to maintain the same temperature!”
I provided an example of exactly what you asked for.
* single layer covering — check
* emissivity < 1 — check
* even better than 1/2 power — check
What you consider an absurd fantasy is the standard thermos bottle!
I could presumably build a similar travel mug with the emissivity = 1 on all the surfaces. It would work much worse than the one I have, but it would be very close to 1/2 the power loss due to radiation.
Swanson already did a similar experiment (above). It worked. Less transparent films led to more warming.
If I could make a suggestion for Swanson, it would be to repeat the experiment with a few other conditions.
* Like a sheet of paper. This should have emissivity close to 1 and be better than the clear plastic but worse than the Al foil.
* Or spray painted Al foil, which should be very similar to paper.
* Or 2 layers of plastic, paper, and foil. Two layers of plastic should make little or no difference. Two layers of paper should help. 2 layers of foil should help more.
Tim, you also said:
“If I put a 500 ml hot coffee into a simple metal container, it would stay hot for only a matter of minutes”
According to what we are discussing, the act of merely adding any surrounding layer at all ought to mean your coffee needs only half the power to remain at the same temperature. Never mind the fact that the simple metal container will still have emissivity less than 1. So your “staying hot for only a matter of minutes” isn’t good enough. It ought to be staying hot for longer than that. Even if somehow the emissivity of the container was one.
This is an awkward discussion for you because I am not disputing that radiative insulation exists or works. I am merely arguing along the lines of the first Wiki article, that radiative insulation works via reflectivity. That’s difficult for you to argue with because every example of radiative insulation you will find in real life does utilize reflectivity. Including MLI.
Every real example of radiative insulation uses reflection because it is more *effective*, not because it is the only option. No one is going to wrap a satellite in layer after layer plastic with emissivity ~ 1 when they could use 1 or 2 layers of shiny metal with emissivity ~ 0.05 instead.
Your inability to move beyond emissivity = 0.0 to emissivity = 1.0 says that you ARE disputing that radiative insulation works — certainly disputing the basic equations and principles. Or lets turn it around. Show us that you DO know how radiation works with some simple calculations.
1) A sphere with emissivity = 1 and surface area 1 m^2 has a 100 W heater inside it. It is suspended in an evacuated chamber with walls @ 300 K and emissivity = 1. Show that the sphere will be 315 K.
2) Change the emissivity of the sphere to to 0.05 and show the sphere will be 456 K now.
3) Go back to emissivity = 1 for the sphere. Add a thin concentric shell with emissivity = 1 just barely above the first so that the surface area is still approximately 1.0 m^2. Show that the shell will be 315 K. Show that the original sphere will be 328 K.
4) For (3) reduce the power to 50 W (1/2 the original) and show the shell will be 308 K and the sphere will be 315 K.
If you can’t actually do the calculations, then you don’t understand the topic. If you think I am wrong, show your equations and your work.
I have nothing to prove, so will not be performing at your request.
Its useless arguing this stuff.
What you need is an experiment that establishes a greenhouse effect for a planet that can be replicated.
Woods proved it was wrong with a greenhouse. Response by warmists to that is the greenhouse effect isn’t a greenhouse effect.
Since they they have never described what kind of effect it is. Manabe and Wetherald devised a hypothesis of how the lapse rate came about that is contrary to basic physics of gasses of how the lapse rate is actually constructed.
Its kind of like instead of a greenhouse they made numerous tiny little ones they sum up the non-working results from.
G&T expressed their frustration of not being able to analyze any of these tiny little greenhouses. . . .and the warmists focused on G&T suggesting the non-described greenhouse effect might be violating the 2nd law by. . . .uh. . . .saying the same stuff as above.
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science.”
— Lord Kelvin
“You cant “need only half the power” to maintain the same temperature just because you have added an additional single BB layer.”
Would you need the same, full 100% power? Maybe 90% is enough? Or 66.7%? Maybe only 25%? You can’t do the calculations! All you can do is imagine.
Tim, you always do the same examples, and always try this same tactic. As soon as I see you have your sphere with a heat source and walls at a fixed temperature (in other words you have an additional heat source somewhere to keep your walls at that temperature) and that you are basically repeating the already debunked steel greenhouse concept, I lose interest immediately. You know the GPE is already the simplest example to explore these ideas and you know that we have been through all that, so what are you trying to pull? Just more TF rhetoric and games.
I often do similar examples because they are simple and highlight the relevant physics. As such, they are accessible to people with even a rudimentary understanding of the equations. These examples are a starting point — like frictionless surfaces and massless pulleys.
You loose interest because you can’t actually do that physics. You can’t actually find an error in the calculations, so you repeat some vague, unsubstantiated claims. If you can’t calculate a bare sphere in a room at fixed temperature, how can you possible claim to know anything more complicated?
Tim, if I can explain how you calculated your 1) and 2), will you stop commenting for 120 days?
“I lose interest immediately. You know the GPE is already the simplest example to explore these ideas and you know that we have been through all that, so what are you trying to pull? Just more TF rhetoric and games”
Ha! Tim is the most patient listener and explainer of the facts. So apparently who the poster is, is not a real issue.
The real issue is the facts are unsupportive.
The facts involve proven technology, and proven theory.
Your lack of interest in these unsupportive facts is quite a poor excuse.
If you have no interest in honest discussion of the GPE facts , then STOP BRINGING IT UP!
Its that simple.
I repeat my question to Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread.
”
I have nothing to prove, so will not be performing at your request.”
Translation:
I cant prove the science is wrong. I just have a feeling that is absurd. Thats my ‘winning’ argument.
Gosh, why arent people convinced?
Again, Tim, if I can explain how you calculated your 1) and 2), will you stop commenting for 120 days?
Tim, you must be getting to DREMT, as he feels it very important that you stop posting!
Really, everyone who understands the science should just stop posting annoying science facts!
Once again, Tim, the only person I am responding to in this sub-thread, if I can explain how you calculated your 1) and 2), will you stop commenting for 120 days?
DREMT,
If you can show how to analyze 1 & 2 using correct physics, I will be impressed. That is a great start toward understanding and puts you ahead of most people in these discussions.
If you can show how to analyze 3 & 4 using correct physics, I will be very impressed. Then there will be no need to comment back to you on this topic.
Like I said, I have nothing to prove; and I’m not impressed by your “DREMT can’t calculate this” game that you seem to want to play, trying to make it all about the player and not the ball. So I’ve come back with my own game. If you want me to show how you calculated your 1) and 2), then you can offer up something you value in return. Your time commenting on this blog. If you really think I can’t do it then you should be confident to accept the terms I proposed. After all you have already made a big fuss, quoted Lord Kelvin and gone on about how inferior you think my understanding is. That wouldn’t be right if you actually thought I could do it, all along.
If, on the other hand, you were just full of crap and trying to discredit your “opponent”, whilst knowing full well that I can calculate it, then I guess you would try to avoid accepting the terms I proposed.
If you can calculated all this properly, then you would know that the ‘steel greenhouse’ has not been debunked. Then you would know that one layer of BB material really can cut in half the power lost by radiation. Then you would know the “blue plate experiment” really does work.
If you pick the side of actual physics, there would be no need to continue this discussion.
“game that you seem to want to play, trying to make it all about the player and not the ball.”
OMG, who would do that?
DREMT. ALL THE TIME.
“Manabe and Wetherald devised a hypothesis of how the lapse rate came about that is contrary to basic physics of gasses of how the lapse rate is actually constructed.”
Sure thing. Pls show us how it is contrary to basic physics…
I recall introducing you to MW in response to you false claim that models didnt consider convection.
Tim, if you were honest, you would not attempt to discredit your “opponent” by suggesting they can’t do calculations when you actually think that they can. Of course, if you genuinely thought that I couldn’t do it, then you would have been happy to agree to the terms. You are full of crap, Tim.
“1) A sphere with emissivity = 1 and surface area 1 m^2 has a 100 W heater inside it. It is suspended in an evacuated chamber with walls @ 300 K and emissivity = 1. Show that the sphere will be 315 K.
2) Change the emissivity of the sphere to to 0.05 and show the sphere will be 456 K now.”
How you did it:
1) Using the SB Law:
E = σT^4
You found that the E for a T of 300 K was 460 W/m^2. Since the sphere is receiving 460 W/m^2 from the walls and 100 W/m^2 from the internal heater you simply added them together to get 560 W/m^2. Then, again using the SB Law, to get T from E, you would have used:
T = (560/σ)^0.25
T= 315 K
For the temperature of the sphere. This is because you are assuming whatever it receives is what it must then emit, and if it is emitting 560 W/m^2 its temperature must be 315 K.
2) Similar to 1), you are using the SB Law to work out what the sphere is receiving, and therefore what it must emit. The only complication is the emissivity. So, you are aware that the walls are emitting 460 W/m^2, but the sphere will reflect most of this radiation due to its low emissivity. 460 x 0.05 = 23 W/m^2 that the sphere will actually absorb. The rest will be reflected. That means, you reason, that the sphere will have 100 W/m^2 from its internal heater plus the 23 W/m^2 from the walls and be receiving (absorbing) 123 W/m^2, so it must warm until it emits 123 W/m^2. However, the emissivity is only 0.05. So, if you divide 123 by 0.05 you get 2,460 W/m^2, which is what a blackbody would be emitting at the temperature you are looking for.
T = (2460/σ)^0.25
T= 456 K
Wow impressive. It took two years but he finally is able to solve a homework problem!
Dare he apply it to 3, 4, and risk finding out his beliefs are wrong??
Or will he just declare physics has it all wrong?
DREMT, No one put you in charge (no matter how ironic your name might be). I don’t have to play by your rules. I enjoy the conversations and reply if I like.
As for the calculations, I actually did think you could do them. That is why I am amazed that you so boldly insist on wrong answers.
You are 1/2 way there. Now try (3) and (4) and confirm/debunk the ‘steel green house’ for yourself. Then you will never again have to wonder. You will never again have to take someone else’s word about ‘steel greenhouses’ or ‘green plates’ or thermos bottles.
“As for the calculations, I actually did think you could do them.”
So your 6:35 PM, 7:04 PM and 5:42 AM comments were all BS then, weren’t they Tim!? So why should I even continue a discussion with a proven BS artist?
I should have perhaps have said “won’t” rather than “can’t”. Or perhaps “you have never demonstrated that you can”.
That said, you STILL haven’t shown that you can do the proper physics for anything other than the simplest problems. The fact that I think you can do the math for simple cases doesn’t mean I have any confidence that you can do the next level properly.
Rather than spending post after post avoiding the physics, just go ahead and do it already! Confirm or debunk the steel greenhouse for all to see. Confirm or debunk “You can’t “need only half the power””.
Known BS-artist Tim, 3) & 4) ain’t exactly difficult. I already went through your “logic” for 1) & 2), I think most people will get what you have done for 3) once they realize the sphere (with its 100 W/m^2 internal power supply) at 328 K would be emitting 660 W/m^2, the passive shell at 315 K would be emitting 560 W/m^2, and the walls at 300 W/m^2 emit 460 W/m^2. I think it is fairly self-explanatory.
The problem is that you are adding a passive shell and thinking that this will increase the temperature of the inner sphere. The shell does not have its own power source, it is passive. All that would happen in real life is, the shell would take on the temperature of the inner sphere.
I would note that Tricky Tim is not correctly representing the original Steel Greenhouse concept here, either, in that he has added these walls at 300 K which are effectively a second heat source. In the original concept the only heat source was within the sphere. There was just the sphere and the shell.
Ah DREMT understands the logical steps to get there, but refuses to be led by logic..
Tricky Tim, if the space within your walls at 300 K was filled with a material which was the same as the sphere, the temperature of the walls would remain 300 K (because they are fixed at that temperature), and there would be a temperature gradient through to the sphere itself. All energy transfer would be via conduction. What would the temperature of the sphere be (the sphere still has its 100 W power source)?
“All that would happen in real life is, the shell would take on the temperature of the inner sphere.”
You certainly are working hard to get the wrong conclusion.
If the heated sphere is within surroundings at temperature T, it is easy to find the temperature of the sphere with 100 W/m^2 of power.
SURROUNDINGS SPHERE
0 K ………. 205 K
205 K …….. 244 K
300 K …….. 315 K
315 K …….. 328 K
You did the calculations. You know how this works. You don’t dispute any of those numbers.
Now note — it makes NO DIFFERENCE *why* the surroundings are the temperature they are. Nothing in the calculations depends on how the surroundings get to their temperature. Nothing in the calculation cares about “active” or “passive”. It also makes no difference whether we call the surroundings a “shell” or “walls”.
Only temperature matters!
If the sphere is surrounded by a 300 K shell or by 300 K walls, the sphere will be 315 K.
If the sphere is surrounded by a 315 K shell or 315 K walls, the sphere will be 328 K.
Tricky Tim, a response to my question, please. Then we can get onto what numbers I dispute, and why.
” at 328 K would be emitting 660 W/m^2, the passive shell at 315 K would be emitting 560 W/m^2, and the walls at 300 W/m^2 emit 460 W/m^2. I think it is fairly self-explanatory.”
DREMT expertly shows what the SB law requires the temperatures to be. Hooray.
“The problem is that you are adding a passive shell..the shell would take on the temperature of the inner sphere.”
Oops, the SB law gets it wrong, he claims!
“Nothing in the calculation cares about “active” or “passive””
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe it should?
Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please. If I could just speak to Tim alone, with no interruptions from squawking stalkers who openly and dishonestly twist my every word, that would be great.
“If the space within your walls at 300 K was filled with a material..”
Alert! Red herring alert! Red herring alert!
Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please. If I could just speak to Tim alone, with no interruptions from squawking stalkers who openly and dishonestly twist my every word, that would be great.
‘Passive’ aggression alert!
Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please. If I could just speak to Tim alone, with no interruptions from squawking stalkers who openly and dishonestly twist my every word, that would be great..
Caution: Logical failure imminent!
Immediate evasive action required!
“via conduction…”
Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please. If I could just speak to Tim alone, with no interruptions from squawking stalkers who openly and dishonestly twist my every word, that would be great…
Tim Folkerts says:
If you can calculated all this properly, then you would know that the steel greenhouse has not been debunked. Then you would know that one layer of BB material really can cut in half the power lost by radiation. Then you would know the blue plate experiment really does work.
If you pick the side of actual physics, there would be no need to continue this discussion.
——————–
LOL! You wish Tim!
Indeed BB material blocks radiation. But that doesn’t lead to a warming conclusion. A home window blocks stuff but it doesn’t lead to an insulation value. Thats because glass doesn’t represent insulation. You can multi-pane a window with intervening airgaps in each layer and get an insulating value. Climate science envisions instantaneous layers and ignores diffusion that closes the gaps by physically delivering the heat without any net radiation at all adding to the truckload being delivered. If CO2 added to that you would be buying windows with CO2 in the layers rather than inert gases.
In window engineering radiation isn’t even counted because convection operates as 100% negative feedback. Only the convective breaks are considered. Could be the appropriate approach as radiation doesn’t have a greenhouse effect in solids either or water. . . .so why not gas too?
The only time radiation is considered in window technology is when you start adding reflective coatings (like cloud bottoms?) then you can get a small boost in insulating efficiency from radiation.
So out of this library of engineering contradicting climate science arises a sudden assumption that convection doesn’t operate as a 100% negative feedback. But I have yet to see the proof.
And its hard for warmists to suggest CO2 promotes cloud formation for a little bit of reflection because of the impact on blocking sunlight in the process.
So while all this stuff is out there well documented in physics, atmospheric alarmist scientists pretend to be unaware of it, if they aren’t pretending it must be because most of them transferred over from some other discipline so as to satisfy their need to help save the world from itself and they just aren’t aware of what engineering has learned about heat transfer through all sorts of objects. Heck climate science couldn’t even answer G&T’s questions of exactly where the forcing comes from.
the true answer is when the debate comes up they run for the hills.
Its a science in an extremely sad state of affairs. And of course you always have the sky is falling Chicken Littles ready to take advantage of such a situation. So out of frustration with tons of money to fling around they just resorted to the principle of post normal science whereby the best science available is determined by fiat instead of science. And here we are.
Bill says: “Indeed BB material blocks radiation. “
That is an excellent start. You, me, DREMT and the entire scientific and engineering communities agree.
“But that doesnt lead to a warming conclusion. “
That is the point of contention. Simply proclaiming something doesn’t make it true. Especially when you yourself contradict this conclusion: “then you can get a small boost in insulating efficiency from radiation”. So radiation CAN boost insulation, which naturally leads to warming.
“A home window … water … convection … clouds … negative feedback … G&T … money …”
These are all potentially interesting topics, but 98% of what you wrote has nothing to do with this discussion. Here we are discussing the basics of radiation. You could join this discussion and perhaps analyze “a small boost in insulating efficiency” and how it relates to the ‘boost in insulating efficiency’ of a thin black body or reflecting shell. You might even try relating low emissivity coatings on window to my examples (1) and (2).
“Now, an answer to my 10:37 AM question please.
If the space within your walls at 300 K was filled with a material which was the same as the sphere … energy transfer would be via conduction … What would the temperature of the sphere be?”
Well, first of all, there would be no sphere — there would be a room-sized block of material. There are plenty of tools for analyzing heat flows and temperature gradients in such situations, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method. But I can’t see how this is germane to our discussion.
I could instead clarify a few assumptions about the current scenarios.
* All spaces are vacuum
* All temperatures refer the the surface temperatures.
* the sphere has a uniform surface temperature — because the heater is uniform and/or the material has a high thermal conductivity.
* the shell is thin and has high thermal conductivity so that the inside and outside can be treated as having the same temperature.
What would the temperature of the sphere be, Tim?
As expected DREMT is unable to answer why he dismisses the straightforward SB law Temps that HE calculated.
He is stuck in a 2 y rut.
What would the temperature of the sphere be, Tim?
> there would be no sphere
What would the temperature of the sphere be, Tim?
> there would be no sphere
We could go around in circles like this forever. There is no sphere. there is no radiation. Your new scenario is entirely unrelated to our discussion.
You could
* realize that I already told you *how* to solve your scenario.
* provide details that would be required before any numerical solution would be possible. (How big is your “room”? What is your ‘sphere’ made out of? Where is it in the room? What is the shape of your heat source? …)
* explain why you are so keen on changing the topic.
* go back to the original issue.
*******************************************
This might be a good spot to re-start.
“All that would happen in real life is, the shell would take on the temperature of the inner sphere.”
If I understand your claim:
* The bare sphere starts at 328 K.
* Add a shell and the shell ‘takes on the temperature of the sphere’ = 328 K.
Are you claiming the inner sphere stays at 328K? If so, the sphere and the shell would be in thermal equilibrium, and no heat can move from the sphere to the shell. What do you think happens to the extra 100 W still being added to the sphere, if not to warm the sphere up further?
Tim Folkerts says:
”But that doesnt lead to a warming conclusion. ”
”That is the point of contention. Simply proclaiming something doesnt make it true. Especially when you yourself contradict this conclusion: ”then you can get a small boost in insulating efficiency from radiation”. So radiation CAN boost insulation, which naturally leads to warming.
————————–
You are into apples and oranges Tim. CO2 doesn’t reflect it absorbs and emits in all directions. The small boost comes from reflecting more than 50% as convection has a flux factor of .5 in basic heat transfer equations.
so mathematically comes out in a gas environment of negative feedback of 100% provided by convection to radiant BB forcing.
If you don’t think that is true that engineers are stupid by all means provide a reference that supports your lunatic point of view.
I will even help you. Manage and Wetherald speculate that there must be an error in the basic engineering calculation. After all there is a need for a GHE that does exist. So it appears in their paper they propose a tiny effect hoping nobody notices that there is zero proof it exists. the only thing that can be said about it is their assumption turns out to be adequate to explain the greenhouse effect a figure no doubt arrived at by first measuring the greenhouse effect then providing an equation to produced it.
If you doubt that then please provide a reference to an elegant test of the assumption.
Bill, at the risk of sounding argumentative, you are into red herrings.
DREMT wants to discuss the basics of radiative heat transfer. You want to talk about CO2 and 50 year old science papers and windows and “convection has a flux factor of .5” (whatever that means), and many many other things. One thing at a time please!
I am not here to defend every aspect (real or imagined) of climate science from the past 100+ years. I am here to defend basic physics like P/A = (sigma)(epsilon)(Th^4 – Tc^4) or “heat only flows when there is a temperature difference”.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill, at the risk of sounding argumentative, you are into red herrings.
DREMT wants to discuss the basics of radiative heat transfer. You want to talk about CO2 and 50 year old science papers and windows and “convection has a flux factor of .5” (whatever that means), and many many other things. One thing at a time please!
I am not here to defend every aspect (real or imagined) of climate science from the past 100+ years. I am here to defend basic physics like P/A = (sigma)(epsilon)(Th^4 – Tc^4) or “heat only flows when there is a temperature difference”.
===========================
I understand Tim. You want to pretend you are on space ship and only need to deal with radiation. But up there you can’t use CO2 because you have no atmosphere to work with. You need to come back down to earth and learn the basics of radiation in a gas medium, cause in space you have no atmosphere. Here on earth you need to deal with it. Thus I will state very clearly for you that if you are not dealing with convection you are just imagining greenhouse effects in fairytale land.
Lol, Tim, it is your original scenario, only instead of a vacuum between the sphere and walls, it is filled with a material the same as the sphere. What is the temperature of the part of the room-sized block of material represented by the original sphere, in the middle? Just as a rough estimate. 205 K? 300 K? 315 K? Higher? I am going somewhere with this. Next place I am going is lots and lots of shells around the sphere, with gaps, filling out the entire room. Say there was 100 shells. Or 10 shells. Whatever is easier to calculate. What would the temperature of the sphere be then?
Bill,
Still waiting for you to show us the physics errors that you said you found Manabe and Weatherald made, in their pioneering atmospheric physics paper of 1967. Point out the page and paragraph, pls.
Im impressed that you found the physics error that no one else noticed.
“I am going somewhere with this.”
Down another rabbit hole, hoping to evade my basic issue with the SB law.
Its just astonishing, really. DREMT seems to understand how the original shell in vacuum problem can be SOLVED using the actual laws of physics.
But that doesnt give him a satisfying result.
So what to do? Change the problem completely. Solve the new one.
Then, quite strangely, claim, without any logical reason, that the solution to the new one must work for the old one too! The one that he already straight forwardly solved, but got a different answer.
Why does he think this is a ‘winning’ argument?
“DREMT wants to discuss the basics of radiative heat transfer”
No, Tim, DREMT only wanted to make the simple point that radiative insulation works via reflectivity and not via “back-radiation”. You of course want to lead the discussion in a way that you can control, so you devised yet another silly thought experiment, gave me the answers and said that if I truly understood the issues, I would be able to explain how you got those answers. I refused to participate, so like a kid in the playground you stood there going “DREMT can’t calculate it, DREMT can’t calculate it” until I did.
So at that point I should have proved that I do have the understanding to appreciate the issues, and we could have gone back to the original discussion, but of course this is all forgotten. Now it’s all about the new thought experiment. Which was your intention all along.
You want to talk about a thought experiment? OK, let’s discuss it. We can start by you answering the questions in my 11:52 PM comment.
“make the simple point that radiative insulation works via reflectivity and not via ‘back-radiation’.”
Another bizzare DREMT method. Take something that happens one way, “via reflectivity”, and assume, wrongly, that must be the ONLY way it happens.
And of course he knows better. His own calculation shows how it works another way. So he is simply obfuscating.
Is there any devious method of evading reality that DREMT wont try?
Oh, and by the way, just for anyone reading, in case they were interested…the Steel Greenhouse is debunked here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/22/incomplete-thermodynamics/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/
It is the original scenario … only completely different. You switched from 100% transfer by radiation to 100% transfer by conduction.
Conduction, convection, and radiation operate on completely different principles, with completely different equations. You really should figure out how each works before trying to combine them. And currently you are working on understanding radiation. Like calculate 1 shell around 1 sphere in uniform surroundings (with various idealized properties).
Come on, Tim, what are you so afraid of? Answer the 11:52 PM questions for this discussion to continue. If not, that’s that. I’m done.
Oh, and by the way, just for anyone reading, in case they were interestedthe Steel Greenhouse is NOT ACTUALLY debunked there.
Postma actually does reasonably well. There are still errors in his efforts, but it is a good try. And he gets bonus points for trying to deal with a shell that is not the same radius as the sphere.
The first critical error comes at line (3). Once the shell is added, the shell becomes the ‘environment’ for the sphere. The sphere no longer radiates to the surfaces at temperature T0, but instead radiates to surfaces at temperature Tsh
“3a) 4πRsp2σ Tsp4 = 4πRsh2σTsh4
3b) 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 T04) = 4πRsh2σ(Tsh4 T04)”
should be
3a) 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 – Tsh4) = 4πRsh2σTsh4
3b) 4πRsp2σ(Tsp4 Tsh4) = 4πRsh2σ(Tsh4 T04)
There is a later error as well, dealing with energy flow back from the shell to the sphere, but by that point, the analysis is too flawed to be useful.
No, Tim, because as he explains:
“The shell’s surface would emit on its interior as well, however, internal emission by the shell will always meet another interior side of the shell (or the sphere), and hence will not leave the shell. Internal emission by the shell’s surface hence does not lead to a loss of energy for the shell, and hence the energy produced by the sphere will be conserved with the outward emission of the shell to the environment.”
“What is the temperature of the part of the room-sized block of material represented by the original sphere, in the middle?”
I keep feeling like I am doing your homework for you.
For simplicity, lets assume a spherical room, with radius r(2) = 2 m. The original sphere was r(1) = 0.28 m. The thermal resistance between the spherical walls is R = (r2 – r1)/[4 pi r1 r2 k].
The temperature difference would be Delta(T) = Q R. For copper (k = 400) that would be about 0.06 K and for fiber glass (K = 0.045) that would be 538 K.
Pretty straightforward. Didn’t you ever do problems like this in the physics classes you took?
You still haven’t actually answered the questions from my 11:52 PM comment.
Nate says:
Still waiting for you to show us the physics errors that you said you found Manabe and Weatherald made, in their pioneering atmospheric physics paper of 1967. Point out the page and paragraph, pls.
Im impressed that you found the physics error that no one else noticed.
——————————–
I never said they made a physics error Nate. How is the strawman business coming? Sales good?
Let me repeat: “Once the shell is added, the shell becomes the environment for the sphere. ”
This is the key error. The sphere in the shell is NOT radiating to surroundings at T0. It is radiating to surroundings at Tsh. Hence he should be using (Tsp^4 Tsh^4) in both (3a) and (3b).
Your comment addresses the 2nd error. His explanation sounds plausible superficially, but it is still wrong. You have to carefully define you “systems” in thermodynamics. Even thought the “sphere” is completely enclosed within the “shell” they are two separate ‘systems’ in two separate volumes of space. Energy DOES leave the ‘system’ of the shell when it enters the ‘system’ of the sphere.
“The sphere in the shell is NOT radiating to surroundings at T0”
Effectively it is, for as he notes:
“Internal emission by the shell’s surface hence does not lead to a loss of energy for the shell, and hence the energy produced by the sphere will be conserved with the outward emission of the shell to the environment.
This is another regular strategy DREMT uses to distract from the logical failure of his own argument.
Send the reader somewhere else, to read someone elses flawed argument, without understanding it enough to explain himself..
Really DREMT just simply needs to defend his own arguments already made from the very legitimate criticisms made by Tim and others, that it disagrees with the solution he has found using the laws of physics.
Clearly he can’t do that, hence the need for a series of evasion tactics.
Well, if there are no further replies from Tim, the only person I am responding to on this sub-thread, and given that it seems clear he is never going to give a direct answer to the questions I asked in my 11:52 PM comment, I guess that’s that.
Bill,
“I never said they made a physics error Nate.”
Of course you did. You said M and W:
“devised a hypothesis of how the lapse rate came about that is contrary to basic physics of gasses”
Pls explain how, and on what page and paragraph, they state anything ‘contrary to basic physics of gases’.
Or you can just retract it.
DREMT: “Then we can get onto what numbers I dispute, and why.”
Clearly he cant do that.
21 comments so far, directed towards a person he knows won’t respond to him. Stalkers are weird.
>> The sphere in the shell is NOT radiating to surroundings at T0
> Effectively it is, for as he notes …
No.
A lightbulb inside a box does not ‘effectively’ light up the room. It lights up the inside of the box.
A glowing sphere inside a sealed shell does not ‘effectively’ radiate out into the environment. It radiates to the inside of the shell. The thermal IR gets absorbed 100% there. It does not radiate back.
****************************************
Here is yet one MORE problem with his analysis.
“4a) Qsp-sh = 4πRsp2σTsp4 4πRsh2σTsh4”
We could make heat from FROM the cool shell TO warm sphere, simply by making the radius of the shell large enough. Bye bye 2nd Law!
He needs to understand the idea of “view factors”. The correct equation would be
4a) Qsp-sh = 4πRsp2σTsp4 4πRsp2σTsh4
“it seems clear he is never going to give a direct answer to the questions I asked ”
I already gave a much more direct, complete answer than your vague question deserved. The ‘sphere’ that is actually just a hypothetical region in a solid ‘block’ would be on the order of 0.1 K warmer than the walls for a good thermal conductor like copper, and would be a few 100K warmer than the walls for a good thermal insulator like fiberglass.
OK, Tim. Whatever you say. People can read through the articles and comments and decide for themselves.
Meanwhile, is there any chance of you answering those questions? Or is this complete waste of my time finally coming to an end?
“is there any chance of you answering those questions?”
[Ie “What is the temperature of the part of the room-sized block of material represented by the original sphere, in the middle?”]
The answer is literally in my previous post, right before the one where you asked this question.
The “sphere” is ~ 0.1 K warmer than the walls (300K) if the material is a good conductor (ie 300.1)
The “sphere” is ~ 500 K warmer than the walls (300K) if the material is a good conductor (ie 800 K).
And we all notice that you continue to avoid answering *my* question about a sphere within a shell.
OK, you have finally answered my first question. Still one more question to go, Tim (for now) about the sphere with multiple shells. Keep going.
Re: your question, a passive shell cannot increase the temperature of the sphere, as I already explained.
Well, there we have it.
DREMTs efforts to distract, delay, dismiss, and deny were all transparent attempts at evading an uncomfortable contradiction.
He uses the laws of physics, like the SB-law and 1LOT, to calculate temperatures of the sphere and shell, and they turn out not to be the same.
But, regardless of what the laws of physics say, the sphere and shell must be the same temperature, he declares, without calculation.
But he can offer no explanation why the physics-based solution must be wrong.
22.
Nate says:
Sure thing. Pls show us how it is contrary to basic physics
——————
good point Nate. The use of the word contrary wasn’t called for.
The laws of gases determine how the lapse rate forms. M&W propose a novel means of changing the lapse rate without producing any physical proof.
Does that suit you better?
“propose a novel means of changing the lapse rate without producing any physical proof.
Does that suit you better?”
Well, in mathematics we have proof. There is rarely ever proof in physical sciences. There is only experimental tests.
They produced a physics-based model that helped to explain the real-world lapse rate, which was not fully explained previous to this paper.
And it served as the basis of future GCM models.
It is unimpressive that M&W mathematically described the lapse rate. With mathematics its not necessary to deal with real world complications, like for example latent heat released by the condensation and freezing of water in which vapor pressure plays a huge role or need deal with varying percentages of water vapor in an air column. These physical issues can only be sorted out in experiments are you are talking about give me 3 variables and I will construct you an elephant. Give me a 4th and I will make his trunk wiggle.
“a passive shell cannot increase the temperature of the sphere, as I already explained.”
… and yet you just agreed that passive shells CAN increase the temperature of the sphere. From 300K up to any where between 300.1 and 800K depending on the material used for passive insulating shells.
Radiative insulation works via reflectivity, Tim.
Are you going to answer the next question, or what? Getting pretty bored of waiting.
No, the best radiative insulation works via reflection. But it still works with blackbodies. If you are bored, try answering my (3) and (4).
Already did!
Waiting…
DRENT, I guess I needed to be more specific. You need to give a *correct* answer.
The thing you don’t seem to realize is that your answer depends on the *name* you give an object, not on the properties of the object.
In your world:
The heated sphere inside a 300 K “room” will be 328 K.
The heated sphere inside a 328 K “shell” will be 328 K.
Tim Folkerts says:
No, the best radiative insulation works via reflection. But it still works with blackbodies. If you are bored, try answering my (3) and (4).
—————————
Tim you should be aware that after many response by you arguing for a solely radiant GHE, you have resorted without exception to demonstrate your argument with a sheet/wall/sphere composed of an impermeable surface.
If you understood anything about passive heating you would realize that accomplish it you must enclose it with a solid substance.
Current theory claims to close it by a lack of substance. . . . sort of. Since their theory fails the basic test of cooling occurring with elevation in the stratosphere, the effect they reason must be occurring the troposphere. Worse if occurring in the mesosphere it has no way to cross the stratosphere. The temperatures are not being controlled from those regions of the atmosphere.
So part and parcel to that is a warming occurring within the mid atmosphere. Thus the Hot Spot theory remains out there like a phantom and is only occasionally spotted and sketched/photographed like Big Foot.
Still just patiently waiting for Tim to answer the next question.
“like for example latent heat released by the condensation and freezing of water in which vapor pressure plays a huge role or need deal with varying percentages of water vapor in an air column. These physical issues ..”
You really should read a paper before declaring what its flaws are, Bill.
These physical issues were included in the MW model. And in more detail in the GCM models that followed it.
Of course, there’s a good reason that Tim doesn’t want to answer the next question. As you add more and more shells, according to their “logic”, the sphere just gets warmer and warmer…without a limit! Meanwhile, as you add more and more shells around the sphere, it starts to resemble the situation where the vacuum gap between the sphere and walls was replaced with material the same as the sphere. It becomes more and more like one big solid mass. Yet in that situation, Tim was happy to claim the sphere would only be 300.1 K!
Basic physics gives an answer that DREMT doesnt like. Therefore he declares it wrong, absurd, and declares victory.
Thus he must desperately evade discussing this central issue, that could quickly settle the argument, and not in his favor.
His evasion tactics are laid bare for all to see. Distract with red herrings. Delay with childish games. Claim, without evidence, that a different problem should give the same results. Give false significance to the names of objects.
If he can, again, successfully evade having to explain away correct answers found with basic physics, this enables him to come back in a month, and declare the argument settled, and in his favor.
23.
Nate says:
April 10, 2021 at 7:25 AM
like for example latent heat released by the condensation and freezing of water in which vapor pressure plays a huge role or need deal with varying percentages of water vapor in an air column. These physical issues ..
You really should read a paper before declaring what its flaws are, Bill.
These physical issues were included in the MW model. And in more detail in the GCM models that followed it.
—————————————
Sure they assign all the known variables around the CO2 absor=ption profile and viola you have a basic mathematical description of the modtran model complete with moisture parameters and all.
This is easy stuff to do, I did it for a living, during my apprenticeship. . . .of course when doing it I had experts to let me know the reasonable range for the various variables I could use. The was litigation support. We were getting numbers that varied from the opponents in an outcome in 30 years of 300%. Not like the climate outcome of about 2% in a 100 years. The we went to court for the client and won.
Here its a case of the US government suing its citizens for it freedom based upon projected outcomes using computer models. Of course today I am still part of policy processes that do this and I am supportive of the models that have proven themselves.
That apprenticeship was over 30 years ago. The losing side proposed an outcome 3 times the outcome we provided. The actual results 30 years later showed that both sides overstated the outcome. The reason was that as professional consultants we wanted to provide our best guess possible. We easily could have taken the low ground and no doubt could have achieved the real outcome with the reasonable range of variables we had at our disposal.
So what was the difference in this multi-billion dollar lawsuit? The difference was the plaintiff was simply picking across the board high parameters for their variables as we could duplicate their outcome using the reasonable range of variables that was part of what we did. As an apprentice I was just working on the modeling and we had PhDs citing the variables and choosing mid values for them as being reasonable makes for winning judgements.
So what I know of the ranges of reasonable ranges of water vapor and convection flows (you can observe the ranges in historic documents estimating the variables in radiant budgets) They far outweigh the 3 watts assumed for CO2 forcing over 100 years.
I can give a tip of the hat to Manabe and Wetherald because I was running computer programs in the years they were using punch cards for inputs first in the armed forces then later in the University that embraced the year that M&W was published.
When I apprenticed on computer models over a decade and half later we actually had IBM PCs and a few XTs running Lotus 123 with 640kb memory, truly ground breaking technology that was busting into all sorts of industries at the time. While the Air Force and Universities had mainframes about 16 times faster we could do the work a whole lot faster because of much better I/O capabilities.
So from experience I can give M&W a salute, I am very much aware that what they did was provide a means to construct computer models to come up with estimated warming based upon the assumptions either of M&W or of subsequent improvements to the M&W approach.
But thats no different that the work I consult around today. The ultimate tests of such models depend upon regular and repeated success in prediction. One eventually learns from failure assuming of course you have identified the right variables. Which in this case I don’t think they have.
And that comes from my experience obtained in passive solar energy that filled that decade and a half between the University and my apprenticeship in my current trade.
So perhaps Nate you could enlighten us with your experience in this sort of stuff. Seems to me you just gobble up without a shred of skepticism the goulash from any plate your daddy hands you. Enlighten me differently!
“US government suing its citizens ”
Not a science argument, Bill. Learn the difference.
“So from experience I can give M&W a salute, I am very much aware that what they did was provide a means to construct computer models to come up with estimated warming based upon the assumptions either of M&W or of subsequent improvements to the M&W approach.”
Good, I would only add: ‘physics based assumptions’.
DREMT, you seem to be getting hopelessly confused.
“As you add more and more shells, according to their “logic”, the sphere just gets warmer and warmer…without a limit!”
Yes! Of course.
The same is true with more and more plain old insulation. The same is true of voltage if you true to maintain a constant current and add more and more resistors. That is basic physics, not scary airquote “logic”.
“Meanwhile, as you add more and more shells around the sphere, it starts to resemble the situation where the vacuum gap between the sphere and walls was replaced with material the same as the sphere.”
No! No matter how many layers you add, it never ‘starts to resemble’ a solid. There are always vacuum gaps between the layers. There are always regions where conduction is impossible.
“Yet in that situation, Tim was happy to claim the sphere would only be 300.1 K!
Yes! In a completely different situation with no vacuum gaps and continuous conduction from the “sphere” to the “walls of the chamber”, the answer is completely different.
Meanwhile, DREMT still thinks there exists a “Stefan-Boltzmann Law for Passive Shells”. That a “passive” surface at T(cold) radiates differently than an “active” surface at T(cold), even though the equation:
P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)[T(hot)^4 – T(cold)^4]
depends merely on temperatures.
Whether there is an “active wall” at 300 K or a passive “shell” at 300 K, the sphere will be warmer — 315 K for a sphere with a 100 W/m^2 internal heater.
Likewise, whether there is an “active wall” at 315 K or a passive “shell” at 315 K, the sphere will be warmer — 328 K for a sphere with a 100 W/m^2 internal heater.
"The same is true with more and more plain old insulation."
Tim, a BB shell made of a highly conductive material is not an "insulator". It is about as far from being an "insulator" as it is possible for something to be.
"No! No matter how many layers you add, it never ‘starts to resemble’ a solid. There are always vacuum gaps between the layers. There are always regions where conduction is impossible."
As you add more and more layers, into the finite space within your walls, eventually you are going to run out of room. The line between conductive transfer through the shells and radiative transfer between them becomes blurred as the number of shells added increases. Yet you have your sphere increasing indefinitely in temperature as more and more shells are added, even though with a solid mass you claim its temperature will be 300.1 K. This is a discontinuity that shows the error of your logic.
"Meanwhile, DREMT still thinks there exists a “Stefan-Boltzmann Law for Passive Shells”. That a “passive” surface at T(cold) radiates differently than an “active” surface at T(cold), even though the equation: P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)[T(hot)^4 – T(cold)^4] depends merely on temperatures."
Lol, Tim, you never even used that equation. Here comes the dishonesty party, the usual conflation of "the SB Law" with "the Radiative Heat Transfer Equation". All the tricks we’re used to seeing. The equation you showed there is the RHTE. You never even used that equation in getting your results, as I showed. All that was used was the SB Law, and that was only used to convert BB temperatures to the corresponding radiative flux values, and vice versa. Tim, all you people ever do is add fluxes together. You never actually use the RHTE to get your results. Which, as you know, is where Postma says you go wrong.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Of course, there’s a good reason that Tim doesn’t want to answer the next question. As you add more and more shells, according to their “logic”, the sphere just gets warmer and warmer…without a limit! Meanwhile, as you add more and more shells around the sphere, it starts to resemble the situation where the vacuum gap between the sphere and walls was replaced with material the same as the sphere. It becomes more and more like one big solid mass. Yet in that situation, Tim was happy to claim the sphere would only be 300.1 K!
—————————
Bingo! While heat conductivity varies in materials virtually all insulation relies upon multiple layer air gaps where the air is prohibited from mixing with the gas in other gaps.
Quite simply surface radiation is a very low source of surface cooling due to clouds, aerosols, dust, smog, water, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Budgets place combined cloud reflection, water phase change, and convection at more than 8 times that of the radiation that is being absorbed from the surface and then being emitted at TOA. Virtually all those variables are or should be considered to be feedbacks to primary forcing in a TSI control knob hypothesis.
That suggests negative feedback results in a sensitivity number of about .12 times primary forcing.
And that suggests (my favorite sciency word found being used prolifically in science publications better than but along with may, could and others) with 23 watts of atmosphere absorbed radiation yet to be blocked by more layers in the atmosphere about 3 watts of net warming should occur before saturation.
but science aware of that is looking at unlimited warming by artificially dreaming up yet more layers in the atmosphere without adding any significant mass to the atmosphere. The hubris just boggles the mind!
Any correction to the math and logic above would be an appropriate response.
“As you add more and more layers, into the finite space within your walls, eventually you are going to run out of room. ”
DREMT, I said an infinite number of shells would lead (theoretically) to an infinite temperature. I never said they would fit in a finite space. Indeed, an infinite number of shells with physical dimension and physical gaps would require … infinite space!
And physical shells with physical gaps will never resemble a solid object. This is a discontinuity that shows the error of your logic.
“Tim, you never even used that equation. “
Of course I did. I didn’t write it down, but I did indeed use
P/A = (epsilon)(sigma)[T(h)^4 – T(c)^4]
or solving for T(h)
T(h) = [(epsilon)(sigma)P/A – Tc^4]^(0.25)
This equation is a simple application of the SB law, calculating both the power LEAVING one surface and the power ARRIVING from surrounding surfaces.
“Tim, all you people ever do is add fluxes together. You never actually use the RHTE to get your results. “
Well, when the situation warrants, then yes, I add fluxes.
The full radiative heat transfer equation equation is actually much more complicated than what we have been using, involving view factors and the emissivity of both surfaces. The “view factor” is how you “add fluxes” coming in from different parts of the surroundings to get the total incoming flux.
Tim, if you’re not going to debate honestly, then I have nothing more to say. Feel free to claim victory, if you like. I’m sure my stalker will be along to hurl more abuse and twist my every word, but the Steel Greenhouse was debunked years ago. That’s that.
Nate says:
“US government suing its citizens ”
Not a science argument, Bill. Learn the difference.
——————————-
Well I suppose you could have just fallen off the turnip cart Nate. What you should say is the US suing its citizens should not be a science argument. Your statement ass-u-me-s its not the current case.
=============
==============
=============
============
Nate says:
“So from experience I can give M&W a salute, I am very much aware that what they did was provide a means to construct computer models to come up with estimated warming based upon the assumptions either of M&W or of subsequent improvements to the M&W approach.”
Good, I would only add: ‘physics based assumptions’.
==========================
Then if you understood the long dissertation above you would realize that the evaporation of water varies over temperature a precise humidity and rates of convection in there you have plenty of variables in which to ‘model’ outcomes from additional CO2 with or with out forcing from that CO2 modifying the lapse rate.
“plenty of variables in which to ‘model’ outcomes from additional CO2 with or with out forcing from that CO2 modifying the lapse rate.”
The real Earth has those variables, need to include them, and they are included.
So again, no specific problems with MW.
So…?
DREMT is out of ammo, and left grasping at straws about metal being just as good at insulating, as a vacuum gap.
“Feel free to claim victory, if you like.”
Certainly should, given that DREMT has no sane answers.
24.
Tim Folkerts says:
As you add more and more layers, into the finite space within your walls, eventually you are going to run out of room.
DREMT, I said an infinite number of shells would lead (theoretically) to an infinite temperature. I never said they would fit in a finite space. Indeed, an infinite number of shells with physical dimension and physical gaps would require infinite space!
————————-
well then you largely agree with DREMT. You avoided DREMT’s point by making more room instead of answering his question.
Making imaginary layers closer together is all that is being done by increasing CO2. CO2 is considered already uniformly distributed and its almost a inconsequential addition to the volume of the atmosphere.
So I commend you on your ability to . . . .uh. . . .somewhat think outside the box and correctly state what one of the most important variables is. (volume isn’t the whole story but is closely related to one of the key variables). the classic examples of this is the volume of the Venus atmosphere having a huge greenhouse effect and being 94 times larger than earth. OTOH, Mars which has more CO2 per square meter surface area than earth has such a small greenhouse effect its essentially not measurable because of having so much of a smaller atmosphere than earth.
It is a very good example of clear headed thinking which I can’t encourage you more in. You are on the right track IMO with your infinite volume idea. Hang on to that and don’t let go.
“Bingo! While heat conductivity varies in materials virtually all insulation relies upon multiple layer air gaps where the air is prohibited from mixing with the gas in other gaps.”
Bill gets how insulation works, and could explain to DREMT.
Imagine the air gaps in insulation with the air completely evacuated, IOW vacuum gaps. Would the insulating R value be higher or lower with vacuum gaps?
Clearly, it would insulate much better with no air to conduct/convect in the gaps.
Now imagine replacing all of gapped insulating material with solid metal!
Would it be a better insulator? Just as good an insulator as DREMT believes? Ha ha!
25.
Nate why don’t you notice there are no sheets of material in the atmosphere to make for separate air gaps?
Nate says:
US government suing its citizens
Not a science argument, Bill. Learn the difference.
================================
What does it feel like being a pro-establishment multi-national corporate shill Nate?
Bill “in the atmosphere” is off-topic for this discussion.
“feel like being a pro-establishment multi-national corporate shill”
Weird. I have no idea.
I’m pro-fact. You?
“US government suing its citizens”
This is…still….way off topic…and…of no interest.
“…there are no sheets of material in the atmosphere to make for separate air gaps”
Exactly, bill. Also, as I have pointed out before, when discussing things like the Green Plate Effect…it is supposed to be a discussion of how back-radiation leads to warming – not of how a vacuum gap may be an effective insulator. It’s not called “the Vacuum Gap Effect”, after all. The Green Plate is meant to increase the temperature of the Blue Plate via back-radiation.
You have to be careful with them, as they’ll try anything to distort the truth.
” not of how a vacuum gap may be an effective insulator.”
Again, DREMT tries to distract from his problems, by again trying to make it all about what we call things.
Whether its called ‘insulation’ or ‘back radiation’, makes no difference to getting the correct temperatures.
Whether its called a ‘shell’ or a ‘room’ makes no difference to getting the correct results.
Whether its called ‘passive’ or ‘active’ makes no difference to the results.
His arguments are going from bad to terrible.
26.
Integers are just not a very good rebuttal, though they are a ‘response’.
Just as ” not of how a vacuum gap may be an effective insulator”
is clearly a response to my post, discussing this very topic.
So I’m gonna have subtract 1 from DREMTS count.
Maybe I should keep count of all the times DREMT responded to my posts while claiming that he is not responding.
THAT would be a large number.
Meanwhile his actual arguments are getting increasingly horrible.
But this latest ‘what we call it changes the result’ argument reminds me of the ‘its NOT HEAT’ stupidity.
DREMT, realized that there needed to be 200 W of heat flow from Blue to Green plates, but wanted the heat flow to be 0 to fit his beliefs.
Thus he simply renamed the 200 W of heat flow as NOT HEAT, just ENERGY flow.
Astonishingly DREMT thinks the ‘what you call it’ arguments are winners. He thinks it changes reality, changes the temperatures.
Sorry it doesnt.
27. Tim, the person I was actually talking to, only wrote 30 comments to me in total himself. Imagine being that obsessed with somebody…embarrassing.
Nate says:
Whether its called ‘insulation’ or ‘back radiation’, makes no difference to getting the correct temperatures.
Whether its called a ‘shell’ or a ‘room’ makes no difference to getting the correct results.
Whether its called ‘passive’ or ‘active’ makes no difference to the results.
His arguments are going from bad to terrible.
———————————
Hmmmm, Nate your statement here is very interesting:
”Imagine the air gaps in insulation with the air completely evacuated, IOW vacuum gaps. Would the insulating R value be higher or lower with vacuum gaps?
Clearly, it would insulate much better with no air to conduct/convect in the gaps.”
Now primary forcing is a straight up estimate of the absor-ption rate of IR traveling through an atmosphere with GHG.
Here we have an insulating system that goes from being something of either zero or immeasurable insulation value to one of the value of the radiation only model only applicable in vacuums with solid opaque spheres.
You being a ‘facts man’ energy absorbed above the first layer absor-ption layer has no radiant forcing avenue back to the surface by virtue of your own insulation argument. Arguably the path up isn’t blocked at all and the path down are nearly blocked as much as the vacuum gap insulation model.
That makes the 3rd grade multi-layered radiation model a canard. . . .an obfuscation.
Yet you here are still jumping in to defend it as does Tim where its the centerpiece of his argument. But in reality the insulation model is total bunk.
It seems as you been negotiating the curvy roads of this argument you haven’t noticed that your vehicle has flown off the cliff. And the multi-layer backradiation arguments should be all be thrown on the trash heap.
I notice Bill wont address whether removing air from the gaps in insulation will make it a better insulator. He wont confirm or deny that material with vacuum gaps make better insulators than solid metal.
Instead he again goes off-topic, always trying to change the subject to the atmosphere.
Is it because he knows DREMTs argument on the GPE is a loser?
Appears so, as he never directly defends any of it.
Nate says:
I notice Bill wont address whether removing air from the gaps in insulation will make it a better insulator.
He wont confirm or deny that material with vacuum gaps make better insulators than solid metal.
Instead he again goes off-topic, always trying to change the subject to the atmosphere.
——————————————-
Stop being such a total jerk. I could care less about glass spheres out in outer space with zero CO2 in the intervening spaces. This topic is about the appropriateness of that analogy to the atmosphere.
Yes a model is proposed for the GPE which last I checked was an effect that can occur standing in front of your open freezer door, thus with an atmosphere.
If you have an example of some astronaut opening up a freezer door on the outside of a space craft and getting a response, please submit that for review and perhaps it might lead to a lively discussion of the hazards of space travel or something like that.
Meanwhile, please respond to this post if you can.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-661184
If you don’t want to intellectually discuss that honestly I will end my discussion with you here and now on anything related to the GPE effect, or for that matter radiant atmosphere forcing models in general; and mark up yet another major debate loss on your part.
Bill, this whole thread was about multi-layered insulation, which is used in vacuum, a vacuum sphere shell model, which was related to the Green-plate-Effect, which is plates in vacuum. None of those are intended to model the real atmosphere.
Clearly you understand insulation and cannot defend DREMTs POV because it makes no sense, but refuse to get involved in the topic.
You kept trying to go off-topic. You brought up MW. I thought that that was done. Now I cant tell what you are on about.
Nate says:
Bill, this whole thread was about multi-layered insulation, which is used in vacuum, a vacuum sphere shell model, which was related to the Green-plate-Effect, which is plates in vacuum. None of those are intended to model the real atmosphere.
=================================
I am plenty happy to have you disavow the multi-layered model Nate. Just hope you will remind your buddies also Nate unless you are happy to treat them like a spore in a mushroom farm.
Has anybody conducted a 3 sphere model in space? Sort of a Dr. R. Wood multi-layered greenhouse model deployed from a manned space mission. seems it might be low priority having no real world applicability, kind of like tidal locked moons rotating on an internal axis that appears to take on a life of its own born of a mathematical shortcut as its mother and an inculcated student as its father.
Nate says:
feel like being a pro-establishment multi-national corporate shill
Weird. I have no idea.
=============================
Yep, walking dead for sure.
“I am plenty happy to have you disavow the multi-layered model Nate.”
Whatever you say, Bill. Off your meds again?
Nate says:
Whether its called insulation or back radiation, makes no difference to getting the correct temperatures.http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-661000
————————–
Here Nate for a fleeting moment observes the massive pileup of braincells in his brain resulting in ‘stupid’. He pauses for a split second, uses his daddy’s latest press announcement to cleanse his mind of skepticism and blurts out, it doesn’t matter if the flow of energy is negative or positive parroting one of the biggest and most shared canards of the entire climate change endeavor.
And then he wonders why a simple non-science educated ordinary person looks at him like he is an idiot.
One of the challenges in a conversation like this is that once you have mastered the 1-shell, closely spaced, blackbody, in-a-vacuum scenario (which DREMT apparently still has not), then there there are myriad ways to expand/refine the scenario.
* you could add more layers in the same volume.
* you could add more layers in a larger volume.
* you could make the layers more reflective.
* you could make the layers more transparent.
* you could add gas between the layers and consider conduction.
* you could add gas between the layers and consider convection.
* you could make the shell permeable to gas.
* (and many more).
These refinements are how you move from a “homework problem about radiation” scenario to a full-blown atmospheric model and the actual greenhouse effect. But you still need to know the physics of the first model before you could hope to deal with the more advanced models.
So for example, Bill is 100% correct that the ‘height’ of the atmosphere is a critical factor, which explains much of the reason Venus has a huge GHE, and Mars has a tiny GHE.
But when everyone jumps off in new directions (before mastering / agreeing on the basics), then the conversation is doomed to ineffectiveness.
Tim, you don’t want to acknowledge that “passive” and “active” objects should be treated differently, and that the shell is entirely dependent on “active” energy sources for its temperature. The shell, being “passive”, a good conductor of heat, and a blackbody (no reflectivity), cannot raise the temperature of the sphere. You ignore these points whereas Postma acknowledges them and incorporates them into his thinking, and into his math. This is why I think Postma is right and why you are wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Tim Folkerts says:
So for example, Bill is 100% correct that the height of the atmosphere is a critical factor, which explains much of the reason Venus has a huge GHE, and Mars has a tiny GHE.
===============================
thanks for acknowledging that. I hope to add to that in the near future. But I just wanted to say it really has nothing or little to do with backradiation or the existence of insulating layers in the atmosphere.
Want to call your attention to this paper posted by another in here:
https://tinyurl.com/y396pczc
Bill says: “thanks for acknowledging that.”
You seem to think that this is some surprising new result — that scientists don’t know and/or can’t explain why Mars with more CO2 has a smaller GHE. In fact this is well known and the explanation is not all that complicated.
Yes, the GHE is limited by convection (ie by the lapse rate). The real GHE is WAY less than what would be predicted by a purely radiative model. To let the GHE be effective requires a ‘tall’ atmosphere where
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill says: thanks for acknowledging that.
You seem to think that this is some surprising new result that scientists dont know and/or cant explain why Mars with more CO2 has a smaller GHE. In fact this is well known and the explanation is not all that complicated.
Yes, the GHE is limited by convection (ie by the lapse rate). The real GHE is WAY less than what would be predicted by a purely radiative model.
——————————–
Its not surprising at all Tim. It is a central premise to more than one alternative theory for the greenhouse effect. Including the one I am working on.
DREMT, we seem to agree that the “RHTE” as you like to call it is
P/A = (epsilon)(sigma) [Ta^4 – Tb^4]
This applies to a surface of area A @ temperature Ta and emissivity (epsilon), with surroundings at temperature Tb.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/14-7-radiation/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
There is no separate “P-RHTE” and the “A-RHTE” for ‘passive’ surroundings and ‘active’ surroundings. As such, it would be a mistake to think they have different effects.
You did not use that equation in getting your results, Tim.
Here is how the RHTE should be used:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/05/27/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-12-how-to-lie-with-math/
And here is how the Steel Greenhouse is debunked:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/22/incomplete-thermodynamics/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/11/03/the-alarmist-radiative-greenhouse-effects-final-end/
“The shell, being ‘passive’,
Yes, Tim, this passive vs active thing is quite mysterious, and not found in any law of physics.
“a good conductor of heat”
Uhh but vacuum not so good. Did he forget the vacuum again?
“and a blackbody (no reflectivity), cannot raise the temperature of the sphere.”
Except he did the calculation and found that it DID raise the temperature.
But using WORDS rather than calculation he gets a different answer. Hmmm.
28.
That is certainly how Postma *attempts* to debunk the “steel greenhouse”. However …
1) there are many errors both large and small in his analysis, some of which have already been pointed out.
2) his equations disagree with pretty much every source, like the ones presented above.
So you can continue to “believe in” an analysis that confirms your desired conclusions despite numerous red flags, or you can critically engage.
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
I notice when he has no answers he defers to Postma, someone who is not here to provide answers.
But in fact, when you go to Postma and politely challenge his work, he responds by belittling you, yelling at you, throwing a string of expletives at you, and finally banning you.
Those are his answers.
That was my experience with Postma.
DREMT doesnt do that, at least.
He just quits the argument while he’s behind, caught in yet another logical pickle, offering no logical way out, and declares ‘victory’.
Yet another ‘triumph’ for the Liar-Trolls.
29.
Nate 8:33am, that action is truly what is expected from a blog entitled climate sophistry. The blog offers a lot of that sophistry as does DREMT on this blog because the screen name with “Postma” in it was either banned or dropped here.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please return to the climate sophistry blog where your contributions are appropriate & well received. Take Clint R with you. Peace.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Yes Postma seems to be a con-man.
He says:
“Q parameter in Equation 2 still depends on the difference between Thot and Tcold and can not in any way be independently fixed.”
Of course it can! In Tim’s problem it is fixed at 100 W.
“If you understood Equation 1, then it is clear that is impossible to ‘hold Q constant’ if you increase Tcold. To say that you want to hold Q constant in Equation 2, actually makes Q an independent source of input energy and heat”
Yes it is! The 100 W IS an independent source of energy and heat!
“that no longer has any relation whatsoever to the difference between Thot and Tcold and the heat transfer equation”
Of course it does! This makes absolutely no sense.
The simple RHTE equation has 3 parameters, Q, TH, TC. He claims we cannot FIX Q and TC and determine what TH is.
There is simply NO SUCH RULE.
He is making this BS up!
30! Wow, that is some desperate stalking. 30 (mostly abusive) comments aimed at somebody you know will not defend themselves…over the course of only one discussion!
DREMT does a decent job of defending the climate sophistry blog positions of sophist Postma so Nate has no need to post over there & can do it here because DREMT is here. DREMT should just post on climate sophistry blog and Postma will readily agree so there will be peace on both blogs.
I do not respond to Nate, Ball4. Haven’t done for nearly two years now. Doesn’t seem to stop him from writing comments to me or about me though.
“30”
Weird
Even when I respond to Tim, Ball4, or Postma, he counts my posts.
He seems to be stalking me.
31.
Nate at 4:29 AM
He did not find any errors in Manabe and Weatherald, 1967 because being an accountant there is nothing in that paper for him to audit, assuming he understood any of it. I’ll be very surprised if he read it.
Grow up Tyson!
So no error in Manabe and Weatherald, 1967 then.
Yes Bill is an auditor who is afflicted by chronic Dunning-Kruger syndrome. There is no effective treatment.
For a science paper the error is introducing a mythical process into a discussion already pretty well understood by science.
The example would be Einstein where the majority of the science community did not accept Einsteins work for years until a solar eclipse was observed that established the curvature of light.
Same standard of skepticism should hold M&W accountable. The purpose of an audit is to squash such unsupported claims.
I didn’t say M&W made and error. It is an error though and it is your error for accepting it simply cause you daddy told you to accept it. . . .or which I doubt is true in your case you are just too dumb to know the difference.
Nate says:
Yes Bill is an auditor who is afflicted by chronic Dunning-Kruger syndrome. There is no effective treatment.
———————————–
You don’t know it but you are talking about your own Dunning-Kruger syndrome and not mine.
Difference is that I don’t overestimate my knowledge on climate change. I only have about a decade or so of radiant heating experience and acknowledge its a complex topic that actually can be made simple when you actually know how it works.
I have identified a body of science that eliminates what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas from being the cause of the GHE in all experiments and all practical application in engineering that I am aware of.
You though do suffer because you overestimate your knowledge of what auditors do.
Auditors ask question, auditees respond, auditor processes response for consistency with what the auditor has learned. If not consistent auditor points out that the principle just claimed does not work for windows or insulation (including reflective radiant barriers in cases of upwelling heat).
Auditee is stunned because he cannot process that as it is completely inconsistent with what he believes. So he ignorantly accuses the auditor of not knowing stuff he actually does; cause its the auditee that is overestimating his knowledge of the topic.
Bill,
The main point is auditors are not atmospheric physicists. They are thus extremely unlikely to have found physics flaws in a respected atmospheric physics paper, that no atmospheric physicist has found over the last 50 y.
And sure enough, you did not, though you believed (or at least claimed) you did.
This is a regular occurrence with you.
You way overestimate your own competence in areas which you have little or no expertise. (DK syndrome).
You way underestimate the value of expertise.
The full explanation is here Nate:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-660370
Bottom line is the skills I learned early, translated into an apprenticeship later. I know exactly what M&W did and at the time they did it I said I give them a tip of my hat.
But don’t confuse that with physical proof in any way shape or form. One cannot even quantify the uncertainty with doing things that way. These are extraordinary methods of prediction. They need seasoning to be accepted not as proof but of probability built upon repetitive success with variables that fluctuate greatly.
Unfortunately the science is young and the generations poor in climate modeling. Climate modeling simply doesn’t have the variability necessary to pin down variables of a low percentage, certainly not the percentages of one degree C of primary forcings. So M&W for you is a canard. For computer climate modelers its a career. This will be a long movie, one can’t sit there munching popcorn on this one. Primary research is needed to better pin down the real variables. Thats an unpaid hobby I toy with in my spare time regarding how to advance the primary research in an imaginative way. I think I am pretty close but in this business so infused with politics close doesn’t count.
This is yada yada yada, Bill, not science. You don’t seem to realize the difference.
What you seem to be doing is applying political biases and beliefs to all climate science, but misrepresenting that as ‘expert opinion’ based on ‘experience’.
But your ‘experience’ is not in the right field. Your critiques are neither fact-based nor specific.
You would never be called as an expert witness in any civil case that centered on the science in MW.
Bottom line: science is specialized and requires specialized expertise and skills, to do it, or to judge it.
well nate there is a good deal of discourse going on between you and me. If you want to make an effective argument you should attack specific comments I have made rather than just making an unsupportable claim I don’t understand this issue. I am fully cognizant that I may be missing something but your lack of an ability to point out explicitly what that is suggests you are a whole lot more ignorant on the topic than I am.
MW paper was “contrary to basic physics of gasses” is a specific comment of yours that I criticized.
My point is you should not be regularly tossing out science criticisms like this that you just cannot back up with facts.
Is that the best you can do Nate?
I already corrected that sentence and yet you still cling to it.
Corrected it. And yet you continue smearing..
“For a science paper the error is introducing a mythical process into a discussion already pretty well understood by science.”
“It is an error though and it is your error for accepting it simply cause you daddy told you to accept it”
WTF are you talking about with ‘mythical process’?
‘Pretty well understood by science’. You are working overtime to be ignorant.
You still have not shown what the ‘error’ is yet keep claiming there is one.
The ‘error’ is your attempts to cast the political divide on climate science in the 2000s, onto an atmospheric science paper of the 1960s.
It makes little sense.
Nate says:
WTF are you talking about with mythical process?
—————————
Nate it is best exemplified by Big Foot. Something people believe in that hasn’t been reliably confirmed as in normal science.
Fact is the greenhouse theory has not been described beyond the fact that a GHE exists. So the ‘popular’ theory (or more correctly the many versions of different theories held) remains a myth until one is actually captured, examined, photographed and understood to not be some human in a gorilla suit.
“remains a myth until…”
Science is obscure unless YOU bother to learn it.
We’ve been over this at length, Bill.
This is like saying weather models are ‘mythical’ because no one has bothered to spoon feed them to me.
Even if someone did, they would make little sense to you. They involve MANY COMPLEX EQUATIONS and numerical calculations.
Same is true for GCM climate models.
The papers describing climate models, and GCM simulations are all out there for you to read. Go read them. And tell us what they did wrong!
Not willing to do that? Then no wonder its a mystery to you!
Nate says:
remains a myth until
Science is obscure unless YOU bother to learn it.
—————————————
Science isn’t learned its demonstrated either physically or via random statistics for a valid population of homogeneous samples.
Lots of pretend statistics going these days that are little more than a gorilla mask covering a vivid imagination.
Nate says:
This is like saying weather models are mythical because no one has bothered to spoon feed them to me.
Even if someone did, they would make little sense to you. They involve MANY COMPLEX EQUATIONS and numerical calculations.
————————-
Weather models work 70% of the time because the weather is changing every hour and practice makes perfect. . . .eventually.
Nate says:
Same is true for GCM climate models.
———————-
LOL! Yeah maybe in a few centuries they will catch up with weather prediction success.
Nate says:
The papers describing climate models, and GCM simulations are all out there for you to read. Go read them. And tell us what they did wrong! Not willing to do that? Then no wonder its a mystery to you!
———————–
You want me to prove they did something wrong before they ever prove they ever did something right? ROTFLOL!
“Fact is the greenhouse theory has not been described beyond the fact that a GHE exists. So the popular theory (or more correctly the many versions of different theories held) remains a myth”
FALSE.
Youve been shown basic theory descriptions.
Want more? GO…READ…PAPERS.
bill said: Fact is the greenhouse theory has not been described beyond the fact that a GHE exists.
Patently False. Just because you have buried your head in the sand or turned a blind eye does not mean it doesn’t exist.
Nate says:
Fact is the greenhouse theory has not been described beyond the fact that a GHE exists. So the popular theory (or more correctly the many versions of different theories held) remains a myth
FALSE.
Youve been shown basic theory descriptions.
Want more? GOREADPAPERS.
===================
I realize you believe it has to be one of two completely different mechanisms, but you can’t describe either and you acknowledge that as an insulation argument it would be next to impossible for high in the atmosphere energy to get back to the surface because of the existence of an unperturbed multi-layer radiant insulation model against energy coming down and an ineffectual one against energy going up.
And yet you persist in the idea of a 1 for 1 return of energy to the surface from the absorp-tion of energy high in the atmosphere. Just doesn’t wash Nate.
OTOH, I have acknowledged if the atmosphere were warmer above it could indeed warm the surface. . . .but thats no aid to high in the atmosphere absorp-tion and an absolutely devastating argument for CO2 whose effects are almost entirely hidden behind the effects of water vapor.
Ultimately your thinking on the matter is like imagining the great layered finger food ideas of sandwiches, tacos, burritos, etc. and are going to try consuming one as a soup sandwich. The layers simply are a figment of your imagination, the only definable layer in the atmosphere is the entire atmosphere itself.
Sure you can measure how that layer changes with variations in water vapor from the surface but setting up a mathematical calculation to compute what is going on mid atmosphere is simply a canard. All plausible ideas, most not in violation of the 2nd law unless you try to warm something with the heat of something colder like weak backradiation.
Insulation only warms stuff in the very imprecise language of the word that allows you to just look at one aspect of warming and ignore completely how much energy is left after the warming. To argue that point you must sort out that collision of stupid inside your brain and be realistic. Its a sad state of affairs that you fear and reject simple experiments that could resolve this conundrum and instead dream up something you can’t even describe within the frame of physics with a blueprinted model.
Myself whose strength is in logic as opposed to science perceive the argument to be one in which the effect you can’t describe within the frame of physics (e.g. the a convective multi-layered radiation model that doesn’t work) instead gets hidden in a far away place up in the troposphere where hotspots are created on virtual layers there instead of at the surface where the effect has been debunked by experiment, by trade experience, by window technology, and by insulation technology.
I’m sticking with that until somebody proves otherwise.
I NEVER SAID “And yet you persist in the idea of a 1 for 1 return of energy to the surface from the absorp-tion of energy high in the atmosphere.”
Why do you keep claiming I said things that I never said??
I have explained this before. The GHE is operating on the same principles as insulation. There is a temperature gradient from the surface to space, and there a heat flow, Q, from the surface to space. The output Q is matched by input Q from the sun.
Just as in my attic the fiberglass insulation layer has a temperature gradient to outside, and a heat flow, Q, thru it. The output Q is matched by Q input from my furnace.
If I add an extra inch of fiberglass insulation on top of the existing insulation, the R factor will increase, and given the same Q input and output, the Temperature change across the whole insulation layer will increase, and thus the temperature at the bottom of the insulation layer and in the house will increase.
If we add a CO2 forcing that is operating at the top of the atmosphere, but yes, by the same principle, it affects the temperature gradient across the whole troposphere, and at the surface.
But its not a 1 for 1 change at top and at surface.
CO2 absorbs 3 more watts of energy at TOA and 3 watts of forcing shows up on the surface? Thats not 1 for 1?
Again, things I have never said. Stop making up things I have not said!
First law of Thermodynamics applies. Net energy in must go somewhere.
3W/m^2 imbalance at TOA, MUST show up SOMEWHERE in the system, atmosphere, ocean, land, latent heats of melting and vaporization.
Most ends up in the ocean.
How much ends up as sensible heat, ie, a temperature change at the surface, requires good modeling.
Nate says:
Most ends up in the ocean.
———————-
Via bad modeling.
Nate says:
How much ends up as sensible heat, ie, a temperature change at the surface, requires good modeling.
———————-
Truer words could not have been said.
Via common sense and measurement.
Why do call measurement modeling?
If its measured please link me to the database or raw measurements extending from 1,500meters to 11,000 meters into the ocean over the past 30 years so we can get an idea of how much the ocean has warmed.
Nate you are just talking through your hat as per usual. There is no such dataset.
“There is no such dataset.”
Actually, bill, there is from 1000-4000m and below. This just shows how little bill knows or has read up on what he is writing about. Time to get to work bill, read up on:
“Abyssal global and deep Southern Ocean temperature trends are quantified between the 1990s and 2000s to assess the role of recent warming of these regions in global heat and sea level budgets… High-quality temperature observations of the global deep ocean originate mostly from ship-based conductivitytemperaturedepth (CTD) instruments.” – Dec. 2010 Sarah Purkey and Gregory Johnson, U. Washington, Seattle, Journal of Climate
Yes Ball4
other studies show that recovery from both the MWP and the LIA is still progressing in the ocean in different locations.
Interestingly the study you provided shows that the first couple thousand miles of the thermohaline current running out the arctic down the eastern Atlantic is cooling.
That fits perfectly with my theory that ocean cooling began at the beginning of this century in concert with accelerating loss of ice extent.
contrary to that cooling has been some warming in the deep Antarctic ocean stemming from likely. . . .you guessed it. . . .higher than average ice extent. With Antarctic sea ice in recent decline perhaps a new study may show some cooling there as well.
“After 3 days of blasting the water with LWIR between 13 and 18µ from 2 1000 lumen [LED] lamps … ”
LED lamps don’t “blast LWIR”. LED lights are designed to product visible light with very little heating — ie with very little LWIR.
You are right, 15 micron IR radiation is not going to warm the atmosphere. All CO2 does is block the 15 micron radiation from leaving the atmosphere. In other words, it reduces the rate of cooling. However the sun at ~6000K keeps on warming the planet just like it always has and the temperature warms up.
A few more problems with this experiment.
1) The room in which you are doing the experiment is ‘blasting’ over 400 W/m^2 of LWIR toward your containers.
2) Typical IR lamps are around 1000 C or 1300 K. At such temperatures, on the order of 5% of the IR power is 13+ um. So the lamps are only ‘blasting’ on the order of 2 * 100W * 0.05 = 10 W of IR in the range you are concentrating on.
2b) only some of that actually goes through the filters and to the containers. It would depend on the geometry, but probably like 10% of the light is focused on the containers. So you are down to something on the order of 1 W of heating at the containers from your 2x100W IR lamps.
3) The plastic containers may or may not be transparent to different wavelengths of IR.
a) If the plastic is NOT transparent to 13+ um IR, then the IR would be absorbed by the plastic before reaching the water. Much of any additional heating would warm outside of the container the room, rather than the water.
b) If the plastic IS transparent to 13+ um IR, then the IR would mostly be reflected by the shiny aluminum. The IR would STILL not heat the water effectively.
There are more problems, but that is enough for now. This is not a “very very very very easy controlled experiment”. There are lots of details (small and large) that you have not taken into account. The “signal” of extra heating from 13+um
“Wow, temperatures are back to 1982”
Wow, this day in Summer is the same temperature as this other day last Winter.
I guess seasons aren’t real.
Huh?
Barry, you clearly don’t understand that the chart is the deviation from the 30-year mean. The Seasonal Adjustment done with the 13 mo moving average is also headed down. Anyway, CO2 is claimed to “trap heat.” hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.
CO2isLife
” Barry, you clearly dont understand that the chart is the deviation from the 30-year mean. ”
Are you sure? I think barry understands a huge amount more than you about what are departures from a mean!
But… YOU aren’t about to increase your understanding of what CO2 does or doesn’t.
*
1. ” CO2 is ‘claimed to trap heat’. ”
Of course it isn’t claimed to trap heat. And it doesn’t trap heat at all.
This is what some official web sites manage to publish when they feel the unnecessary need for ambiguous shortcut explanations.
All what CO2 does above the Tropopause (the top level of the Troposphere) is, like H2O does below (and that by dimensions more than CO2), to prevent, tiny bit by tiny bit, more IR from directly escaping to outer space.
No idea of how much the effect is right now, let alone of how much it will be in 50 years.
*
2. ” Hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all… ”
What? Temperatures FALLING?
Trends in C / decade, for UAH 6.0 LT (at the surface mostly higher):
– 1979-2020: 0.14
– 2000-2020: 0.17
– 2010-2020: 0.33
and starting behind the year 2016 to exclude the direct El Nino effect:
– 2017-2020: 0.28
What the heck are you telling us here?
Just because of a 0.2 C drop within the last month?
*
3. ” … when CO2 is continually increasing. ”
You were told so many times that CO2 is one of probably hundred simultaneous causes for warming and/or cooling.
But you deliberately ignore that, and it’s getting each time more and more stubborn and above all: boring!
J.-P. D.
Bindidion, the one and only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by the thermalization of outgoing LWIR between 13 and 18µ. That is the one and only defined mechanism that is supported by undeniable physics.
If that is the case, there is no way for temperatures to cool under that theory ceteras paribus. CO2 can only add energy to the system by preventing it from escaping the system. Incoming solar radiation warms the oceans, and CO2 prevents the LWIR from cooling the oceans by warming the atmosphere like a giant blanket. How can adding more and more blankets possibly lead to cooling if the blanket doesn’t stop any of the incoming radiation. It can’t. 0.94W/M^2 can only warm the atmosphere at a certain rate, so once you lose that energy it takes time to replace that energy, there is a well-defined flux. If the current temperature is below that of 1982, because the atmosphere isn’t a battery, all the accumulated energy since 1982 is gone, and the slow rate of additional energy by CO2 can’t explain the almost certain to come warming. That is due to fewer clouds and more radiation reaching the oceans. There is no way for you to prove CO2 can warm the oceans, and what is warming the oceans is causing any climate change, not CO2. We are developing an experiment to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. YOu will never design an experiment to get to the truth, you simply perpetuate the myths.
CO2isLife
” … the one and only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by the thermalization of outgoing LWIR between 13 and 18µ. That is the one and only defined mechanism that is supported by undeniable physics. ”
That has NOTHING to do with ‘undeniable physics’; it exists solely in your mind.
Why are you so pretentious? Why don’t you try to escape out of things which don’t exist outside of your imagination?
Bin, that is actually a reasonable description of the direct action of CO2. “Warm” radiation from the surface gets absorbed and thermalized by the cooler layers above. These layers in turn emit “cool” radiation to space. This reduces the outgoing energy and leads to warming.
Much of the rest is questionable.
* This March could be cooler than March, 1982 without disproving that CO2 has a warming effect.
* The experiment that has been suggested is inadequate to show what CiL hopes to show.
I don’t understand how you could fail to get it when it is so easy, and it’s been explained to you a dozen times.
Climate change does not mean that every day, week, month or year will rise (or fall) monotonically, a little step in the same direction each time.
That is a MORONIC understanding of weather and climate. And yet this is apparently what you believe should be happening with global warming. Eg,
“hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.”
The seasons are the perfect analogy. They are different climates that we are familiar with, and though the orbital change that brings our seasons is a steady change, you can still have a day in Summer of the same temperature as a day the following Winter, or even warmer.
There is absolutely no reeason to expect that if there is an underlying mechanism causing climate change, that natural variability should suddenly cease. Doesn’t happen in seasonal climate change, which has a steadily changing cause. No good reason to imagine that natural variability ceases with CO2 warming in the background.
How do you get this so bone-headedly wrong?
barry, it’s wise to start moving away from your cult. I see you’re now accepting “natural variability”. Good. All the recent warming has been due to “natural variability”. The AGW nonsense is anti-science.
It’s good you are starting to move toward reality, but how do you get this so bone-headedly wrong?
Barry, if you understood the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule and simple probability of 1 out of every 2,500 having a significant impact of the other 2,500, then you understand why this belief that CO2 can cause any warming above -80C° is pure nonsense.
You don’t even need to understand quantum physics, just simply study the geological record of CO2 and Temperature. You have 600 million years of data debunking this theory.
Barry Says: Climate change does not mean that every day, week, month or year will rise (or fall) monotonically, a little step in the same direction each time.
Barry, you don’t seem to understand how science is done. CO2’s one and only mechanism to affect climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR. That is it. CO2 can’t cause cooling. Thermalization of EM radiation will never cool something. It converts EM to kinetic/thermal energy.
CO2 maintains a CONSTANT level of backradiation. Because CO2 backradiation if a CONSTANT something else has to be causing the variation. It is up to the alarmists to prove that CO2 is the cause by teasing our all the other independent variables that impact temperatures. From the IPCC models, it is 100% evident that they haven’t done that.
CO2isLife
” … you dont seem to understand how science is done.
CO2s one and only mechanism to affect climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR. ”
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN: where is any internationally accepted, scientific proof for such a claim?
Instead of arrogantly trying to teach others ‘how science is done’, what about presenting valuable sources?
“I see youre now accepting ‘natural variability’.”
You’re an idiot. I’ve been trying to get it into your thick skull that natural variability has a larger signal than long-term climate change for months, and you’ve replied to those posts so I know you’ve seen them. Now you say I’m ‘accepting’ it? There is something wrong with your memory.
Not one of your 3 replies addressed my point.
So I expect you’ll utter the same nonsense here month after month, pretending that anyone has ever said CO2 warming (CLIMATE) cancels natural variability (eg, WEATHER).
You’ll keep pretending that I never pointed pout that there are ups and downs suring seasonal climate change, which has a steady cause of change, and you’ll keep forgetting that there is no reason to expect global climate change will cancel natural vbariability.
barry, you STILL believe CO2 is warming the planet?
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were trying to desert the sinking ship.
Hang in there. Maybe a few others will go down with you. When cults finally implode, it’s not a pretty sight.
As I try to understand your comment barry, it appears you are willing to stay with the sinking ship, but you’re wearing a flotation device.
That’s probably smart….
You continue to be a troll. As usual you comments are tangential to the discussion.
barry, you will have to admit you’re not making sense. This ongoing plunge in the UAH results has you panicked. You try to deny the science, but it’s even harder to deny the actual data. When you see your beliefs being wiped out, it’s hard not to be affected.
You have admitted you don’t understand the science. That’s why you got so easily fooled by things like the blue/green plates and the moon issue. But, you used to be able to communicate intelligently. Look at your latest “effort”:
“You’ll keep pretending that I never pointed pout [sic] that there are ups and downs suring [sic] seasonal climate change, which has a steady cause of change, and you’ll keep forgetting that there is no reason to expect global climate change will cancel natural vbariability [sic]”.
Even allowing for the fact that we all make typos, you seem to just be rambling, along with false accusations. Let’s see if you can clarify your beliefs:
1) Do you still believe that it’s okay to violate the laws of physics for the purpose of promoting a hoax? (blue/green plates)
2) Do you still believe it’s okay to violate the laws of physics to promote astrology? (Moon issue)
3) Do you believe it’s okay to censor science, to protect your cult beliefs? (climategate)
“hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.”
Climate deniers say the darndest things!
“hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.”
Yeah, its as if something else could also cause the the temperature to change…
That would be weird!
Nate says:
hard to claim that when temperatures are falling at all when CO2 is continually increasing.
Yeah, its as if something else could also cause the the temperature to change
That would be weird!
=====================
How about water vapor Nate? I mean we know that water vapor changes the lapse rate at least so it might be the only gas with radiant forcing potential. Then you have the potential of cosmic rays influencing cloud, minor TSI changes that influence clouds, changes in wind patterns by whatever it is that shifts the jet stream, etc.
Why do you have such a closed mind on all this?
barry
I think that, due to some readers, enclosing such comments within e.g. {sarcasm} resp. {/sarcasm} brackets sooner or later will become a necessity.
J.-P. D.
We now find ourselves in the enso 3.6 year down beat as predicted. As to if it will be a double dip La Nia, it is hard to say. Taking 2010, 11, 12 as proxy during the last 11 year enso cycle La Nia down beat, we have a fairly good chance of a double dip. That said, you cant set your watch by these things. The deep mid Pacific has been warming. Guess we will have to wait and see. NOAA hedging their bets giving it a 50% chance.
Going sub baseline is another blow to these models predicting an ice free arctic. Instead we saw meridional flows all winter helping the earth shed heat followed by an early spring season strengthening of the polar vortex. Just what you need to shed heat during the polar night, bring moisture in, build snow and ice, and lock it away with a strengthened vortex at the end of the season. I wonder if this setup will occur frequently over the next 14 years… 1960-1974 is our proxy location for the important 60 year cycle.
That’s exactly what it is. Now the 0 o C isotherm is only at an altitude of about 600 m in Central Europe.
Radiation from the sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s climate system. Changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun cause variations in the seasonal distribution and amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. Records of past climate show that there is a correlation between these variations and long‐term climate changes [Hays et al., 1976; Imbrie et al., 1992]. Interglacial conditions begin with increasing mid‐latitude summer insolation and end as mid‐latitude summer insolation decreases. Orbital‐scale climate cycles are driven largely by variations in solar radiation associated with precession, obliquity and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. Recent studies of the Asian monsoon show that the transitions between the glacial and interglacial conditions took place abruptly, perhaps only in century‐long events [Wang et al., 2001; Yuan et al., 2004]. However, it generally takes about 10 ka for the insolation to change from a minimum to maximum and vice versa.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL025401
Just as much as the alarmists claiming it’s going to affect the long term trend when we’re in the midst of an El Nio…
Bary like my comment so much, I think I will repeat it.
Co2 is not a GHG and man does not cause the climate to change.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming/
and the surface temperature data is being altered.
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/rewriting-the-climate-at-nasa/
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/NASAGlobal2000-2017.gif
There are continuous westerly winds in the tropical southeast Pacific. A southern polar vortex can amplify them.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/samer2/mimictpw_samer2_latest.gif
Sorry, constant easterly winds.
So, according to Richard M, I’m in pure denial ?!
Aha.
Here is SST data from HadSST3, compared with UAH6.0 LT:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2020/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2010/trend/offset:-0.35/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:2010/trend
Where is HadSST3 on the decline? Maybe in the last months?
Trends per decade since 2010, according to WFT and any spreadsheet calc:
UAH: 0.33
SST: 0.25
Btw, if UAH for the entire Globe looks so similar to a sea surface series over its entire lifetime:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to:2020/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.35/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend
should we not interpret this as an ocean bias inside of UAH?
Hmmmh.
J.-P. D.
Perhaps, but then could be adjustments made by HAD or simply following UAH.
BTW is there an RSS which includes oceans?
sorry silly Q… RSS global and land only quite similar but bit higher slope with land.
Of course, land-only series show higher trends than global ones, and conversely ocean-only series do the inverse, see LT as well as surface.
J.-P. D.
I thought RSS would have given up the land/ocean separations, but that was a mistake. They merely changed the data tree organization, now here for all available combinations:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/
Ocean-only data is for example, for rev. 4.0:
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TMT_Anomalies_Ocean_v04_0.txt
what then could be compared with column 5 in UAH’s zonal/regional data.
J.-P. D.
My bad, sorry: TMT -> TLT!
http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Ocean_v04_0.txt
Bindi once again tries to used cherry picked trends to support imaginary warming. The only way to use trends of very noisy data is to remove as much of the noise as possible. Total failure on its part.
Always best to stay within ocean cycles like the PDO. Your trend went from -PDO conditions to +PDO not to mention using La Nina events early in the trend and El Nino events toward the end. It appears your true goal was to fool yourself. Certainly didn’t fool anyone with common sense.
Here’s a look at the last few years while we’ve been in +PDO conditions. You can see the SST changes and how they are reflected in the UAH data after the ~6 month lag.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2020.75/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/plot/uah6/from:2015.5/to/trend
What jumps out is the El Nino warming followed by the cooling when the El Nino effects end. All the claimed warming of the last few years appears to be non-existent.
If we are lucky we will get a 2 year La Nina to allow the full removal of all the El Nino warming. Then 6 months after the La Nina ends we can start to do some year to year comparisons to find if there’s been any warming at all.
Yeah, S. K. (Dodsland?) really is a gullible follower of Heller aka Goddard…
Years ago, Nick Stokes compared the differences between
– various changes applied to GISS data over the years
– UAH6.0 and UAH5.6 (for the LT)
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html
And no: I’m NOT a gullible follower of Nick Stokes. Simply because I obtained very similar graphs some years ago using available data.
*
Another example of being blind on one eye is Ole Humlum, who exclusively presented years ago the differences between RSS4.0 and RSS3.3, while persistently avoiding to show those between UAH6.0 and UAH5.6. His today’s view now is more equitable.
*
Just for fun, I made a comparison of these differences (until July 2017, UAH5.6’s expiration date):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xVNr2ry4ozSCYh49MpfLoH7Twx7C2HLP/view
*
Now, reading this:
” CO2 is not a GHG …
… and the surface temperature data is being altered. ”
That’s great, S. K., really great.
*
Btw: no, the surface temperature data is NOT being altered.
What has changed is the evaluation of the surface temperature data.
A typical example is area weighting of surface station data, which must be applied whenever portions of the Globe are overrepresented when compared with other parts.
Another example is infilling of unknown parts using interpolation techniques like kriging: if you don’t perform that, the unknown parts automatically get as value the average of the entire data.
There are, I agree, some evaluations which might look more questionable than others, e.g. NOAA’s Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm, see Clive Best’s critique about it on his blog.
J.-P. D.
Tony Heller’s comparison of measured and adjusted data is as scientific as it gets and yes the data is being altered/adjusted to promote man caused climate change.
tonyM summarized it perfectly:
As for Tony Heller I’m certainly thankful to him for doing the work which highlights certain issues. Certainly the key one is why do all the T adjustments correlate with CO2 changes with an R^2 of 0.99?
If you followed climategate you would understand the altering was premeditated.
Maybe I did that long time before you, who knows… and, in opposition to you, Heller & company: without preconceived ideas.
Again: you are Heller’s gullible follower.
I trust in the data I can honestly and successfully process.
J.-P. D.
Funny how until recently the alarmists were all quite happy with using a 30 year trend (which coincidently just happened to start in the coolest period of the 20th century). But now that they are seeing their voodoo models crumbling in the face of reality, out come the excuses as to why a 30 year trend is inappropriate.
Who are the “alarmists” you speak of. What do they believe? And what models are they using?
bdgwx, the “alarmists” are your allies here that believe the same as you and use the models you use.
But, if you now want to distance yourself from your cult, that’s probably wise.
Leave that sinking ship while you can.
Somewhere upthread I read a typical Coolista comment:
” Going sub baseline is another blow to these models predicting an ice free arctic. ”
I love such statements!
Wrt the former reference period 1981-2010, there were, between Dec 1978 and Dec 2020, 297 anomalies above zero.
Wrt the new reference period 1991-2020, there are now, between Dec 1978 and Dec 2020, only 180 anomalies above zero.
Sometimes, I ask myself whether there will be, within some brains, any increase of understanding about what anomalies exactly mean…
*
The average absolute temperature for 1981-2010 was near 263.95 K.
That for 1991-2020 was near 264.09 K.
The difference between them is +0.14 (K or C, doesn’t matter here).
Thus, it is evident that the anomalies wrt the monthly means for 1991-2020 MUST BE LOWER than those computed using the monthly means for 1981-2010.
The same happens, that should be evident, to GISS anomalies wrt the mean of 1951-1980 compared to anomalies wrt 1981-2010: the difference is about 0.42 C for land+ocean, and about 0.55 C for land-only series.
**
Luckily, the Arctic still is way away from becoming ice-free:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10qA6klNnFn_bo1DNOQZrPPa0fzWSvRYG/view
Simply because while the melting levels in September decreased by 4 Mkm^2, the rebuild levels in March decreased by less than 1 Mkm^2.
No reason, however, to ignore that Arctic sea ice melting in September is also way away from becoming lower.
Source for HadISST ICE
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, changing the base period doesn’t change the trends in the database(s). It does, however, change the seasonality of the new vs. the old version. HERE’s a look at the NH data> comparing the new minus the old basis.
R. E. Swanson
Thank you, but… that is in theory evident to me.
I’ll fully believe in it when the generation of an absolute time series out of anomalies + climatology wrt 1991-2020 is sufficiently identical to that generated out of the 1981-2010 data (which I still have on disk of course, he he).
This is no unnecessary skepticism: it has always been my way of processing data.
Germans around me love to say: “Vertrauen ist gut; Kontrolle ist besser”.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
R. E. Swanson
I did the check.
The differences between absolute temperatures generated out of anomalies and climatology wrt 1981-2010 and those generated wrt 1991-2020, differ by [-0.002: +0.003], probably due to rounding errors, as the grid has no more than 2 digits atdp.
Thus: both data sets very certainly have exactly the same origin.
I recall having made a really different experience some years ago…
J.-P. D.
The average temperature in the tropopause over the equator drops to -90 degrees C. This is the temperature reached by cloud tops in hurricanes. The record temperature was recorded in June 2018 and was -111 C at an altitude of 20.5 km.
The tropopause over the equator is very wide, and the lowest average temperature is always around 100 hPa.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
There is no temperature anomaly in the troposphere. The average temperature decreases according to the average vertical temperature gradient.
ren
100 hPa correspond on average to about 16 km.
With 6.5 K / km of negative gradient, that means about 105 K below surface, i.e. -90 C.
Sounds good!
J.-P. D.
This graph shows how the state of the stratospheric polar vortex has a huge impact on winter weather. The state of the winter polar vortex is beyond human control. This is shown in the graphic below. Winter pressure changes over the Arctic Circle can be very rapid.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2021.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_NH_2021.png
Robertson’s eternal nonsense
1. ” … the UAH TLT is essentially the same as surface temperatures because it can be directly correlated with altitude. ”
Typical stuff written by the one with the by far least knowledge of all people commenting here.
This is absolute nonsense, Robertson. The LT is all the time dominated by processes which, like strong poleward advection streams, are (luckily) totally absent at the surface where we live.
The average absolute temperature where UAH observes them moreover is around 264 K, what corresponds to an average measurement altitude of about 4 km.
Zero relation of LT to surface – with one exception: the similarity of their anomalies wrt the same reference period.
But it is typical for boasters like you that this similarity is exactly what you deny, woefully speaking about me as of a person presenting “faked graphs over fudged data”.
*
2. ” That fact has been corroborated with radiosondes. ”
You have no idea about which radiosondes were used to get them ‘corroborating’ UAH data! Zero dot zero idea.
Firstly, John Christy presented already in 2006 a set of 31 (of course: so-called ‘US-controlled’) radiosondes which were calibrated in such a way that they would themselves reflect a posteriori satellite-based measurements.
Secondly, Leopold Haimberger, an Austrian professor at the Vienna University, developed methods for further calibration of radiosondes (RICH and RAOBCORE).
Thirdly, later on, the NOAA radiosonde set named ‘RATPAC’ (85 units) was selected among the entire, raw radiosonde set, and subsequently highly homogenized.
Here you see the difference
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VxPFlXEvnzEvQRdBmWKLdvMiQmr7JwDP/view
plotted in 2016, between
– the RATPAC-B data (nearly identical to UAH at 700 hPa);
– the 85 IGRA sondes selected for RATPAC-B, but without Haimberger’s homogenization schemes;
– the average of all available, of course raw sonde data within the 1500 IGRA units.
*
Nonetheless, even if homogenized, the 85 RATPAC radiosondes give a fit to UAH if and only if they measure temperatures at a higher atmospheric pressure than that corresponding to UAH6.0 LT’s measurements).
I’m not sure you would ever be able to understand what this means.
Doesn’t matter, Robertson.
Simply because you all the time write things you don’t understand anything about – regardless what it is: temperature measurements, anomalies, energy balance, 1Lot & 2Lot, Einstein’s relativity, GPS, Moon’s spin, viruses etc etc etc.
J.-P. D.
bindidon, you’re so jealous of Gordon you can’t get him out of your mind. You’re obsessed with him, to the point of mental illness.
Not only can he communicate better than you, but he also understands better than you, things like — temperature measurements, anomalies, energy balance, 1Lot & 2Lot, Einstein’s relativity, GPS, Moon’s [lack of] spin, viruses, etc etc etc.
Feel free to show this comment to your therapist. You need help.
Thanks a lot, Clint R!
You have just managed to demonstrate to all the readers of this blog that, as usual, you can’t manage to reply more than what Germans like to call a ‘Returkutsche’ (sorry: it’s a bit hard to translate, even in… Norsk).
But my little finger is telling me that you perfectly understand what Germans are saying with this idiom, which moreover matches the image you are constantly conveying about yourself: prepubescent.
Merci beaucoup, vielen Dank
J.-P. D.
No problem Bindidon. Hope it helps.
When’s your next therapy session?
binny…”what Germans like to call a Returkutsche (sorry: its a bit hard to translate, even in Norsk)”.
Let me help you with the translation, it means “the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered”.
That would apply if Clint was the one suffering the insult, which was not the case. I did not suffer insult from your pompous diatribe, I simply considered the source. I actually feel sorry for you in that you are burdened with such an embittered mind.
binny…”The average absolute temperature where UAH observes them moreover is around 264 K, what corresponds to an average measurement altitude of about 4 km”.
***
You have no idea how oxygen molecules in the atmosphere radiate energy and the difficulty of gathering that data using receivers in a satellite. The receivers are capable of gathering O2 emissions all the way to the surface, and they do. The trick is in determining which radiation comes from the surface area and which comes from various altitudes.
In your deluded mind, you probably think the receivers gather only O2 emission data from 4k altitude. You know nothing about AMSU receivers but you are willing to bray like a donkey, or should I say, an ass, about technology you know nothing about.
Roy has already explained that the AMSU receivers can gather surface data but that UAH does not use it due to differentiating it from noise generated at the surface.
***
“You have no idea about which radiosondes were used to get them corroborating UAH data! Zero dot zero idea”.
***
I don’t need to know anything about it, John Christy does know about it and he has written about the confirmations.
I don’t look at your home-made graphs, which are obviously inaccurate and biased. I’ll go with the studies done by John Christy, and probably Roy.
Don’t project your ignorance onto others. Bindidon and I have told you for years that the instruments UAH use measure the lower troposphere as a swathe some 12 kilometers deep. It’s only in your fantasy brain that you imagine Bindidon thinks the MSU instruments can pick out the temperature at a specific hight. No, that was YOUR mistaken impression some time back. To whit;
It was I that told you UAH don’t give a surface temperature estimate because the instruments can’t get an accurate reading of the surface (for the reasons Roy gave). It was YOU who insisted UAH can give accurate global surface temps.
You dismissed what I said – until you read Roy saying it (possibly following a link I gave you).
It’s a bit rich you accusing others of your own fault.
So global temperature deviation would be +.11c with the old baseline and now the question is will this trend continue?
The big 3 factors which will determine if this trend remains intact will be be solar activity, oceanic sea surface temperatures and major volcanic activity.
CO2 is having no effects as we can see.
Oceanic Sea Surface temperatures are frustrating still stubbornly +.21c above average of late up from around +.12c a month earlier. I want this value to drop to at least 0 if not negative.
Solar Activity has been extremely low and if this continues we will will know one way or the other how just how much solar effects the climate.
Geological Activity has been quite high with many earthquakes some volcanic activity but still no major explosive volcanic activity.
I think if this vey low solar activity persist then oceanic sea surface temperatures will come down more and major explosive volcanic activity will come about and the upshot of this is going to be lower global temperatures as we move forward in time.
If this happens I think AGW theory will finally meet it’s demise.
Yes, the trend is likely to continue as we already have the SST data from January which predicts another drop of at least .18 C in the UAH June data.
Of course, nothing is ever this exact so we will need to wait and see where it goes.
The bigger question now is whether La Nina continues as that will likely drive both SST and UAH temperature down. Two opposing features have appeared in the Pacific. One predicts El Nino and the other predicts La Nina. Will be interesting.
Ludecke and Weiss’ Fourier reconstruction of the temperature over the next 9 years (up to 2030) shows a cooling trend.
https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOASCJ-11-44
I have always believed that their 3 term Fourier decomposition (and 3 term temperature prediction) is the best model of the climate that we have.
https://www.iceagenow.info/magnetic-reversals-far-more-deadly-than-anyone-believed/?fbclid=IwAR2dyGwNatqlapRbQnSlT8hKXSQBCyFKqL8v3GJcmdgPG_SUxVMsy4rd_Oo
This is the 4th big factor the weakening of the earth’s magnetic field.
All these factors I believe are going to cause cooling
“Earth’s magnetic field is vital to all life on the planet because it protects the ozone layer from solar winds, cosmic rays, and harmful radiation. When the field weakens the Earth becomes bathed in ultraviolet radiation and this in turn damages the ozone layer. The scientists believe the magnetic excursion may have even altered the climate and triggered the extinction of many species. (As you know if you’ve ever read ” Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps,” I think the radiation would have also lead to rapid mutations [most of which would have been abject failures]).”
The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-en.php
It would be interesting to witness a magnetic reversal. I suspect it would be quite different than what has been imagined.
We don’t even understand what causes Earth’s magnetic field. Our best guess is that the field is somehow linked to a molten iron core, Earth’s rotation, and possible flow of electrical charge (free electrons) within the core. If we really understood what cause the magnetic field, we should be able to build an actual model. We understand flight, so we can build airplanes. We understand what causes lightning, so we can make sparks. But, we can’t build a scale model of Earth that exhibits a corresponding magnetic field.
When we understand, then we can build actual physical models. When we don’t understand, we can make up sciency-sounding words like “geodynamo”.
Most of what is in the “papers” is nonsense. There is not even any real evidence that Earth has ever had a magnetic reversal. Rocks and rock layers get moved by known forces, so finding things not aligned with Earth’s current magnetic field could just mean things got moved.
If a reversal is possible, it would likely be a result of the intermediate axis theorem, (See NOTE.) And, at least one would have been witnessed before now. We’ve been using magnetic compasses for over 2000 years, with no reversal documented. We don’t even understand the intermediate axis theorem: “John Mallinckrodt (CSU Pomona) relates the story of a student asking Richard Feynman if there is any intuitive way to understand the result; Feynman went into deep thought for about 10 or 15 seconds and answered, ‘no’.”
This is another area of “anti-science” where “more funding is needed”….
☺
NOTE
Is the Earth Going to Flip Over?
Why did the Soviets made [sic] Dzhanibekov’s discovery classified for a decade? Perhaps it was because a hypothesis was proposed that our planet in the course of its orbital motion can execute the same overturn.
https://www.engineeringclicks.com/dzhanibekov-effect/
There is 100% evidence of magnetic reversals , not just one but many.
The question is what happens when they occur.
Is there any “evidence” that would hold up under REAL scientific scrutiny?
We always have to remember, “beliefs” ain’t science.
Yes there is. The iron orientation from volcanic eruptions. It changes 180 degrees due to the magnetic field at the time of the eruption.
That is hard evidence. The iron has been shown to align in exact opposite directions tied in directly to where the magnetic poles are located.
Is that the best “evidence” you’ve found?
Are you referring to iron in lava? What was its “orientation” when it was still magma? How would you know the orientation changed if you don’t know its orientation before?
Maybe melt some iron and check after checking initial orientation?
Great idea, Bill. Let’s apply for some funding to do the research.
How about $2 million?
No need to be greedy….
Count me in!!
The plate tectonics show there are regular magnetic reversals.
As the plates spread, the crust forms at the boundaries with magnetic signatures that align with the earth’s magnetic field.
Along the ocean bottom the material alternates North-South, South-North. Given the plate boundary spreading is constant, its possible to determine the period.
I recall the period being 40k years but my memory isn’t that good to make book on it.
binny…”if we had made last year a WFT graph showing GISS and UAH plots such that via the ‘offset’ attribute, GISS is plotted wrt 1981-2010 instead of 1951-1980, it is now… wrong”.
***
GISS is wrong anyway. They rely on NOAA fudged temperature data then fudge the data more.
When NOAA declared 2014 the warmest year ever, with a probability of 48%, GISS fudged the 48% further and claimed a probability of 38%.
There is no way to compare GISS with UAH, no matter what baseline is used. Both NOAA and GISS sho a linear warming trend since 1980 and UAH does not.
“The temperature anomaly for March, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C.”
Well, I guess global warming is over.
Joe
Here is the top10 of the biggest 1-month drops since Dec 1978 (collected before the baseline switch, but that doesn’t matter much):
2013 2: -0.32
1984 9: -0.29
1987 3: -0.29
1998 11: -0.28
2020 3: -0.28
2017 11: -0.28
1983 6: -0.27
1995 12: -0.26
2020 12: -0.26
1988 10: -0.25
Yep, it’s over and over!
J.-P. D.
Nah. It’s just random variability that isn’t even that noteworthy. A -0.01C anomaly is a 0.22C departure below the trendline. A departure of this magnitude is expected to occur about 13 times per decade. They tend to cluster so don’t be surprised if it happens again in April.
bdg…as per your reply to an earlier post from Roy…
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/amsu/explanation.html
“…Individual AMSU-A channels (i.e., frequencies) are carefully chosen based on principles of radiative transfer theory. Each channel (frequency) is radiatively selective in the sense that it detects microwave radiation from discrete layers within the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite meteorologists typically relate the radiation sensed in individual AMSU-A channels/frequencies to specific atmospheric layers (characterised by the abundance of molecular oxygen O2 and temperature) by use of a term called a weighting function:”
“Simply put, the weighting function for AMSU-A Channel 7 (54.94 GHz) has a maximum amplitude (i.e., contribution to upwelling microwave radiation sensed by the AMSU-A instrument) at approximately 250 hPa (~12km above the earth’s surface) whereas Channel 5 (53.6 GHz) has a maximum weighting function at approximately 550 hPa (~5km above the earth’s surface). The pressure level where the weighting function peaks will change somewhat with scan angle with peaks lower in the atmosphere for near nadir scans and higher in the atmosphere near the limb”.
This link gives a better picture of all channels:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AMSU-A-Weighting-function-for-standard-atmosphere_fig6_264185361
Note that 1000 hpa is the surface and that many of the weighting functions intercept the surface. That means they are including radiation from surface level. Therefore, the sats could easily detect surface temperatures and the only reason they don’t is because of noise emitted close to the surface.
Just because the peak of channel 5 is at a high altitude does not mean it cannot gather information from surface level O2 missions.
I am sure when they were calibrating the instruments initially they noted a correlation between altitude and temperature and could interpolate it with higher altitude temperatures.
No one is challenging the fact that the satellites pick up microwave emissions from the surface. What is being said is that UAH TLT is a bulk atmospheric measurement from 0-14km with a weighting that peaks at around 4km.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/MSU2-vs-LT23-vs-LT.gif
bdgwx, Gordo’s linked reference to the AMSU curves of channel weighting functions includes an important footnote, which Spencer’s graphs do not mention. The curves are calculated based on a “standard atmosphere”, which probably means the US Standard Atmosphere model. I’ve tried several times to point out that using this model is an often ignored input which may not represent real world conditions, such as during Arctic Winter months when the tropopause occurs at a lower pressure level or in the tropical regions when it can appear at higher elevations. There’s no guarantee that the tropopause height will remain at a constant height, indeed, some research has found that tropical heights are increasing as the atmosphere warms.
The UAH LT version 6 is based on the assumption that a “one size fits all” approach, as incorporated in the equation combining the MT, TP and LS channel series, can detect the real changes in climate. I hope that you (and Gordo) can appreciate why I am skeptical regarding that assumption.
bdgwx, It may be important that the curves for MSU channel 5 and 7 in both graphs exhibits a lower maximum than that for channel 9. This could be the result of using the US Standard Atmosphere model, which has a plateau of constant temperature as the lapse rate changes from negative to positive above the tropopause.
My Graph based on the RSS curves shows this stronger peak too.
What does the Sun say about all this? You can debate, and I’ll still do my thing.
https://i.ibb.co/NNvQHgg/AR-CH-20210402-hres.png
Ren, you have a very weak sun combined with a weakening geo magnetic field and this spells cooling. The magnetic North Pole is moving very rapidly towards Siberia and the configuration of the earth magnetic field is in flux.
The South Magnetic Pole is also moving towards the equator at a good clip. This is going to be interesting. The last magnetic excursion was the GOTTONBERG EXCURSION some 10,000 years ago.
Thats really interesting. I have suspected a magnetic influence on wind patterns potentially influencing climate.
According to this the excursion occurred 13,750 to 12,350 years before now. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003358947790031X
Which seems to correspond with the early Holocene warming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7#:~:text=The%20distribution%20of%20peak%20global,of%20the%20most%20recent%20decade.
The article on top mentions this excursion to be the best dated one. Wonder if dating is good enough to match others to interglacial events.
Also back a bit more than a decade ago as I recall NASA was noting some unusual magnetic exchanges occurring between earth and the sun that corresponded roughly with low minimum of SC24.
Add to that the lowest rates of warming occurring during solar minimums.
We definitely have a lot to learn – perhaps someday that will be current news to some in here.
https://www.iceagenow.com/Magnetic_Reversal_Chart.htm
A list of recent magnetic excursions.
” There is no way to compare GISS with UAH, no matter what baseline is used. Both NOAA and GISS sho a linear warming trend since 1980 and UAH does not. ”
*
Robertson proves again how unable he is to leave dumb polemic. That is due to his thorough ignorance.
As said so often:
” Who isn’t able to contradict soon will start to discredit. ”
*
1. Global trend for UAH since 1980: 0.14 C / decade, when measuring O2 microwave emissions corresponding to absolute temperatures around 265 K (i.e. -9 C) in the lower troposphere, at an average altitude of 4 km.
2. Global trend for Japan’s Met Agency since 1980: 0.14 C / decade, measured at the surface.
3. Global trend for NOAA, GISS since 1980: 0.18 resp. 0.19 C / decade, measured at the surface.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qx7sCBVyT88o4t63VKH1C0KoTwmUBcxx/view
The difference between JMA and NOAA/GISS is solely due to a lack of interpolation, letting the Globe appear cooler because all unknown places then have the same temperature as the global average itself.
It is evident that if the effect of interpolation was, on global average, a cooling instead of a warming, all Pseudoskeptics of course would accept, if not even request it!
*
Robertson may rant, insult, distort, discredit, denigrate and lie as long as he wants.
That does not change anything.
J.-P. D.
B,
Can you provide your best guess when the trends you have mentioned will stop?
Obviously, they can’t continue very far into the future.
No rant, insult, distortion, discrediting, denigration or lies involved. Just a reasonable assumption.
So how long do you think a trend will continue?
Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn
1. Your question is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with my comment.
2. Your average answer to such questions:
” Why should I answer when you ask? Why don’t you look for an answer by your own? ”
J.-P. D.
Should be simple to figure out that the entire text of what I wrote was in support of not being able to compare apples and oranges. Did that fly over your head?
Bindidon says:
” There is no way to compare GISS with UAH, no matter what baseline is used. Both NOAA and GISS sho a linear warming trend since 1980 and UAH does not. ”
You need to understand the circular influences on most of the surface records, particularly with regards the ocean. Continental uplift influences ocean temperatures via the tides, models influence values used in Continental uplift to adjust tide gauges, projections of overall ocean warming via extrapolating surface warming to the ocean bottom also influences ocean heat expansion. Academic science bounces along making science by a huge committee which can produce an extremely wide range of results all easily supportable by the science out there. I have had years of professional experience in dealing with this interesting phenomena.
hunter
” Bindidon says:
There is no way to compare GISS with UAH, no matter what baseline is used. Both NOAA and GISS sho a linear warming trend since 1980 and UAH does not.”
What ????
I never said that. It was the dumbie nicknamed Robertson.
Look at the comments you read, before replying to them.
J.-P. D.
I pray the trend stays positive or flat. Global cooling is not good for us.
A powerful mass of Arctic air will now fall over the UK into Western Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/RHHFpSh/pobrane.png
Due to cloudless skies, frost at night for several days will cause damage to orchards.
Clint R that is very good evidence. In addition the magnetic poles are on the move.
In addition ancient trees show abrupt changes in cosmic ray intensity among other items, at times of magnetic excursions.
Younger Dryas is associated with a magnetic excursion.
Also the MEASURED magnetic strength is weakening.
All of this plus lava orientation, and extinctions and major volcanic eruptions at times of geo magnetic excursions to me is conclusive evidence.
It is going to be very interesting as we move forward this century. I predict as I always have that AGW theory will be obsolete, as shown by the data although mainstream will probably never give up on their hoax.
salvatore del prete at 8:57 AM
I predict as I always have that AGW theory will be obsolete, as shown by the data although mainstream will probably never give up on their hoax.
Exxon had it right 40 years ago and their models have proven to be very accurate. https://ibb.co/Fh0nfH7
You on the other hand do nothing but guess, hope and pray; what a joke!
Still, since I’m partial to Oil & Gas, I appreciate your denials and wish you’d deny harder so my shares of Exxon will rise further.
Time will tell. I am partial to oil and gas also have energy stocks.
I think AGW is a joke.
salvatore del prete at 10:50 AM
I think AGW is a joke.
Do you say that based on the results of your own modeling and data, or is that just an opinion? In my experience deniers have neither science nor data or models, just dogma.
Based on evidence as put forth when looking at the historical climatic record.
Today’s warming is much less in degree of magnitude change then many of the warmings that have occurred at the past.
salvatore del prete at 11:36 AM
Sure, you go with that.
Meanwhile let’s have more of this, mmk…
“BREAKING: According to Pay with GasBuddy data, Easter travelers sent Friday US gasoline demand up 4.1% from the prior Friday. Through Friday, gasoline demand this week stands up 2.3% from last week and is cruising easily to a new pandemic high.”
After mostly debunking the ‘greenhouse theory’ as having anything to do with greenhouses trapping heat solely by blocking IR. Now you get told that the atmosphere doesn’t act like a greenhouse.
So they sort of created a greenhouse somewhere up around the tropopause that essentially does the same thing, though it remains undescribed what it does. Kind of hard to build a greenhouse on the summit of Mt Everest and then anyway they would tell you there again that the atmosphere is not a greenhouse.
I tend to think the search for a control knob needs to go on moving upwind in the face of a hurricane of hot air extracted from the ocean. Admission to the calm eye requires an oath of fealty and faith to the keepers of the Holy Charney Report.
salvatore del prete says:
”although mainstream will probably never give up on their hoax.”
Expected. Reputations are based upon credibility. Worst will be media as they can live forever as corporate entities.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008GL034719
This may help for those interested in magnetic excursions.
Usually they wait until the end to hint for more money. But, this “paper” didn’t even make it past the third sentence: “…and key further research is suggested to resolve major unanswered questions.”
Clint there are 1000’s of papers. You decide for yourself. I am in the magnetic excursion camp. and further that it impacts the climate.
“1000’s of papers” means nothing. Look at all the AGW nonsense that has been “published”.
There is no substantive proof that Earth’s magnetic field has ever “flipped”. The magnetic poles wander, but that’s easily explained by the differing inertias of Earth’s crust and its core. A wandering magnetic field simply means magnetic “north” wanders around the axial rotation “north”. No violations of physics. It does not mean the poles are about to flip!
Yes there is.
Clint you are in denial like so many others on this site. Fine with me believe what you want.
prete, you provided your “best” evidence of magnetic pole reversal, and I showed how bogus it was.
Then, you came up with “Yes there is”!
“Yes there is” ain’t science.
https://www.iceagenow.info/the-accelerating-nature-of-magnetic-field-collapses/
We will find out one way or the other.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=videos+on+laschap+excursion&docid=607994655670932090&mid=40EE27EFBFA6499B4EC740EE27EFBFA6499B4EC7&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
Very interesting. Last one for now.
Awesome! I think what we have to recognize is that little evolution of human physiology has occurred over the past 50,000 years. Are ancestors back then didn’t have huge databases of knowledge to mull over but they did have a huge advantage in at least one dimension.
That is they lived outdoors with their lives totally dependent upon nature. Undoubtedly their sensitivity to change was extremely high.
I see clearly today where the natural sciences best evolve into useful technology and that is when scientists work with those whose entire lives have been devoted to living in a natural system.
There is even a word for persons today suffering from what is called Nature Deficit Disorder. Living wholly within a 15 second soundbite echo chamber brings about all sorts of psychological problems. Getting outdoors into a natural environment on a regular basis (not running through a manicured park or around the block) is believed by those studying the issue to be like a mental health tonic.
Swenson
“Can you provide your best guess when the trends you have mentioned will stop? So how long do you think a trend will continue? ”
If AGW is correct, we are already committed to 1.7C after a 25 year lag so another 0.5C warming between now and 2045 is as optimistic as I can get. How much further we go depends on how much more CO2 we release, how much the sinks can absorb and what feedbacks are triggered.
“Obviously, they cant continue very far into the future.”
If you know this, you must know the mechanism causing the current warming, and why this will stop warming us soon.
Please enlighten us.
Entropic man enlighten us on your false beliefs about AGW.
EM is absolutely convinced that continuing to bat the next kid in line over the head with a baseball bat is going to crack open the pinata and win himself a whole bag of candy.
EM,
You wrote –
“If you know this, you must know the mechanism causing the current warming, and why this will stop warming us soon.”
Of course I know the mechanism causing thermometers to get hotter. Additional heat. That’s what thermometers are designed to indicate.
However, Binny refuses to acknowledge that a temperature trend of, say, 0.14 C per decade continuing for a million years leads to a temperature of 14,000 C. Sheer nonsense – in my opinion at least.
So, far into the future is a million years for me, for this purpose. I cannot see any physical mechanism which would raise the temperature of the Earth above the surface temperature of the thing that warms it – the Sun at around 5800 K.
No GHE.
Maybe you believe a million years is too far into the future? How about 8,000 years? At 0.14 C per decade, the seas will be boiling in less than 8000 years, if my mental arithmetic can be relied upon.
I hope I have assisted in your search for enlightenment.
Entropoic man will never stop believing in AGW.
SURFACE OCEANIC TEMPERATURES – that is my focus for now.
Salvatore
” … that is my focus for now. ”
*
OK!
I could, of course, satisfy you by showing the tropical tidbits, like does ren all the time. They look so pretty cooling!
I think it’s better for you to look at the one degree grid data since January 1961, maintained by the Hadley Centre in UK (in fact, their data go back much further):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tTQbattgSRk4Z6yzC6WYxcyyuH-3GXm-/view
You see only the absolute temperatures, because so many people think that anomalies are only there to make things worse than they are in reality.
And below the surface, be it till 700 m or 2000 m, it does not look much better, see the data provided by Japan’s Met Agency.
What do you really expect? A cooling of the oceans?
Due to their inertia, I think we both won’t live long enough to see what you hope.
J.-P. D.
Source
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
I think the data below the surface for vast amounts of ocean is very questionable. I would not hang my hat on that data where as surface data is much more accurate.
Salvatore
” I think the data below the surface for vast amounts of ocean is very questionable. ”
Then go to the Japanese Met Agency, Sal, be courageous, and manage to explain them that they don’t know what they are talking about.
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/ohc/ohc_global_1955.txt
J.-P. D.
Time will tell if right then surface sea temperatures should stay elevated. We will see.
If I am not mistaken JMA says the ocean will increase 1K in about 1000 years at the current rate.
check my math:
4.186 joules to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1K
Mass of ocean 1.4e24
per JMA trend of joules into the ocean 5.88e10/decade
besides the ocean data being rather squishy the JMA data suggests that the warming trend in the ocean will warm the ocean by 1K in about 1000 years.
Check my math:
4.186 joules amount to raise 1 gram of water 1k
1.40e24 the weight in grams of the ocean
5.88e22 the trend of joules being absorbed by the ocean
99.7 the number of decades to warm ocean 1k
Bob Tisdale thought that surface organic temperatures drove climate change. He threw me off his site for pointing out that his hypothesis required energy to appear from nowhere.
Please provide a thermodynamics valid energy budget to support your hypothesis.
Bob Tisdale is a mainstream climate guy has no clue about low solar/geo magnetic fields and the potential effects upon the climate.
But it is al coming to a head now and we are going to find out sooner rather then later.
According to Dr. Spencer’s data, the Tropics are showing a steady temperature decrease since August 2020. Do most of you agree that the rest of the world will follow this trend for at least a year or two?
Rob Mitchell
” Do most of you agree that the rest of the world will follow this trend for at least a year or two? ”
The best IMHO would be to first have a look at how the Tropics behaved since Dec 1978:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mpmcG3ze94cgcpZ37_OtmewngRSW9Cqz/view
and to compare that “steady temperature decrease since August 2020” with all decreases this time series has experienced until now.
J.-P. D.
So, about a year or two, and that’s it?
The tropics follow ENSO. So if ENSO remains in La Niña phase, tropics and global should both reflect cooler anomalies.
no, would not be at all surprised if temperatures shot right up again despite La Nina and all the rest of the supposed cooling factors
too many skeptics make the mistake of thinking we can predict cooling better than we can predict warming
hunter [moved downthread]
I followed your discussion with Nate above, ending with
So absolutely I favor satellites and it would probably be very worthwhile to swing everything in that direction.
*
1. Well: firstly, Im afraid this is not quite honest, because IMO you should have rather written
So absolutely I favor UAH and it would probably be very worthwhile to swing everything in that direction.
Simply because you very probably wont agree with NOAAs, let alone with RSSs satellite reading results, as they show much more warming than does UAH.
This is due to different, even opposite opinions about which satellites are doing biased work, and hence, depending on that opinion, were included in / excluded off the data sources.
*
2. Now let us have a closer look at UAHs satellite readings on land, because I want compare them with surface data.
There will be three. One is NOAA land-only, highly homogenized, together with two evaluations of the rawest surface data available, namely GHCN daily.
One evaluation is mine,
based on a plane grid, with of course both latitude and area weighting;
and the other one was made two years ago by Clive Best,
based on a very accurate, 3D spherical triangulation (which makes both weighting functions superfluous), together with some decent infilling.
1. Comparing NOAA land with GHCN daily by Clive and by Bin for 1880-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18RJTDnYp0wgNS8CUJ0-ADheNit3WlN1p/view
2. Comparing UAH6.0 LT land with NOAA land, GHCN daily by Clive and by Bin for 1979-2020
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oACrb0PNvtiBwK9Xuw0rhVBngdQp_032/view
Hopefully you will think a bit more than Robertson when looking at these graphs, and hence might have something more to say than his stoopid, eternal fudged blah blah.
J.-P. D.
As usual Bindidon you project in a Freudian style your own attributes on to others.
Fact is dude, I am just a skeptic. A skeptic doesn’t hold a position per se. Once you hold a position you are no longer technically a skeptic but instead are an advocate of your position.
I just find that in climate science skeptics and advocates of other ideas than the Charney Report are all lumped into the skeptic category.
I have always found that science advances more quickly by embracing outside of the box thinking. . . .in this case the box being the Charney findings.
I have closely examined the science surrounding the Charney findings and find them plausible. But there are literally millions of plausible ideas. All are false but one.
So from my perspective this is how it should shake down. Currently there is insufficient evidence and insufficient identified net harm to justify acting on climate. I also believe that if the evidence were stronger that could justify action with less evidence of net harm. Its kind of a balancing equation. The question is where you switch from voluntary mitigation to mandatory mitigation. Take organic foods for example. A lot of people are willing to buy them kind of providing a natural protection against massive problems that might arise from foods not meeting the organic standards.
Much has already been done in that direction for climate by individuals acting for a variety reasons to cut their fossil fuel use. Others are not worried enough to do it until it makes more sense to them. Out of that arises a conflict from those that do it voluntarily and those who don’t. But such conflicts are part of life and government should show restraint about taking sides as that usually just inflames the conflict. We see that at work today.
So be advised when I say it all should be shifted to satellites I am not saying shift it all to UAH. Improve the funding for all of them. Prioritize improvements of the measuring devises and positioning reporting of the satellites. Make it a big deal so as to remove some of the barriers the surface station advocates like to point at in the satellite record. I said in this comment section already the reason I like satellites its the design of approach and methods is so superior to surface monitoring that part of global mean temperature records probably should be minimized. Though I would favor investing more in ARGO to penetrate to the ocean floor that technology and continue to expand it so they can dump the XBT inferior, known to warmer technology thats allowed to adjust ARGO on the basis of circular reasoning that ends up justifying warming the observation record.
ARGO will be important to deal with the real issue of changes in heat content of the earth’s liquid oceans and atmosphere.
So indeed I spend a good deal of time still in my professional capacity (partly retired) of recommending areas in need of additional study and research to decision bodies whose job it is to protect our environment. I always look at the basic foundation of an approach before recommending it over others. It really doesn’t matter what its current issues are, what matters is whether the platform itself is representative of the studied issue. Obviously temperatures of the atmosphere are what the temperature record is supposed to be. Not some strange non-randomly distributed compendium of some atmosphere and some submerged temperatures. Like building a good home that is going to last a long time, you want to start with a solid foundation. And after you did it a few times and you discover that the foundation and its connection to the home framing needs to protection from earthquakes (or satellite drift) you put in some earthquake tie downs that can be retrofitted to existing foundations. No doubt the dedicated scientists working at both UAH and RSS would be very happy about that.
hunter
” As usual Bindidon you project in a Freudian style your own attributes on to others. ”
Sorry, too trivial for me.
And please manage next time to reduce your output by say 90 %, allowing us to read it with some more interest.
J.-P. D.
You have the choice to read what you want to read Bindidon.
but don’t criticize unless you read it all.
I point at
(B1) A skeptic doesnt hold a position per se.
and
(B2) Currently there is insufficient evidence and insufficient identified net harm to justify acting on climate.
That is all.
almost no one remembers this today, but when we launched the satellites there was much enthusiastic public talk about how the technically inferior surface records would soon be obsolete
then politics took over for scientific rigor
When the satellites were originally launched no one was thinking about piecing together a climate record. I think you made that up.
won’t take many more months like this one to throw out even some newer high-ECS models
warming supposed to be accelerating right now
generally the older the model, the sharper the warming curve it predicted circa 2021
coincidentally, funding is considerably better when a wrong model can’t immediately be proved wrong
reality is looking more and more like a correct ECS is in the range 1-2K per doubling
old news for most of us here, of course
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/15/jcli-d-17-0667.1.xml
JC’s estimate here is 1.8C for 2xCO2. Her estimate keeps going up with each new publication. And if the global mean temperature continues to increase at the current rate, which is likely considering the EEI is +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 (Schuckmann 2020), then by 2030 I think her estimate will top 2.0C for 2xCO2. Interestingly Lindzen’s estimates have creeped up over the years starting at 0.5C and now up to 1.5C (though I think that is pretty old now). It’s a common theme. Low climate sensitivity estimates from “skeptics” keep getting eliminated as the planet continues to warm. Even the most vocal “skeptics” now concede the warming is within the 1.5-4.5C range first proposed by Charney in 1979 and adopted by the IPCC.
bdgwx, you’re still making the same mistakes. That “EEI is +0.87 W/m^2” is nonsense. You don’t understand energy balance.
You can’t learn.
lol but the planet did NOT continue to warm last month, that was the whole point
current anomaly is certainly not helping high ECS scenarios, particularly if the La Nina extends the current readings as many suspect
planet was actually warmer at several points in 1988 than it is now
TallDave does not seem to know the difference between weather and climate. Has he gone to the same skeptic skool as the other idiots here?
TallDave, if I told you there is a day in Summer cooler than a day in Winter (which actually happens), would you insist that seasons do not exist?
Of course you wouldn’t. You would understand that short term excursions (weather) can be larger than the climate signal (seasons).
Now, can you extrapolate that to global climate, or would you like help making the connection?
lol did the line in the graph go up or down last month?
there, that wasn’t so hard
I see the analogy was too difficult for you. You are another one who bizarrely thinks that if global climate is changing, natural variability is cancelled, and every month should be warmer (or cooler) than the last.
The depths of idiocy on this seems to know no limit.
TallDave said: the planet did NOT continue to warm last month
First…I have to correct you here. The TLT portion of the atmosphere did not warm last month. We actually don’t know to what extent the land, ice/snow, and ocean heat reservoirs warmed or cooled yet. Those estimates usually take a couple of years to complete though ocean heat content provides a decent proxy since it accounts for 90% of the warming and those estimates are usually available within 6-12 months.
Second…of the 506 month-over-month changes in the UAH record there were 245 of them (or 48%) that showed no warming. Yet the trendline shows 0.57C of warming since 1979. Clearly your preferred method of testing whether the planet is experiencing warming does not work.
bdgwx,
lol again with the lying stupidity
did the UAH graph above show warming LAST MONTH?
The TLT portion of the atmosphere cooled from February to March.
lol troll better
in the graph above, which way does the line go last month, up or down?
lol just for fun, let’s recap your trolling
I pointed out the current month’s cooling, if it continues very long, will invalidate even some newer models
you claimed the Earth was still warming on other timescales
I reiterated, again, that LAST month clearly did not warm, according to said graph
you regurgitated more irrelevancies about other months and other measures of global warming that are not this graph
I laughed and pointed at the graph again
TallDave said: in the graph above, which way does the line go last month, up or down?
Down. That is a decrease in temperature. A decrease in temperature is referred to as cooling. My use of “cooling” in the post above is equivalent in meaning to “down” or “drop” in relation to the graph above. If that wasn’t clear before then hopefully it is clear now.
TallDave said: I pointed out the current months cooling
I’m pretty sure Dr. Spencer was the first to point it out. I was the first to point it out in the comment section at the very top when I said “That is a big drop”. Not that being first to point something out means anything. I’m just saying…
TallDave said: if it continues very long, will invalidate even some newer models
It would have to stay this low for quite some time. There have been 62 cases in which the departure below the trendline was >= 0.20. They do tend to cluster though. The longest consecutive streak was 10 set in 1993.
TallDave said: you claimed the Earth was still warming on other timescales
That is correct.
TallDave said: I reiterated, again, that LAST month clearly did not warm, according to said graph
That is correct.
TallDave said: you regurgitated more irrelevancies about other months and other measures of global warming that are not this graph
They are relevant. Global warming is in reference to the long term secular increase in the global mean temperature. Month-over-month changes exhibit high variability (about 0.25C). To extract the signal from the noise we consider long time periods. We also consider the phase of the cycles inducing the noise when analyzing short time periods. In this case ENSO is a negative phase which typically results in departures below the trendline.
In addition the atmosphere is but one of the heat reservoirs of the planet. In fact, the atmosphere only represents 1-2% of the total storage of excess heat in the system. Snow/ice is 3-4%, Land is 5-6%, and oceans is 89-90%. See Schuckmann 2020 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj) or more information.
TallDave said: I pointed out the current months cooling,
moron trolled: Im pretty sure Dr. Spencer was the first to point it out. I was the first to point it out in the comment section at the very top when I said That is a big drop. Not that being first to point something out means anything. Im just saying
no moron, that phrase refers to the rest of the sentence below
TallDave said: if it continues very long, will invalidate even some newer models
moron trolled: It would have to stay this low for quite some time. There have been 62 cases in which the departure below the trendline was >= 0.20. They do tend to cluster though. The longest consecutive streak was 10 set in 1993.
lol go ahead, try CMIP3… are you afraid?
TallDave said: you regurgitated more irrelevancies about other months and other measures of global warming that are not this graph
troll trolled: They are relevant.
irrelevant to the question of whether the current month will fall outside the 95% boundaries of increasingly recent models if the cooling trend persists
In addition the atmosphere is but one of the heat reservoirs of the planet.
irrelevant to the question of whether the current UAH LT measurement will fall outside the 95% boundaries of increasingly recent models if the cooling trend persists
troll better
TallDave,
Just a reminder…we are discussing your statement the planet did NOT continue to warm last month in this subthread.
– The atmosphere is not a very good proxy for “the planet”.
– “continue to warm” will almost universally be interpreted with a long term context because global warming is long term and because this is a climate based blog site. Month-to-month changes are more weather and less climate.
This is what I’m addressing.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx did you forget a link for ‘here’?
I am reading for the link provided before your post an ecs median of 1.66
Verbatim I see 1.76K for time varying feedbacks to complete. You can certainly chastise me for rounding. Though, in my defense no one really expresses 2xCO2 climate down to 2 decimal places. They almost always round to the nearest tenth.
They were doing so well. Then it all came apart in the last paragraph.
“The implications of our results are that high best estimates of ECShist, ECS, and TCR derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period (confidence level 95%). Moreover, our median ECS and TCR estimates using infilled temperature data imply multicentennial or multidecadal future warming under increasing forcing of only 55%70% of the mean warming simulated by CMIP5 models. “
Clint you have shown nothing, not one shred of evidence to refute my thoughts.
Sorry prete, but I didn’t notice any of your “thoughts”.
I was refuting your “beliefs”.
There is NO evidence a magnetic pole reversal has ever happened. When you try to link some measurements of a “decreasing” magnetic field to a pole reversal, that indicates you don’t understand magnetic fields.
Clint there is evidence all over the place.
When you’re ruled by your false beliefs, EVERYTHING is evidence of what you believe.
But, do you have anything that will endure scientific scrutiny?
Clint I think but could be wrong that the earth’s magnetic field flips for the same internal magma core reason the sun flips each cycle. Its just that the sun is a lot more active and the earth’s last flip was the equivalent of a thousand solar cycles ago.
Seems to me the toughest thing is estimating when it might happen again.
Almost everything before recorded history is nonsense. It is tainted by agenda. Even someone that sincerely wants to do real science is handicapped by their ignorance. A geologist does not understand magnetic fields.
correction 12,000 years ago was a large excursion not a flip. I have know about the magnetic field going on excursions since I was 13 years old and helped teach navigation.
If any one looks at my old post they will see I maintained the combination of both weak solar and geo magnetic fields was needed for cooling.
One would think solar flares /CME’s would not be a factor with low solar but that is not the case and with the occasional burst of activity in otherwise quiet solar conditions along with a weak geo magnetic field can have big consequences , this on top of the back drop of ever increasing galactic cosmic rays, which will effect the electrical circuit of earth, along with promoting greater cloud coverage and an increase in explosive major volcanic activity.
This can all happen fast not decades.
Most climate scientist have no clue when it comes to what I am talking about as is so plainly evident. They are so stuck on CO2, AND do not think out of the box.
Salvatore del Prete
“Most climate scientist have no clue when it comes to what I am talking about as is so plainly evident. They are so stuck on CO2, AND do not think out of the box. ”
Unfortunately it’s not self-evident . You need to show
1) Clear correlations between geomagnetic fields and temperature.
2) How about a mechanism? I like my science quantitative. Can you give me a formula I can use to calculate temperature from geomagnetic field or vica versa?
Entropic man you need to show why cooling is taking place now instead of accelerating warming. More CO2 warmer?
I know the excuses so save them.
I have explained the mechanism over and over again. In a sentence or two low solar/geo magnetic fields allow more galactic cosmic radiation to enter the earth’s atmosphere which in turn increases cloud coverage, amplifies the global electrical circuit, allows more UV light and increase major explosive volcanic activity which all give rise to cooling.
If you would read about the 42,000 year ago event it might enlighten you.
Numbers please.
The best way to examine a proposed hypothesis is independent check. Give me what I need to confirm the hypothesis for myself.
That means links to data and the formulae required to do the calculations.
Not having those numbers you want EM is the reason the IPCC uses 29 climate models instead of 1.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/19/world/magnetic-fields-earth-intl-scli-scn/index.html
We will find out.
From the link: “…may have triggered…and it could happen again”
“May have” and “could happen” are beliefs.
Beliefs ain’t science.
And CNN is your source?
Tsk, tsk.
CNN is my source are you crazy.
You’re not aware you linked to a CNN source?
Clint R
Maybe this link will help you understand the concept of magnetic pole reversal. They use actual measurements. In the article they explain how the orientation of the magnetic field is created and how it is measured.
Maybe rather than reject it as unscientific you can learn how scientific it actually is.
https://earthref.org/content/reconstructing-earth-magnetics-and-magma
CNN is totally on the band wagon of AGW theory.
Norman, did you find another link you don’t understand?
What a surprise….
Clint R
You ask the wrong question. You question my ability to understand the content of a link. In this case that would not matter at all. The only important question here is do you understand the information in the link. So do you understand the material you can read in the link I provided?
You never understand the links you find, Norman. You search on some keywords, find something you believe fits, and provide the link. You know so little about the subjects, you never understand the links.
This one is a perfect example. It has major mistakes and is full of nonsense.
Clint R
It is pointless to ask, you will avoid answering. You always do.
YOU: “This one is a perfect example. It has major mistakes and is full of nonsense.”
So what do you believe are the mistakes and what do you believe is nonsense?
Again, I clearly stated my understanding is not important. Do you understand the material?
Norman, why would you link to something you don’t understand, and then ask me to explain it to you?
You don’t understand physics. You avoid reality. And you can’t learn.
Clint R
You are in diversion mode again. I did not say I did not understand the material in the link. (learn to read!). I said it did not matter if I did or did not. It matters if you do.
Again you made claims (your unscientific opinions…that the material is full of mistakes and nonsense) but when asked to point out what you thought were mistakes and nonsense you revert to the irrelevant point about my understanding of the link.
Why do you need to troll with all your posts? If you think something is wrong explain why. The diversion is trolling.
The actual truth is you don’t know the answer so troll instead because it is why you post on this blog.
Norman, why would you link to something you don’t understand, and then ask me to explain it to you?
You don’t understand physics. You avoid reality. You can’t learn. And, you hate science.
Did you do the “hammer/hand experiment”?
Numbers please.
The best way to examine a proposed hypothesis is independent check. Give me what I need to confirm the hypothesis for myself.
That means links to data and the formulae required to do the calculations.
EM,
Before the hypothesis, you need to describe the phenomenon which cannot easily be explained by current scientific theory.
Thermometers showing higher temperatures? Why would you not believe this occurs as a result of additional heat?
Pretty simple, really.
Good morning, Mike.
Why would EM make you any sammich, again?
Begone, troll’
OK, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Entropic man explain why we have cooling going on now, but it is only temporary? Numbers please.
La nina. It depresses the global average by about 0.2C for six months or so below the long term trend.
There’s also a +/-0.1C uncertainty in the UAH figures.
Put the two together and I would expect to see a drop of anywhere between 0.1C and 0.3C below the 13 month average. That would be 0.27C and -0.03C.
I can confirm EM’s numbers.
According to Meers 2011 satellite derived TLT temperatures have closer to 0.10C of uncertainty. However, that is 1-sigma. It is usually standard practice to report 2-sigma. That means the Mar 2021 anomaly should be reported as -0.01 +/- 0.2C. For point of comparison surface based datasets report +/- 0.05 of uncertainty.
And in terms of the departure from the trendline the standard deviation is 0.18C. The -0.01C anomaly is a 0.22 departure below the trendline. Hardly noteworthy…
Not having those numbers you want EM is the reason the IPCC uses 29 climate models instead of 1.
The IPCC has nothing to do with it. There is nobody telling scientists what to do.
29 groups thought “Lets build a model.” That’s why there are 29 models.
Clint were going to agree to disagree.
Norman, Clint is clueless great article.
prete, there is a MAJOR mistake in Norman’s link, that neither you not him could find. That’s because neither of you understand anything about physics.
But, you have so much in common with the idiots, you would fit in better with them. They are also anti-science.
The only mistake is in your mind Clint.
None of this matters because the data and how that impacts the climate will have the final say.
As I have said for years the tandem of weak solar/geo magnetic fields will cause the earth to cool. How much depends on how weak the fields become.
We can measure these items so we will see how the weakness impacts the climate.
I also think there is a threshold of weakness if breached will be quite impactful and abrupt.
There is NO evidence a magnetic pole reversal has ever happened, psycho.
Clint you are a joke.
There is lots of evidence of magnetic reversals.
salvatore del prete
I am not sure if you have interacted with Clint R before. You will find him to be a contrarian. He will disagree regardless of a mountain of evidence showing he is wrong. He is a troll. He thrives on getting reactions from posters.
Your hand must have healed, Norman.
You’re out trolling again.
Clint R,
First, I want to say that I agree with many of your statements and ideas about global warming. And here comes the “but”:
To anyone who reads this, I apologize for this long-winded explanation of why I’m afraid you, Clint R, are missing the boat in this discussion about magnetic reversals. There is a dramatic demonstration of magnetic reversals associated with seafloor spreading. Back in the late ’60’s, when I was a college student majoring in Geology, continental drift (today known as plate tectonics) was the subject of massive scientific debate between “believers” and “skeptics”, as energized, but way less ugly, as today’s global warming debate. It was magnetic reversals observed in the ocean crust on each side of the Mid-Atlantic ocean ridge that basically settled that debate and led to subsequent exciting decades of geologic and geophysical research that defined the processes and results of plate tectonics which are well-accepted by the scientific community today.
The magnetic reversals were documented in cores of the oceanic crust collected during the Deep Sea Drilling project. These cores were collected on each side of the Mid-Atlantic ocean ridge, where new ocean crust is being extruded as molten basaltic magma containing elongated iron-bearing minerals that, as the magma cools and solidifies into new ocean crust, orient themselves according to the magnetic polarity of the earth existing at the time of extrusion and solidification. This basaltic magma is extruded on both sides of the ridge essentially at the same time, which results in a mirror image of the magnetic polarity on each side of the ridge for that particular age of ocean crust. And also documented with this core data is the fact that the crust nearest the ridge is younger than the crust farthest from the ridge. And the creation of this new ocean crust is a long process that has been affected by multiple reversals of the earth’s magnetic field. So this process of creating new ocean crust has an end result of multiple bands, paralleling the ridge, of alternating magnetic polarities that are mirror images of each other across the ocean ridge. This conclusive evidence of seafloor spreading was the foundation for the well-known plate tectonic processes that have been documented for the past 60 years.
Maybe all this is common knowledge among all of you who read this, but I haven’t seen any discussion of this seafloor evidence of magnetic reversals; maybe it’s too far in the past to be remembered…
There are seafloor maps of these bands in some of the references presented by others in this discussion if you want a visual of all the above verbiage. I hope this helps.
W Bond, thanks for that. You sound like a real scientist.
I have no interest in a debate about magnetic pole reversals. It remains a belief system. Until we actually witness a pole reversal, it’s all conjecture. Core samples are open to errors and mis-interpretation. I even think some people confuse the wandering poles with reversals. With all the corruption and perversion of science these days, I’ll wait for something scientific.
What we see here is this prete guy trying to twist and distort science to fit his personal beliefs. He has no clue about physics, the scientific method, or reality.
Clint R
I guess you came down here because you are afraid to answer my request.
YOU: “Core samples are open to errors and mis-interpretation.”
So what errors or mis-interpretations do you see taking place?
Where is your science in this? You are blathering with unsupported unscientific opinions. You offer nothing, you don’t explain how you think they got the data wrong. You state your opinions on things but support NONE! Why is this if you like the scientific method as you claim?
Smoke and mirrors and endless contrarian opinions is NOT scientific.
Evidence and supporting data are. The core samples are evidence. You make false claims that there are errors but you are not willing to state those errors. Why is that?
Show us you know at least the basics of magnetic fields by describing what is misleading about Fig. 1 in your link.
Very basic stuff Norman, but you will not be able to understand it.
(Did you do the “hammer/hand experiment yet”?
Clint R
Is it possible that you might be able to show science ability and just explain what you think in misleading about magnetic reversals of the Earth’s poles?
Your point on Figure 1 has no substance, it is a simple diagram with a North/South pole with magnetic lines between the poles. Is your objection that they only drew a couple lines? Not really misleading, how many do they have to draw before you accept the figure? They assume most know about magnetic fields.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b7ee48b4653861a71ba90445b9d15d39.webp
This is an image of how a magnetic field looks via iron filings.
I wonder if you know the Sun has a magnetic field reversal every solar cycle, about 11 years? In your mind you think the Earth doesn’t even though strong supporting evidences shows it does?
You are one messed up mind. Rather a hopeless contrarian. You take opposing positions just for the sake of opposing. You have no support of any of your many positions and most go against evidence based science.
I knew you couldn’t find anything wrong with Fig. 1, Norman. You don’t know anything about science. You know how to type and you know how to do internet searches, but that’s it. You have no background, and you can’t think for yourself. You are trapped in your cult mentality.
People that are well versed in magnetic fields would immediately see what’s wrong with the drawing. The mistake is basic. VERY basic. But, you aren’t even up to the “very basic” level.
You have no interest in science. All you are interested in is your cult. You refuse reality and you refuse learning. You like to insult and misrepresent others though.
Did you do the “hammer/hand” experiment yet?
Clint R
I guess whatever you find necessary to post oddball.
Did you do the “hammer/hand” experiment yet?
It would be a great learning experience. You need to start learning.
You don’t want to be an idiot your whole life, do you?
I think I see what Clint R thinks is misleading about fig 1.
I can only conclude that Clint R is a moron.
And Clint R, how about that 2 pie R thingy?
Have you figured out basic geometry yet?
That’s nice bobby. You are able to use a keyboard. You’re so smart, for a 5 year-old.
Now go take your nap, like a good little boy.
Clint R,
Have you figured out that circles of different diameters have circumferences of different lengths?
Or are you still a geometry flunk out?
bob, the fact that you never have anything intelligent to offer results from you not being very intelligent.
We shouldn’t expect anything to change.
Clint R
Your complaint reminds me of Gordon Roberstson complaint on current.
The actual flow is of electrons so the current flows from negative to positive. But most textbooks keep the older version of electric flow from positive to negative. It does not change anything.
People use both styles to show the Earth’s field.
https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/diagram-showing-earth-magnetic-field-vector-id1185907393?s=612×612
Which you consider a major flaw (although it would not in any way change the information collected by a magnetometer on the ocean floor).
Here is the other version you accept.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Spencer-Balay/publication/331101972/figure/fig32/AS:726371215110150@1550191801630/The-geomagnetic-field-The-Earths-magnetic-field-is-similar-to-a-bar-magnet.png
I would not consider that a serious mistake. You might. That still will not help your point that the Earth’s field does not flip even though strong supporting evidence suggests it actually does.
As I pointed out, the Sun flips its magnetic field every 11 years or so.
As usual Norman, you still don’t get it. Now you’re just wandering all over the place. You’re throwing out everything imaginable to cover up the fact you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Did you do the “hammer/hand” experiment yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_excursion
As I predicted, this La Nina cycle still has a chance of hitting -0.1C by May..
It’s also interesting that 3 IRI/CPC ENSO models predict a double-dip La Nina cycle will develop later this year as occurred in 1970~1974 and 1998~2000.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Over the last few weeks, very cold water off the coasts of Peru and Ecuador have developed which has caused huge drops NINO1 & 2 SSTs, which will soon feed into NINO3~3.4. SSTs.
It is also only a matter of time (3~5 years?) before both the PDO & AMO ocean cycles reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles, which will bring 30+ years of global cooling, thus proving natural ocean cycles, solar cycles. negative cloud feedbacks, ocean heatsinks, LIA recovery, etc., are the primary drivers of climate–not CO2.
It is INSANE US Leftists are trying to pass a $2.2 TRILLION “infrastructure” bill this month (AOC wants $10 TRILLION) which is actually CAGW pork spending bill, of which only 5% will be used for actual infrastructure.
The US already has $30 TRILLION in national debt (which will NEVER be paid off), and $160 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities (which also will NEVER be paid off) and lunatic Leftists want to insanely increase the national debt by $4~5 trillion/year, and implement historically huge economy-destroying corporate, personal and wealth tax hikes to supposedly pay for their insanity, which will actually DECREASE tax revenues because of their devastating economic consequences…
Leftists are destroying our freedoms and the world economy…
Index Nino 1.2 goes down.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
SAMURAI
” As I predicted, this La Nina cycle still has a chance of hitting -0.1C by May ”
Yeah.
Especially when the new reference period shows on average, compared with the previous one, a temperature difference of 264.09 – 263.95 K, that is 0.14 C, what of course lets all monthly anomalies move down.
*
Please wake me up when, in the figure below, (1) the red bar disappears, (2) the yellow one too, and (3) the blue bar comes back to 100 %:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Then we eventually might discuss about your endlessly repeated wishes for a super La Nina, and… for the imminent Grrrrand Cooooling.
J.-P. D.
Bindi don-san:
I’ve never mentioned anything about a “Super La Niña”….
I predicted a year ago the current La Niña would likely be a strong La Niña but it was only a moderate one…
UAH may still hit -0.2C by May, which is what I predicted and what you thought was inconceivable…
Just wait until the PDO & AMO reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles in 3~5 years, which you hilariously think is also inconceivable…
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
If you predicted -0.2C by May a year ago, that would have been on the old baseline, so you are looking at hitting 0.32C on the new baseline, which would match your prediction a year ago, as the baseline for May has shifted +0.12C.
You make the May prediction in January this year:
“By May of this year, the UAH 6.0 global temp anomaly should fall to around -0.1 ~ -0.2C.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2020-0-27-deg-c/#comment-583212
The baseline changed with the February update, after you posted that prediction.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/
So we need to see -0.22 ~ -0.32C to match the prediction you made, or round it down to -0.2 ~ -0.3.
> Leftists want to insanely increase the national debt by $4~5 trillion/year
Right on:
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump
Willard-san:
You Leftist hack…
If you think running up the US National debt by $4~5 TRILLION/year, AFTER COVID Is dunzo, you are an ignorant fool.
The US already has $30 trillion national ;l debt, which will NEVER be paid off, and $160 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, which will also NEVER be paid off.
Insane Leftists like AOC think we should waste $100 TRILLION on the CAGW Hoax when it is already a disconfirmed hypothesis.
Leftists have lost their minds…
AOC- some listen to the insane little leftist who doesn’t even comprehend trillion.
The more we can pull political science out of atmospheric science, the better off atmospheric science will be. And that goes for everything else as well.
How about Occam’s Razor, Rob?
Nice necromancing, btw.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindidon are you ready for the polar vortex?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=europe×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
ren
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter
Click on ‘nachts’, and then on the ‘right’ arrow to move down the nights.
You are such an alarmist…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
I wouldn’t give a dime for your predictions.
https://i.ibb.co/k4HtH1b/Screenshot-5.png
Tomorrow morning will be white in Bavaria.
ren
I’m over 70.
How many times, do you think, did I experience, in the past 60 years, snow in April?
Why, do you think, does the French language contain an idiom as ‘giboulées d'avril’ ?
I recall that, coming back in May 1987 from a 4 week holiday in Spain, there was, on many streets in Berlin, still a grey mix of snow, dust and ice – at all places the Sun couldn’t shine on.
I never experienced that again since then.
And you speak about 3 or 4 snow flakes in Bavaria?
Please calm down!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
It won’t get warmer in Western Europe until about April 14.
https://i.ibb.co/gvdg2J7/gfs-T2m-eu-37.png
Im just thankful climate discussions talking more and more on the realisation of the mostly neglected yet obvious fact that ocean currents play a major role in weather/climate such as El Nio and La Nia cycles in the Pacific plus sunspot activity and not always having discussion on global temperature resulting from some sort of CO2 level control knob when in reality its a small bit player. Look at turn around in Australia compare Dec – April 2020 with same period 2021 more cloud more rain cooler temperatures.
I also note the graph starts at the end of the 1970s cool cycle, so no surprise the temperature trend has a upward trend however it will be interesting if the recent cool trend continues while CO2 keeps rising now around 417ppm. No surprise temperature jumps around as one thing that is constant with weather and climate is change. Having an ongoing cool period would be no surprise and to be expected, but nature always hard to predict.
Note the most impressive peak in the recorded data from 1979 to March 2021 is 1998 a major El Nio event.
Lets hope more research is undertaken on ocean currents and we may then have better input in to future climate models as the current model crop relying on CO2 are consistently wrong and unsurprisingly overstating the warming by factor x2-3 in their predictions. The understanding of variations changes and cycles of the Sun, Ocean Currents, water Vapour, clouds, cosmic activity, volcanic activity etc far more influence than almost exclusively focus and research on demonised trace gas CO2.
With more direct influencing measurable inputs like ocean currents, sun activity and cloud cover etc the more confidence one would have in predicting future weather/climate.
You must be looking at a different suite of models than everyone else. In regards to GCMs most scientists defer to CMIP5 and CMIP6. For an assessment of their skill I recommend the article by Dr. Hausfather. If you scroll down pretty far you’ll see a graph of model predictions with 95% CI and observations. The next graph down is assessment of the warming trend from 1880-2019 and 1970-2019.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
Is it just me or are the usual alarmists here so in denial of the massive cooling that they’re blathering on twice as much? Especially the pseudo intellectual guy.
Darwin Wyatt
To be ” in denial of the massive cooling ” requests it to become visible.
Where do you see it?
Don’t tell me that, like Robertson here, or a guy named Tillman at WUWT, you see a cooling since 2016!
That would be a bad joke. Look at UAH, the ‘coolest’ time series available:
– trend since 2016: -0.13 C / decade
– trend since 2017: +0.28
A simple graph might help:
https://tinyurl.com/w5tbhhrz
If you compute a trend starting at the highest value of a time series, the trend hardly could be positive.
Feel free to show your massive cooling, I have no problem in changing my mind when appropriate.
J.-P. D.
Don’t be so hard on Bill, Darwin.
I think it might be just you, pardner. The ‘alarmists’ don’t care much about monthly excursions. It’s the coolistas that lose their shit when we get a cold month.
The point is the long term trend. One month isn’t much to get excited about. Even if it breaks the record for ‘highest anomaly’ or whatever.
Soon it will start snowing in London, frost at night.
Lots of snow will fall in southern Germany. Frost overnight across Western Europe.
I am the type of person that comes up with a theory and then waits for the data to verify it or not.
Weakening solar/geo magnetic fields can be measured and we will see through data if it impacts the climate or not, and when.
That is science verifying or not through data.
Clint R what governs the climate in your opinion? Sun, CO2? What?
I gave my thoughts.
Sun (solar input), oceans, and atmosphere all interact to control Earth temperature.
Atmospheric CO2 acts as a minor coolant, redistributing thermal energy in the atmosphere to be easily radiated to space.
Clint r
But you then have a problem.
If you add up the increase in ocean heat content, the latent heat melting ice, the warming surface and the warming atmosphere you find that the system is gaining 3*10 exp 22 Joules/year.
This is not energy being moved around within the system, it is energy coming in from outside.
In your view, where is this extra energy coming from and by what mechanism?
You answered your own question, Ent.
“…it is energy coming in from outside.”
And of course, the “mechanism” would be Mr. Sun.
You need to do rather better than that. In a stable climate the amount of energy coming in from the Sun and the amount of energy leaving to space would be equal.
We see energy accumulating, so the amount of energy coming in just be larger than the amount of energy leaving.
If it is not CO2, what is the mechanism causing the energy imbalance and the energy accumulation?
Wrong Ent. “We” don’t see energy accumulating. YOU imagine energy accumulating.
You imagine things to fit your false beliefs. You imagine passenger jets fly backwards. You imagine flux adds. You imagine “cold” can warm “hot”.
I was taught about the relationship between energy, heat and temperature when I was 11.
I was directed to light a Bunsen burner under a beaker of water and record the temperature every thirty seconds for five minutes. Then I turned off the flame and continued to record for another five minutes.
The beaker warmed for as long as heat entered faster than it left, and cooled when heat left faster than it entered.
Planets do the same. UAH shows that the planet is warming by 0.14C/decade which indicates that heat is entering the climate system faster than it is leaving.
Yes, Earth is in a warming trend. Right now, that natural variability is exceeding CO2’s ability to cool the planet. But as more CO2 is released from the oceans, its cooling effect will win out.
> natural variability is exceeding CO2’s ability to cool the planet
Probly the Sun:
https://www.weather.gov/news/201509-solar-cycle
Or not.
Entropic man says:
You need to do rather better than that. In a stable climate the amount of energy coming in from the Sun and the amount of energy leaving to space would be equal.
We see energy accumulating, so the amount of energy coming in just be larger than the amount of energy leaving.
If it is not CO2, what is the mechanism causing the energy imbalance and the energy accumulation?
=========================
Yes energy is accumulating most likely.
Though we will not know for sure until we can actually measure the total heat content of the oceans and do it reliably.
Currently ocean heat uptake is being driven by an even looser concept of continental uplift from the loss of ice sheets on land. I don’t even know what drives the continental uplift calculations. Perhaps they are driven like Mike Mann’s Hockey Stick for all I know.
But heat accumulation by a planet is probably what planets do for long periods of time just naturally. The various ways that could occur are largely unknown but something like a 1% change in cloud cover could conceivably set a long term warming spell off that could proceed for 1,500 years.
The cloud changes would in turn start a period of decreasing ice
Decreasing ice could be responsible for most of the warming we have seen instead of vice versa.
An indicator thats the case is ice has been decreasing for at least 50 years and atmospheric temperatures for 40 years. Is ice loss driving temperature change in its sign?
There are some interocean processes that occur that could accelerate heat leaving the ocean all the while reduced clouds were increasing the amount reaching the ocean from the sun affecting the atmosphere (which an increase in solar activity probably has little effect doing)
Since these interocean processes involve thermohaline currents right at the bottom of the ocean it currently is all beyond our view and thus the impacts are unseen.
We need to know the processes going on in the ocean to understand feedbacks and understand how much warming we have committed to. The information is so valuable it could entail a complete change to current climate theories.
I have heard a commitment to figure that out. It would be nice that if in another 6 to 10 years we have good data to support the direction the ocean is going and in comparison to the way we have been guessing it has been going we could be a lot smarter about this.
If Svensmark is right. Without that information it could take a hundred years or more to get the right answer. It took maybe 150 years from the Maunder Minimum to the glacial maximum. thats the nature of big system momentum.
God may have committed us to a 150 more years of warming by a process we really haven’t hardly begun to investigate.
If you doubt that realize that ice accounts for a large portion of the 23 watts in the Trenberth budget and what are we talking about in wattage? 3 of those watts? the 1% cloud change gets us .7 of that. ice melt how much? there is a dirty smell of politics permeating this entire deal. Why don’t talk about that daily? Is it alarmism that wants us to focus instead on just GHG like a horse with blinders? I can hear Nate with his move along nothing to see here BS.
Its simple stuff to hypothesize an alternative. But to test these things we need to understand the entire convective system of heat exchange on the planet. When I first studied this the first thing I noticed was how oceans were being treated. . . .essentially they were being ignored.
With the right commitment I believe we could get there in maybe a decade assuming good execution. So if democrats want to declare war on warming, remember what every shooter is told, ready. . . .aim. . . .fire in that order. They do that and go with what we learn they will find out also that the general population is a whole lot smarter than the egotistical elites think they are.
“Currently ocean heat uptake is being driven by”…an astonishingly long list of Bill’s made-up BS.
These guys have no shame..
Nate please stop trolling. If you don’t like something on the list make an argument for why.
This is your standard gish gallop.
Do you not get why those are impossible to sensibly respond to?
Make one or two clear concise points, and I can respond to them.
Nate is it your standard gish gallop to not be able to point to any evidence of anything you claim ever?
I can see why DREMT stopped responding to you. You are not a nice person.
okay your more in line with me then I thought.
> Atmospheric CO2 acts as a minor coolant
Imagine if menz did not dump all this carbon into the atmosphere during last century.
The Earth would have been quite hawt.
Ha…I never thought about that angle before. According to this contrarian argument anthroprogenic emissions are actually suppressing the warming and that if we stop emitting the warming rate will go even higher. Maybe the contrarians are the alarmists?
bdgwx, says: “I never thought about that angle before.”
bdgwx, maybe you should quit trying different “angles” to pervert reality. Maybe you should accept reality, as it is.
Just a thought….
Arctic air is beginning to flow in a wide stream to Western Europe. In Iceland, the temperature is now lower than in winter.
https://i.ibb.co/M8JycLm/h-image.gif
Now that’s odd.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2021/04/march-global-surface-templs-up-0252.html
UAH is down 0.19C and templs up by 0.25C.
Despite the rude remarks about the inaccuracy of different temperature sets there is not usually this much disagreement.It will be interesting to see what the other datasets show for March.
For a direct comparison on a common baseline to go to moyhu’s data page.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
and the graph comparing datasets on a common baseline.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/T/mth1.png
That is a rather large difference isn’t it. The largest difference was 0.52 in October 1984. The standard deviation on the month-to-month change differences is 0.09. It’s probably not a normal distribution otherwise this 0.45 difference would be a 5-sigma event so I think the distribution has large tails. Still it is pretty unusual for it to be that large.
As long as the SSTs near Peru / Ecuador
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_global_1.png
don’t look dark blue like near California, everybody understands that they keep above 20 C.
No need for any alarmism!
Moreover, a quick analysis of the Nino 1+2 region
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/nina1.data
shows this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NitnFzTyHrfkidkSYKo7hPoT5Imaptq9/view
We are far away from any huge drop.
Btw, we see here the difference between the peaks in 1982, 1998 and 2016 when looking
– at UAH
– at the NINO regions.
J.-P. D.
How to change energy coming into earth and leaving earth and it is NOT the concentration changes in CO2. I do not see how a trace gas with a trace increase is going to drive the climate not to mention as it increases it’s impact from increasing concentrations becomes less.
So what can it be? I have to say it again I think it is weak solar and geo magnetic fields in tandem (which give maximum effects or perhaps solar alone) which in my opinion will lead to an increase in earth’s albedo through the promotion of more clouds, more explosive volcanic eruptions , greater snow/sea ice coverage, and a more meridional atmospheric circulation, lower sea surface temperatures..
The mechanisms for that to happen are an increase in galactic cosmic rays, charged energetic particles in general, a stronger global electrical circuit, increase in UV radiation, all as a result of the weaker magnetic fields.
This is my thinking. I can’t back it up with science per say but data can back it up as we move forward in time. Data will show or not show if there is a climatic response to given values of solar/geo magnetic activity.
It is an experiment with nature in real time. Right now solar magnetic activity is in the tank and has been since 205 for the most part , and geo magnetic intensity is declining very fast but from a high value so it’s current strength although on the decline has not reached anywhere record low values yet.
Now going back to the Little Ice Age Solar was in the tank but the Geo Magnetic Field was stronger then today.
This is a big puzzle which can only be guessed at until more definitive data is accumulated and then contrasted to what the resultant climate does.
My thinking may be way off but I have had this thought in mind long before the current thinking that some now have in regards to k the geo magnetic field does indeed have a role in the global climate. The 42,000 year geo magnetic event the Laschamp excursion being all the talk of the town of late.
I am not saying this is correct or not but I lean towards it, when I contrast it to all other possible reasons to explain why and how the climate changes.
I don’t think we can back up any theory on why the climate changes with hard scientific facts for if we could the puzzle would be solved.
My two cents I know some of you will say I am full of it but that is my honest thinking on the subject. I am not a top notch scientist but just a guy very interested in this subject.
salvatore said: I do not see how a trace gas with a trace increase is going to drive the climate
Mount Tambora erupted in 1815 and lofted 100 MtSO2 into the atmosphere. It caused the so called year without a summer in 1816. That was only 100 Mt. Humans are lofting 35,000 Mt of CO2 into the atmosphere every single year.
salvatore said: Now going back to the Little Ice Age Solar was in the tank but the Geo Magnetic Field was stronger then today.
Both the MWP and LIA were most acute in the periphery of the North Atlantic. They were not globally synchronous events.
It’s hard to compete with nature when it comes to adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But, that doesn’t mean we should give up. Every little bit helps. We all should strive to increase CO2, even if our efforts pale in comparison to nature.
Think of just helping one little blueberry. If each of us adds one little blueberry worth of CO2, that’s over 7 billion blueberries!
We CAN make a difference.
Actually nature doesn’t change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond an annual oscillation.
Nature given (respiration) and taketh away (photosynthesis) and the two processes cancel out.
That’s why our contribution is so important.
EM,
Nature provides all that sequestered C and H in fossil fuels for us to redress Nature’s inadvertent removal of too much CO2 from the atmosphere.
No balance there. We need to use Nature’s bounty, and not be churlish.
More CO2 – more plants! More H2O – ditto!
What’s the problem? Don’t believe in food? Or do you support starvation – as long as it happens to others?
Only joking, of course. What rational person would support removing CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere?
“But plant food” does not even pass John’s list, Mike:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm
W,
Who is John? Is he related to Mike or Charlie?
As I said, what rational person would support removing CO2 and H2O from the air?
Try growing some plants without both!
Good luck – you’ll need it.
What an idiot you are.
Willard
While science can explore anything if funded, reporting as collective wake like above is doomsday prayer of negativity and serves only one purpose. That is the establishment and promotion of religious authority in a secular system calling on the funds of people for salvation. The World Bank asked for US$89 trillion with the UN asking for US$120 trillion. Those funds could never arrive if salvation was imminent.
Experiments do show that plants can increase growth by 35% (C3) under warmer conditions with CO2 increases. Most glass house production and (even in field production) will use CO2 or C compounds to enhance production. So why listen to dunderheads who only look backwards?
Take the comment about reduced protein. Some of the world people just don’t get enough food. A non strenuous existence does not require more than 30g protein per day. A person relying on 100g wheat to get 10g, say, of protein then under enhanced CO2 conditions he gets 12.5g from the same patch of ground so there is a surplus 25% of protein to give to someone else.
If the world was simply to rely on looking backwards we would never have advanced or been able to sustain this level of population. It may not be politic but Oz Aboriginal culture with its richness in ancestral worship and dream-time produced little by way of innovation or technical progress.
William Farrer, an Englishman came to Oz in the late 19th century. He pioneered the development of various strains of wheat suitable for Oz – with resistance to rust and bunt or smut-ball. His work and understanding Oz soils (much is poor soil) for say trace element deficiencies has led to Oz being one of the major exporters of wheat worldwide.
When nature gives you a good head start it does not pay to kick it down a sinkhole! Viva CO2!
Oh btw, with the real experiment already halfway to 550ppm are there no relevant studies of the actual effects yet?
Aah yes, look at the site this piece came from – Cook’s SS and the 97% BS story.
> Some of the world people just don’t get enough food.
You know damn well that it’s not a production problem, tonyM.
So that boat won’t float.
Trying to fly with a deflated balloon does not make you a guru.
“Around the world, 690 million people regularly go to bed hungry, according to a report from the United Nations food agencies ”
https://www.worldvision.org/hunger-news-stories/world-hunger-facts
If you don’t believe that increased productivity will reduce prices and benefit poorer people you must have an easy solution.
In any case that misses the point being made – simply that more efficient production of nutritious food will emerge by expanding the growth zones (T+CO2) and lower water requirements. Heavens it would not be hard to substitute some chic peas to a diet to increase protein intake.
> I do not see how a trace gas with a trace increase is going to drive the climate
Neither do I see how traces of dye can blacken an ink, Salvatore.
Eppur si scrivere.
As I said to ClintR, ultimately it’s all about energy flow.
Whatever mechanism you postulate it has to explain the energy imbalance we observe and the consequent changes in temperature.
Your hypothesis has to make testable predictions about the relationship between your chosen causes and the observed energy flows.
Ultimately, it’s all about science.
CO2 does NOT add energy to the system. Passenger jets do NOT fly backwards and sideways.
Your hypothesis has to agree with the laws of physics.
I agree with you. Almost all the energy entering the system comes from the Sun.
CO2 does not add energy to the system. It stops some of the energy which entered as sunlight leaving again as infra-red.
Since more energy enters than leaves, some of it accumulates and the temperature rises.
You overlooked the last sentence, Ent. “Your hypothesis has to agree with the laws of physics.”
Energy accumulating does NOT always mean an increase in temperature. Two ice cubes aren’t hotter than one ice cube. Two CO2 molecules aren’t hotter than one CO2 molecule.
ClintR
“Energy accumulating does NOT always mean an increase in temperature. ”
Examples come to mind.
If I add 334 joules of heat to 1g of water at 0C I get 1g of water at 80C. The extra heat has raised the water’s temperature.
If I add 334 joules to 1g of ice at 0C I get 1g of water at OC. The heat has become latent heat as the ice melted, without changing temperature.
Similarly a simmering saucepan stays at 100C while the extra heat from the hob turns water to steam.
On Earth about 4% of the energy imbalance is melting ice with no temperature change. 89% is warming water, 6% is warming land and 1% is warming air.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/where-does-heat-go
“If I add 334 joules..”
Yes Ent, adding energy to a system can result in increasing temperatures. But CO2 does NOT add energy to the system.
I agree CO2 is not a source of energy, therefore it can’t add energy.
Exactly.
CO2 absorbs infrared radiations from the system, and therefore cools it. Sure, CO2 is also part of the system, but it’s only 0,04% of the atmosphere.
Hence why CO2 sometimes acts as feedback.
“But CO2 does NOT add energy to the system. ”
I think everyone here, on both sides of the debate, will agree on that. The energy added comes from sunlight.
However, the effect of extra CO2 is to increase temperature. The extra heat enters as sunlight, but the CO2 stops a small proportion of it from leaving. That small proportion accumulates over time.
EM,
Complete nonsense. At night, the surface cools. Winter is colder than summer.
Arid tropical deserts cool really fast at night. Very little of the supposedly most important GHG, H2O.
Try “accumulating” some heat. Think it through – what would you store it in?
Anything hotter than its environment, cools. Face reality.
Swenson
“Try accumulating some heat. Think it through what would you store it in?
Anything hotter than its environment, cools. Face reality.”
As I said, 89% of the accumulating heat ends up in the ocean, and most of the ocean volume is below the temperature of the surface. That makes it a good heat sink
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
Swenson nails it, Ent.
Energy does NOT “accumulate” like you want it to. Heat a pot of water to boiling point. Then heat a second pot of water to boiling point. You only have a temperature of boiling point. The temperatures do NOT “accumulate”.
Fill a room with CO2 at temperature “T”. Then, add more CO2 at temperature “T”. You still only get temperature “T”.
You’re trying to pervert reality to fit your false beliefs.
It’s not working for you, is it?
EM,
Complete nonsense. Heat from the Sun does not “accumulate” in the oceans or anywhere else.
Any water heated by the sun becomes warmer, and floats. At night, it cools and sinks, being replaced by less dense water beneath. Oceans get colder with increasing depth, to the point where the densest water sits on the bottom.
Unlike the crust, where temperatures increase with depth. No accumulation there, either. Another delusional climatological fairy tale.
I repeat, try accumulating some heat. Do you really believe you can store heat in defiance of the laws of physics?
Face reality.
> Fill a room with CO2
If the Earth is the room, what are its walls?
W,
If your brains were dynamite, would you have enough to blow your nose?
That’s an intriguing fantasy of yours, Mike. You trying to make it happen might go against the laws of civil society.
Why don’t you stick to denying enthalpy?
W,
What are you blathering about?
What an idiot you are!
Look here, Mike.
ClintR said: Energy does NOT accumulate like you want it to
It accumulates in accordance with the 1LOT. dU = Q – W or in energy form dE = Ein – Eout.
ClintR said: The temperatures do NOT accumulate.
Strawman alert. EM did not say that.
BTW…in your dual boiling pot of water scenario the energy being added to water continues to accumulate even as the water temperature clamps out at 100C. It does so via the enthalpy of vaporization. Double the pots…double the enthalpy of vaporization.
Ya know…instead of questioning energy (im)balance perhaps you should consider that maybe the 1LOT really is an unassailable physical law or reality. Just a thought…
b,
Put a sealed container of seawater in sunlight in summer.Take its temperature.
Let it absorb sunlight until the middle of winter, 10 years later. Take its temperature.
Hmmmm. Absorbing sunlight for several years resulted in a temperature fall.
A consensus of idiots believes otherwise. I prefer facts, to a consensus of the faithful.
Sorry bdgwx, but you don’t understand the issue. I gave several examples, but as usual, you couldn’t understand any of them.
One ice cube can only warm something that is at a colder temperature. But, it can ONLY warm to the ice cube’s own temperature. Two ice cubes can NOT make it hotter.
Same with pots of water.
Same with CO2 molecules.
That’s not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, it’s UNDERSTANDING the laws of thermodynamics. We know you can quote the laws that you find on the internet. But it’s your UNDERSTANDING that is missing. You try to balance flux! You believe that is science, because it is part of your cult beliefs. That makes you an idiot. Flux is NOT conserved. It does NOT “balance”.
> Flux is NOT conserved
Let me guess, Clint. An electrical engineer?
Of course energy accumulating ALWAYS means an increase in temperature SOMEWHERE.
Flux is conserved when in reference to the same area and same time period. We’ve gone over this ad-nauseum with ClintR. I even proved it mathematically on multiple occasions. This is yet another way he subtly challenges the 1st law of thermodynamics. The others include statements about energy balance and the radiative heat transfer equation being bogus. Until we are successful in convincing him that the 1LOT is an unassailable physical law of reality we probably won’t have much luck in convincing him that a positive energy imbalance will necessarily result in a temperature increase or enthalpy increase somewhere.
Wrong again, bdgwx. Flux is NOT conserved. You keep confusing flux with energy.
A blackbody sphere in space absorbing 960 W/m^2 from Sun would be emitting 240 W/m^2 at equilibrium. 960 does NOT equal 240.
You can’t get it right, and you can’t learn.
But, that’s not why you’re an idiot. You’re an idiot because you reject reality, even to the point of having to make things up. You’re trying to claim I have something against 1LoT. That makes you an idiot.
I’m not confusing anything.
F = E / (AT)
Since E is conserved and A and T are constant and in reference to the same thing then F must be conserved as well. The math does not lie.
And we’ve already gone over the TSI thing with you. TSI is 1360 W/m^2. That is the value perpendicular to the surface average over 1 orbital period. Projecting this onto a sphere yields 340 W/m^2; not 960 W/m^2. And if you factor in Earth’s albedo then only 240 W/m^2 is actually absorbed. No one other than you is saying or implying that 960 = 240.
bdgwx, flux is NOT conserved.
960 does NOT equal 240.
I predict this time next year you will still not understand.
Mike.
Mike.
You just fantasized about blowing my brains out with dynamite.
Do you really think you’re gonna gaslight your way out of this image of yours?
Here’s enthalpy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
You’re really lucky that EM is a good guy. Try to sound more reasonable. Clint is starting to realize that it might be a good idea.
Enjoy your day,
W
W,
Learn to comprehend what you read.
I wrote –
“If your brains were dynamite, would you have enough to blow your nose?”
Just a question. Of course you don’t have to answer.
Your quote is misleading. Climatological propaganda. Any energy from the Sun absorbed by the ocean is promptly emitted during the night. Some people obviously don’t accept physical reality.
You wrote –
“Youre really lucky that EM is a good guy. Try to sound more reasonable. Clint is starting to realize that it might be a good idea.”
Ooooh! The voice of the idiot. Should I be worried? Should I change my views? Should I care what an anonymous stranger might or might not be starting to realise?
You really are an idiot, aren’t you?
> Just a question.
JAQing off is for losers, Mike.
W,
More obscure nonsense just makes you look like a floundering idiot.
Why don’t you revert to posting links that I don’t click on?
Are you obsessed with “winning”? What sort of prize do you get for “winning”?
Who do you think cares?
You’re an idiot, clear and simple.
> Why dont you revert to posting links that I dont click on?
Because I could not care less about you, Mike.
You reply to me, I reply to you.
That’s all that matters.
Willard, please stop trolling.
salvatore said: I do not see how a trace gas with a trace increase is going to drive the climate
Therefore you lack the scientific knowledge to see how the trace gas Ozone, making up 0.0012% of atmosphere above 20km altitude, can “literally be the reason we are able to exist here on Earth?”
That is much different then driving a massive climatic system.
Sure, you go with that.
Facts are stubborn things
UV-B in the spectral range 0.28 to 0.32 microns is about 1.3% of solar output and is fortunately 99% absorbed by Ozone in the stratosphere.
Thermal IR is about 0.9% of solar output and CO2 has important absorp-tion features in this spectral range.
The quantum mechanics principles responsible are the same.
T,
A concrete block absorbs far more thermal IR than CO2.
You don’t understand what you are talking about, do you?
Mike,
Maybe you could say what you mean, rather than resorting to poorly thought analogies.
If you think it makes you appear clever, it just demonstrates what an idiot you are.
Willard, please stop trolling.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
Thermal IR is about 0.9% of solar output and CO2 has important absorp-tion features in this spectral range.
————
virtually all solar radiation is thermal. IR is thought to be more than 50% of the total.
You can see that with an eyeball of the distribution of sunlight here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg/1024px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png
bill hunter 12:37 PM says: virtually all solar radiation is thermal. IR is thought to be more than 50% of the total.
Your linked figure shows the spectrum out to ~2.585 microns; since Thermal IR is in the approximate range of 4-50 microns, I don’t follow your logic.
The Electromagnetic spectrum: https://ibb.co/8dkypqG
Using Planck’s Law the solar band radiance is 0.12 W/m2.sr between 12-18 um at TOA. The terrestrial band radiance is 22.2 W/m2.sr between 12-18 um at TOA. In other words terrestrial flux is about 185x higher than solar flux in this band. Note that I selected 12-18 um since it is centered on 15 um with a +/- 3 tail. So there is FAR more terrestrial radiation that CO2 can block than solar radiation. This is why increasing CO2 leads to a positive EEI.
”This is why increasing CO2 leads to a positive EEI.”
Correction: substitute ‘could lead’ for ‘leads’
There is ‘could’ needed. It is not controversial in the slightest. Not even the most vocal “skeptics” challenge that CO2 is a GHG.
What is the definition of a greenhouse gas bdgwx?
No reply from bill hunter reveals that he did not know that Thermal IR exists only in the rage of 4-50 microns of the solar spectrum and therefore his comment that “virtually all solar radiation is thermal. IR is thought to be more than 50% of the total” is wrong. You’ve been schooled!
bill,
A GHG is any gas species that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range. These are usually polyatomic molecules that have vibrational models that are activated by thermal radiation. Terrestrial radiation is within the thermal range.
“A GHG is any gas species that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range.”
bdgwx, to be helpful, you need to be way more specific. All gases absorb and emit within the IR bands at all temperatures.
Since the vibrational motions of a molecule can be expressed as a sum of normal modes, each with a characteristic frequency, those gases with spectral line frequencies in the infrared band of interest are called infrared active by spectroscopists. For example, water vapor & CO2 are infrared active; nitrogen and oxygen gas, for the most part, are infrared inactive but still measured to emit and absorb radiation feebly in the IR due their huge quantities at earthen STP.
Thermal is short for therm-odynamic intern-al so when you write:
“Terrestrial radiation is within the thermal range.”
your meaning really is terrestrial radiation is within the thermodynamic internal range which of course has little meaning & can be improved.
bill asks: “What is the definition of a greenhouse gas bdgwx?”
Greenhouse gases are produced from resident cats with digestive problems.
bdgwx says:
A GHG is any gas species that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range. These are usually polyatomic molecules that have vibrational models that are activated by thermal radiation. Terrestrial radiation is within the thermal range.
=========================
Not sure what the point is. Does it not produce heat if visible and uv rays come from the sun?
I personally think it is misleading to say that GHGs “produce” heat/energy. I think it is better say they “trap” heat. “Produce” implies that heat/energy is created by GHGs which GHGs do not do. “Trap” implies that the heat/energy is impeded upon escape. Of course, “trap” isn’t really perfect either for reasons I don’t want to get into right now. But if limited to a single word “trap” is about as good as any for conveying the general idea.
Anyway, yeah, solar radiation is not impeded by CO2 and other GHGs in any significant way. And by the 1LOT if Ein is unaffected and Eout is reduced then dE > 0. There are some interesting and counterintuitive details regarding the exact behavior of Ein and Eout when changes are induced by GHGs or any external forcing for that matter. We discuss the details if you want.
bdgwx says:
”Of course, trap isnt really perfect either for reasons I dont want to get into right now. But if limited to a single word trap is about as good as any for conveying the general idea.”
Good to know we are dealing with something yet to be described and that we should be happy with a ‘general idea’.
ROTFLOL!
lol that is exactly what you said troll
you just lack the wit to understand it
Galactic radiation increased, as during the cycle minimum.
https://i.ibb.co/xG4t4Bf/monitor.gif
Here we see “a few snowflakes” in Bavaria.
https://i.ibb.co/4sdTwFK/Screenshot-5.png
Go to
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/bayern
click on ‘nachts’ and move on over the days.
On Friday, the snow will go down to 5 %.
You are such a boring alarmist.
Clint position is caution and proof I understand.
I think this decade will be telling.
I know I said last decade. I was Wrong!
I am just not good enough to pin point it but I will take being a decade off even 50 years off in the scheme of things.
ClintR
“Thats why our contribution is so important.”
Yes. The natural carbon cycle does not change the amount of CO2 in circulation, just moves it around. What we add is gradually increasing the total amount.
Perhaps, EM, but you forget that every time we breathe out carbon dioxide, we are cooling the atmosphere a little.
We’re the earth’s gas cooler. Simple when you think about it.
I don’t know about you, but the CO2 I exhale is at 37C, and Northern Ireland never gets that warm. Definitely warms the local atmosphere.
Ireland is kept cool because of the CO2 in its favorite drink.
Irishmen are cool because of Guinness?
Couldn’t agree more!
“What we add is gradually increasing the total amount.”
And the more CO2 we add, the more blueberries like it.
> the more CO2 we add, the more blueberries like it.
A pity CO2 cools the Earth, then.
W,
If you are so worried about CO2 cooling, stop breathing.
What an idiot you are!
You are confusing me with Clint, Mike.
Take the time to read back the thread.
W,
You wrote –
“A pity CO2 cools the Earth, then.”
If you are so worried about cooling, stop emitting CO2. Don’t breathe!
What an idiot you are!
Make me, dear Mike.
W,
I can’t make you into an idiot.
You made yourself into one! At least you didn’t have to put much effort into the process.
Just as well.
It’s the “stop emitting CO2. Don’t breathe!” part, Mike.
I think you know what happens when people stop breathing.
The whole meme looks a bit silly to anyone who knows the basics of the carbon cycle, but then it’s par for the contrarian course.
W,
I wrote –
“If you are so worried about cooling, stop emitting CO2. Dont breathe!”
You don’t have to take any notice, of course.
Just like nobody has to take any notice of your desires.
You can ignore reality to your heart’s desire. It wont change a single physical fact. Bad luck for idiots who think otherwise.
Pure, direct, unadulterated gaslighting.
That’s better.
W,
Maybe you could say what you mean, rather than resorting to trendy neologisms.
If you think it makes you appear clever, it just demonstrates what an idiot you are.
I see you’re not a TS Eliot fan, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Central Europe is already in the multi-day embrace of Arctic air masses. There will be freezing at night and convective snowfall with possible lightning during the day.
https://i.ibb.co/2hvy2Lw/pobrane.png
I suggest that the people of Germany take note of my predictions, as their own are doing poorly.
Ren
It snowed in ireland last night, the result of a similar, but less extreme, cold incursion like the one that froze Texas recently.
This instability in the polar front is getting more frequent. I wonder why?
NH springs are typically unstable due to the seasonal weakening of the Polar Vortex. Of course, the “returning” Sun also adds to the instability.
It can get quite complicated….
Entropic man
Just look at the current polar vortex pattern in the lower stratosphere. This explains the air circulation. You have to remember that the polar vortex renewed in March.
https://i.ibb.co/DrBHpVN/gfs-z100-nh-f24.png
CO2 of course, if you are not happy with the outcome.
The aggressiveness of the defender of Global Warming is impressive. There is no doubt that the cold hurt him and he feels cornered.
tyson mcgoof..”salvatore said: I do not see how a trace gas with a trace increase is going to drive the climate
Therefore you lack the scientific knowledge to see how the trace gas Ozone, making up 0.0012% of atmosphere above 20km altitude, can literally be the reason we are able to exist here on Earth?”
***
UV radiation makes up about 10% of solar output and of that 10% only a fraction is the harmful radiation.
I’m not sold on the UV theory anyway. We have been bs’ed that opening of the ozone holes will be harmful. Now we have an ozone hole over each pole and I don’t see a lot of people dying from it.
There is obviously a lot of UV getting through otherwise there would be no suntans. The amount that gets through can cause skin cancer, so exactly what is being blocked?
You can’t compare UV to the IR absorbed by CO2. UV is considerably more powerful. A little bit of it warms the stratosphere but the IR at the lower end of the spectrum cannot warm CO2 enough to be significant.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556191
Gordon Robertson wrote November 20, 2020 at 7:10 PM
“Here’s feedback I just sent to NASA re Bob’s link.
Hiwould you please correct the error on your misconceptions page about the Moon rotating on its axis. It is simply not possible for the Moon to keep the same face toward the Earth while rotating on its axis. You are likely confusing a change in pointing direction of the near face during the orbit as local rotation but it is actually due to curvilinear translation.
Nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Gordon said NASA’s response was to merely claim the “relative to the stars” nonsense. They avoided correcting their mistakes.
–Gordon Robertson says:
April 6, 2021 at 12:41 AM
tyson mcgoof..”salvatore said: I do not see how a trace gas with a trace increase is going to drive the climate
Therefore you lack the scientific knowledge to see how the trace gas Ozone, making up 0.0012% of atmosphere above 20km altitude, can literally be the reason we are able to exist here on Earth?”
***
UV radiation makes up about 10% of solar output and of that 10% only a fraction is the harmful radiation.–
So when Earth is at distance where sunlight is 1360 watt, 136 watts per square is UV [UVA, UVB, and UVC].
“only about 10 percent of sunlight is UV, and only about one-third of this penetrates the atmosphere to reach the ground,”
So when sun at zenith about 45 watts per square meter reaches surface.
“Of the solar UV energy that reaches the equator, 95 percent is UVA and 5 percent is UVB.”
[At Equator is somewhat important in terms of UVA and UVB.]
So, 45 times .95 = 42.75 watts per square meter of UVA and
45 times .05 = 2.25 watts per square meter of UVB
And wiki says: “If the extraterrestrial solar radiation is 1367 watts per square meter…In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).”
With direct sunlight 1050 watts and including indirect sunlight
1120 watts at zenith. 3% to 5% of 1050 watts is 31.5 watt to 52.5 watts
And 1120 watts of direct and indirect UV: 33.6 to 56 watts per square meter.
UVC is all blocked atmosphere, by O2, CO2, and water vapor, though surface skin or eyes can damaged if exposed to it. A distance of say, 10 feet of distance air will scatter/block the effect from a device which uses UVC light for disinfection
UVA is closest to blue light and like blue light it goes rather deep into the ocean. Or UVA fairly easily goes thru the atmosphere and ocean and is not absorbed or block by Ozone. But like blue light, obviously stuff which is not transparent will absorb or reflect it.
Some UVB is absorbed by the Ozone:
“Ozone absorbs UV-B radiation from the sun. When an ozone molecule absorbs UV-B, it comes apart into an oxygen molecule (O2) and a separate oxygen atom (O). Later, the two components can reform the ozone molecule (O3)”
And at equator, sunlight goes thru less atmosphere because sun spend more time closer to zenith. Or whenever the sun is 30 degree [or less] below the horizon it’s going thru twice {or more] of atmospheric mass- and twice or more of ozone part of atmosphere.
And I believe it’s in the UVB part of UV spectrum, which makes Vitamin D, which would be greatly diminished when sun is low above the horizon.
“I’m not sold on the UV theory anyway. We have been bs’ed that opening of the ozone holes will be harmful. Now we have an ozone hole over each pole and I don’t see a lot of people dying from it.”
Well ozone zone has nothing to do with UVC nor with UVA and absorbs some of UVB. And holes at poles should have much affect because one should have hardly any UVB because sun in lower on horizon. Though the higher elevation of Antarctic could cause more UVB and UVA,
Hmm:
“There is a large variation of UV radiation in Antarctica. In winter, when there’s very low levels, vitamin D deficiency is a real threat.
But in summer, the study found that the extended duration of sunlight, the hole in the ozone layer and the light’s reflection off the ice and water contributed to the high levels of UV radiation exposure.
This meant a higher risk of UV damage to the skin and the eyes, with long-term effects including potential skin cancers, Ayton said.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-antarctica-sunburn/antarctic-researchers-need-solid-sun-block-study-idUSTRE5BK10120091221
And:
The success of the Montreal Protocol in curbing increases in harmful solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the Earth’s surface has recently been demonstrated. This study also provided evidence that the UV Index (UVI) measured by SUV-100 spectroradiometers at three Antarctic sites (South Pole, Arrival Heights, and Palmer Station) is now decreasing.”
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/11/8/795
And:
Ultraviolet rays from the sun may be disrupting the natural ecology of the waters of Antarctica’s Southern Ocean.
https://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/4357/
And:
This result could be attributed to a limited amount of short-wavelength UV radiation reaching the ground surface as a result of the low height of the sun in September, when the ozone hole occurred. In fact, UV radiation measurements taken at Syowa Station indicate that short-wavelength UV radiation in the range 290-295 nm was not detected until approximately 1-2 months after the beginning of the ozone hole occurrence.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22419356/
UVA, or near UV (315–400 nm)
UVB, or middle UV (280–315 nm)
UVC, or far UV (180–280 nm)
Hmm, reflection from snow and water
It seems the get sun burns rather than sunlight tans-
I think it’s from UVA. Or something to do reflection from water or snow.
Water bends light. And at 10 degrees above horizon, water is highly reflective {bends light}.
So, can’t bending light effect the spectrum of light, red shift it??
Could bent light be change the spectrum of UV into a more harmful UV light?
And at poles [or winter anywhere- such burning occur anywhere with snow] one going to have long durations of sunlight around 10 degrees- or in tropics there is very short duration where sunlight is at 10 degree above horizon. Or an hour before sunset [15 degrees} in tropics “happens” fast- goes from 15 to zero quicker than anywhere in the world. So in snow in tropic, do people get sunburns?
Mt Everest, climbers get sunburns, but high elevation and longer sunset- due to elevation and outside of tropics.
So, not going count Mt Everest climbers.
Gordon.
The problem I have with the Ozone layer is that the holes discovery coincided with the ability to find them.
Similarly global warming coincided with the ability to accurately monitor global temperature.
Although proxy measurements give a guide they do not give the detail of modern measurements.
Furthermore, they make sure its very, very accurate – with appropriate adjustments.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39128.0;attach=14558;image
This is the best I can come up with showing current geo magnetic field strength. I see the rapid fall off of late. It looks like it is around value 6 down from value 8 around year 2000.
Any one know the exact current value I am very interested and want to monitor this as much as possible.
Speaking about monitoring, total percentage of global cloud coverage is another obscure thing to obtain data on.
Any one have a means to get updated data on that?
Thanks.
Salvatore
You asked upthread:
” Clint R, what governs the climate in your opinion? Sun, CO2? What?
I gave my thoughts. ”
The commenter replied:
” Sun (solar input), oceans, and atmosphere all interact to control Earth temperature.
Atmospheric CO2 acts as a minor coolant, redistributing thermal energy in the atmosphere to be easily radiated to space. ”
*
What Clint R wrote is what he said over and over again, and it is sheer nonsense.
{ Personally, I would never trust the opinion of a person who calls anyone an idiot (!) just because s/he is convinced, through reading numerous books and writings, that the Moon rotates about an internal axis, and that Moon’s complex motions never could be described by trivial examples such as a ball on a string or the like. }
But that in turn is no reason for you to trust me!
So I suggest that you take a look instead at what Roy Spencer thinks about CO2’s currently tiny role. Do what you want with it.
*
From Roy Spencer’s thread
UAH, RSS, NOAA, UW: Which Satellite Dataset Should We Believe?
April 23rd, 2019
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
The AIRS Study
” NASA’s Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder (AIRS) has thousands of infrared channels and has provided a large quantity of new remote sensing information since the launch of the Aqua satellite in early 2002.
AIRS has even demonstrated how increasing CO2 in the last 15+ years has reduced the infrared cooling to outer space at the wavelengths impacted by CO2 emission and absorp-tion, the first observational evidence I am aware of that increasing CO2 can alter — however minimally — the global energy budget. ”
*
That, Salvatore, looks sound and knowledged.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, your mind is confused and, with your language problems, you are unable to communicate clearly. Yet, I keep thinking that the laws of probability will catch up with you, and you will eventually get something right.
I keep waiting….
I know idiots, like Bindidon, hate science, so since I have some free time…
Clint stated: “Atmospheric CO2 acts as a minor coolant, redistributing thermal energy in the atmosphere to be easily radiated to space.”
Idiot Bindidon responded: “What Clint R wrote is what he said over and over again, and it is sheer nonsense.”
What idiot Bindidon does not understand is that CO2 molecules receive energy two ways — by absorbing photons or by collisions with other molecules. CO2 molecules lose energy in two ways — by emitting photons or by collisions with other molecules.
When a CO2 molecule emits a photon to space, that energy is GONE. When another molecule, that has received energy from a CO2 molecule, emits energy to space, that energy is GONE. Atmospheric CO2 is part of Earth’s ability to cool itself.
“Atmospheric CO2 acts as a minor coolant, redistributing thermal energy in the atmosphere to be easily radiated to space.”
(The fun part begins when the idiots try to deny reality.)
> Atmospheric CO2 acts as a minor coolant, redistributing thermal energy in the atmosphere to be easily radiated to space.
That’s a bold claim, Clint.
Citation needed.
Trollard can’t understand the clear explanation in the two short paragraphs above. He couldn’t understand any of it because he doesn’t understand physics. He wouldn’t understand any “citation”. He’s just been trained to always say “Citation needed.”
He’s been well trained.
Clint just says stuff that he repeats over and over again, with caps lock or bold markup.
A fine battologist we have here.
(The fun part begins when the idiots try to deny reality.)
(I know you are but am I, Clint?)
Willard, please stop trolling.
W,
What would you call someone who keeps repeating “citation needed”?
Good morning, Mike.
I see you’re starting to understand the power of symmetrical strategies.
The answer to your rhetorical question is: an auditor. Or a ninja.
Well what you have to realize Willard is there are number of scientists that put the capabilities of CO2 from slight cooling to significant warming.
If you like drawing lines in the middle of the mean like ENSO prognosticators like to do you will see an array of outcomes the shape of which looks like what a garden adjustable hose nozzle looks like held about halfway between narrow stream and mist.
If you take Lewis and Curry’s results and superimpose the IPCC 3.0 (1.5 to 4.5) spread of outcomes the spray pattern stays slightly positive (+.3). . . .but Lewis and Curry’s underlying assumption is that CO2 is completely responsible for all warming in the industrial age, leaving zero for an LIA recovery. So in the finest tradition of climate science, if you allow .4 to Svensmark it would travel into negative.
Maybe a very minor coolant.
I don’t think any gases in atmosphere cools by much.
A problem with idea of gases in atmosphere cooling much is that Venus emits less heat than Earth. And at 1 atm pressure in Venus atmosphere it averages around 70 C
I think that the clouds in atmosphere would emit more heat than any and all gases.
Earth clouds being liquid and solids- and not really a greenhouse gas, though the global warming cargo cult classifies clouds as a greenhouse gases.
And Venus has lots of clouds, and still does not do much cooling with clouds.
I tend to generally think land surfaces cool the most. And terms of surface net amounts of being warmed and cooled, ocean surface warms and land surface cools. So, if had more ocean area, and less land area Earth would be warmer. Or if had more land area and less ocean area, Earth would be colder.
So to terraform Mars, one add oceans to Mars tropical zone.
That would cause Mars to be warmer. But Mars doesn’t need to warmer, because it’s thin atmosphere does transfer much heat from convection. Mars is closer to space than then compared to dense atmosphere of Earth- or -50 C air temperature doesn’t mean much nor does 50 C air temperature. If instead added a very large amount atmosphere, so if Mars had say about 1/4 of Earth pressure, then the air would able transfer heat similar to Earth- -50 or 50 C would then mean something, it would it cool or warm stuff.
So if Mars had 4 psi rather than 0.095 psi then you would not need spacesuit or pressure suit, but it would be quite cold.
But probably more significant about having lots water, one needs a coolant for electrical nuclear powerplants. And you put building under the water and water depth has pressure.
With Earth you 1 atm of pressure per 10 meter depth, but with Mars lower gravity it’s about 1/3rd. Or precisely 1 times .377 being .377 atm per 10 meter depth which is 5.5419 psi or .55419 psi per 1 meter depth.
10 feet {3.048 meters] underwater being 1.689 psi which would near lower limit of pressure that one needs to breath at- and with swim suit [roughly like wet suit] adding about 1 psi it would easily be within safe enough pressure. And fish and plants may be able to live in lower pressures, but if need close Earth pressure, having enough water allows one easily/cheaply make very large areas area for them.
Anyhow you terraform Mars with trillion tons of water [you could begin human settlements with millions of tons] rather than hundreds of trillion tons of atmosphere. And may cause global warming increase of atmosphere by 10 C or more, but the warming atmosphere does not have much of a positive effect.
Air flowing from the Arctic causes strong convection over the North Sea and brings convective snowfall or snow flurries to Germany.
https://i.ibb.co/Dr8Wcb8/Screenshot-1.png
The by far biggest danger for Germany in such times
No, that’s not the weather.
It is the absolute recklessness of an incredible amount of car drivers, who drive in all weathers (fog, rain, hail, snow, ice, storm) at insane speeds on the highways, on which everywhere small sections, kept over decades without any speed limit, invite them even more to ride like craziest dumbies.
Hundred cars and trucks crashing into each other, and then many injuries and deaths?
Where is the problem? The state pays for us.
Long live our freedom to endanger others!
Huge masses of Arctic air will overtake the whole of Western Europe for several days. They will be over France as early as tonight.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=europe×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Some of you probably saw news articles regarding the Kramer et al 2021 publication which for the first time measures the net instantaneous radiative force using CERES and AIRS between 2003 and 2018.
https://www.essoar.org/doi/10.1002/essoar.10506610.1
Total-IRF = +0.033 W/m2/year +/- 0.007
LW-IRF = +0.027 W/m2/year +/- 0.006
SW-IRF = +0.006 W/m2/year +/- 0.003
The SOCRATES radiative transfer model predicts LW-IRF to be +0.023 W/m2/year +/- 0.003. The model computes the RF for increases in most of the GHG species found in the atmosphere. Note that measurement and modeling are consistent.
The MERRA reanalysis attributes +0.006 W/m2/year +/- 0.003 to aerosol declines which matches well with the measured value.
The integrated IRF for 2003-2018 is +0.53 W/m^2 +/ 0.11 with 0.40 W/m^2 +/- 0.1 being in the LW band. Modeling predicted the LW band to be 0.35 W/m^2 +/- 0.05 over this same period.
In summary about 80% of the net heat uptake for the period 2003-2018 is the result of GHGs while 20% is the result of aerosol reductions. It used to be that aerosols were increasing which was suppressing the warming, but at least for this 15 year period efforts to reduce pollution are now contributing to the warming. This helps explain why the EEI has increased to +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 (Schuckmann 2020) in recent years.
bdgwx, your “+0.87 W/m^2 EEI” remains nonsense, no matter how much gobbledygook bafflegab you use.
Why do you hide from reality?
Clint I am with you I take back my insults.
When you say you’re with ClintR are you saying you think the 1st law of thermodynamics is bogus too?
https://byjus.com/jee/first-law-of-thermodynamics/
It is about energy changes not transfer of heat that effects the climate.
I know in a few words CO2 captures out going long wave radiation and leads to warming. No.
bdgwx, why do you need to pervert reality?
Why do you need to misrepresent others?
Are you that insecure about your false beliefs?
The 1LOT is reality. dE = Ein – Eout. The dE for Earth was +112e21 joules from 2010 to 2018. This is an average flux of +0.87 W/m^2. See Schuckmann 2020.
You said on multiple occasions that you think EEI is bogus or nonsense. You also said and confirmed that you believe the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus and since it is a trivial derivation from the SB law and 1LOT that means you either think the SB law, the 1LOT, or both are bogus.
So while you say you accept the 1LOT you go on to make other statements like “your +0.87 W/m^2 EEI remains nonsense, no matter how much gobbledygook bafflegab you use” that makes us all think otherwise. If you do not want to be misrepresented then my advice is to stop saying the concept of energy (im)balance, the SB law, radiative heat transfer, and/or the 1LOT are bogus.
bdgwx, EEI is bogus because it is NOT an energy balance. They (you) are trying to balance flux. Flux does not balance, as flux is NOT conserved. 960 does NOT equal 240. You don’t understand thermodynamics, and can’t learn.
The “radiative heat transfer” equation is bogus because it is a mathematical construct. It has no validity in reality, because there is no such thing as a “black body”. There is NO heat transfer from cold to hot. You don’t understand thermodynamics, and can’t learn.
That’s why your +0.87 W/m^2 EEI remains nonsense, no matter how much gobbledygook bafflegab you use.
Yep EEI is just more nonsense delivered by models that estimate stuff they have no measurement of. They quite simply can’t calculate albedo that closely. Albedo numbers are just something picked probably in the middle of the range of estimates. The can’t count clouds that easily with enough error margin to account for the entire industrial age warming.
Bottom line its just mathematical masturbation.
bill,
The EEI figure I cited is not derived by global circulation models. It is actually measured. And it has nothing to do with albedo or clouds.
And despite what ClintR says the 1LOT and dE = Ein = Eout are unassailable physical laws of reality. Please tell me you are not trying to challenge this too.
Schuckmann 2020:
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
This is not the only line of evidence of its kind. In fact, this publication cites several others like it.
Indeed bdgwx its measured. . . .by adjusted temperature records and continental uplift hypotheses. . . .though you won’t find any discussions related to that in any Schuckmann discussions regarding uncertainty.
I should have added ‘and validated from plug figures from desired result analysis for temperature in unmeasured layers of the ocean’
bill,
Can you provide a peer reviewed study which measures the EEI using raw data that is not contaminated by errors and biases?
bdgwx says:
Can you provide a peer reviewed study which measures the EEI using raw data that is not contaminated by errors and biases?
————————–
Nope! But the private enterprise system has gone way beyond that standard pretty much across the board.
It started out as caveat emptor and now it is mostly caveat venditor. In fact my trade was officially started in 1887 to aid in that transition.
And here you are still advocating for the robber barons and selling science with untold errors and biases.
Thank you for the apology, salvatore.
It’s nice to see some maturity here.
Apology graciously accepted.
thanks
CO2 is not the cause of the recent warming it is just about all natural in nature and as we move further into this decade that will be more and more evident.
My lag times were off I was thinking about 10 years + when low solar begins it looks like it is a bit longer for cooling to set in. The low solar phase began during year 2005 prior to that time the sun was in a very active phase for more then 100 years.
Lag times have to be appreciated especially when it comes to the oceans.
In addition this period of warmth is not different from prior periods when one looks at the historical climatic records. If any thing it is one of the milder periods of warming both in duration and degree of magnitude change and is no where as warm as the Holocene Optimum.
I think it is in the process of ending now.
cu in about ten years, Sal.
J.-P. D.
> this period of warmth is not different from prior periods when one looks at the historical climatic records
Thanks, Salvatore:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
W,
Another bold assertion, no doubt backed up by an appeal to your own non-existent authority!
Complete nonsense, which just shows what an idiot you are.
Thank you for the kind words, Mike.
It’s nice to see some maturity here.
LOL! Like a 100,000 year recovery from a glacial advance would have the maximum trend of a few decades along the way. LMAO!
Beginning to suspect swenson is right.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/24/ancient-temperatures/
Here is the real story on temperature changes in the past in contrast to now. Not the absurdity they are trying to falsely claim.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/
Then let’s go further back in the historical climatic record and contrast these temperature changes with day’s miniscule changes.
10 x faster next joke!
First example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B8lling%E2%80%93Aller%C3%B8d_warming
14,700 – 12,900 = 1,800 / 60 = 30 times slower.
I don’t think so.
I don’t think you know what BP means, Salvatore.
Willard read the article then decide for yourself.
Thanks, Salvatore.
You might like:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
That article is a commentary on the temperature at a single site in Greenland. Greenland != Globe.
BTW, the data comes from Dr. Alley. He provides compelling evidence that the current warming era is abrupt and caused by anthroprogenic GHG emissions. He also presents compelling arguments that the odds are higher that the IPCC is underestimating the warming potential than they are overestimating it. A lot of his lectures are posted on youtube. Check them out.
History is full of really smart people howling at the moon.
The message to an auditor when opinions vary is. . . .your job is just beginning.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/clip_image008.jpg
As one can see from this graph which is in the article I sent present day warming is but a blip in contrast to the past.
But Willard if you do not accept the data fine because that is what you all do when data shows AGW theory for what it is, a fraud.
I can’t wait for the excuses as the decade proceeds
You’re not posting data, Salvatore, you’re peddling Don’s crap.
If you can’t accept that 1,800 / 60 = 30, I’m not sure what to tell you.
AGW is crap, you have it backwards. Wil see later this decade right.
I’m too impatient for that, Salvatore:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up
What were your own predictions at the time?
My predictions were the same again lag times . I am not good enough to predict that well but you have to ahead of the game if I am 10 or 20 years off so be it . It is still the correct prediction.
If your prediction is always correct, Salvatore, it’s not a prediction anymore.
Don said:
[P1] If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the coming decades.
That was 20 years ago. So let’s add:
[P2] The current warm cycle did not end in the next few years, and global warming increased in the coming decades.
The only valid conclusion is that cycles did not continue as in the past.
W (and anyone else claiming to be able to predict the future) x
“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Is variously attributed to many people, including Niels Bohr.
As far as the atmosphere goes, Richard Feynman pointed out in one of his lectures that the operation of the uncertainty principle precluded the prediction of the future state of the atmosphere, no matter how precisely initial conditions are measured.
In a written form, he said –
The theory of meteorology has never been satisfactorily worked out by the physicist.
A little later, Edward Lorenz used chaos theory to support his view that predicting the future state of the atmosphere is impossible. The IPCC agrees.
So guess away. Warmer, colder, no change. The choices are limited, so predict all three! No problem!
That’s a lot of verbiage to deflect from a very simple modus tollens, Mike.
Willard says:
If your prediction is always correct, Salvatore, its not a prediction anymore.
================================
Yep just like climate models in fact. Where they need to start inventing stuff like unmeasured ocean temperatures and unknown net affects of aerosols to make it only ‘sort’ of fit. . . .and only sort of fit to the observation record most perturbed by the same folks.
I can gaze at both climate model output spaghetti graphs and ENSO prediction spaghetti graphs and essentially they all have the same sort of cone shape of predictions all over the place. And of course ENSO does the same thing as the climate models and draws a line down the mean of all the model outputs and that has zero skill beyond 9 months. Over the past 3 decades there has been zero improvement in the climate model graphs and some improvement in the ENSO projections as they get to see the coming and going of generations (cycles) of ENSO.
At the current rate climate models aren’t likely to improve as the cycle is non-existent. Wanting to extract untold numbers of dollars out of the poor and middle classes to run an experiment to produce cycles would most likely surpass the Mengele benchmark standard.
This is one point I am in agreement with James Hansen. Forcing the price of fossil fuels to a higher level is 1) not likely to change anything climate wise; and 2) favors those who can afford the fuel.
Like Leonardo DiCaprio cruising his yacht with the fuel economy of an entire fleet of 747 airliners to some climate confab in some exotic location to preach to the ‘little’ people.
Salvatore,
I’m curious…how well do you think Don Easterbrook’s predictions faired?
We’ll compare and contrast his predictions with the consensus predictions later. I just want to get your take on it first.
Or Willard will just cut to the chase for me. I’m okay with that.
Lag times lag times and lag times. I was off also I was thinking 10+ years it is longer. Again if I come within 50 years of the climate turn I will consider myself very successful.
No one is going to fine tune this to years although you want to try because you want to say it before it happens not after the fact.
It means nothing to say cooling after it happens or starts.
Its almost impossible to predict this stuff. When you include albedo and ocean upwelling factors into the calculation you have a 1500 year feedback. . . .and we have little idea of the ratio between feedback and primary forcing.
And it also appears with the theory of CO2 forcing we have a huge issue of what is forcing.
Even with GISS perturbing the observation record by something close to .35 tenths of a degree out of the what 1 degree they end up with industrial age warming (excuse the rough numbers anyone is welcome to correct them) to get them into the lower half of model predictions. . . .they got most of the .35 by reducing the 1920-1944 warming for the purpose of quieting the observation that recent warming isn’t faster than the warming a 100 years ago.
If that wasn’t a targeted attempt out the gate, I’ll eat my keyboard.
bill,
The warming trend from GISS-1987 from 1881 to 1985 is 0.054C/decade. Source: https://tinyurl.com/3at5bw9m
The warming trend from GISS-2021 from 1881 to 1985 is 0.042C/decade. Source: https://tinyurl.com/mddf3euu
Yes sacrificing the longterm trend is typically required to boost the end result.
A person with an agenda is going to find ways to claim accelerating trends by moving stuff around within zones of uncertainty. So auditors must be aware of variable types of motivation.
thats the stuff auditors learn to detect. In fact in this age you can set those limits and easily create an optimization program to produce the results you want.
If you can get the study and the archived data along with descriptions of where they arose from, then you can do what Climate Audit does.
If everything fits within the borders of uncertainty you then have to conclude you don’t have a case for fraud, but for professional auditors if that cone of uncertainty represents a material uncertainty its your obligation to see that its always disclosed.
This is just basic stuff done in litigation support, which isn’t audited except to the extent the opposition does it. Thats why lawsuits have discovery. An advocate finds the best credible argument for your clients position and offer it up.
I was commenting though on how much they shrunk the 1920-1944 warming that was twice what the overall change was. As an auditor I would begin to wonder how big the uncertainty is.
And of course to audit it you would need all the individual station adjustments, rationales, and all the raw data. You would need to consider if the uncertainty range had expanded or shrunk and be aware that if its the same then you could be dealing with up to .5C degrees of supportable exaggeration.
And to call it science it would have to be done in a peer reviewed science paper and if governments are to rely upon it all that needs to be publicly available
to be clear I am not saying any of this has happened. If it were all fully laid out in peer reviewed studies with data archives and not withheld from the public then there can be a degree of reliance on the process of science, though each auditor is actually required to do his own work to verify that. Scientists have no obligation to do so. . . .which makes peer review itself less than adequate.
It is also obvious that motivation potentially plays a big role. Advocating for action on climate change is clear advocacy of bonuses and/or a job well into the future for many people. Advocating that climate change doesn’t need action isn’t padding future prospects.
so all that above is but a sample of what apprentices in the auditing trade learn.
This has nothing to do with lags. Easterbrook predicted the planet would cool by 0.7C from 1998. However, the planet actually warmed 0.5C. His prediction was off by 1.2C in only 12 years. In other words, his prediction was so astonishingly bad that he was in error by 1.00C/decade. His error rate was 5x higher than the warming rate itself. And he couldn’t even get the direction of the temperature change correct.
Yes his prediction was off so was mine, but I say mine is due to the wrong lag time . Why he is wrong I don’t know.
One needs to pay close attention to Dr. Akasofu (and actually Easterbrook too).
There are two climate length natural variations at work at the minimum.
One we understand better than the other as to ‘potential’ predictability especially potentially within a 12 year window.
Multi-decadal climate oscillation appears to be a 66 year cycle, but astrometeorologists that have been working on it suggest its a 72 years cycle.
If 1944 was the peak as the raw temperature records suggest thats either 2010 or 2016.
But there is an ongoing solar grand maximum that may have long lived consequences with ocean upwelling effects and albedo affects from clouds and surface ice. Folks this cycle isn’t anywhere near 72 years. It seems if there is any uniformity to it as a cycle it may be an 800 year cycle with a small 100 year subcycle and we may have just bottomed one of the 100 year subcycles within the larger MWP/LIA cycle.
So we have bottoms in that subcycle in 1810 – 1910 – 2010.
PDO extended longer than normal but its almost entirely due to the major ENSO events of 2014-16 and the 2018 El Nino.
The current blip down is essentially the same as the dip between the two El Nino events where we didn’t drop significantly into a negative PDO. PDO has been positive at greater than 10 year intervals since 1980 and cold intervals of negative PDO are much shorter. (and it is important to note that warm and cold is a misnomer in characterizing the PDO index as itself is not a cooling or warming with all trends removed.) Therefore the shortening oscillation hasn’t been connected to any kind of global temperature theory despite a few voices occasionally saying it is.
Instead it is believed to be an internal oscillation or generated externally by something other than radiant TSI, like magnetism changing wind and/or water current patterns.
But these cycles are very real. They are well documented in natural population, fossil, and bottom sediment records as being very real.
So we saw the cold PDO of around 1945-1976 or 9 getting washed out by what some believe was the peak of a solar grand maximum.
However adjustments to the sunspot counts now suggest that the solar grand maximum was a longer termed affair extending from 1911 to 2009. But calling its end in 2009 might be premature.
progressively 1810, 1910, 2010 are all bottoms of 100 year cycles and those 100 year cycles have been getting warmer as time goes on so we may not have seen the end of it. It might take 20 years to come out of this mini-100 year cycle and after that we may see new solar sunspot records broken. In other words the LIA recovery could go on for more centuries.
Meanwhile we have a stubborn crowd of folks that realize that to predict less than 3 degrees warming for human emissions is to fall into that world of uncertainty about cycles of MWP and LIA. This has been front and center from the start of this whole rhetoric as we have never had a decade of .3c warming even with natural variation potentially boosting it.
So I join those thinking we are going to actually see some cooling resulting from the current solar fluctuation and I expect we will see some effect of changes in PDO.
The La Nina last year didn’t involve the northern hemisphere. It was driven by currents in the southern hemisphere that are now waning as the northern hemisphere is acting like an impending La Nina. If the southern hemisphere gets back into line we could see a large La Nina. That would seem likely to plunge the temperatures well below the line. Having records not responding to the most recent La Nina are disconcerting because I see no reason why these oscillations should change their temperature signatures no matter what kind of trend the climate is on overall.
> One needs to pay close attention to Dr. Akasofu
Thank you for reminding me, Bill:
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76
Even in accounting curve fitting is frowned upon.
More snow:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/april-2021-outlook-warmth-expected-much-contiguous-us%E2%80%A6except-you-pacific
Did I say snow?
I meant drought.
well to start off Nuccitelli is a complete joke as a scientist. The only way he can hold onto a claim is by banning anybody who disagrees with him from his blog.
Second data doesn’t self analyze itself. The data doesn’t support Akasofu’s rather vague curves of an oscillation and LIA recovery precisely because the data and Akasofu’s hand drawn explanations weren’t designed to perfectly match the data. First of all the drawing is straight lines and a sinewave. Natural phenomena doesn’t follow such fine detail as nature is far too complicated for that.
Its like perfect circle rotations and elliptical orbits. They are both rotations but one does not determine if the other is the same thing or not. . . .much to the inconsistent political-orientation consternation of some around here. Won’t accept imperfect here but don’t demand it there.
What is very clear is both effects are an element of our climate. The question that Akasofu is stating is we need to understand how much it is an element. One cannot accuse Akasofu of missing his prediction because he did not make one.
But leave it to a pack of morons to believe he did. Why? Well they are tried and true and constantly busy around here building strawmen.
My final say on this is we will watch the data.
Exactly, Sal.
We can begin right now, e.g. with the usual comparison of the two recent solar cycle transitions – SC23/24 vs. SC 24/25:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ls0t2D00ifmPGGsNJVYSDGjgwF-Xz_2B/view
I first thought that the polynomial mean was due to the peak around 2020, Nov 29. But excluding the week around it didn’t change anything.
This shows, slowly but surely, how good Leif Svalgaard’s SC 25 prediction has been, compared to the statistical gimmicks of Valentina Zharkova, which impressed so many people some years ago.
We are way away from any solar activity drop.
J.-P. D.
Source for solar flux data presented above:
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
https://www.solen.info/solar/
Leif is way off . ZHARKOVA, is right on.
Which prediction?
Bindidon the data shows how good Zharkova ‘s prediction has been and how off Leif is.
What are you looking at?
So far solar cycle 25 is much weaker then what Leif has predicted and much more in line with ZHARKOVA. Solar flux still in the 70’s ,almost two years into cycle 25. That is pretty weak.
cor solar cycle 25 began dec 2019 it is weaker then I thought. 2 1/2 years still solar flux in the 70’s!!! WEAK! VERY WEAK!
SdP
Zharkova always has pretended that SC25 would be far weaker than SC24.
On the graph we can clearly see that Svalgaard was absolutely right when saying that the start of SC25 would soon show it bypassing that of the previous cycle.
Now you become dishonest, deny visible evidence, and your skepticism becomes really unsound.
Why should I communicate with you when you behave like a denialist?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, have you ever counted how many times you’ve tried to misrepresent Newton?
Why do idiots try to misrepresent people?
Because they’re idiots.
I don’t think Zharkova is a reincarnation of Newton, Clint.
Trollard begins: “I don’t think…”
Correct Trollard. You don’t think, because you can’t think. You’re a braindead troll.
Always nice to see some maturity here, Clint.
Trollard, it might be your proclivity to butt-sniffing that renders you braindead.
Something to consider, huh?
You wish, Clint.
Willard, please stop trolling.
NASA has gone from altering data to creating fake data.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/06/nasa-giss-keeps-warming-the-data-and-mysteriously-comes-out-with-104-new-stations-going-back-to-1882/
They have zero credibility in the science community.
S.K.
Now you start becoming really as tricky and stubborn as are Gosselin and his altar boys.
Why don’t you look at the only< one, but very intelligent reply to this stoopid stuff?
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/06/nasa-giss-keeps-warming-the-data-and-mysteriously-comes-out-with-104-new-stations-going-back-to-1882/#comment-1313078
How is it possible to behave so gullible as you do?
J.-P. D.
“They have zero credibility in the science community. ”
Not quite. They only have zero credibility among the climate change deniers.
I notice that you didn’t read the comment under the article, which explained why new stations come to be added to the NOAA dataset.(Note that the curator of the raw station data is NOAA, not NASA)
Snap!
It’s NASA that is altering the data and it looks like Gavin wants to put his mark on history. He has a lot of work ahead of him to out do James.
It does not surprise me that alarmists like NASA, the alterations are designed to generate a warming trend when none exist.
Save your snake oil for someone else.
I applaud your quest for unaltered data, SK.
You might appreciate:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/34/1/jtech-d-16-0121.1.xml
The idiot attempts deflection and avoidance through whataboutism”.
A schoolyard defence – “He did it too! What about him?”
The idiots lash out in all directions.
Except that there’s no “too,” Mike.
Receipts or it does not exist.
W,
You wrote –
“Receipts or it does not exist..
Too cryptic and obscure for me. Is this some secret idiot jargon?
What makes you think I’m talking to you, Mike?
W,
You seem to have the delusional belief that I am Mike.
If you assure me that this is not so, I will rephrase my response.
I will assume that you are conducting a conversation with your imaginary opponent, Mike, and give my views on your comment.
The mythical Mike seems to exist only in your imagination. He never responds. You might be better off discussing reality, and matters of fact, rather than the contents of your fantasy world.
> I will rephrase my response.
What response, Mike?
You’re not the kind of guy who ever gives any response.
Willard, please stop trolling.
NASA has no control over the stations included in GHCN-M. There’s no mystery either. Stations are constantly being added as records are digitized and incorporated into the various repositories and shared with other countries. Since record digitization projects are still going on expect the GHCN repository to continue to grow in the future.
The graph on the page is adjusted vs unadjusted. We’ve already discussed ad-nauseum the difference between the two. In a nutshell NASA has no control over this either and the adjustments are made to correct known biases caused by station moves, time of observation changes, instrument changes, etc. and is done with the pairwise homogenization algorithm. We want NASA to use the adjusted data.
A posted a comment to NTZ in an effort to help clear up Gosselin’s confusion. It is awaiting moderation.
https://i.imgur.com/Rxa5DvU.png
bdgwx
No sensible person could trust the land or sea records. The idea that stations up to 1000 km away stations can be used to adjust or homogenize is laughable. Two BOM sites 8km away where I live have varied by well over 5C for over 10 hours on the same day; I know why but simply make the point.
In the case of BOM, private individuals have been able to show where the minimum had been compromised by inbuilt restriction setting. Contrary to your pristine idea, this rather malleable rubbery field is built on secrecy so much so that there was an outcry in Oz to have a public inquiry into the BOM data just a few years ago. Being political, the Minister (mealy mouthed Greg Hunt) was able to avoid it. Problem is it would have international implications.
These discoveries do not come from the Gosselins of this world as the messengers. True professionals question the BOM practices and results.
In your case I will go further. Apart from four decimal places you have used at times (are you trying to outdo Schmidt) you made a comment that left me bewildered viz. that even if the actual anomaly averages for sites were out by up to 4K it would not matter as the averaging process would then fix that (div by root N). This leads to two questions:
a) why carry out all these nebulous adjustments if that were true.
b) show me the theorem which allows the full root N denominator to reduce the error given that the population changes almost continuously. That root N should only apply to sampling the SAME population.
BOM questions:
https://joannenova.com.au/?s=bom+adjustments
tonyM said: The idea that stations up to 1000 km away stations can be used to adjust or homogenize is laughable.
That’s not how it works. You can review how PHA works by reading Menne 2009 here (https://tinyurl.com/4ku9rxed).
tonyM said: Two BOM sites 8km away where I live have varied by well over 5C for over 10 hours on the same day; I know why but simply make the point.
That’s okay. PHA is only making corrections for discontinuities.
tonyM said: In the case of BOM, private individuals have been able to show where the minimum had been compromised by inbuilt restriction setting.
This happens for the maximum as well and isn’t isolated to BoM. For example, see Menne 2010 here (https://tinyurl.com/pp4hf5f4) for an analysis of this problem in the US and how well PHA deals with the issue.
tonyM said: Contrary to your pristine idea
I don’t think any solution is pristine. But I do think fixing known biases and errors is better than ignoring them. And it is certainly better than hiding them from your audience like what Gosselin has done here.
tonyM said: this rather malleable rubbery field is built on secrecy
This is all fully transparent. See the publications above and others like them. You can download the PHA code here (https://tinyurl.com/ev56dvk) and GISTEMP code here (https://tinyurl.com/8fxnks9m) and run everything on your own machine and review until you are satisfied just like the hundreds of others who found no significant issues. Now if we could only get UAH to be as transparent.
tonyM said: you made a comment that left me bewildered viz. that even if the actual anomaly averages for sites were out by up to 4K it would not matter as the averaging process would then fix that (div by root N).
I made two statements.
1) Anomaly analysis is useful because it eliminates static systematic bias inherently. The trade off is that you increase the statistical uncertainty. The summation in quadrature formula is Etot = sqrt(E2^2 – E1^2) where E1 is the error at time 1 and E2 is the error at time time 2. Note that this does not address time dependent biases.
2) The standard error of the mean is much lower than the standard error of the individual measurements. The formula for the standard of the mean is E = S/sqrt(N) formula where S is the standard error of the individual measurements and N is the number of measurements. GISTEMP averages 8000 subboxes so if each subbox had a +/- 4K error then the global mean error would be E = 4/sqrt(8000) = 0.045.
tonyM asked: why carry out all these nebulous adjustments if that were true.
Because scientists want the most correct result regardless of the outcome.
tonyM asked: show me the theorem which allows the full root N denominator to reduce the error given that the population changes almost continuously. That root N should only apply to sampling the SAME population.
It is for the same population. GISTEMP has 8000 subboxes. It produces 1 measurement for each subbox and month. Therefore the spatial average uses 8000 measurements which are derived from merging measurements provided by ERSST and GHCN-M. Each month is treated independently in the averaging process. This does not mean that GISTEMP’s monthly uncertainty is as trivial as the standard error of the mean formula would imply; far from it actually. For a rigorous analysis of GISS’s uncertainty refer to Lenssen 2019 here (https://tinyurl.com/4tmprfeh).
S.K., it’s important to remember that Bindidon can’t communicate, bdgwx seeks to pervert reality, and Ent believes passenger jets fly backwards.
IOW, you’re dealing with idiots.
Here is what it comes down to I say a climate turn around to colder temperatures ,those supporting AGW theory say continuation of increasing warmth.
The data will show who is right ,who is wrong.
BINDIDON SC 25 is going or is in the dumps.
It should be way more active then it is and the best part for me it is growing weaker with the passage of time not stronger.
I’m not sure where you get the low activity for Solar Cycle 25.
Both sunspot numbers and solar flux look normal for this stage.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
E,
Would this be the same clueless NOAA which asserts – “Large-scale surface ocean currents are driven by global wind systems that are fueled by energy from the sun. These currents transfer heat from the tropics to the polar regions, influencing local and global climate.”
They also seem to believe that ocean water cools in the Arctic, then somehow “falls” toward the Equator, or something! They don’t seem to be as sure about Antarctic water “falling” the opposite way. Maybe they think that a globe on a stand represents reality, and things fall from the top to the bottom?
Why would anyone believe they are right about anything else? Gullibility? Cultist faith?
Do you believe everything NOAA says, or just the things you agree with?
You’re still JAQing off, Mike.
W,
More silliness from you.
You’re an idiot.
No, dearest Mike.
U.
W,
Oh so brief! Oh so profound! Oh so delusional!
You are an idiot.
Thank you, Mike.
I still bow to your profundity.
W,
I am sure your imaginary playmate Mike would thank you.
He would probably follow your presumed link and waste his time, unlike myself.
Carry on, idiot.
You’re real to me, Mike.
Why are you still denying being him?
W,
Why would you expect me to be complicit in your fantasy?
Alarmist idiots just assert anyone who declines to accept their nonsense is a “denier”.
Facts are facts, whether you deny them or not.
Why are you besotted with the imaginary Mike? Who is he? There is a list of notable people named Mike on Wikipedia. Do you believe I am on that list, or another Mike entirely?
Carry on with the irrelevant idiocy.
Facts are facts, and Mike is Mike, Mike.
You have never been good at this.
W,
You wrote –
“Facts are facts, and Mike is Mike, Mike.
You have never been good at this.”
Wow, just wow! And idiots are idiots, aren’t they?
More generally, Mike, everything is what it is, and not another thing.
Or if you prefer, there is no entity without identity.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson
Large-scale surface ocean currents are driven by global wind systems that are fueled by energy from the sun. These currents transfer heat from the tropics to the polar regions, influencing local and global climate.
You seem confused by this. The rest of us call it the thermohaline circulation.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html
LOL! Solar energy transfers heat into convection loops that carries heat to the arctic and blows some cold water south. It is the Coriolis Effect that is related to a circulatory pattern of ocean currents that take in the cold water blown south and swings it around, warms it in the south and then its carried on the balancing north bound current side of the circulation.
The only convective process in the ocean appears to be related to ice melt which also is a source of water, perhaps the only source, by which the ocean bottoms are kept near freezing. . . .no upside down convection is occurring.
E,
Complete nonsense. Try and induce a current in a body of water by moving air across the surface.
If you call that thermohaline circulation, you are deluded
Here’s one definition –
“. . . the movement of seawater in a pattern of flow dependent on variations in temperature, which give rise to changes in salt content and hence in density.”
Others are similar. Ill point out that surface water heated by the Sun sits on the surface. Until nighttime, of course, when it cools and sinks. No global wind systems involved.
Try again.
https://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
It is very weak in contrast to even these weak cycles.
https://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
It looks kind of weak don’t you think. If this keeps up it will soon be weaker then very weak solar cycle 24.
The AGW crowd in the world of denial.
Perhaps you should wait until you have your predictions right before pontificating like that, Salvatore.
Notice how the cycles get progressively weaker and yet the total heat uptake not only continued but actually accelerated a bit.
Well since 1998 really the only thing that has gotten warmer is ostensibly attributable to perhaps the largest El Nino event ever.
Stop the analysis in 2013 and wait for another 7 years to get in the book and then comeback and introduce this El Nino period.
Smoothing out the ends of an analysis is important to separate weather from climate.
bill,
Can you provide a peer reviewed publication linking the warming to the 1997-98 El Nino.
BTW…The ONI index average from 1997 to present is -0.19. In other words, the ENSO phase has been slightly negative even including the 1997-98 and 2015-16 El Ninos.
bdgwx if you look at the temperature record above you will see there hasn’t been any significant warming from 1997 to 2014. 1997-2013 trend is -.01. Trend for 1997-Present is +.12 and trend for entire record is .14.
Seems to me what is happening is what we should expect to be happening. NOAA back when they believed the sun controlled the whole enchilada through a variety of mechanisms (before the warmist strawman arguments that solar should be ruled out based on one variable, TSI on their religious belief that TSI is the only effect in the atmosphere) then smoothed the data with a 60 year filter. About the only thing they didn’t do is inspect what the momentum of the system was and the warmists were arguing for 7 years.
Now that we have .9EEI that song has changed the missing heat became too great to stay stuck on the argument they ruled the sun out with (e.g. solar activity has been waning without cooling).
Now we are in the sorry state where circular reasoning and various system models that draw upon one another is used to adjust ARGO temps and project down through over a thousand atmospheres of heat to the ocean bottoms to build an EEI number.
These guys are just like the Pope’s Ptolemy scientists clinging desperately to Pope pay checks while the Pope burns the heretics at the stake or imprisons them.
Its also not unlike client meetings where they are being informed they need to take a hit. A lot of teeth nashing and even insults as you are cutting into these guys bonuses, but they always lose in the end. The auditors hang tough and on some occasions we get fired but it never works out for them in the end as the next auditor is obligated to call us, so the adjustment holds and the client has to pay for two audits.
Steve McIntyre has the heart of an auditor. He rips them so bad they end up bragging about what he didn’t find and what they are not going to give him next time rather than talk about what he did find.
It really isn’t a contest bdgwx. Real Climate and Skeptical Science find it necessary to throw people and question they don’t like into bore holes and such. Quite simply they can’t win debates. Auditors are disliked because they ask uncomfortable questions. Clients that get no adjustments simply answer the questions in an acceptable way.
but what you have are a bunch of scientists arguing not a physical point they are good at or are supposed to be good at but instead they find themselves unable to answer those physical questions and simply have no experience with debating topics that are ethereal.
How much warming can we expect to get from the Schwarzschild projected long wave radiation flux of 3Wm-2 as CO2 doubles from 400 ppm to 800 ppm?
K,
Zero, of course. Warming is not measured in W/m2. Apart from pseudoscientists calling themselves climatologists, and their deluded true believers.
Oh, the gullibility! Oh, the faith!
Page 28, Mike:
https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si-brochure/SI-Brochure-9.pdf
W,
You are an idiot. What bizarre mental defect would lead you to think that I am inclined to click on a link from you?
Are you one of the idiot group who believe that temperatures can be measured in W/m2?
Go on then – how hot is 300 W/m2?
Carry on being a delusional idiot.
Who is Mike? Or is it John, or Charlie, now?
Dear Mike,
You’re saying stuff that is fairly well established.
If you got a problem with the International System of Units, you should write to them and share your concerns.
W,
I have no concerns with the International System of Units.
Tell me, how hot is 300 W/m2? Why do you think degrees of hotness are expressed in – wait for it, degrees!
Because you are a deluded idiot, it probably does no good to point out that temperature has 2 SI units of measurement, the degree Celsius, and the kelvin.
No W/m2!
Maybe you are a confused idiot?
> I have no concerns with the International System of Units.
Of course not, Mike.
Your concerns are with “warm,” “hot,” and related quibbles.
W,
Are you like the other idiots who think warming is measured in W/m2?
You do realise that “global warming” is expressed in degrees C or kelvins (apart from Americans, apparently, who ignore SI units).
Of course, to pseudoscientific self-styled climatologists, some are idiotic enough to claim that a reduction in the rate of cooling is really “warming” or “heating”! Either way, the measurement of temperature is in degrees, not W/m2!
Clear now? That’s a rhetorical question, of course.
Reality is beyond you, obviously.
Mike,
You say:
(M1) warming is measured in W/m2
(M2) “global warming” is expressed in degrees C or kelvins
Which is it?
W can’t even remember what he gets his imaginary characters to say!
Poses an imaginary gotcha to an imaginary opponent, and loses the argument with himself.
How idiotic is that?
I’ll help him out. Temperatures are measured in degrees. W doesn’t like it. he’s an idiot.
Mike,
Mike,
Heat. Temperature.
Please learn the difference.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I am curious Swenson. You say that 3 W/m^2 causes exactly zero warming. On the other hand, 1000 W/m^2 of noontime sunlight definitely causes warming. So what is the cut-off? Which of these can cause warming in your expert opinion?
3 W/m^2 = “no”
10 W/m^2
30 W/m^2
100 W/m^2
300 W/m^2
1000 W/m^2 = “yes”
T,
Thank you for acknowledging me as an expert.
Mind you, being acknowledged as an an expert by an idiot is no great compliment.
I’ll help you out. First you have to specify the temperature of the object emitting the energy. Then you have to specify the emissivity of that object for the frequency bandwidth (assuming non-coherent light emission), then the temperature and the albedo of the object in the path of the radiation.
That will do for a start. I understand why you dont accept reality.
Now to your question (or gotcha) –
You know the answer. Place a red hot object in noontime sunlight. You claim it will get hotter.
You are obviously delusional. It will cool.
You didn’t really want my expert opinion, did you?
Did TF choke on his own nonsense?
We have to remember, TF believes fluxes add. So your example of a “red hot object”, say an iron pulled from a fire at 800C, could be made hotter with ice cubes, TF would claim!
It might take several ice cubes, but TF could do the calculation.
(Yeah, he’s an idiot.)
So you are saying the amount of warming is related to other factors.
So “zero” is wrong, since many different answers would be possible in different circumstances.
Tim,
Good try, but zero means zero. Read the question.
Good night, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good morning, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson I am asking how much warming will an increase of 3Wm-2 opacity cause.
K,
Maybe I misunderstood. If you are referring to an increase of opacity which reduces the amount of energy from the Sun reaching the surface gy 3 W/m2, then obviously cooling will occur. No warming, as I said.
At night, there will still be no warming. Temperatures still fall.
What are you trying to imply? Maybe an example (not a pointless and irrelevant analogy) or two might help.
Swenson, I would have thought that anyone participating in discussions here should know enough about how greenhouse effect works to know that Carbon Dioxide does not absorb energy at the frequencies that reach earth from the sun. CO2 only absorbs specific frequencies in the infrared spectrum emitted by the earth.
Ouch.
Nice one, Ken.
I think the question Ken is asking is “If you believe the CO2 nonsense, then how much will a doubling of CO2 ppm raise surface temperatures?”
The believers try to answer that with things like “ECS” and “TCR”. Of course CO2 does not raise surface temperatures so they have to provide large estimate ranges, hoping there will be enough natural variability to stay in the range.
CO2 can absorb a high-energy photon, even up to about 2μ. Of course such a high-energy photon would be in the solar spectrum.
Ken,
There is no greenhouse effect.
Unless you can specify a frequency emitted by the Earth which is not emitted by the Sun, you will just look like the average ignorant alarmist idiot.
And you can’t actually find one, can you?
Idiot.
Of course the Sun emits infrared and of course the CO2 in the atmosphere collects some of it.
The CO2 also emits and some of that is collected by the Earth.
Swenson, I would refer you to a diagram showing Atmospheric Transmission. It is clear that the Sun emits at frequencies in the visible spectrum while the earth emits at frequencies in the IR spectrum. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
CO2 does absorb energy at specific frequencies and they are not included in the energy spectrum reaching the earth from the sun. Those frequencies are 2.7um 4.2um and 15um.
K,
You are either totally deluded, or an idiot.
You wrote –
“It is clear that the Sun emits at frequencies in the visible spectrum while the earth emits at frequencies in the IR
CO2 does absorb energy at specific frequencies and they are not included in the energy spectrum reaching the earth from the sun. Those frequencies are 2.7um 4.2um and 15um.”
Linking to an atmospheric transmission graph is pointless. Look at at the frequencies the Sun emits, and you will see it emits more than 50% IR, very close to the characteristics of black body at 5500K.
The Sun does emit photons with frequencies of 2.7um, 4.2um, and 15um. You are wrong.
Reality does not accord with your cultist beliefs. Bad luck for you.
Mike,
Reality called in and ask you to stop speaking for her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmVLcj-XKnM
Thank you for obliging,
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken says:
Swenson I am asking how much warming will an increase of 3Wm-2 opacity cause.
==============================
Assuming you are talking something earthly, none.
The slight cooling from a doubling of CO2 would only be -0.7C, over the period involved. It would not be a problem unless it coincided with an additional natural cooling trend.
But then the oceans would be absorbing CO2 like crazy, thereby reducing the cooling.
It all seems to always work out, somehow.
The 3 W/m^2 figure comes from Happer not Schwarzschild. Schwarzschild did publish a simple radiative transfer equation in 1905 which Happer apparently used though provided no details or references. There are far more complex radiative transfer schemes in use today. The evidence suggests that 2xCO2 is closer to 3.7 W/m^2 of RF. See Myhre 1998 here (https://tinyurl.com/1nby46ch) for details.
SOCRATES is but one of the modern radiative transfer models. It predicted an increase of 0.35 W/m^2 +/- 0.05 of LW forcing from 2003-2018. CERES and AIRS observed an increase of 0.40 W/m^2 +/- 0.1. This is a good fit between theory and observation and yet another smoking gun observation of GHG forcing and AGW. See Kramer 2021 here (https://tinyurl.com/5kyfznca) for details.
I’ve seen the 3.7Wm-2 used to describe effect of human emissions to date. 1.7Wm-2 being CO2 and the rest to other GHG such as methane.
Are you conflating this with the 3Wm-2 projected by Happer as a result of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere.
Not that it matters much, in terms of noise in the signal 3.7 isn’t significantly different from 3.0.
3.7 W/m^2 is for 2xCO2 or 560 ppm.
IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 8 table 8.8 pg 678 has a good breakdown of the RF from various gas species.
IPCC uses Myhre 1998 for CO2 and estimates 1.8 W/m^2 through 2011.
Total RF for all gas species is 2.6 W/m^2 through 2011.
Yeah…3.7 W/m^2 is at least in the same ballpark as 3.0 W/m^2.
BTW…figure 8.2 on pg 677 is also super helpful as well.
K,
You do realise that ice can emit 300 W/m2, don’t you? So can a container of boiling water.
Maybe you don’t accept that they have different temperatures.
Ho, ho, ho!
Mike,
Did you know that both 2+2 and 3+1 equals four?
Ah ah!
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
”The 3 W/m^2 figure comes from Happer not Schwarzschild. Schwarzschild did publish a simple radiative transfer equation in 1905 which Happer apparently used though provided no details or references.”
The effects of sophistry runs into deep unplumbed depths. The result of a 100 years of teaching effort.
All can be forgiven because nobody I know of is concerned about 3watts/century at all. So why bother thinking about it?
Its obvious the controversy has been going on a long time. The Luddites tend to get blamed for having starting it.
woollard…this is how reliable your SI-unit source link is:
“The second
The second, symbol s, is the SI unit of time. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency, [blah blah[ the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9 192 631 770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s-1”
Absolute, unmitigated nonsense. The second is derived from the rotational period of the Earth. To get the equivalent second from the cesium atom’s oscillations you must multiply a cycle of that oscillation by a large number to equal one second.
Corollary 1) no one, at any time, has ever changed the length of the second derived from the Earth’s rotation. If they had, we’d have to throw out every existing clock and rebuild them so they could be synchronized to the new second.
Corollary 2)both the frequency of the cesium atoms and the rotational period of the Earth are constants. Oops, there goes Einstein’s theory about time dilation.
Gordon,
This is how you criticize an international convention:
“Absolute, unmitigated nonsense. [blah blah] Einstein.”
You’re boring.
W,
Why do you choose to be bored?
Do you think this makes you appear intelligent?
Thank you for sharing your insecurities, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Foollard…”This is how you criticize an international convention:
Absolute, unmitigated nonsense. [blah blah] Einstein.
***
Address the fact. The second is derived from dividing the natural period of rotation of the Earth into 60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400 parts. That’s right, the second can also be defined as the length of an arc on the Earth. So, the second is both time and distance.
The atomic clock has no more to do with the second than any other clock. They are all means of measuring how long it takes for the Earth to move through 1/86,400ths of one rotation.
Since those values are fixed it is not possible for time to dilate. Quit kissing Einstein’s butt and look for yourself.
Oh, Sorry, I forgot. You people with alarmists/spinner mentalities are not capable of looking for yourself.
Gordon,
You’re arguing against an operational definition.
That reminds me of this old Internet Joke:
And for the love of God, never go see how the meter is now defined.
You can see the strong decrease in solar wind speed at low density since late March. Until the solar wind speed increases the current zonal circulation blockage (jet stream blockage) will continue.
https://i.ibb.co/PTN1dFh/plot-image.png
Zonal circulation blocking forecast over the US for April 11, 2021 at 250 hPa.
https://i.ibb.co/mRMqLYp/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f120.png
Confirmed temperature anomalies for 07.04.2020 in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/ckbkGPv/gfs-T2ma-eu-1.png
Sorry. 07.04.2021.
Ooooh!
For the first time since quite a while, I see with great pleasure:
” Corollary 2) both the frequency of the cesium atoms and the rotational period of the Earth are constants. Oops, there goes Einstein’s theory about time dilation. ”
Now I’m definitely sure that Robertson has no doubt at all about Moon’s spin about an interior axis, or about time dilation, let alone about how GPS works, or about half a dozen of other things.
He is in fact quite sure of all that, and acts here kinda agent provocateur, in the hope to soon earn contradiction by the one or the other victim, and to (re)start some endless discussion.
J.-P. D.
binny…”He is in fact quite sure of all that…”
***
It’s obvious if you care to examine the fact rather than shooting from the lip while making accusations and creating ad oms.
The oscillations in a cesium atoms are related to intra-atomic forces. They have nothing to do with time. The rotational period of the Earth has nothing to do with time either. It just so happens we humans noticed how regular the period is and we used it to synchronize machines we created called clocks. We subdivided the Earth period of rotation into hours, minutes, and seconds.
Later, Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock noted that the oscillations in the cesium atom are even more regular than the Earth’s rotation. So, he substituted a more accurate time base for the Earth’s rotation as a time base.
Even at that, no one changed the length of the second to fit it to the atomic clock frequency of vibration, rather, they altered the atomic clock vibration by figuring out how many vibrations occurred per second.
Still more snowfall in Europe.
https://pl.sat24.com/pl/de
Yeah.
Yesterday in Berlin: about 2 mm (millimeters)
Today: zero mm.
Jesus.
Germany’s highest mountain peak
At 2962 meters, the Zugspitze is the pinnacle of advantages. Germany’s highest mountain offers shelter to as many as three glaciers and invites you to enjoy a unique 360° panorama, from which you can see more than 400 Alpine peaks in four different countries.
https://zugspitze.panomax.com/
ren…”Germanys highest mountain peak
At 2962 meters, the Zugspitze…”
A molehill compared to the Himalaya giants. Everest, at 8000 metres, is nearly 3 times as high.
I can just visualize Binny trying to climb the Zugspite in his lederhosen while yodeling and spouting off to fellow hikers about the Moon’s rotation. Many may be tempted to push him off.
This site is something else. We all think we are correct including myself. I have to laugh.
Wrong, a handful of us simply state scientific truths. Others, you included, propound wishful thinking, unsupported machinations and non sequiturs to undecipherable ends.
Wrong TM. It’s YOUR “handful” that states nonsense.
* A ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis
* Two ice cubes will make something much hotter than one ice cube
* A 5000# boulder falling on you won’t hurt as it has zero potential energy.
* You can safely smash your hand with a hammer, because momentum
does not represent force.
* Opposite sides of Moon are moving with different velocities.
* Passenger jets fly backwards, and sideways, when circumnavigating
* Gravity is a “force”.
* 160 W/m^2 turns into 480 W/m^2
* Momentum is always conserved
* All photons are always absorbed
And I didn’t even mention all the misrepresentations.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
“Take our moon and slice it down the middle, like cutting an orange in half. Now, hollow out both hemispheres of the moon. Fill one hemisphere with hammers, and the other hemisphere with feathers. Let’s guess that the hemisphere filled with hammers has 100 times more mass of the other hemisphere. Now, put the halves back together.
Would the modified moon start rotating about its axis?
Of course not, gravity cannot create a torque on a moon.”
Q.E.D.
Good point, TM. We need to mention that often, in case some have not seen it.
Thanks.
The pull of gravity from the Earth can exert a torque on the Moon, because the center of gravity and the center of mass of the Moon are not in the same place.
The force of gravity from the Earth pulls each point differently, which creates a torque on the Moon.
That’s why I was glad to see TM provide the link:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
bob has not seen it, or could not understand it.
Called Gravity-gradient stabilization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity-gradient_stabilization
If were to spin the moon on it’s axis either direction, this torque
or Gravity-gradient stabilization would slow the spin down over time. Or also called tidally locked. Ie, Moon is tidally locked.
And Mercury is kind of tidally locked or is said to be tidally locked “in a 3:2 spin–orbit resonance”. So say, on equator of mercury it has a night and day, whereas if it didn’t spin on axis with 3:2 resonance, it instead would always be day or night. And
from equator, the sun will appear go backwards every Mercury orbital year. This doesn’t happen with the Moon, Earth appear move a little bit but roughly is fix in same portion of sky, and Earth in in the Moon’s sky depends on where you are on the Moon. Or on near side of Moon you always know where you are by knowing where [the exact angle] the Earth is. And if know what time it is, one also use position of sun {or stars] anywhere in Moon. Or if in lunar location where can see Earth- you don’t need to know the time, to always know roughly, where you are.
What you don’t understand, Clint R, is that the Astronauts experiment was not set up to measure the torque on the bar with the feather on one end and the hammer on the other end, because there was no bar.
The experiment like lots of experiments, was set to demonstrate one thing, but you interpret that it also proves some other thing.
It show two objects fall at the same rate, and whoa, they weren’t connected by a long bar, or a bar of any length.
So there was no measurement of anything at all, not even of the speed of falling, nor acceleration, nor torque.
It was a qualitative experiment, nothing was measured.
gbaikie, do a vector diagram of Earth’s gravity stopping a rotating moon. That will help you to understand.
Also, some of the nonsense you find on wiki should be an eye-opener. Mercury cannot be rotating about its axis, and “tidally locked” at the same time. When things don’t make sense, it’s time to admit things don’t make sense.
bob, the astronaut experiment indicates that there would be no torque produced by gravity.
No one expects you to understand physics.
Measurement, measurement, measurement Clint R
The astronaut did no measurement, so it’s clearly a qualitative experiment and not a quantitative experiment.
You do know the difference?
And actually, Newton’s laws say there would be a torque due to gravity, very small and hard to measure, but a torque never the less.
ClintR, what do you agree or disagree with in the following article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
bob, the astronaut experiment indicates that there would be no torque produced by gravity.
No one expects you to understand physics.
Trollard, an acceleration along a line is NOT a torque.
You and bob need to study physics. But, we know that’s not going to happen…..
Clint,
It’s vector calculus:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient
Some might say it’s above your paygrade, school grade, or mental capacity, but I’m willing to be surprised.
Well show us your “vector calculus”, Trollard.
After you’ve finished sniffing butts, of course.
I’m not the one who pretends to be the big physicist, buff, Clint.
Show us your big formal muscles.
Clint R
“bob, the astronaut experiment indicates that there would be no torque produced by gravity.”
No Clint R, it did not.
Torque requires a force and a distance, the Astronauts only showed that there is a force of gravity.
No bar there, therefore no torque.
I can reveal where and when I studied physics, how about you?
Or just post a picture of you and a physics textbook, take the plastic wrapper off it first.
Oh but then we would know how ugly you are.
“Clint R says:
April 7, 2021 at 1:20 PM
gbaikie, do a vector diagram of Earths gravity stopping a rotating moon. That will help you to understand.”
I suppose to understand that the moon isn’t slowing down Earth spin, also?
for example this is wrong:
“The presence of the Moon (which has about 1/81 the mass of Earth), is slowing Earth’s rotation and extending the day by about 2 milliseconds every 100 years.”
And also this is wrong:
“The mass of the Moon is not evenly distributed; mass concentrations, called Mascons, lie beneath many of the lunar basins, and the center of mass of the Moon is displaced several kilometers towards the Earth. The non-uniform mass distribution creates orbital stability problems for spacecraft orbiting the Moon.”
Trollard, bob, and gbaikie, if you can’t draw a vector diagram to show how gravity can produce torque, then you’ve got NOTHING.
Galileo and the astronauts understand it — gravity can NOT produce torque on Moon.
I’ve learned months ago, I can’t teach physics to idiots.
> Galileo and the astronauts
Not sure about the astronauts, Clint, but Galileo only destroyed a strawman:
http://intellectualmathematics.com/blog/the-case-against-galileo-on-the-law-of-fall/
Wow Trollard, you responded in 6 minutes! You must monitor this blog constantly. You really are obsessed with sniffing my butt.
Get help.
> you responded in 6 minutes!
So did you here, Clint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-658331
What does that tell you?
bobd…”The force of gravity from the Earth pulls each point differently, which creates a torque on the Moon.”
Bob…go back to your sheep.
Clint R,
“Trollard, bob, and gbaikie, if you can’t draw a vector diagram to show how gravity can produce torque, then you’ve got NOTHING.”
Of course I can draw a vector diagram showing how gravity can produce a torque, the problem is you wouldn’t understand it.
It comes directly from the gravitational force equation.
f = G * M1 * m2 / r^2
Note the mass terms, a hammer weighs more than a feather, so the gravitational force is greater on the hammer than the feather, but not so much that it could be easy to measure.
And there is the r^2 term for distance, which in my vector diagram would be measured in kilometers, there being a significant distance between the center of gravity and the center of mass in the case of the Moon.
When the center of mass of the Earth, the center of mass of the Moon and the center of gravity of the Moon are all aligned, there is no torque.
But when they are not aligned, due to the elliptical orbit, there is a torque.
Gordon,
“bobdThe force of gravity from the Earth pulls each point differently, which creates a torque on the Moon.
That’s correct, Gordon, did you notice the r^2 term in the gravitational force equation?
Do you even understand how to calculate the force of gravity between two objects?
“Bobgo back to your sheep.”
I see you have nothing to offer.
Thanks for another display of your ignorance, bob.
Gravity is NOT producing a “force” on the feather or hammer. Gravity produces an “acceleration”. That acceleration is the same for ALL objects, regards of mass. That is why the feather and hammer fall at the same rate — they are falling with the same acceleration.
So a vector representation would show both hammer and feather with vectors facing Moon with equal magnitudes. If the feather and hammer were attached to ends of a long rod, the feather, hammer, and rod would still all have the same vector. No torque would be developed.
You don’t understand any of this, and can’t learn. But I appreciate you being a great example of an idiot, so others might learn.
Clint R,
If you don’t do the math you don’t get credit, and you get the wrong answer.
The force on the hammer or feather is
F=Gm1m2/r2
Note that the hammer has more mass than the feather, so the force on the hammer is more than the force on the feather.
The reason they fall at the same rate is because F=ma so the mass of the object hammer or feather produces the same acceleration even though the force on them is different.
bob, a body in “free fall” has no “weight”. It is “weightless”.
You don’t understand any of this, and can’t learn. But I appreciate you being a great example of an idiot, so others might learn.
What are you babbling about Clint R?
I didn’t say anything about any object’s weight.
And anyone could see that.
–It comes directly from the gravitational force equation.
f = G * M1 * m2 / r^2
Note the mass terms, a hammer weighs more than a feather, so the gravitational force is greater on the hammer than the feather, but not so much that it could be easy to measure.–
Well, lead has more gravity and was used to measure gravity or it’s density allows you to get closer to more mass.
Our sun is lousy for star travel, as lacks density and it’s quite hot- one do something to deal with the heat, but can’t do anything about it’s low density. A dwarf star could be much better, and nothing beats a black hole.
But with hammer and feather it does not have much to due with the distance. Or 10 tons of feathers will have less gravity force to ton hammers or a ton of feathers, as compared to 10 tons lead to any mass of feathers or hammers.
But talking about gravity gradient, and 10 ton of lead will have a greater difference over distance, or 10 tons of lead has greater gravity gradient or tidal effect on a 1 ton of feathers.
Correct bob. You don’t realize that F = ma refers to an objects “weight”. That’s because you don’t understand any of this, and can’t learn.
But I appreciate you being a great example of an idiot, so others might learn.
gbaikie, I wasn’t able to understand your point, but a ton of lead will fall at the same rate as a feather. If that helps.
The acceleration is constant for any mass. That’s why gravity cannot exert a torque on a body in free fall.
Clint R,
You still don’t know what you are babbling about.
F=ma is Newtons second law.
weight is equal to mass times g
Learn the difference.
Again bob, thanks for being such a blatant idiot.
Now several others understand that gravity does not produce a torque on a falling body. No one wants to be as ignorant as you.
There is another clique exemplified here by Clint R 8:13 AM, which is perfectly captured in Isaac Asimov’s quote:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.
People imagine lots of things Tyson. Imagining there is the huge sect that can be identified by its educational degrees of fully adhering to the principles of intellectualism is no doubt the biggest and most impactful form of ignorance in existence today.
And which form of ignorance is it not knowing that Thermal IR exists only in the range of 4-50 microns of the solar spectrum?
Because this is basic knowledge, I postulate that it fits under anti-intellectualism.
P.s.: Near IR 0.7-4 microns; Far IR 50-1000 microns
Tyson, please stop trolling.
I definitely do not think I’m always correct. I make more than my fair share of mistakes. What I do try to do is learn from them so that I don’t keep repeating the same mistakes. I cringe at the thought of how many times I may have inadvertently misinformed someone else. So if you or anyone else notices something wrong then by all means speak up. Be prepared to provide a clear and concise description of the mistake and what the correction should be with supporting evidence that has been reviewed by experts.
bdgwx, let’s just take one of your many mistakes — the EEI nonsense that you keep misleading people with.
1) Flux does NOT “add up” as you attempt with that bogus EEI.
2) Flux is NOT conserved.
I did not calculate the +0.87 W/m^2 EEI. That was Schuckmann et al 2020 and they didn’t add fluxes as part of there methodology.
Fluxes do add when in reference to the same area and same time. The 1LOT says so. Just because you either don’t accept the 1LOT or don’t understand how fluxes relate to energy and ultimately the 1LOT doesn’t mean fluxes are not conserved when in reference to the same area and same time.
I’ll give you the last word on this here.
bdgwx, hiding behind some “et al.” nonsense won’t help you to understand. You’ve got to learn to think for yourself.
Start with something easy. Admit that “960” does not equal “240”.
If you can finally admit that, we can move forward.
bdgwx, its important to remember that Clint cant communicate, seeks to pervert reality, and believes he can pretend to be a physics big buff without any equation.
IOW, youre dealing with an ankle biter.
Trollard, have you considered therapy for your addiction to butt-sniffing?
Clint,
Why are you expressing your deep desires out loud to strangers on the Internet?
The “strangers on the Internet” need to be warned about your proclivity to butt-sniffing, Trollard.
I’m happy to provide that public service.
You provide no service to anyone when you’re sharing your erotic fantasies without being sollicited, Clint.
Trollard, have you considered getting therapy for your addiction to butt-sniffing?
You’re begging a silly question, Clint.
Be a man.
Show your physics chops.
There really are professionals out there that can help you, Trollard.
Butt-sniffing is not what you want to do with your life. Recovery from your perverted practices is a long, hard road. But the sooner you start, the better.
Get help.
You go first, dear Clint.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yes, it was lucky catching phony Clint spreading more of his dis-information.
Thanks for the added attention, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
BGDWX,
You’re a propagandist and disinformation-ist. You went on and on about Berry not understanding adjustment time and you were lying out of your ass, continually.
My position is that there is little if anything on his blog that suggests he understands adjustment time and there is a lot that suggests he doesn’t. That is my position…honestly.
If my position is wrong then when asked what the full adjustment time was for the last interglacial release then he will answer with about 110,000 years.
I will definitely change my position if you can show that he has or would provide an answer that is not substantially different than this.
bdgwx, until you admit that “960” is NOT equal to “240”, you’re just an uneducated idiot, trolling for your cult.
Wow Clint, you responded in 6 minutes! You must monitor this blog constantly. You really are obsessed.
Get help.
Yes, it was lucky catching phony bdgwx spreading more of his dis-information.
Thanks for the added attention.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson, I would refer you to a diagram showing Atmospheric Transmission. It is clear that the Sun emits at frequencies in the visible spectrum while the earth emits at frequencies in the IR spectrum. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
CO2 does absorb energy at specific frequencies and they are not included in the energy spectrum reaching the earth from the sun. Those frequencies are 2.7um 4.2um and 15um.
Uhm, no,
You are misinterpreting that graph, you should note that the peaks are of the same height, that would be incorrect.
Most of the emission from the sun is in the infrared and lower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
Both are wrong?
The sun does emit roughly the entire spectrum- x-ray to radio.
Infrared is large spectrum, and as any significant energy coming from 149.6 million km away, this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
Indicate shortwave IR, Near and longer. And Near is close to visible light or red light. And some human eyes or conditions can allow seeing Near IR. And creatures like snakes are seeing it.
Or if heating say iron, and before hot enough to glows red it’s glowing in the shortwave IR. But the long wave IR from Sun is not shown in the graph it’s very weak from the sun’s distance to Earth. It’s there, but doesn’t amount to much energy and not included in the graph. There might graph of it, but change graphs scale, or it’s very long line on bottom graph.
But Ken wrong, as CO2 does absorb shortwave IR, as pointed to/ indicated in that graph and also H2O water vapor absorbs and emits in the more intense spectrum of shortwave indicated on graph, both both absorb and emit in Longwave IR spectrum also.
Sunlight shortwave IR will make water vapor and CO2 gas glow, And Earth’s warmth will make them glow. But sunlight does weakly emit longwave, which should likewise cause Water vapor and CO2 to glow in longwave IR {I would guess, though not seen mentioned- and it would not seem significant- but then again I don’t think glowing gases in longwave IR is as important as some other folks}.
But Ken question was essentially if make greenhouse gases glow more- it suppose it’s suppose to have some kind of feedback: glowing more, causing more glowing more, causing more glowing more, etc. Which probably true in some sense, but sort like Sun cause this kind of glowing- it’s not significant.
My question is about what happens when the concentration of CO2 doubles to 800 ppm. Happer says essentially that opacity upward increases by 3Wm-2. What does that 3Wm-2 mean in terms of warming?
Ken, Happer’s effort was confusing. I was disappointed he chose that route. He basically was trying to disprove the CO2 nonsense by first accepting it, then showing it didn’t matter. That’s NOT how you discredit a hoax.
A doubling of CO2 ppm would provide a slight cooling, everything else being the same. But, everything else doesn’t remain the same. The laws of physics govern Earth’s average temperature.
I understand the logarithmic response to increased CO2 levels where more CO2 means less and less warming per unit of CO2. I understand the reason is ‘saturation’.
I don’t understand the mechanism where more CO2 would lead to cooling. Perhaps you could explain that one.
“I don’t understand the mechanism where more CO2 would lead to cooling. Perhaps you could explain that one.”
The only way thermal energy can leave Earth is by radiative heat transfer. CO2, being a radiative gas, contributes to cooling. More than half of the photons CO2 molecules emit are directed upward, i.e., moving thermal energy away from the surface. As that energy gets radiated to space, it is lost forever, cooling Earth’s system.
CO2 does NOT add energy to Earth, it removes energy from Earth. That is an important point overlooked in the AGW nonsense. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more cooling.
Ken,
The surface radiation from an astronomical body escapes to space completely unimpeded when there are no IR active gas species in the body’s atmosphere assuming it even has an atmosphere. In other words, the most optimal cooling configuration is with no IR active gas species or no atmosphere at all.
IR active gas species impede the transmission of IR radiation. They do this by capturing the upward moving photons and either thermalizes them directly or reemit them in a random direction such that 50% have escape trajectories and 50% have surface trajectories. In other words, IR active gas species like CO2 make it such that fewer photons actually escape to space.
Take the Moon for example. It receives the same amount of solar energy, but the mean temperature is only ~200K as opposed to 289K for Earth. References: Williams 2017 (https://tinyurl.com/4xb23mmc) and Nikolov & Zeller 2014 (https://tinyurl.com/2f2wcwth).
Clint, I think you’re missing the point that bdgwx makes in that CO2 is slowing the escape of IR to space which is why its called a greenhouse gas. More CO2 should make the atmosphere more opaque to transmission of energy thus causing warming.
My question remains about how much warming would be caused by the 3Wm-2 of flux from doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Ken,
It depends on the climate sensitivity in C per W/m^2. Reasonable estimates are in the range 0.5-1.5C per W/m^2 after fast feedback equilibration. The paleoclimate record suggests it is different for different eras. It is also believed that it starts low and increases as the climate system gets perturbed more and more due to the activation of tipping points.
Ken, there will always be someone like bdgwx attempting to pervert reality. His “going to Moon” is a perfect example. Notice he didn’t mention that Moon has nighttime temperatures down to -179C (-280F). Moon is a distraction. Earth has oceans and an atmosphere. Earth is NOT Moon!
Ask bdgwx if 960 equals 240. He won’t answer because then he has to admit that flux is NOT conserved. It’s so easy to catch these idiots, but they still continue perverting reality.
So it’s wrong that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere means higher temperatures. More CO2 means more cooling, although the amount is small. Adding more CO2 is somewhat analogous to adding more holes in the bottom of a bucket of water — the more holes, the more water leaks out.
“CO2, being a radiative gas, contributes to cooling.”
All earthen gases radiate thus contribute to Earth cooling to deep space Clint R, why did you single out CO2?
“IR active gas species like CO2 make it such that fewer photons actually escape to space.”
IR active gas species like CO2 make it such that fewer photons actually escape directly to space. So, some photons in the lower atm. hang around a bit longer. Some would call their energy getting “trapped” a bit longer & maybe their added thermodynamic internal energy acquired from the sun staying long enough to become an unwelcome guest. This process has consequences for global near surface multi-decadal avg. temperatures i.e. earthen climate.
“(moon’s) mean temperature is only ~200K as opposed to 289K for Earth.”
N&Z used global surface emissivity and albedo/diffraction assumptions by others for the moon’s top surface brightness equilibrium temperature ~200K so that number depends on how good are those assumptions which is not known since the moon’s global surface multidecadal equilibrium thermometer temperature is unknown.
“What does that 3Wm-2 mean in terms of warming?”
The short answer is no one knows.
What got to know about Happer {or Roy Spencer} is they looking at what could be the upper limit of the warming 3Wm-2 or doubling of CO2. And alarmists are not doing this.
My limit is 0 to .5 C.
Roy say might around 2 C.
My limit relates to a time less than 100 years. Or could be more than .5 C if talking about centuries into future.
And generally I think it’s “irresponsible” to get too serious about trying to predict anything over 100 years in the future. But I like to imagine such a distant future. It’s fun.
Ball4,
It looks like the Diviner data confirms N&Z’s estimate. Although the Williams 2017 paper does not provide a global mean per se they do explicitly state 215K as the equatorial mean and 100K as the polar mean and I did see someone take the raw Diviner data and verify that 200K was the global mean.
gbaikie said: The short answer is no one knows.
That implies -infinity to +infinity. Obviously we can constrain the range much better than “we don’t know”. We just can’t constrain the range down to +/- 1C yet even.
1C per W/m^2 is a good first approximation though. Putting reasonably wide margins on that would be 0.25-2.0C per W/m^2 which for 3 W/m^2 yields 0.75C to 6.00C of warming for fast feedbacks. It is certainly not great, but infinitely better than -infinity to +infinity. The lower bound is much easier to constrain for the contemporary warming era since with each decade of warming we constrain the lower bound higher and higher.
bdgwx: “It looks like the Diviner data confirms N&Z’s estimate.”
N&Z estimate is also from Diviner radiometers. They then go on to extrapolate and use lunar regolith emissivity properties for all their airless objects, a huge leap. N&Z, like others, use lunar regolith sample emissivity assumptions for the lunar global surface. The ~200K is only as good as those assumptions and there are no lunar global thermometer readings to check anyone’s assumptions.
There are some sparse Apollo thermometer readings for educated guesses. Much (~25%) of the lunar surface is fine powder which everyone assumes has zero diffraction which they know is wrong but cannot come up with anything better afaik. Diffraction from that powder can cause emissivity to read higher than 1.0 meaning lunar global brightness ~200K is too low. There isn’t much research interest or money to work in this area. That may change with future manned missions.
Plus, the lunar 200K brightness temperature is not a very good equilibrium reading due the high T ranges. Apollo borehole thermometer data suggests 0.2m below surface achieves equilibrium 240K at the global equator with albedo assumed at 0.1.
Don’t recall or haven’t read Williams 2017 or how they got the equatorial 215K. If that’s a brightness temperature (I’d bet it is without looking or re-looking), then 240K equatorial thermometer equilibrium temperature calls into question their brightness temperature assumptions for emissivity and diffraction along with albedo. I’d be interested to go read up on their work, if I haven’t seen it already.
Thanks Ball4. That is good info. I’m going to take a closer look at that N&Z and Williams publications. I want to see exactly what they are doing.
I’m not looking at the feedbacks. If anything, the climate model projections are probably so profoundly wrong because they consider a positive feedback exists when actually if there is a feedback its probably negative.
bobdroege at 9:25 AM
You are misinterpreting that graph, you should note that the peaks are of the same height, that would be incorrect.
Ken’s graph shows a commonly used normalization of the blackbody curves corresponding to the temperature of the sun’s photosphere and three typical terrestrial temperatures.
https://ibb.co/qxYQv6K
Note that you said normalization, which means the curves are shown to be the same size.
Also note that a blackbody spectrum of temperature T will always be completely enclosed by a blackbody spectrum of T + x where x is a positive number.
Such that at any wavelength, the Sun emits more radiation than the Earth.
That goes for all the wavelengths that CO2 emits and collects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#/media/File:Black_body.svg
It is a normalization so by definition the area under each of the curves is the same. Without normalizing, the terrestrial curve would be just a slight wiggle in the range of 4-100 microns.
https://ibb.co/qxYQv6K
More snow:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/april-2021-outlook-warmth-expected-much-contiguous-us%E2%80%A6except-you-pacific
Did I say snow?
I meant drought.
PS: Update your WP installation, Roy. It sucks.
W,
You wrote –
“Update your WP installation, Roy. It sucks.”
And if he doesn’t?
Issuing commands without the power to enforce them is idiocy.
Go on. Command me to do something.
Ho, ho ho!
Your’e an idiot.
Mike,
You wrote –
“And if he doesnt?”
His WP will still suck.
Sometimes, I really wonder if you take any time thinking about your rhetorical questions.
W addresses the contents of his fantasy.
He wrote –
“Sometimes, I really wonder if you take any time thinking about your rhetorical questions.”
W creates a mythical person, then complains about him!
Delusional or just an idiot?
The world wonders!
> creates a mythical person, then complains about him! Delusional or […]
There’s nothing mythical about you, Mike:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/10/14/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop/#comment-736906
W has taken up psychobabbling.
Oh well, it’s a change.
> psychobabbling
The quote ain’t my words, Mike.
W keeps on psychobabbling. Tries to duck and weave.
Claims that links and content leap into his comments all by themselves, apparently, don’t seem very realistic.
What an idiot!
<3
W,
How cryptic! How obscure!
How idiotic!
Keep it up!
Good morning, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
–That didn’t work try tiny–
“Also, some of the nonsense you find on wiki should be an eye-opener. Mercury cannot be rotating about its axis, and tidally locked at the same time. When things dont make sense, its time to admit things dont make sense.”
Have not given it much thought, from google search says:
“Mercury spins slowly on its axis and completes one rotation every 59 Earth days. … One Mercury solar day (one full day-night cycle) equals 176 Earth daysjust over two years on Mercury. Mercury’s axis of rotation is tilted just 2 degrees with respect to the plane of its orbit around the Sun.”
And mercury orbital period, “88 days”
So, I assume it’s spinning on Axis and call a “spinorbit resonance”
and 59 to 88 seems about 2 to 3.
And if wasn’t spinning it would always facing the Sun, like Moon always faces Earth. I didn’t realize it was 2 degree. Going to check it.
“Inclination of equator (deg) 0.034”
https://tinyurl.com/ya5w3jzv
Yeah, I thought close to zero. Oh they say to plane around sun or I guess to earth orbital plane. Or would certainly have tilt as far viewing it from Earth.
Anyhow I not clear on why Mercury orbit proves Einstein theory- and certainly I could not do the math- I generally try avoid that kind of math.
gbaikie, it’s not worth wearing out your keyboard.
An object in “pure orbital motion” is “NOT” also rotating about its axis. The ball-on-a-string is a simple analogy to “pure orbital motion”.
It’s that simple. No math involved.
Mercury has an elliptical orbit. It’s greatest distance is aphelion. Draw a line from the Sun through Mercury at aphelion and it hits a point on the sky. Over many orbits that point drifts slowly over time at a predictable rate.All planets do this, but Mercury orbits closest to the Sun, in the shortest time and the strongest gravitational field. That gives maximum drift and makes the small differences in drift measurable.
Newtonian gravity and relativity predict slightly different rates of drift. The measured rate of drift matches that predicted by relativity rather than that predicted by Newtonian gravity.
That all sounds very “sciency”, Ent. But, who’s doing the “measuring”. What are the error margins?
I bet a person could get the results they wanted.
That ain’t science.
> I bet
How much?
A little research will show you that the problem was first noticed in 1859 in data collected since 1697.
Good Victorian science, not this modern rubbish.
A little research will show you that relativity was not considered until the 1900s.
Someone is just making stuff up….
It was like people noticing a little be of warming
Yup. The mismatch between observation and the prediction of Newtonian gravity was noticed in 1859, but the explanation had to wait until Einstein came up with General Relativity in 1915.
Ok.
But what about spin. In terms gravity affects and particularly the resonance of spin.
I thought it which regarding the inclination of Mercury orbit, but if so, it will probably also include aspect related to planet’s spin.
bill hunter April 7, 2021 at 12:37 PM
virtually all solar radiation is thermal. IR is thought to be more than 50% of the total.
You can see that with an eyeball of the distribution of sunlight here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Solar_spectrum_en.svg/1024px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png
Your linked figure shows the spectrum out to ~2.585 microns; since Thermal IR is in the approximate range of 4-50 microns, I dont follow your logic.
https://ibb.co/qxYQv6K
T,
Logic has nothing to do with fact. Thinking it does, marks you as a fantasist.
The Sun emits radiation close to that of a black body at 5500K or so. More than 50% IR.
From Wikipedia –
“Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero. …”
You have redefined thermal radiation to suit yourself, in the finest climate cultist tradition.
Thinking you could get away with it makes you – an idiot.
Good morning, Mike.
W addresses his fantasy again. Irrelevant, pointless, and according to Einstein, a symptom of insanity.
Einstein –
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”.
Smart fellow, Einstein.
W, not so smart.
Keeps attempting to troll (or something). Keeps being unsuccessful. He is an ineffectual idiot.
His choice, I suppose.
> Smart fellow, Einstein.
Nothing compared to you, Mike:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/07/week-in-review-science-edition-58/#comment-816396
Notice the “-“.
W becomes more cryptic.
He wrote “Notice the “-“.”
OK. And then?
Notice something else? Spend your time complying with W’s bizarre desires?
Maybe it’s worse than we thought, as idiots like to say!
> more cryptic
More “cryptic”:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/01/perversions-of-open-minded-thinking-on-climate-change/#comment-828023
As you yourself says, cheers.
W keeps it going. Still delusional. Still posting links that I certainly won’t look at! Why should I?
Maybe he thinks if re repeats the same action often enough, the outcome will be different. Insanity or idiocy?
Who would know?
✋
Willard, please stop trolling.
I VERY CLEARLY WROTE Thermal IR, and you did a wiki search and blabbed about “Thermal radiation.”
Thinking you could get away with it makes you – an idiot.
Unless of course you are retarded in which case I’ll let it slide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg
T,
Thermal IR, LWIR, thermal radiation (which includes IR of any type you want to specify), are all emitted by the Sun. You obviously believe your source, but of course there are others. Fo example, NASA says this “The region from 8 to 15 microns (m) is referred to by Earth scientists as thermal infrared.”
This is the problem with vagueness, which climate cultists worship.
I assume you think you have a point relating to global warming, AGW, climate, weird weather, or something!
Good attempt at diversion.
You wrote –
“Unless of course you are retarded in which case Ill let it slide.” And if I’m not? I suppose you won’t “let it slide.”
You are definitely an idiot if you think I care. Go on, don’t “let it slide”!
Ho,ho, ho!
So, you ARE retarded then.
T,
If that’s your reason for admitting you are powerless, go for it.
So you’ve never been diagnosed? You’re in luck then:
Mental retardation is characterized by a slow development of motor skills, language skills, social skills, and occupational skills. The signs of mental retardation appear at an early age. The severity of mental retardation varies from person to person.
Mild mental retardation. About 85% of people with mental retardation fall into this category. People in this group can learn motor development, do routine work, study, have jobs, and participate in their communities.
Moderate mental retardation. Individuals in this group can learn how to read, write, and develop basic math skills. With specialized training and therapy, they can go on to hold low or moderate-skill jobs.
Severe mental retardation. People in this group show significant difficulty with or even lack motor skills. While they can develop low-level speaking and communication, they will develop these skills much later than their peers.
Extreme mental retardation. Only 1-2% of people with mental retardation fall into this category. Extreme mental retardation is often due to a physiological problem, like a brain injury or malformation.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
I VERY CLEARLY WROTE Thermal IR, and you did a wiki search and blabbed about Thermal radiation.
———————
No problem Tyson you are correct. Its just in this topic of the temperature of the planets it akin to talking about the mesopelagic zone of the ocean when talking about light being absorbed into the ocean.
You are using terms important to a different discipline than this one. Thermal IR is about light and organisms in the biological sciences. . . .and so is mesopelagic.
bill hunter at 9:59 AM
Spoken like a true accountant who is opining on scientific matters where precision of language is everything.
Thermal IR is important in atmospheric physics because:
Near IR 0.7 – 4 microns is 52% of solar output.
Thermal IR 4 – 50 microns is 0.9% of solar output.
Far IR 50 – 1000 microns is <0.01% of solar output.
Therefore it is wrong to say:
bill hunter April 7, 2021 at 12:37 PM
virtually all solar radiation is thermal. IR is thought to be more than 50% of the total.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
Therefore it is wrong to say:
bill hunter April 7, 2021 at 12:37 PM
virtually all solar radiation is thermal. IR is thought to be more than 50% of the total.
——————————–
Uh Tyson. . . . do you know the significance of that period in the statement? When I add up your figures it comes out 52.91% of solar radiation is IR.
Ken
I looked at your graph from Wikipedia and would like to make the following comments 21 April.
The graph runs the x axis in the wrong direction then super imposes the relative boatman curve for a temperature onto it. The tail is thus on the wrong side.
There is no scale on the y axis.
This makes it irrelevant as the energies of the uv region would be much higher due to the higher frequency.
The ir part from the atmosphere should be much lower.
It appears to be an artists impression of what they believe to be happening rather than real data.
Has the impact of the reduction in air travel over the last 18months as a result of the COVID pandemic had a measurable impact on climate temperature…
Namely reduction in Green House Gas emmissions and reduction in cloud cover / con trails ?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210202164535.htm
Reduced flights would mean a slight reduction in CO2 and a slight reduction in clouds. But even adding the two warming mechanisms, the total would only amount to a slight increase in temperature. And, as indicated by the UAH Global results, that slight increase was overwhelmed by the cooling mechanisms.
Calum M
This is a really pertinent question.
I recall many US persons having observed a major change in the sky above them after 9/11, certainly due to a total shutdown, even if during one week only, of all civil flight activities over the US.
Some said to have ‘rediscovered a blue sky’ they hadn’t seen anymore since quite long a time.
*
While over the US I saw since April 2020 only a very small reduction in traffic
https://www.flightradar24.com/27.6,11.75/3
compared with pre-pandemic times, the rest looked quite different, especially over Europe.
*
Burning 1 kg kerosene produces about 3 kg CO2 and 1 kg H2O as water vapor.
According to FAA, about 1 billion liter ( = 0.8 million tons) of kerosene were burnt daily & worldwide by civil aviation in 2010.
That for itself can’t be underestimated; but we all certainly think that the contrails are in addition a continuous source for cloud formation.
*
On the other hand, we observe since many months over us in Northern Germoney that night sky is by a lot clearer than usual. I can’t recall having seen such an amount of ‘small’ stars during the last 40 years.
Is that due to the flight activity reduction? Maybe…
*
Now, what does that means in the sum? No se!
J.-P. D.
Calum
No there is not any measurable impact by COVID on climate.
People still use massive amounts of energy to grow food, heat homes, make products, transport goods. The only energy use that is impacted is non-essential travel which is but a fraction of global energy use.
See the Mauna Loa graph where CO2 levels are monitored. The rate of rise of concentration continues unabated with a slight exponential trend. So if CO2 is causing much of the modest amount of warming then there should be a continued warming trend.
The interesting bit is the graph at the top of this blog which shows a rather dramatic drop in temperature anomaly since the start of the year. It indicates that most of the warming in the past 20 years is pretty much gone and suggests that ENSO has much greater impact on climate than CO2.
“The interesting bit is the graph at the top of this blog which shows a rather dramatic drop in temperature anomaly since the start of the year. It indicates that most of the warming in the past 20 years is pretty much gone”
It’s a La Nina, Ken, not a cancellation of 21st century warming.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2021/every/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2021/every/trend
If its La Nina causing the cooling then it was El Nino causing the warming. ENSO, not CO2.
“So if CO2 is causing much of the modest amount of warming then there should be a continued warming trend.”
The black line in the top post through 0 just moved up in accord with the added ppm CO2 during the measured period.
The black line in the top post through 0 moved up in accord with the added ppm CO2 during the previously measured period.
The black line in the top post through 0 moved up in accord with the added ppm CO2 during the 1938 to 2013 measured period.
That’s a fairly convincing long term continued climate warming trend from added ppm CO2.
Its only a fairly convincing long term continued warming trend.
You still have to determine how much of the warming is due to natural variation. You can’t just say its warming therefore its caused by CO2 and nothing but CO2.
The problem with that, Ken, is that the black line has increased very closely to the known surface atm. warming due atm. IR opacity increase from CO2 so there is very little or no room for another monotonic cause at that time scale.
Over the three black line time periods the natural cycles and one time events have run their course; the only monotonic global T increase game left in town is from added ppm CO2. Water vapor, con trails, clouds (liquid water), land use, and solar are measured reasonably well with not enough monotonic change to be players in moving the black line up.
“ENSO has much greater impact on climate than CO2. ”
Probably better to say that ENSO has more impact on weather than CO2. They operate on different timescales.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2021/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2021/every/trend
If you look at the red graph you can see massive short term changes due to ENSO.
Temperature rise by 1C between 1997 and 1998 and then dropped by 1C into 2000.
Rose by 1.1C between 2012 and 2016, then dropped by 0.7 into 2018.
Big changes, but they are temporary. They happen quickly and unhappen just as quickly.
Hidden under all that bouncing about is the green effect of CO2. Quietly and without any fuss it raises temperature by 0.14C/decade over decades.
It also increased 2C from 1700 to 1735. That probably wasn’t CO2.
> It also increased 2C from 1700 to 1735. T
Where did you get that extraordinary idea, Ken?
Probably CET.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature#/media/File%3A20190731_Central_England_Temperature_(CET)_(annual_mean%2C_beginning_in_1659).png
Ken
The difference is that ENSO temporarily raises or lowers the temperature relative to the mean, while increasing CO2 gradually increases the mean temperature.
If you look at the CET graph it dropped 1C below the mean to a minimum in 1700 and then rose to 1C above the mean in 1735.
Reason unknown but possibly related to the Maunder Minimum.
The AMOC is likely a contributing factor to the temperatures in CET.
Ent says: “…while increasing CO2 gradually increases the mean temperature.”
There you go again, Ent. You’re just regurgitating that cult belief. Here’s some reality for you:
1) CO2 does NOT increase temperature.
2) Increased temperature is caused by natural variability.
3) Increased temperature means increased outgassing of CO2
You keep believing that CO2 “heats” but does not “cool”. The reality is the opposite. CO2 cools, but can NOT “heat”.
(And passenger jets to NOT fly backwards and sideways. Quit making stuff up!)
1. You keep butting in exchanges peddling your irrelevant crap, Clint.
2. That’s not a good way to get attention.
3. More so that you’re poisoning your own well.
4. Poisoning your own well is beyond silly.
Clint R says:
There you go again, Ent. Youre just regurgitating that cult belief. Heres some reality for you:
1) CO2 does NOT increase temperature.
===========================
Have to be careful Clint. If the CO2 is warm it can increase temperature of something else colder.
The intellectually dishonest way the other side argues they will take you task on that.
I still haven’t seen a clear statement though from warmist scientists trying quiet the BS about backradiation actually warming something rather than simply slowing a temperature decrease.
The sheeple around here understand so little about that elementary fact.
But it is plausible that billions of layers of CO2 could act as an insulation in a system as large as the earth’s atmosphere. It just that they can’t build large enough of a greenhouse to demonstrate any of it.
If they actually had science on this they would have offered to G&T who was all out mocking them on the ridiculous extrapolations they were making saying none of this has been established in the framework of physics.
G&T correctly cornered them with the 2nd law violation if they chose to retreat to the 3rd grade model that leaves the viewer to his own conclusion about what the underlying logic is. Does back radiation actually warm something or does it just slow cooling.
Even Tim Folkerts can’t get himself to see the real world and realize that CO2 can’t slow cooling in either a gas or liquid form, but only in a frozen one.
Thus Manabe and Wetherald postulated a massive system that did it but they didn’t ever establish the factors they used to drive the system. If your result is zero from experiment you can’t just extrapolate it to a larger number.
Tim though is just a babe when it comes to the application of radiative physics. I have 15 years of experience as a paid layman. Self taught myself the application of the basic physics I got in my education and consulted with or read all of the top radiant heating guys as for those years I offered products I built from that knowledge as a niche product bonus in building and remodeling homes.
So as typical when G&T tried to block all paths of retreat. Using the 2nd law of thermodynamics as the obstruction to trying to escape out the backdoor, as suggested by the 3rd grade model of backradiation, these intellectually dishonest pirates used their large government-sponsored voices to shout G&T down as if that were the only argument in their paper. they knew better, it was a pure BS response. Like those you get from the morons in here.
So they have a plausible insulation theory with zero science support beyond gee its warming.
But science typically shuns that kind of science by declaration. Until its in on the take of course. . . .as Eisenhower pointed out.
The coup is accomplished by fiat using the post normal science rationale that some things are so publicly important that the burden of proof of the science should be reversed. Money is being poured now for decades into institutions to do studies on mitigating climate change. I am involved in more than a few of them.
You are just a rebellious revolutionary unwilling to lick their boots. Keep up the good work.
You are like Thomas Paine exposing the British carpetbaggers for what they were.
What the sheeple don’t realize is that if you lose, they will be next. Due process is supposed be like free speech. Its now all being subverted in the name of public good.
The whole scheme is to take down the Constitution without firing a shot, science is bought off for going along with the post normal science policy with major bucks, which will only continue to flow in the desired direction due to the building of literally thousands of institutions that will continue to operate on government cash for an unlimited list of great projects to resolve. Big institutions. . . .and big corporations take on a life of their own. Capitalism started in the US as small individual businesses. Their first opponent was the most imperialist nation on earth at the time.
Today the anti-capitalist forces include all the largest institutions and even the biggest corporations. It makes clear to me the revolution needs to go on forever against those who think themselves above others.
As MIT’s Dr Emanuel said to Dr Lindzen. . . .can’t you just go along on the basis that it will be good for science. Many of our best scientists in disciplines surrounding this topic have found a need to go elsewhere because of the obstinance against going along with the scheme.
Bill warns: “The intellectually dishonest way the other side argues they will take you task on that.”
Bill I don’t worry about idiots. They are experts at misrepresenting my words. When they do, I just consider that to mean I’m “over the target”.
> But it is plausible that billions of layers of CO2 could act as an insulation in a system as large as the earth’s atmosphere.
Millions of years of evolution to get to that point.
Don’t ever change, guys.
So Willard are you on board with bdgwx that there is no realistic possibility of catastrophic warming happening from fossil fuel emissions?
B Hunter, Gota give you credit for that long rant, which BTW morphs in your usual political rant with no connection to AGW. But, from the very beginning, you offer an incorrect comparison:
As a self proclaimed “paid layman” who gained enough experience to offer “products I built from that knowledge as a niche product bonus in building and remodeling homes”, you really don’t understand insulation. Basic engineering tells us that adding insulation to a building will indeed “slow” the rate of energy transferred thru a wall. But, when comparing a situation in which the rate of flow of energy into the structure is the same with and without that amount of insulation, the result will be higher temperatures within the better insulated structure.
Heat shields for thermal radiation control are widely used in engineering and I demonstrated such with my Green Plate Demo. There are text book examples which are used to teach the engineers about the concepts.
As for G&T’s long rant (90 pages), I read it and found that their entire argument boils down to an assertion that the Green House Effect violates the 2nd Law without any scientific support. You distill G&T’s critique into one sentence:
Actually, no the atmospheric scientists such as Manabe & Wetherald were first trying to find out why the Earth’s temperature is what it is and only then could they ask what would happen as the CO2 level increases.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, Gota give you credit for that long rant, which BTW morphs in your usual political rant with no connection to AGW. But, from the very beginning, you offer an incorrect comparison:
I still haven’t seen a clear statement though from warmist scientists trying quiet the BS about backradiation actually warming something rather than simply slowing a temperature decrease.
As a self proclaimed paid layman who gained enough experience to offer products I built from that knowledge as a niche product bonus in building and remodeling homes, you really dont understand insulation. Basic engineering tells us that adding insulation to a building will indeed slow the rate of energy transferred thru a wall. But, when comparing a situation in which the rate of flow of energy into the structure is the same with and without that amount of insulation, the result will be higher temperatures within the better insulated structure.
Heat shields for thermal radiation control are widely used in engineering and I demonstrated such with my Green Plate Demo. There are text book examples which are used to teach the engineers about the concepts.
As for G&Ts long rant (90 pages), I read it and found that their entire argument boils down to an assertion that the Green House Effect violates the 2nd Law without any scientific support. You distill G&Ts critique into one sentence:
So they [the AGW crowd] have a plausible insulation theory with zero science support beyond gee its warming.
Actually, no the atmospheric scientists such as Manabe & Wetherald were first trying to find out why the Earths temperature is what it is and only then could they ask what would happen as the CO2 level increases.
—————————-
I appreciate the honest criticism you are leveling here. But you mistaken about what G&T’s argument boiled down to.
In the public domain or any literature I am aware of the insulation theory isn’t well defended. Instead the most common defense, direct warming via absor-ption of backradiation is assumed in the absence of proof otherwise.
Thus I am perfectly aware that isn’t the direction science is actually headed, its just constantly used as an obfuscation tool and a substitute of a proof of the insulation theory which they also don’t have.
G&T took on both approaches. The 2nd law argument was just to close the backdoor on the heat arising from backradiation. .
So you missed the nuance and bought the argument that G&T’s criticism boiled down to far less than what it was. If you doubt that. Go back and read the criticisms G&T used to attack the insulation approach. Criticisms that the response didn’t provide any answers for.
G&T knew what they were doing but were shot down by a 15 second soundbite.
Just a couple more comments on your post:
1) I understand insulation very well. I spent 15 years with part of most projects doing the insulation calculations. I installed a fair number of passive solar heating installations and even a few active ones. I have calculated all the numbers starting with solar tables, insulation values, to studying a rich library of how to harvest and sequester heat arising from solar radiation conserving it and then reusing it. Thats something you simply cannot do without understanding insulation and the short comings of radiation. . . .the shortcomings of which in a conservation strategy often requires an active system (an active system can be defined as one in which external power is used to conserve more heat from the solar radiation than expended in conserving it). My library on that looks like a library found in the shop of an engineer who works on machines, smudged, finger worn, and torn (I can see my grandfathers library as a refrigeration engineer clear as day would love to have inherited that library even in the oil soaked condition it was in, but alas it was consumed by fire).
You want to have a competition on building energy efficient environments Swanson? Could be fun.
B Hunter, It appears that you still don’t understand my point critiquing your claim regarding insulation. I was not directly referring to radiation heat transfer, as should have been obvious. Instead, I was pointing out what happens when the amount of insulation in a building is increased, the result being that the interior would be warmed, given a fixed rate of energy supply. Let me repeat, the main point being that fixed rate of energy supply would result in a temperature increase.
Regarding solar heating, you then wrote:
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by a “conservation strategy”, I tend to think of an energy system as a mechanical design problem, not a “strategy”. Perhaps you are thinking of retrofitting existing structures, where you are working within constraints imposed by the architecture. I think you don’t understand thermodynamics when you wrote about “conserving…and…reusing” the solar energy, since energy can’t be used twice, though it can be stored for later use.
FYI, I happened to join with a group whose work resulted in the publication of a book on renewable energy back in the ’70’s. For a time, I was briefly the wind energy expert at my university after installing what I believe to have been the first “modern” wind energy system in California in 1973. Lacking funds or other opportunities in subsequent years, it wasn’t until my parents passed that I acquired the funds to build my first solar project, a house in which I now live, which utilizes a combination of passive and active collection. If I were to live long enough to build MOD 2, I wouldn’t do it the same way.
Yes, your challenge would be interesting, by chance, do you have lots of money to invest? Oh, first, tell me who you are and show me what you’ve done, no BS please. While you are at it, tell us exactly how G&T refute AGW, other than asserting that it violates the 2nd Law.
E. Swanson says:
I was pointing out what happens when the amount of insulation in a building is increased, the result being that the interior would be warmed, given a fixed rate of energy supply.
——————-
Like I don’t know that? Can you actually read what I post? The issue isn’t what insulation does, the claim that CO2 acts like insulation is your claim not mine.
I have already said GHG are a necessary ingredient for a GHE but its not because they act like insulation.
==============
==============
==============
E. Swanson says:
I think you dont understand thermodynamics when you wrote about conservingandreusing the solar energy, since energy cant be used twice, though it can be stored for later use.
======================
Yes I meant storing it and using it later.
==================
=================
=================
E. Swanson says:
Yes, your challenge would be interesting, by chance, do you have lots of money to invest? Oh, first, tell me who you are and show me what youve done, no BS please. While you are at it, tell us exactly how G&T refute AGW, other than asserting that it violates the 2nd Law.
========================
A lot to unpack there. I am working on a paper to explain my point of view. I haven’t worked on it for about 3 months.
On a competition was thinking establishing a spending limit of maybe a $100, though I could be coaxed higher if the practicalities presented themselves.
On showing you projects that is possible but involves gaining permission from current owners and a good deal of travel so its not going to happen unless of course you want to sign up for a vacation package and then perhaps I can arrange a tour.
And the 2nd law always applies. You say ‘it’ without specifying what ‘it’ is or how it works.
B Hunter, You replied to my post, writing:
Actually, you wrote:
In the case of insulation, “slowing cooling” results in higher temperature, i.e., warming. Greenhouse gases slow the rate at which IR energy is transmitted between the surface and lower layers of the atmosphere outward to deep space, thereby producing a warming at the bottom of the atmosphere. The mathematical descriptions of insulation and the radiation heat transfer pathways are different but the overall effect is the same.
You then wrote about your “contest”:
When one is in a business, one seldom avoids an opportunity to promote one’s own work by providing examples when requested. Are all your projects shielded from disclosure, even though the technologies are likely to be widely available in the public domain? Or, more likely in my mind, perhaps you are just bluffing, having been caught after tossing out some more BS.
Lastly, you throw out this:
And you have refused to say how G & T actually refuted AGW (the referenced “it”).
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, You replied to my post, writing:
The issue isnt what insulation does, the claim that CO2 acts like insulation is your claim not mine.
Actually, you wrote:
Does back radiation actually warm something or does it just slow cooling.
In the case of insulation, slowing cooling results in higher temperature, i.e., warming.
——————————
Not necessarily. A slowly cooling body doesn’t get warmer, it just gets cooler.
It is obvious that our climate also slows warming. If it didn’t temperatures would hit above boiling at sealevel in the mid day.
Of course that is probably mostly wrongly attributed as a feedback but almost certainly would exist without CO2.
E. Swanson says:
Greenhouse gases slow the rate at which IR energy is transmitted between the surface and lower layers of the atmosphere outward to deep space, thereby producing a warming at the bottom of the atmosphere. The mathematical descriptions of insulation and the radiation heat transfer pathways are different but the overall effect is the same.
————————–
You say Swanson. No doubt you say it because you can’t imagine another way for that to happen.
E. Swanson says:
You then wrote about your contest:
On showing you projects that is possible but involves gaining permission from current owners and a good deal of travel so its not going to happen unless of course you want to sign up for a vacation package and then perhaps I can arrange a tour.
When one is in a business, one seldom avoids an opportunity to promote ones own work by providing examples when requested. Are all your projects shielded from disclosure, even though the technologies are likely to be widely available in the public domain? Or, more likely in my mind, perhaps you are just bluffing, having been caught after tossing out some more BS.
——————————
I already answered that question in here. But in case you missed it. I never marketed my product. It was instead marketed for me by satisfied customers. Kept me busy so I seldom had the need to market any services. I remember one time posting some flyers at the local grocery stores during one recession but nothing really came out of that. Word of mouth work is so much more pleasant and your customer isn’t treating you like a gypsy fearing you would abscond on them. Making a bunch of money in it would entail supervising multiple crews. Instead it was much more my style to have friends working with me as either partners or as an hourly newbie paid for directly by the customer generally as a common laborer. Saves all the regulatory paperwork and hassle. Just don’t like that stuff like it informal and friendly. Never was an employer, just a craftsman with an interest in engineering and architecture to go along with the professional certification as an auditor working simultaneously in 3 completely different industries all kind of bonded together in very interesting ways most people never thought of. Not expressing any brilliance there, just came about accidentally completely without a plan.
Last project was 23 years ago. I had a couple of close friends I built stuff for, but they have both passed and they were the only ones I stayed in touch with. Don’t even know who live in their homes of even if the homes are still there. Still do a lot of insulating consulting with seniors, other family, and friends helping them out with honest advice without any intent on selling them anything all pro-bono. Currently guiding two younger persons close to me on creating a business plan to fulfill their ambitions all the while stressing that the most important part of the plan is that you enjoy doing the work. Because if you love it you will get good at it and it will love you back.
E. Swanson says:
Lastly, you throw out this:
And the 2nd law always applies. You say it without specifying what it is or how it works.
And you have refused to say how G & T actually refuted AGW (the referenced it).
——————–
Shoot just read it. It says in plain language everything you need to know. The only people confused are those hawking surface forcing radiation models and try to warm the surface with radiant forcing on the surface from high in a cold atmosphere. Thats a violation of the 2nd law.
the fact that tinfoil on a ceiling in a heated room on a cold night doesn’t slow heat loss is evidence enough for me.
Jump into the insulation model and if it insulated a cold area from a warm area that would not be a violation of the 2nd Law.
Only problem is it has no rigidity to actually insulate anything in the atmosphere. the presence of 4 walls, a floor, and a ceiling insulate but it doesn’t matter if they are opaque to IR or transparent. The lack of rigidity doesn’t mean they don’t radiate.
The argument the surface is warmed warmer by the sun while restricting heat loss only works only if the walls aren’t a gas like the air inside and outside of the building, e.g. insulating.
G&T took on both the insulation argument, extensively and separately pointed out you couldn’t use the radiation argument because of the 2nd law.
B Hunter wrote:
In other words, you have nothing to show with which to back your claims.
His post ends with:
G & T do discuss insulation, but the meat of their critique is presented beginning in section 3.6 (page 338) whee they present a discussion based on Clausius leading to a discussion of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. They show some graphical examples, showing their interpretation of the problem in Figure 32 with energy moving from the cold Stratosphere down to the warm surface. Their figure caption states:
Their paper next drifts away into discussion of numerical simulations, neglecting the fact that their Figure 32 leaves out the energy flow outward from the surface and atmosphere toward deep space. Indeed, they previously claim that the Earth is a closed system for which:
The fact is that the Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere radiate IR in all directions, both downward and upward. G & T’s analysis ignores the upward emissions as the energy flows thru the atmosphere, which is the reason the 2nd Law is not violated.
E. Swanson says:
I already answered that question in here. But in case you missed it. I never marketed my product. It was instead marketed for me by satisfied customers. Kept me busy so I seldom had the need to market any services. [etc, etc]
In other words, you have nothing to show with which to back your claims.
===============================
Now you are getting hilarious Swanson. What claim did I make? The gravitas sufficient for somebody to commit the fallacy of an appeal to authority?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Heck in that realm anybody will do. LOL! Thanks for the best laugh of the day!
Swanson says:
G & T do discuss insulation, but the meat of their critique is. . .
=======================
You just ignored and so did the response to G&T the insulation discussion and effectively dismissed that issue by noting that insulation slowing cooling doesn’t explain warming.
The issue ends up boiling down to this:
the effect you cant describe within the frame of physics (e.g. the a convective multi-layered radiation model that doesnt work) instead gets hidden in a far away place up in the troposphere where hotspots are created on virtual layers there instead of at the surface where the effect has been debunked by experiment, by trade experience, by window technology, and by insulation technology.
So if you could establish that, no it would not violate the 2nd law.
But don’t argue that G&T’s 2nd law argument was the meat of what they were getting at. It is just the only argument claimed to be refuted without describing a way of warming the surface. You can’t refute a claim of a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with a canard.
So just noting then that insulation slowing cooling does explain a higher temperature in the object of interest versus object temperature with no insulation at a given time step.
It’s just unscientific wording on bill’s part causing the issues. Need to better your game bill.
And to drive the point deeper.
The response to G&T ignored the insulation argument they put forth and refuted the 2nd law violation discussion by G&T with an insulation argument that was undescribed. Just as you argue.
Most likely the moron’s who responded probably didn’t even understand G&T’s insulation argument.
You take it for granted but can’t describe it yourself. R.Woods killed it in his greenhouse experiments for the surface. So the argument is now virtual layers get warmed up in the troposphere like tiny greenhouses that warm lower virtual surfaces in the atmosphere and that creates hotspots in the atmosphere that better insulate the surface.
Works mathematically, duh must work in real life.
If you believe it works and you understand radiant insulation. Take two identical trailers to North Dakota in January, paste some 95% reflective tin foil to the ceiling and inside of the vertical walls of one of them, install small 500 watt enclosed fan heaters into both turn the heaters on and watch how much difference you get in temperature between the two. Do you know the answer to that? Assume the trailers are perfectly square and have a volume of 1000cufeet with no leakage or air exchange with the outside or under the trailers and original insulation ratings of R2 and the external temperature had a mean low of -15C and mean high of -7c. Do you know the answer to that?
All I will say is it gives you the difference in insulation value for a near doubling of backradiation from the walls and ceiling of the trailer with the tin foil. What does it amount to?
B Hunter, referred to reflective insulation a the end of his last rant. Well, ever heard of double pane windows with low-e glass? How about triple layer windows with a layer of IR reflective material in the middle? I used those windows on three sides of my house.
With your trailer experiment, the reflective layer(s) must be separated from the walls and not exposed to wind and convective influence. How about using sheathing board with a reflective layer on one side, that side intended to face in toward the normal insulation cavity? With a siding material, such as vinyl
lap material with an air space between the siding and the sheathing, the reflective layer might face outward. And, don’t forget, multi-layer reflective insulation for spacecraft operating in a vacuum environment.
Swanson is that what the window salesman sold you on?
The reflective coating on the glass prevents excessive heat gain and solar glare, lowering the amount of variations in the interior temperatures. that be heat gain from solar radiation not heat loss by blocking IR.
IR reflective coating the same thing as it is targeted at ‘near IR’. Reflecting the near IR blocks a lot of heat getting through the window without reducing the level of light. Putting just basic reflective film in the window will work like sunglasses and reduce a lot of light along with the heat.
What you need to understand about convection is it is opportunistic.
Reduce emissivity and convection increases. that will be the case for vertical surfaces and ceilings in the case of the outside being colder.
Reduce emissivity when the heat flow is downward doesn’t trigger convection and thus reflective barriers work in floors against heat loss and work in ceilings to slow heat gain.
Now that said in general one of the objectives of designing an air gap is to make it as narrow as you can without reducing the insulation value by conduction across the gap. Usually the gaps are somewhere between 7/16″ and 5/8″. A lot depends on the kind of gas you fill the gap with. Inert gases tend to be a bit less conductive. While the narrow gap puts a pinch on convection. They say if your gap is 3/4″ or more you get no pinch on the convection.
So IR films in windows can very marginally increase the R value of a well designed window with an optimized convection pinch.
But it is so small that it would probably not be worth paying for them if thats all they did. the big bonus comes in installing them to reduce heat gain through the windows and thats why installers generally only put them on 2 or 3 sides of a house.
B Hunter concluded his rant with:
Yes, multi layer windows glass with low-e coatings reduce IR transmission between the panes. They also transmit visible light, which is the peak spectrum for sunlight, so their benefit is mostly the increase in R-value of the window. There’s little reflection of sunlight, that’s a different type of coating seen on commercial buildings. And, yes, it’s well known that the thickness of dead air between the layers should be not more than 3/4 inch, something I learned about some 40 years ago.
But, your entire argument deftly glosses over the basic problem. Your straw man of adding reflective insulation to a “trailer” in a rather low temperature environment misses the point completely. to be sure, your “trailer” would be cold inside, given your specified conditions, but it would be warmer than would otherwise be the situation. Adding an extra layer of a typical insulating material, such as fiberglass or Styrofoam, to a structure with a constant energy supply rate will result in a higher internal temperature. Even the rather small impact of a properly installed reflective barrier would be some amount of warming.
FYI
“The R-value is achieved by having the low-emissivity, high-reflectivity surface face into a dead air space.”
and
“For example, lets say a single-sided reflective insulation with an initial emissivity of 0.03 is installed in a 2×4 crawlspace. The heat flow is down, the air temperature is a steady 50 F with a 30 F temperature difference on the other side. You would get an insulation value of R-9.60. Now if that product were a coated aluminum metalized film or aluminum foil that saw some humidity, and the emissivity increased to 0.05, you wouldnt think it would make a big difference in R-value. However, that small change in emissivity brings the total R-value down to R-8.17. Now suppose this product is an aluminum foil that sees some water. According to ASHRAE, when just a little condensation is visible on aluminum foil, the emissivity can reach 0.2 to 0.3, which would decrease that R-value down to R-3.86.”
https://www.sigmalabs.com/blog/reflective-insulation-and-r-values
Seems low emissivity coatings, with the right placement, make a big difference in R values. Increase emissivity and the R value drops off a cliff.
E. Swanson says:
April 13, 2021 at 7:38 AM
B Hunter concluded his rant with:
So IR films in windows can very marginally increase the R value of a well designed window with an optimized convection pinch.
But it is so small that it would probably not be worth paying for them if thats all they did. the big bonus comes in installing them to reduce heat gain through the windows and thats why installers generally only put them on 2 or 3 sides of a house.
Yes, multi layer windows glass with low-e coatings reduce IR transmission between the panes. They also transmit visible light, which is the peak spectrum for sunlight, so their benefit is mostly the increase in R-value of the window. Theres little reflection of sunlight, thats a different type of coating seen on commercial buildings. And, yes, its well known that the thickness of dead air between the layers should be not more than 3/4 inch, something I learned about some 40 years ago.
But, your entire argument deftly glosses over the basic problem. Your straw man of adding reflective insulation to a trailer in a rather low temperature environment misses the point completely. to be sure, your trailer would be cold inside, given your specified conditions, but it would be warmer than would otherwise be the situation. Adding an extra layer of a typical insulating material, such as fiberglass or Styrofoam, to a structure with a constant energy supply rate will result in a higher internal temperature. Even the rather small impact of a properly installed reflective barrier would be some amount of warming.
E. Swanson says:
But, your entire argument deftly glosses over the basic problem. Your straw man of adding reflective insulation to a trailer in a rather low temperature environment misses the point completely.
————————–
No it doesn’t miss the point. Its the only point. Its pointless to paste reflective wall paper on your ceiling period, unless you want it there for watching yourself play with yourself.
E. Swanson says:
to be sure, your trailer would be cold inside, given your specified conditions, but it would be warmer than would otherwise be the situation.
———————
You won’t see the results on a home thermometer.
E. Swanson says:
Adding an extra layer of a typical insulating material, such as fiberglass or Styrofoam, to a structure with a constant energy supply rate will result in a higher internal temperature.
——————-
Yes real insulation works. Backradiation doesn’t insulate even if you boost it with mirrors.
E. Swanson says:
Even the rather small impact of a properly installed reflective barrier would be some amount of warming.
—————————-
Properly installing reflective barriers to defend against downwelling radiation does work. It helps keep a living space cool.
Nate says:
FYI
”For example, lets say a single-sided reflective insulation with an initial emissivity of 0.03 is installed in a 24 crawlspace. The heat flow is down,” <<<<<<<<<
————————–
Nate, your source, please notice the direction they are specifying for the heat flow . . . .puhleeze!
Also first sentence your source:
''The only difference between a radiant barrier and a reflective insulation is that a reflective insulation has an R-value. ''
Read carefully please it is saying a radiant barrier does not have an R value. The R-value is achieved by bonding insulation to the radiant barrier.
Its really quite simple once you figure it out. radiant barriers have no insulation value against upwelling heat. That is because any effect they provide is opportunistically eliminated by convection.
People read these things all the time and read what they want to hear into the statements.
You have to be careful. It is illegal for sellers to claim an R value for radiant barriers. They do have the equivalent of an R-value for downwelling heat. As conductive downwelling heat pools on the ceiling.
But its illegal to call it that as that is considered deceptive about its ability to keep a room warm.
Forget creating air pockets! Yes they work for a low R value but if you don’t want to be specially building them. Regular insulation with or without a radiant barrier works far better and far cheaper.
Best strategy over 90% of the time for a home with an unoccupied attic, is fiberglass batts between the ceiling joists of the same thickness as the height of the joists, then cross wrapped perpendicularly with additional batts to take the value up to a minimum of R-30 and if air conditioning is still needed have that top level of batts foil covered with the foil facing up toward the roof. This is the most effective place for a radiant barrier. the attic isn’t a dead air space as they are vented, but typically convection is low because of R-30 batts and the downwelling radiant heat is reduced and heat doesn’t convectively downwell.
“Read carefully please it is saying a radiant barrier does not have an R value. The R-value is achieved by bonding insulation to the radiant barrier.”
Did you miss the point where they showed a radiant barrier can increase the RF value significantly?
Down or up is a red herring. Insulation is useful for both. Certainly radiation doesnt care about down or up.
R not RF
You are amazingly stupid Nate considering that you apparently can get through some physics classes.
Radiant barriers don’t work in general. Technology can control for some factors to make it work enough to add a slight R value.
Those factors include a dead airspace with no air flow. The effect can be enhanced with the addition of Argon gas that has a low conductivity (approximate .65 the conductivity of common dry air). That allows for optimum convection pinching gaps to move down below 3/4″ to about 1/2″ or 5/8″.
From ASHRAE
”The CFD simulations show that for air cavities up to in. (19 mm) the effect of convection is minimal while convection dominates over conduction for air cavities above in. for which there is an effect of airflow on the thermal performance of the wall. ”
B Hunter wrote another off topic reply:
That refers to your strawman segway away from using an insulating material to installing reflective material intentionally positioned to understate the impact of increasing the insulation for walls and ceiling/roof. You do agree that:
But conclude by asserting the off topic, probably incorrect, claim that:
You do agree that properly installed radiant barriers can provide an insulating benefit, but your strawman model isn’t one such application, since convection probably dominates. But how do you know that a ceiling covered with reflective material would not provide an increase in temperature, where’s your proof? Besides, ceiling paint is probably a good emitter, thus the normal ceiling is producing “back radiation” which you can’t exclude without a complete analysis. Your invalid model has no connection to the CO2/Greenhouse Effect, which operates with totally different mechanisms. Your assertion is like G & T’s Figure 32, just another attempt to discredit the physics of the problem without providing supporting analysis.
E. Swanson says:
”You do agree that properly installed radiant barriers can provide an insulating benefit, but your strawman model isnt one such application, since convection probably dominates.”
You are trying to sell a red herring Swanson. The trailer example is look at radiation within the atmosphere complete with gaps that do not restrict convection even when the radiant barrier has a reflective value of .95.
A layer of CO2 on the other hand has a reflective value of .5 for a molecule that only intercepts about 10% of the upwelling energy. So the value could be written for CO2 alone as .05.
that means nothing measurable (say practically nothing) gets divided by 19 for CO2.
+
+
+
+
E. Swanson says:
But how do you know that a ceiling covered with reflective material would not provide an increase in temperature, wheres your proof? Besides, ceiling paint is probably a good emitter, thus the normal ceiling is producing back radiation which you cant exclude without a complete analysis. And where is the proof?
———————-
Proof is all over the place including the experiment discussed in this thread where no significant surface warming was seen from back scatter.
There are a number of standards bodies in the US Europe and elsewhere. This is probably one of the leading ones here that is a society of professionals that perform a service that the AICPA provides for auditors.
https://www.ashrae.org/i-want-to-view/standards
+
+
+
+
E. Swanson says:
Your invalid model has no connection to the CO2/Greenhouse Effect, which operates with totally different mechanisms. Your assertion is like G & Ts Figure 32, just another attempt to discredit the physics of the problem without providing supporting analysis.
————————–
I don’t know what model you are calling mine Swanson?
B Hunter wrote
You are trying to sell a red herring Swanson. The trailer example is look at radiation within the atmosphere complete with gaps that do not restrict convection even when the radiant barrier has a reflective value of .95.
A layer of CO2 on the other hand has a reflective value of .5 for a molecule that only intercepts about 10% of the upwelling energy. So the value could be written for CO2 alone as .05.
Your trailer “example” is a mental model, which you presented without analysis. Furthermore, gas molecules don’t reflect in one direction, like a solid material, they absorb and/or radiate in all directions. In the atmosphere above the Troposphere, they are the only mechanism for moving energy to deep space. Convection does not remove energy from the Earth, that process only moves sensible and latent heat higher up.
Your link to ASHRAE’s site without a citation isn’t “proof”, it’s just appeal to authority.
E. Swanson says:
”Your trailer example is a mental model, which you presented without analysis.”
——————————-
My trailer example is 1) my personal experience; 2) confirmed via consulting both US and European standards and industry standards.
Plus there is a course taught to budding energy efficient engineers that just ignores radiation for calculating primary values. The industry standards is the place you find radiation being reintroduced in high tech windows. the standard is if you can invent a more effective way of blocking the transfer of heat than found in the standards you must submit your designs for testing before you can claim any insulating value.
This became necessary because of all the charlatans that were conning the public in the process of trying to sell solutions that didn’t do what they were claiming. I suppose the University Climate programs didn’t get the memo!!! Oh thats right they really aren’t selling anything so they are not subject to the regulations.
thats why the industry terms tinfoil on the ceiling as trailer trash insulation because its typically installed by some drunk that doesn’t know what he is doing.
+
+
+
+
+
+
E. Swanson says:
”Convection does not remove energy from the Earth, that process only moves sensible and latent heat higher up.”
————————–
Add: radiating to space the whole way up. You are correct there. The energy does go up right along with the airs and what radiation those molecules emit to space. No doubt much of what CO2 emits gets absorbed by water, ice, and water vapor as well.
But none of that means its using backradiation to warm the surface either.
+
+
+
+
+
E. Swanson says:
Your link to ASHRAEs site without a citation isnt proof, its just appeal to authority.
—————————-
Perhaps so Swanson. But they are ‘the’ authority and everything they publish has been laboratory tested.
B Hunter, The R-Value of single pane glass is about 0.9 and
double pane jumps to around 1.7. My low-e Argon windows have a U-Value of 0.35 (R-value = 2.85) and my three layer windows are rated with a U-Value of 0.39 (R-value = 2.6). There are manufacturers who claim even lower U-Values below 0.2 (R-value > 5). Here’s an article from 2011:
https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/products/the-latest-highly-insulating-windows-are-almost-as-efficient-as-a-wall_o
As far as ASHRAE goes, recall that HVAC is a sub-specialty of Mechanical Engineering. I hold two ME degrees, for what it’s worth.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, The R-Value of single pane glass is about 0.9 and
double pane jumps to around 1.7.
————————
Yes theoretically glass has an R-value of 1.0 under certain test conditions. But thats going to vary somewhat I expect depending upon climate. e.g. density of air (altitude), moisture content of the air (water phase change speeding cooling of one of the surfaces or warming the other)
As time has gone on agencies pay more attention to these finer details.
A source I found did put the winter R-value at .9 and the summer R-value at .96. So your mileage varies some.
However, the flat earth model has layers exhibiting an R-value of 2.0 per layer, which just isn’t so. Probably only relevant on the journey to Mars after departing the atmosphere.
+
+
+
+
+
E. Swanson says:
My low-e Argon windows have a U-Value of 0.35 (R-value = 2.85) and my three layer windows are rated with a U-Value of 0.39 (R-value = 2.6). There are manufacturers who claim even lower U-Values below 0.2 (R-value > 5).
—————————
Yes and you should be aware that those R-values aren’t your window lights. Its the entire window system including frames, dividers and all. The better value windows pack hollow spaces in the frames with insulation and use less conductive materials and/or shapes, the cheaper ones just leave them solid or hollow.
The .25 you record for the system is probably more like .33 or thereabouts for the lights.
You also need to consider this is full spectrum blocking with an emissivity in the high 90’s. CO2 just intercepts a fractional part of the spectrum. IMO, its only that last emission to space that does anything. And all the scientists who appear to know something about what they are talking about seem to acknowledge that. And when you get there through our atmosphere you have albedo and convection arguably to compensate for possibly the entire radiant discrepancy.
+
+
+
+
+
E. Swanson says:
As far as ASHRAE goes, recall that HVAC is a sub-specialty of Mechanical Engineering. I hold two ME degrees, for what it’s worth.
———————-
Good! Then you should take to this like a fish takes to water.
B Hunter wrote
Since the discussion was about window R-Value, I suppose that you intended to write “reflectivity in the high 90’s”. But, your immediate jump to CO2’s emission spectra repeats your false comparison because CO2 does not reflect IR EM, it absorbs and radiates same. Yes, the entire batch of interacting processes represents a complex problem, so you can’t just hand wave away the impact of increasing CO2. From an scientific (and engineering) perspective, the only way to analyze the situation is thru modeling, which you continue to disparage, repeating G & T’s assertions, etc. Your simple mental model(s) don’t cut it, since you have presented neither data or math.
Swanson you are kind of all over the place like a soup sandwich. this strange conversation about window technology and figuring out what insulation was seems to be turning into a discussion of modeling vs experimentation.
Why don’t you weigh in on the discussion regarding this experiment.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
B Hunter, Looking back, it was you that first threw out reflective insulation into the discussion. The discussion began with a reference to G & T, which has lots of references to GHE models.
So, you offered a reference, which concludes CO2 can’t warm things. Where did you find it, was it a recent post on a denialist blog? I noticed some flaws in that paper, which raise some serious objections to the authors’ conclusions.
E. Swanson says:
B Hunter, Looking back, it was you that first threw out reflective insulation into the discussion. The discussion began with a reference to G & T, which has lots of references to GHE models.
So, you offered a reference, which concludes CO2 cant warm things. Where did you find it, was it a recent post on a denialist blog? I noticed some flaws in that paper, which raise some serious objections to the authors conclusions.
—————————
which reference are you referring to? If its the S&O experiment I wasn’t the person that introduced it here.
Further assuming that is what you a referring to, your argument is a strawman because S&O didn’t specify that CO2 doesn’t warm anything.
The only thing they showed conclusively was that CO2 didn’t act like insulation as implied by explanations of the GHE by propagandists for special interests to the uneducated public and indeed also to all physicists who completely lack experience in attempting to use CO2 as insulation and are thus ignorant about the matter.
The natural conclusion is that CO2 can be dismissed as insulation until somebody does an experiment to show otherwise.
Of course nobody who is so inculcated by the popular propaganda is going to actually reach out a physically write about their failed attempts to override the results. Far better to just ignore them entirely and continue to trod the Golden Road.
Who knows where that road leads, fame, wine and cheese receptions, transport to exotic locations to lump in with a good old vacation, rub shoulders with Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, Princes, and Princesses, parties on luxury yachts – networking on steroids!
B Hunter wrote:
No, their experimental measurements did not show that, IMHO. It acts to reduce and re-radiate IR in a narrow portion of the IR spectrum around 15 microns, which they found with their experiment. What their data did not show was an expected increase in IR radiation and temperature at their experiment’s “surface” location.
Their IR measuring device is a commercially available thermopile, for which the output is a function of the temperature of the area viewed and also the temperature of the body of the device. To allow compensation for the the body temperature, the case also includes a thermistor, which provides the case temperature to allow for compensation. S & O provide no details about the use of this signal to adjust their two instruments and their calibration curve appears to be biased upwards from that from the manufacturer’s data sheet at 25C, thus their data, particularly the rear sensor is suspect.
They provide no data for a control case, which would consist of running the setup with no heat input using air or CO2 in the outer section of their tube. The rear IR detector also measures radiant energy from the outside room, which enters the front window. It would be necessary to measure the reduction in measured IR due to the CO2 before they could conclude that with heating, the rear IR sensor measurements had proven that CO2 had no effect. The same probably also goes for the rear back wall measure (A black painted thermcouple) which would also be impacted by said reduction in IR radiant energy received.
The remainder of your non-scientific, political rant is ignored.
Swanson every calculation should have a sanity check.
I don’t know why you still expect to find the effect. Obviously 2.4 to 4C should be ridiculously easy to detect and you are fretting over minor details.
And keep in mind this is a CO2 experiment. A gas that absorbs at most about 13% of the spectrum.
No experiment has found this effect closing out the entire IR spectrum. . . .R. Woods, Pratt, . . . .none of them could find the expected effect. And going with some glass with .9 absor-pion in the IR band should be finding a lot more than 2.4 to 4 degrees. . . .like 16 to 28C!!
Thats none of them Swanson!!! What does it take to convince you?
B Hunter wrote:
On the other foot, what would it take to convince YOU? You like experiments? How about my last one? Or, some interesting weather?
HAPPY EARTH DAY!!
What do I think:
1) 100% consistent with what I have been saying.
2) Irrelevant to to the nature of the classic greenhouse theory as the experiment is upside down.
The question is did you think it was relevant?
B Hunter, commenting about my Ice Plate Demo, wrote:
I guess you can’t figure out that my two experiments were intended to provide evidence of the Green Plate Effect, not the “classic greenhouse theory”, by intentionally reducing convection which is quite strong in the atmosphere at ground level. Your comment also ignores the fact that, in the Stratosphere, there’s a positive lapse rate, i.e., the temperature increases with pressure height. This tends to suppress vertical convection above the tropopause, much as I did with my “upside down” demo.
S & O tried to stuff the effects of CO2 thru more than 100 kilometers of atmosphere into a 1 meter long horizontal box with outlet terminating in a room temperature environment and the radiating surface at 100C. Does this flawed effort “prove” anything about AGW? I think not.
No Swanson it doesn’t prove there is no ‘a’ in AGW.
All it proves is the purely radiative model is a bad model for explaining the greenhouse effect as noted by Willard when he posted J.Curry’s article on the topic here:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/
I don’t know about the greenplate model as I haven’t looked at it for at least 10 years. But my recollection it was an attempt to prove the radiative model when it was offered up and it failed to do that.
> All it proves is the purely radiative model is a bad model for explaining the greenhouse effect as noted by Willard
You’re putting words into my mouth, Bill.
But nice try at deflecting from the fact that E caught you pants down.
That is CET record.
U sure about that:
https://archive.ph/rOAo
(For some reason links to the MET Office are spammed.)
Willard, please stop trolling.
The return of winter in the northern and midwestern US.
Sorry.
The return of winter in the northwestern and midwestern US.
It’s going to be 88 degrees here in Houston today. Headed for the beach
Gordon, better cover the plants.
https://i.ibb.co/pQqkZMh/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f036.png
Weather:
Take your time! Fog blankets the west side for morning commute
After a weak front, fog has settled into some Houston-area neighborhoods. After the fog burns off we’ll make our first run at 90-degrees in 2021.
A dense fog advisory is in effect until 9 a.m. Thursday for Colorado, Austin, Waller, Wharton, Fort Bend, Jackson, Matagorda and Brazoria counties.
Expect lots of sunshine Thursday afternoon before the Gulf breeze blows back in moisture ahead of our next front.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
No snow for Taiwan:
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/taiwan-imposes-water-rationing-amid-worst-drought-in-56-years
Willard, please stop trolling.
judging from the peak-to-peak eyeballing, the temperature over the lat decade has been rising at 4*C/century. Neato!
–Clint R says:
April 8, 2021 at 12:32 PM
gbaikie, I wasnt able to understand your point, but a ton of lead will fall at the same rate as a feather. If that helps.
The acceleration is constant for any mass. Thats why gravity cannot exert a torque on a body in free fall.–
You bring up a point. In terms of math, gravity is about a point.
And a point would not have tidal forces/gravity gradient.
But the Moon, some lead, a feather is not a point.
But roughly feather and hammer do fall at same rate when in a vacuum.
Though no vacuum actually exist and nor does no point exist.
Copernicus released their March report.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-march-2021
March 2021 came in at +0.19 wrt to the 1991-2020 average.
This is an increased of 0.13 from February 2021.
The trend is +0.1906C/decade +/ 0.0055. The trendline is at +0.30C.
The La Nina has caused a peak departure of -0.25C. The March 2021 departure is currently at -0.11C. The standard deviation of the departures is 0.15.
Willard is the rationing due to increased consumption over the years as opposed to lack of rainfall.
Over the last 50 years the population has increased massively as has the number of water consuming industrial processes.
Tell that to the typhoons that did not make landfall in Taiwan last year for the first time in 56 years, Mark.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Breaking: According to GasBuddy data, Wednesday US gasoline demand rose 2.2% over the prior Wednesday, and was 4.6% above the average of the last four Wednesdays. Week to date, gasoline demand is up 2.1% vs last week, and that’s yes, another pandemic high.
Nation’s spending on gasoline
Today: ~$1,072,806,000
365 days ago: ~$437,472,000
Deny harder!
Gasoline has gone up about a nickel/week since Biden took office. There’s more to come. Destroying an economy takes a little time.
Gasoline comes from oil which is a global commodity. Its price reflects demand growth compared to a year ago. People wanna travel more.
So…?
Nate April 8, 2021 at 3:43 PM
So…?
Gasoline consumption data are reported weekly and are timely and robust. Since gasoline consumption is also relevant to ethanol blending, ethanol production and corn usage, weekly gasoline consumption figures are a very useful proxy for the health of the U.S. economy. A year ago, due to the pandemic, gasoline consumption fell to around 5 million barrels per day, while the latest figures of around 9.2 million barrels are still about 1 million barrels below pre-pandemic levels, it portends a nice economic rebound from a dismal 2020.
Each sector of the oil and gas industry — upstream, midstream, and downstream — faces its own unique set of challenges in dealing with the ongoing transition to a lower-carbon global economy but that transition requires a healthy oil & gas industry.
–bdgwx says:
April 8, 2021 at 1:18 PM
gbaikie said: The short answer is no one knows.
That implies -infinity to +infinity. Obviously we can constrain the range much better than we dont know. We just cant constrain the range down to +/- 1C yet even.
1C per W/m^2 is a good first approximation though. Putting reasonably wide margins on that would be 0.25-2.0C per W/m^2 which for 3 W/m^2 yields 0.75C to 6.00C of warming for fast feedbacks. It is certainly not great, but infinitely better than -infinity to +infinity. The lower bound is much easier to constrain for the contemporary warming era since with each decade of warming we constrain the lower bound higher and higher.–
I don’t think we live in simulation. If we are, one could “get” the appearance of -infinity to +infinity. Of course living in a simulation could be similar to living in existence where there is a God. And likewise could get this -infinity to +infinity.
Regarding: “We just cant constrain the range down to +/- 1C yet even.”
Our measurement of climate stuff is one of problems related to this.
Another problem is lack of understanding of what 6 C of warming is.
And I think it’s fair to say one could different kinds of “global climate” of our Earth having global average surface air temperature of +6 C.
I think/believe Earth has had global temperature of +6 C but problem with that was it was different Earth which had +6 C.
So, story, of Earth at moment is it appears we in an Icehouse climate Earth. And I don’t have any information that indicates during the Icehouse climate’s long duration {34 million years}:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
That Earth has been +6 or having an average global surface air temperature of 21 C.
And during this 34 million year we have had low CO2 levels and low ocean temperature. And earlier time periods had much higher ocean temperature- say around 20 C, vs our present ocean temperature of about 3.5 C.
So during the 34 million years of what is called, Late Cenozoic Ice Age or also called Antarctic Glaciation, I don’t think ocean warmed up more than 6 C nor got much cooler than 1 C. And coldest ocean got {I think} was probably within last 2 million years. And that any 6 C ocean or warmer was nearer to the beginning of Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
{{And of course trying measure global ocean temperature +20 million years ago seems harder to obtain an accurate number as compared of getting a precise number for our present ocean temperature which is “about” 3.5 C.}}
Earlier, Ken wrote –
“I understand the logarithmic response to increased CO2 levels where more CO2 means less and less warming per unit of CO2. I understand the reason is ‘saturation’.
I don’t understand the mechanism where more CO2 would lead to cooling. Perhaps you could explain that one.”
Here’s the explanation, Ken –
It’s pretty simple. The more radiation you prevent from reaching an object, the colder the object becomes.
It’s the principle behind insulation, transparent glass fire-screens, and sunshades.
CO2, somewhat like ordinary glass, is quite transparent to much IR, but not so much to IR.
As John Tyndall points out –
“We use glass fire-screens, which allow the pleasant light of the fire to pass, while they cut off a large portion of the heat ; the reason is, that by far the greater part of the heat emitted by a fire is obscure, and to this the glass is opaque. But in no case is there any loss. The heat absorbed by the glass warms it ; the motion of the ethereal waves is here transferred to the molecules of the solid body. But you may be inclined to urge, that, under these circumstances, the glass itself ought to become a source of heat, and that, therefore, we ought to derive no benefit from the absor*ption. The fact is so, but the conclusion is unwarranted.”
And of course, the conclusion is similarly unwarranted with respect to CO2 and the Sun’s heat.
You may care to read Tyndall’s explanation of why a seemingly intuitive conclusion is, in fact, wrong.
I’m guessing you won’t bother. Destroys the AGW pseudoscience quite convincingly. Give it a try, anyway.
Yeah, the more radiation you prevent from reaching an object the colder the object becomes. However, CO2 isn’t stopping radiation from getting to earth. The CO2 is slowing the radiation escaping from the earth. That is how I understand the GHG process works.
Ken,
Yes it does. Why would it not? Insulation works both ways.
That’s why the Earth does not get as hot as the Moon. About 30% of radiation from the Sun does not make it to the surface.
There is no GHE, so your understanding is incorrect, if you think there is.
Ken
Of the sunlight reaching the top of the atmosphere about 30% is reflected back into space by particles in the atmosphere, clouds or the surface. This effect is called albedo.
About 20% is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere and 50% by the surface.
Note that climate system is ocean, ice, land and atmosphere. Just because the 20% absorbed by GHGs does not immediately reach the surface does not mean that it can be ignored. It is part of the system and has to be accounted for in energy budgets. IT IS also part of the energy which has to be ultimately radiated back to space .
I also understand there is a saturation limit where you get a logarithmic response including 30Wm-2 for the first 400 ppm of CO2 and 3Wm-2 for the doubling from 400 to 800 ppm.
I also understand there is a saturation limit where you get a logarithmic response including 30Wm-2 for the first 400 ppm of CO2 and 3Wm-2 for the doubling from 400 to 800 ppm.
That’s right. And if you double from 800 to 1600ppm you get another 3W/m^2.
Four other things you should also consider.
1)The forcing is actually 3-7 to 4 W/m^2.
2) That is the direct forcing due to CO2.There is about twice as much additional forcing due to feedbacks such as increased water vapour. This “climate sensitivity” is about 3 for most forcing, so 3.7W/m^2 due to a doubling of CO2 becomes a total of 3.7*3=11.1W/m^2.
3) It takes about an extra 3.7W/m^2 to raise the Earth’s average temperature by 1C. The direct forcing from CO2 raises temperature by 1C, plus another 2C from feedbacks. Each doubling of C2O2 is expected to raise average temperature by 3C.
4) The logarithmic effect works.
Raising CO2 from 400ppm to 800 ppm is a rise of 400ppm which raises the temperature by 3C. The next 3C requires an additional 800ppm.
Diminishing returns, but unfortunately on a scale which is not much help to us in the 21st century.
1) CO2 does NOT bring NEW flux into the system. CO2 merely emits what it absorbs. Nothing new is added.
2) CO2 does NOT bring NEW flux into the system, so there is NO “additional forcing due to feedbacks such as increased water vapor”.
3) CO2 does NOT provide any “extra” flux.
4) The logarithmic effect works. It works with the cooling effect of CO2. It is possible to add enough CO2 to the atmosphere that the cooling becomes insignificant.
“However, CO2 isnt stopping radiation from getting to earth. The CO2 is slowing the radiation escaping from the earth. ”
This is Ken’s description and he’s right.
No new flux.
The extra CO2 we add decreases the outward flux.
The outward flux is now smaller than the inward flux so there is a net inward flow of energy and an increase in temperature.
“The outward flux is now smaller than the inward flux so there is a net inward flow of energy and an increase in temperature.”
You’re still holding on to that false belief, Ent. The outward flux is a function of temperature. So, as the temperature increases, the outward flux increases, restoring equilibrium. You’re trying to find ways to support nonsense, just as you tried to claim passenger jets fly backwards. Your beliefs are more important to you than reality.
That ain’t science.
Clint R
“Ent. The outward flux is a function of temperature. So, as the temperature increases, the outward flux increases, restoring equilibrium. ”
You are correct. If you add a pulse of extra CO2 to the atmosphere you get exactly that behaviour and, after a while, a higher stable temperature.
Unfortunately the increase in CO2 is ongoing. By the time the effect of one decade’s extra CO2 has increased the outward flux the CO2 concentration has increased further. The result is an ongoing flux imbalance and an ongoing increase in temperature.
Ultimately the only way to stabilise temperature is to stabilise CO2.
Wrong again, Ent. To get a higher temperature, you would need more solar incoming. You keep forgetting that CO2 adds no energy to the system. More CO2 just means more cooling. Additional CO2 molecules just result in more energy emitted to space. Any back-radiation has no effect. Flux doesn’t add.
Use the simple analogy of ice cubes. Two ice cubes won’t make something hotter than one ice cube can.
That didn’t take long for the subtle rejection of the 1LOT to appear in this subthread.
bdgwx, it’s either a violation of 1LoT or 2Lot, depending on how Ent believes the energy appears. But, it definitely violates thermodynamics.
That’s why the simple analogy of the ice cubes is valuable. People that don’t understand thermo know that two ice cubes can’t warm something more than one ice cube.
How about very small ice cubes in a very cold room, Clint?
W,
How cold? Colder than the ice cubes?
Gee. Hot things make things warmer. How amazing is that?
Get with it, W. The climate fools believe that you can create warming by exposure to the radiation from a colder body. They also believe that photons are absorbed by any matter in their way!
How do these fools explain the fact that they can see through glass? Apparently some photons don’t get absorbed by the glass. The phenomenon is transparency.
For example, a spectrum of infrared finds germanium transparent. The visible spectrum is completely blocked by the same substance. Infrared is not necessarily absorbed by solid bodies. Not amazing, just reality.
Go back to your sophistry. Science is beyond you.
What makes you think that ice cubes don’t radiate heat, Mike?
W asks his imaginary friend why he thinks some matter above absolute zero doesn’t radiate?
Is Willard a complete idiot, or just pretending?
You’re real to me, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
1. Nothing EM said implies anything about added flux.
2. Absolutely nothing.
3. WHATEVER that might mean.
4. The idea that CO2 cools, but more CO2 makes its cooling insignificant would deserve due diligence.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Say, got 5 C then you times 5 by .9 = 4.5 C warming the 3.5 C ocean, 4.5 C ocean and .5 C warming the atmosphere. And it take 1000 times more heat, so the 4.5 is divided by 1000 which 0.0045 C
3.5 + .0045 = 3.5045 and 15 C atmosphere + .5 = 15.5 C global surface air temperature.
Of course it’s been more than 90% but just counting it as 90%.
So one could say apparently it’s important to know the effects of a warmer ocean.
And as I have said, it’s the ocean temperature which is actually the Earth’s average surface temperature, with average global surface air temperature being the proxy for this actual global average temperature.
And we on in Ice Age or global Icehouse climate, which all about having a cold ocean for last 34 million years, and coldest ocean for about the last 2 million years.
And a 3.5 ocean is not as warm as ocean has been, in this interglacial period, nor as compared warmest ocean in past interglacial periods, such as the last interglacial period which called the Eemian, which had ocean 4 C or warmer.
And during the centuries of Little Ice Age, ocean temperature lowered and sea level fell. And ocean may cooled to about 3.3 C.
And our ocean has been roughly about 3.5 C for last 5000 years.
So, what would the effect be if the ocean were 4 C instead of about 3.5 C.
Well, it “sort of” fits the alarmist view of the end of the world.
I think the ocean thermal expansion is about 12″.
And in last 100 years, it’s thought the ocean thermal expansion has been about 2″. Or roughly it has recovered from ocean cooling of the Little Ice Age. Or 4 C ocean would have 6 times the thermal expansion as we have had.
The other large effect, is that 4 C ocean should have an ice free arctic polar sea ice during the summer.
And should a large polar amplification effect of northern polar region. So, countries like Canada and Russia and northern Europe would large increase in average yearly temperature.
The northern tree line could return to Holocene Climate Optimum furthest extent. Which would greatly increase the amount forests in the world.
Berkeley earth, Canada has average temperature of -3.5 C and in 1970 Canada dipped to -5 C:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/canada
So average temperature of Canada might climb as high as around 5 C, and if Canada average temperature is around 5 C, then US gets less cold air from Canada during the winter. Or Canada and US has more moderate winters. And this applies to entire Northern hemisphere- for example China has more moderate winter temperature and China current average is between 8 in 8.5 C:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/china
{I was saying China was around 9 C, but looks colder, now. So anyhow China might average temperature close to US- which berkley earth is not giving for some reason, but around 11 C.}
Now every time I know that ocean has gotten warmer, the Sahara desert has greened- giving grassland and forests. And Sahara is very slightly greening, presently. So a huge crazy climate change from 4 C ocean could greening of Sahara deserts.
And most people think if we were to terraform the Sahara desert, it would be very expensive, and it would cause significant global warming. But if vast Sahara desert which becomes more like say California {in which southern California is basically a desert- as is lot Mexico} but what mean is, Sahara Desert is not uniform now, and nor would become uniform, but rather a lot more grassland and forest added. And of course like southern California one could then make it more green with water management.
Or Sahara desert could become region which grows a massive amount crops, similar to southern California, but at much larger scale due a lot more land area.
Africa could become a huge exporter of food.
But problem is it takes a long time to warm a 3.5 C ocean to a 4 C ocean.
Serious question…who is predicting the end of the world?
I don’t see any predictions even remotely close to that in the IPCC AR WGI report. In fact, they don’t even predict that AGW will be “catastrophic” nevermind “world ending”.
Greta and her ilk … a rather unfortunate large percentage of people claiming to be educated … are predicting the end of the world.
To which my question is ‘Will this Wind be so Mighty as to Lay Low the Mountains of the Earth’?
Even secret policemen aren’t immortal.
We are a civilization of coastal plains and a lot of our infrastructure is not very resilient. For example, I visited the Dungerness nuclear power station before covid. It is built on a shingle spit. They recently built a berm to protect them against tidal waves, but erosion is a bigger problem and sea level rise is expected to make it worse.
The mountains will survive climate change.
Homo Sapiens will probably survive.
Our global civilization may not.
Maybe you should stop listening to “Greta and her ilk” and instead consider bona-fide peer reviewed scientific literature.
FWIW, “But Greta” fizzles as soon as one observes that Greta simply says to listen to scientists:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/18/greta-thunberg-testimony-congress-climate-change-action
thats a good take bdgwx.
But why not just send this issue back to the lab to determine whether any new supposed CO2 forcings actually ever reach the surface before harming peoples lives with unnecessary government interference?
You call BS on Al Gore’s no time left to save the world spiel and the whole issue goes away.
Since “but CAGW” is the central square of the Climateball Bingo, Bill, it sure won’t go away.
Contrarians have already transposed it into Covidball, often the same contrarians by serendipity.
Entropic man says:
We are a civilization of coastal plains and a lot of our infrastructure is not very resilient. For example, I visited the Dungerness nuclear power station before covid. It is built on a shingle spit. They recently built a berm to protect them against tidal waves, but erosion is a bigger problem and sea level rise is expected to make it worse.
The mountains will survive climate change.
Homo Sapiens will probably survive.
Our global civilization may not.
——————————
Global civilization? Is that some kind of objective of yours?
threats from sea level rise to nuclear power plants is a canard.
Protecting something like a nuclear plant from a meter of sealevel rise seems a no brainer even if people were dumb enough to not consider the range of natural variation in sealevel rise which is plenty obvious from warming that came before the nuclear era.
Of course though you should pay lots of attention to the continental uplift models as if your shoreline hasn’t been flagged with a deceptive tidal guage (e.g. it rises too slowly in the face of continental uplift – the majority are but there may be a minority that aren’t) your power plant may not be moving closer to the moon and giving you more time as some are.[/s]
E,
“Global civilisation”?
You can’t even define the term in any useful way, can you?
Willard says:
FWIW, But Greta fizzles as soon as one observes that Greta simply says to listen to scientists:
”I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” Thunberg told the US lawmakers. ”I want you to unite behind the science and I want you to take real action.”
——————————-
Its good advice but unfortunately Greta has been led to believe scientists are in agreement on the matter. And very clearly they are not.
Adults should not abuse children like Greta has been abused.
Scientists are indeed in agreement on the matter, Bill:
ipcc.ch
Try to throw a “look, squirrel!” by equivocating on “the matter” to see if I’ll bite.
W,
Glad you brought that up.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC
The scientists agree. Trying to predict the climate future is a waste of time.
Idiots believe otherwise.
“Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
W,
The IPCC wrote –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
You link to Wikipedia, which you might believe states otherwise. Wikipedia is wrong. If you believe otherwise, either the scientists at the IPCC are wrong, and you should acknowledge this (doubtful), or you should believe what they say (equally doubtful).
Another option might be to learn appropriate physics. Then you can make up your own mind, and tell everybody the good news. Be prepared to justify your point of view, I suggest.
Best of luck.
> Wikipedia is wrong.
You’re arguing against a mathematical property, Mike:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/
You’re better at abusing people.
Stick at what you do best.
Willard says:
Scientists are indeed in agreement on the matter, Bill:
ipcc.ch
—————————-
Willard scientists are absolutely not in agreement. Especially on the topic of needed action.
Skeptic scientists finding work in the topic are working on the topic of feedback which if proven to be nearly or completely negative will demonstrate that CO2 really isn’t capable of warming anything.
My prediction is CO2 control knob theory will not survive in the scientific community and this episode will turn out to be one of the biggest laughingstock science jokes of all time.
The children of the future will write you and the folks like you in same lively style as flat earthers are today. . . . .control knobbers or something like that. . . .I am sure some young witty journalist will coin a better funnier phrase to refer to you Willard.
W wrote to me ( apparently thinking I am his fantasy friend, Mythical Mike) –
“You’re arguing against a mathematical property . . .”.
No argument there, W. Fact. Calling it a mathematical property is nonsense. Property of what, pray tell?
Anyone who disagrees, might care to look at the simplest example I can think of, the logistic map.
In essence, there is no minimum initial change which may result in chaos in a system capable of such. From Britannica –
“Uncertainty principle, also called Heisenberg uncertainty principle or indeterminacy principle, statement, articulated (1927) by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory.”
Setting aside quibbles about words, it’ll do. No minimum change, and no way (even theoretically) of precisely establishing initial conditions.
Predicting the outcome of a chaotic deterministic system such as the atmosphere is, as the IPCC acknowledged, impossible. Practically and theoretically.
W doesn’t accept reality? Back luck for him!
> Especially on the topic of needed action. [Contrarian] scientists finding
That action is needed is uncontroversial, Bill:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
Get yourself a real contrarian bench and we’ll talk.
Your bench is too thin as it is.
Here is the complete paragraph from which Swenson pulled that quote.
IPCC TAR chapter 14 pg. 771.
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration
of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models.
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system,
and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states
is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction
of the probability distribution of the systems future possible
states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is
computationally intensive and requires the application of new
methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information
is essential.
Note that the context is rather obvious now. Computational resources are finite and should be allocated to modeling with a focus on predicting probability distributions of average states over large spatial and temporal domains as opposed to predicting exact states at exact times at specific locations. Predicting global and regional annual mean temperature probability distributions is possible, but predicting whether there will be an EF5 tornado in Missouri on May 5th, 2063 is not. Therefore the focus should be on the former instead of the later. Weather vs. Climate.
Willard says:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
============================
Willard you need to up your game. The document you are quoting isn’t a science paper. Its a policy statement by the UN. The summary for policymakers is not reviewed by the scientists in the process.
W,
You wrote –
“Get yourself a real contrarian bench and well talk.
Your bench is too thin as it is.”
Why would anybody want to talk to an idiot who wallows in cryptic obscurity?
Are you the possessor of some arcane secrets which the whole world seeks?
Maybe you know where Trenberth’s missing heat is, or Michael Mann’s missing Nobel Prize!
Or maybe you are just another delusional idiot trying to look clever.
> The summary for policymakers is not reviewed by the scientists in the process.
Looks like you forgot to click on the “authors” link, Bill:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/#chapter-authors
Willard says:
> The summary for policymakers is not reviewed by the scientists in the process.
Looks like you forgot to click on the authors link, Bill:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/#chapter-authors
====================================
Well the link you sent isn’t for an IPCC assessment report. But nevertheless the same procedure is in place.
So since its obvious you are policy virgin. . . .you should know that the SPM is originally compiled by an individual, often scientist, appointed to the position by his government and the governments of the other nations. Once his compilation is done the draft goes out to the policy makers of the nations for their edits. Finally, the IPCC plenary which are also politicians approve it.
So I am sure lead author who got a plum position from his government is call BS on any untoward changes the governments choose to make. Not on your life. And the thousands of other contributor scientists are mere observers in this process and can’t even raise their hand to ask a question.
So all that said I am sure you can find what is the SPM also also is in the main report but may not be a consensus position of the many authors who contribute to the main report.
I know how it works as I have been an appointed seat in such processes and have stood by while the next level of edits makes a mockery of the expert work.
At least in US regulatory processes you get to write a rebuttal that becomes part of the official record of the rule making. But for anybody to ever see it requires a deep dive into the archives of the process.
Science policy processes are not unlike a squadron of bombers crossing the German coastline on a course for Berlin releasing buckets of tin foil chaff to confuse radars. In the end the bombs are dropped where the Air Commander wants them to be no matter what anybody else might want.
Willand,
The lack of rain is only exaggerating the fact that Taiwan is over populated and over industrialised.
There were previous years that had no typhoons which did not have the same effect. Admittedly these have not been in the recent decades when demand for water has been extremely high.
Mark,
Thank you for your Malthusian concerns. The Unabomber would probably agree with you. We could generalize your claim: if there was no human, there would be no AGW at all.
I’m not sure where you got your evidence about what happened during droughts in Taiwan 56 years ago. After all, that’s the last time there were no typhoon during a year.
Great, I keep getting a 418 error for posting a scientific abstract.
DOI: 10.1016/j.wace.2014.06.003
Here is the publication.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094714000632
Probly some character sequence that triggers Roy’s security.
Anyway.
The whole idea that industrialization weakens human resilience goes against everything we know about last century.
The Lomborg Collective usually tries to “normalize” this.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Weather: Severe storms possible north of Houston today
Our next cool front arrives late today and could spark more severe thunderstorms north of Houston. Rain chances look slim for the Bayou City.
Muggy air from the Gulf will blow in Friday morning, bringing back low clouds and mild temps around 70 at sunrise. Isolated showers are possible for the morning drive, then a little sunshine will poke through to warm temps into the upper 80s during the afternoon.
We’ll be keeping a watchful eye on the radar north of Houston from Friday afternoon through Friday evening. That’s when some of those showers could blossom into bigger thunderstorms.
A “cap” of warm, stable air aloft should prevent any storms from reaching Houston, but the cap could break north of the city. Otherwise, we can expect a thin band of showers to move in Friday night and Saturday morning as a weak cool front rolls through.
Why would anyone on this site not from the Houston area give a damn about your weather forecast?
Empathy?
Empathy?
Grise Fiord is -15C and blowing snow.
Empathy indeed.
Its okay though, apparently global warming is going to raise the temperature in Grise Fiord. I don’t know that 1C is going to make much difference.
Ken
Grise fiord?
You mean that corner on Ellesmere Island?
https://tinyurl.com/4thbt82d
And you speak about -15 C on April, 9, as if that was something terrible there? Are you serious?
I see in GHCN daily, for Nunavut, CA
CA002402345 76.4167 -82.9500 2.0 NU GRISE FIORD
CA002402346 76.4167 -82.9000 43.0 NU GRISE FIORD
CA002402351 76.4167 -82.9000 45.0 NU GRISE FIORD CLIMATE 71971
Here is the top ten of an ascending sort of the daily TMIN records for April days, reported by two of these stations (no data pre 1973):
CA002402346 66-38 1985 4 10 -39.5
CA002402351 66-38 2019 4 15 -39.2
CA002402346 66-38 1985 4 14 -39.0
CA002402346 66-38 1985 4 15 -38.0
CA002402351 66-38 2019 4 16 -38.0
CA002402346 66-38 1997 4 10 -37.5
CA002402346 66-38 1989 4 12 -37.0
CA002402346 66-38 1997 4 15 -37.0
CA002402351 66-38 2019 4 14 -36.9
CA002402351 66-38 2019 4 13 -36.7
Hmmmh.
Minus 15 C: that doesn’t look at all like harsh winter over there.
But on the other hand, 2019 didn’t look very good.
J.-P. D.
I dunno. -15C in Grise Fiord in April has to be a serious as rain in Houston.
Its not of relevance to the subject discussion here. Neither are orbital mechanics of the moon or the continual idiotic trolling that appears to be nothing but deliberate obfuscation but I digress.
Meh! Why so cranky?
I’ll be impressed if you tell me you have to go out and work in -15C weather. Have you ever worked on a drilling rig in North Dakota’s winter? I’d like to see you on the rig floor throwing chain in -15C and lower; night shift?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
Ill be impressed if you tell me you have to go out and work in -15C weather. Have you ever worked on a drilling rig in North Dakotas winter? Id like to see you on the rig floor throwing chain in -15C and lower; night shift?
==========================
Nope! Haven’t thrown chain on an oil rig period. But have done military exercises 24/7 outdoors in temperatures fluctuating between -27C and -15C for a stint of more than two weeks before getting some heated shelter. And that was with standard issue military clothing (including thankfully the standard issue knee length wool overcoat)
You probably haven’t really lived unless you have done stuff like that.
In a bid to ward off the frost, French winemakers have lit thousands of small fires which have caused a layer of smog in the southeast of the country.
The practice of lighting fires or candles near vines or fruit trees to prevent the formation of frost is a long-standing technique used in early spring when the first green shoots are vulnerable to the cold.
Whole hillsides look as if they are ablaze, creating a striking visual effect, with winemakers scrambling this week as temperatures plunged to below freezing, particularly in the fertile Rhone valley in southeast France.
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-france-declare-agricultural-disaster-frost.html
More frost:
Grise Fiord gets Permafrost.
That sure means something, Ken:
https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/arctic-permafrost-thawing-heres-what-means-canadas-north-and-world
W,
Anybody who is concerned about ice shelves fracturing, breaking up, disintegrating, or all the other emotive terms is an idiot like you.
Ice shelves float, and are pushed out to sea by the river of ice behind them. Of course they break when they get too long. Ice is not very flexible, and the surface of the sea moves up and down with the tides, while the land from which the ice sheet flows, doesn’t.
As to permafrost becoming squishy, before it became permafrost, it was a lot warmer – growing plants, living animals, etc. It is just gradually going back to its prior temperature.
Maybe you could consider actually thinking, rather than mindlessly trolling and posting random links to other idiots.
What do you think?
Good morning, Mike.
You might recall what AK told you a long time ago:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/25/arctic-time-bomb/#comment-351642
W is still besotted with his fantasy. He has created another fantasy figure for his amusement – AK!
Still making irrelevant, obscure, and cryptic comments. Still posting random links hoping somebody will read them.
W remains an obscure, cryptic, delusional idiot.
Ho, ho, ho! Good for a laugh, at least.
I wish I could have invented AK, Mike.
That you’re trying to gaslight me what amounts to be public evidence is quite something.
But then so is the way of Sky Dragons.
W wrote –
“That youre trying to gaslight me what amounts to be public evidence is quite something.”
I wonder what he really means?
Does he have a meaningful point, or is this just another trollish pointless comment?
Maybe someone could translate his comment into English.
You Make No Sense has a limited shelf life, Mike.
I surely don’t mind if you’re betting the house on this silly trick.
After all, if you succeeded in alienating Judy’s Denizens with it, that’s what will happen here.
Cue to your favorite Einstein quote.
W still believes repeating the contents of his fantasy will make it real.
He refuses to face reality. Still no GHE, and as the IPCC puts it, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
W refuses to believe the scientists at the IPCC, even if one of the scientists is really a mathematician. “Oh well, who cares,” says W. (I made that up, of course).
W professes to to be able to peer into the future, and thinks that somebody may care about his opinions on alienation!
What an idiot!
Enjoy your afternoon, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
so what is a sky dragon?
I thought you knew Judy’s, Bill:`
https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/
I was asking for the definition of a skydragon. I know there is a book out, I haven’t read, and I probably already read alternative theories in bunches. Perhaps there isn’t a short concise definition for one.
It appears Willard claims to know the ways of skydragons but can’t define one. Figures! He seems to be full of that kind of kraap.
Sky dragons deny the basic physics behind the GHE.
As JC notes:
A sky dragon “seeks to overturn the last 100 years of modern physics and concludes that ‘back radiation is unphysical.”
We have several sky dragons in residence here.
Are you one, Bill?
Gee nate thats not impressive you are trying to figure out why experiments deny the physics YOU think are behind the greenhouse effect.
W wrote –
“That youre trying to gaslight me what amounts to be public evidence is quite something.”
Trying to achieve the appearance of intelligence through incomprehensibility, now.
What an idiot!
The best way to appear intelligent is to use rare words like “besotted,” Mike:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/05/science-needs-reason-to-be-trusted/#comment-844968
You’re not a very prudent sock puppet.
W is still deluded.
He seems to believe that using words is designed to make the user appear intelligent!
It isn’t working for W. He must believe in the obscure Oriental practise of how to make a point by not making a point.
That is an attempt at humour, for those who can’t distinguish between humour and gravitas.
You’ll work out what has occurred one day, W. Or maybe you won’t.
in the meantime, just keep plugging away. Nothing wrong with following the delusional path. I’d be worried if I thought you could have any effect on me, but of course you are powerless.
Thank goodness!
Keep going, silly puppy:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/11/06/climate-dynamics-of-clouds/#comment-645753
The same abuses. The same gurus. The same Sky Dragon crap.
W,
have you got over your obsession with Mythical Mike?
I assume you have accepted reality, at least to some degree.
I assume you don’t agree with the words you have quoted. Maybe you could explain why. Surely you do not believe that it is possible to trap, accumulate, store or hide heat (in any meaningful sense), do you?
I forgot. Of course you do. You are an idiot.
> I assume you dont agree with the words you have quoted
What the words mean matters little here, little puppy.
Do you really think you’ll succeed in starting a food fight about your stupid Sky Dragon pet tricks?
You should keep that for those who fall for your silly baits.
The point is who said “besotted,” here and there.
W,
You wrote –
“What the words mean matters little here, little puppy.”
I see. So reality means nothing to you.
Then you wrote –
“Do you really think you’ll succeed in starting a food fight about your stupid Sky Dragon pet tricks?”
What do you mean? If you don’t want to accept reality, that is up to you.
You also wrote –
“The point is who said “besotted,” here and there.”
If you say so. A point completely without meaning to anyone but you (and to those of your ilk, I suppose). Words may be used by anyone at all. If you don’t like a word, don’t use it. If I like a word, I use it. So do others, apparently.
Carry on with your idiotic avoidance tactics. They might achieve something, some day.
> A point completely without meaning to anyone
You don’t speak for anyone here but you, silly puppy.
Go on with your abuses, I’ll adduce evidence.
You haven’t changed at all, Mike.
W complains that I speak only for myself. What else would I do, I wonder?
W might think he speaks for others. Other idiots who he cannot name. I don’t blame them for wishing to remain anonymous!
W feels abused, it seems. Or maybe he claims to be speaking for others similarly incapable of declining to feel abused.
What an idiot. Playing the “poor me” card.
W should buy, beg, or steal some self esteem. Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. Ah, diddums!
> W complains that I speak only for myself.
I *state* that you speak for yourself, Mike.
Silly puppy.
Oh, and why not:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/#comment-537411
W’s fixation continues.
Off with the fairies, as they say. Rambling about defamation, someone called Mikey, an anonymous link to something he considers important, and so on.
Presumably, he is once again demonstrating his admiration of someone by aping their mannerisms or some such.
All well and good, but serving only to divert attention away form the fact that Willard cannot bring himself to acknowledge the truth of the IPCC statement –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
One leg cut from under you, Willard.
Or indeed, the other leg that alarmists try to stand on – that projecting trends has meaning. Any warming trend, projected not to far into the future, results in surface temperatures exceeding those of the Sun! Another leg gone!
Now legless, Willard flails away at the laughing onlookers with a wooden sword, issuing dire threats!
Ho, ho, ho! Good one, Willard.
Keep on gaslighting, diddums guy:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/10/pre-traumatic-stress-syndrome-climate-scientists-speak-out/#comment-717144
W,
More meaningless and irrelevant links?
Keep posting, I’ll keep not clicking.
Maybe you hope doing the same thing over and over will get a different result sometime? A bit like a guy whose surname rhymes with Apple. Apparently, he posted a graphic from Gavin Schmidt, more than 100 times, hoping to convince somebody, anybody, that it “proved” the GHE, or something!
Maybe you try something similar. Just as idiotic.
> A bit like a guy whose surname rhymes with Apple. Apparently,
Why do you say apparently, Mike?
You should know fairly well David, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/01/the-inconvenient-southern-hemisphere/#comment-538287
Live well and prosper, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
W still in the iron grip of his fantasy.
Oh so cryptic!
He is an idiot, and has convinced himself his assumptions are fact. Just like the alarmist idiots who treat their assumptions about the future as facf, and cause for alarm.
W is obviously suffering from some form of delusional OCD. He keeps doing the same thing, for no particular reason.
Maybe he thinks his fantasy will become fact, if he is sufficiently convincing. It won’t.
There is some very serious volcanic activity that is going to drive us into a Maunder minimum. While we are distracted by a pandemic driven by a pcr test fraud. We should be planning right now.
tim wells…”While we are distracted by a pandemic driven by a pcr test fraud”.
The PCR test is a fraud and has been a fraud since it was invented for HIV. The vaccine based on the same science is also a fraud.
I am not claiming in any way that nothing is going on. A tiny fraction of 1% of people world-wide are getting sick and dying of something (mainly pneumonia). Claiming it is a virus is a guess, and it may be a good guess. However, no one has detected this virus physically so as to isolate it, and no one has proved the tests are testing for a virus, or that the vaccines can prevent infection from it.
The scary part is this. If the theory is wrong that underlies the tests then they are testing for normal bodily functions like disease, stress, the common flu, an impaired immune system, etc. Based on that, we could still be going through this fraud 40 years from now until someone with clout has the cahones to step up and ask what is really going on.
Bit of history.
Circa 1982, Luc Montagnier and his team were trying to find a viral cause for AIDS. They used the Louis Pasteur Institute method for identifying a virus but the final step required seeing the virus with an electron microscope. Montagnier has admitted neither he nor any member of his team saw a virus on the EM. His lab technician, who likely operates the EM, has admitted at no time did they see a virus on the EM.
Any objective scientist might conclude there was no virus there since none could be seen. Montagnier, having a background in retrovirus theory, persisted because he thought there had to be a virus. So he applied theory from a science that was less than 10 years old when he used it to infer HIV.
I’ll interject quickly that Montagnier now thinks HIV does NOT cause AIDS and that it is harmless to a healthy immune system. Covid appears to be the same re being harmless to a healthy immune system. Montagnier finds this amusing, admitting he can say what he wants now that he has a Nobel. Without the Nobel, he and many other scientists would be too afraid to admit the truth.
I like Montagnier, he is a likeable person who tells it like it is.
Furthermore, the PCR test was developed to amplify the inferred virus because no one could find the damned thing. PCR, invented for amplifying DNA, cannot amplify a virus that cannot be seen, and the inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, said so. He said it is wrong to use PCR as it is being used, as a diagnostic test.
Retroviral THEORY lead Montagnier to the conclusion that strands of the genetic material RNA were indicators of a virus. No proof, no scientific method, just theory. When he applied a suspected infectious agent to a culture of healthy (???) cells, they died. Voila! Montagnier claimed a virus and named it HIV.
Not so fast Luc. Stefan Lanka, a German microbiologist has proved the healthy (???) cells would have died anyway due to the treatment they receive in the lab. No one on Montagnier’s team, or for that fact, no one who has claimed the isolation of a popular virus, like polio, measles, etc., bothered to run a control test to see if the so-called healthy cells would have died anyway.
The cells are prepared by STARVING them of nutrients so they will be more receptive to infection. Doh!!! And Duh!!!. Then they are treated with antibiotics to prevent a bacterial infection. No wonder they’d die on their own volition.
Covid theory is based on the same theory invented by Montagnier. No one today bothers to try isolating the virus because they know they won’t find it. When Christian Drosten, a German researcher, claimed to have created a PCR test for covid, the one used world-wide today, he ADMITTED that he had not isolated covid. The Wuhan researchers who started the hysteria ADMITTED they had not isolated covid. All they claimed was an association.
The current fraud is based on a test that cannot test for a virus simply because no one has the actual genetic material from the virus with which to compare their theorized RNA source. Furthermore, the vaccine from Pfizer is based on an alleged spike protein from covid. The spike refers to the little spikes ALLEGED to stick out from the body of the virus capsule with which it ALLEGEDLY sticks to a cell to inject it’s viral payload.
No one has ever seen this happen and no one knows if a virus is like a tiny golf ball with spikes sticking out of it. It’s all fraudulent science that took a wrong turn in the early ’80s when the gold standard for identifying a virus with an electron microscope was abandoned and replaced by inference and consensus.
The electron microscope used is a TEM, or transmission electron microscope, the type used to see very small structure like a virus. However, the electron beam cannot pass through material thicker than about 100 nanometers (100 billionth of an inch). So those fancy drawings of a virus with its spikes sticking out is just that, a drawing.
The fact that Montagnier and his team admitted they could see no HIV virus on a TEM, and his later admission that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and does not cause AIDS, adds to the notion that covid theory is a fraud as well.
Just like in alarmist climate science.
Tim Wells
” While we are distracted by a pandemic driven by a pcr test fraud. ”
What a dumb, ignorant and arrogant statement.
But I don’t wonder, as you aren’t even able to distinguish between solar minima and volcanic eruptions.
You should be sent for 6 months to Brazil. There you would understand the recklessness of your thoughts.
Even in the rich Germoney, hospitals are struggling with an unprecedented siege of intensive care units.
You should be ashamed of your own stupidity!
J.-P. D.
JPD (JUST PLAIN DUMB),
Are you the thought police? So, we should send Gordon somewhere because of his ideas? Are you a Nazi? No, probably just an authoritarian pig.
‘
Oh!
Fascist Stephen Paul Anderson is here again! Nice to hear of you!
Unluckily, Chile has become a democracy again, and Pinochet (you know, the former bloodthirsty dictator you name a ‘Leftist’) no longer is there.
And the DINA, Pinochet’s secret police (trained by former GESTAPO and SS guys who managed to leave Germany via the Vatican around 1945/46) no longer can catch and torture you, e.g. by tearing out your fingernails piece by piece, what a pity, really!
If there is a woeful pig, Anderson: than that’s you, and no one else!
J.-P. D.
Come on Bin! You probably don’t know the difference between a Fascist and a Member of the KKK. Hint! One is a socialist and the other is just the opposite. To the really dumb they are the same thing.
Not the “Nazis were socialists” canard, Bill:
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
Only in Murica can we find such history ignoramuses.
Willard,
Conservatives are not Big Government. How is it possible Hitler was a conservative? He was Big Government, Authoritarian Government. What is so funny about you leftists is that you hate other leftists. You all compete for who controls the people. Monarchists, Fascists, Marxists, Nazis, Socialists, are all left of center.
Stephen,
There’s a whole world beyond the US of A, and there the meanings of these words change quite a bit.
Besides, there’s a very big difference between what Conservatives pretend to do and what happens in reality:
https://towardsdatascience.com/which-party-adds-more-to-deficits-a6422c6b00d7
Never forget that one single F 15 is north of 87 million.
Willard says:
Not the Nazis were socialists canard, Bill:
=========================================
Socialism can be judged from numerous angles Willard. Power concentration is probably the most important.
All the rest doesn’t matter when power can achieve what ever it wants on any particular day it choses.
Even the Nazis were cognizant of that and thus espoused socialism for Arians only. And they were cognizant it sufficiently to call themselves socialists. You can kid yourself about but the fact is if you don’t study and understand your history you are probably bound to relive it.
Not being cognization of the most important factors is why people and numerous generations following them suffer.
Willard says:
Theres a whole world beyond the US of A, and there the meanings of these words change quite a bit.
Besides, theres a very big difference between what Conservatives pretend to do and what happens in reality:
————————————–
Indeed except that real conservatives have a label for the pretenders and it is “RINO”
Williard,
In the rest of the world, words have different meanings? That’s new.
So, like “up” is not the opposite of “down”, or “in” is not the opposite of “out”? Is that what you mean? A conservative, not a Republican, believes in limited government. There are many Republicans who are not conservative. Also, they don’t play the political game very well. For instance, when the Democrats passed Obamacare, their refrain was, “what is your plan?” So, it presupposed that they should have a plan. The Conservative plan is that government doesn’t pay for healthcare. Healthcare is not a right. Read the Constitution.
Like “liberal” usually means right-wing, Stephen:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%C3%A9ralisme
But then Newscorp’s demonization machine kicked in.
Is that good enough for you?
W,
To a climatological fantasist, a reduction in the rate of cooling means warming. Mathematician (Gavin Schmidt) means climate scientist. People who didn’t receive a Nobel Prize, (Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt), become Nobel Laureates! In the fantasy world of climatology, the surface does not radiate energy, and temperatures are measured in W/m2, which can be added, producing higher temperatures.
Warm water sinks, cold water rises, and ocean currents are caused by the wind, in their minds.
Yes indeed. In the mouths of delusion climate alarmists, words mean anything at all. Facts are superfluous to requirements, and studiously ignored.
What a pathetic collection of dimwits!
> Mathematician (Gavin Schmidt) means climate scientist.
You sure like Gavin, Mike:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/27/earth-to-trump/#comment-826841
My policy is simple: a scientist is someone who does scientific research.
Whatever curriculum led you to your abuses, Mike, you’re an abuser to me.
W,
You wrote –
Whatever curriculum led you to your abuses, [Swenson], youre an abuser.
Oh dear, how PC of you! Good for you! Does your opinion count for anything? Not for me, that’s for sure.
If you think Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, that is your affair. You probably believe that poorly programmed computer games are “experiments”, too. Maybe you dont realise that climate is the average of weather records. Science? If you say so, W.
You also wrote –
“You sure like Gavin, [Swenson] :”
Why would you think that? I have never met the man. I have heard he juggles quite well, though.
Liberal is “right-wing”? Not hardly. In Europe, the whole political spectrum has shifted left. There is no right. It is only less left.
Sure, Stephen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism#European_countries
Check the map.
What is populism: ”consists of anti-elitism, opposition to the Establishment and speaking for the “common people”.”
Identical for both the leftwing populism of AOC and Sanders; along with the rightwing populism of Trump. Wiki has the same phrase for both.
Makes perfect sense to me. Why be for an establishment that focuses on leaving people behind whether by legal, regulatory, tax barriers or via the absence of actual gifts to move those of the lower classes through legal, regulatory, or lack of increasing those same tax barriers on the middle classes.
Is Willard here is doing basically the same thing here as Nate in being a proestablishment, proelitist, multi-national corporate shill.
Like all anti-populists he is above speaking to the common people. Let them eat cake, Queen of the mean, only little people pay taxes.
Another example of why I like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and James (fossil fuel rationing) Hansen. I may not agree with them on everything but at least they aren’t hypocrites.
> Makes perfect sense to me.
Of course it does, Bill.
But that wasn’t the question, was it?
Hmmmmmm, obviously something you never consider.
Willard says:
Not the Nazis were socialists canard, Bill:
————————–
Well obviously socialism wants to differentiate itself from fascism which is perfectly understandable.
But the fascist share many values and the same roots with socialism. The French Revolution is seen as the progenitor of both views of socialism accounting for the similarity in their names. Basically they were: opposed to aristocracy, materialism, rationalism, positivism, and bourgeois society. A mixed bag of socialism and anti-determinism.
Probably one of the thinkers most revered by the fascists was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon the guy that established anarchist socialism.
Compared to the Marxists, the Fascists were opposed to compulsory labor and atheism. Compared to the democratic socialists the fascists opposed liberal democracy. Also a Proudhon disciple Georges Sorel idolized by Mussolini went so far to say: ”nothing is more aristocratic than democracy”
However, the perils of all three are identical in giving the state too much power. Its just a kneejerk reaction to the reality that people are not equal some are more ambitious, others are more talented. If men are free there will be an odd distribution of wealth and power. Give a state power sufficient to upend that odd distribution of wealth and power is IMO to be feared more. Better to give enough power to make those who benefit pay more than their share and cajole the wealthy into realizing that they benefit by being charitable and ensuring that people are not living without any hope.
The anarchism is perhaps the biggest lie in socialism as no brand of socialism fascist, communist, or democratic has ultimately tolerated the anarchists.
Tim Wells said: There is some very serious volcanic activity that is going to drive us into a Maunder minimum.
Volcanic activity cannot induce a solar grand minimum.
willard…”You might recall what AK told you a long time ago:”
You seem to know a lot about the past on this blog but there was no Willard around then. It means you are a gutless troll who invented a new nym to hide behind. Ergo, whatever you say now is meaningless.
> there was no Willard around then
Your search skillz are not up to date, Gordon, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/29/uncertainty-lost-in-translation/#comment-355142
Notice to whom that comment responds.
If you look at my old tumblog:
neverendingaudit.tumblr.com
you’ll see that I’ve been around since 2009.
An apology would be nice.
willard…you are obfuscating and cherry-picking posts, my comment was this: “You seem to know a lot about the past on this blog but there was no Willard around then”.
I did not say you were not around on the Net in 2014, I was referring to this blog. I go back to early 2015 at least and I know Mike Flynn was around back then, so how do you know so much about Mike if you only found out about this blog recently?
Can’t believe that I have been here that long or that Roy has put up with me. Thanks Roy.
Gordon,
Thank you for your response.
I am commenting at Judy’s since its creation, circa 2010.
Here’s an early one:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/28/waving-the-italian-flag-part-i-uncertainty-and-pedigree/#comment-16575
Here’s a post related to the Italian Flag episode:
https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/10/willard-on-curry.html
Here’s a comment from 2015:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/15/bankruptcy-of-the-merchants-of-doubt-meme/#comment-684160
I commented at Eli’s, Gavin’s, Lucia’s, Keith’s, James’, Susan’s, AT’s, and lots of other places. I met most Climateball players, often in adversarial territory. Like a Big Cat, I come and go.
When I comment somewhere, that usually means that things are not going well, and that there’s someone playing dumb or smug or like an asshat.
You know, y’all are lucky to have Bob, bdgwx, EM, Tom, and other guys who know their shit inside out. You should play clean with them. We only have one life, and it ages better.
Over and out,
W
willard…”I commented at Eli’s, Gavin’s, Lucia’s, Keith’s, James’, Susan’s, AT’s, and lots of other places….”
Still doesn’t answer the question regarding how you know about Mike Flynn on this site.
> Still doesnt answer the question
That wasn’t the question. The question was if I was a sock puppet.
I answered that question. First, by telling you that I know Mike from Judy’s. That implies that you’re merely trying to flip the tables. Second, by indicating that I’m not new to Climateball.
If you read Judy’s, you’d know how silly is the idea that I’m DavidA.
You’re the perfect illustration that real names carry no responsibility. What I write under my name is my honor.
You’re a Sky Dragon, Gordon. This isn’t your blog. You’re not even playing home.
As for your new question, let me tell you about a little trick:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.drroyspencer.com%2F+%22mike+flynn%22
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken
You wrote above:
” I dunno. -15C in Grise Fiord in April has to be a serious as rain in Houston.
Its not of relevance to the subject discussion here. ”
We are discussing at the borderline between weather and climate all the time. So why should your impressions not be relevant?
They are CERTAINLY much more relevant than the dumb lies written by Ignoramuses like Robertson!
Anyway, my comparison yesterday wasn’t quite fair, as these -15 C certainly were average temperature, and not minima at night.
I extracted the ten coldest of all available April month TAVGs for this Grise fiord corner:
1974 4 -25.49 (C)
1985 4 -25.12
1992 4 -24.89
2011 4 -24.41
2019 4 -24.06
1991 4 -23.05
2015 4 -22.98
1986 4 -22.96
2002 4 -22.90
1975 4 -22.67
Thus, -15 C are way above such values.
Nunavut is, with an average trend of 0.10 C / decade over about 40 stations, not at all such an extremely warming corner as is e.g. Northeastern Siberia.
J.-P. D.
Clint R
“its either a violation of 1LoT or 2Lot, depending on how Ent believes the energy appears. But, it definitely violates thermodynamics. ”
All the heat required for global warming comes from the Sun. No LoT violations required.
An analogy for the lurkers.Clint R will be rude about it, but that’s just Clint.
A large tank, half full of water with a hose to fill it and a tap at the bottom to empty it.
Turn on the hose to give a steady flow of water into the tank and open the tap enough to allow the same amount of water to flow out. The volume of water and the head of water remain constant.
Close the tap slightly to reduce the outward flow. The volume and head of water in the tank now increase.
As the head of water increases, the increased pressure on the tap increases the outward flow. After a while the tank reaches equilibrium with equal inward and outward flow at a larger volume and higher head of water.
All the water in and flowing through the tank has come from the hose. No miraculous extra water needed.
Now scale it up.
The tank is the Earth. The hose is the Sun supplying the inward flow of energy. The tap is the atmosphere radiating to space.
The volume of water in the tank is the heat content and the head of water is the temperature.
Closing the tap slightly is equivalent to increasing CO2 to reduce the radiation to space, leading to a higher heat content and temperature. All the extra heat has come from the Sun. No LoT violations required.
E,
Just a second there, pardner!
Don’t forget you have to throttle the hose at the same time – the more atmosphere (including things like CO2), the less water gets through the hose. So your tap has to vary its flow proportionally.
And don’t forget to turn off the hose totally at night, while the tap keeps draining all the time.
Idiotic, pointless and irrelevant analogies are the trademark of the ignorant. Either you assume that your audience are too thick to understand basic physics, or you lack understanding of basic physics, yourself.
The Earth appears to have cooled over the last few billion years. Your hose obviously wasn’t big enough!
Time to buy a bigger hose?
Your’e about as silly as the idiot Willard.
Ent, if exposing you to reality is being “rude about it”, then get ready…
Your mistake, with the analogy, is believing that CO2 stops radiation to space. More CO2 means MORE emission to space, not less.
And your mistake with thermodynamics is believing that if object A cools by warming object B, object B can then warm object A. You continue this mistake by confusing “insulation” with a “source of energy”. A blanket laid over a hot rock will “insulate” the rock, but will NOT raise the temperature of the rock. The heat flow would be from the hot rock through the blanket to the cooler environment.
You do not understand thermodynamics, and you appear willing to pervert reality, as evidence your claim that passenger jets fly backwards.
> your mistake with thermodynamics is believing that if object A cools by warming object B, object B can then warm object A.
Which is exactly why EM said:
You know, Clint, there’s nothing behind these abuse of yours.
So it’d be cruel to ask that you stop them.
Please, indulge.
No one expect you to understand physics, Troll-ard.
No one expect you to READ HARDER, Clint.
Just be yourself.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”All the heat required for global warming comes from the Sun. No LoT violations required”.
There’s no violation of the 2nd law because the Sun is much hotter than the Earth. It’s natural to transfer heat from a hotter body to a cooler body.
AGW suggests that heat can be transferred from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to the surface to raise the surface temperature above where it is heated by solar energy, even though the heat transfer that warmed the GHGs came from the warmer surface.
That recycling of heat to increase the temperature of the source is a clear violation of physics called perpetual motion.
Gordon, EMR is not heat.
Entropic man at 6:03 AM
Lurker here.
Regarding this set up:
Now scale it up.
The tank is the Earth. The hose is the Sun supplying the inward flow of energy. The tap is the atmosphere radiating to space.
The volume of water in the tank is the heat content and the head of water is the temperature.
Closing the tap slightly is equivalent to increasing CO2 to reduce the radiation to space, leading to a higher heat content and temperature.
It seems to not properly reflect the fact that the earth’s radiating temperature is fixed as determined by the solar constant and albedo, i.e. the tap cannot be closed even slightly; you can only make it harder for the water to reach the tap. The GHE is to raise the altitude at which the earth radiates to space.
T,
The Earth radiates to space from the surface, or didn’t you know that?
The atmosphere and all that it contains, also radiates to space.
How can it not?
What if the Earth was an ice cube, Mike?
W obviously suffers from dyslexia, reading Swenson as Mike.
I accept his admission of a mental aberration. He probably confuses other words similarly.
He wrote –
“What if the Earth was an ice cube, [Swenson]?” (I have corrected his spelling for him)..
What if it was? I have to point out that it isn’t, but maybe his mental condition prevents him from accepting this.
If he wants to believe the Earth is an ice cube, or that the Moon is made of green cheese, or even that CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming, he can go right ahead.
It takes all kinds.
> (I have corrected his spelling for him)
You’re Mike, Mike.
Enjoy your afternoon.
W,
You wrote –
“Youre [Swenson], [Swenson].
Enjoy your afternoon”
Very astute. I will enjoy it, thanks. I believe there is one every day.
Whenever it’s 22:00 at Roy’s it’s the afternoon where you are, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
tyson…”Entropic man at 6:03 AM Lurker here”.
Come on, we know you’re Snape.
Again and again, pretentious and ignorant sentences like
” Your mistake, with the analogy, is believing that CO2 stops radiation to space. More CO2 means MORE emission to space, not less. ”
are nothing else than sheer nonsense, replicated here ad nauseam by Ignoramuses who gullibly believe the stuff posted on contrarian, antiscientific blogs.
It’s of the same vein as ‘Moon is like a ball-on-a-string’, or ‘Our Earth is flat, and the Sun orbits around Earth’, or ‘Viruses don’t exist’, or ‘Einstein was wrong’.
*
I go with real scientists, who write meaningful matter, like e.g. this:
The AIRS Study
NASA’s Atmospheric InfraRed Sounder (AIRS) has thousands of infrared channels and has provided a large quantity of new remote sensing information since the launch of the Aqua satellite in early 2002.
AIRS has even demonstrated how increasing CO2 in the last 15+ years has reduced the infrared cooling to outer space at the wavelengths impacted by CO2 emission and absorp-tion, the first observational evidence I am aware of that increasing CO2 can alter — however minimally — the global energy budget.
*
Indeed: minimally! But it can’t be disproved anymore; it however can be DENIED.
A denial that we can see here all the time, expressed by those who constantly distort, discredit, denigrate and lie – BECAUSE they are unable to scientifically contradict.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon has the reality right in the quote, but can’t figure it out because he doesn’t understand the science: “…at the wavelengths impacted by CO2 emission…”
That’s why this is so much fun.
Don’t try to divert and to distort: it’s useless.
I understand very well what Roy Spencer wrote, Clint R.
And you may, as usual, endlessly reply and reply and reply.
It will be of no use for you: apart from other Ignoramuses thinking like you, no one believes here what you write.
No one, Clint R.
J.-P. D.
Poor Bindidon. He’s as stupid as Norman. Now he’s trying to deny the quote he provided!
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Minimal! ”
It doesn’t need much.
The surface receives 163W/m^2 from the surface and 340W/m^2 from back radiation, a total of 503W/m^2. Back radiation has increased by 4W/m^2 since 1880, increasing the total input by
4/503*100=0.8%.
The temperature increased over the same period from 286.8K to 288K, an increase of 1.2K or 1.2/288*100=0.4%
“The surface receives 163W/m^2 from the surface”
That should have been
“The surface receives 163W/m^2 from the Sun”
Eejit.
Adding to the humor, if a blackbody surface is emitting 503 W/m^2, then its equilibrium temperature would be 307K.
Since Earth is 288K, all that CO2 is really cooling us.
Therefore having no atmosphere would warm the Earth.
QED.
Clint R
“Adding to the humor, if a blackbody surface is emitting 503 W/m^2, then its equilibrium temperature would be 307K. ”
Try again. The surface receives 503 W/m^2. The surface loses 105W/m^2 by convection and evapotranspiration. It only emits 398W/m^2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File%3AThe-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Nope probably should be skeptical of back radiation warming the surface instead.
For Tim Folkerts this should be the fact that says you can’t ignore convection both originating at the surface and within the atmosphere (better termed there as diffusion) as uncertainties regarding your narrow view point of the GHE.
the above is in fact a description of our climate, it just doesn’t say much at all about the causes. When and inspector finds a dead body, first job is to find out how it died. Then you look for what or who to blame.
CAWG arose a different way. A scruffy guy with long hair smoking funny smelling shiit became the culprit, next job was to find the crime he committed.
Your overstretching your squirrel, Bill.
Going from “But Anything But CO2” to “but CAGW” requires more than one.
Ent, there’s so many funny things about your false beliefs. I don’t really have to go any further than your “proof” that passenger jets fly backwards.
Nearly as funny as your denial of the inertial reference frame.
“Nope probably should be skeptical of back radiation warming the surface instead. ”
That leaves you with a problem.
Averaged over the planet measurements show that the surface receives 163 W/m^2 from the Sun and loses 503W/m^2 by radiation, convection and evapotranspiration.
If you are sceptical of back radiation you must have an alternative in mind. Where do you think that missing 340W/m^2 is coming from?
Entropic man says:
Nope probably should be skeptical of back radiation warming the surface instead.
That leaves you with a problem.
Averaged over the planet measurements show that the surface receives 163 W/m^2 from the Sun and loses 503W/m^2 by radiation, convection and evapotranspiration.
If you are sceptical of back radiation you must have an alternative in mind. Where do you think that missing 340W/m^2 is coming from?
================================
Its more of a case of you being led by the nose.
One thing an auditor must consider is are the expenditures real.
The 333 watts backradiation should tell you there is something wrong with the accounting. And to determine that all you have to do is sort of persistently point an IR detector at the sky to measure the back radiation directly rather than deducing it from your own math.
You might ask yourself how does a surface at 288k give up 493watts/m2 (Trenberth, which is not 503) when science says it should give up 396watts/m2.
Does the surface invent and extra 107watts to send skyward? And its probably considerably worse than that. Measuring evaporation by measurable precipitation is pretty crude. The earth is 3/4 ocean and condensation on surfaces several feet above the ocean are soaking wet almost every night. Inches about the surface is even worse. Huge amounts of latent heat is lifted into the air every day that doesn’t get recorded in rain gauges. Same thing happens in forests under tree canopies. . . .where rain gauges are never placed.
So the transevaporation number in the budgets seem low. However, so far I haven’t tried to make an effort to calculate how low as it seems it would be quite challenging to get right. At any rate is almost certainly adds more problems for the backradiation.
One fairly significant area where error may exist is in assuming a non-blackbody surface emits blackbody radiation from the surface. If you look at the portion of light reaching the surface in budgets that is reflected it calculates to an emissivity factor of .875 (per trenberth budget).
So a surface supposed to be emitting 396w/m2 using SB equation with an emissivity factor the actual radiation would be . . . .wait for it. . . .346.5watts/m2.
That would reduce total outgoing to
Ent, are you that stupid?
+163 – 503 = -340 (to space).
(That’s another rhetorical question.)
> when science says it should give up 396watts/m2.
Auditors don’t appeal to immaterial entities like “Science,” Bill.
They trace receipts.
Where are yours?
Oops accidentally hit the up arrow and it published.
It would lead to 443watts going up + any understatement in transevaporation.
So ignoring the tranevaporation issue, you now have 494w/m2 coming down and 443 going up.
I have heard Roy say the average temperature of the sky supports and emission of 280 some watts. So the backradiation number seems to be too high by about 50 watts/m2.
443 up, 280 backradiation gives you a net 163 insolation absorbed. Pretty close to the 161. The accuracy of any of the total numbers can easily accomodate that. And since my recollection of reading Trenberth he called the backradiation a plug number to balance the budget.
I emailed Trenberth to quiz him and the albedo issue. At first he lied to me hoping I would go away, but he provided me with sources that disagreed with his figures for ocean surface emissions (where you have the issue of massive evaporation and radiation stealing excessive amounts from a limited pool of energy that could only be plugged by a bigger than life backradiation number)
So remember to audit the stuff you read to see if it really makes sense. Now I would point out I didn’t do a full audit. In my trade what I did amounted to little more than an recompilation of the numbers and a full audit would require a lot more work.
Personally I have a rather negative view of Trenberth. Seems he kind of phones the work in. but if anybody does have an excellent paper by Trenberth I would love reading it as I truly do spend a good deal of time looking at people before taking on a strong view point. I have known more than a few brown nosers getting ahead.
> at first he lied to me hoping I would go away
For an auditor, Bill, you sure like to say stuff.
You already served us that story, BTW.
Receipts, please.
bill hunter
I am hoping you are not a contrarian. If you are actually seeking truth on the issue of Climate Science than keep your mind open. Don’t believe all the contrarians.
There are actual measured values for downwelling IR.
Here are some Summer and Winter values from some locations. I suggest using the tool and making your own graphs. The data is collected with a device that points only upward. The only radiant energy entering the structure is coming from the atmosphere.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
This is the tool to use. Check the Downwelling Infrared square and you can find measured valued of “backradiation” for various sites and for many days of data collection. If you are an honest researcher you can get a general idea of the value of downwelling IR.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60724a4ca66b7.png
A winter plot for one location
Same location in summer
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60724a847e226.png
Wetter location winter
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60724ab7693b8.png
same location summer
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_60724ae5e871b.png
ClintR said: +163 – 503 = -340 (to space).
You basically wrote SOLAR – (SOLAR + DWIR) here. This is not the amount that escapes to space. I’m not sure what your thought process was there.
Anyway, here is the correct 1LOT surface calculation for 1 year…
Ein = 163.3A Wyears + 340.3A Wyears = 503.6A Wyears
Eout = 18.4A Wyears + 86.4A Wyears + 398.2A Wyears = 503.0A Wyears
dE = 503.6A Wyears – 503.0A Wyears = +0.6A Wyears = 3.0e14 Wyears
bdgwx said: You basically wrote SOLAR (SOLAR + DWIR) here.
Err…that should read SOLAR – (UWIR + SENSIBLE + LATENT).
Willard says:
For an auditor, Bill, you sure like to say stuff.
You already served us that story, BTW.
Receipts, please.
=====================================
Email him yourself and ask him why he uses a blackbody radiation for the surface when the surface has 12.5% albedo and see if you can get an answer. Probably not because there is no acceptable answer.
So Willard are you on board with bdgwx that there is no realistic possibility of catastrophic warming happening from fossil fuel emissions?
I was making fun of Ent’s nonsense, where he was adding different fluxes. bdgwx decided he would “correct” me, not realizing it was the same nonsense he believes in.
But, he made a mistake trying to “correct” me!
bdgwx is the one that believes 960 = 240!
bdgwx just makes one mistake after another.
There is nothing wrong with adding fluxes in this case. Of course, you could just convert them all to energies by multiplying by 510e12 m^2 and 1 year first and then plug them into the 1LOT equation like what I did above.
I definitely don’t think 960 = 240. I’ve never written or implied it. Scientists have never written or implied it. I do think 960 / 4 = 240 though. I also think 1360 * 0.7 / 4 = 240 as well.
bdgwx, you can’t have it both ways. How many times have you claimed that “flux is conserved”?
A spherical black body absorbing 960 W/m^2 would be emitting 240 W/m^2, at equilibrium.
960 W/m^2 is NOT equal to 240 W/m^2. Flux is NOT conserved.
So when you now admit that you “definitely don’t think 960 = 240”. Then you have to admit that flux is NOT conserved.
(The fact that I have to tie bdgwx down to get him to admit something so basic is just more evidence he’s NOT a scientist, and he’s NOT interested in reality.)
bill hunter
The albedo of the surface would have no relationship with the surface emissivity. The Earth’s surface emits IR with an emissivity of over 0.9.
This article has the data for this but the author has an interesting hypothesis for surface warming and cooling without CO2. Interesting, I had not read that before. The wind speed over the oceans changes the sea water emissivity and the effect seems considerable (11 W/m^2 with wind speed variation)
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Sea_Water_Emissivity_Volz.pdf
> Email him yourself
Even if I emailed Kevin, Bill, it would not inform me about what *your* own experience. Besides, look how weird it looks:
[Auditor] Where’s your receipt for that hotel suite, Bill?
[Bill] Email the hotel yourself.
To recap, we have no idea what you discussed, what Kevin told you, why it’s a lie, and in fact how the hell any of this is supposed to make any sense.
You’re going for an old meme:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/2744926652
Willard says:
[Auditor] Wheres your receipt for that hotel suite, Bill?
[Bill] Email the hotel yourself.
————————————-
this may be a public forum but hardly anybody reads all these stupid comments of yours so really doesn’t make a fig of difference.
I have the email string in Outlook files on a retired harddrive. It would be far easier for you to question Trenberth than for me to go dig it out. And for what purpose would I dig it out? To prove to an idiot there was such an exchange?
You seem concerned about so I even offered you an simpler avenue. Explain how a surface with an albedo of 12.5% emits blackbody levels of radiation as depicted in Trenberth’s energy budget models.
I asked him that question and he denied using blackbody radiation, and obvious lie, and a lie because he knows its BS and has no patience to correct it as it if were immaterial saying that water is a near perfect absorber.
He even offered a couple of references to ostensibly support that reply. Upon reading those references I noticed that the reference material was suggesting a much higher reflectivity off water (angles) and argued for a significantly lower emissivity.
So I emailed Trenberth back saying the references were in disagreement with him. Trenberth then replied he didn’t agree with his own sources.
Now it shouldn’t take much knowledge to note that Trenberth’s statements and numbers do not translate into the albedo his own budget suggests namely 23 watts/m2 of reflectivity vs 184 watts/m2 of solar radiation reaching the surface.
So if you want to challenge that you have many avenues in which to take, be my guest and stop being just a jerk while you are at it.
ClintR said: A spherical black body absorbing 960 W/m^2 would be emitting 240 W/m^2, at equilibrium.
The Earth absorbs ~240 W/m^2 and emits ~240 W/m^2.
A hypothetical black body absorbing 960 W/m^2 would be emitting 960 W/m^2 at steady state. If it were emitting 240 W/m^2 then it would not be in steady state.
ClintR said: 960 W/m^2 is NOT equal to 240 W/m^2. Flux is NOT conserved.
My guess you are still confused about Earth’s surface area which is 510e12 m^2 and its cross sectional area which is 127.5e12 m^2. You cannot add or subtract these two fluxes because they are not in reference to the same area.
ClintR said: Then you have to admit that flux is NOT conserved.
Sorry. I’m a firm believer in the 1LOT. And since I accept that energy is conserved then I have no choice but to accept that fluxes are also conserved when those fluxes are in reference to the same area and same time period. What I am not saying or implying is that 960 = 240 or that the 960 W/m^2 flux upon the cross sectional area can be added/subtracted with the 240 W/m^2 flux upon the surface area.
If there is something that you do not understand or need clarification on then ask questions.
Here again bdgwx, I don’t know if you’re really that incompetent, or just being dishonest.
If you can’t understand a sphere, let’s go back to a solid cone. A solid cone in space absorbs 900 W/m^2, at its base. The base has a surface area of 1 unit. The rest of the cone has a surface area of 4 units. At equilibrium, the cone would be emitting 180 W/m^2. It is absorbing 900 W/m^2, but only emitting 180 W/m^2. 900 does NOT equal 180.
Flux is NOT conserved. “Power” is NOT conserved. You are either terribly ignorant of physics, or blatantly dishonest.
(I’ve cut down the amount of wiggle room you have, but you’ll find some way to pervert reality.)
> So if you want to challenge
I don’t need to challenge hearsay, Bill. It stands on nothing. It’s good you retired from the auditing business, for you fail basic due diligence.
All it takes for you to show that Kevin is “using blackbody radiation” is to quote him doing so. But you can’t do that, for you’re only good throwing squirrels around while editorializing at your heart’s content.
Norman says:
The albedo of the surface would have no relationship with the surface emissivity. The Earths surface emits IR with an emissivity of over 0.9.
——————————-
Thanks Norman. My post wasn’t an argument about whether the surface emissivity was .875 as suggested by Trenberth or >.9 as you suggest above. Distinguishing who is correct here isn’t a topic I am that interested in. Especially since it is such a small difference.
The argument I had with Trenberth was why do you use 1.0 emissivity to derive 396 watts/m2 of surface radiation based on a mean temperature 289k while having an emissivity factor of .875. That should come out as 346 watts/m2 of upwelling radiation.
In another model somebody else should use 356 watts/m2 if using a .9 emissivity factor.
===================
==================
Norman says:
This article has the data for this but the author has an interesting hypothesis for surface warming and cooling without CO2. Interesting, I had not read that before. The wind speed over the oceans changes the sea water emissivity and the effect seems considerable (11 W/m^2 with wind speed variation)
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2006.06.17_Sea_Water_Emissivity_Volz.pdf
—————————–
That makes sense to me though I haven’t seen the actual calculations. I probably have 3 to 4 years of seatime, working and playing outdoors on the ocean. Best way to see into the depths is by looking vertically. On a calm day looking at an angle is mostly inhibited if looking in the direction of the sun because of glare.
Windy days seem to increase glare as all directions are inhibited including vertical at least from the standpoint of having an oscillating field looking straight down.
bill hunter says:
”So Willard are you on board with bdgwx that there is no realistic possibility of catastrophic warming happening from fossil fuel emissions?”
——————————
Willard apparently lacks the confidence to take a position on this matter. Chalk up yet another weak-kneed liberal lacking confidence in the science and fearful of the unknown.
Manipulative crap might not be the best way to defeat my working hypothesis regarding you, Bill.
ClintR said: A solid cone in space absorbs 900 W/m^2, at its base.
Gotcha. The cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2 at its base.
ClintR said: At equilibrium, the cone would be emitting 180 W/m^2. It is absorbing 900 W/m^2, but only emitting 180 W/m^2. 900 does NOT equal 180.
Hold on. You just said the cone was absorbing 900 W/m^2 at its base (see above). But now you are saying that the entire cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2. The entire cone and the base of the cone are NOT the same area. If the cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2 at its base and assuming there is no other flux on the other part of the cone then the entire cone is actually absorbing 180 W/m^2 (assuming the base area is 1/5 of the whole); not the 900 W/m^2 you are claiming here.
Fix this issue and resubmit for review.
I was curious how you would wiggle out, bdgwx.
Actually, you’re getting very desperate, especially when I specifically stated “A solid cone in space absorbs 900 W/m^2, at its base.”
I’m content that you’re both incompetent and dishonest. We see that a lot here.
Willard says:
> So if you want to challenge
I dont need to challenge hearsay, Bill. It stands on nothing. Its good you retired from the auditing business, for you fail basic due diligence.
All it takes for you to show that Kevin is using blackbody radiation is to quote him doing so. But you cant do that, for youre only good throwing squirrels around while editorializing at your hearts content.
==========================
Will this do?
”At the surface, the outgoing radiation was computed for blackbody
emission at 15C using the StefanBoltzmann law.”
https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf
[C] A solid cone in space absorbs 900 W/m^2, at its base.
[B] Gotcha. The cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2 at its base.
[C] You’re getting very desperate, especially when I specifically stated “A solid cone in space absorbs 900 W/m^2, at its base.”
ClintR said: I was curious how you would wiggle out, bdgwx.
I’m not the one who first said the 900 W/m^2 absorbed was in reference to the base area and then later switch it to the entire area. I’m happy to discuss and explain the scenario with you, but you’re going to have to be consistent in your description of it. The details are important here.
With that said…are committed to the 900 W/m^2 absorbed being in reference to the base area and not the entire area?
> Will this do?
Of course it will:
https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf
Same box you quoted.
I bet he gave you the same references. If he trashed your email, that’d be understandable.
bdgwx, I did NOT “switch”. My words stand. You can pervert all you want.
I’m content that you’re both incompetent and dishonest. We see that a lot here.
Willard says:
Manipulative crap might not be the best way to defeat my working hypothesis regarding you, Bill.
——————————-
Willard where did you get the idea my objective was to change your working hypothesis regarding myself?
My only objective was to spend a little time on the subject to find out if anybody has anything interesting to say on the greenhouse effect. Sometimes it takes a little taunting to get folks to cough up what they know.
However, I am giving up on you. If you can’t even answer this question:
”So Willard are you on board with bdgwx that there is no realistic possibility of catastrophic warming happening from fossil fuel emissions?”
It becomes obvious you don’t even have anything to offer in regards to the most important issue at the center of the debate. It then becomes obvious your purpose in here is just plain old vanilla trolling and you are fearful of taking any kind of stand as if you might get trolled back.
ClintR,
I don’t mind discussing the cone in space. To proceed further you’ll need to commit to either the 900 W/m^2 being in reference to cone’s base area – 1/5 of whole or entire area – 5/5 of whole. Which one is it going to be?
bdgwx, the incoming flux of 900 W/m^2 balances the output flux of 180 W/m^2, because the output area is greater than the area over which the incoming flux is received. Just an example of flux not needing to be conserved. You don’t divide the incoming flux over the entire area of the cone because the incoming flux is not received over the entire area of the cone. It is only received at the base.
> However, I am giving up on you. If you cant even answer this question:
See, Bill?
That’s manipulative crap.
DREMT said: bdgwx, the incoming flux of 900 W/m^2 balances the output flux of 180 W/m^2, because the output area is greater than the area over which the incoming flux is received.
I agree. Perhaps you can explain it to ClintR?
DREMT said: Just an example of flux not needing to be conserved.
Agreed. That’s because the 900 W/m^2 figure for base area (1/5 of whole) is not the same as the 180 W/m^2 figure for entire area (5/5 of whole). Fluxes are only conserved when they are in reference to the same area and same time period.
DREMT said: You dont divide the incoming flux over the entire area of the cone because the incoming flux is not received over the entire area of the cone.
Oh you most certainly can. Take a cone with 1 m^2 of base area and 5 m^2 of entire area. In 1 year the cone receives 900 W/m^2 * 1 m^2 * 1 y = 900 W-years of energy. This is exactly equivalent to projecting that 900 W/m^2 over the entire area via (900 / 5) W/m^2 * 5 m^2 * 1 y = 900 W-years of energy. And going further this is matched by the emission of 180 W/m^2 * 5 m^2 * 1 y = 900 W-years of energy. Flux IS conserved in this case. It is conserved because we were careful to only compare fluxes in reference to the same area and same time period.
And don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say the absorbed value of 180 W/m^2 over the entire area is homogenous. It’s not. It is this non-homogeneity of the absorbed flux that leads to what Trenberth calls “rectification effects”.
It is a fact. The cone absorbs 180 W/m^2 * 5 m^2 * 1 y = 900 W-years of energy in one year.
bdgwx…ClintR doesn’t need anything explaining to him. You’re the one making a fuss over nothing. The cone receives 900 W/m^2 over its base and emits 180 W/m^2 over its entire surface area. Flux is not conserved, because the surface area is different.
Over one year the cone continuously receives 900 W/m^2 over its base. Nobody said it was rotating or moving in any way. In which case no you do not average the incoming flux over the entire surface area because you have no physical justification to do so. The entire surface area is not receiving the flux. Only the base is.
BTW…the cone example illustrates rectification effects quite nicely.
The SB temperature of 180 W/m^2 is 237K.
The SB temperature of 900 W/m^2 is 355K.
The mean temperature for a homogenous 180 W/m^2 emitter over 5/5 of the area is 237K.
The mean temperature for a non-homogenous 900 W/m^2 emitter over 1/5 of the area and 0 W/m^2 emitter over 4/5 of the area is (355* 0.2) + (0*0.8) = 71K.
Notice that the temperature rectification effect is 237K – 71K = 166K. To generate a 237K mean temperature with only the base lit would require an astonishing 111,000 W/m^2 increase in the flux upon the base. The rectification effects in this case are enormous.
For the Earth the rectification effects are on the order of 1K and 6 W/m^2. This means the SB law can provide a reasonable first approximation of the global mean surface temperature given the mean flux.
Right. So rectification effects have nothing to do with the point I am making down-thread.
Willard says:
> However, I am giving up on you. If you cant even answer this question:
See, Bill?
That’s manipulative crap.
=====================================
You are full of BS Willard. If you are going to participate in a debate you must pick a position and argue it. If you don’t pick a position and just snipe at those who do you are just a troll.
Very simple understandable definition of a troll.
I don’t punch hippies, Bill. If you want to punch them, suit yourself. Please be assured that you won’t get any help from me.
“But CAGW” is the central square of the Climateball Bingo. That’s your job to try to put it on the table. Not mine.
The main problem you got is the following: to cry about alarmism begs an important question. How do you know? If you want to play the “I’m a true skeptic” card, you need to be coherent. What you don’t know, you don’t know.
We know that AGW carries risks, however. We also know that doing nothing against risks is beyond silly. Finally, we all know that to get to carbon zero would be a Good Thing.
Everything else is mostly a distraction. I get poetry out of it. You get to vent your frustrations.
I say it’s a good deal for both of us.
We know that AGW carries risks, however. We also know that doing nothing against risks is beyond silly.
===============================
Actually that statement is extremely ignorant. Doing anything creates its own risk.
Bottom line its not at all how you suggest. You observe risk and then you give consideration to the possibility of regulation. Once you have decided that likely some kind of action is needed. You create a transparent public process to obtain ideas about what to do. You then find a mutually acceptable approach to the extent practicable. Then you do research on the impacts of that regulation to people being regulated and the negative impacts on the environment from regulation as often the medicine is worse than the disease.
> You observe risk and then you give consideration to the possibility of regulation.
I hope you do not work for the insurance industry, Bill.
More to the point, I thought you were a market guy.
Ah well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
There you go — the sky is hotter than Sun!
It’s called “Idiot Science”.
Ent, does 960 = 240, in your “Idiot Math”?
https://tenor.com/view/onepunchman-ok-saitama-gif-4973579
Willard, please stop trolling.
ClintR
If you want to be a valid skeptic and not a clown contrarian then you might want to learn logical thought process. Your points are very illogical and poorly framed.
With the Sun’s energy it would not be a continuous 960 W/m^2 on a give square meter. The Earth spins (similar to what the Moon is doing in reality but not in contrarian illogical Universe).
Except for Polar regions in Summer periods, there is no continuous solar input on any surface.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6072fe2a2ff6c.png
The graph is how much actual solar energy is absorbed by the surface.
If you wanted the total energy to be received at a continuous level you would have 311 W/m^2 in a desert location with full Sun in the Summer. There is no continuous 960 anywhere so your logic is very flawed.
Prediction. Even though he can clearly see his logic is flawed he will not correct his miserable behavior but continue to assert stupid ideas, illogical points and blatantly false ideas like gravity is not a force. If anyone wants to listen to the blog fool you are welcome. Just beware he is an unscientific contrarian and will disagree with things just to disagree. Also rational debate is not possible with contrarians. They are not posting to determine truth, they are posting to be contrarians.
Norman, where did I ever say anything about “…960 W/m^2 on a give [sic] square meter.” And I made no mention of Earth or Moon.
You made up that strawman as easily as you pervert reality.
Here are my exact words: “A spherical black body absorbing 960 W/m^2 would be emitting 240 W/m^2, at equilibrium.”
Quit perverting reality, making stuff up, and misrepresenting people.
Did you ever do the “hammer/hand” experiment?
ClintR
I am perverting nothing. You make illogical connections to make stupid points. I am demonstrating you are a flawed poster and illogical. Mostly a contrarian not interested in anything but being a contrarian.
Your point is illogical as you use it to attempt to prove fluxes do not add. Really stupid to use fluxes that are different to attempt to prove a point. An emitting flux and a receiving flux are quite different and would not have much to prove in the way of fluxes adding.
If you had your sphere with on portion receiving 960 watts/m^2 flux and another receiving 960 w/m^2 you would increase the emitting flux as well and the two fluxes would add.
You can easily prove how stupid your logic is but you do not want to test it at all. Arrange a few heat lamps in such a way that they will reach an object (be sure to use different wattages so some of the lights are “cooler” than others). Turn on one light and let the object reach a steady state temperature. Turn on another light and see what happens. If fluxes do not add the temperature remains the same. If the object heats up you are wrong. It is that easy to show you are illogical and a contrarian and you are not interested in the least in science, integrity or reality. You just want to post contrarian views.
Norman, the subject is whether or not flux is conserved — “bdgwx, you can’t have it both ways. How many times have you claimed that “flux is conserved”?
You don’t even understand what the topic is about. You just start abusing your keyboard, with no concept of reality. You’re pathetically incompetent.
Why are you dodging doing the simple “hammer/hand” experiment?
entropic…”The surface receives 163W/m^2 from the surface and 340W/m^2 from back radiation, a total of 503W/m^2″.
Got your correction that the 163 w/m^2 is from the Sun. So, you’re telling us that back radiation from gases making up about 0.31% of the entire atmosphere can warm the surface more than solar energy can?
Brace yourselves, an ice age is coming:
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/early-taste-of-summer-record-warm-temperatures-in-ottawa-on-thursday-1.5378989
But… Willard!
{sarcasm}
Did you forget that UHI is by far the most important warming factor on Earth?
https://tinyurl.com/4p9drubf
Did you really? I can’t imagine. Airports are soo horribly infected by that UHI disease!
{/sarcasm}
J.-P. D.
Don’t begrudge a warm day in Ottawa.
Ottawa has two seasons. Winter and bad dog sledding season.
But like Northern Ireland. We have two seasons, when the rain is cold and when the rain is warm.
ken…”Ottawa has two seasons. Winter and bad dog sledding season”.
I heard that summer in Winnipeg is two months of bad skating. In Regina, they claim that if you don’t like the weather, wait 10 minutes and it will change.
Willard
This time the other way ’round
{no sarcasm}
In opposition to poster ren, who gets never tired to tell us where it gets cooling, you seem to present warming bits.
But… here is a chart showing temperatures for Ottawa Airport:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12QyaGVBiU1RBkS8Po6dsewxwdm_bpC10/view
If there was any heavy warming in and around Ottawa, TMIN’s plot would not have been below TMAX’s plot during the recent 2 or 3 decades.
Like all languages on Earth, so has French lots of lovely proverbs, among them this one:
” Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps. ”
{/no sarcasm}
J.-P. D.
I’d send that Ottawa chart to our feckless Prime Minister, Justin the Clueless, one who has drunk deeply of the climate change coolaid, only he’d probably use it to roll a joint
You certainly should, Ken.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Some Fenchies accept reality. Some Frenchies reject reality.
The Frencies that accept reality tend to adjust to it:
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/France-declares-calamite-agricole-after-record-cold-What-is-it-We-explain-as-cold-continues
Thanks, Clint:
https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/France-declares-calamite-agricole-after-record-cold-What-is-it-We-explain-as-cold-continues
And as they say in French, “floraison deux semaines plus tt, fais gaffe l’re glaciaire.”
> “floraison deux semaines plus tt, fais gaffe l’re glaciaire.”
God damn, Roy!
No wonder you enjoy sniffing butts, Willard.
You’re one of the perverted frogs, like Bindidon.
Perverted frogs stick together. We learned that from De Gaulle.
(When you get your tutu on, you can surrender.)
Frogs don’t always blend well with pea soups, Clint, and B’s not even in France anyway.
Wherever you are, you’ll always have the head stuck where the Sun does not shine. Which means it can’t warm anything. Not even two heads of yours.
W,
Good one, W.
Blame someone else for your incompetence! Throw in a little blasphemy to show how stupid you are.
Good morning, Mike.
How’s autumn this year?
W is off with the fairies again. We know he is fixated on someone named Mike, and now fixated with autumn apparently. Does he think there is something significant about autumn this year? More cryptic obscurity.
Oh dear. W is still obviously deluded. Can’t accept reality, so he substitutes his own!
Well done.
> We know he is fixated on someone named Mike
You’re the one responding to me, Mike, but since I have not searched “fixated” yet:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/27/record-breaking-n-american-winters-not-due-to-climate-change/#comment-792982
W thinks I have responded to him, but I choose to think I commented on something he wrote, and others may be able to appreciate the difference.
W continues to post presumably irrelevant and idiotic links for some bizarre and unstated reason known only to himself.
Oh well, if W considers himself important enough that others would fall over themselves to follow his links, then good for him.
I suppose there is some point to this, but W is never going to clarify what it is. Probably because if he did, he would appear as a self-obsessed delusional idiot.
> I choose to think I commented on something he wrote
You can choose to think whatever you please, dear Mike.
That does not change the facts of the matter.
You reply to me; I reply to you.
Don’t whine about fixation.
W,
You wrote –
“You can choose to think whatever you please, dear [Swenson].”
And I do, W, and I do.
Why should I whine about your fixation? You might note I have decided you suffer from some of mental aberration akin to dyslexia. You have my sympathy. I will just change all references to “Mike”, into references to Swenson, where appropriate. That should be mutually satisfactory.
Your fantasy is yours, but that doesn’t mean I have to participate in it.
> Why should I whine about your fixation?
To pretend that you’re not looking for a fight by responding to my comments with silly jabs you made a thousand times here and elsewhere, Mike.
Like a bully who cowardly denies his victims the reality of their aggressions.
By pure sadism.
W,
You wrote (amongst other silly things) –
“To pretend that you’re not looking for a fight by responding to my comments with silly jabs you made a thousand times here and elsewhere, [Swenson].”
Poor diddums. Feeling bullied, are you? Why don’t you do something about it, then?
It’s your choice to feel bullied or abused. Don’t blame me for your inadequacy to control your emotions.
Looking for a fight with you, W? Hardly. On the other hand, if you challenged me to a battle of wits, I would be guilty of duelling with an unarmed opponent. Hardly sporting, wot?
Keep playing the victim, W. Abused, bullied, laughed at, ignored. Why would you think anybody cares?
I certainly don’t.
> I certainly dont.
Don’t worry about me, Mike. I don’t mine silly puppies much.
Of course you don’t care about what you’re doing. As long as you get lulz out of your abuses, why would you?
Swoon,
W,
You wrote –
“Don’t worry about me, [Swenson}. I don’t mine silly puppies much.”
I don’t worry about you at all. I don’t care what you mine, or what you don’t mine.
Why should I?
Morn’, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”And as they say in French, floraison deux semaines plus tt, fais gaffe lre glaciaire.”
Or as you might say to a lady in a rue St. Denis bar in Montreal, “Vien voire mon bain turbion”?
It’d be “viens voir mon bain tourbillon,” Gordon.
St-Denis changed a bit since the last time you visited.
This chart puts the global warming nonsense into the right perspective
https://bit.ly/3talufU
Some commenters are referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics, in such a way as to demonstrate their ignorance of it.
Maybe they have been confused by NASA, who wrote –
“The first law of thermodynamics defines the internal energy (E) as equal to the difference of the heat transfer (Q) into a system and the work (W) done by the system.”
No, that is a derivation, not a definition.
There are many forms of words claiming to be definitions. For example – “The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe remains the same.” Good enough?
As to the Earth, it was much hotter. It lost energy, and therefore cooled. No change to the amount of energy in the universe. Still no GHE, W/m2 is meaningless without qualifications such as temperature, and no amount of energy emitted by ice (even gazillions of gigawatts) can raise the temperature of a drop of water in a container emitting energy at precisely the same rate!
Nature cannot be fooled.
La Nina continues to operate. A typhoon is developing in the western Pacific.
ren…”A typhoon is developing in the western Pacific”.
A typhoon passed over us when I lived in Auckland a while back. I’ve experienced stronger winds in Vancouver, Canada. While cycling down a steep hill on the way to school, as a teenager, a gust picked up me and my bike and deposited us in the ditch.
Mind you, would not want to be in a sailboat in the Pacific while one moved by. Not unless it was made of steel and had a reinforced steel mast welded and bolted to the steel deck.
Swenson says: April 10, 2021 at 6:49 PM
T,
The Earth radiates to space from the surface, or didn’t you know that?
The atmosphere and all that it contains, also radiates to space.
How can it not?
Reply
I think all the talk about the Moon has got you confusing the Earth with the Moon.
If the Earth radiated to space from the surface the surface temperature would be ~ -20C; but because of the atmosphere it isn’t.
Tyson McGuffin
Surprisingly Swenson has got something right.
This is the outward radiation spectrum.The red curve is the radiation from the surface. The black curve is the actual emission to space. The gap between them is the radiation trapped by GHGs in the atmosphere. Note that between wavenumbers 800 and 1200 the two curves are almost identical because at those wavelengths the atmosphere is transparant and surface radiation is escaping directly to space.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Similarly if you look at the measured downwelling radiation spectrum you see a minimum between wavenumbers 800 and 1200 because the atmosphere is almost transparent to the longwave radiation and not redirecting much back down.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/dlr-spectrum-wisconsin-ellingson-1996.png
Just to emphasise.
Between wavenumbers 800 and 1200 surface radiation is escaping directly to space.
At other wave numbers surface radiation is partly or completely absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated by the atmosphere upwards to space or downwards towards the surface.
Entropic man April 11, 2021 at 8:42 AM
Yep, no argument that there is an atmospheric window in which surface radiation passes to space. Of course it’s always good practice to indicate where the spectrum was measured, if over the Sahara, Southern Iraq or over the Antarctic ice sheet.
My point was that, and you may not agree with this, the effect of accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is to raise the elevation where the other frequencies eventually radiate to space.
I give Swenson partial credit for acknowledging the atmospheric window.
T,
I doubt you could actually come up with a figure for the percentage of radiation from the Earth’s surface which does not proceed to space, and quickly.
It is fairly obvious that visible light penetrates the atmosphere. Otherwise, no Sun, Moon, stars, would be seen..
Likewise, most infrared finds the atmosphere transparent. Otherwise, no heat from the Sun, infrared photos from satellites, or even feeling heat from forest fires and atomic bombs at a distance..
Most UV is but slightly attenuated by the atmosphere. Hence, vast amounts of effort put into developing UV stabilised plastics. The average piece of plastic doesn’t last too long exposed to sunlight – lots of UV.
And so it goes for most radio waves etc.
As to an “atmospheric window”, certain wavelengths find the atmosphere opaque to various degrees. No matter, as John Tyndall explained over 150 years ago, the radiation still escapes to space.
So I have a large transparent window. You have a few specks on that window, but you can’t even say how dark they are, nor how big.
Learn some physics. Use your brain. If you want to, of course.
Entropic man says:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
——————————————
Hmmm, I always find these kinds of graphs interesting.
Here its being suggested that current CO2 forcing is only 18watts/m2.
Yet most references seem to put it at 24watts/m2.
Further, at 24watts/m2 suggests an upper limit of 4 additional watts, amounting about 3/4ths a degree C bottoming out the well.
OTOH, if it actually is 10w/m2 to the bottom of the well the primary forcing is suggested to be a smidgen less than 2c warming.
So what am I missing?
> So what am I missing?
At least one citation for the “most references” bit.
Obviously Willard I am referring to most references I have seen over the years. I haven’t done a system wide scan of all references. I would go refind one if it mattered. But before I do that address the issue as framed for 18watts.
In addition the graph itself seems to have the 18watts set low. Take it up to the curved spectral line for the surface temperature measures out close to 6 more watts.
> I havent done a system wide scan of all references.
Which part of “At least one citation” you don’t get, Bill?
Should take you five minutes.
If you’re slow.
W,
And precisely why should anyone at all do anything at your behest?
Are you important? What happens to someone who doesn’t comply with your bizarre desires?
Nothing?
I thought so. Powerless, impotent, and a crybaby to boot. Still feeling bullied and abused? You poor precious petal.
I feel for you.
I wasn’t talking to you, Mike.
W,
You wrote –
“I wasnt talking to you, [Swenson].”
Who cares? Do you? If you don’t care who responds to your bizarre comments, why should anybody else?
> Who cares?
The guy who said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-660717
insofar as that guy tries to be consistent, Mike.
But it’s OK if you don’t try.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Schmidt 2010 reports 21.7 W/m^2 as the total incremental CO2 enhancement. Refer to table 1. Use the % in the Single Factor Removal column and multiply by G. Note that in paragraph 30 they state that table 1 is 10% higher than the implied values from Myhre 1998 of which the 3.7 W/m^2 is derived. This brings the value down to 19.5 W/m^2 which is at least close to the 18 W/m^2 from the figure. If someone has other references that would be great. Great line of discussion though bill.
b,
You wrote –
“Schmidt 2010 . . .”
This would be the mathematician and juggler Gavin Schmidt, would it? The same self appointed “climate scientist” who was one of the authors of “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature.”? A farrago from beginning to end.
From the Schmidt 2010 paper –
“Our three‐dimensional results support simpler calculations performed over three decades with one‐dimensional radiative‐convective models, but are more comprehensive and are able to reconcile and synthesize the differing attribution in the literature (with a single exception).”
Blow me down. More models, more simulations, more fake “experiments”!
Haven’t these people heard of the scientific method?
bdg…”Schmidt 2010 reports 21.7 W/m^2 as the total incremental CO2 enhancement”.
Is that Schmidt the mathematician and GISS modeler? He also reported that CO2 has a warming factor between 9% and 25%, figures obviously pulled from a hat. He could not explain positive feedback, going so far as to offer an equation that could not produce positive feedback.
I think his best comedy routine was the one in which he claimed 2014 as the warmest year ‘evah’, based on a probability of 38%.
Yes. Same guy.
Can you post a link where you got the 9% and 25% values?
EM
Could you thoroughly as possible elaborate on what the red line in the top graph is meant to represent?
Also, there is very little matter at altitudes near the top of the atmosphere, so although this is where the flux to space is being measured by satellite, most of the radiation originates from much lower altitudes.
I.e, easy for someone to conclude that the flux to space originates either from the surface or from the TOA – not the case.
Thank God winter is coming:
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvab009
Yep match that puppy up to a reduction in crop damage from cold study!
Scratch your itch, Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
W,
Woe! Woe! Thrice woe! It’s 510 times worse than we thought!
Bring out the sackcloth and ashes!
You believe this nonsense?
Learn to read, for a start. Here’s what was written (in part) –
“Combining these estimates with a suite of climate models implies that by the end of the century, climate damages in agriculture may be 510 times larger . . .”
Ooooh! Estimates . . . climate models . . .implications!
Your are not just an idiot, W, you are a gullible idiot.
Perhaps I should have emphasized “losses from past heat waves are up to an order of magnitude larger than suggested by standard approaches” just for you, Mike.
Oh, right. I did.
W,
You wrote –
“Perhaps I should have emphasized “losses from past heat waves are up to an order of magnitude larger than suggested by standard approaches” just for you, [Swenson].”
Perhaps you could have realised that guesses of “up to”, against the guesses that are “standard approaches” are worth precisely nothing in any practical sense.
But you are a gullible idiot, and can’t accept that facts outweigh faith!
You really believe any old rubbish, don’t you?
.
Go on, Mike.
You probably should drop the Mike stuff. I looked at one of your links for Mike and in one paragraph noticed a distinctly different writing style. You must be focusing on Swenson’s view of the GHE.
Wanna bet, Bill?
So Willard are you on board with bdgwx that there is no realistic possibility of catastrophic warming happening from fossil fuel emissions?
I have a whole page on “but CAGW,” Bill:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Is there something you’d like to it?
That is, something youd like to add to it.
Contributions are always welcome.
Not much of anything there on your site Willard.
But here is a risk assessment chart I just picked randomly off the inet.
https://www.bu.edu/ehs/files/2015/09/Severity-Factor-Risk-Assessment-Charts.pdf
You do acknowledge that there are folks preaching catastrophic risk levels of killer hurricanes, tornados, heat waves, cold waves, significantly increased risk of damage from tidal waves, wild fires, etc. I probably could go on and on if I wanted to consult some lists on the matter.
I doubt anybody has found any evidence of any of that sort of stuff beginning to arise out of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> Not much of anything there on your site
Except the answer to your question, Bill.
Nice random pick, BTW:
By that criteria, which obviously does not apply to something like AGW, you’re the catastrophist.
Unless you deny that droughts kill people, or that water damage is the current bane of reinsurers, etc.
Oh, and I did not forget that you’re deflecting away from my question.
Simple Willard. I believe AGW will save lives. It was once a problem early on when people were dying of pollutants in the air with so little temperature change; but thats more an indictment of how you end up with featherbedding firemen on diesel trains. People into the their current jobs (fighting fossil fuel interests to clean up their act) and when they do you just put yourself out of business. Unless you can think of something different to pursue them for. No problem finding the animosity as it never when anywhere.
The focus of my work today is on responsive management able to turn on a dime when the need calls for it. You don’t get closer to that by running a line of bull.
Fair enough, Bill.
That’s the kind of comment I can respect.
Willard says:
Nice random pick, BTW:
Accident Risk: Death or permanent disability
Facility Risk: Major property damage, destruction of equipment and physical plant
By that criteria, which obviously does not apply to something like AGW, youre the catastrophist.
——————————
Of course! Government regulation kills people Willard. What value do you put on a life?
Willard says:
Unless you deny that droughts kill people, or that water damage is the current bane of reinsurers, etc.
———–
Regulating against climate warming will cause more drought. Thats a simple conclusion. Take Dr. Trenberth’s budget for evaporation for example. It is directly linked and estimated by measurable precipitation. More heat more evaporation, more evaporation less drought.
Only in the twisted world of lying scientists does more evaporation result in more precipitation in estimating the control knob theory when the discussion of impacts is opened up the theory gets stood on its head.
Really bad form their Willard, either total intellectual dishonesty or you are totally gullible.
And seriously you guys wonder why so many millions people think you all are idiots?
> More heat more evaporation, more evaporation less drought.
You sure like to wave your arms, Bill:
https://www.c2es.org/content/drought-and-climate-change/
Ask your reinsurers friends how water damage costs have evolved over the last decaded.
Nevertheless, I still appreciate your hedging: I don’t believe in the Tyndall effect, but if it exists then it’d be a Good Thing. That connects levels 0 and 4 of the Contrarian Matrix:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Many thanks!
Just more sophistry intertwined with intellectual dishonesty emanating from Willard.
Willard I think its fine considering alternative theories, just be willing to think them out some and consider their ramification on other theories relying on a more common sense basis.
Look, Bill.
You said “more evaporation less drought.”
That runs against the evidence.
Enjoy counterfactual thinking.
Willard says:
> More heat more evaporation, more evaporation less drought.
You sure like to wave your arms, Bill:
There are a number of ways climate change may contribute to drought. Warmer temperatures can enhance evaporation from soil,
———————————
Willard perhaps you should alert Dr. Trenberth to the fact his tranevaporation number is way too low.
“Could you thoroughly as possible elaborate on what the red line in the top graph is meant to represent?”
The red line is labelled
“Black body emissions(Ts=294K)”
Black body emissions are thermal radiation from a substance. They can be measured directly or calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. A perfect black body is a perfect emitter. A real substance only emits part of that. Thus a substance with an emissivity of 0 .9 emits 90% of the radiation expected from a perfect black body at the same temperature.
The emissions are not all at one wavelength. For a particular temperature you get a peak intensity wavelength weakening either side to form a rough bell curve. Increasing temperature moves the whole curve towards shorter wavelengths as the temperature rises and vice versa.
The red curve in this graph is the calculated emission spectrum for Earth’s surface at 294K or 21C, corrected for emissivity.If the atmosphere were entirely transparent with no GHGs this would also be what you would measure from orbit.
Plotting the graph using wavenumber(1/wavelength) has an extra bonus. Equal areas have equal energy. Measuring the area under the curve allows you to calculate the total energy emitted.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
March Hare
Yes.
In the wavenumber 800-1200 atmospheric window all the outward radiation to space comes directly from the surface.
Around wavenumber 700 all the surface radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, mostly by CO2. At the tropopause half of that is radiated to space and the other half is radiated back down into the atmosphere. Thus of around 56W/m^2 of surface emisssion, only half radiates to space.
Water vapour is more transparant. At one wavenumber it might absorb 20% of the surface radiation. At the TOA for water vapour 10% will be reradiated upwards to space and 10% downwards. From orbit you see a 10% reduction in outgoing radiation relative to the black body curve.
Apparently, if there were no greenhouse gases, earth would be very cold. -10C.
The current temperature of the earth is 15C.
The amount of energy flux is 161 Wm-2 absorbed by the earth. 342 downwelling greenhouse 342 Wm-2. So 503 Wm-2 is total. That would mean 20 Wm-2 of energy is required for every 1C warming. 20 x 25
If doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from 400 to 800 ppm causes an prevents the escape of an additional 3Wm-2 of energy flux that should mean approximately 0.15C warming.
I fail to see any reason to fuss about 0.15C warming.
Alas, it’s a bit more complicated than that.
1) The generally agreed contribution of GHGs is 33C rather than 25C so your temperatures should be 15C and -18C.
2) You need to work in Kelvin rather than Centigrade.
So 15C becomes 288K and -18C becomes 255K
You calculation becomes 503*288= 1.75Wm-2 C-1
Your estimate of warming per CO2 doubling then becomes 3/1.75= 1.75C
3) You are forgetting climate sensitivity, amplification due to feedbacks. Estimates range from Nic Lewis’ 1.5 to a pessimistic 4.5.
That makes a best case temperature change 1.75*1.5=2.6C
Pessimistically, 1.75*4.5=7.8C
Done properly your estimate of 0.15C/doubling becomes somewhere between 1.75C and 7.8C. Perhaps something to be taken seriously.
Ent, you keep regurgitating that same CO2 nonsense. That “generally agreed” 33C is nonsense. That comes from comparing Earth’s average surface temperature to an idealized black body! You can’t compare two completely different things and make any sense out of it.
That ain’t science.
> Earths average surface temperature to an idealized black body!
You’re just pulling that out of the darkest part of your body, Clint.
Butt sniffer, I thought you would have known the darkest part of my body better by now.
A blackbody sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 would have an equilibrium temperature of 255K. Earth has an average surface temperature of 288K. 288K – 255K = 33K
They are comparing two different things.
That ain’t science.
You’re confusing science with engineering, Clint. Science is about understanding, whereas engineering is all about not getting sued, like if your motherboards don’t meet their specification. I do hope you’re better at your job than at commenting.
And your ass-umption is plain wrong, e.g.:
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Blackbody_radiation
ClintR said: A blackbody sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 would have an equilibrium temperature of 255K.
Nope. 960 / (1*5.67e-8))^0.25 = 360.7K.
Also, equilibrium has a specific thermodynamic meaning. See the 0LOT. I think what you meant to say was steady-state. We actually don’t know the equilibrium temperature here because you did not specify the temperature of the other bodies involved.
ClintR said: Earth has an average surface temperature of 288K. 288K 255K = 33K
I’ll give you credit here.
Amazingly bdgwx doesn’t even know his own cult nonsense.
\o/
You will find Clint R doesn’t know his albedo from his ***hole.
If Al Gore is fat, what does that make Al Bedo?
bobdroege, Willard, please stop trolling.
There is no difference between K and C except the reference point.
So the difference is 25C or 25K.
Lets play it 33K.
I should probably not include the 162 Wm-2 direct from the sun because its going to be there GHG or not.
So the assumption is 341 Wm-2 of energy flux is due to GHG and is causing 33K warming. That 342Wm-2/33K leads to approximately 1K warming for every 10Wm-2
So 3Wm-2 increase in flux due to doubling CO2 would result in 0.3K warming.
I’ve not seen any reliable source stating positive feedbacks actually exist; its merely hypothesis and so far AGW hypothesis is largely wrong. I would suggest the 0.3K includes the feedbacks. The 33k includes any feedbacks that must already be occurring if they actually do exist. It should be reasonable to assume the ratio of feedbacks isn’t going to change.
However assuming there is positive feedback, even if it is 4.5 then we get 0.3 * 4.5 = 1.4K
You succeeded in being 0.1 K under the lowest bounds of justified disingenuousness, Ken.
Well done!
W,
You have reached new depths of incomprehensibility.
Well done!
OK, Mike.
W,
You wrote –
“OK, [Swenson].”
Whatever do you mean? Are you accepting the truth of what I say, and agreeing, or just trying to be cryptic and obscure, in an attempt to appear wise (or something)?
Your dyslexia is showing. Unfortunately, there is no treatment.
Carry on as best you can. I understand.
Sure tbing, Mike.
W,
You wrote “Sure tbing, [Swenson].”
That’s a start. Following my advice is likely to be more beneficial than believing your fantasy is reality.
What advice was that, Mike?
w,
You wrote –
“What advice was that, [Swenson]?
What part of “Carry on as best you can.” do you not understand?
You followed that advice, but now you can’t remember? It’s worse than we thought!
Would you like me to type slower, so that you can comprehend better? Are all gullible idiots as slow as you?
To “carry on” isn’t an advice, dear Mike.
W,
You wrote –
“To “carry on” isn’t an advice, dear [Swenson].”.
You really are in denial of reality, aren’t you?
But to a dyslexic clueless idiot like you, anything can be redefined to mean anything at all. If you can’t even tell the difference between “Mike” and “Swenson”, you might think cooling is warming, climate is not the average of weather, and so on.
So carry on. That’s my advice. You don’t have to take it of course. Maybe you see something indicating the opposite. In that case, don’t carry on. Take your pick.
Idiot.
> You don’t have to take it of course.
And what would be the alternative to it, Mike?
Welcome to the world of speech acts.
W wrote –
“Welcome to the world of speech acts.”
This is obviously code for something, but what?
Maybe “I have no facts, so I’ll just try to keep trolling”?
Carry on, Willard.
> This is obviously code for something
Indeed it is, Mike.
It’s code for “you don’t know how speech acts work.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken
“Ive not seen any reliable source stating positive feedbacks actually exist”
Read this as a starting point.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019RG000678
Clarification is that I’ve seen lots of sources claiming there is positive feedback but none that make a convincing argument or show proof.
I studied electronics and understand feedback.
E,
From your link –
“A landmark report in 1979 concluded that it probably lies between 1.5C and 4.5C per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, assuming that other influences on climate remain unchanged.”
A speculation unsupported by anything except wishful thinking is useless.
Show me a reproducible experiment, and I will certainly give you credence. Tell me that experiment is impossible, and I will leave the room, smirking as I go. Maybe the odd snigger thrown in.
Feynman said – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
I agree. What about you?
> I studied electronics
Does that mean we got another engineer in da house?
W,
You wrote –
“Does that mean we got another engineer in da house?”
What an idiotic comment. You don’t actually have any other intent than attempting to annoy people for some unstated reason, do you?
Spare us the rap nonsense, if you feel like it. Try providing some facts, if you can find any.
You really don’t seem to have a clue, do you? Maybe you lost it, and it’s with Trenberth’s missing heat, Schmidt’s climate science qualifications, and Mann’s Nobel Prize!
Might be on the shelf next to the description of the GHE, and the testable relating to
it. All mysteriously missing in action.
You’re and idiot, and clueless to boot!
It’s hard to know if you studied anything, Mike, not even how to be a proper clown.
W,
You wrote –
“Its hard to know if you studied anything, [Swenson], not even how to be a proper clown.”
Any understanding is hard for you, W. Boasting about your ignorance doesn’t make you appear smarter, does it?
Is there supposed to be a point to your comment? Am I supposed to value your opinion?
I don’t of course. What rational person would value the opinion of a clueless and admittedly ignorant idiot? Climate alarmists are not particularly rational, so they don’t count.
So carry on. Just for fun, out of more than seven billion people on Earth, name a couple of rational people who value your opinion. Too hard? Maybe just one?
> Is there supposed to be a point to your comment?
Of course there is, Mike.
The point is that your clown act does not reveal any proficiency whatsoever.
Not even in clowning.
W,
You wrote –
“The point is that your clown act does not reveal any proficiency whatsoever.”
An unsupported assumption or two, there – in my opinion at least.
I’m sure you think your opinion is valuable to someone. Not to me, obviously.
I point at
(M1) in my opinion at least.
(M2) Im sure you think your opinion is valuable to someone. Not to me, obviously.
That is all.
W,
I am aware that “Bananas in Pyjamas” has the cartoon characters B1 and B2.
What cartoon characters do you refer to as M1 and M2?
Or are you trying to appear intelligent through cryptic obscurity?
If so, you have my sympathy. I think you are an idiot. Others will no doubt form their own opinions.
Bananas in Pyjamas is a cool show, Mike.
I wonder why you know them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananas_in_Pyjamas
W,
Wonder away, W, wonder away.
I’ll take your word for it that it is a cool show. I’ve never watched it. My loss?
Now back to business. What cartoon characters do you refer to as M1 and M2? Or does your mental condition decree that you have the attention span of a goldfish when it comes to anything you find unpalatable?
Off you go, now. Compose another cryptic and obscure comment.
Enjoy your afternoon, Mike.
Willard says:
> I studied electronics
Does that mean we got another engineer in da house?
============================
well it does mean the percentage of clowns just went down!
You presume that one can’t be an engineering clown, Bill.
Yet look at Clint.
Everybody brings something to the table Willard. Just some only bring clown.
Actually the best description of a clown in this forum is one who never takes a position on anything.
So Willard are you on board with bdgwx that there is no realistic possibility of catastrophic warming happening from fossil fuel emissions?
See, Bill?
That’s manipulative crap.
Well somebody has to maneuver you into taking a position. Nobody likes debating somebody trying the play the sole role of scoring the debate from their own unstated biased point of view.
I already responded many times, Bill.
Your loaded question is silly and deflects from what we’re discussing.
Contrarians always use “but CAGW” to pivot. You’re not the first one who tries that.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken
” I’d send that Ottawa chart to our feckless Prime Minister, Justin the Clueless, one who has drunk deeply of the climate change coolaid, only he’d probably use it to roll a joint ”
Yeah.
We all use to underestimate those we consider incompetent wrt the fulfilling our political, social, economical or financial expectations.
Thus, before some Trudeau collaborator gets fun in explaining you the evidence that “Ottawa isn’t Canada”, simply look at this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oKo9dqYzvyQ30w4O8xytRs0iig6YuCau/view
It doesn’t look more dramatic at all than Otttawa AP, but is more correct.
J.-P. D.
EM
Thanks. I should have noticed that the red bell curve refers to surface emission.
Another question –
If a satellite detects radiation in the wave number 800 – 1200, it can be inferred from known physics that this radiation was emitted directly from the surface and not from the atmosphere. But what about radiation with for example wave number 700, where there is a potential overlap?
How is it known that this came from the atmosphere when the surface also emits at that wave number?
“But what about radiation with for example wave number 700, where there is a potential overlap?
How is it known that this came from the atmosphere when the surface also emits at that wave number?”
I mentioned a possible overlap example.
If the atmosphere absorbed 20% of upward surface radiation at a particular wavenumber, 10% would then be radiated upwards and 10% downwards. The satellite would detect the 80% that left the surface and reached space unabsorbed plus the 10% reradiated upwards, but would not be able to distinguish the origin of individual photons.
Whoever examined the data would note that the observed outward radiation intensity was 10% less than expected without GHGs.
Hence the rule of thumb that the % of surface radiation absorbed is double the % reduction observed from orbit.
Now we come to the wavenumber 700 radiation. The observed outward radiation is about 50% of the no-GHG expected radiation.This is because all the surface radiation was absorbed by the atmosphere and 50% was then reradiated to space.All the radiation detected by the satellite was emitted by the atmosphere.
Follow the rule of thumb. If you observe a 50% reduction it is because the atmosphere absorbed 100%.
E,
You wrote –
” . . .about 50% of the no-GHG expected radiation.”
The problem is that the “no GHG expected radiation” is a figment of someone’s imagination. Somewhat like the notion that adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes thermometers hotter!
All energy from the surface proceeds to space. All. That is why the Earth has cooled.
I wonder if you could tell me you specify wave numbers rather than the heretofore generally used wavelengths? As the wave number is merely the reciprocal of the wavelength, is there a specific reason for using wave number?
Thanks.
EM
Now I get it! Thank you very much.
But – the expected outward intensity with no GHGs is not really the same as the expected blackbody intensity, because the earth, covered by large areas of snow and ice for instance, is far from a black body. Correct?
My thinking is that the expected is actually what we would expect after subtracting for reflected light.
Also, surprisingly, I very much like the question raised by Swenson in his last paragraph.
Bill Gates going full climate wacko
https://youtu.be/-wwIBUCBrF8
Climate shystering summary update
https://youtu.be/0_FegrqvdbI
A little earlier, Willard appealed to the authority of a somewhat confused Kevin Trenberth.
At one time, Trenberth wrote –
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
However, the climate nitwits at Skepical Science worked out what he really meant –
“Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!”
Accumulating heat? As temperatures fall – say at night, in the winter, under a cloud or in the shade of a tree?
On the one hand, the planet is accumulating heat. On the other, surface temperatures have gone down.
At least one self appointed climate scientist claims heat “accumulation” results in decreased surface temperatures. Magical stuff, CO2. The more heat it provides, the colder it gets. Or is it the hotter it gets?
Very confusing, this esoteric “climate science”!
> Willard appealed to the authority of [] Kevin Trenberth.
False.
W,
If you say so, W.
Your dyslexia obviously doesn’t let you see “trenberth” in a site you linked to, or maybe you linked to it to demonstrate what a deluded and useless chap trenberth is.
No matter. I believe you. Maybe I shouldn’t, but I’m a tolerant chap.
> Maybe I shouldnt
Only if you weren’t the lazy brat we all know and love, Mike.
For then you’d have to support your claim, and we know how that’s not your style.
W,
Oh well, if you want to quote someone who you claim has no authority in your eyes, I’ll accept that.
I agree Trenberth has no credibility or authority.
Obviously, you just post irrelevant links as acts of random idiocy!
I understand.
> if you want to quote someone
Perhaps if you read that exchange before trying to bait me you’d have understood why I quoted Kevin, Mike.
You can’t blame me for not reading.
Sorry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Jinx:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/11/curry-versus-trenberth/#comment-520020
>
I heard that somewhere, but where?
Ah, yes:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/16/400-years-of-warming/#comment-744227
Cheerios.
Hmmm.
First line is supposed to read:
> Magical stuff, CO2.
W,
Ooooh! You can cut and paste, too!
I suppose if I quoted Shakespeare, you’d think I was a dead bard.
Who is jinx? Another dyslexic fantasy creation?
Your obsession with your fantasies just shows the lengths an idiot will go to to avoid facing reality.
You really do believe in the magical powers of CO2, don’t you? Heat accumulation results in cooling?
Or is Trenberth off with the fairies too, like Schmidt and Mann?
W,
Would you mind cutting and pasting more excellent comments from Mike Flynn?
He seems an intelligent and knowledgeable fellow.
Much like myself, I suppose. I could always cut and paste his comments from another blog, but if you do it, you save me the effort.
As many as you like.
> Much like myself, I suppose.
Isn’t that a weird coincidence?
swenson…”Would you mind cutting and pasting more excellent comments from Mike Flynn?”
I agree, post more from Mike.
> post more from Mike.
Just for you, Gordon:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-661411
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…”A little earlier, Willard appealed to the authority of a somewhat confused Kevin Trenberth”.
Is that the same Trenberth who interfered in peer review to the point a journal editor was forced to resign? I think the paper in question was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
Or, maybe the same Kevin Trenberth referred to in the CLimategate email scandal by Phil Jones, head of Had-crut, who bragged that he and Kevin would ensure that papers from skeptics would not reach the IPCC review phase.
Just wondering. Jones and Trenberth were partners at IPCC reviews, both being Coordinating Lead Authors, who had the power of controlling the reviewers and papers selected.
> Is that the same Trenberth who interfered in peer review to the point a journal editor was forced to resign?
Your conspiracy theory might have a tough time reconciling the evidence, Gordon:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002
It’s been a while now that Roy has been acting like a Rush Limbaugh fan more than a pure, noble truth seeker, you know.
Hmmm, how did you reach the decision that Rush Limbaugh wasn’t a pure, noble truth seeker Willard?
By listening to him, Bill.
You should try it sometimes.
Willard says:
By listening to him, Bill.
You should try it sometimes.
===============================
Willard people have been getting triggered by others expressing beliefs different than theirs since at least the beginnings of recorded history. Just finished the History Channel’s Vikings recently.
Got something else?
Hey Bill I know you may be a fan of Rush Limbaughs politics but can we at least agree that he made the world a more hateful place.
Well beyond myself realizing the rights to freedom is really most beneficial to those with the least means that actually want more stability and are willing to work to achieve it, I am very skeptical of the objectives of government. Which only justifies its existence as a necessary evil. Government represents pure power and power corrupts.
Since those are conservative values, and my values are well sprinkled with non-conservative values, such as graduated taxation, wealth taxation, together with a lot of welfare like taxes for health care, retirement, income taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and payroll taxes as a partial list all have strong regressive elements to them that wealthy politician levy more heavily on the middle class than any other class. Yes high income earners pay most of the taxes but income is only moderately connected to wealth and doesn’t include all those other taxes people pay.
Further one of the most hidden and largest regressive taxes is on small business in the form of excess and biased regulation.
So I never listened to a single program of Rush. Heard a few 15 second soundbites taken out of context and heard nothing of the sort you talk about.
Like I said you got anything else. Like one statement you found totally without redemption? Be sure to come up with a doozer because everybody makes minor slip ups every once in a while.
Start here, Bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
Don’t forget to click on links.
Willard I didn’t ask for an extreme leftist politically correct wish list. I ask what act by Rush you personally found the most egregious. If can’t think of anything you have defined your point all by yourself.
The first sentence of the entry meets your first request fair and square, Bill.
Please acknowledge this.
Gotcha Willard. You are a snowflake, like surprise, surprise, not!
You had your chance, Bill.
Oh well.
Willard, please stop trolling.
test
ken…”The CO2 is slowing the radiation escaping from the earth. That is how I understand the GHG process works”.
Ken…the reason you hear so much about the effects of CO2 absor.b.ing surface radiation is that the theory is based on computer model theory. Models cannot accurately measure the effect of convection and conduction so they focus only on radiation, which is a minor means of surface heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.
The theory is wrong. According to Stefan-Boltzmann, heat dissipation at a surface is based on the difference in temperature between the surface and the IMMEDIATE surroundings. That would be the oxygen and nitrogen making up 99% of the atmosphere at the surface.
part 2…
An expert in CO2 radiation, R. W. Wood thought that too. He reasoned that the bulk of heat transfer from the surface would involve the transfer of heat to air at the surface. That heated air would rise, taking the heat with it, and because O2 and N2 are poor radiators of heat, or even lacking the ability to transfer significantly heat via conduction between molecules, the heated, rising air tends to retain the heat.
That explains the greenhouse effect without even mentioning radiation. CO2, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, has nothing significantly to do with affecting the absor.p.tion of surface radiation. The amount it is capable of absor.b.ing is closer to 5%, an insignificant amount.
Wood’s reasoning ran into some problems:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Willard bites like a cod on an anchovy on Pratt’s unquantified criticisms.
Thank you for your crucial contribution, Bill.
For you more:
https://tinyurl.com/y396pczc
Click on the link, Bill:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
That should be enough to make you realize that your “Pratts unquantified criticisms” was a bit silly.
I read Pratts full write up with photographs I think in late 2009 or early 2010.
At the time he had the saran wrap version. He still only reports one set of results.
I recall the tinfoil wrap which generally will only pollute the experiment if its positioned to block downwelling radiation.
Radiant barriers under floors do help and by applying them to the bottom side of joists they make somewhat of an air pocket as well. But you get no results with varying reflectivity for upwelling heat, but air pockets do help. for upwelling heat the only thing you need to consider is convection.
the saran wrap was a problem too as its too thin and flexible. I probably commented on that back more than 10 years ago when I saw it.
Finally Roy tried some greenhouse experiments and found it difficult to control errors by about the same results as Pratt’s findings. Roy unsuccessfully rebuilt his experiment to try to abate that error but did not succeed and made some comments about that.
I recognize that there could be a greenhouse effect arising out of the time it takes convection to move air but thats going to be sensitive to the size of the experiment and really doesn’t arise with CO2 emissions as they add too little to the atmosphere.
A simple “sorry, my mistake” would have done, Bill.
Baby steps.
Willard please stop trolling
Bindidon
How much snow will fall on the Zugspitze today?
https://alpspix.panomax.com/#
Ken
“Clarification is that Ive seen lots of sources claiming there is positive feedback but none that make a convincing argument or show proof.
I studied electronics and understand feedback. ”
IIRC in electronics positive feedback is interpreted as a runaway exponential process. For example, if I placed the microphone of my PA system where it could pick up the output from the loudspeakers I got a runaway increase in volume to the limit of the power supply.
Biological and climate related positive feedbacks tend to follow a logistic curve. They start out exponential, but do not run away to extremes. Limiting factors slow the rate of increase until the system settles to a new equilibrium.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
E,
Have a look at the logistic map. More relevant to biology and weather.
Gives some insight into how chaos (as in the atmosphere) or biology, does not need external influences to occur. Counter intuitive, but true.
Not just randomness, but chaos. Unpredictable. Acknowledged by the IPCC, even.
So-called climatological feedback is nonsense, pure and simple. Wishful thinking, based on delusional fantasy.
Sad but true.
Swenson April 11, 2021 at 4:39 PM
T,
I doubt you could actually come up with a figure for the percentage of radiation from the Earth’s surface which does not proceed to space, and quickly.
Reply
That is an easy calculation since all you need to know are the surface and emission-to-space temperatures, e.g. 288K and 250K.
The emission-to-space temperature remains unchanged (as long as the solar constant and earth albedo don’t change) and as the surface temperature changes, the emission altitude changes.
TM, that sounds good, but how do you know the “emission-to-space” temperature?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I know it’s not a dumb question because my Dad taught me that there are no dumb questions, only dumb people who go around asking questions, and you’re not dumb, are you?
I was just testing to see if you knew what you were talking about.
Obviously you don’t.
So, not rhetorical, just dumb then. Got it.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Upthread there was a lot of confusion about a blackbody sphere. It’s actually easy to understand, but it’s also easy to confuse the issue, especially if the usual suspects want confusion.
A (mythical) perfect blackbody sphere in space, is receiving 960 W/m^2 from a sun. (The 960 W/m^2 comes from Earth’s actual average solar flux, adjusted for albedo. That is, 1370 W/m^3 multiplied by 0.7 = 960 W/m^2.)
When the sphere reaches its maximum temperature for the incoming flux, that temperature can be calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The incoming flux “sees” a circle of area A. The surface of the sphere is then 4A. So the emitted flux = 960/4 = 240. Using the S/B equation:
Emission = σT^4
240 = (5.67*(10)^(-8))T^4
T = 255K
That value of “T” is then compared to Earth’s actual average temperature of 288K. The difference, 33K, is claimed to be due to CO2! But the problem is Earth is NOT a blackbody sphere. Earth is a dynamic system constantly handling energy changes to maintain its 288K temperature. So the comparison has no validity.
That’s the same mistake as comparing Earth to Moon, or to Venus. Each body has different ways of handling energy, and therefore has varying average temperatures. Avoiding reality is common with cults.
“the problem is Earth is NOT a blackbody sphere.”
Correct Clint, blackbodies do not exist. Yet blackbody radiation exists. How do you explain that?
“The difference, 33K, is claimed to be due to CO2!”
No. Look up the amount of the measured 33K difference that is from water vapor and other IR active gases. Earth is a dynamic system constantly handling energy changes while increasing its 288K global climate temperature as shown by the recent black line in top post moving up in accord with recently added ppm CO2.
It’s actually easy to understand, but it’s also easy to confuse the issue, especially if the usual suspects want confusion.
Troll4 is first!
ClintR said: The incoming flux sees a circle of area A. The surface of the sphere is then 4A. So the emitted flux = 960/4 = 240.
I think you have it. The body absorbs 240 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. Therefore the body is said to be in steady-state.
ClintR said: That value of T is then compared to Earth’s actual average temperature of 288K. The difference, 33K, is claimed to be due to CO2!
[Schmidt 2010: Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect] provides a decent attribution table. For CO2 the no feedback single removal effect accounts for 14.0% of the LW perturbation or about 33 * 0.14 = 4.6C. The no feedback single addition effect accounts for 24.6% of the LW perturbation or about 33 * 0.246 = 8.1C. The point…scientists do not claim that the +33K enhancement is caused entirely by CO2.
“It’s actually easy to understand, but it’s also easy to confuse the issue, especially if the usual suspects want confusion.”
bdgwx is second!
“So the comparison has no validity.”
Science understands completely that this calculation is an approximation, that a better calculation can be done by considering how temperature and insolation vary with latitude, time of day, how albedo varies, etc.
The approximation gets close to the true average temperature. But the Strawman Team, wants us to believe that this approximate calculation is meant to be exact!
It is not.
The approximation gets close to the true average temperature.
==============================
Now there is just the sort of statement one should expect from a ‘virgin’ scientist. One educated in a University but not yet educated in the same field in life.
I tell you I learned that lesson quick upon getting a real job. They actually put us through a new hire training program that introduced the concept that what we had learned in school had equipped us with tools we were yet to learn how to use.
then they showed a few movies of actually famous auditing failures in history where form was elevated over substance and the auditors efforts died not from a single or few errors but instead a death arising from a thousand cuts, with one example actually moving into the realm of tens of millions cuts.
Approximation leading to increased accuracy my eye! Just in the way the problem is presented to the unwashed virgins like you Nate leads you to a feeling of false security that materially the answer must be close.
But its an illusion that is literally being sold to you. The mentality behind that sales job for different salespersons is just like the differences between salespersons selling an overpriced product. Some believe in it, some sell for the money, some are ladder climbers looking for fame. Science by committee isn’t a pretty sight.
I understand that from an auditor point of view when I see the imprecision and disagreement with key viewpoints. It results in a million slightly different versions of the greenhouse theory that drives people up the wall.
the there are the clubbers who figure out a rationalization for everything they see either mildly supportive or non-supportive.
A classic is Willards latching onto the drought idea that climate change will reduce precipitation and then you go to Boulder and the US Center for Climate Research and they are grinding out papers on how evaporation and precipitation is a one to one relationship. the intellectual dishonesty is startling.
Adjusted for albedo?
If you have to adjust for incident ER not absorbed, then by definition the body is not a blackbody sphere.
It starts to sound like a simple Just Asking Question trick, March.
Willard, please stop trolling.
March Hare
Take a look at the energy budget.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
You can see that 340.4W/m^2 is coming in from the Sun, of which 99.9 is reflected straight back into space with no effect on the Earth’s temperature.That is the albedo.
The remaining 240.4 is split between 77 absorbed by the atmosphere and 163.3 absorbed by the surface.
In a balanced system 240.4 would come in and 240.4 would go back out. In practice slightly more is coming in than is leaving, hence the global warming.
Sorry, I see I missed the point – adjust for albedo and then pretend the planet is a blackbody.
You got it, March Hare.
People that can think for themselves can figure it out, as you demonstrated.
Indeed, Clint.
March got it backwards, but at least he got it.
First blackbody, second albedo.
But “adjust for albedo and then pretend the planet is a blackbody” looks more nefarious, so of course March will go for that.
At least we now know it was Just Asking Questions all along.
Willard, please stop trolling.
This ain’t your house, kiddo.
Go ask Roy.
Willard, please stop trolling.
March Hare,
Yeah. That’s right more or less. You take the 1360 W/m^2 TSI and multiply by ~0.7 to adjust for albedo and then divide by 4 to project it onto a sphere to get 240 W/m^2. 240 W/m^2 is a black body temperature of 255K. But the surface is actually 288K which corresponds to a black body emission of 390 W/m^2.
Just very roughly…
…on a second by second basis, in real time, the Earth is only receiving energy over the lit hemisphere, yet it emits from the entire sphere. So the surface area over which the energy is received is only half that over which the energy leaves. So, in real time, the incoming flux will be double the outgoing flux, and yet this will balance due to the difference in surface area.
So 240 W/m^2 might represent the outgoing flux, but it does not represent the incoming flux, at least not in real time.
Think of a chicken roasting on a spit…the Earth rotates, so that higher input flux is cooking the heated part of the chicken/Earth as it rotates. Overall, in time, your chicken/Earth can be nicely roasted, despite the fact that if you averaged out that input over the whole chicken/Earth surface area instead of just the part that is receiving the energy, you might conclude that the chicken is not receiving enough to cook at all…
It is also important to note that the 1360 W/m^2 TSI figure is an average over one orbital cycle as well. The issues regarding spatial and temporal sampling and averaging are well known. Trenberth 2009 calls these “rectification effects”. Of the rectification effects there are orbital solar radiation variations, rotational solar radiation variations, albedo variations, emissivity variations, etc. As a result absorbed solar radiation varies significantly both in spatial and temporal domains. But on average both ASR and OLR work out to ~240 W/m^2 with surface emission of ~396 W/m^2.
You’ve posted your reply as if you have responded to my comment, and yet you have not responded to my comment. An odd tactic.
Kiddo, stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
I did respond directly to your comment. The spatial and temporal variation of fluxes upon your chicken rotisserie and the averaging effects thereof are called “rectification effects” by Trenberth 2009. There is a direct analog between your chicken rotisserie and the Earth. Scientists understand these “rectification effects” in regards to Earth quite well despite the insinuation otherwise being presented by contrarians here.
> Scientists understand these “rectification effects” in regards to Earth quite well despite the insinuation otherwise being presented by contrarians here.
Hence why Bill returned to but CAGW above.
It is the central square of the Climateball Bingo, after all.
OK, I have Trenberth et. al 2009 open on my screen right now, I’ve found the section which discusses "rectification effects", and can’t see how it deals with the point I’m making. Perhaps you can elaborate.
Alternatively, kiddo, perhaps you could elaborate on the point you’re trying to make, for instance by reading T09 aloud and indicating where it fits.
But that requires work.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Like this:
https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf
Yes, that’s from the section I just read. I can’t see how it deals with the point I’m making.
Then perhaps you could elaborate, kiddo.
If the best model of a cat is a cat and preferably the same cat, the best model for the Earth might not be a chicken.
I don’t need to elaborate. I made myself clear in my original comment. bdgwx’s response seems like hand-waving as far as I can tell.
If you don’t need to elaborate, kiddo, why are you always expecting b’s room service?
You can’t blockade b’s trampling over Sky Dragons with passive aggressive crap.
Sad.
DREMT,
As Willard correctly presented Trenberth estimates the rectification effects by sampling at small spatial and temporal intervals. In other words, he knows that the Earth is like your chicken rotisserie in which it rotates into and outof view of the heat source on a regular interval. Furthermore, you can see that he also accounts for other effects like emissivity differences. And you can see that he doesn’t just plug the 396 W/m^2 value directly into the SB law and expect to get an accurate result. Though he does present a good argument that since the net rectification effect is relatively small you’ll only end up with ~1K of error.
The point is this…scientists already know that the ~240 W/m^2 flux at TOA (or 396 W/m^2 UWIR and etc.) figure is an average and that the flux at specific locations and times (the realtime flux if you will) is highly variable. That was your point too. Except Trenberth not only mentioned it first (in 2009), but also quantified the rectification effects that arise due to the spatial and temporal variability. So you haven’t discovered anything novel here.
Your comments really add nothing to the debate, and often do not even make any sense.
I love you too, kiddo.
“The point is this…scientists already know that the ~240 W/m^2 flux at TOA (or 396 W/m^2 UWIR and etc.) figure is an average and that the flux at specific locations and times (the realtime flux if you will) is highly variable. That was your point too.”
No, that wasn’t my point. To understand my point, just re-read my original comment.
DREMT,
Then you are going to have to clarify your point because I think most reasonable readers are going to interpret it the same way Willard and I did.
No, I am happy with my original comment. I think most readers will see where I was coming from. I do not think you and Willard represent normal, genuine commenters/readers.
To understand b’s point, kiddo, just re-read his original comment.
I’m sure he’s happy with it &c.
Then we are both happy with our arguments and nothing more needs to be said.
I must have missed when you made an argument, kiddo.
I thought you were riddling b.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Keep that love for the chicken, kiddo.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s a simple passive aggressive two-step, kiddo:
(Block) No, that wasnt my point.
(Burden) To understand my point, just re-read my original comment.
It’d be easier to word your point differently so that a meeting of mind obtains, but then you risk losing whatever point you might think you have.
Besides, you’d have to work.
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
A pity you can’t really respond to b, kiddo.
#6
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re not Roy’s moderation team, kiddo.
Why do you pretend to be?
Willard reconsults his crystal ball and makes another declaration.
Wanna bet, Bill?
“To understand my point, just re-read my original comment.”
Translation:
People JUST NEED TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO ME and my brilliant rotating chicken posts, since they are quite illuminating, and I shall ignore the inferior posts from all others..
Nate is just jealous. Everytime he roasts a chicken it comes out as a limp bag of jello.
Yes, the BB sphere absorbs 960 W/m^2, but emits 240 W/m^2
960 does NOT equal 240.
The BB cone absorbs 900 W/m^2, but emits 180 W/m^2.
900 does NOT equal 180.
Flux is NOT conserved.
Energy flux is conserved but Clint R refuses to do the math correctly. SW 960/4=240, 240 SW net of albedo in = 240 LW out thus energy flux is conserved so Clint R needs to agree with DREMT that Earth rotates: “the Earth is only receiving energy over the lit hemisphere, yet it emits from the entire sphere.”
Same for our rotating on its own axis moon with a different albedo: the moon is only receiving energy over the lit hemisphere, yet it emits from the entire sphere.
"Same for our rotating on its own axis moon"
Good to see Ball4 still hasn’t got over his loss on the moon’s axial rotation discussion.
Stop trolling, kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Youve posted your reply as if you have responded to my comment and yet you have not responded to my comment.
An odd tactic, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good to see kiddo still hasnt got over his lack of admin power.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please stop replying to me, kiddo.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
#2
Please stop replying to me, kiddo.
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
#3
Please stop replying to me, kiddo.
#6
Willard, please stop trolling.
#4
Please stop replying to me, kiddo.
#7
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Roy Element:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
#8
Willard, please stop trolling.
ClintR said: Yes, the BB sphere absorbs 960 W/m^2, but emits 240 W/m^2
Patently False. The Earth absorbs ~240 W/m^2 and emits ~240 W/m^2. This is equivalent to Ein = ~3.86e24 j and Eout = ~3.86e24 j over each orbital cycle.
Patently incompetent, bdgwx.
The BB sphere is absorbing 960 W/m^2, NOT 240. If it were only absorbing 240, it would only be able to emit 60! You don’t understand any of this, STILL.
You are confusing “energy” with “flux”. They are NOT the same.
A BB plate absorbing 1000 W/m^2 will be emitting 500 W/m^2. Flux is NOT conserved. 1000 does NOT equal 500.
Energy, however, is conserved. The plate receives 1000*A Joules, and emits 2*(500*A) = 1000*A Joules.
Energy is conserved, flux is NOT conserved.
I predict you will NEVER learn this. Prove me wrong.
ClintR said: The BB sphere is absorbing 960 W/m^2, NOT 240.
Let me spell this out for you.
The Earth has a surface area of 510e12 m^2.
If it were absorbing 960 W/m^2 then in 1 year the incoming energy would be Ein = 960 W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 1 y = 4.9e17 W-years. Compare this to the outgoing energy Eout = 240 W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 1 y = 1.2e17 W-years. That is a 1LOT energy imbalance of dE = 4.9e17 W-years – 1.2e17 W-years = 3.7e17 W-years. That would be an enormous energy imbalance that would turn the Earth into a tinderbox very quickly.
The Earth does NOT have an energy imbalance of 3.7e17 W-years over each orbital cycle.
ClintR said: A BB plate absorbing 1000 W/m^2 will be emitting 500 W/m^2.
Nope. A BB plate in steady-state absorbs the same amount as it emits. It it absorbs 1000 W/m^2 then it will emit 1000 W/m^2.
ClintR said: The plate receives 1000*A Joules, and emits 2*(500*A) = 1000*A Joules.
First…if 1000*A has units of joules and A is area in m^2 then that means the 1000 figure must have units of j/m^2. That means your 1000 figure isn’t even a flux.
Second…if A is meant to be the entire area of the plate (both sides) then your multiplication by 2 is in error since plate cannot have 2*A in total area. Or if A is meant to be half the area (one side) then your multiplication by 2 for the 500 figure would be in reference to a different area than the 1000 figure. In other words 1000 over A is NOT the same area as 500 over 2A. You can only add/subtract/compare fluxes if they are in reference to the same area and same time period.
Fix these issues and resubmit for review.
One day Clint will mind his units.
bdgwx, your comments get longer as you get even more incompetent.
Now you think flux adds! The plate is emitting 500 W/m^2 from both sides so you believe the plate is emitting 1000W/m^2! What if it were a cube, emitting 500 W/m^2? You would believe it was emitting 3000W/m^2!!!
I predict you will NEVER learn this. Keep proving me right.
I figure most competent adults can figure out the units.
But, idiots probably need help with that also….
I’m going to fix your BB plate example.
The plate has length of 1 meter. Therefore its area A = 2 m^2.
The plate absorbs 1000 W/m^2 on only one side.
The plate emits 500 W/m^2 on both sides.
So over a 1 second period…
Ein = 1000 W/m^2 * (0.5 * 2 m^2) * 1 s = 1000 joules
Eout = 500 W/m^2 * (1.0 * 2 m^2) * 1 s = 1000 joules
Or in general terms where area is A and time is T…
Ein = 1000 W/m^2 * 0.5*A * T joules
Eout = 500 W/m^2 * 1.0*A * T joules
Or if using fluxes to do the analysis…
Fin = 1000 W/m^2 * 0.5 = 500 W/m^2 projected over A.
Fout = 500 W/m^2 * 1.0 = 500 W/m^2 projected over A.
Ein = Fin * A * T = 500 W/m^2 * A * T joules.
Eout = Fout * A * T = 500 W/m^2 * A * T joules.
Notice how I am being careful to keep my fluxes Fin and Fout in reference to the same area (A) and same time (T) before I do any operations with them.
> Notice how I am being careful to keep my fluxes Fin and Fout in reference to the same area (A) and same time (T) before I do any operations with them.
I figure most competent engineers can mind their units.
Clint probably needs help.
ClintR said: Now you think flux adds! The plate is emitting 500 W/m^2 from both sides so you believe the plate is emitting 1000W/m^2!
Absolutely not. A plate that emits 500 W/m^2 on both sides is the same as 500 W/m^2 over its entire area because both-sides is the same as entire-area.
Here is exercise for you. You have a cube with 1 meter sides. The 6 sides are emitting 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 W/m^2 respectively. What is the emission energy Eout in 1 second? Show your work.
bdgwx fixes his own mistake whilst blaming it on Clint R and Willard trolls along.
You’ve got the energy balance correct, bdgwx, but you still don’t understand fluxes.
The plate is only emitting 500 W/m^2. That’s it.
I predict you will NEVER learn this. Prove me wrong.
Kiddo missed b’s illustration of rectification effects and Clint is being Clint.
Clint R was correct and bdgwx incorrect on the plate example (until bdgwx corrected himself whilst blaming Clint R) but never mind.
DREMT said: bdgwx fixes his own mistake whilst blaming it on Clint R
I don’t believe I have made a mistake in this subthread.
On the other hand ClintR made two mistakes. One of which he addressed by saying “I figure most competent adults can figure out the units.” while the other remains outstanding.
BTW…you are free to answer my cube question as well. You have a cube with 1 meter sides. The 6 sides are emitting 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 W/m^2 respectively. What is the emission energy Eout in 1 second? Show your work.
> until bdgwx corrected himself
See, kiddo?
That’s handwaving.
You said:
“Nope. A BB plate in steady-state absorbs the same amount as it emits. It it absorbs 1000 W/m^2 then it will emit 1000 W/m^2”
Which was wrong. If a BB plate is receiving 1000 W/m^2 that will be on one of its sides. It will therefore emit 500 W/m^2.
ClintR said: The plate is only emitting 500 W/m^2. Thats it.
I predict you will NEVER learn this. Prove me wrong.
I believe the plate emits 500 W/m^2 in MY example.
Your example states that “A BB plate absorbing 1000 W/m^2 will be emitting 500 W/m^2” (https://tinyurl.com/4234cu5c). Such a plate is NOT in steady-state. It has a large positive energy imbalance. it will not be emitting 500 W/m^2 once steady-state is achieved. That is a fact.
Either your statement that it is absorbing 1000 W/m^2 is wrong or that it is emitting 500 W/m^2 is wrong. The proof is the 1LOT. Fix this discrepancy and resubmit for review.
DREMT said: Which was wrong. If a BB plate is receiving 1000 W/m^2 that will be on one of its sides. It will therefore emit 500 W/m^2.
Ah…so you’ve changed the scenario. Instead of it absorbing 1000 W/m^2 as ClintR specified (https://tinyurl.com/4234cu5c) you have changed the scenario such that it is absorbing 1000 W/m^2 on only one side.
In that case the absorbed flux projected over its entire area is 500 W/m^2. And for a body in steady-state that means its emitted flux over the same area must be equal or 500 W/m^2 as well.
And remember…that is NOT the same scenario ClintR originally specified (https://tinyurl.com/4234cu5c) when he said “A BB plate absorbing 1000 W/m^2 will be emitting 500 W/m^2”. That is an incorrect statement.
Why would you not just assume that Clint R intended for it to be understood that the 1000 W/m^2 was received on only one side?
Why do you keep insisting on averaging flux received over area which is not receiving it?
> If a BB plate is receiving 1000 W/m^2 that will be on one of its sides.
Exactly like a chicken in an oven.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m happy with my comment, kiddo.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
I think bdgwx knows he’s trapped himself. That’s why he’s throwing out all the distractions.
Either that, or he’s even more incompetent than I thought.
The plate has TWO sides. So if it is emitting 500 W/m^2, then it must be absorbing 1000 W’m^2. bdgwx must be able to figure that much out by himself, or he shouldn’t be here.
(C) A BB plate absorbing 1000 W/m^2 will be emitting 500 W/m^2
(B) Nope. A BB plate in steady-state absorbs the same amount as it emits. It it absorbs 1000 W/m^2 then it will emit 1000 W/m^2.
(C) The plate is emitting 500 W/m^2 from both sides so you believe the plate is emitting 1000W/m^2!
(B) Im going to fix your BB plate example. The plate has length of 1 meter. Therefore its area A = 2 m^2. The plate absorbs 1000 W/m^2 on only one side. The plate emits 500 W/m^2 on both sides.
(C) The plate is emitting 500 W/m^2 from both sides so you believe the plate is emitting 1000W/m^2!
(B) Absolutely not. A plate that emits 500 W/m^2 on both sides is the same as 500 W/m^2 over its entire area because both-sides is the same as entire-area.
(C) The plate is only emitting 500 W/m^2. Thats it.
(kiddo) If a BB plate is receiving 1000 W/m^2 that will be on one of its sides. It will therefore emit 500 W/m^2.
(B) I believe the plate emits 500 W/m^2 in MY example. Your example states that A BB plate absorbing 1000 W/m^2 will be emitting 500 W/m^2 (https://tinyurl.com/4234cu5c). Such a plate is NOT in steady-state. It has a large positive energy imbalance. it will not be emitting 500 W/m^2 once steady-state is achieved. That is a fact.
(C) I think B knows hes trapped himself. Thats why hes throwing out all the distractions.
The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m happy with my comment, kiddo.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
I traced back the record of the exchange, kiddo.
Call that however you want, it shows who are trying to block the information flow.
Or is that flux?
#5
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you want to see trolling, kiddo, just wait for Mike.
He should he waking up as we speak.
#6
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here, kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state
Tell that to your chicken.
#7
Willard, please stop trolling.
What did I tell you, kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662511
Mike has woken up!
#8
Willard, please stop trolling.
Have you noticed how I gained space while you kept repeating a request you have no authority to make and that rests on a false presupposition, kiddo?
Just like in Go, you don’t have two eyes. You’ll lose.
#9
Willard, please stop trolling.
If only, kiddo.
If only.
#10
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
Im going to fix your BB plate example.
The plate has length of 1 meter. Therefore its area A = 2 m^2.
The plate absorbs 1000 W/m^2 on only one side.
The plate emits 500 W/m^2 on both sides.
————————————
This is classic debits and credits mass confusion.
You have to get over that example. Radiation into near surface atmosphere of the same temperature as the surface at say 91.5C radiates 1000 watts. Assuming the atmosphere has 1.0 emissivity the atmosphere also radiates 1000w up.
Thus the net loss of the surface is 1000w/m2 as it must feed the net loss of the first layer in the atmosphere, keeping in mind that the engineering table that tells you the heated object is going to cool slower due to the temperature of the unheated object it comes with the assumption that surface is perfectly insulated on its backside.
Backradiation is a canard.
So net radiation loss from the surface in the case of a 1000w/m2 emitting toward a 33.5C virtual surface in the atmosphere is losing 500watts to space (making it different than suggested by the ideal equations for a perfectly insulated on the backside object with zero energy escaping) will be 500w/m2 based upon its instantaneous temperature plus 500watts/m2 to resupply the lost energy of that virtual layer. The 500w/m2 that hits this virtual surface from the hard surface is simply absorbed and since its not lost out the backside that layer will warm until 1000w are going out the backside.
The equation changes when you start adding layers with insulation or create multiple solid layers that effectively serve as insulation by blocks through convection.
The tables in the Engineeringtoolbox for this is ideally set up for engineers who know the expected ambient temperature of the environment the system will not change (either a big enough room or the outdoors) so they have that equation locked down as a perfectly insulated surface. And then the equations relay through various barriers all the way to the source.
The equation that gives you the net heat loss into a perfectly insulated surface is used in all heat loss calculations as the last emission that goes into an environment it can’t significantly change the temperature of, either a big room, or the outdoors. Or in the case of climate outerspace.
the way you get the lapse rate is you have all this extra energy being drawn of in attempts to warm the atmosphere, but radiation actually reaching TOA is only around 23 watts with a lot being drawn off warming cooled airs descending on the backside of the convection cycle. And in general at higher altitudes convection simply can’t warm stuff more than the way its restrained by the gas laws.
So all this stuff you are going on about is just a form of self inculcation into the backradiation cult. Somebody fed you a false syllogism that you repeat over and over again to make sure you get it wrong.
You stand in the middle of a room emitting at 98.6F at 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor. with all those walls also at 98.6 the inverse square law distance law doesn’t work backwards or you would be fried like a chicken in a blast furnace.
So what you are dealing with when getting stuck on the layers and backradiation hullabaloo is a lack of realization that energy only flows from hot to cold. You can figure it out calculating the backradiation, but in the end there is nothing to it, its just an unnecessary complication of a much simpler process.
Oh yes! Photos are real little particles that pack and energy punch! Says the naysayer. The have to do something! I read it in a physics book!
I can detect photons with my IR detector proving that little packets of energy are hitting the sensor on my IR detector when in fact what you are dealing with is electronic wizardry. What it detects is photon loss to cold objects and photon gain from warm objects. More archaic devices lack this wizardry and one had to rely on cryogenics in very expensive detectors to measure cold stuff.
Finally, virtual surfaces in the atmosphere have to work like a granite slab surface. They emit out of one side and conduct on the other. Skinny it up and eventually you have emission in both directions but a big problem with feeding it energy down a sheet of atoms one atom thick so you will never see such a device.
I sense the emergence of yet another imaginary axis in response.
Before that happens let me say one last thing. Recall the discovery that photons have properties of both waves and particles. That means you don’t necessary have to stay rigidly married to the photon animation. It makes it a bit muddier while at the same time easier if you can keep track of when to consider and when not to consider it.
And you don’t have to go down the path of saying stuff like certainly the stars don’t reach out to other stars before deciding to emit a photon. It can instead be imagined somewhat like a stream of water running down hill. The water molecules don’t reach out to check the destination either. And its OK to imagine the backradiation photons, just keep them there and don’t do anything with them.
DREMT said at 3:26pm: Why would you not just assume that Clint R intended for it to be understood that the 1000 W/m^2 was received on only one side?
Because that’s not what he said.
He said and I quote “A BB plate absorbing 1000 W/m^2 will be emitting 500 W/m^2.”
If he really meant that the 1000 W/m^2 flux was received only one side then he can state that at anytime.
But the fact that he confirms his original statement with this statement at 3:50pm “The plate has TWO sides. So if it is emitting 500 W/m^2, then it must be absorbing 1000 W’m^2” after you asked me why I didn’t just assume he actually meant that the 1000 W/m^2 was on only one side as opposed to the whole area tells me that he is confirming his original statement of the scenario which is absolutely wrong. A BB plate in steady-state will be emitting 1000 W/m^2 (not 500 W/m^2) if it is absorbing 1000 W/m^2. That is what the 1LOT says will happen.
bill said: This is classic debits and credits mass confusion.
No bill. There is no confusion here.
A BB plate that receives Ein = 1000 W/m^2 * 1 m^2 * T = 1000T joules must emit Eout = 500 W/m^2 * 2 m^2 * T = 1000T joules if it is in steady-state so says the 1LOT. 1000 W/m^2 input on only one side is balanced by 500 W/m^2 output from both sides. It’s that simple.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with either ClintR’s scenario (1000 W/m^2 over the whole area) or My scenario (1000 W/m^2 over only one side).
ClintR’s scenario is not that the plate is receiving energy on both sides. That was obvious to me as soon as he said that it received 1000 W/m^2 and emitted 500 W/m^2. You are an argumentative clown who cannot admit when he’s made a simple mistake.
No mistake, DREMT. I comment for those that accept reality, like you.
Idiots and trolls can’t accept reality. They will twist and pervert anything that is valid physics.
That’s why this is so much fun. They can’t win.
DREMT 8:05am: “That was obvious to me as soon as he said that it received 1000 W/m^2 and emitted 500 W/m^2.”
So DREMT admits Clint R fails to write accurately about the reality of the GPE and thermodynamics. Something well known by the astute commenters/readers on this blog. Clint R refuses to accept reality in that the original GPE was accurately settled in favor of Eli many axially rotating moons ago.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662973
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
bill said: This is classic debits and credits mass confusion.
No bill. There is no confusion here.
—————————–
there absolutely is. You have launched your head off so some distant star system and have been reduced to chanting some manufactured space babble.
You think you understand energy and your really don’t. There are practical applications of actually trapping energy that you know nothing about and because you perceive an instance of it you have gone totally berserk in trying to describe it.
Quite simply you have been sold a bill of goods by a bunch of people that have gone as berserk as you have and it all makes perfect sense to you except you can’t demonstrate the actual effect.
The thing about energy is it is very difficult to trap. For the glass sphere model to actually work you need something like a nuclear core at the middle of it.
A sun shining on this sphere the external sphere will heat up to 341watts/m2 and be done with it with all the spheres inside at the same temperature. There is no more internal net exchanges of energy and no hot core. Due to the transparency of the sphere the core will aid the outer sphere in warming but nothing is 100% transparent except empty space and according SB equations if will warm to the same equilibrium as everything else in that system.
You have just been indoctrinated into a false religion chanting photon syllogisms over and over again until you brain is so debit and credit saturated it ceases to think clearly.
Once you gain the realization that there is no one-way energy portal glass or atmosphere you can begin to dispense with this canard. And when you do that you begin to see clearly what you had missed previously.
And when you begin to see the issue clearly you have a chance of actually understanding the GHE. And its not the GPE which is just part of the canard.
Quite simply the GPE will result in the middle plate at a temperature exactly halfway between the heat source and where the heat is going. . . .just like a pane of single glazed glass in your home.
there is no forcing going on here. its just a plate that has cold on one side and warm on the other and the plate itself doesn’t represent any insulation except to the extent of the conductivity of the molecules inside of the plate. The plate is simply passive.
So you can throw together a million debits and credits into some kind of huge rationalization and its all total BS.
“The thing about energy is it is very difficult to trap.”
Trapping thermal energy is not all that difficult bill since the Earth surface measures at around 288K by thermometer and we now know in the satellite era their radiometers measure around 255K brightness temperature so the ~33K higher thermodynamic internal energy near Earth L&O surface has been measured trapped there since at least around 1979.
Like the subfreezing temperature differential in my refrig. freezer deficit of thermal energy is similarly trapped except escaped a few times during power failures.
Trapped means caught in a device. A object containing heat in equilibria to heat sources is an entirely different matter. It is easy to keep you salt shaker thermal energy in salt shaker simply by having the room the same temperature as the saltshaker.
There is an element in here that seems to believe the nature of how an object emits energy creates a form of insulation which of course is absurd.
> There is an element in here that seems to believe the nature of how an object emits energy creates a form of insulation which of course is absurd.
The Roy Element:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Willard I have a patent on some overalls made out of 100% CO2 I will let you have for cheap!
Meanwhile, an ice age is looming:
https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/march-was-warm-for-many-with-a-wet-bulls-eye-in-the-heartland/
Willard, please stop trolling.
March Hare
” Sorry, I see I missed the point – adjust for albedo and then pretend the planet is a blackbody. ”
Nobody pretends that Earth is a blackbody.
What is said is that if Earth’s average albedo is 0.3, the remaining 0.7 act like a blackbody wrt absorp-tivity.
Conversely, while a blackbody has an emissivity of 1.0, vegetation and water have an emissivity of 0.95; only sand and rocks have, with 0.6 on average, much less.
Where exactly is your problem?
J.-P. D.
I have no problem at all, and as far as I can tell your disagreement with what I wrote is purely semantic.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
If I understand correctly, the red bell curve in the diagram is the emission spectrum of a blackbody at 294K, a body that does not exist in real life.
It also assumes that this imaginary body is emitting uniformly throughout.
BTW, I am in no way critical of hypothetical scenarios that serve a purpose, and am in complete agreement with the comments from EM and bdgwx. Clearly, they have a much better grasp of the subject than myself.
March Hare
Thanks for the reply, I now understand better what you wrote above.
J.-P. D.
march hare…”If I understand correctly, the red bell curve in the diagram is the emission spectrum of a blackbody at 294K, a body that does not exist in real life”.
The curve alleged to represent different gases in the atmosphere is fictitious, no instrument recorded the data used to create the curve. It’s an amateurish curve in that there is no source listed or even a title that suggests what it is about.
There is no indication whether the curve represents absorp-tion or emission, other than the reference to the red curve as being an emission curve. In reality, the water vapour curve overlies the CO2 curve therefore direct measurement of CO2 emission or aborp-tion is masked out by the wv curve. To get that curve, they have to guesstimate it using alarmist guestimates.
The diagram does say the inner curve represents spectral flux at the top of the atmosphere but it does not say whether the theorized measuring instrument would be measuring emission or absorp-tion.
Note that the entire bandwidth of the fictitious CO2 portion represent 18 w/m^2 whereas a vertical arrow below it suggests a total outgoing power of 28 w/m^2.
Either way, if the total surface radiation is considered to be 300 w/m^2 (for arguments sake), the portion in the CO2 section represents 28/300 w/m^2 = 9.3%. If the 18 w/m^2 figure is used, which is more realistic, then 18/300 w/m^2 = 6%.
In other words, CO2 absorbs a trivial amount of surface radiation. Be aware that such graphs are put out by climate alarmists and they numbers are likely to be seriously fudged.
“The curve alleged to represent different gases in the atmosphere is fictitious, no instrument recorded the data used to create the curve. It’s an amateurish curve in that there is no source listed or even a title that suggests what it is about.”
Gordon likes to discuss radiation but therein reveals Gordon doesn’t recognize Planck’s law BB curve at 294K and calls it “amateurish”, “fictitious”, and writes “no instrument recorded the data”.
L.O.L. Gordon doesn’t know what Gordon is writing about.
Willard the Witless appeals to the non-authority of Kevin Trenberth – yet again, while strenuously denying it.
Trenberth is the man who can’t find the heat he claims should exist, so rewrites the laws of physics to ensure the heat is hidden where it can’t be found – ever!
As Trenberth himself said “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Obviously, Trenberth cannot find the missing heat himself, and neither can anybody else!
But Witless Willard is running out of authorities. Strange, isn’t it?
Witless Willard studiously avoids anything scientific. Pathetic and incompetent attempts at trolling are more his forte.
Otherwise, Witless Willard would have no trouble addressing the non-existent GHE in a scientific way. For example, what currently inexplicable phenomenon can be observed? Where can this GHE be observed or measured? Thermometers becoming hotter, here and there? Caused by heating, any rational person would think. No GHE required.
There is no useful description of the GHE, which could lead to a testable hypothesis. Cultism, not science. Hence, people like Witless Willard, and his mad ilk.
These people (I use the term loosely) are convinced that 300 W/m2 emitted by ice is the same as 300 W/m2 emitted by a container of boiling water – eg. from a surface of a Leslie Cube.
These people are so deluded they apparently can’t tell the difference between boiling water and ice! The answer is simple. Use a thermometer. W/m2 do not measure temperature.
I await Witless Willard’s next attempt at trollish diversion.
> appeals to the non-authority of Kevin Trenberth
False.
Willard the Weasel reverts to unsupported assertion, believing that his pointless one word diversion will convince others of something. Others will see that Witless is quite capable of doing something idiotic, while strenuously denying it at the same time.
Some might actually notice that the Weasel studiously avoids addressing the subject of the GHE. I don’t blame him. He would be trying to defend the indefensible.
He could always try for more cryptic obscurity. Idiotic I know, but widely practised by climate cultists.
> reverts to unsupported assertion,
You never support anything, Mike.
At least give yourself a chance.
Some might actually notice that the Weasel studiously avoids addressing the subject of the GHE. I dont blame him. He would be trying to defend the indefensible.
Mike is going for the food fight.
In his own house.
Splendid.
Or is it his own house?
Wait:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Why are our Sky Dragons act as if they’re playing home right now?
Witless Willard posts an irrelevant quote, accompanied by a pointless link.
Oh dear, Wayward Willard, you aren’t trying to enlist the aid of Dr Spencer, to do what you are too powerless to do, are you?
Who are these Sky Dragons of yours? Do you own them, or do they frighten you?
Maybe your imagined powers to control the actions of others aren’t quite as powerful as your fantasy leads you to believe, Willy.
Maybe resorting to the scientific method might help, but then you would have to resign from the cult! And all the benefits it gives you, of course!
What an idiot!
> an irrelevant quote
You mean an irrelevant quote from the owner of this blog, Mike.
While Roy is a staunch contrarian, he’s no Sky Dragon.
Wily,
Oho! Your mindreading powers fail, yet again!
I say what I say. And I mean what I mean. If you don’t like it, tough.
More irrelevancy from you, dimwit.
I’m not sure Dr Spencer really cares what you think of him, or how you categorise him. I certainly wouldn’t.
Mike,
You said –
“I say what I say.”
You say absolutely nothing, and you say absolutely nothing.
Glad that we agree.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Witless Willard wrote –
“Tell that to your chicken.”, after posting another irrelevant quote.
Well done, Witless!
The Weasel attempts being gratuitously insulting. I wonder how that worked out for him?
Good morning, Mike.
Pray tell more on gratuitous insults.
Compare and contrast:
(1) Earlier, Witless Willard wrote
(2) Is this the best example of the use of Witless Woeful Warmist Weaselwords you can find?
https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/02/science-into-agitprop-climate-change-is-strangling-our-oceans/#comment-782879
Perhaps Bill could chime in with his auditor’s mad skillz.
The Weasel attempts being gratuitously insulting. I wonder how that worked out for him?
Good morning, Mike.
Pray tell more on gratuitous insults.
The Weasel attempts being gratuitously insulting. I wonder how that worked out for him?
Does Mike revert to unsupported assertion?
No, he never supports his assertions.
The Weasel attempts being gratuitously insulting, yet again. I wonder how that worked out for him?
That you never support your assertion is a plain fact, Mike.
Don’t take it personally.
The Weasel attempts being gratuitously insulting, as usual. I wonder how that worked out for him?
You said it already, Mike.
Don’t tell me you’ll turn into a second kiddo.
Learn to read Willy.
Keep at it, and you might approach the attention span of a goldfish!
Sorry if it’s a bit subtle for you, Willy. I typed slowly enough.
By the way, I’m Swenson, not Mike. I assume you are mentally compromised, rather than aiming for gratuitous insult. Your fantasy is not reality, but you won’t realise this if you are psychotic.
That’s better, Mike.
You’re at your best when boasting.
The idiot is confusing me. He is confusing me with someone who cares what he thinks.
Poor irrelevant and powerless Willy.
Mike,
You said –
“The idiot is confusing me”
Please rest assured that you’re already quite confused as it is.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Wiitless Willard wrote –
“Have you noticed how I gained space while you kept repeating a request you have no authority to make and that rests on a false presupposition, kiddo?”
Oooooh! He gained space? Any space that an idiot like Willard “gains” is obviously wasted.
As is Witless Willard – a waste of space.
Keep going, Mike.
You’re doing great!
Witless Willy wrote –
“Keep going, Mike.
Youre doing great!”
I’m not Mike, but I assume Wee Willy is saluting my comment. I would be churlish if I did not accept his approbation, whether intended or not.
I’ll accept compliments from idiots, obviously. Why not, if it brings enjoyment to both parties?
> Im not Mike
Sure, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier above, Witless Willard wrote –
“Wood’s reasoning ran into some problems:” and then provides a link to somewhere.
Uh, no, Weasel.
As a matter of fact, if you are referring to RW Wood, some dimwit named Pratt decided that Wood’s experiment should have been performed differently, as Wood’s experimental result did not support alarmist fantasies.
Unfortunately for Pratt, and others who have tried to increase temperatures by magic (or CO2), they fail – every time. Reasoning is one thing – experiment is another.
Some become annoyed when I quote the physicist Richard Feynman, so I’ll go back a little further, to John Tyndall –
“History shows us two different philosophical schools trying to account for natural phenomena; the one resorting to speculation, the other to observation and experiment. . . . It is a common statement, indeed, that in investigating nature we cannot transcend experience, and properly qualified, the state- ment is true.”
Or as Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled.”
Climate cultists try.
In fairness, Mike’s longish peroration saves him a few seconds clicking on a link.
Willy,
Why bother clicking on your pointless link? Why do you care whether I do or not?
By the way, you still refer to me as “Mike”, I notice. Is that neurosis or psychosis?
Or just idiotic fantasy?
> Why bother clicking
It prevents you from blundering, Mike.
But you’re right: why should anyone care if you constantly blunder?
Wacky Willard,
Clicking on one of your links will prevent me from blundering? Really?
Your comment would be laughable if it wasn’t so hilarious.
Obviously, people like Trenberth, Jones, Mann and Schmidt didn’t click on your links either. You really need to get in earlier.
I’m sure if I had blundered you would have let everyone know. Cue “The Sounds of Silence.”
But as you say, why should anyone care? I don’t.
Mike,
You said –
“Clicking on one of your links will prevent me from blundering? Really?”
You got a point there: considering that you are [insert an insult from Mike’s Insult Generator], there’s *absolutely* nothing that can prevent you from blundering.
Not even reading.
My mistake.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Reasoning is one thing experiment is another.
Mike kinda forgot to click on the link:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
In fairness, he’s not alone.
Witless,
You wrote –
“[Swenson] kinda forgot to click on the link:”
The idiot’s mindreading efforts come up short, as usual. I choose not to follow links posted by Witless Willard. Why should I, if I have no need?
You might think everyone is as ignorant as yourself. I am not, being both more intelligent and more knowledgable than you.
So I know what your link points to. I suppose I could post a link to the experiment which gave rise to this – “Nahles experimental method seems to be by far the more meticulous, and on that basis Im inclined to accept his findings in preference to Pratts.”, but why should I waste my time?
Keep posting links that I decline to follow. As you say, your intent is to waste space. You are succeeding. Keep it up!
How Mike can say
(1) Reasoning is one thing experiment is another
(2) I choose not to follow links
is left as an exercise to the reader.
Willy,
You wrote –
“How (Swenson] can say
(1) Reasoning is one thing experiment is another
(2) I choose not to follow links
is left as an exercise to the reader.”
Ooooh! Provocative. Pointless and irrelevant, though.
I choose not to follow your links. Why should I care what you or anyone else thinks? Oh dear, Willy, your diversions don’t seem to be achieving much except wasting space.
Just like you, Willy!
> Why should I care what you or anyone else thinks?
There lies a paradox every sociopath encounters, Mike.
Witless Willy,
“There lies a paradox every sociopath encounters, [Swenson]”
I repeat – why should I care what you or anybody else thinks?
You obviously have no answer, hence the flight into irrelevant randomness.
> Why should I care what you or anyone else thinks?
There lies a paradox every sociopath encounters, Mike:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
Willy the Weasel cannot face reality.
Faced with a simple question, twists and turns in a perfect plethora of avoidance.
Oh well, that is the nature of idiot trolls, obviously.
Willy the Weasel cannot face reality.
Faced with a simple question, he runs for cover, adopting the persona of that other idiot, the psychobabbler.
I suppose Willy is getting desperate trying to get people to click on his links. Or maybe he doesn’t care, and just wants to waste peoples’ time.
Strange lad.
You did click on a link today, Mike.
Made you look!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Mike kinda forgot to click on the link:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
In fairness, hes not alone”.
The experiment is a waste of time. For one, Pratt was not even a scientist and for another, he substituted modern coverings like plastics, for the glass and halite coverings used by Wood. Plastic traps water vapour and changes the parameters of the experiment.
Wood on the other hand was a world renowned scientist who was consulted by Neils Bohr on the spectral lines of sodium as a gas. Wood was a consummate experimenter as well. He knew how to set up an experiment at a professional level.
You alarmists excel at handing out meaningless links and raising red-herring arguments. Your climateball page is just another poor man’s skepticalscience page. As we are all aware, John Cook who runs SkS is a cartoonist who has an undergraduate degree in science but could find no work as a scientist. In his resume he claims to be a solar physicist, a load of bs.
There was a guy who used to show up here, a David somebody from Oregon who had his own blog. Is that you?
> Is that you?
No. I just found about Roy’s.
Seems that you’re the kind of troglodyte who keeps putting his foot in his mouth and acts as if no one would notice.
Here is where I asked for an apology:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-660357
I’m still waiting for it.
Willy,
Maybe you could held your breath while youre waiting. Gordon could go off and have his favourite refreshing beverage for 15 minutes or so.
You would reduce the worlds complement of CO2, and help to save the Earth, and Gordon could save himself the effort of even considering a fulsome and heartfelt apology.
Win-win!
Just how big an idiot are you?
Thank you for the encomium, which I so richly deserve.
Keep it up I appreciate your fulsome praise.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”I have a whole page on but CAGW, Bill”
Talk about denial. You are denying that the current hysteria about global warming/climate change is based on a prediction of catastrophe. Both the US and Canadian governments are freaking out about it, claiming it is the biggest fear we face as humans.
Where have you been hanging out, in a cave?
Your incredulity is duly noted, Gordon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Above, Wily Willard wrote –
“Youre not Roys moderation team, kiddo.
Why do you pretend to be?.
Why not Willy? What’s it to you?
Enjoy your afternoon, Mike.
More diversion from the idiot. I’m sure it is afternoon somewhere. I hope Witless Willie is not trying for employment as the World’s Greatest Detective. NASA GISS would be more his style. Fantasy, faith, denial of reality – he’d fit right in.
> Im sure it is afternoon somewhere.
In the land of Bananas in Pyjamas it is, Mike.
Even more irrelevant diversion form wild and wacky Willy.
Enjoy your afternoon, Mike.
A pity Bill refused the bet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdg…”Im going to fix your BB plate example.
The plate has length of 1 meter. Therefore its area A = 2 m^2.
The plate absorbs 1000 W/m^2 on only one side.
The plate emits 500 W/m^2 on both sides”.
Who cares how much EM it absorbs or emits, what is the relationship between EM, heat, and temperature? Temperature is a measure of heat and heat transfer has to obey the 2nd law. That is, heat can only be transferred by it sown means from hot to cold.
There are no exceptions to that rule for EM, heat can only be transferred, by its own means hot to cold.
> Who cares how much EM it absorbs or emits, what is the relationship between EM, heat, and temperature?
Clint, amongst others.
Oh, the mysterious others. Obviously, they don’t include the nutters who believe W/m2 measures temperature!
Wriggly Willy won’t commit himself, due to a surfeit of rat cunning.
Still an idiot.
Swenson
I am not sure what point your are attempting but it is most certainly wrong. You can measure temperature using an IR flux (you have to calculate the temperature based upon the incoming flux).
It is a very popular way of getting the temperature of objects.
https://www.thermoworks.com/shop/products/Infrareds
Other ways include the change in electrical properties of two metals based upon temperature.
Or the one you are familiar with is the change in fluid density based upon temperature.
It is quite established that W/m^2 can measure temperatures of objects. Quit posting nonsens.
DREMT please apply the moderation to this poster. Tell him to quit trolling.
Norman,
You wrote –
“You can measure temperature using an IR flux (you have to calculate the temperature based upon the incoming flux).”
The following, from a seller of IR thermometers, thermal imaging cameras, etc. –
“The emissivity scale ranges from a relative value of zero to one. One represents the perfect black body emitter, while zero represents zero thermal radiance.
Most organic objects fall close to 0.95 on the emissivity scale. For this reason, many IR thermometers are pre-set at an emissivity of 0.95. However, objects with much lower emissivity ratings, such as polished metal, will give false temperature readings. This will happen if the emissivity setting is not adjusted before the temperature reading is taken.”
Ice can emit 300 W/m2. So can a polished metal container of boiling water – 300 W/m2.
The same IR flux, totally different temperatures.
Your views on IR temperature are widely shared, but incorrect. Even reasonably cheap handheld IR thermometers will have the ability to set the emissivity of the object being measured. However, establishing the IR emissivity of a body is not that easy.
If you disagree with what I say, quote my exact words, if you don’t mind. Idiots just say what they think I said, or what they think I should have said, or what they think I really meant, not what I said. It gets confusing at times.
Anyway, I hope you and others have had their incorrect thoughts rectified.
OK. Norman, please stop trolling.
“Temperature is a measure of heat”
No, temperature is a measure of the average KE of molecules in a gas (or atoms in a solid).
Temperature is *related* to internal energy, U (which you apparently like to call “heat”). For an ideal gas, that relationship is straightforward, but for real gases (or liquids or solids) the relationship is more complicated.
By the end of April, night frosts will occur in Central and Western Europe.
That happened e.g. in France last week already, but is anything else than a hint on cooling:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/11/france-declares-calamite-agricole-after-record-cold/#comment-3224701
For some vineyards, this is hard.
They always heavily claim when they have to face hard moments, but keep smiling and very silent when all is best for them…
J.-P. D.
“…NASA is a national asset that, if given the right incentives, can make meaningful contributions to sustaining
humanity on the Earth and eventually beyond…
NASA’s quest to expand human knowledge has driven us to develop sophisticated, technically advanced satellites that
provide critical information about our home planet, revealing in detail how unprecedented amounts of greenhouse
gases being released into our atmosphere are causing a climate crisis that threatens our existence.”
By Lori Garver on April 12, 2021
And she goes on:
“Poor and disadvantaged people are the most harmed by these changes, but all of life as we know it is under stress.
Data show that over the next few decades, the damage we have caused will accelerate uncontrollably, making it even
more difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. We are facing the tipping point for human life on our home planet.”
Lori Garver seems understand space policy, but… she goes for low hanging fruit of CAGW.
But I would say “Poor and disadvantaged people are the most harmed by these changes” but not climate related changes
but rather all corrupt climate change policy the poor and disadvantaged.
The market of launching satellites into Earth orbit has done more for the poor and disadvantage than anything done
by federal government in all the time since it’s beginning it’s existence.
And as general direction the lower launch cost further, will add to it.
What could NASA do to lower launch cost?
It certainly is not the SLS program. But it this point, it should continued at least until the rocket is tested by
launching it, which it has pretty chance doing before the end of 2022.
And there is a lot hope the SpaceX starship will be launch before the end of 2O21, might have several launched by end
of 2021. But NASA needs to do is explore the Moon and then explore Mars.
The purpose of exploring the Moon, is determining if and where lunar water might be commerical mined {to make lunar
rocket fuel] and if lunar rocket fuel can be available to buy, lots of things can done on the Moon at much lower cost.
And exploring Mars is related to whether Mars is habitable, or the significant of Mars is mostly related to the idea that
Mars is most habitable distination in our solar system other than planet Earth. But have explore Mars to confirm
if this actually true. We don’t know if or how human could live on Mars for longer periods on Mars.
I believe a key aspect {other the longer terms effects of it’s gravity which about 1/3rd of Earth} is similar to the Moon-
is there mineable water on Mars. There seem little doubt there is trillions of tons water on Mars and also there is not much
doubt of the billion of tons of water in the Lunar polar regions. But issue with mining anything, is how does cost to mine it.
And NASA has 20 billion dollar “developing” a rocket which yet to launch. NASA can’t mine lunar water nor Mars water, because
it spends too much money doing anything {like building a rocket or making space telescope and etc}.
But possible that NASA could do the job it is suppose to do, which is explore space {how much it cost- is so much of issue as
as how long does take to explore {and would be it nice if NASA would actually start doing this}.
Lunar water to be mineable has be able to sold at $500 per kg {or less}. And Mars water has sold at about $1 per kg {or less].
But key aspect in amount of water and rocket fuel which can made within so time period. And I say mining 10,000 tons of lunar
within 10 years and 10,000 tons or 10 million kg sell at average of $500 kg. And will Mars it’s much larger amount of water
within the first 10 years. a million tons or more at average of $1 kg or $1000 per ton.
Some things about this. Lunar water can sold for more, because it’s worth more. Problem is it’s value is mostly related to making rocket fuel. But I say mostly, rather than entirely, because one export lunar water from the lunar surface. And you could use a lot water for human use, as in a swimming pool for a lunar hotel. Hotels and motels like having swimming pools- and it would scream wealth/luxury
more pillars of gold- and more useful than such pillars.
But value based upon making rocket fuel and making rocket fuel require a lot electrical power. And it’s it will require tens of billion of dollar to make solar panel or nuclear reactors on the Moon, and want sell more 5000 ton of rocket fuel in year, trillions of dollars invested in electrical power plants of whatever type.
So with Moon the limit is related limitation of electrical power in first 10 or 20 years. Or in 50 years, you could have a lot electrical power and huge demand for rocket fuel {and exporting water and swimming pools}.
On Mars the water is for human use. Humans use a lot water on earth, and 1000 or more people living on Mars, not only will immediately use a lot water, but since living there, want access to water they can use in decades of time. Or Martian could want lakefront property- and/or live within in the lake- a lake keeps uniform temperature and lake give pressure {which lacking on Mars}. So one settler might want 100,000 tons of water- maybe going sell later, maybe going to use to make food. Maybe going to use to make electrical energy {Earth powerplant use a lot of water. Farming uses most, next is powerplants or other industrial use, and finally residential use. Though no one even counts recreational use. Anyhow US use 600 billion tons per year, and other countries as much or more {do to higher population}.
Other make dead simple, Mars water is related to Mars real estate.
The idiots remain confused about “flux”. bdgwx is especially confused, along with Ball4, Willard, and Entropic man. There’s little evidence they even understood the simple example.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662059
I was a little surprised Norman did not jump in. Maybe he’s still recuperating from doing the “hammer/hand” experiment….
But their antics are amusing, as they try to defend the indefensible — the ridiculous “Earth Energy Imbalance” (EEI). They’re as funny as when they try to claim the ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis!
ClintR,
Your statements that a BB which absorbs 1000 W/m^2, but only emits 500 W/m^2 combined with your previous statements that EEI is ridiculous, nonsense, and bogus plus your commentary on the GPE and your statement that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus as well is about as blatantly of a rejection of the 1LOT as it gets.
bdgwx, your inability to understand the simple examples illustrates your ignorance of physics and thermodynamics.
And the fun part is, you will NEVER understand, as I’ve predicted.
bdgwx understands correct thermodynamics not the sophistry of Clint R who should retire to the climate sophistry blog if Clint R wants reader/commenter acceptance. But the loss of entertainment provided by Clint R bungles would be sadly felt around here.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
> the climate sophistry blog
There are many.
Which one do you have in mind?
The one blog that admits to being about climate sophistry right up front in its name. One can eliminate reading Sunday comics because that blog is funnier entertainment. There are many other stealth climate sophistry blogs providing entertainment too like internet TV has 1000 channels you never watch.
AFAIK, JP still insists that these 3 layer box models use flat Earth physics because and only because of the non-spherical way in which they are illustrated and completely whiffs on the fact that they all divide the TSI by 4 which necessarily makes them spherical Earth models. Dr. Spencer had a whole blog post dedicated to the nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
There’s no way you’re genuine, bdgwx.
Theres no way youre genuine, kiddo.
Actually, I am.
” https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg ”
March Hare
“If I understand correctly, the red bell curve in the diagram is the emission spectrum of a blackbody at 294K, a body that does not exist in real life. ”
Gordon Robertson
“The curve alleged to represent different gases in the atmosphere is fictitious, no instrument recorded the data used to create the curve. Its an amateurish curve in that there is no source listed or even a title that suggests what it is about.”
I put up the graph, so I should perhaps describe how it came about.
The original graph was compiled by NASA. I’ve had it on file for a while and have lost track of the original source.
The black curve was measured from a satellite sensor looking straight down at a tropical ocean with a surface temperature of 294K.
The red curve was calculated from the Planck equation for a water surface at 294K. If the atmosphere were fully transparent with no GHGs the only way for heat to escape to space would be by radiation from the surface. The red curve is what the satellite would measure.
Lacking a suitable spare planet you cannot confirm this in the field. In the laboratory you can measure the emission from a similar water surface and observe a similar spectrum.
Do not get hung up on the term “black body radiation”. It is shorthand for “temperature related radiation emission from a surface”.
Not does it assume that the surface doing the emitting is a perfect black body. Real surfaces emit less radiation. The formulae include epsilon, the proportion of perfect black body emission that a real surface would produce. For seawater this is 0.99; so seawater emits 99W/m^2 when a perfect black body would emit 100W/m^2. The red curve included an epsilon correction.
Thank you EM!
Houston, We Have A Problem. Oil Reserves Have Fallen Below 10 Years
Years of under-investment in exploration and a decline in project development has blown a hole in the reserves of the major international oil companies (IOCs), a group that includes ExxonMobil, Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell.
Since 2015 the average reserves of the oil majors has fallen by 25% to now stand at less than 10 years of annual production.
Reserves in the ground is a critical measure of an oil company with a decline seen as a negative by investors.
“The IOC average of 9.5 years is now 25% below where the industry was prior to the oil price collapse in 2015.”
Arguments that reserves are less relevant in an industry facing a transition away from oil and gas misses the point that it is cash flow from oil which is paying for investment in new energy sources such as wind and solar.
“In the recent words of one IOC chief executive ‘black pays for green’ a reference to the 80% of CFFO (cash flow from operations) that is generated from oil and gas activities, and likely to still be more than 70% by 2030.”
There are two clear groups forming across the oil sector with six IOCs tightly grouped around reserve life of around 10.5 years. They are: Total, BP, Chevron, ENI, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil.
There are three IOCs in another group (Repsol, Equinor and Shell) which have reserves around eight years.
Deny harder!
“Drill baby drill.”
The idiots can’t understand the simple examples. So, for some more fun, let’s really mess them up.
A large cube of ice is 1mX1mX1m, or one cubic meter. In space, it is radiating 300 W/m^2 from each of the 6 faces. The idiots believe that means it is emitting 1800 W/m^2! Of course, that is wrong. It’s only emitting 300 W/m^2.
Let the fun begin.
Nope. If it is emitting 300 W/m^2 on each face (1/6) then it is emitting 300 W/m^2 over its whole area (6/6) as well. None of us think the cube is emitting 1800 W/m^2. That is your strawman. You can tear it down until you are content. I’ll even help you. Just understand that you and you alone own it.
You’ve been caught again, bdgwx. Go back up thread when you claimed the sphere that was absorbing 960 W/m^2 from sun was equivalent to absorbing 960/4 = 240 over it’s entire surface.
That was the equivalent of saying the block of ice is emitting 1800 W/m^2. But, it you’re now admitting that flux cannot be averaged like energy, I’m willing to accept that.
I just don’t believe you can accept that reality.
It is not even remotely close to being the same.
The 1360 W/m^2 TSI and by extension the 960 W/m^2 albedo adjusted flux are perpendicular to the surface. A sphere in space (of which the Earth is) is not a flat disk. Therefore the you must project the 960 W/m^2 flux onto a spherical shape. You can do this by integrating the flux down the latitudes for both the lit and unlit sides. Or you can just use the shortcut and divide by 4.
The cube is emitting from all sides equally. Therefore the emission in reference to one side (1/6 the area) has to be the same as the emission as the whole thing (6/6 the area). What you can’t do is take the 300 W/m^2 for each of the 6 sides and add them together to get the flux for the whole thing. That is 7 different areas being referenced. And as we’ve said repeatedly fluxes do NOT add when in reference to different areas.
They are two completely concepts.
This is the take away…
– Fluxes are conserved when in reference to the same area and same time period.
– Fluxes are not conserved when in reference to different areas or different time periods.
…it is literally that simple. We can tell you this over and over again, but unfortunately we cannot make you understand it.
The Earth is not receiving flux over its entire surface area in real time. As each second passes, the Earth receives flux on only one half of its surface, whilst it emits from the entire surface. The incoming flux does not balance the outgoing flux, in real time, although energy is conserved. Flux is not conserved, energy is.
> The Earth is not receiving flux over its entire surface area in real time.
What about a chicken?
DREMT,
Nobody is trying to add/subtract/compare or otherwise assuming conservation for different fluxes from different locations at different times without proper consideration of rectification effects.
Very interesting, bdgwx.
But anyway, back to my point.
The Earth is not receiving flux over its entire surface area in real time. As each second passes, the Earth receives flux on only one half of its surface, whilst it emits from the entire surface. The incoming flux does not balance the outgoing flux, in real time, although energy is conserved. Flux is not conserved, energy is.
bdgwx, you keep hoping around because you know you’re wrong. You began by claiming flux was conserved. Now, you’ve modified to “Fluxes are conserved when in reference to the same area and same time period.”
But, you just shot yourself in your foot. As DREMT pointed out, Earth does NOT have the same “area”. Each portion of Earth can have different temperatures and emissivities. That means the respective fluxes are DIFFERENT, idiot.
> Each portion of Earth can have different temperatures and emissivities.
Wait, Clint.
Are you *really* suggesting that each portion of Earth have DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES?
Just wait until physicists find that one out!
ClintR said: You began by claiming flux was conserved.
They are…when in reference to the same area and same time period. I have never tried to add/subtract/compare fluxes in reference to different areas.
ClintR said: Now, you’ve modified to “Fluxes are conserved when in reference to the same area and same time period.”
This has always been my position. It has not changed.
ClintR said: Earth does NOT have the same “area”
Patently False. Earth has the same area. It is ~510e12 m^2. It is static and unchanging. The ~240 W/m^2 ASR and the ~240 W/m^2 OLR are in reference to this SAME unchanging area so those are examples of fluxes that can be added/subtracted/compared.
ClintR said: Each portion of Earth can have different temperatures and emissivities. That means the respective fluxes are DIFFERENT, idiot.
Duh! Different subsets of Earth have different areas. The flux absorbed and the flux emitted in these different subsets are in reference to different areas. You cannot add/subtract/compare these without the consideration of rectification effects as Trenberth pointed out in his 2009 publication. Nobody on this blog has said otherwise.
"The ~240 W/m^2 ASR and the ~240 W/m^2 OLR are in reference to this SAME unchanging area so those are examples of fluxes that can be added/subtracted/compared."
The Earth is not receiving flux over its entire surface area in real time. As each second passes, the Earth receives flux on only one half of its surface, whilst it emits from the entire surface. The incoming flux does not balance the outgoing flux, in real time, although energy is conserved. Flux is not conserved, energy is.
DREMT said: The Earth is not receiving flux over its entire surface area in real time.
It doesn’t matter. The Earth absorbs 240 W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 1 y = 1.2e17 W-years and emits 240 W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 1 y = 1.2e17 W-years each year all the same. Are you challenging this?
DREMT said: Flux is not conserved, energy is.
The 1LOT says flux is conserved when in reference to the same area and same time period. Are you challenging the 1LOT?
It’s not in reference to the same area. In real time, on a second by second basis, the flux in is over a different area than the flux out.
In real time, on a second by second basis, the money that gets in a country is different than what comes out.
Therefore GDPs don’t exist.
Willard…you don’t even seem to know what it is you’re objecting to, but you’re certain I must be wrong. But what I said in my 10:09 AM comment is correct. Why am I getting all this flak for just saying something that’s correct?
DREMT said: It’s not in reference to the same area.
Patently False.
The ~240 W/m^2 OLR flux is in reference to the full area of Earth (~510e12 m^2).
The ~240 W/m^2 ASR flux is in reference to the full area of Earth (~510e12 m^2).
They are quite clearly in reference to the same area.
DREMT said: In real time, on a second by second basis, the flux in is over a different area than the flux out.
Duh. No one is challenging that. But those are different areas and different times. We are not trying to compare the global OLR or ASR flux to any of these localized fluxes. We are only comparing the global OLR with the global ASR over the same time period.
Which part of “your point is trivial, has already been refuted a thousand times, and until you put numbers and units to it you’re just winging it” you do not get, kiddo?
Why have you split my two sentences apart and responded to each one as though they are unconnected? When I’m saying "it’s not in reference to the same area" I am referring to the fluxes in and out of the Earth in real time. Those fluxes are not in reference to the same area. The real time fluxes.
"Duh. No one is challenging that. But those are different areas and different times. We are not trying to compare the global OLR or ASR flux to any of these localized fluxes. We are only comparing the global OLR with the global ASR over the same time period."
I’m not talking about localized fluxes, bdgwx. The Earth, the entire planet Earth, is not receiving flux over its entire surface area in real time. As each second passes, the Earth receives flux on only one half of its surface, whilst it emits from the entire surface. The incoming flux does not balance the outgoing flux, in real time, although energy is conserved. Flux is not conserved, energy is.
Just say "yes". Just acknowledge the reality of what I’m saying to you.
> I am referring to the fluxes in and out of the Earth in real time. Those fluxes are not in reference to the same area. The real time fluxes.
Which implies that there’s an infinity of areas, kiddo.
Live by the continuum, die by the continuum.
bdgwx says:
We are only comparing the global OLR with the global ASR over the same time period.
=================================
that ”We are only. . . .” kind of sounds explanatory and commanding at the same time.
Is this a tactic in sophistry? Have you given that any thought?
Willard has no clue about what is being discussed, once again.
Real and have formal meanings, kiddo.
Ask your chicken.
Real and real-time have, that is.
As for chicken, it’s not clear. Ask your topologist.
Eye-roll.
Yes, bdgwx, Clint R has a big problem with arithmetic. 1800W/6m^2 is still 300W/m^2. Clint R would do better at being accepted over at the climate sophistry blog where the proprietor knows that Clint R writes faulty thermodynamics so just corrects what Clint R writes on his own initiative. Clint R provides so much entertainment here tripping over arithmetic – it’s fun to watch here though.
Typical nonsense from Troll4.
Ball4,
These discussions almost defy credulity. Had you asked me a couple of years ago if there would be a poster who would fervently reject the 1LOT I would have said no way. And the continued confusion over dividing TSI by 4 is bizarre considering this is not a terribly difficult geometric concept to understand. I will say the constant strawmen are par for the course though. I expect those in almost every post. Anyway, hopefully these discussion are at least useful to others.
Everybody understands the geometry of the divide by 4.
But, this is spreading the incoming radiation over the whole Earth. Which does not apply in real time because on a second by second basis, sunlight falls on only half the surface area of the planet, whilst radiation leaves from the entire surface area of the planet.
> sunlight falls on only half the surface area of the planet
Not evenly, but more evenly than on a chicken.
One of the reasons scientists use models is to bypass that kind of hair-splitting.
Hair-splitting!
☺️
In fairness, there’s less hair to split on a chicken.
You really do have nothing to offer.
On the one hand, there’s reality. On the other wing, there’s a chicken.
Your point is trivial, has already been refuted a thousand times, and until you put numbers and units to it you’re just winging it.
I can assure you that climate scientists know that temperatures continually differ at various places on the surface of the Earth. (I already provided a quote from Kevin.) Even to speak of a surface of the Earth can only be seen as a simplification.
Now, imagine the surface of a chicken.
Like I say, you have nothing to offer. You don’t even understand the point being made.
DREMT,
I’m not convinced that everyone understands the divide by 4.
Nobody is abusing real time flux values at specific locations and times and treating them like a long term global average and vice-versa.
Can you not just acknowledge that in real time, the incoming flux does not equal the outgoing flux, because the areas over which the Earth absorbs and emits are not the same? Is there something in your programming which prevents you from admitting this fact?
Is that a spherical chicken or the regular kind?
Of course I acknowledge that the flux both absorbed and emitted at specific locations and times is highly variable. Everybody acknowledges this. In fact, I’ve stated this numerous times already; at least once in this March 2021 blog post already which you responded to 10 before your post in this subthread. Trenberth acknowledges it in his 2009 publications. Every scientist accepts and understands it. So I think you’re making a big stink about something no one is challenging.
"Of course I acknowledge that the flux both absorbed and emitted at specific locations and times is highly variable."
Not what I said, is it!?
Again: Can you not just acknowledge that in real time, the incoming flux does not equal the outgoing flux, because the areas over which the Earth absorbs and emits are not the same? Because the Earth absorbs only over the lit hemisphere, whilst it emits over the whole sphere? Just admit it!
It might be easier if you did not try to use that irrelevant point as some kind of gotcha, Zeno boy.
> you have nothing to offer.
Nobody accepted your chicken, kiddo.
Look. You need to state how the difference you want to make makes a difference in the end.
Otherwise you’re just playing the same passive aggressive move over and over again.
Hence why you end up pretending you’re some kind of moderator.
That only works if all you’re after is to prevent communication from happening.
That does not help Sky Dragons.
Yes DREMT, the incoming and outgoing fluxes are highly variable. They don’t even balance for the same area and same time period even. Heat moves from one local to another precisely because the incoming energy does not match the outgoing energy.
You already conceded that point, b:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662364
Cue to the you-do-not-understand/no-i-will-not-clarify-what-i-said two-step.
Wow. bdgwx…
…in real time, on a second by second basis, the incoming radiation is only received over the lit hemisphere, whilst the outgoing radiation leaves over the whole surface area of the Earth. The incoming flux does not equal the outgoing flux, because the surface area over which the energy is received does not equal the surface area over which the energy leaves.
Yes? Can you at least concede this point without waffling on?
> Can you at least concede this point without waffling on?
I guess I forgot: keep repeating the same question answered a thousand time.
I’m just attempting to see if one of you actually has the capacity to accept the simple point I’m making!
Which part of “Of course I acknowledge that the flux both absorbed and emitted at specific locations and times is highly variable” you do not get, kiddo?
It’s not about “specific locations and times”. It’s about the entire planet Earth, in real time.
> Its about the entire planet Earth, in real time.
Which part of “the areas over which the Earth absorbs and emits are not the same” you do not get, kiddo?
DREMT,
Of course the incoming absorbed solar radiation flux over the lit hemisphere does not equal the outgoing terrestrial radiation flux over the whole Earth. In fact, the former is about 480 W/m^2 and later is 240 W/m^2. That is not being challenged. And I’ll remind you that the lit hemisphere area (205e12 m^2) and the whole Earth area (510e12 m^2) are two different areas with two very different values. And because they are different areas we cannot add/subtract/compare these fluxes or assume they are conserved…as I have said repeatedly.
However, the 240 W/m^2 ASR and 240 W/m^2 OLR fluxes are both in reference to the whole Earth area (510e12 m^2) so we can add/subtract/compare these fluxes and assume they are conserved per the 1LOT…as I have said repeatedly.
This is the first time you have acknowledged the point that in real time, the flux in to the Earth will be different to the flux out from the Earth.
It might have been easier if you did not try to use that irrelevant point as some kind of gotcha, kiddo.
Nobody knows what are the “real time” fluxes incoming or outgoing the Earth. The whole idea that we could measure them (there’s no “it” in that case) makes no operational sense. Think about your chicken. It moves and wobbles; at each interval (and in real time there are a *lo* of intervals) the area of interest changes. It does not matter much, if at the end your chicken is cooked as evenly as possible considering the different cooking time between the brown and the white parts.
But we know that energy is conserved, and when we represent that energy in fluxes to get an energy balance model, you bet the overall energy will be conserved.
So Clint’s gimmick fizzles. It can only appear work if he’s allowed to hide his units. Just like with the Missing Square Puzzle.
I was attempting no kind of gotcha.
LOL! DREMT has the whole lot of you babbling nonsense. You guys need to listen more carefully.
Understand what sophistry is. Its a method of argument that rules out the stronger argument in favor of the weaker one.
Doing your divide by 4 does just that. And what is the purpose of divide by 4? to hawk a solar/insulation argument that fails with CO2 failing to deliver beyond a single layer effect that can easily be shown to be a hoax with simple experimentation.
Or to rule out the infamous backradiation energy warming the surface in violation of the laws of physics?
The radiation model you try to sell simply does not work. It fails to work in experiment after experiment, has never been demonstrated. Its nothing but a diversion from the stronger argument that DREMT is trying to guide you toward.
“And what is the purpose of divide by 4?”
Factor 4 comes from the total surface area of the sphere of interest being 4piRe^2.
bill and DREMT have a stronger argument against that? No & no wonder your view of the radiation model doesn’t work, hasn’t been demonstrated, or agree with experiment.
Ball4 you don’t understand what either of us said.
What we said was that your argument can be made in a real world model without dividing by 4 but then you would have to play honestly with the rules that lets the best argument win.
Our argument cannot be made by virtue of using mean numbers because the sun does not warm the planet with uniform radiation.
And interestingly neither can yours as your model fails the insulation test. In fact it will fail the real world test also.
Evidence of its failure is found in the lack of insulation combined with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Regularly proponents either aren’t specifying so as to not reveal the vulnerabilities they are aware of. Or like you guys you alternatively argue one or both and fail in demonstrating in simple demonstrations that either of them work.
So after years of pursuit by smart scientists, Dr. Lindzen rather sarcastically noted mainstream science is sort of hiding out somewhere up the troposphere claiming its the lapse rate that does it and as proof they claim a hotspot that would require as near as I can tell a little fallacious greenhouse up in the troposphere instead of at the surface where it can be demonstrated to be a failure.
And we hear all the time (where is the backscatter going?). The answer seems clear its on its way to space.
Perhaps folks are overly indoctrinated into the photon particle characteristics cartoon model and fail to realize it isn’t a real particle and doesn’t work like the cartoon except in the presence of electronic wizardry they don’t understand. That ignorance didn’t always exist which can explain why the theory was almost entirely discarded for 60 or 80 years. Put a new tool in a beginners hands and they can start wrecking all kinds of havoc.
I like cubes too. Let’s make the scenario more fun shall we. Each face is absorbing 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 W/m^2 respectively (100 W/m^2 on face #1, 200 W/m^2 on face #2, and so on). Each face is only 1 m^2 or 1/6 of the total area of 6 m^2. If the cube is a BB with a homogenous emission what will that emission flux be and what will its temperature be assuming the cube is in steady-state? Over 1 second period what is Ein and Eout?
bdgwx, the only way that could happen is for each face to have a different emissivity.
But thanks for demonstrating more of your incompetence.
Clint, you continue to show a fundamental misconception — conflating rules for flux *emitted* from a surface and flux *absorbed* by a surface.
For example, in this latest scenario, we just need to shine different lights on the 6 sides for the cube to *absorb* different amounts on different sides. The answer is trivial. It is absorbing a total power of 2100 W over 6 m^2, or an average of 350 W/m^2. That corresponds to a temperature of 280.3 K
If the question was about having the cube *emit* different amounts from different sides, then different emissivities would indeed be the solution. For example, a cube with a temperature 320 K and sides with emissivities of 0.167, 0.333, 0.5, 0.667, 0.833, and 1.0
Similarly, in your original scenario, no one is claiming “that means it is emitting flux with an intensity 1800 W/m^2”. *Emitted* fluxed do not add.
But you can add *absorbed* fluxes. For example, I could get a mirror that shines 300 W/m^2 of sunlight onto the surface on an ice block. I could get a second mirror and focus another 300 W/m^2 onto that same side. With 6 mirrors I could easily get 6 x 300 W/m^2 = 1800 W/m^2 of incoming flux from 6 separate 300 W/m^2 sources.
That’s what I’m saying TF. For bdgwx’s magic cube to be emitting different fluxes from each side, AND be in thermal equilibrium, then the sides must have different emissivities.
I won’t go into it now (one funny scenario at a time) but your “mirrors” example is seriously flawed. I’ll come back to it after we get enough laughs with this current scenario.
“For bdgwx’s magic cube to be emitting different fluxes …”
But that is your own misinterpretation, Clint. bdgwx never said anything about emitting different fluxes. He specifically said “Each face is absorbing 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 W/m^2 respectively …”
TF, this is why I told you I’d get back to you. I knew you would try to sleeze off into some semantical distraction.
In reference to bdgwx’s magic cube, I didn’t mention “emitting” until you did. I was responding to YOU.
But it doesn’t matter, both emission and absorp.tion depend on emissivity.
Now be patient, I’ll get to you. Your “mirrors” nonsense is especially funny.
> I knew you would try to sleeze off into some semantical distraction.
That’s all you got left, Clint.
In fact that’s all you had all along.
And you’re about to lose it.
The nonsense flak they shoot up is comically ineffective.
But, it does indicate I’m “over the target”.
ClintR said: For bdgwxs magic cube to be emitting different fluxes from each side
That is literally the opposite of what I said. I said and I quote “If the cube is a BB with a homogenous emission what will that emission flux be and what will its temperature be assuming the cube is in steady-state?”. Don’t confusing the non-homogenous absor.b.tion with the homogenous emission in this scenario.
Yes bdgwx, TF wasn’t saying the same thing as you. You need to coordinate your nonsense better.
> it does indicate Im over the target.
Says every Texas sharpshooter.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Assume the emissivity is the same for each side. This is an idealized scenario used only for communicating fundamental ideas and it’s not unlike a hypothetical BB plate that absorbs 1000 W/m^2 on half its area but emits 500 W/m^2 on all of its area.
No bdgwx, we do not change to laws of physics to help you with your nonsense. If the different sides of a cube emit different fluxes, then either the cube is not in equilibrium, or the emissivities are different.
You can’t understand any of this because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I didn’t say the different sides emit different fluxes. In fact, I said the opposite. I said the cube has homogenous emission.
Take a deep breathe, slow down, read the scenario carefully, and perform the simple calculations.
Stick with the original scenario, bdgwx.
Don’t be shy, Clint.
Link to it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662434
Willard, please stop trolling.
A 1 meter cube temperature in space depends on where it is in space.
But there are basic things about it.
And you could have this 1 meter cube of ice in spacecraft at 0 C
and kick it out the door and watch what happens.
A 0 C cube of ice, within a shadow of the sunlight, is going to evaporate and cool.
Or a 0 C cube in sunlight of 1360 watts is going to evaporate and cool.
A 100 K [-173 C} cube of ice, within a shadow of the sunlight, is not going to evaporate much. And one might want look at how much it will cool by radiating and getting cooler due to the radiant heat lose.
IF it had blackbody surface and mass of it was ideally conductive
each square meter would radiate 5.67 watts.
But a cube of ice isn’t that. But it might be radiating and losing about 5 watts per square meter, so 6 times 5 = 30 watts.
Or in hour, it should get colder, and seems to me, it cooled mostly due to radiant heat lost
Now, let’s have in 1360 watts per square meter of sunlight, and also starting at 100 K.
The ice can be as transparent like glass or it could be cloudy ice. Let’s imagine it as transparent as one make cube of ice be.
It’s also going matter what side is facing the sunlight.
Let’s imagine one side is perpendicular and call side A.
So, in case need it, A, then b,c,d,e, and back being F.
So sunlight is shining thru A and out F.
The Sunlight has X-ray, UV light, which we don’t have at surface of Earth. And it has solar wind. And won’t count them- mainly because we don’t have any kind observation of this effect on ice or water. And it might be why pushing the cube out the door, to find out, what effects there could be.
So sunlight shines thru the cube and about 1/2 of passes thru the cube. Or we assume 1/2 of 1360 watts was absorbed: 680 watt absorbed and there is 680 watt of sunlight coming out of the F side.
And basically, what going to happen, is that in hour or so, the evaporation rate could equal or exceed the amount of heat radiated from the side of cube.
If gas evaporating from a 100 K surface, the water vapor going to be around 100 K, or not molecule which traveling as fast.
Normal temperature say 15 C, it’s velocity “average” within 15 C is something like + 1000 m/s. And as wild guess at 100 K, it might around 500 m/s though it also be close or at 0 m/s.
So in vacuum of space without solar wind, the cube might less of vacuum which has some H2O molecules in it around it.
“500 m/s though it also be close or at 0 m/s.” I meant:
500 m/s though some portion of H2O gas molecules can also be close or at 0 m/s.
{or we talk of average but there range of velocities in terms individual molecules}
bdgwx
You have patience of Job!
Well, bdgwx definitely has religious faith, but it’s the wrong religion. He belongs to a cult that attempts to pervert reality.
Just found another pervert, Clint:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
You’ll never guess who.
The idiot Willard doesn’t realise his stupid attempt at “cleverness” (also known as sleazy attempted manipulation) fail miserably, because what he has quoted may be perfectly true and completely irrelevant at the same time.
I won’t bother explaining why. Willy is too thick to absorb facts.
Mike,
Go on – demonstrate the courage of your convictions. Declare that Im in error, and show facts to back up your declaration.
Or keep trolling with puerile attempts at gotchas. Up to you.
Cheers.
Witless fool,
Trying to flatter someone though imitation? I assume you copied and pasted someone’s words as your own in an attempt to look clever.
Maybe the object of your attempt to flatter through imitation doesn’t care. Who is it?
Mike,
Had you clicked on the link, you’d have realized that you’re replying to a comment that contains a quote from Roy.
But let us stick with the original. Your imaginings are not relevant. Why do you want to shift the goal posts?
Fifty fifty.
Cheers.
Wee Willy.
You wrote –
“Had you clicked on the link, you’d have realized that you’re replying to a comment that contains a quote from Roy.”
How stupid are you trying to look, Willy?
You are obviously unaware of a facility which most people possess – it’s called memory. Mine is not bad, as it happens, from time to time. Why would I need to click your link?
You refer to Dr Spencer as “another pervert”. I assume you were just being an idiot, as usual.
Wriggle away, Wee Willy.
March Hare
Remember that this is not science debate, this is Climateball.
The game is all about influencing the opinions of the lurkers.
If the lurkers accept the paradigm of climate change bdgwx wins.
If the lurkers reject the science Clint R wins.
Ent, thanks for admitting your unwavering bias, again.
No science for you.
EM’s obviously right, Clint.
But then I *do* have a Climateball bias.
Ha…thanks for the vote of confidence. I believe that everyone deserves respect and a fair shake at the discussion even though the sentiment may not always be returned. But I do want to make sure you and anyone else know that I make more than my fair share of mistakes and I still have much to learn. So if you see something that you feel is a mistake make sure you challenge it.
Roger wilco
Clint R
You have the patience of Job!
More good news!
She’s a beauty, a floating semi-submersible, as tall as a 27-story building and with a deck the size of a football field
BP’s behemoth Argos offshore oil platform, the centerpiece of the company’s $9 billion Mad Dog 2 project in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, has arrived in the U.S. after a 16,000-mile journey from South Korea. The platform, loaded onboard Boskalis’ BOKA Vanguard heavy transport vessel, has arrived in the Kiewit Offshore Services fabrication yard in Ingleside, Texas.
Following work at Kiewit, Argos will be towed to its offshore home in the Gulf of Mexico, and will be installed about six miles from the original Mad Dog spar, about 190 miles south of New Orleans, where it will operate in 4,500 feet of water.
At peak, the platform will produce up to 140,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d) through a subsea production system from 14 production wells. It will be connected to and export oil and gas through nearby existing pipeline infrastructure. Start-up of Mad Dog 2 is projected for the second quarter of 2022.
It’s also expected to support about 800 jobs during the work in Ingleside and about 250 jobs once in operation in the Gulf.
Is BP going to try to drain the ocean through a hole in the bottom again?
I think Biden-Harris will have a more difficult time trying to cancel Mad dog 2 than they did Keystone XL.
Testing
So, Clint and others have a problem with averaging 960 w/m2 flux from the sunlit side of the planet with the areas in darkness. Valid or not, there is a simple compromise! –
State the situation in terms of total power absorbed from the sun rather than as a ratio of power/unit area:
https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/
March Hare, it’s okay to average energy. Energy is a scalar quantity. It’s a “number”, an “amount”, like the amount of apples, or the amount of water. If you have 2 apples, and someone gives you 2 more apples, you have 2 + 2 = 4 apples.
But flux is different. Flux is NOT a scalar. It is NOT an “amount”. It is closer to a “level”, much like temperature. You cannot simply add temperatures. It’s more complicated than simply adding numbers.
It’s the same for Earth’s energy. It’s okay to use energy. But flux is NOT energy. Flux does not add/subtract/average the same as energy. You cannot have an “energy budget” by adding/averaging fluxes.
> Flux is NOT a scalar.
How NOT to say what it is.
Here’s how we mind units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
March Hare,
Fluxes are conserved when in reference to the same area (A) and same time (T). Here is the proof starting from the 1st law of thermodynamics (1LOT) which states…
Ie = Ein – Eout
…and if you accept that then have to accept…
Ie / (AT) = (Ein – Eout) / (AT)
Ie / (AT) = Ein/(AT) – Eout/(AT)
If = Fin – Fout
…where Ie is the energy imbalance, If is the flux imbalance, A is area, T is time, E is energy, and F is flux.
In summary if Ie = Ein – Eout is true then If = Fin – Fout must also be true. And if Ie = 0 or If = 0 then Ein = Eout and Fin = Fout. In other words if energy is conserved (it is) then fluxes must also be conserved as long as Fin and Fout reference the same area (A) and same time (T).
But if you are uncomfortable with this corollary then you can always convert each flux to an energy first and add/subtract/compare at will. Just know that we proved mathematically that you get the same result if you perform the operations using fluxes first and then convert to energy last. It works out all the same. You just have to be careful to make sure the fluxes you are dealing are in reference to the same area and same time period.
And notice that the 1.73e17 W-hours in 1 hour in your link works out to 1.73e17 W-hours / 510e12 m^2 / 1 hours = 340 W/m^2 which is consistent with the TOA flux presented in figure 1 of Trenberth 2009 (https://tinyurl.com/nza2nsfz). That means if the Earth flux budget is balanced (If = 0) then an observer away from Earth should measure 340 W/m^2 of which 100 W/m^2 is reflected solar and 240 W/m^2 terrestrial thermal radiation. Again that is consistent with Trenberth 2009.
bdgwx, you’re still trying to treat flux as a scalar. You keep making the same mistake. You can’t learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux#General_mathematical_definition_(transport)
Wee Willy,
I was right. You are not only an idiot, you are an incompetent idiot.
The article from which you copied and pasted starts off –
“This article needs attention from an expert in physics. The specific problem is: confusion between flux and flux density.”
Gee. Appealing to an authority which admits it is confused!
Stick with cryptic comments about chickens.
Oh good! Trollard found a link he can’t understand!
He and Norman must have been in the same class at troll school.
Just when we thought this couldn’t be any more fun….
Mike,
I think some of us are in agreement, but nomenclature differences and definitions may need to be agreed on first.
Cheers.
Wriggling Willy,
You still haven’t acknowledged my statement
“So now youre denying what you said before? Typical.”
What’s wrong? Cat got your tongue? Temporarily struck dumb?
Oh dear. Not easy to discuss physics when you don’t know anything about it, is it? What happened to your chicken, and the Earth which (according to you) doesn’t have temperature differences on its surface – or something!
Try appealing to the authority of the bumbling buffoon Trenberth. That’s the sort of thing he might believe.
Mike,
I tell you “Monty Hall.”
Switch, don’t switch? Toss a coin?
Cheers.
Cryptic Willy Weasel now tells me “Monty Hall”.
Still can’t give a clear answer. Next thing, he will probably say “chickens”.
What an idiot.
Mike,
In laymen’s terms: Flux density is the amount of flux per unit area. Similar to current density. Total flux describes the total amount of whatever the metric is referring to; heat, magnetic, photon, etc, but when it’s described in terms of a per unit area (typically about the plane that runs perpendicular to the vector field, or whatever plane you are attempting to describe flux about, the plane doesn’t always have to be perpendicular to the vector field), then it becomes flux density.
You were saying?
Witless Willy,
“In laymen’s terms . . .”? I suppose if anyone thinks you are an authority, they are welcome to accept what you say, irrelevant though it might be to the notion that temperatures can validly be measured in w/m2.
This sort of thing is usually the mechanism that NASA uses – lies told to children. If challenged by someone who actually knows what they are talking about, the excuse is “we really meant something else. We were simplifying things because we don’t really understand them ourselves.”
What is at the target of your silly link? The address suggests more wikipedia irrelevance. Surely not!
Mike,
Judgemental, much?
Must be a consequence of your 16 hours of clown studies. Oh, the stress!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Funny, though, that these same people are fine with the part about 960 w/m2 being absorbed by 1/4 of the surface –
as if this is not also an average of various fluxes!
Quarter surface, quarter chicken.
Coincidence? I think not!
More cryptic chickens, fool?
You’re a joke, Mike!
Wandering Willy,
Another link I can’t be bothered clicking on?
Maybe you could try spoofing the link address. Then it would be a case of “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!”
Stick with cryptic chickens or trying to imitate humans. More likely to generate laughter than your usual bemusing nonsense.
Mike,
You repeat yourself –
“Another link I cant be bothered clicking on?”
Yes.
Be very afraid to click.
Foghorn Leghorn eats Sky Dragons for breakfast!
Kidding.
Or am I?
Love.
Willy,
I suspect you are suffering from unrequited love of Mike Flynn. I don’t blame him for spurning your advances.
Dear Mike? Sending him your love? Attempting to flatter him through imitation of his writing?
What triggered you Willy? Do you know the person behind the pseudonym, or is it just the sexy name?
The world wonders about your infatuation. Or maybe it’s just me.
As usual, that was a lot of fun.
Here’s just a quick sampling of bdgwx’s attempt to dance around:
“Fluxes are conserved when in reference to the same area and same time period.”
“Nobody is trying to add/subtract/compare or otherwise assuming conservation for different fluxes from different locations at different times without proper consideration of rectification effects.”
“They are…when in reference to the same area and same time period.”
“You cannot add/subtract/compare these without the consideration of rectification effects…”
“Of course I acknowledge that the flux both absorbed and emitted at specific locations and times is highly variable. Everybody acknowledges this.”
“Yes DREMT, the incoming and outgoing fluxes are highly variable. They don’t even balance for the same area and same time period even. Heat moves from one local to another precisely because the incoming energy does not match the outgoing energy.”
And of course bdgwx has a lot of support from the usual suspects.
Everything confirms what you knew all along, Clint.
Another win for unitless physics!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Interesting 1200 y cherry blossom record in Japan.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Emails/March2021.pdf
Earlier, Wondrous Willy wrote –
“Wait, Clint.
Are you *really* suggesting that each portion of Earth have DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES?
Just wait until physicists find that one out!”
Physicists are already aware of this, idiot. Even self appointed climatologists!
Temperatures are measured using – thermometers! Guess what, they show different temperatures – on different portions of the Earth! Not only that, the temperatures are different at different times.
Now he can claim you really meant something else, in his usual idiotic fashion.
Or talk about chickens.
Interesting difference in emphasis.
Bdgwx’ team have been discussing the behaviour of the Earth as a whole, averaging fluxes and considering the energy budget of the whole planet.
Clint D’s team are now emphasising that on the Earth’s surface fluxes and temperatures vary with location and time. They have already claimed that these can not be added or averaged, and therefore the behaviour of the Earth as a whole cannot be known. Standard denier Climateball tactics.
Ent, thanks for misrepresenting the correct science.
The correct science is that flux can NOT be used for an “energy balance”.
Now, misrepresent that as much as you like, just like several other anonymous useless trolls.
> The correct science is that flux can NOT be used for an energy balance.
Citation needed, Clint.
A cone in space absorbs 900 W/m^2 and emits 180 W/m^2, at equilibrium. The flux “in” far exceeds the flux “out”. Yet the temperature is NOT increasing. Flux does NOT “balance”. Energy does.
Basic physics.
> Basic physics.
Then it should be easy to provide a citation, Clint.
Wily Willy,
Why should any rational person waste their time dancing to your tune?
I know you are an idiot. Maybe you can convince others you are not.
Would you provide a citation if an idiot asked for it?
Mike,
Who decided you were important? You? Do you imagine I care for your opinion?
If you do, you are even more stupid and ignorant than I thought. Away with your silly gotchas, laddie.
You should have asked whether basic physics are not in textbooks, first. Typical of Clint’s unitless physics, I suppose. Make assumptions based on fantasy, rather than establishing facts first.
What a Mickey!
Cheers.
It’s clear Trollard doesn’t really want to learn. He just wants to pervert.
Yes, Clint.
I’m asking for a citation exactly because I don’t want to learn.
Or if you prefer Mike’s voice:
Cheers.
Let’s analyze that scenario ClintR. Let’s give the cone a surface area of 5 m^2 and analyze it over a 1 second period.
Ein = 900 W/m^2 * 5 m^2 * 1 s = 4500 joules
Eout = 180 W/m^2 * 5 m^2 * 1 s = 900 joules.
dE = Ein – Eout = 4500 j – 900 j = +3600 joules
Hmm…it looks like your cone has a 1LOT energy imbalance of +3600 joules each second. That’s not steady-state. It’s temperature will increase.
Perhaps, b, but you said “it’s.”
Your argument is invalid.
Cheers.
bdgwx always gets caught trying to misrepresent my words. The flux ONLY impacts the base of the cone:
But the second part of debunking the “energy imbalance” nonsense is that fluxes are not “conserved”. One easy-to-understand example is a solid cone in space. The base is positioned so that it absorbs 900 W/m^2 from Sun. The rest of the cone has an area 4 times the base area. So at equilibrium, the cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2 and emitting 180 W/m^2. There is a “flux imbalance” of 720 W/m^2, but there is no energy imbalance.
bdgwx is as incompetent as he is dishonest. And just as easy to catch in his deceptions.
That’s why this is so much fun.
ClintR said: The base is positioned so that it absorbs 900 W/m^2 from Sun.
ClintR said: So at equilibrium, the cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2 and emitting 180 W/m^2.
Commit one way or the other. Which is it? Is it only the base area (1/5 of whole) that is absorbing 900 W/m^2 or is it the whole area (5/5 of whole) that is absorbing 900 W/m^2.
bdgwx, as DREMT confirms Clint R can’t write about thermodynamics accurately, the reader like DREMT just has to know what Clint R means better than Clint R can write. Your clips are yet another confirmation. Those two are better off commenting at the climate sophistry blog being practicing sophists.
bdgwx, you STILL don’t get it.
The base is positioned so that it absorbs 900 W/m^2 from Sun.
Maybe bold will help:
The base is positioned so that it absorbs 900 W/m^2 from Sun.
Only an uneducated, braindead idiot would fail to understand. So for uneducated, braindead idiots:
Ein = 900 W/m^2 * 1 m^2 * 1 s = 900 joules
Eout = 180 W/m^2 * 5 m^2 * 1 s = 900 joules.
dE = Ein Eout = 900 j 900 j = 0 joules
(I predict uneducated braindead idiots will STILL not get it.)
There we go. That’s what I was looking for.
So in that scenario because the base area (1/5 of whole) is different than the whole area (5/5 of whole) we cannot directly add/subtract/compare or otherwise assume that these two fluxes are conserved.
What we can do is project the 900 W/m^2 onto the whole area by simply dividing by 5 for the same reason we divide by 4 for a sphere. This gives us 180 W/m^2 on the whole area (5/5 of whole). We can now add/subtract/compare and/or assume these two fluxes are conserved. Ein = 180 W/m^2 * 5 m^2 * 1 s = 900 j and Eout = 180 W/m^2 * 5 m^2 * 1 s = 900 j.
“A cone in space absorbs 900 W/m^2 and emits 180 W/m^2, at equilibrium. ”
The Earth is not a cone. Its area of input and output are the same.
Chock up another strawman argument for the Moron Team.
No, Entropic Man, I have been trying to discuss the fluxes in and out of the entire Earth, just in real time rather than averaged over a long period.
The local surface temperature drops every time the Sun goes behind a cloud and every evening when the Sun goes behind the planet. It also varies with weather systems and seasons.
I’m more interested in long term changes affecting the while planet. The wood rather than the trees.
“The local surface temperature drops every time the Sun goes behind a cloud and every evening when the Sun goes behind the planet. It also varies with weather systems and seasons.”
Yes, I wasn’t talking about any of those things. Never mind.
You’re not talking about anything, Clint.
You’re just pulling a trick.
I mean, kiddo.
Another busy day of trolling for Willard.
It’s the day you’ll learn to mind your units, kiddo.
Rejoice.
Huh?
Good morning, Mike.
Please don’t be too harsh on kiddo.
Wee Willy,
So now your’e denying what you said before? Typical.
Pretending to be dim might not achieve the desired effect of appearing clever, Mike.
People might believe you really are dim.
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wriggling Weasel,
Nor even a good try at diversion. Why are you denying what you said?
What has your stupidity to do with me? Man up – take responsibility for your actions!
Ho, ho, ho!
Oh goody! More useless opinion!
Cheers.
Oh, Witless Willy!
I’m wounded. Cut to the quick, I am.
And you are probably such an idiot you would believe it.
You remain as impotent as ever.
Throw a tantrum if you wish. Run to Mommy, or threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue.
Its likely AGW will still be the best expanation we have tomorrow, and yours still wont. Boo hoo. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
That’s kind of the typical leftist argument….if you can’t offer a better explanation than our idiotic explanation then you must accept ours. No, we don’t.
That’s your usual pathetic excuse, isn’t it? “No, we don’t”! Just like the Indian Rope trick, or the travesty of Clint’s unitless physics. I’m sure you’d paste the description time after time after time… , if you could only find it.
Carry on the comedy routine.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Woebegone Wee Willy wrote –
“In real time, on a second by second basis, the money that gets in a country is different than what comes out.
Therefore GDPs don’t exist.”
What an idiot! What’s next? Chickens? Overcoats? Begging total strangers to click on irrelevant or misleading links?
Very strange lad, is Wee Willy.
Mike,
Just for others, of course
Thank you for your concerns.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are welcome. I always feel compassionate towards those less fortunate than myself.
Yet more irrelevance.
I understand. If you can’t defend Clint’s unitless physics, you might as well try any witless diversion you can. Luckily, you haven’t got the brains to do so effectively.
Cheers.
Witless Willy,
In what alternate universe should I choose to defend anyone because of some brainless blog comment of yours?
What if they don’t need defending? Do you think I am an authority you would appeal to for dispute settlement?
Only idiots place reliance on debating tactics as a method of determine facts. Real scientists use reproducible experiments to establish reality.
Mike,
You don’t even believe in Monty Hall’s simulations.
You’re delusional. Assertions are not facts. Anything is possible, except the chance of a foolish Sky Dragon accepting fact over fantasy.
Cheers.
Witless Willy,
Tell me what I do or don’t believe, again! How’s that mind reading course going?
I assume you are trying to imitate someone, much as a chimpanzee tries to imitate a human. Unfortunately, inserting an assertion, after copying the statement that assertions are not facts, makes you appear more chimp than man.
Just inserting incomprehensible gibberish, into a statement obviously purloined from someone else, is not the cleverest thing a chimp could do, trying to appear human.
Your’e looking a bit woebegone, Willy!
Dear Mike,
You said –
“Tell me what I do or dont believe, again!”
My pleasure:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/the-monty-hall-problem-there-is-no-correct-answer/#comment-266072
In fact, you already had the link under your nose.
Please, do continue.
Your shadowboxing is great!
Woeful Willy,
I agree with the person you are quoting, as he says “If you wander in after doors have been opened, and all the other diversions have taken place, then you are faced with one favourable outcome, one unfavourable.” Should I not agree? Is it a trick statement?
I assume he is referring to some people who believe that outcomes of random events are influenced by previous outcomes, and are convinced that a run of heads in a series of fair coin tosses increases the likelihood of a tail. Unfortunately, the coin has no memory.
Casinos make large profits from people who believe the past influences the future of randomness.
But what is all this to do with me? If I disagreed, would it make a difference to anybody?
By the way, I know nothing about “Monty Hall’s” simulations, whatever they are. Maybe you mean Monte Carlo simulations, about which I do happen to know a thing or two.
What someone else believes, or does not believe, is their affair.
If you think I am someone else, good for you. I hope it brings you solace.
Mike,
You say:
“I agree with the person you are quoting.”
Of course you are.
Let’s revise the Monty Hall a bit. Let’s call that the functionalist version.
Suppose that instead of goats behind two of the doors there were Sky Dragons. One is you, the other is that person I am quoting.
Would that make any difference if I picked the door with you or the door with that other person I’m quoting?
Considering the comments I’m reading, I think not. If it walks like a Mike and quacks like a Mike, chances are it’s a Mike.
Now, I don’t know if you need to lie because you’ve been banned and are returning under a VPN or whatnot, but one thing is sure: I’d never pick another door if I know I can pick you.
Be here tomorrow.
Take care.
Woeful Will,
You and your witless compatriots can revise what you want, and call things anything you like.
Don’t expect me to agree, if I have a different view.
You are getting quite incoherent. Goats, doors, Sky Dragons, VPNs, whatnots – where will it end?
Your favourite exercise is obviously jumping to conclusions.
Jump away.
> Dont expect me to agree
I only expect you to be you, Mike.
Or anyone else you fancy.
Why would you care anyway?
You don’t care about anything.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
If averaging fluxes from a body with large temperature variations, like the moon, and then using that average to calculate a global average T – you would end up with an inaccurate value on account of the math involved with T^4.
But I agree no problem otherwise.
Correct. This is referred to as “rectification effects” by Trenberth 2009 (https://tinyurl.com/nza2nsfz). See the section Spatial and Temporal Sampling on pg 5. The rectification effects for Earth happen to be relatively small yielding on the order of only ~1K and ~6 W/m^2 of error. The rectification effects on the Moon are quite large. A quite order of magnitude estimate from the Williams et al 2017 publication (https://tinyurl.com/4xb23mmc) is 50K and 130 W/m^2 of error.
In the AGW nonsense, “rectification” is the imaginary “cure-all” for the perversions of science. See your local witch-doctor.
Rectification, Clint.
Rectification:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662255
Please leave reification to ontologists.
Sloppy Willy,
You wrote –
“Please leave reification to ontologists.”
Why would he not? What has reification to do with rectification?
Oh, the crypticism! Oh, the obscurity!
Just more stupidity, is it?
Mike,
The hint is Clint’s imaginary “cure-all” for the perversions of science.
But we know you don’t read previous comments and just respond to mine.
That’s fine.
Enjoy your afternoon.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Oh! Oh! A hint, is it?
You still haven’t found your clue, have you? Still clueless.
What an idiot.
<3
Willard, please stop trolling.
march…”then using that average to calculate a global average T you would end up with an inaccurate value on account of the math involved with T^4″.
T^4 is not a constant in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, it depends on the context.
I’m pretty sure he knows that. The point was that because the flux changes with the 4th power of temperature you get a discrepancy between the average of multiple fluxes and the SB derived flux from the average of multiple temperatures. It’s a good point.
Quality puppy wipes,what is nmn supplement
, wipes for dogs and More. — DhohOo
Willy the Weasel, having been hoist with his own petard, wrote –
“[Swenson],
I think some of us are in agreement, but nomenclature differences and definitions may need to be agreed on first.”
He can agree on what you want with the other idiots.
Nothing to do with me. He could always try reading the articles on Wikipedia, before using them to support his silliness. Consensus is not fact.
willard…”In laymens terms: Flux density is the amount of flux per unit area. Similar to current density. Total flux describes the total amount of whatever the metric is referring to; heat, magnetic, photon, etc,”
***
What is flux? According to Newton, which he called a fluxion, the flux is the rate of change of a field, or the first derivative of the function describing the flux.
If you are talking about an EM field, to which part of the field would you be applying flux? I mean, what’s there? A photon is a defined particle of EM in that it is defined as a particle of EM with momentum but no mass (as Roberto Duran might say).
We cannot say with scientific certainty that a photon even exists. In communications theory, an EM field is a series of undulations in an electromagnetic field, where the magnetic field moves in a wave perpendicular to the electric field. Again, following Newton’s definition, what is it you are measuring at a particular point in space through which an EM wave is moving?
A property of an EM field is it’s frequency/wavelength, where the wavelength is the distance between any similar points on consecutive waves. You cannot claim that a stream of mass-less particles has a frequency.
Some learned scientists claim that electrons in a transmitting electron microscope can reveal atomic-sized detail because the electron has a short wavelength. How can a particle with mass have a wavelength? The electrons in the TEM beam are not vibrating back and forth, they are accelerated directly, in-line, at the target. They have no frequency or wavelength.
When you talk about flux fields you have to be mighty careful. You can demonstrate flux density to a degree by pouring iron filings on a piece of paper under which is located a magnet. Something is operating, but what is it? No one knows.
Flux cannot be applied to heat because heat is not EM and it has no flux. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, which are particles with mass. Don’t tell that to alarmist climate scientists, it might upset their day.
Gordon,
Since you had some engineering lessons in your younger days, this short video might help clarify matters:
https://youtu.be/4pz7IgnJG4Y
Heat flux is simply the thermal energy transfer per unit time and surface area.
Now, I don’t know if it exists with absolute certainty, but then I don’t believe in absolute certainty either. I only believe that there’s no entity without identity, and that language is a social art.
So I agree with you that we need to be extra careful, and for that there’s nothing better than to mind our units.
willard…”Heat flux is simply the thermal energy transfer per unit time and surface area”.
1)don’t let ball4 see this, it will ruin his day. He thinks heat is a measure of the transfer of energy, unable to conceive that the energy being transferred is thermal energy, aka heat.
2)note how quickly the speaker dropped the term thermal energy and switched to internal energy. He seems to be allergic to the word heat as well. He does describe it as a microscopic quantity at the atomic level then he blows it by referring to atoms as molecules. What do people have against heat and atoms?
Note how he went into denial when the term (T – T0), as a multiplier, when equal to 0, did not negate the term before it. Theorists like to live in a world separate from our real world. A photon, with no mass, can have momentum.
Clausius made it clear that internal energy is a reference to internal heat + internal work, as related to the vibration of atoms. Something makes them vibrate harder and that is heat. So, internal energy is a sum of the heat present and the internal work.
3)the use of flux to measure the amount of heat crossing a unit area per unit time is, to me, ingenuous. Flux is normally used for the flow of electromagnetic fields as in pure EM and magnetic fields.
Heat is like the charge on an electron. You have the electron itself, a particle with mass, and the charge it carries. That charge can be transferred electron to electron at nearly the speed of light. The electron can also transfer heat electron to electron.
I have never heard charge described as a flux field or electron density described as a flux. Therefore, heat does not require the term flux, just describe the rate of heat transfer over different areas as that: heat transfer/unit area.
Gordon, EMR is not heat.
> dont let ball4 see this
As you can see, it’s too late for that, Gordon.
However, is it too late to call out your bait and switch?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“We cannot say with scientific certainty that a photon even exists.”
Yes we can.
I work in PET and SPECT, and in one we count photons one by one, and in the other we count them two by two.
It may take you getting cancer, Alzheimer’s, or some heart problem for you to see clearly.
I make drugs you don’t want to take.
bobd…”I work in PET and SPECT, and in one we count photons one by one, and in the other we count them two by two”.
What are you counting them with, Bob? You can’t see them individually and I know you can’t count them individually either. What you are measuring is bursts of energy which is detected by a sensor. At that, I doubt if your telemetry has the sensitivity to count one photon. That’s like expecting a voltmeter to detect one electron.
> doubt if your telemetry has the sensitivity to count one photon
Why waste money on tools like that:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/08/08/105518/the-thorny-question-of-whether-humans-can-observe-single-photons/
Gordon,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintigraphy#Process
Try sodium iodide doped with thallium.
While I am a DrSpencer fan, I see it misleading that the anomaly is not compared to average from 1981-2010 anymore but from 1991-2020. This certainly gives wrong prospective.
Hristo Brachkov
” This certainly gives wrong prospective. ”
Of course it doesn’t.
Anomalies are departures from an arbitrary or deliberately chosen mean.
GISS for example still uses 1951-1980, and the Hadley / CRU people use 1961-1990 for their products (Had-CRUT, HadSST, etc).
For certain data, NOAA uses 1901-2000.
RSS is still on the old mean for 1979-1998!
J.-P. D.
If you go here
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html?m=1
and scroll down, you will find six of the main global temperature datasets plotted to a common 1981-2010 baseline and the confusion disappears. You can see that they all give similar values and rise and fall more or less in synch.
entropic…”If you go here
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html?m=1”
***
The graph is typical of Mickey Mouse attempts made by alarmists to bs us into thinking UAH is similar to the cheaters at NOAA and GISS.
If you go to the anomalies graph and uncheck all but UAH, the graph shows the anomaly response from 2018 – 2021. I could not find a way on Firefox to move the 2018 data back.
Gordon Robertson April 15, 2021 at 12:22 AM
the graph shows the anomaly response from 2018 – 2021. I could not find a way on Firefox to move the 2018 data back.
You are truly an anachronism; did you try dragging the axes with your cursor? Boomer with a Computer
Has anyone else tried this?
23 – 9 = 20 – 6 = 14
72 – 15 = 60 – 3 = 57
422 – 85 = 400 – 60 – 3 = 340 – 3 = 337
8124 – 7436 = 1000 – 300 – 10 – 2 = 700 – 12
= 688
Gordon Robertson says:
April 14, 2021 at 12:31 AM
tyson…”Entropic man at 6:03 AM Lurker here”.
Come on, we know you’re Snape.
Reply
This comment reminds me of a song by the great Cody Jinks of Fort Worth, Texas:
“Well, I started on the whiskey pretty early this morning
That’s alright, I was up all night
But I passed out before the sun came up
I really wanted to see one of those
I know that’s no way for a man to behave…”
Actually, there appears to be much day-drinking on this blog also!
Tyson, please stop trolling.
This is another simple example that really draws flak from the idiots. So, it’s worth another showing:
But the second part of debunking the “energy imbalance” nonsense is that fluxes are not “conserved”. One easy-to-understand example is a solid cone in space. The base is positioned so that it absorbs 900 W/m^2 from Sun. The rest of the cone has an area 4 times the base area. So at equilibrium, the cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2 and emitting 180 W/m^2. There is a “flux imbalance” of 720 W/m^2, but there is no energy imbalance.
ClintR said: The base is positioned so that it absorbs 900 W/m^2 from Sun.
ClintR said: So at equilibrium, the cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2 and emitting 180 W/m^2.
Same as before. Commit one way or the other. Is the 900 W/m^2 in reference to the base area (1/5 of whole) or entire area (5/5) of whole?
See how ineffective the flak is? Poor bdgwx pretends he can’t read! What an idiot.
You just can’t make this stuff up….
I’m not just being pedantic here. This is a crucial detail.
If the base area (1/5 of whole) is absorbing 900 W/m^2 and conical area (4/5 of whole) is absorbing 0 W/m^2 then the entire area (5/5 of whole) is actually absorbing 180 W/m^2. But you later say “the cone is absorbing 900 W/m^2” which is incorrect.
What you are doing is subtly phrasing your scenario with vague language to hide the fact that that the base area (1/5 of whole) is different than the entire area (5/5 of whole). You then point out that 900 != 180 and then insinuate that fluxes are never conserved under any circumstance.
Wrong bdgwx. You ARE being pedantic.
And that proves me right, so please continue.
To mind one’s units in physics is NEVER pedantic, Clint.
It’s basic sanity check.
Oh, wait.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You didn’t specify, but your cone is in thermal equilibrium.
Because of the difference between the absorbing and emitting surface area the flux in W/m^2 is not conserved.
The cone absorbs 900W and emits 900W. The total flux is conserved.
Similarly for an Earth in thermal equilibrium.The incoming and outgoing flux per unit area varies across the surface and is not conserved at a local level.
However, unlike the cone the Earth’s total absorbing and emitting areas are the same.
Whether you express it as total flux in Watts of as flux in W/m^2 it is conserved.
If the Earth’s temperature and energy content are increasing as we observe, regardless of units flux is not conserved. The incoming flux is greater than the outgoing flux, hence the energy imbalance.
Nice try, Ent. But flux is NOT conserved, as illustrated by the simple example. Energy is conserved.
They can’t do an actual energy balance for Earth, so they fake one. The difference between “W/m^2” and “W” is the “area”. Once they try to calculate the actual energy, using the actual area, their nonsense falls apart.
If you like your CO2 nonsense, you can keep your CO2 nonsense. Just know, it’s NOT reality.
“However, unlike the cone the Earth’s total absorbing and emitting areas are the same.”
Not in real time they’re not. On a second by second basis, sunlight is falling on only half the surface area of the Earth while in that same second, energy leaves from the entire surface area of the planet. So the incoming and outgoing flux will not be equal.
“Not in real time theyre not”
And?
That’s how we can see that what you present as a point isn’t one.
…and as you deviate from the physical reality of treating the Earth as a sphere in space, in real time, receiving sunlight only on the lit hemisphere whilst energy leaves from the entire surface…as soon as you average out the energy received from the sun by dividing by 4, you dilute the real heating power of the sun, and eliminate the idea of night and day. You suddenly have the Earth as a flat disk in space, receiving sunlight continuously over its entire surface 24 hours a day but only with a power sufficient to heat that surface to -18 C.
Look, kiddo.
Let me show you your trick:
You forgot to add in real time.
To mind one’s units also applies to words, you know.
Yes, they will not be equal in real time.
> Yes, they will not be equal in real time.
And nobody but you is interested in real time.
So why are you shifting from real time to “energy budget” time?
Huh?
> Huh?
And then you pretend I’m the one who doesn’t get it.
Flux is in watts per square meter:
https://www.bnl.gov/envsci/schwartz/watt.html
If flux changes every second, how to measure flux over a long time interval? One way is to take the whole amount of energy and average the whole thing. Then you get a number that retains the same value across the time interval for an area you guesstimated.
There’s no need to believe that flux is constant. As long as energy is conserved, it does not matter.
The same would apply if you really wanted to know how much heat is transferred to your chicken every second when you cook it.
The flux doesn’t change every second. The incoming flux from the sun, falling over one hemisphere of the Earth, is fairly constant, on that second by second basis. The outgoing flux from the entire Earth is also fairly constant, on a second by second basis.
> The outgoing flux from the entire Earth is also fairly constant, on a second by second basis.
How do you know?
Just basic logic.
The absorbed solar radiation definitely changes by the second for various reasons. Likewise, terrestrial radiation definitely changes by the second for various reasons as well. This is true whether we are talking globally or locally though the variability will be much higher locally. TSI is fairly constant though.
Why would the global terrestrial radiation vary on a second by second basis?
Weather.
OK, then. All of this was besides the point anyway.
Since your point relies on shifting from “real time” to “energy budget” time, forgetting about weather might be quite relevant.
I thought it seemed reasonable that any local variations would even out when you considered the output over the entire globe at once, but if the oracles have spoken, who am I to disagree?
Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make.
When you divide the input by 4, you are diluting the real power of the sun, and treating the Earth as though it were a flat disk in space.
> it has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make.
That must explain why you typed “real time” more than 30 times.
That said, you’re right about the fact that the area impacts on the intensity of flux – in fact you can read it in the unit itself). What you seem to insinuate by talking about a “flat disc” might run against basic geometry:
https://scied.ucar.edu/planetary-energy-balance-temperature-calculate
Taking half of a sphere instead of a disc would increase the area and thus “dilute” the Sun’s heating powerz even more. Same if you adjust intensity for all the non-right angles from which light reaches each point on your hemisphere.
You misunderstand. When you divide by 4 you are treating the Earth as though it were a flat disk in space, i.e as if all the land and oceans were spread out like an atlas, so that it is capable of absorbing all the incoming solar radiation at once over its entire surface area on that side facing the sun, 24 hours a day. This is because dividing by 4 averages the incoming sunlight over the entire sphere at once, whereas if you think about it in reality half the sphere is always in darkness at any given moment. If you treat the Earth as a sphere in space, i.e receiving the incoming sunlight in real time over only the lit hemisphere, whilst the output leaves over the entire sphere, then you are only dividing the incoming flux by 2. You end up with a higher input flux than the output flux. 480 W/m^2 as opposed to 240 W/m^2.
> When you divide by 4 you are treating the Earth as though it were a flat disk in space […] whereas if you think about it in reality half the sphere is always in darkness at any given moment
To estimate how much energy gets to the Earth, using a disc makes perfect sense. Dividing the area of a sphere by 4 gets you the area of that disc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcFjFmqEc8
This solves your “darkness” riddle. A disc has only one “side”: the region on a plane bounded by a circle we call the circumference.
***
The point I was making was that the estimate scientists get by using a disc is conservative. A disc of circumference C is smaller than an hemisphere with the same C.
We can of course use a more refined geometry, which is what GCMs do:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
I’m starting to think that Roy already anticipated all the Sky Dragons’ talking points in comment threads that followed that post.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and I do not have the patience to explain it to you.
LOL.
Good one, kiddo.
OK, Willard.
Even funnier now that you cited this elsewhere, kiddo:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/06/on-the-absence-of-a-measurable-greenhouse-effect-part-1-the-failure-of-ipcc-energy-budgets/
Please warn me if I ever take you srsly later on.
I think Postma explains the concept clearly enough. As bdgwx agreed upthread, if you treat the input solar radiation in real time only over the lit hemisphere whilst the output is over the whole sphere, the input is 480 W/m^2 and the output is 240 W/m^2. The energy balances even though the flux values do not, because the area over which the fluxes are emitted or received differs.
As soon as you divide the incoming solar radiation by 4, you dilute the real heating power of the sun, and eliminate the idea of night and day. You suddenly have the Earth as a flat disk in space, receiving sunlight continuously over its entire surface 24 hours a day but only with a power sufficient to heat that surface to -18 C.
> I think Postma explains the concept clearly enough
What concept, kiddo?
the pterodactyl swoops low over the caveman’s head for a closer look. The caveman due to a lack of awareness is about to become lunch.
And one day auditors will audit bills.
Willard, please stop trolling.
And there’s the difference between the short term and the long term again.
When you consider the weather you are thinking locally in realtime.
When you consider climate change you should think globally, with global fluxes and global energy content changing over decades.
I am not talking locally, I am talking globally. You could also treat this as a global energy budget over as long a period as you want.
> You could also treat this as a global energy budget over as long a period as you want.
And how would you extrapolate from that “real-time” to that global energy budget?
You don’t have any “real-time” measurements!
Well, it’s about time there were!
Alright. That made me laugh.
While we’re waiting for real-time measurements, I think it’s safe to use the ones we got and process them while keeping in mind that energy conserves even if its flux may not at each moment.
Has Clint ever argued that the “missing heat” proves that CO2 can’t warm?
Not that I am aware of.
The Contrarian Matrix hates an argumentative vacuum.
Let me see if Mike ever mentioned Kevin’s meme.
Close enough:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/media-reports-of-40-adjustment-in-ocean-warming-were-greatly-exaggerated/#comment-338912
DREMT,
No one is challenging the fact that there is high variability in the ingress and egress flux on small spatial and temporal scales. Nor is anyone challenging that at any given moment in time the solar flux is zero on 50% of the area while terrestrial flux is always non-zero everywhere albeit still with high spatial and temporal variability.
Here’s the thing. In the context of climate we are focused more on average properties on large spatial and temporal scales. In the context of weather we are focused more on exact properties at exact times at specific locations. Both are important in their own domains. But the domain we’re discussing here is climate. That’s why we care more about fluxes in reference to the entire global area over at least one orbital period.
and as you deviate from the physical reality of treating the Earth as a sphere in space, in real time, receiving sunlight only on the lit hemisphere whilst energy leaves from the entire surfaceas soon as you average out the energy received from the sun by dividing by 4, you dilute the real heating power of the sun, and eliminate the idea of night and day. You suddenly have the Earth as a flat disk in space, receiving sunlight continuously over its entire surface 24 hours a day but only with a power sufficient to heat that surface to -18 C.
yes-chad.png
It left out the dots, for some reason…
…and as you deviate from the physical reality of treating the Earth as a sphere in space, in real time, receiving sunlight only on the lit hemisphere whilst energy leaves from the entire surface…as soon as you average out the energy received from the sun by dividing by 4, you dilute the real heating power of the sun, and eliminate the idea of night and day. You suddenly have the Earth as a flat disk in space, receiving sunlight continuously over its entire surface 24 hours a day but only with a power sufficient to heat that surface to -18 C.
> you dilute the real heating power of the sun
You’ll never guess how we determine heat flux.
Here’s a hint: energy budget.
Once again, you are miles away from the point being made.
No body is reducing the heating power of the Sun. These energy budget models which publish long term average global fluxes are consistent with the Earth’s surface having a mean temperature of ~15C. And nobody thinks the Earth is a flat disk where the entire surface is continuously bathed in solar radiation. These same energy budget models do not say that or in any way imply it.
It should not be hard:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
Even I can understand it.
Nobody thinks of the Earth that way, but when you divide by the incoming energy by 4, that is effectively the way you are treating it.
bdgwx is wrong, and DREMT caught him.
Dividing the incoming flux by 4 limits the temperature. A blackbody surface, insulated on back and sides, absorbing 960 W/m^2 would reach an equilibrium temperature of 361K. But the same surface absorbing 240 W/m^2 would only reach 255K.
That’s why you can’t compare Earth to a mythical blackbody sphere.
> But the same surface
Have I ever told you the Kentucky-Kiev Paradox, Clint?
If you give me one chicken, I will bring you two.
Willard, please stop trolling.
But the Earth rotates Mr. Obvious.
So you take the average to get the average temperature.
Some are so blind they can not see.
The Earth rotates, yes. Well done.
The Earth rotates so over a whole orbit the area that the Sun shines is the whole Earth.
Not half of it.
And, in real time…
. . . indeed, kiddo.
…in real time the flux is only received over a hemisphere whilst the output leaves over the whole sphere. So dividing by 2 for the input flux and by 4 for the output is appropriate. The input flux will be double the output flux, but the energy involved will balance, since the area the flux is received over is only half that over which it leaves.
> So dividing by 2 for the input flux and by 4 for the output is appropriate.
The first part is false for interesting reasons.
The second part is not even wrong.
What I said is correct.
Willard knows nothing about thermodynamics beyond a few equations and a product idea thats actually illegal to sell.
Its real simple if you want to sell it you have to build it and submit for testing before claiming an insulation value for it. These rules were institutued because of all the shady operators out there preying on vulnerable customers.
Then science figured out it could sell it simply by not putting a price tag on it. Sort of moves the charge in the direction of extortion, but extortion has been a political tool used forever.
> What I said is correct.
Not really, kiddo. For starters, the output of zero-dimensional EBMs isn’t divided at all.
One day you’ll learn to shut up before it’s too late, Bill.
I know I am correct.
What you think you know is wrong, kiddo.
At best, for your “output” meme is pure BS, e.g.:
https://math.nyu.edu/faculty/kleeman/zero_dim_ebm.html
Check the left side equation.
I’m right.
Quite power argument you got there, kiddo.
You’re past “it’s interesting” now, aren’t you?
What I said in my 6:28 AM comment is correct.
Let me guess, kiddo:
What you said is correct because . . . it’s correct?
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
“What you said is correct because . . . its correct?”
Yep, when the chips are down, thats their go-to argument.
Whatever the greenhouse argument is fine as long as its not cold stuff warming warm stuff or gas working as insulation so the sun can warm it. Those are ruled out by experiments.
I doubt you’ll succeed in peddling G&T, Bill.
That said, it’s a safer move for you than to play the arbiter of certainty, as kiddo fails basic reading comprehension.
I know that what I said is correct.
Your belief is untrue and the justifications you provided so far are ridiculous.
There’s no need to divide the output by four as the outgoing heat escapes from all of the Earth’s area:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/EnergyBalance/images/global_energy_budget_in.png
Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
Your trick would not fool high school students.
Yes, the output leaves over the entire Earth’s surface. That’s why you divide by 4 for the output. You are hilariously stupid.
> thats why you divide by 4 for the output.
God you’re dumb.
No, kiddo, you can’t be *that* dumb.
You’re just trolling.
You’re very funny. You think you don’t divide by 4 for the output. So you think the output is 960 W/m^2 rather than 240 W/m^2. So you think the Earth’s effective temperature is 361 K or 88 C. Unbelievable.
> You think you don’t divide by 4 for the output
I know we don’t, kiddo.
After all these years, you still pretend that you don’t know why we divide the input by 4?
I understand both why the input is divided by 4 and why, in real time, the input should actually be divided by 2.
The effective temperature of the Earth is 255 K, hence the radiative output is 240 W/m^2.
Not 361 K and 960 W/m^2, moron.
> I understand both why the input is divided by 4
The output, kiddo.
The output.
Like when you say:
or like when you say:
Input. Output. Not the same tbing.
I know that the input and output are not the same thing!
Let’s go through it once again. Keeping the numbers simple.
You have solar irradiance of 1,370 W/m^2.
Factoring in the albedo, you are left with 960 W/m^2.
In real time, the insolation arrives over only the lit hemisphere. Hence you divide by 2. The incoming flux is then 480 W/m^2.
In real time, the outgoing energy leaves over the entire sphere at once. Hence you divide by 4. The outgoing flux is then 240 W/m^2.
The flux values are not equal, but the energy in and out still balances, because the area the flux is received over (the lit hemisphere) is only half that over which it leaves (the entire sphere).
A hemisphere has only half the surface area of the entire sphere. Hence when energy is leaving over the entire sphere at once, it is going to be a lower flux (240 W/m^2) than the flux received over the lit hemisphere (480 W/m^2). The same power (W) divided over a larger surface area (m^2) gives you a lower flux (W/m^2).
I can’t really make it any simpler! Dividing 960 by 2 results in a higher number than dividing 960 by 4.
> In real time, the outgoing energy leaves over the entire sphere at once. Hence you divide by 4.
The “divide by 4” shortcut has nothing to do with time, kiddo. It’s related to space, i.e. it’s the surface on which the Sun shines. But you could add at every instant if that pleases you. It doesn’t matter.
You can use a hemisphere, but then you’ll have integrate over the surface that faces the Sun. And lo and behold you’ll get \pi R^2. Try it!
Since the outgoing energy leaves from everywhere, you take the area of the Earth simpliciter. Like with this equation which represents the balance between the output (left) and the input (right):
\pi R^2 S (1 – \alpha) = (4 \pi R^2) \epsilon \sigma (T+C)^4
where R is the radius, S the Solar constant, alpha the albedo, epsilon the emissivity, sigma the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, T the Earth’s temperature, and C the conversion constant (from K to C).
This is the equation one can find on the page I’ve cited a few times already:
https://math.nyu.edu/faculty/kleeman/zero_dim_ebm.html
I only simplified the notation.
And that, I believe, is checkmate.
Thank you for motivating me to write a post on this.
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response.
Damn. I knew I should have triple checked.
I left a big typo, kiddo. You should see it immediately.
Yes, you said “is checkmate” when you should have written, “in no way addresses anything that DREMT wrote”.
I actually did, kiddo. Your whole argument makes no physical sense whatsoever. There’s no reason to divide the sphere by 4 for the output: energy leaves from everywhere.
You’re just shuffling numbers to fit your guesstimate of what’s supposed to happen.
Here’s the typo: “left” and “right” should be inverted. The equation represents PGAIN = PLOSS, so the input is at the left, and output at the right. I wanted to invert them at first, but changed my mind.
It was fun while it lasted.
You can have the last word.
You are not dividing “the sphere” by 4, you are dividing 960 W/m^2 by 4, in order to spread that over the entire surface area of the globe, from which it leaves.
You have solar irradiance of 1,370 W/m^2.
Factoring in the albedo, you are left with 960 W/m^2 incoming.
In real time, the insolation arrives over only the lit hemisphere. Hence you divide 960 by 2. The incoming flux is then 480 W/m^2.
In real time, the outgoing energy (which must balance the incoming energy) leaves over the entire sphere at once. Hence you divide 960 by 4. The outgoing flux is then 240 W/m^2.
The flux values are not equal, but the energy in and out still balances, because the area the flux is received over (the lit hemisphere) is only half that over which it leaves (the entire sphere).
A hemisphere has only half the surface area of the entire sphere. Hence when energy is leaving over the entire sphere at once, it is going to be a lower flux (240 W/m^2) than the flux received over the lit hemisphere (480 W/m^2). The same power (W) divided over a larger surface area (m^2) gives you a lower flux (W/m^2).
> You are not dividing “the sphere” by 4, you are dividing 960 W/m^2 by 4
It’s *why* you divide by 4 that matters here, kiddo.
*What* represents that 4? It’s not time. It’s space.
An interesting trick. Worth to add it to the post.
Oh, you commented again anyway. What a surprise.
You seem certain I am doing something untoward but you are completely unable to explain exactly what you think that something is.
Yes an example is that clouds block outgoing IR completely all day and all night, but only partially block incoming solar during the day.
Sunburns on overcast days is an excellent example.
ClintR said: There is a “flux imbalance” of 720 W/m^2, but there is no energy imbalance.
If the intent is is that the 900 W/m^2 is in reference to the base area (1/5 of whole) and the 180 W/m^2 is in reference to the entire area (5/5 of whole) then you are comparing fluxes from DIFFERENT areas. We’ve warned you multiple times that you cannot do this. We don’t do it. Trenberth isn’t doing it. Nobody besides you is doing this.
bdgwx finally realized he couldn’t pretend he didn’t know the 900 W/m^2 was impacting the base. So now he has to find some other way to avoid reality.
It’s called “throwing things against the wall, hoping something will stick”.
Pure desperation.
Here’s you, Clint:
https://youtu.be/OgR49veBZjE
Willard, please stop trolling.
If the discussion is going to focus on details of “flux” then it would be important to define exactly what people mean by “flux”. And it turns out there are MANY related but different definitions for “flux”. Flux could be a scalar, a scalar field, or a vector field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
In particular, the field of Radiometry has a myriad specific terms related to intensity of EM radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometry#Radiometric_quantities
For this discussion, most germane are:
Radiant flux [W]: Radiant energy emitted, reflected, transmitted or received, per unit time. This is sometimes also called “radiant power”.
Irradiance = Flux density [W/m^2]: Radiant flux received by a surface per unit area.
Radiant exitance [W/m^2]: Radiant flux emitted by a surface per unit area.
Radiosity [W/m^2]. Radiant exitance + reflected and transmitted light.
So in the equation P/A = (epsilon)(sigma) T^4
* P = “radiant flux”
* P/A = “radiant exitance”
Radiant exitances do NOT add.
Irradiances do add.
Note that most people here (including me) have tended to colloquially use the term “flux” for P/A, but this is not strictly correct. That is the “flux density”. Simply agreeing on terminology would be a great step forward in a discussion like this.
TF, you won’t learn physics by reading wikipedia.
The simple term “flux” is plenty applicable for the purposes here.
Focus on reality, not distraction.
The term “flux” is far from “simple”. If you think it is simple, then define precisely what you think “flux” is. Then we can all be on the same page.
TF, you never have trouble with definitions until your nonsense is exposed. Interesting how that works, huh?
This “EEI” nonsense has been around for years, but you swallowed it instantly. You never questioned “flux” then, did you?
You are addicted to your cult. You have no interest in learning. You reject reality.
You are anti-science, so we’ll NEVER be “on the same page”.
To “question” is one thing, Clint.
To come with equations that account for their quantities using UNITS is quite another.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you think it is simple, then define precisely what you think “flux” is.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-663823
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-663336
Clint, given that:
1) there have literally been 100’s of posts trying to explain/describe/clarify how flux works;
2) you were spouting nonsense about flux leaving a surface (Radiant exitance) vs flux arriving at a surface (irradiance) WRT bdgwx’s cube;
3) you can’s seem to define the word you are so adamant about;
then it seems that it is important to not rely on ESP to determine what people are talking about.
Usually I am fine being a bit laissez-faire about definitions in general discussions (eg people using the word “heat” when talking about U = “internal energy”). But when the definition of a term becomes the issue, then definitions are important.
TF, what is your definition of “babbling incoherently”?
My definition of “babbling incoherently” talking about anything OTHER then the core issue — ie, pretty much anything you write.
You have yet to address any of the issues brought up regarding what “flux” actually means. You have yet to admit you misunderstood bdgwx’s cube even AFTER it was explained to you. It is rare for you to actually contribute anything other than an appeal to your own authority.
Yes TF, you babble incoherently. Just go back and look at your comments. You’re still babbling about what “flux” is. Why didn’t you make a big deal about “flux” before?
You’re only trolling trying to protect your cult.
With my emphasis, Clint:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-global-climate-system-74649049/
Again, Clint, with my emphasis.
Hope this helps.
If you divide by 4 you spread the incoming flux over the entire Earth’s surface at once. It has already been agreed that in real time, the incoming flux is only received over the lit hemisphere, whilst the output flux leaves over the entire Earth’s surface.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-663790
Is your comment supposed to be directed at me?
Yes, kiddo.
“Irradiances do add.” FALSE.
That is the false belief that makes some believe two ice cubes can make something hotter than one ice cube.
> “Irradiances do add.” FALSE.
[ARCHIMEDES] Hold my solar panel:
https://www.volker-quaschning.de/articles/fundamentals1/index.php
Clint, I am sure you agree that two light bulbs are brighter than one. This is a clear example of two irradiances adding. If one bulb can supply 2 W of EM radiation to a given square meter and a second bulb can independently supply 3 W to the same square meter, then turning on both light bulbs will supply 5 W to that square meter.
Thus in at least SOME cases, you must accept that irradiances add.
Wee Willy,
Hang on just a sec, there!
You present a couple of quotes which mention that sunlight is reflected from the Earth’s surface. This appears to be at odds with some who seem to think that surfaces absorb all radiation which impinges on them.
So which frequencies are reflected? Would more flux of the same wavelength add? Or just have no effect, being likewise reflected?
Or do irradiances add – except when they don’t?
What about irradiances on passive solar water heating panels with a protective glass cover? Wood’s glass? Anti-reflection glass?
Not as simple as it looks – not like you, and many others. Learn some physics. Get back to me. If you want, of course.
All very good questions, Mike.
Have you ever tried to answer them?
Why do you ask, oh ignorant Wee Willy? Trying desperately to impress Mike Flynn?
Seeking knowledge? I doubt it. Trying for a gotcha? More likely.
So tell me why you ask, if you want me to reply.
Ho, ho, ho!
Should I take this rebuff as a no, Mike?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Take it anyway you like. My care factor is zero.
I assumed you knew. My bad.
I certainly will, Mike, and I already know.
Take care,
W
“Yes, kiddo”.
It had nothing do with the point I was making in my comment, though. Oh well.
TF, you make the same mistake with two light bulbs as you make with two ice cubes.
Two ice cubes can never make something warmer than the temperature of the ice cubes. Two light bulbs can never make something warmer than the temperature of the bulb filaments.
Fluxes do not add. Irradiances do not add.
And now we have the classic “moving the goalpost” fallacy. I never said anything about “warmer than the filament”. Not sure if that was intentional or if you simply don’t understand.
So back to what I *did* say. Would two 500 lumen light bulbs make my desk brighter than a single 500 lumen lightbulb?
Similarly, would standing in front of two 1500 W IR heaters like this make me warmer than a single IR heater? https://www.firepitsdirect.com/dimplex-dirxxa10gr-indoor-outdoor-electric-infrared-heater.html
Wrong again, TF. There was no “moving the goalpost”. But, there was your misrepresentation. I NEVER said that you said anything about “warmer than the filament”. I was explaining physics, which you can’t understand. So, for others:
This issue comes from the GHE nonsense where the claim is that sky emissions add to solar emissions. That’s bogus. Fluxes do not add, especially fluxes from different sources.
TF is confused with light bulbs, because he doesn’t understand the physics involved. The flux decreases from a source, with distance. It’s called the “Inverse Square Law”. So if at distance “d” from a source, the flux is “f”, then at a distance of “2d”, the flux would be “f/4”. Flux is lost due to distance.
So by bringing in a second identical source, what was lost by distance can be somewhat replaced. But, that is NOT the “flux doesn’t add” being discussed.
An example of what is being discussed is expecting two ice cubes to warm an object more than one ice cube. That doesn’t happen.
> This issue comes from the GHE nonsense where the claim is that sky emissions add to solar emissions.
Not at all, Clint. The issue is about the concept of irradiance. Which is why Tim is right in saying that you’re moving the goalposts.
Unless you wanted to argue that dilution of energy breaks thermo or that ice cubes can’t warm because of the inverse-square law?
The sun illuminates the Earth from a small area horizon to horizon while the atm. gases illuminate the earth surface from horizon to horizon. These illumination sources both are incident on Earth surface so both are absorbed/reflected contrary to Clint R writings that “Fluxes do not add”.
Remember Clint R can’t do simple arithmetic: one ice cube = 300W/m^2 and two ice cubes = 600W/2m^2 = 300W/m^2.
Clint is absolutely right. If you want to talk fluxes, think of this instantaneously and the sun simply as an inactive heat producing 6000k particle. If you mentally spread that in shell around the earth, at 341K adding another shell at 341k around that does nothing. But if you instead add another 6000k particle next to the sun it does add because you are in essence painting the sky 6000k rather than 341k
And of course the result is after the sky is fully painted with 6000k particles adding more doesn’t do anything.
So the take home message is looking down at the earth from a satellite at the temperature of the sky doesn’t mean diddly because all you are seeing are passive radiators. If they aren’t warm enough they simply get warmer. convection doesn’t need to occur for that to happen.
Don’t get confused by my momentary brain fart. I meant to convert to watts but forgot to do the conversion so just keep it with the k’s rather than w’s.
Stop farting, Bill.
“An example of what is being discussed is expecting two ice cubes to warm an object more than one ice cube. “
That’s not what was being discussed here (by anyone but you) but we can switch to this.
We’ve been discussing a cone in space. Let’s first block the sunlight. Then the cone would cool to 2.7 K as it radiates to space.
Now get a 1 m^2 sheet of ice radiating 300 W/m^2. As you point out, the flux that arrives at a surface can be less than this dues to the inverse square law. Suppose the ice happens to supply 30 W/m^2 to 2 of the square meters of the cone. The cone would receive 60 W and (assuming good thermal conductivity) would warm to 121 K until it was emitting 60/5 = 12 W/m^2 from all surfaces.
As you also point out, “by bringing in a second identical source, what was lost by distance can be somewhat replaced” so a second identical block of ice could supply an additional 60 W by placing it somewhere else. The cone would warm to 143 K.
Voila! A second block of ice just warmed the cone more than 1 block of ice. That is exactly observing “two ice cubes to warm an object more than one ice cube” for which you have claimed “That doesnt happen.”
Perhaps you would care to expand/clarify what you meant, since we just saw that your statement — as written — is wrong.
TF, your sheet of ice is about 270K, to be emitting 300 W/m^2.
Your second ice “source” was also about 270K. But both “sources” weren’t able to raise the temperature of the cone above 270K. Two ice cubes can’t raise the temperature of an object above the temperature of one ice cube.
Bill, I like your imagery of “painting the sky” with regions at different temperatures emitting different fluxes. Now just take this a couple steps further. (and hopefully Clint can follow along too.) (All calculations assume BB surfaces and steady-state temperatures)
1) As you correctly explained, you can paint a tiny bit (about 0.001% directly overhead as it turns out) of the sky 6000 K and provide an irradiance of 960 W/m^2 to some patch of ground, causing that patch to be 371 K.
1B) As you also correctly explained, you can paint twice as much of the sky 6000 K and provide an irradiance of 2*960 W/m^2 to some patch of ground. This would cause that patch to be 429 K.
***************************
2a) As you further correctly explained, you could also paint the ENTIRE sky 371 K and provide 960 W/m^2 to that patch, causing that patch to be 371 K.
2b) I will add, you could also paint the ENTIRE sky 270 K and provide 300 W/m^2 to that patch, causing that patch to be 270 K.
*************************
Now the interesting bits!
3a) You could paint 0.001% of the sky 6000 K and 99.999% of the sky 371 K, and provide 960 + 960 W/m^2 and make the patch 429 K
3b) You could paint 0.001% of the sky 6000 K and 99.999% of the sky 270 K, and provide 960 + 300 W/m^2 and make the patch 386 K
4a) You could paint 0.001% of the sky 6000 K and 49.999% of the sky 371 K, and provide 960 + 960/2 W/m^2 and make the patch 398 K
4b) You could paint 0.001% of the sky 6000 K and 49.999% of the sky 270 K, and provide 960 + 300/2 W/m^2 and make the patch 374 K
************************
Bill, if you (or anyone else) disagree with the numbers, please state YOUR results. I am simply following the procedure you laid out and applying it to a few more scenarios.
If you (or anyone else) fail to see the significance, I will happily clarify.
Tim, I think you are just randomly calculating non-useful things now. There needs to be a more disciplined approach of dealing with the energy in the system rather than simply assuming it just is a bunch of fluxes being divided up and thrown around in accordance with the photon cartoon model. It is no longer photons, its absorbed energy. The photon model becomes a canard in its application. Back scatter, back radiation is in my opinion very poorly understood.
The concept of cool surfaces slowing the cooling of a heated surface is one built around one concept that isn’t the case for our atmosphere. there are only two equations that determine that. A heat source emitting heat, and a static cool object receiving it.
An atmosphere layer does not qualify as a static surface layer it cools by two virtual surfaces (twice the cooling rate of the static layer) but it also diffuses mechanically. The heat that doesn’t essentially instantaneously zoom into space is employed in warming the portions of the 99.96% that are cooler than it and receiving radiation from the portions of it that are warmer than it. It is no longer a simple flux problem that can be contained in a simple flat earth model built based upon a divide by 4 strategy.
“Tim, I think you are just randomly calculating non-useful things now.”
But do you disagree with any of it? Or do you think my ‘random’ scenarios are just odd but correct? If you agree I am correct, then you are agreeing that ice can (in conjunction with sunlight) can warm a warmer surface, and that more ice warms the surface more!
I do agree with you that including an actual atmosphere makes everything more compilated! But that is a good reason to agree on the basics of radiation (with is relatively straightforward) before delving into an atmosphere (with convection, evaporation, clouds, and more).
Don’t mind Bill, Tim.
He worked all his life. He can rest now. The only question is if he’s more like Statler or like Waldorf:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6I_dKUYyI4
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Simply agreeing on terminology would be a great step forward in a discussion like this.
For reasons related to pragmatics I have my doubts, Tim. Still worth the try.
Nice comment, btw.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint
Better to describe the cone and base in terms of surface area. That aside, and as already explained, if the base of the cone is absorbing 960 m^2, then the cone as a whole is absorbing 180 w/m2.
???
Straightforward enough.
The base of the cone facing the Sun has an area of 1 square metre and absorbs 900W of power. The shaded area is 4 square metres and absorbs nothing.
The cone has a surface area of 5 square metres and absorbs 900W. The absorbed flux is total power/ total surface area.
900/5=180W/m^2.
The outgoing total power at thermal equilibrium is the same as the incoming total. Outgoing flux will be total output power/surface area.
The cone radiates 900W of power from 5 square metres. The outgoing flux is
900/5=180W/m^2.
Or, if you’re not trying to distort reality, the cone absorbs 900 W/m^2 at it base, and emits 180 W/m^2 from its entire surface, at equilibrium.
900 does NOT equal 180. Flux is NOT conserved.
Is the 900 W/m^2 figure in reference to the same area as the 180 W/m^2 figure?
bdgwx, your ongoing inability to understand such a simple example is probably linked to your tenacious devotion to a perverted cult.
Do you like kool-aid?
Clint,
Speaking of Kool-Aid, you might like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
I rather like Roy’s title, even if I usually prefer “contrarian” to “skeptical.”
ClintR, it is a simple question. I already know the answer. Do you know the answer?
That’s wrong, bdgwx. You “believe” you know the answer. Reality says different.
There is no evidence you understand any of this. You don’t even seem to know what a “cone” is, or know its shape.
And you DEFINITELY don’t know the difference between flux and energy.
> Reality says different.
Sez U:
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119058588.ch3
But what is the height of the cone?
The cone is the size of an Ubirajara jubatus, Bob.
Willard,
I just wanted to check if the clown crew could do some math.
Apparently, you can’t either.
It’s at least as long as two Ubirajara Jubatodes.
If there ever were two.
Don’t forget about the Kentucky-Kiev Paradox, Bob:
Once you have one chicken size dinosaur, you can have two.
Click here if you want to have the recipe.
Looks like that recipe would be fatal to the dinosaurs.
Why don’t we just barbecue them instead.
I wish I was in Tijuana, eating barbecued Iguana.
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DRMEPTY,
But what else is there to do.
Trolling is better than making up science, or stealing fossils.
bdgwx says:
Is the 900 W/m^2 figure in reference to the same area as the 180 W/m^2 figure?
=========================
Of course not!
You guys are way too stuck on the flat earth model to smell the roses.
If Sky Dragons can’t grok a simple 2D model, Bill, what will it be in 3D?
What flat Earth model are you talking about?
The cross section of a sphere is a circle.
The surface area of a sphere is four times the cross section.
Take some courses in geometry and study how to take averages.
Jeesh
You don’t understand because you don’t want to understand, bob.
You are just falling way behind. A consensus has been developing over what the flat earth model is.
if you want to catch up go read all the threads in here that have ‘flat earth’ in them.
Bill,
“You are just falling way behind. A consensus has been developing over what the flat earth model is.”
We don’t do science by consensus do we?
I mean we can if you want to.
I can go out tomorrow and demonstrate that the flat earth model is deceptive. In fact I already have in several ways demonstrated that.
In fact Willard just above your comment is saying: ”If Sky Dragons cant grok a simple 2D model, Bill, what will it be in 3D?”
Now I am sure that statement didn’t just sort of spontaneously arise randomly with absolutely zero intuitiveness that the answer would be different in 3D.
All that Postma and the folks supporting him in here have been saying is that the real model isn’t 3D but its 4D.
So indeed a consensus is forming albeit at a snails pace . And we aren’t actually talking about science here euther a fact you completely missed.
We are talking about deception. Deception is not subject to the rules of physics. It is instead subjective.
The words below pretty much sum it up:
”For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”– H. L. Mencken
bill said: Of course not!
Exactly. Maybe you can explain this concept to ClintR because I’m clearly not getting through.
So Bill,
Why are you being deceptive?
bdgwx says:
bill said: Of course not!
Exactly. Maybe you can explain this concept to ClintR because Im clearly not getting through.
—————————
bdgwx, Clint didn’t answer because your question wasn’t relevant to the point he is trying to make.
bill,
My question lies at the heart the issue. The 900 W/m^2 figure is in reference to a different area then the 180 W/m^2 figure. As simple as a concept that may be I’m not convinced it is fully understood or appreciated.
bdgwx you are just married to the flat earth model.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-665957
Go for the kill, Bill: its a ZERO DIMENSION model!
Jos model is still in zero-dimension, but who cares about Jo?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-665989
I don’t know what Joes model is Willard. I haven’t read it. Put it on my reading list but don’t plan on it until I get back to the data I am organizing to go back and tackle my model again. Have a couple of things still to check off my check list. And with my time in demand still its hard to find moments where I can go looking for anybody that actually has something to contribute.
Seeing as how it is obvious that your interest isn’t physics or meteorology and instead you are more like a butterfly collector your opinion really isn’t of any interest to me.
> I dont know what Joes model
But you still caught the “flat earth” meme, Bill.
That makes you the ultimate meme machine.
Did you know that conservatives are ultimate meme machines?
Disciplined. Dedicated. Obedient.
Its a great description in every way Willard.
It takes curved lines and makes them straight.
It doesn’t work
Its the wrong model
Another model is what explains the greenhouse effect. Since I haven’t read Joe’s I am not ruling that out yet.
What else do you think is needed to make the meme a proper description?
See, Bill?
*That* is Machiavellianism.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Can’t say I am following the cone debate.
But I imagined it about the pointed end facing the sun- which
I thought was interesting.
Speaking of interesting, more than 90% of Earth warming is warming
our 3.5 C ocean.
Global climate is not much about the atmosphere, it’s more than 90%
about the ocean.
And if must talk about atmosphere, the atmospheric temperature is controlled by 70% of the Earth surface which is ocean surface.
The average temperature of entire ocean is about 17 C. Though there large error in regards to the measuring of this 17 C number.
And large part of 17 C is related to the tropical ocean {which about 40% of the Earth surface} and about 26 C.
The tropical waters and waters near it are constantly changing in terms of temperature, but one could they fairly uniform in temperature in terms wide swings global temperature related to interglacial and glaciation periods, where as the higher latitudes or other 50% of the surfaces of earth {northern and southern} have large shifts of temperature occuring over these longer time periods [thousands and thousands of years].
And one could say the all important tropics has little to do with the present average ocean temperature of 3.5, but 3.5 Ocean matters a lot to other 1/2 of Earth surface.
The more 90% of global warm would evenually warm the 3.5 C and when it does it will have a large warming effect upon 50% of Earth ocean surface temperature and even though ocean is only about 65% of northern Hemisphere, it’s still the dominate factor of northern hemisphere’s average temperature.
Clint R’s figures only make sense if the base of the cone is facing the Sun and the rest is shaded.
I think base facing sun makes it easier {and obvious- and I like obvious}. But it seems the pointy end should make it cooler.
March Hare, Entropic, & bdgwx,
If you rephrased slightly, then what you all are saying would be both clearer and more accurate.
For example, “The AVERAGE absorbed flux is total power/ total surface area. 900/5=180W/m^2.”
Or “900 W/m^2 absorbed by 1 m^2 is EQUIVALENT IN POWER to 180 W/m^2 absorbed by 5 m^2”.
Clint has a point that there is no place on the cone that is absorbing 180 W/m^2 — it is specifically absorbing 900 W/m^2 some places and 0 W/m^2 other places. Most can figure out the intent from context, but forcing people to infer what is intended can lead to misunderstandings.
A simple rephrasing would solve the issue and should make everyone happy!
> A simple rephrasing would solve the issue and should make everyone happy!
I’d be willing to bet on that one, Tim!
I did say “should”. /smile
Fair enough.
You win this:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/welcome-to-jurassic-art/
I think troglodytes need to see.
Willard, please stop trolling.
TF, That’s good advice.
However you phrase it, it still is objectionable as it is a simplification of the atmosphere system that effectively negates the greenhouse effect in view that the flat earth model has now been shown clearly to not work. Personally, I felt R Woods did a good enough job of that about a 111 years ago.
> I felt R Woods did a good enough job of that about a 111 years ago.
You’ll never guess what kind of stoopid modulz is Nic and Judy’s, Bill.
Willard please stop trolling
Sorry,
should be 900 w/m2, not 960 m/2
Insomnia 😌
I predict it will keep getting cooler for the rest of this year along with the North Atlantic and North Pacific. The ENSO signal is defined statistically and there are probabilities of certain weather patterns occurring but I dispute that it is as real as is claimed or that it overrides everything else that is happening globally.
donald penman
Maybe you could be somewhat less cryptic…
Until now, you just managed to say (+a) and (-a) in one sentence.
J.-P. D.
–Willard says:
April 14, 2021 at 11:28 AM
Clint,
Speaking of Kool-Aid, you might like:
4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.–
I believe Roy is lukewarmer, and I regard myself as definition of lukewarmer, but in regards to the above, I think I am more warm lukewarmer. As I don’t think CO2 cool much in upper atmosphere.
Or Venus has about 3 atm of N2 and a lot of CO2, yet the warmer air at 1 atm of pressure of Venus cools less than Earth’s 1 atm atmosphere. One aspect in the 40 watts which emit straight into space from the Earth surface {and I imagine most of it comes the land surface which is only 30% of the planet and has lower average temperature than the ocean- 10 C vs 17 C} but seems this 40 watts per average isn’t enough explain it. And one point to all the Venus clouds making up the difference. But I don’t that going to work.
Thanks, gb.
I think it’s important to note that Gordon, Clint, Mike, and kiddo are not playing home.
In fairness, I definitely am not either.
Roy would need some kind of Bender.
God I miss Bender.
Testing
https://da*vidapp*ell.blogspot.com/2016/05/energy-balance-diagrams-from-around.html?m=1
Willard, Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Just for fun.
Clint R describes his cube as having a base area of 1 unit and a total surface area of 5 units. It’s base is absorbing 900W/m^2.
If it is receiving 900 W/m^2 it is orbiting 190 million kilometres or 1.24 AU from the Sun, between the orbits of Earth and Mars.
If it’s base has an area of 1 square metre it’s base diameter is 64 centimetres and it’s height is 3.64 metres.
For Americans that is an orbital distance of 114 million miles, a base diameter of 25″ and a height of 11 feet 11 inches.
I shouldn’t do calculations late at night. The cone has a base 1.12m or 45″ wide and is 1.6m or 63″ high.
Goodnight
You corrected “cube” to “cone”.
You corrected the base diameter from 64 cm to 1.12 m.
But the height is 2.19 m, not 1.6 m.
And of course, the cone would be orbiting with the base always facing the inside of the orbit, meaning it would not be rotating about its axis.
We’re getting there….
Clint R,
You know it is possible for the cone to rotate around its axis while keeping the base towards the Sun all the way around the orbit.
That is if the cone is rotating around its height. Not quite like the way Uranus is rotating, but you might get the picture.
You got the height of your cone right though.
bob also came up with the example of a Harrier jet as “proof” that a passenger jet circumnavigating Earth would be flying backwards and sideways!
He’s so desperate to pervert reality.
CLint R,
You are misrepresenting what I said, for one, I never said a jet circumnavigating the globe flies backwards, I said it changes direction, and second you asked for an example of jets that fly backwards.
There you have it.
You need to lie to even try to win an argument.
bob, I’m glad you’re backing away from your false beliefs.
Keep backing up. You’re still stuck in the muck.
> Not quite like the way Uranus is rotating, but you might get the picture.
Harder for Clint to take a selfie of the dark side of Clint.
Clint R,
“bob, Im glad youre backing away from your false beliefs.”
I’m not backing away from anything, you are just lying about what I posted.
Well bob, here’s your chance to clear it up.
There are two models of “pure orbital motion”. (For clarity, that means a body is orbiting without rotating about its axis.) Non-Spinners are comfortable with either a ball-on-a-string, or a MGR wooden horse. Spinners use a body that is orbiting but always facing a distant star. That would mean a passenger jet circumnavigating Earth would have to fly sideways and backwards. That’s when you attempted to defend the false model with your Harrier jet.
Now you appear to be backing away from the bogus model.
Here’s your chance to clear it up.
Clint R,
Good then I can clear things up for you.
“Spinners use a body that is orbiting but always facing a distant star. That would mean a passenger jet circumnavigating Earth would have to fly sideways and backwards.”
That means a passenger jet circumnavigating the earth is not an example of your “pure orbital motion.”
Your definition of “pure orbital motion” is a cock of bull.
Crap you made up.
What you call “pure orbital motion” is actually synchronous rotation where the body rotates once per orbit.
Except you think the Moon doesn’t rotate, that only means you don’t understand science or you are ignorant or you are stupid.
You pick
bob, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Stop being stupid, and I will stop trolling, maybe.
#2
bob, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
So you are doubling down on stupid, then.
And there is no such thing as pure orbital motion, except in the minds of some clowns, trollish looking clowns at that.
#3
bob, please stop trolling.
Bob please stop trolling
I hope the UK has a cold winter this year we must be due one soon.
donald…”I hope the UK has a cold winter this year we must be due one soon”.
I think you have a far greater problem with Boris Hitler.
Yes Gordon you are right
The ever entertaining Woebegone Wee Willy wrote –
“Thanks, gb.
I think it’s important to note that Gordon, Clint, Mike, and kiddo are not playing home.
In fairness, I definitely am not either.
Roy would need some kind of Bender.
God I miss Bender.”
There is little evidence that Wee Willy actually thinks. He obviously fantasises that he does, and for some bizarre reason, assigns importance to his fantasy.
Stringing random words together to produce an incoherent and incomprehensible comment is not evidence of either thought, or importance.
Strange lad, our Wee Willy!
Good morning, Mike.
Strange lad, our Wee Willy!
He’s an information free troll, but at least wasting his time here keeps him off the streets.
Might as well keep humouring him. Hopefully, he’ll start posting irrelevant links so I can not click on them. Oh, the fun’
Thank you for that VERY informative comment, Mike.
Wee Willy,
At least you seem to accepting that Mike Flynn is not returning your affection.
Dropping the “Dear Mike”, and “Love” is a start, as is the attempted flattery by imitating him.
I’m better at that than you are, and I am not even motivated by an obsession with Mike Flynn, or love for him – go figure.
As I said before, I feel a moral obligation to help out those less fortunate than myself. You are but one such worthy cause. I accept your thanks, with gratitude.
Dear Mike,
You are more than welcome.
Love,
W
Willard, please stop trolling.
While I am here, a couple of points about “fluxes” of the climatological variety.
A “flux” from a colder object will not increase the temperature of a water. Insulation is not an example of increasing the temperature of a hotter body by radiation from a colder one. Remove the heat source, and both will cool to the same temperature.
A “flux” is not automatically absorbed by a body on which it impinges. For example, 1000 W/m2 from the Sun, at 5600K or so, may impinge on a suitably transparent glass. Some part of the energy will be absorbed, but the photons possessing energy levels of visible light will pass through unaffected. On the other hand, the same 1000 W/m2 impinging on germanium, will absorb visible photons, but transmit most IR. It will appear opaque to the eye.
Wood’s glass will allow both UV and IR to pass, while absorbing most visible light. All energy absorbed will result in heating of the material, and consequent emission of photons with energies proportional to temperature.
Self styled “climate scientists”, and their cultist followers, either have little knowledge of physics, or are intentionally issuing falsehoods, for some fraudulent reason.
Definitions, debating tactics, and consensus, will not fool Nature. Try it, and see how you get on.
> Woods glass will allow both UV and IR to pass, while absorbing most visible light
Readers might like this post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
Don’t miss the comment section!
swenson…”A flux from a colder object will not increase the temperature of a water”.
If the AGW alarmists see the truth in that their catastrophic warming hypothesis falls apart. Eli still thinks in his BP/GP thought experiment, heat can be transferred from the cooler GP to the warmer BP to increase the temperature of the BP. Of course, our resident experimenter, Swannie, thinks so too.
Built in to the AGW theory is sci-fi that a positive feedback exists between the cooler atmosphere and the warmer surface. Positive feedback cannot exist without an amplifier. If we had such an animal we could heat our homes for free while thumbing our noses at the perpetual motion myth.
Eli was given feedback from thermodynamics experts Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the theory behind his BP/GP thought experiment is wrong. He ignored them. When G&T told him that the 2nd law applied only to heat (not EM), and that only heat can be summed using the 2nd law, Eli kind of lost it. He claimed that with two bodies of different temperatures, radiating toward each other, that if the 2nd law did not apply to that situation, one of the bodies would not be radiating.
How did science fall to such a degree and get placed in the hands of idiots? In Texas, they abandoned all restrictions on covid, like social distancing and masks, and the number of ‘cases’ has dropped dramatically. Yet here we have that ass Fauci telling us that even after vaccination, we still cannot gather in crowds.
Gordon, the 2nd law applies to EMR. You have no hope if you write there is a process to which the 2nd law does not apply.
ball4…”the 2nd law applies to EMR. You have no hope if you write there is a process to which the 2nd law does not apply”.
The 2nd law as stated by Clausius in words as as follows: “Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body”.
Nothing about EM, although he did address EM later indirectly and claimed heat transfer via radiation must obey the 2nd law.
As I have pointed out several times, in the day of Clausius, no one knew anything about heat transfer by EM. Scientists as late as Planck thought heat moved through air as heat rays. It was not till 1913 that Bohr demonstrated how heat was actually transferred through air by EM waves.
The trick here is that heat must be converted to EM at the hotter end and converted back to heat at the cooler end. Therefore heat does not actually move through air/vacuum and no heat is transferred through the air/vacuum.
When you consider quantum theory, it all becomes clear. In the conversion of heat to EM, the electrons in the hotter body must drop to lower energy levels. Vice versa with absorp-tion. However, with absorp-tion, the EM must have a frequency and intensity high enough to cause the electrons to jump to a higher energy level. That is not possible if the EM comes from a cooler body.
There are other equally valid expressions of the second law other than the Clasuius statement.
You would know that if you ever took a course in themodynamics.
damn there is a missing r in there.
> Eli was given feedback from thermodynamics experts Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the theory behind his BP/GP thought experiment is wrong.
I like old Climateball war stories, Gordon:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
Gerhard is more of a stats guy, and Ralf works in magnetohydrodynamics. They know more about thermo than you and Clint, and that’s about it.
Arrhenius was dismissed on this topic a 100 years ago by folks who had not gradually and subtly been inculcated into the flat earth model.
The flat earth model has become a canard in the scientific community whose methods of extending science began to deviate from the scientific revolution back to the days of Ptolemy.
Fully inculcated into the flat earth model its admirers have completely lost touch with reality and the dynamic nature of the universe. . . ..
Science does not advance on the backs of the establishment. . . .it only does a great job given some equations to play with.
It takes an outsider like an Einstein to shake up the establishment and put them back in touch with reality and the dynamic nature of our universe, especially when too much love starts to be devoted in the direction of math and computers and too little respect is given to the principles of the scientific revolution.
So that when reality is actually demonstrated the imagination begins to find a hundred excuses to dismiss it.
bill…”So that when reality is actually demonstrated the imagination begins to find a hundred excuses to dismiss it”.
Bill…you should read the book, “The Ending of Time”, a transcribed discussion between Jiddu Krishnamurti and the physicist David Bohm. They ar discussing what you mention above, the difference between what is actually in the real world and how humans tends to see it.
Known in psychology as the ”lemming effect”.
willard…” Same if you use a resistor to heat a less insulated object vs a more insulated one – the insulation in both cases will always be colder than the object but the better insulated one will reach a warmer steady state.
and Eli later provided a simple experiment that demonstrates how an intermediate layer can hinder the cooling of a hotter one radiating to a cold exterior (e.g. just as the earth radiates IR energy through the intermediate atmosphere to cold space”.
***
I have read every attempt to obfuscate the 2nd law using thought experiments. Not one of the presentation addresses the facts that lead Clausius to create the 2nd law. He arrived at the 2nd law by studying the process of heat transfer in heat engines and he explains clearly why heat cannot, by it’s own means, be transferred from cold to hot.
If you follow the graphs of temperature, volume, and pressure in a heat engine cycle it becomes very apparent why the process cannot be reversed. In the universe, every process moves from a higher energy level to a lower energy level, except in alarmist climate science.
The thought experiments and other gibberish from the likes of Eli are aimed at creating red-herring arguments to get around the stringent requirements of the 2nd law. One such claim is this: if a net flow of energy between bodies of different temperatures is positive, then the 2nd law is satisfied, even though there is a blatant transfer of heat from a cold to hot.
A net balance of energy is a load of hooey that exists nowhere in physics. You cannot have a net balance between EM and heat, as Eli tried to imply. G&T have it right, where the 2nd law is concerned, any net balance must be between heat quantities, and not EM quantities.
The truth is that alarmists like Eli and his butt-kissing followers like you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. That is amplified with your ad hom attack on Gerlich, claiming he is a ‘stats’ guy. Gerlich taught advanced thermodynamics-related mathematics to university students. In his analysis of the AGW theory he applied Feynman diagrams, which are the furthest thing imaginable from statistics theory. His command of differential equation theory is not something one would expect from a statistics prof.
You ad hommed Tscheuschner as well, claiming his specialty is in magnetohydrodynamics. You got that from the wankers at scienceofdoom. a load of alarmist malcontents who cannot even explain the 2nd law.
Obviously, Tscheuschner, to get a degree in thermodynamics, had to study every aspect of thermodynamics. Yet here we have idiots at SoD claiming he does not understand how heat is transferred through air.
Here is a dumbass comment from SoD: “Clearly conductivity is the least important of means of heat transfer in the atmosphere. ….”.
What kind of idiot would make such a claim? Kids in grade school are taught that heated air rises but first it has to get its heat from a heat source, like the surface, via conduction. As the heated air rises, that becomes heat transfer by convection.
As gbaikie is fond of pointing out, the largest heat source on the planet are the oceans. According to Lindzen, heat is transferred from the Tropics pole-ward via convection. Most of the Tropics are oceans. First, it has to be transferred to the air molecules via conduction. It’s equally obvious that it is the 99% N2/O2 molecules doing the heat transfer.
Air is comprised of 99% oxygen and nitrogen. These clowns as well as you are claiming that 99% of the atmosphere does nothing while a trace gas transfers all the heat.
Hello!!!…is anybody in there? The lights appear to be on but no one appears to be home.
You have no idea what’s an ad hominem, Gordon, but you still might like:
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
“But trace gas” is another square:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Notice that “but trace gas” does not cohere with “but plant food,” so the next time you’ll say that CO2 is the basis of life I’ll remind you that you used “but trace gas.”
But trace gas, food in short supply.
If you want to see food in shorter supply, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
> food in short supply
Where, Bill?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not all solar radiation reaches the ground even that which is not simply reflected so we are talking about how much the surface is heated by incoming solar radiation and how much it cools during the times when there is no solar radiation, this cannot be simply averaged.
Any 2D field can be averaged both spatially and temporally. This is true regardless of whether the field is temperature, humidity, wind speed, lapse rate, absorbed solar radiation (ASR), outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), and countless other fields that have defined values in space and time. You can, in fact, simply average any of these fields. These averages are useful and interesting properties of the body being analyzed and it is done ubiquitously nearly all disciplines of science without controversy.
bdgwx, no, temperature cannot be properly averaged as it is an intensive property. There are many cases where properly averaging an extensive property and converting to temperature work out just fine though as is the case with Earth’s global thermometer readings.
ball4, I’m not sure I’m understanding your point here. Can you give me an example where computing a mean from a 2D temperature field is improper?
Perhaps this would help:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/does-a-global-temperature-exist/
willard…”Perhaps this would help:”
Nothing from realclimate could help anyone understand real physics. This paper is nothing more than an ad hom attack on a paper co-authored by Ross McKitrick because he is a skeptic.
McKitrick, with his partner Steve McIntyre of the site climateaudit, seriously kicked the butt of Mann, a co-owner of realclimate by exposing the ridiculous statistical analyses used by Mann et al on the hockey stick sci-fi.
> because he is a skeptic.
See, Gordon? *That* is an ad hominem argument. Here’s what is *not* one:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/does-a-global-temperature-exist/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Please stick to concept you understand enough to apply properly.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdg…”Any 2D field can be averaged both spatially and temporally. This is true regardless of whether the field is temperature….”
Do you understand that temperature is a human invention? If so, what is being averaged? Temperature is a human-derived means of measuring relative levels of heat. Since heat is defined by Clausius as the average kinetic energy of atoms, then average temperature in a room would be the average kinetic energy of the air molecules in the room.
It’s easy to create a set of equations describing a mental construct but the question that begs to be answered is what it really means.
The simple cone example demonstrated that flux is NOT conserved. Seeing how the idiots could not understand the simple example also demonstrated why the AGW nonsense has gone on so long. There are a lot of idiots in the world.
But, one of the ways the idiots tried to confuse the simple example was to keep claiming the incoming 900 W/m^2 to base was the same as 180 W/m^2 distributed over the entire cone.
They were dividing 900 by 5, because the base was 1/5 of the total area. They claimed that was valid.
Dividing is valid for energy, since energy is a scalar. But dividing “flux” doesn’t work. The perfect example is a BB sphere floating in space. If the sphere is absorbing 240 W/m^2 from all directions, then it’s maximum temperature, anywhere on its surface, would only be 255K. But, if the sphere were absorbing flux from only one direction, its maximum temperature would be close to 361K, depending on things like its rotation and thermal conductivity.
The point is, flux can NOT be divided, unless you WANT erroneous results, like much colder temperatures.
Comparing Earth to an imaginary BB sphere absorbing 240 W/m^2 over its surface results in a temperature much colder than Earth. So then, they can claim “something” must be supplying that extra warmth….
“But, one of the ways the idiots tried to confuse the simple example was to keep claiming the incoming 900 W/m^2 to base was the same as 180 W/m^2 distributed over the entire cone.”
Again — “moving the goalpost fallacy”. Again, I can’t tell if this is intentional or from insufficient understanding of what was said.
I don’t recall anyone saying the two are “the same”. For example, I said it provided an equivalent amount of power. I said it had the same average power. I never said it was the same.
But feel free to find a quote from someone who actually said what you claim.
“Comparing Earth to an imaginary BB sphere absorbing 240 W/m^2 over its surface results in a temperature much colder than Earth. “
It turns out that comparing Earth to an imaginary BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 from one direction will result in an even colder sphere. You can’t eliminate the need for the GHE by ‘correctly’ applying the flux from the sun. That actually makes things worse! 480 applied uniformly to 1/2 of the earth would give an average temperature of 303/2 = 152 K. 960 applied uniformly to 1/4 of the earth would give an average temperature of 361/4 = 90 K. 960 applied from one direction over the surface of a sphere would give a number somewhere between 152K and 90 K. (Again, depending on thermal conductivity and rotation as you noted. (and you could actually get ABOVE 361 K by manipulating the emissivity.))
‘Correcting’ the distribution of incoming flux *increases* the need for the GHE!
TF, all your blah-blah was a great effort to avoid reality.
But, the reality is still there…
But dividing “flux” doesn’t work. The perfect example is a BB sphere floating in space. If the sphere is absorbing 240 W/m^2 from all directions, then its maximum temperature, anywhere on its surface, would only be 255K. But, if the sphere were absorbing flux from only one direction, its maximum temperature would be close to 361K, depending on things like its rotation and thermal conductivity.
Now you get to avoid reality again.
But, if the sphere were absorbing flux from only one direction, its maximum temperature would be close to 361K, depending on things like its rotation and thermal conductivity and the amount of unspecified flux from one direction.
DREMT was right to point out Clint R cannot write about science correctly
Once again … I don’t recall anyone saying the two are “the same”. For example, I said it provided an equivalent amount of power. I said it had the same average power. I never said it was the same.
But feel free to find a quote from someone who actually said what you claim — or to just ignore the reality of your misunderstanding.
Also, I exactly agreed with your calculations leading to 255 K and 361 K. Its pretty hard to say I am “avoiding reality” by agreeing with you when you are correct.
TF, here are your own words: I don’t recall anyone saying the two are “the same”. For example, I said it provided an equivalent amount of power. I said it had the same average power. I never said it was the same.
Your problem is “average” power is NOT the same as “peak” power. That’s the physics you don’t understand. For the cone, 900 W/m^2 absorbed by the base is NOT the same as 180 W/m^2 absorbed of the entire surface of the cone. You don’t understand that. bdgwx does NOT understand that. None of the GHE nonsense idiots on this blog understand that.
And once again, I never said “average” power and “peak” power were “the same”. I even said “Clint has a point that there is no place on the cone that is absorbing 180 W/m^2 it is specifically absorbing 900 W/m^2 some places and 0 W/m^2 other places. ” So clearly I know they are not “the same”. Why do you keep attacking that strawman?
I *do* claim they have the same net result when applied to the cone = a temperature of 237 K (for an excellent thermal conductor).
TF, every time I try to teach you something, you claim something like: And once again, I never said “average” power and “peak” power were “the same”.
What I’m trying to teach you is, for the cone, 900 W/m^2 absorbed by the base is NOT the same as 180 W/m^2 absorbed of the entire surface of the cone. Flux can NOT be averaged, just as power cannot be averaged.
Most people would then understand the resulting consequences.
Clint, what I am trying to teach you is about 3 steps ahead of you. I *know* that The two are not “the same”. I have specifically said they are not the same several times. I knew that years before I met you. (Or you could pretend you just ‘taught me’ and that I now believe you.)
Now that we both know they are not the same, the NEXT step is to figure out what is similar and what is different. In this case, one key similarity is that both incoming flux options lead to 900 J of energy being absorbed by the cone every second. The “resulting consequence” is that in either case the cone must in turn radiate 900 J each second when steady state is reached.
One difference is how they radiate that 900 J. And actually, in several interesting cases, even the outgoing radiation is the same: excellent thermal conductivity and light on the base and also uniform incoming radiation and any thermal conductivity.
Of course, the outgoing radiation is different for unidirectional incoming radiation and poor thermal conduction. No surprise. Not something that anyone in this discussion needs to be ‘taught’ by you.
TF, now that you admit there is a difference between peak power and average power, let’s take it to the next level.
A homogeneous BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 would have a temperature at equilibrium of 255K.
BUT, Earth does not fit into that category. Earth has peak temperatures caused by peak power absorbed. A point on Earth actually can absorb more than 960 W/m^2. The PEAK far exceeds the average of 240 W/m^2. That raises the average temperature.
In addition, Earth has oceans and other mass that have large heat capacity. Earth demonstrates the ability to maintain its average temperature where it is. Thermodynamics works. While geothermal does not affect peak temperatures, it does affect minimum temperatures. And that means geothermal can raise average temperature, however minimally.
So to compare the 255K, which is the COLDEST possible average temperature for the incoming energy, to Earth, is ludicrous anti-science.
Translation: The 33K difference between Earth average temperature (288K), and a hypothetical BB sphere’s temperature (255K) means NOTHING.
(Just some more science for idiots and trolls to deny.)
Clint, now that you realize that I have know the difference between peak power and averaGE POWER FOR DECADES, lets take it to the next level.
“A homogeneous BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 would have a temperature at equilibrium of 255K.
I assume you meant 240 W/m2. The statement “absorbing 960 W/m^2” without any qualifiers would mean that much everywhere, which would be 371 K.
“The PEAK far exceeds the average of 240 W/m^2. That raises the average temperature.
No, that LOWERS the average temperature! With an average of 240 W/m^2, the HIGHEST average temperature is with uniform radiation, which gives 255 K everywhere. Any other distribution will necessarily have a lower average temperature.
One quick example. 960 over 1/4 of the earth and 0 over the rest would be 371K for 1/4 of the earth and 0K for the rest, for an average of (371 + 0 + 0 + 0)/4 = 93 K.
“Earth demonstrates the ability to maintain its average temperature where it is…” which would be no more than 255 K with and average power of 240 W/m^2
And that means geothermal can raise average temperature, however minimally.
All estimates of geothermal heat flow are way less than 1 W/m^2. Even being generous, that would be no more than a few 1/10’s of a degree of warming.
“So to compare the 255K, which is the COLDEST possible average temperature for the incoming energy, to Earth, is ludicrous anti-science.”
Again this is simply wrong. I showed you two possible distributions with a MUCH colder average temperatures earlier. Even a small variation from a uniform distribution — 230 W/m^2 on one half and 250 W/m^2 on the other half — leads to a cooling of about 0.03 K. The “T^4” factor guarantees that the average will be lower no matter how you move away from uniform incoming flux.
“Just some more science for idiots and trolls to deny.”
And TF did a great job!
Yes the response to the flat earth model failing is more flat earth model.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-665957
Science doesn’t operate based on who throws out the most insults, Clint.
I specifically showed you were wrong with a simple, concrete example. If you had anything useful to say, the proper response would be to try to show my error. Or to accept that I am right.
I think that actually what you need to do is build an experiment that shows how the radiant effect from a cooler atmosphere warms the surface.
Seems the folks constructing simple experiments aren’t getting any closer. Perhaps you can save the flat earth model with a few hundred dollars worth of materials. Ya think?
“I think that actually what you need to do is build an experiment that shows how the radiant effect from a cooler atmosphere warms the surface.”
bill, once again you are just behind in your atm. studies and reading. Dr. Spencer did so back in June 2015.
Still waiting for your experiment that shows S&O goofed.
Sage advice for anybody waiting for that. . . .don’t hold your breath.
I’m still not seeing anything to refute Happer’s claim that doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in a decrease of thermal radiation to space of 3Wm-2.
It’s hard to refute claims about the future before their expiration date, Ken.
Since we don’t want 800 ppm, I don’t mind if that never happens.
Happer was accepting the claim to just show how it wouldn’t matter.
The reality is a doubling of CO2 has a slight cooling effect.
> doubling of CO2 has a slight cooling effect.
ROY WAS HERE:
4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Even Roy found your silly tropes too silly for his contrarian brand, Clint.
Thermal energy CO2 absorbs from surface is already energy in the system. No additional energy is added to system.
CO2 allows thermal energy to be emitted to space. That’s “cooling”.
More CO2 – more cooling.
–Willard says:
April 15, 2021 at 11:09 AM
> doubling of CO2 has a slight cooling effect.
ROY WAS HERE:
4. CO2 COOLS, NOT WARMS, THE ATMOSPHERE. This one is a little more subtle because the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere, and warm the lower atmosphere, compared to if no greenhouse gases were present. Since any IR absorber is also an IR emitter, a CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/ —
If significant amount of upper atmosphere is cooling to space,
then this result would cause earth surface absorbs more heat.
But I think the body of ocean absorbs heat.
Or Earth because it absorbs 240 watts and emits 240 {emitting a bit less than 1/2 of 240 watts on nightside of the sunlight energy it absorbed on daylight side of planet- unlike the Moon or Mars {or Mercury} whereas Venus like Earth somewhat uniformly emit on nightside {but including both day and nightside, Venus absorbs and emits less the 240 watts.}
I think reason Earth absorb and emit the most is because Earth has ocean and not solely due to greenhouse gases reducing the amount emitted to space.
But due to sunlight being the most intense in small part of globe, about 1/5th area of global. Or the surface of moon on dayside cools below 0 C before the daylight is over.
So in lunar morning, lunar surface is warming and absorbing heat,
then around 2 pm, the sunlight warming surface but surface is cooling as compared the noontime high surface temperature. And by 6 pm, surface lower 0 C and lost most heat from the sun during day. It surface temperature has dropped by 120 C before sunset.
Or course part of this has to do with the Moon’s slow rotation, but Mars 24 earth hour day, I guess would be 40 to 50 C drop by sunset. Or I say 1/2 reason the Moon doesn’t absorb or retain it’s heat longer, due to it’s slow rotation. Though Earth with it’s ocean and at moon’s slow rate rotation is 1/10th of that effect from such as slow rotation.
Or I would guess that Earth with 29 day, Day, would absorb about 220 watts rather 240 watts.
A thought experiment the ENSO La Nina/El Nino phases piles up water then releases it. Lets turn the Pacific into a billiard table when the water has piled up and then place a ball on it I don’t think the ball will move and this shows how much reality in climate science is statistical and not from observation.
donald penman
Better than any thought experiment is to try to understand what professional people do (what dumb Pseudoskeptics use to denigrate as being an ‘appeal to authority’).
Japan is, due to its geographical position, highly dependent on both ENSO observations and forecasts, and they inevitably have accumulated a lot of experience in the field:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/move_mricom-g2_doc.html
Hopefully you manage to carefully read these documents.
I apologize for the critique, but… the thought level you present in your comment reminds me the endless Moon discussion on this blog, where some arrogant ‘experts’ compare the complex motion of our satellite with, for example, that of
– a ball fixed on a string, or
– a horse on a merry-go-round.
Good grief!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, the ball-on-a-string and mgr horse are examples of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Neither example was offered as a “perfect” model of Moon’s motion. They are merely simple examples that an orbiting body that is not also rotating about its axis, will have the same side always facing the center of orbit, like Moon.
This has been explained to you numerous times. Keep misrepresenting reality. That’s all you can do.
They are merely simple examples that an orbiting body that is not also rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit, will have the same side always facing the center of orbit, like Moon.
This has been explained to Clint R numerous times. Keep misrepresenting reality. That’s all Clint R can do.
Clint R
Feel free to replicate ad nauseam your utter, unscientific nonsense as long as you want.
People like you write and write and write, without any ability to convince anybody – except the four or five conterarian Flatearthists who share your ‘opinion’.
You are an absolute ignorant in comparison to all scientists who observed, quantified and computed Moon’s spin.
And you never will be able to learn out of what they did: because you are a stubborn and arrogant person, who thinks he knows better – against all evidence.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, your ineffective flak confirms that I’m right on target.
Thanks.
Clint R,
You fucked it up this time.
“will have the same side always facing the center of orbit, like Moon.”
Nope, the Moon’s face does not point to the center of its orbit, except momentarily a few times each orbit.
bob, did you get hung up on semantics again, or are you just desperate as usual?
I suspect it’s both….
Earth always sees the same basic side of Moon.
Now you can have a fit over many of the words — “always”, “sees”, “basic”, and “side”. It’s a pedantic idiot’s dream!
bob, did you get hung up on semantics again, or are you just desperate, as usual?
I suspect its both.
Earth always sees the same side of Moon.
Now you can have a fit over “always”, “sees”, “same”, and “side”. It’s a pedantic idiot’s dream!
Clint R,
Try an observer always sees the the same 59% of the Moons surface from the Earth because the Moon rotates with the same period that it orbits.
Remember an ellipse has no center.
bobd…”Nope, the Moons face does not point to the center of its orbit, except momentarily a few times each orbit”.
It’s close enough. The measure of that is how far we can see around the edge of the Moon at full libration, which is a few degrees.
Although the orbit is slightly elliptical, it’s close enough to a circle to be regarded as such. The fact that the same face always points to the Earth suggests strongly that a radial line through the Moon perpendicular to the tangent line of the Moon at any point in its orbit, is pointing within the Earth and likely very close to the centre of the Earth.
Gordon,
Are you sure, can you show your fucking work?
Misses by miles, I believe.
bob, please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
Why should I stop trolling and leave the trolling to you.
By the way, clowns, the Moons orbit is an ellipse and therefore has no center.
#2
bob, please stop trolling.
Please tell the Irish water skier. He’s been looking for a sea with a slope.
A SEA OF GUINNESS
Oh, my….
According to NOAA’s April 08, 2021 ENSO Projection Report, it looks like this La Nina cycle could be a double-dip event with a second La Nina cycle emerging in about 7 months.
If this does actually occur, UAH 6.0 could hit -0.4C by this time next year:
Not a good time to be a CAGW religious cultist:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
We’ll see soon enough what actually happens…
Scientific American replaces ‘climate change’ with ‘climate emergency’
Scientific American magazine announced Monday that it would stop using the term “climate change” in articles about man-made global warming and substitute “climate emergency” instead.
“Journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here,” Scientific American senior editor Mark Fischetti said in a Monday post about the magazine’s decision.
T,
Richard Feynman –
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it.”
Swenson –
When someone says “science says”, they are likely to be either a fool or a fraud.
You can believe that climate is an emergency (and the Scientific American cannot say what that is), or you can believe that climate is the average of historical weather records, by definition.
There is no such thing as a global climate. Don’t believe me? Try writing it down. Only fools or frauds are silly enough to think climate is dependent on temperature alone – as in man-made global warming.
Climate has no effect on weather. It is an average – a number. Only the gullible or mentally afflicted think otherwise.
Swenson 6:33 AM
I’ll see your Feynman and raise you three of my own:
“In nature there are neither rewards nor punishment there are only consequences.”
“We cannot control the wind, but we can adjust the sails.”
“Enjoy the party, but dance near the door.”
I’ll raise you three
If you plant ice, you’re going to harvest wind.
I’ve heard it said, it’s hard to run with the weight of gold.
But it’s twice as hard with the weight of lead.
And the heat came by and busted me, for smiling on a cloudy day.
Tyson-san:
There isn’t a “Climate Emergency”…
We’ve ENJOYED about 0.9C of beneficial global warming since the end of Little Alice Age in 1850, most of which was from natural factors…
Warmer global temps have: lengthened growing seasons, reduced early-spring frost loss, greatly increase arable land ares in Northern latitudes, reduced exposure deaths, made winters less cold, less severe and shorter, saved $trillions in heating costs, etc.
Higher CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels have increased crop yields by 15% (worth $3 trillion/year), and increased global greening equivalent to 1.5 TIMES the land area of the continental US, and made plants much more drought resistant (shrinking leaf stomata/=less plant water loss), etc.
BTW, IPCC’s AR5 Report admits that over the past 75 years, there have been NO increasing global trends in frequency or intensity of: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods and hail… Ooops…
> Higher CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels have increased crop yields by 15%
Citation needed.
Willard-san:
Here’s a link to USDA report concluding 33% crop yield increase per CO2 doubling….
Oh, the humanity:
https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/pubag/downloadPDF.xhtml?id=53689&content=PDF
Thank you, Sir!
From the horse’s mouth:
https://phys.org/news/2016-04-global-culprit-crops.html
The paper in question, based on real fields, give mitigated results:
Willard-san:
You are a liar.
Here is the final conclusion of the USDA paper is cited:
The large body of prior experimental data is sufficiently representative to provide a more reliable prediction of future C02 effects than can be obtained from the limited number of such experiments
that are in progress or planned for the next several years. Thus, it appears from the analysis of the prior data that agricultural yields will increase overall by about 33% with a doubling of the earths
C 0 2 concentration.
If Leftists believe the CAGW Hoax is so irrefutable, why must they always lie when trying to defend this scam?
Leftists are such scumbags…
SAMURAI,
CO2 is good for plants, but up to a point. Warming is good for plants, but up to a point. If the point up to which warming is good for plants is reached earlier than their optimal CO2 level, then it’s warming we must be monitoring.
I quoted your authority.
Deal with it.
Willard says:
CO2 is good for plants, but up to a point.
================================
That is correct. Greenhouse growers have found something around 2,000ppm to be about optimum.
+
+
+
+
+
Willard says:
Warming is good for plants, but up to a point. If the point up to which warming is good for plants is reached earlier than their optimal CO2 level, then its warming we must be monitoring.
I quoted your authority.
=================================
It seems academics like creating agriculture studies on temperatures and crop yields based upon the concept that a farmer is about as useful in making decisions about what to grow as a rock or tree stump in his field.
Better to consult a butterfly collector.
Ooops slipped up there. Thinking like a businessman.
Growers found 2000ppm to be about optimum applying it to an economic model. After 2000ppm the benefits do not outweigh the marginal costs of purchasing and shipping larger quantities of CO2.
> Growers found 2000ppm to be about optimum applying it to an economic model.
Which model, Bill?
I hope that model isn’t referring to a whole planet!
Willard we are talking about growing food. I don’t know of any upper limits on it. You have any evidence of some?
samurai said: If this does actually occur, UAH 6.0 could hit -0.4C by this time next year
Unlikely. The largest departure below the trend line is 0.47. To hit an anomaly of -0.4C in Feb/Mar of 2022 would require a departure of 0.62 below the trend line. This would be a 3.4 sigma event. The most recent La Nina only pulled us 0.22 below the trend line. Double dip La Nina events do not lead to the same amount of cooling as the previous event. The last time this occurred was Feb of 2012 which only ended being 0.08 cooler than Mar 2011. My guess…should La Nina develop again later this year with -1.0 or so magnitude it will probably send us down to -0.2C +/- 0.1.
Bdgwx-san:
I called -0.2C for the current La Nia cycle which will likely occur by end May,
If there is a double dip La Nia later this year, there will be a 5 SD event by around May of next year.
Like I said, I is not real good time to be a CAGW religious cultists.
Just wait until the PDO & AMO switch to their respective 30-year cool cycles in a few years, after which, CAGW will be disconfirmed and Leftists will lose massive amounts of credibility and power for inflicting the biggest and most expensive scam in human history… tick-took, tick-tick…
A 5D event would be an anomaly of -0.7C.
Can you define CAGW objectively?
Bdgwx-san:
Your silly CAGW religious cult believes in the prophesies of CMIP6 model projections.
According to your CMIP6 bible, by 2022, global temps are projected to be 1.35C for a 2SD=0.73C, 4SD around 0.0C, and 5SD around -0.3C…
Your CAGW religious cult is already screwed, even if there isn’t a double-dip La Niña this year.
So your definition of CAGW is 1.35C of warming?
bdgwx read the post again. I am reading that 1.35C isn’t CAGW.
I read it as CAGW is what CMIP6 shows. samurai specifically pointed out that CMIP6 shows 1.35C by 2022.
bdgwx-san:
According to the CMIP6 prophesies, the global temp average anomalies are supposed to be around 1.23C a year from now… LOL!
CAGW is so screwed regardless of whether a double-dip occurs.
CAGW’s silly religion now predicts ECS will be 1.5C~5C.. LOL!!! Quite a range these religious idiots pretend is “settled science”…
Be afraid, be very very afraid that your CAGW religion has already failed you…
BTW, actual ECS will likely be around 0.8C~1.2C…
Typo: should read 1.35C CMIP5 projection for this time next year….
Like I said 5+ SD event between CMIP6 projects vs UAH 6.0 if a double dip La Nina event occurs.
CAGW is sooooooo screwed, regardless of wether a double-dip La Niña occurs at the end of of this year.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
1.35C is an awfully low bar for “catastrophic”. In fact, that is the lowest threshold for “catastrophic” I’ve seen. Do you feel like these low threshold values for “catastrophic” are becoming more accepted by contrarians?
bdgwx-san:
You wrote, 1.35C is an awfully low bar for catastrophic. In fact, that is the lowest threshold for catastrophic Ive seen.
You are correct. A global temp anomaly of just 1.35C certainly is not catastrophic and I never said it was…
This 1.35C i referred to is what the hilarious CMIP6 models project the mean global temperature anomaly will be in 2022…
The hilarious CAGW religious cult want their zealots to believe ECS will be 3C~5C, and that any global temp anomaly above 1.5C is a catastrophic event, and demand global governments waste $100s of trillions in CO2 mitigation/sequestration to keep the global temp anomaly below 1.5C (until a few seconds ago, the CAGW cults threshold for catastrophe was 2C…..
As I said, all physics and empirical evidence show ECS will be between 0.8C and 1.2C, and will likely be closer to 0.8C.
The CAGW cult is already a disconfirmed hypothesis because the hypothetical projections have already exceeded 2 SDs for a statistically significant duration, and the disparities will only become greater once the PDO and AMO soon reenter their respective 30-year cool cycles, which will likely happen within 3 years..
Like I said it is not a good time to be a CAGW cultists… tick, rock, tick tick…
So I saw you throw out 1.5C above. Do you feel the threshold for CAGW is 1.5C warming?
SAMURAI said: As I said, all physics and empirical evidence show ECS will be between 0.8C and 1.2C, and will likely be closer to 0.8C.
The planet has already warmed 1.2C. And that’s just the TCR with about 1.5xCO2.
SAMURAI said: the hypothetical projections have already exceeded 2 SDs for a statistically significant duration
Not according to your link. There has not been a 2 SD excursion since 1929. We should have expected 4 excursions. We got 0. CMIP5 and CMIP6 predict 1.24C and 1.31C +/- 0.3 respectively. 2019 was observed to be 1.19C. That is easily within 1 SD nevermind 2 SD.
In addition the 1880-2019 warming trend was +0.07C/decade. CMIP5 predicted +0.08C/decade while CMIP6 predicted +0.07C/decade. I don’t know about you, but that looks pretty good to me.
Can you present an alternative model that performs better than CMIP5 or CMIP6?
bdgwx says:
”The planet has already warmed 1.2C. And thats just the TCR with about 1.5xCO2.”
Its always good to disclose that you are comparing apples to oranges bdgwx.
SAMURAI expressed an ECS .8 to 1.2 that appears to be his opinion, though he stated without reference how it was supported by physics.
You jumped in and said it has already warmed 1.2C without even expressing how much you thought was due to CO2.
bill said: You jumped in and said it has already warmed 1.2C without even expressing how much you thought was due to CO2.
Fair point.
CO2 accounts for 75% of the net RF. See IPCC AR5 WGI table 8.2, 8.6, and 8.18. 0.75 * 1.2C = 0.9C with 55% of 2xCO2 forcing. That is 0.9C / 0.55 = 1.6C at 100% 2xCO2 for TCR.
The EEI is +0.8 W/m^2 which means the current 1.2C of total TCR occurred with 2.6 – 0.8 = +1.8 W/m^2 of forcing. That is a climate sensitivity of 1.2 / 1.8 = 0.66C per W/m^2. And with 75% of the EEI being attributed to CO2 that means 0.6 * 0.66 = 0.4C of additional warming for a final ECS of 0.9 + 0.4 = 1.3C at 55% of 2xCO2. So the 100% of 2xCO2 ECS would be 1.3 / 0.55 = 2.4C of warming. That is assuming the climate sensitivity in C per W/m^2 does not change for the remaining 45% of the 2xCO2 forcing.
A 2xCO2 ECS as low as 1.2C can be eliminated with very high confidence.
And if 1.5C is samurai’s threshold for “catastrophic” effects then it is almost certain that 2xCO2 will be beyond “catastrophic”. Personally, my bar for “catastrophic” is much higher than 1.5C. 2.4C does not even come close to being “catastrophic” in my book.
”A 2xCO2 ECS as low as 1.2C can be eliminated with very high confidence.”
Yes indeed bdgwx if one wants to attribute omniscience as being just one of the God-like qualities of the IPCC.
Bdgwx-san:
All the empirical evidence show we have enjoyed about 0.9C of beneficial global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (1280~1850), for a trend of 0.05C/decade.
Most of this beneficial warming we have enjoyed was from LIA recovery, the 1933~1996 Grand Solar Maximum (strongest solar event in 11,400 years), natural variation, El Nino events, AMO/PDO warm cycles, regular solar cycles, natural Jet Stream warm cycles, natural ocean current flux, etc.
For example, during the last PDO warm cycle (1910~1945), the global temp trend was 0.14C/decade, which is EXACTLY the warming trend during the current PDO warm cycle (1978~present). Obviously, CO2 had almost nothing to do with it as CO2 emissions were very low at that time….
Then, when the PDO switched to its cool cycle from 1945~1978, global temps FELL (-0.02C/decade) to the point Leftist scientists were bloviating about manmade COOLING will cause a catastrophic New Ice Age caused by particulates from….burning fossil fuels….. Oops…
Then when the PDO switched to its warm cycle from 1978~present, global temps started warming again (0.14C/decade—same as 1910~1944), and Leftist charlatans switched to catastrophic manmade global WARMING caused by….CO2 emissions—what a joke…
As I mentioned, the physics show ECS forcing is a max 1.2C (5.35watts/M^2 x ln(560/280ppm) x(.31) Stephan-Boltzmann constant=1.2C, and If you factor in negative feedbacks from increased cloud cover from CO2 warming, you get an ECS of around 0.8C…
Physics show that ALL greenhouse (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) generate a total of around 33C of beneficial warming… Without GHG warming, earth would be a frozen ball of ice…
There have been 10 doublings 1ppm~400ppm of CO2 in earth’s history, so my assumption of CO2’s ECS of 0.8C, CO2 contributes about 8C of the total 33C of GHG warming, and water vapor about 25C. That sounds about right given H20 absorbs almost the entire LWIR spectrum and is 30,000ppm compared to CO2 at 412ppm, which ONLY absorbs LWIR at 15 microns…
If CAGW ECS of 5C is true, then CO2 has generated 50C (5C x 10 doublings) of global warming over earth history and H20 COOLS the earth by 17C… I do not think so…
The earth has been around 4.5 billion years.. I think we can wait 10 years to see what cooling comes when the PDO and AMO switch to their 30-year cool cycles in 3~5 years before world governments waste $100s of Trillions on the CAGW hoax…
samurai,
PDO has averaged -0.25 from 1880-2020. The surface warmed 1.2C.
PDO has averaged -0.19 from 1979-2020. The surface warmed 0.9C.
Keep in mind that the PDO is itself a measure of warming that is detrended. Also note that PDO does not directly create a planetary energy imbalance. It is just an oscillation that effects heat transfer processes in the climate system.
Solar activity peaked in 1956. The surface warmed 1.0C.
Solar activity declined significant after 1996. The surface warmed 0.5C.
Per Schmidt 2010 CO2 contributes 6.6C, H20 contributes 16.5C, clouds contribute 8.2C, and all others contribute 1.7C.
The 1.2C figure you cite for 2xCO2 is the no-feedback value. If you include fast feedbacks the 95% CI is 2.3 – 4.7C (Sherwood 2020). Cloud feedbacks are more likely than not to be positive.
So is 5C of warming “catastrophic”? If that is the threshold then the IPCC’s 1.5 – 4.5C of warming is definitely below the threshold. Personally, I still think 5C is too low of threshold to be described as “catastrophic”. But to each his own.
bdgwx what is in the ‘all others’ category?
CFCs, O3, N2O, and other trace gas species.
bdgwx
Samurai-san belongs to those I call the ‘Coolistas’.
And I can’t stop repeating that Warmistas indeed aren’t good, but that conversely, Coolistas are even worse.
None of his Cooling predictions in the recent years ever could be confirmed.
*
It is really amazing to note, by the way, that all of these Skeptics are constantly discrediting NOAA and other institutions in terms of their temperature series – because these series show, in their opinion, excessive warming – but that conversely, all agree with NOAA if it predicts a strong La Nina for the near future.
In my native tongue we use to say: “Deux poids, deux mesures, serait-on tenté de conclure”.
J.-P. D.
I read above:
” How did science fall to such a degree and get placed in the hands of idiots? In Texas, they abandoned all restrictions on covid, like social distancing and masks, and the number of cases has dropped dramatically. ”
Here you clearly see who the true idiots are.
You just need to download C D C data, and to compute a centered weekly running mean out of it, of course scaled according to Texas’ population:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D9Rk9Mg65Gs9wTwSFY8atlql-0T3bBQp/view
and you immediately see that ‘the number of cases has dropped dramatically‘ LONG, LONG BEFORE Texas’ governor Abbott lifted mask mandate on 2021, March 10!
That is how dumb, ignorant asses try to manipulate this blog’s readers – not only with regard to COVID19, of course.
J.-P. D.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/06/on-the-absence-of-a-measurable-greenhouse-effect-part-1-the-failure-of-ipcc-energy-budgets/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/06/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-2-moving-to-reality/
https://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/07/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-3-in-pictures/
Just wait until Clint reads this:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/07/05/meaningful-conjunctions/
A science man that knows how to handle the unknown makes for the best kind of scientist.
A man that observes a science man opining on the unknown who concludes the man must not be a good scientist is indeed the guy who is not a good scientist.(period emphasis)
The Auditing man who relies on “but science” too often is not a good auditor.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-665957
Especially,
”We have there stories of scientists puttering around hundreds of different ideas of how the climate works incessantly pushing parameters around like so many shuffle board pucks that never affects the bottom line of future predictions?
Any accountant with half a wit is going to expect Bernie Madoff to be at the key board.”
Bernie fooled investors like you, Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Manual pingback:
My point that the energy balance estimates being conservative (because, geometry) has not been made by Roy.
Let’s add the pingbacked URL:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-664848
Your point about energy balance estimates being conservative (because, geometry) was not made by Dr Spencer because your point is nonsensical and displays a complete ignorance of the subject under discussion. Dr Spencer may have a point about the GCMs if and only if they do not use the P/4 in their math.
> your point is nonsensical and displays a complete ignorance of the subject under discussion
A disc of circumference C is smaller than a hemisphere with the same C, kiddo.
Try to refute that.
I agree. But that has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Of course it does, kiddo.
Here’s your claim:
A flat disk has less area than a hemisphere, and flux is a number of watts per square meter. I really don’t mind if you insist in a model with a bigger area. If you abstract away any notion of area, you get a dimensionless Earth, one that receives all its energy as if it was a single, indivisible point. Is this what you want?
And since GCMs are circulation models, you bet they’re 3D! Check this for instance:
ftp://ftp.atdd.noaa.gov/pub/GCOS/Geoengineering/Energy%20Balance%20Climate%20Models.pdf
***
I’m only a ninja, and all I’m willing to be corrected if I’m saying anything wrong here. Still, I think I know enough about models to see that Joseph’s pulling a fast one.
He’s very clever, that Jo. Very clever. But it’s chickens all the way down.
When you divide by 4, the value for the flux you end up with is 240 W/m^2. When you divide by 2 (which you do if you treat the input in real time, i.e. as I explained before, with the sunlight falling only over the lit hemisphere whilst in the same moment the output leaves from the entire sphere) then the value for the incoming flux you end up with is 480 W/m^2. So yes, you are saying something very wrong here. I am not "insisting on a model with a bigger area". The area over which the energy falls on the lit hemisphere is obviously smaller, only half that, compared with the area of the entire Earth’s surface, which is what you spread the input over when you divide by 4. You have it backwards.
> When you divide by 2 (which you do if you treat the input in real time, i.e. as I explained before, with the sunlight falling only over the lit hemisphere whilst in the same moment the output leaves from the entire sphere)
I don’t see where you explained that, but recall when I showed you a video illustrating that the sphere’s surface area is four times its shadow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcFjFmqEc8
That “shadow” isn’t a hemisphere, it’s just a disc. (Or a disk. Whatever.) In formulae:
https://tinyurl.com/d2th9n76
You provided no geometrical reason to divide by 2. If you add dimensions or dynamicize your model, you won’t get a smaller surface than a disc. Unless of course you have access to a geometry that nobody but Sky Dragons know, in which case I’m interested to see it.
As you can see in that handout, the first EBM is very rough. But at least it makes sense.
Dividing by 2 spreads the incoming flux over a hemisphere. Dividing by 4 spreads the incoming flux over the entire sphere. If "sphere" = 4 then "half-sphere" = 2. Simple enough!?
The incoming flux is received only by the lit hemisphere of the Earth, in real time. On a second by second basis, sunlight falls only on the lit hemisphere (divide by 2), whilst energy leaves over the whole sphere (divide by 4).
480 W/m^2 in matches 240 W/m^2 out. Flux is not conserved, but energy is, since the surface area over which the energy is received and is emitted from are not equal.
> Dividing by 2 spreads the incoming flux over a hemisphere
The area of a hemisphere is bigger than one of a disk. That cannot increase the flux per unit area.
Your model is supposed to represent the fluxes; we know that solar irradiance is around 342 W/m^2.
One-dimensional models are useful if you want to divide the temperature of each latitudes. That involves a correction for higher latitudes, where temperatures are lower.
Solar irradiance is about 1,370 W/m^2. Multiply that by the albedo of 0.7 and you get 960 W/m^2.
Divide that by 2 to apply the insolation over a hemisphere. 480 W/m^2.
Divide that by 4 to apply the insolation over the whole sphere. 240 W/m^2.
Divide that by 4 to apply the insolation over a disk, which is represents the half that is lit. 240 W/m^2.
The incoming solar irradiance is set at 342 W m2 in Figure 1.20 of the 4th edition of The Climate Modeling Primer, which you can get on b-ok dot cc. They cite:
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf
and
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
They are giving that value for solar irradiance because they are dividing it by 4, in other words applying it over the whole sphere. 342 x 4 = 1,368 W/m^2.
I don’t think so:
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf
This is the source of both papers cited by the textbook.
> in other words applying it over the whole sphere
And again, when one divides by four the area of a sphere one gets its shadow, i.e. a disc, not the same sphere.
Multiply the 342 W/m^2 by the albedo of 0.7 and you get close to your absorbed shortwave flux of 238. To get the 342 W/m^2 value they are taking the solar irradiance of 1,368 W/m^2 and dividing by 4 to spread it out over the entire sphere.
It’s an observed flux, kiddo.
Here could be why you believe it’s model-based:
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf
Later on you see that they use a one-dimensional model for the clouds, not the flat disc that worries you so much and that for some reason you conflate with a sphere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
“It’s an observed flux, kiddo.”
Yes, observed, and then averaged.
I wonder why we wasted resources to build and maintain the ERBE database when Kevin could bypass it and consult an old NASA Educational Brief archived page cited by thy Wiki:
Even then:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160425164312/http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/experimental/July61999siteupdate/inv99Project.Site/Pages/science-briefs/ed-stickler/ed-irradiance.html
How old is that Climateball debate?
It’s my first week.
From the Wiki article:
The average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere (1361 W/m2) represents the power per unit area of solar irradiance across the spherical surface surrounding the sun with a radius equal to the distance to the Earth (1 AU). This means that the approximately circular disc of the Earth, as viewed from the sun, receives a roughly stable 1361 W/m2 at all times. The area of this circular disc is πr2, in which r is the radius of the Earth. Because the Earth is approximately spherical, it has total area 4πr2, meaning that the solar radiation arriving at the top of the atmosphere, averaged over the entire surface of the Earth, is simply divided by four to get 340 W/m2. In other words, averaged over the year and the day, the Earth’s atmosphere receives 340 W/m2 from the sun. This figure is important in radiative forcing.
The page also reads:
Do you think you’ll get more power from the Sun that way?
You can divide by 4, but then you are acting as though the sunlight falls over the entire Earth’s surface at once. It cannot possibly do so, in reality. Not unless the Earth was a flat disk in space.
What really happens is that the sunlight falls over only the lit hemisphere, in real time. Meanwhile, the output leaves from the entire Earth’s surface at once. On a second by second basis, sunlight falls only on the lit hemisphere (divide by 2), whilst energy leaves over the whole sphere (divide by 4).
480 W/m^2 in matches 240 W/m^2 out, after factoring for albedo. Flux is not conserved, but energy is, since the surface area over which the energy is received and is emitted from are not equal.
DREMT: “When you divide by 2 (which you do if you treat the input in real time … ”
Nope. Dividing by 2 is only a slightly better approximation than dividing by 4. To really treat in real time, you would need a distribution that goes from 100% to 0% based on the angle of the sun above the horizon. If you are going to insist on being ‘correct’ then you might as well be truly correct.
Lol, OK Tim. I will go with a “slightly better approximation” for now. Better is still better.
> On a second by second basis, sunlight falls only on the lit hemisphere (divide by 2)
That makes little sense, kiddo. The area that is lit changes every second. The hemisphere you’re after is no more natural than the disc that represents the area of the Earth’s shadow.
You might as well sum all the shadows over each second of a year. Why stop there? Sunlight does not “fall” like vertical rain. We that the equator receives more direct rays, that water is not continent, know that seasons exist, etc.
Jo has only found a way to fool people with no geometrical or physical intuition. He wants sunlight to fall on twice the area of a disc, and also twice the power. And to do that he tries to sell that his “model” has more dimensions by making its audience “see” it in their mind like it was in 3D and in real time. It’s not. It’s still a zero-dimensional model. A timeless zero-dimensional model fails basic geometry.
No wonder Roy got pissed off.
Somehow, he still doesn’t get it. Oh well. Not my problem.
Both Tim and DREMT are correct here.
Going with the half sphere approach reintroduces important dynamics. The flat earth model fails to reveal the necessary dynamics precisely because the flat earth model would fail to warm anything.
Joe is spot on calling the effort to sell that model as sophism. Sadly for the folks who don’t see the problem they are just the marks in the larger game.
Errata:
We know that the equator receives more direct rays, that water is not continent,
knowthat seasons exist, etc.A timeless zero-dimensional model that fails basic geometry.
> The flat earth model
Go for the kill, Bill: it’s a ZERO DIMENSION model!
Jo’s model is still in zero-dimension, but who cares about Jo?
bill said: The flat earth model fails to reveal the necessary dynamics precisely because the flat earth model would fail to warm anything.
Trenberth’s energy budget model is for spherical geometry. We know this because it takes the TSI figure and divides by 4.
TSI / 1 = flat geometry
TSI / 4 = spherical geometry
The purpose of the model is to communicate and analyze global long term changes in the figures presented by the model. It is not intended to be used to communicate and analyze small spatial and temporal scale phenomenon.
It is okay to criticize the model, but first you must understand it. If you don’t understand the purpose or figures presented in the model then ask questions.
Bill, I am curious what you mean by “flat earth model”. Could you state the key properties of this model in a sentence or two?
bdgwx, when you divide by 4, you spread the incoming solar radiation over the entire Earth’s surface at once.
What is the only way the Earth could be absorbing solar radiation over its entire surface at once? If the Earth was flat. Hence why it’s called the "flat Earth model". There’s nothing more to it than that.
> when you divide by 4, you spread the incoming solar radiation over the entire Earths surface at once.
One does not simply access any time dimension by dividing by two, in Mordor or elsewhere.
Jo’s still stuck at zero-dimension, kiddo. What will it be at one dimension?
OK, Willard.
Somehow, kiddo still doesnt get it.
Oh well.
I think I should make it my problem.
#2
OK, Willard.
DREMT,
The model is presenting the global average solar flux at TOA, ASR, OLR, etc. over one orbital cycle. It is not “at once”.
This is useful because climate scientists are interested in global scale phenomenon over long periods of time. They want to know how these averages are changing over time and in relation to each other.
Nobody is saying that Earth is receiving the same amount of solar radiation over its entire surface at any given moment though. If you think that’s what the model is saying then you don’t understand the model.
Yes, you are averaging the figures over time, and so because the Earth rotates and thus every part of the globe will receive insolation at some point, you believe that the averaging (divide by 4) is justified.
…and still my 9:50 AM comment stands.
Tim Folkerts says:
Bill, I am curious what you mean by flat earth model. Could you state the key properties of this model in a sentence or two?
——————————–
In short its the one defined by Roy in his response to Postma. Acknowledging that the process of averaging incoming solar uniformly around the earth creates the ability to demonstrate the radiant blocking (that doesn’t block rising heat) and how that radiation warms the surface (which it doesn’t do so, at least as depicted in the model).
As Postma, and those here on this forum, have noted is that the flat earth model removes important elements of the system that any air and heating guy is aware of (though few have given any thought to the atmosphere)
What is obvious is that modtran is built into every model with an element that establishes a ‘surface’ radiant forcing which doesn’t exist even though the immediate radiant effects at each layer are only correct in total isolation from the real world.
When somebody builds a physical model with an atmosphere in it, the experiment fails.
Thus its simple to conclude that the flat earth model has no real use, doesn’t show the imbalances that exist throughout the diurnal cycle. It is specifically designed as an offering to the public a faked version of how climate actually does work by just showing a single element of it that fails alone in the real world.
R Woods established that the model didn’t work 110 years ago. The fact that the model does not work doesn’t disprove that the greenhouse effect does not consist of the energy absorbed in the atmosphere. In my opinion it obviously does. But all that leads to is the fact that greenhouse gases are a necessary element of the greenhouse effect but in and of themselves may not be (and certainly are not fully dependent upon the flat earth radiant model) a sufficient element. Most of the energy absorbed ends up at TOA and from there the radiation pathway back to the surface is blocked by a near infinitely more potent version of a flat earth model.
bill said: In short its the one defined by Roy in his response to Postma.
The model Dr. Spencer presented is a spherical geometry model.
bill said: Acknowledging that the process of averaging incoming solar uniformly around the earth creates the ability to demonstrate the radiant blocking
It’s not just incoming solar radiation. It’s all heat/energy transfer mechanisms in all 3 layers. The purpose is to quantify the long term average movement of heat/energy via these different mechanisms and to see how they change over time and in relation to each other. It is useful to know if ASR-OLR is changing. Likewise it is useful to know if ASR and OLR by themselves and their constituent components are changing.
bdgwx, why do you never actually listen to what others say to you?
Do U, kiddo?
Yes, kiddo. I understand what bdgwx is saying, completely. If only he would try to return the favor.
I’m starting to think I understand your argument better than you do, kiddo.
Where’s the evidence that you understand b’s points?
Willard, please stop trolling.
> when you divide by 4, you spread the incoming solar radiation over the entire Earths surface at once.
One does not simply access any time dimension by dividing by two, kiddo, in Mordor or elsewhere.
OK, Willard.
Try this:
https://math.nyu.edu/faculty/kleeman/zero_dim_ebm.html
#2
OK, Willard.
I hope you noticed “In the present exercise we consider only a model for the average global temperature in which we treat the entire Earth as a single point,” kiddo.
Jo’s “flat earth” jab is not even wrong.
#3
OK, Willard.
I also hope you saw the link to the one-dimensional model, kiddo:
https://math.nyu.edu/faculty/kleeman/one_dim_ebm.html
Check the image:
https://math.nyu.edu/faculty/kleeman/one_dim_cartoon.gif
That’s when I realized I should check on b-ok dot cc.
You’ve been talking about Joe’s flat earth bit for how long now?
#4
OK, Willard.
Willard says:
I also hope you saw the link to the one-dimensional model, kiddo:
https://math.nyu.edu/faculty/kleeman/one_dim_ebm.html
======================================
Dang Willard looks like the perfect zero dimension model to fit into a mind of zero dimensions. Enjoy Willard.
You went of the kill, Bill!
For the kill.
Dang. I hate typos in puns.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
My point that the energy balance estimates being conservative (because, geometry) has not been made by Roy.
============================
Not sure why Roy disagrees on the flat earth analogy seeing as he himself there characterizes it as such. ”flat-earth cartoon, like the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram”
but Roy then for whatever reason doesn’t identify the flat-earth cartoon’ as sophistry.
In my opinion the false notion of the cartoon creating the greenhouse effect is a common notion among those who don’t understand insulation. . . .as G&T understands it. G&T has been falsely accused of using the 2nd law of thermodynamics as their argument against layers in the atmosphere acting as ‘insulation’ they had a separate argument for that point that is well known to those who work in that trade.
The charge of sophistry is simply sophistry. Sophistry is an argument style designed specifically to ignore a stronger argument so that the listener buys the weaker argument without seeing or giving any consideration to the stronger argument.
”Is the fallaciousness of this kind of argument more often deliberate than not?
Its
structure seems to me a bit complicated to be a common sophism. Is it more often a fallacy?
Aristotle drops a hint in this direction when he writes: ”Such arguments are not absolutely
inconclusive but only inconclusive as regards the point at issue, and the questioners themselves
are often equally unconscious of such a state of affairs”
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2248&context=ossaarchive
So what is going on is via the creation of the ‘flat earth cartoon’ the dynamics for a GHE has been lost such that the viewer can now only see the distilled point of view of the person arguing for the flat earth cartoon. . . .AND thus the stronger but more complicated argument is defeated.
Then the only question becomes is this a fallacy or a conspiracy. Of course its admirers are going to argue for neither.
> In my opinion the false notion of the cartoon creating the greenhouse effect
It is indeed a false notion to believe that the cartoon creates the greenhouse effect, Bill.
You can let go of it at any time.
Willard
The cartoon creates a false notion, the false notion is then used to explain how the greenhouse effect is created.
Willard did you ever wonder what a 2d notion looks like in 4d?
A video, e.g.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcFjFmqEc8
This one is really a cool video.
My turn:
Did you know that we can see in 2.5D?
He updated his alternative “energy budget” diagram since then:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/model-atmo-b-1.jpg
Just interesting reading those old articles again after all this time.
> Just interesting
Are you trying to distance yourself from the trick you tried to pull for two days, kiddo?
I have pulled no tricks.
Does that mean you are endorsing Jo’s crap, kiddo?
So you hadn’t recognized “Jo’s crap” whilst I was arguing it over the last two days…can we take it that you have never really read any of his arguments? Beyond the misinterpretations and distortions of what other blogs say about them, perhaps?
> So you hadnt recognized Jos crap
I did not know about Jo until very recently, kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-663012
Even then I had to find Roy’s archives first.
Only now do I realize that you were into copypasta all along.
Well played!
I copied and pasted nothing. Merely explained it in my own words, based on my understanding of his arguments. Not playing any games. Only linking to it now because it struck me that some people seemed to be confused about exactly what was being argued. You still seem to be confused, for instance. bdgwx has never understood it. Even Dr Spencer seems confused!
Alright, I will concede the “I copied and pasted nothing”:
[Kiddo] When you divide the input by 4, you are diluting the real power of the sun, and treating the Earth as though it were a flat disk in space.
[Jo] Climate scientists take the real power of sunshine, of P = 960 W/m2, equal to +88o Celscius, but divide the power by the number 4 so that they can make the Earth flat and get rid of day and night for convenience.
Not sure about the “merely explained it in my own words” part, tho.
Let’s say you paraphrased Jo closely.
Let’s say this is another irrelevant diversion.
Your “I copied and pasted nothing” was indeed a diversion, kiddo. To show that you closely paraphrased his first post was not.
You have yet to endorse Jo’s crap. You won’t. Hence your diversion.
Everything you have been talking about in this sub-thread since your 11:10 AM comment is an irrelevant diversion.
I think Joe has some interesting points. Do I "endorse" it? I don’t know. I’m skeptical of it the same as I’m skeptical of anything else. Who cares!? Why does it matter?
> Why does it matter?
You devote time to it. You promote it.
There’s a difference between devoting time and promoting something you believe bring something to the table.
I have a friend who likes to study ufology. He does not really believe in it. He just finds it interesting.
I study contrarian crap. I find it more than interesting. I believe there’s something to it. Gordon reminds me of old Climateball episodes. Bill gives me ways to connect the various Climateball bingo squares. Clint gives me a recipe in how to self-seal oneself in one’s armwaving. Mike gives me poems in the art of salon violence.
You? The question is still open.
> Theres a difference between devoting time and promoting something you believe bring something to the table.
Let’s complete that thought:
… and just handwaving to stuff because it’s “interesting.”
OK, Willard.
Found it.
You bring formal dialogs:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-665306
If you say so.
Willard says:
Bill gives me ways to connect the various Climateball bingo squares.
———————–
Probably not a coincidence because my point of view isn’t inculcated. I had no idea anybody was holding views similar to the ones I independently started developing about 12 years ago.
I only discovered that when this thread about Joe started.
I just haven’t released my version yet as I have either wanted to get to point of calculating it or at a minimum come up with some realistic suggestions of how to calculate it possibly with some additional research or data collection.
What is clear: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H. L. Mencken
I subsume “but complexity” under “but prediction” because the end game is to say that we can’t predict anything:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
Willard says:
”I study contrarian crap.”
—————-
Have you studied the contrarian crap that surrounded flat earth, Ptolemy, Aether, LaMarckism, etc. Here is a good list to start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
To list them all would be cumbersome.
I have a “But Science” square:
https://climateball.net/but-science/
and I have a “But Galileo” square:
https://climateball.net/but-galileo/
The former is a stub, the latter is 80% done.
***
A related theorem is that Contrarians Always Win:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/
In science, that’s not a Good Thing.
Kind of wonder why you are studying it. Are you still looking for somebody arguing that because Galileo was right they must be right? Is finding one the objective or did you already find one?
Galileo is interesting because he’s the most overestimated father figure in the history of all father figures.
Also, the Galileo complex is a real thing. Check Jo’s ways of portraying himself against the world.
It takes talent to create so efficient comedies of menace.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Interesting energy budget diagram, but it has several problems when compared with reality.
1) The maximum surface temperatures we observe are around 40C. The subsolar point where the Sun is directly overhead never approaches the predicted 87C.
2) Dayside temperatures do not average 30C.
3) The tropopause averages about 12 km above the surface. The Karman line at which space begins is 100km The tropopause is at a pressure of 0.1 bar. It is nowhere near space in distance or conditions.
4) The moist adiabatic lapse rate is a cooling of about 6.5C/kilometre until you reach the tropopause. Above the tropopause the atmosphere gets warmer with increasing altitude. The lapse rate does not continue almost to space. It reverses 10% of the way up.
5) The budget shows an outgoing average of 240W/m^2. There is no indication where the radiation is coming from. Without the greenhouse effect it must be radiating from the surface and there would be no troposphere. The stratosphere would begin at the surface and warm all the way to space.
1) 960 W/m^2 has the potential to warm a BB surface to 87 C. That’s all he’s saying.
2) He’s not trying to say they do. Again, it is just about the "warming potential" of the sunlight when averaged over the hemisphere receiving it. 480 W/m^2 in that case.
3) He’s not trying to imply the tropopause is "near space".
4) He is fully aware of that, and is not trying to say or imply that the lapse rate continues to space without reversing.
5) The outgoing average comes from the surface and the atmosphere combined.
1) and 2) Then why does he not show both the potential and the reality on the graphic.
3) Then why does he write on the graphic “coolest at top near space”
4) Then why does he only mention the troposphere?
5) How? With no greenhouse effect there can be no emission from the atmosphere. No atmospheric emission, no troposphere.
1) and 2) Because we know the reality.
3) If you want to argue that Postma, the astrophysicist, is unaware of where the Karman line is, be my guest. I guess he just meant as opposed to "warmest at bottom near the surface".
4) I guess because the troposphere is 75% of the mass of the atmosphere, and it’s the part of the atmosphere that is most discussed when talking about the GHE, and it’s only a brief bit of text appended to the diagram so he doesn’t have limitless space to discuss the entire atmosphere there.
5) Because there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He’s not denying that there are GHGs in the atmosphere. He’s arguing that they don’t warm the surface, but he’s not denying they’re there.
[ESTR] The budget shows an outgoing average of 240W/m^2. There is no indication where the radiation is coming from. Without the greenhouse effect it must be radiating from the surface and there would be no troposphere. The stratosphere would begin at the surface and warm all the way to space.
[VLAD] The outgoing average comes from the surface and the atmosphere combined.
[ESTR] How? With no greenhouse effect there can be no emission from the atmosphere. No atmospheric emission, no troposphere.
[VLAD] Because there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He’s not denying that there are GHGs in the atmosphere. He’s arguing that they don’t warm the surface, but he’s not denying they’re there.
I am not getting drawn into a discussion on whether there would be a troposphere or not without GHGs. That can wait for another day.
It’s the effect of the GHGs that matters here, not their existence.
Indeed.
I don’t always dispute the effect of GHGs, but when I do I admit they exist.
You are absolutely desperate for there to be some sort of problem with what I said.
I truly don’t, as I just need to repeat it to make it obvious.
EM asked you how Jo explains what the Tyndall effect is meant to explain.
You reply that Jo does not deny that GHGs exist.
That’s obviously unresponsive, and at this point of the exchange you usually lock yourself in.
I don’t mind. It’s good theater.
E Man asked where the 240 W/m^2 was coming from. I responded that it was coming from the surface and the atmosphere. This is because as I and Joe acknowledge, there is emission to to space from GHGs in the atmosphere…and to a certain extent even from the non-GHGs. Nothing else really needs to be discussed, as we would be veering away from the main point of the three posts I linked to. Which you still do not understand even now.
> I responded that it was coming from the surface and the atmosphere.
No, for the simple reason that this response comes before EM’s how.
Formal dialogs are useful to establish sequences.
There is nothing wrong with what I said.
Your answer to his “how” is “because there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
But that’s a response to the other sentence, about the troposphere, unless you accept a Tyndall effect. I don’t think Jo accepts it.
So as I read it, there was a branch, and you picked one that evaded the “how.” Just like now you forgot the “how.”
Here’s a test:
How?
If you add anything you haven’t said, you lose.
If you respond to it with something you said, you win.
Beware that “GHGs exist” doesn’t count, as it’s not the existence of GHGs that matters here, but their effect.
“Without the greenhouse effect it must be radiating from the surface and there would be no troposphere. The stratosphere would begin at the surface and warm all the way to space.”
As I said, I do not and did not want to be drawn into a discussion on whether there would be a troposphere with no GHE. But his “how?” question presupposes that he is correct on that point. A bit sneaky if you ask me.
These are EM’s words, kiddo.
Not yours.
OK, kiddo.
See? You’re doing it again, kiddo.
The paragraph has three sentences:
I’m asking you to explain how there can be no emission from the atmosphere. Not “whether there would be a troposphere with no GHE.”
So once again you skip a sentence and evade the branch about the Tyndall effect.
As a friend is fond to say, this not Chauncer in the text, cupcake.
“I’m asking you to explain how there can be no emission from the atmosphere”
I’m not sure that’s possible. I mean, even non-GHGs emit to a certain extent, and there’s an awful lot of them. So I guess there couldn’t be no emission from the atmosphere even if there were no GHGs. But both Postma and myself accept that there are GHGs, anyway.
> Im not sure thats possible.
If Jo can’t explain what the Tyndall effect explains, then so much the worse for his non-explanation.
OK, kiddo. You’re not making any sense, but that’s par for the course with you, I’m starting to realize.
No problemo, kiddo.
Wake me up when you know how Jo explains the Tyndall effect.
I’ll just let you sleep. I think you need it.
Twas an expression, kiddo. Only Mike is sleeping right now.
Perhaps you got confused because I was referring to the Tyndall effect that applies to gases?
See here why it should be called the Tyndall Gas Effect:
https://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2010/11/the-tyndall-gas-effect-part-1/
I’m sure you can find someone willing to follow you down whatever rabbit hole it is you want to go down.
I’m sure EM would like to know how Jo explains the Tyndall Gas Effect, kiddo.
Do you know why I know?
He asked you.
And you’re still evading his question.
I wonder why.
I have no idea how Joe with an "e" explains the "Tyndall Gas Effect". So I can’t answer the question. Maybe you could ask Joe?
Considering that you find Joe (sorry, Joe) “interesting,” kiddo, I find it interesting that you don’t know.
You want me to check?
I think I saw a post about Fourier.
Do whatever you want. I have no real interest in this conversation, but you won’t stop responding to me, so here we are.
What conversation, kiddo?
You are free to ignore my comments, just as you’re free to stop pretending you’re Roy’s moderator.
Here’s the post:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/01/27/a-note-on-fourier-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
Have you read it?
"You are free to ignore my comments"
OK then.
Is it a promise, kiddo?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Briarpatching: if you accept the fundamental premises of your enemy, you’ve already lost.
Since there is no radiative greenhouse effect, then there are no “greenhouse gases”…not in the terms in which they’ve been defined by the climate clowns. So no…do not accept that there is such a thing as “greenhouse gases”…it’s a meaningless term since there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the first place.
And this psycho merely plays word games with geometry…pretending that 240 W/m^2 is the average flux on a disk at 1au…lol!
There are a few significant problems with that energy budget.
1) He writes 1370 W/m^2 = 394 K. Or 960 W/m^2 = 303 K. These are the “blackbody equivalent temperatures”. The “temperature” of sunlight is ~ 5800 K. This is sloppy nomenclature, but not a huge issue.
2) If he is going to list “303 K” as the “input” for one hemisphere, then equivalently he should write “0 K” (or maybe “2.7 K”) as the input on the other side. This is significant because the implication is that the sunny side will ‘naturally’ be 303 K and will cool down a little over night (say to 273 K), to give a reasonable approximation of (303+273)/2 = 288 K as the expected ‘average temperature’.
But it is *just* as true that the night side will ‘naturally’ be 0 K and will warm up a bit during the day. “Latent heat retention” works both ways. The true surface temperature using just this sunlight would be no more than 255 K.
* with a large latent heat, a section of ground will only warm up a bit above 255 K during the day, and only cool down a bit below 255 K at night.
* with a small latent heat, a section of ground could warm up close to 394 K during the day, but would cool close to 0 K overnight.
3) The most amusing error is that this diagram actually *confirms* the greenhouse effect. The acknowledged 240 W/m^2 “spherical average output” *cannot* be coming from the surface. His surface is much to warm to be emitting that low of a power. At least some radiation *must* be coming from high in the troposphere where it is cool. But radiation high in the troposphere only comes from GHGs (and some clouds as well, but not much at those altitudes). GHGs *must* be a part of his model in order to get *only* 240 W/m^2 radiated to space.
PS. Please no comments about “you just don’t understand the brilliance of Postma”. If you think I am wrong, say specifically what you disagree with.
… and of course, similar points were made a couple years ago by Dr Spencer. And by pretty much everyone else with a solid background in science. Its not like anything I just said is new.
Of your three supposedly significant problems:
1) By your own admission, this is not a significant problem.
2) He has written more on latent heat retention, and why he thinks it works as he thinks it does, as you are well aware. Why not mention that?
3) So he doesn’t disagree that GHGs radiate to space. So what?
2) “Writing” more doesn’t solve the fundamental problem. It is straightforward to approximate how a 1x1x1 m^2 tank of water would warm or cool during 24 hr with only sunlight and no IR radiated by the atmosphere. Break the day up into blocks of time (1 hr will work, but you could do every minute or every seconds if you like).
Calculate the solar energy absorbed, the thermal energy radiated
, and the resulting change in temperature. Use that temperature as the start of the next unit of time. Even at the equator, it would freeze solid and remain solid at high noon.
(Also, he (mostly) means “sensible heat”, not “latent heat”. The issue is that the oceans and lands warm during the day and cool at night, not that ice thaws during the day and freezes during the night.)
3) The ability of GHG’s to absorb/emit radiation *is* the stated cause of the GHE. Get rid of the GHG’s and the earth would radiate more and the earth would cool! Thanks for agreeing that GHG’s are the reason the earth can be SO warm and still only radiate 240 W/m^2 to space.
OK, Tim. Whatever you say. No point talking to you.
They’re arguing over the imprecision of a more precise and physically realistic model…while ignoring and justifying the less precise and physically unrealistic model! lol…these are just psychotic trolls…as if it isn’t clear that these freaks are merely here to sow confusion.
DREMT
While you appeal to Postma’s authority, I go with Roy Spencer here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
J.-P. D.
I don’t appeal to anyone’s authority. Dr Spencer gets Postma’s arguments completely wrong, though.
I agree.
I think that Roy and Judith Curry both are simply attacking the issue from a different perspective.
It seems quite possible that the main reason why the insulation model fails is because of negative feedback. Its an odd way of looking at feedback which occurs before any forcing at the surface to a significant degree and occurs almost instantaneously when forcing does occur at the surface.
But the cartoon postulates a forcing unseen by the surface in the necessary multi-layer models to derive needed forcing to get the ball rolling so to speak all the while the flat earth model that Roy describes as useful may not comprehend that it may not be at all useful as it has been designed expressly to argue, convince, and cajole folks into the club.
I have heard both speak words regarding uncertainties of the model sort of believing its the best representation presented so far, could be wrong, but are sort of going along with program, its language, its sophistry, all the while with great resistance to the conclusions of Trenberth and Kiehl.
And actually its real important to have those speaking the same language in the game as well though it may not undermine the model. Such models if fallacious will eventually reveal themselves to be.
Like ENRON much to the harm to the auditors that failed to exert sufficient skepticism and to the investors it was their job to protect.
The public still lacks a professional service against overly zealous scientific alarmism. the civil service was once designed to provide that but is constantly getting run over by end runs via the establishment of huge institutions whose employees have conflicts of interest just as Eisenhower had warned. These kinds of conglomerations are fine for fighting all out war but are exceedingly dangerous institutions in their own rights. . . .as is the case wherever conflicts of interest prevail.
> I dont appeal to anyones authority.
Correct.
You just argue by assertions that are not yours.
Wow, you’ve got it in for me, for some reason.
`> for some reason.
No idea why either, kiddo:
I’m not appealing to his authority, I’m merely pointing out that it’s ridiculous to argue that he wouldn’t be aware of where space begins relative to the Earth’s atmosphere. Just as a basic sanity check for Entropic Man’s arguments. I think we can at least credit Postma with being aware of the basic structure of the Earth’s atmosphere.
> I think we can at least credit Postma with being aware of the basic structure of the Earths atmosphere.
And to do that you invoke his credentials (I think he’s just an MSc, but who cares), which is a form that appeals to authority usually takes.
Appealing to authorities is perfectly fine. The whole idea that ad arguments are necessarily bad is completely misguided. I have no problem appealing to the IPCC. It’s an authority. Why not use it?
Nobody can really follow Nullius in Verba to the letter. Following it is self-defeating anyway. As the Russians say, Believe it but check it, which you should believe but check.
OK, Willard.
Most obliged, kiddo.
Here we go again.
Pick a real nick and I’ll reconsider.
No idea what you are talking about.
The “Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team” bit.
What of it?
You’re not the moderator, kiddo.
Correct. There is not really a team of people responding to a moderation emergency.
Sorry, kiddo, but you’re not on Roy’s side here.
Not cool.
OK, kiddo.
Willard says:
> I dont appeal to anyones authority.
Correct.
You just argue by assertions that are not yours.
————————————-
Hmmmm, kind of the difference between a rote memorizer and someone who takes the time to understand what is being put forth.
The difference is really can the guy explain what was said or can he just repeat what was said. Good instructors know not to use the practice questions for which answers are provided to unique questions that require a varied form of logic and understanding of what was taught to be able to calculate the answer.
So it appears you have a serious problem in that regard if you can’t ask or answer original questions on the matter to demonstrate you even understand what DREMT is saying. I think you need to up your game a good amount Willard.
Once again your pontification misses an important bit, Bill:
What is being said matters less than how. I don’t fall for your head fakes. Sooner or later, your hips will feel the impact.
Real auditors keep track. You don’t.
How’s retirement?
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny..”While you appeal to Postma’s authority, I go with Roy Spencer here:”
Best comment from Postma IMHO is this one: We build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team”
They’re having a good time trolling you it seems. It looks like the psycho troll is claiming that the solar irradiance divided over the disk is the /4 value…which it of course is not. They have no idea what they’re talking about.
The solar irradiance on a disk at 1au is 1370 W/m^2. When you spread that over an entire sphere of the same radius then you get the /4 value. These people are going for more insane levels of sophistry attempting to deny and obfuscate around these basic geometrical facts.
Since 1961 at least, crop yields have increased WAY more than 15%, but most of the gains have little to do with climate or CO2:
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
March Hare
Thank you for this informative material. I have read a lot in the same direction, but all the sources lacked the numbers your link presents.
J.-P. D.
Do you guys not understand photosynthesis?
Plants don’t grow without CO2. They don’t grow MORE without MORE CO2.
Have you heard of the law of limiting factors? Growth rate is limited by the scariest resource.
Only in warm wet environments is plant growth limited by available C02. That is partly why C4 plants evolved.
Over most of the planet growth is limited by water, light intensity, nutrients or temperature. A higher CO2 concentration would make no difference.
Tomatoes growing in greenhouses benefit from elevated CO2, but only if you also supply artificially increased temperature, light intensity, nutrients and water.
Ent, it’s real simple: Plants don’t grow without CO2. They don’t grow MORE without MORE CO2.
If you want it more complicated, learn about photosynthesis. Plant mass comes mainly from CO2 and H2O. If you know the exact chemical formulas, whether sugars or cellulose, the masses are readily calculated.
It’s REAL science, aka “reality”. It’s the kind of stuff that repels trolls and idiots.
From thermo-logic to bio-logic, all the logic bases belong to Clint.
Thank you. I’m familiar with photosynthesis, in considerable detail. Kindly stop embarrassing yourself in my eyes by posting grossly oversimplified soundbites.
Sorry if I offended you Ent. I had not seen any evidence that you understood photosynthesis, so it was safe to conclude you only had a textbook knowledge of it, based on your other instances of denying science.
Does your grasp of photosynthesis, “in considerable detail”, go beyond the nonsense taught in “evolutionary biology”?
> I had not seen any evidence that you understood photosynthesis
I doubt that photosynthesis proceeds by modus tollens, Clint.
From the absence of CO2 you can’t infer anything regarding the presence of CO2.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“That is partly why C4 plants evolved.”
So, googled when they evolved:
“C4 photosynthesis first arose in grasses, probably during the Oligocene epoch (24–35 million yr ago). The earliest C4 dicots are likely members of the Chenopodiaceae dating back 15 –21 million yr; however, most C4 dicot lineages are estimated to have appeared relatively recently, perhaps less than 5 million yr ago.”
So they within the time period of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which began about 34 million years ago.
They evolved on what we would now classify as savannah, tropical grassland.
C4 gave them two advantages. First they could absorb and store CO2 at night and twilight, while conserving water during the heat of the day. They also avoided photorespiration, a tendency for the C3 photosynthetic pathway to run backwards at high temperatures and light intensities, converting carbohydrate back to CO2.
The grasses, particularly, grew from meristems at the base of the leaves and spread by rhizomes. This made them invasive and very tolerant of grazing, so they’ve spread over much of the planet. The only thing they really don’t like is cold climates.
The new food source had enormous consequences. Think how many mammalian herbivores have specialised in eating grass.
“They evolved on what we would now classify as savannah, tropical grassland.”
It’s said dinosaurs died and allow Mammals to take over. In that light what plant died {and why} on the savannah.
During the time of beginning of our icehouse global climate.
That rapidly becomes a complex topic.Before it became grassland it was forest. One of the big problems for trees trying to grow was that the grass eaters destroyed most tree seedlings before they could grow tall enough to be inedible.
Perhaps some light reading.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152402
“That rapidly becomes a complex topic.”
Yes it does.
Evolutionary biology is such a pretty picture, until you start asking questions. Then, it gets ugly. It’s fun to talk about how the grasslands “evolved”, just in time for the hungry buffalo. The “pretty picture” can fool many.
But, as we learn more and more about things like photosynthesis, the myths start falling apart. Complex systems, like a solar-powered factory, do not build themselves.
Your God, if he exists, is a complex system.
Who made Him?
And who created His creator?
Belief in a Divine Creator is a BELIEF, just like belief in evolution is a BELIEF.
Neither is SCIENCE.
Belief is faith, opinion without evidence.
You believe in God but have no evidence. I do not believe in evolution but have scientific evidence for it.
You didn’t answer my question. One God didn’t work. The logic of Paley’s watch applies to the watchmaker as well as the watch, the the Creator as well as the Creation.
Either the universe creates itself or there are an infinite number of Creators.
“I do not believe in evolution but have scientific evidence for it.”
No Ent, you BELIEVE you have scientific evidence. You have nothing that will stand up to the scientific method. Evolution is a belief system. It ain’t science.
I have my beliefs, but I don’t claim they are “science”. That’s a BIG difference.
The Bible mentions that God is eternal. That means He has always existed, and will always exist. He is not controlled by time — He controls time.
A simple analogy is that we are all ants in a jar. We don’t know who is holding the jar, or how we got in the jar. But, some of the ants believe they can make up fairy tales about how the jar came to be, and then call it “science”.
I don’t have to support my beliefs, because I acknowledge they are “beliefs”. But I’ll be happy to debunk your strongest “scientific evidence” of evolution.
Glad you liked. The link at the very top, to a study of land use changes, is especially interesting:
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
March Hare
” The link at the very top, to a study of land use changes, is especially interesting… ”
Yes it is.
*
But that won’t change the opinion of people who pervert all argument paths by inverting their logic.
So we shouldn’t wonder about people writing:
” Plants don’t grow without CO2. They don’t grow MORE without MORE CO2. ”
when they also wrote, in another context:
” More CO2 in the atmosphere means that more IR escapes to space. ”
That is all at the mental intersection of contrarianism with flatearthism.
J.-P. D.
Good stuff.
You might like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/sarahs-wand/
Willard,
Magic Wand?
So you are a socialist?
Somebody has to say it.
Put the means of production in the hands of the proletariat!
Woke Sen. Lindsey Graham
In his introductory remarks at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on climate change, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says “I’ve come to conclude that climate change is real.”
In other news, Graham also acknowledges that gravity is real, the earth in fact is not flat, and that the freezing point of water is zero degrees. Graham has said he’s still considering whether radio “waves” are real and whether dinosaur bones are a hoax.
DREMT
You wrote above – not quite surprisingly:
” I dont appeal to anyones authority. ”
*
Don’t try to manipulate anybody here (beginning with yourself).
You OF COURSE appeal to authority, be it Nikola Tesla, Aleksandar Tomic or Joseph Postma.
*
” Dr Spencer gets Postmas arguments completely wrong, though. ”
Aha. Interesting.
Could you manage to unveil your secret knowledge and scientific qualification allowing just you to pretend that, hence suggesting that you know a lot more than Roy Spencer concerning scientific matter like GHE?
Glad to see your reply!
Or are you here simply boasting a la Robertson?
J.-P. D.
I don’t appeal to anyone’s authority.
I’m not saying I know more than Dr Spencer about the GHE. I’m saying that he gets Postma’s arguments wrong. You can see for yourself that he did, by reading Postma’s arguments that I linked to. They are not as Dr Spencer describes in his article.
DREMT
That you use Joseph Postma as a source for anything leads me to distrust your judgement.
He is more fanatic than any Climate Scientist I have read. He is not rational at all and not capable of useful debate.
Here is my interaction with him on his cult blog. He has a lot of nonscientists that praise him.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/01/29/the-most-disturbing/#comment-39553
I kind of hope you are more rational or reasonable than his followers. I think Postma is even more a fanatic than Clint R and less able to rationally think than Gordon Robertson. I would put Postma even lower than these contrarians. He is a self-absorbed fanatic with a little cult following. Not a valid or rational person with him.
OK, Norman.
That you use Joseph Postma as a source for anything leads me to distrust your judgement.
———————–
Boy that’s the kind of extrapolation that makes me distrust your judgement on anything.
I don’t know the degree that Postma might be exaggerating. Do you have an example?
How about the very one that makes kiddo overinterpret energy balance models, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
Wee Wayward Willy,
Energy balance is nonsense. The Earth is no more a closed system than the Sun, or the Solar System.
You could try using your brain, but I realise that might be a new concept, as you are used to thinking that the contents of your fantasy represent reality.
Errr, no.
Maybe you could rewrite the laws of thermodynamics?
That’s a powerful argument you got there, Mike.
I think it’s ready for publication.
When do you submit?
Wee Witless Willy.
Already done.
Great!
What’s the DOI, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Norman, I almost missed your comment.
Did you ever do the “hammer/hand” experiment?
Give it a try. It’s a great way to learn about the relation of force to momentum. You’re not afraid of learning, are you?
Clint R
I have already explained this to you. Also I gave you a link on it. That you have minimal comprehension of science is your burden, not mine.
A force produces a change in momentum with respect to time. Momentum does not produce its own change (Newton). The hand acts as a force on the hammer and stops it. The change of momentum is caused by the force.
You think gravity is not a force. No one on this blog can help you.
You seem to need to comment endlessly so continue.
Norman, that’s your messed up physics, again.
The force is the time derivative of the momentum, F = dp/dt. That’s Newton’s 2nd Law. The “force” from your hand is Newton’s 3rd Law, which is only due to dp/dt of the hammer.
So now, you’ve been taught that momentum can represent a force. If you still have doubts, you could consider running in front of a high speed 18-wheeler. The big rigs have a lot of momentum. You might learn something then….
Clint R
You are certainly confused on your physics. Easy for you to do.
The correct term you are looking for is impulse. Impulse is the force generated when momentum is transferred in a collision. The momentum does not become a force. The force changes the momentum.
In a collision the momentum is conserved. The overall momentum does not change unless a force is applied. Impulse is the temporary force that arises as momentum transfers from one object to another. If no external force is present the momentum after the collision has not changed (no force present).
You might want to study real physics and not your made up version where you can always be right. If you make up the laws of physics and clearly reject the actual physics you will always think you are right.
https://www2.tntech.edu/leap/murdock/books/v1chap7.pdf
Look up impulse.
If you still have doubts, you could consider running in front of a high speed 18-wheeler. The big rigs have a lot of momentum. You might learn something then….
Clint R
Far better for you to actually learn something and not just keep making up your own physics. I know real physics is difficult for you. It is understandable you like to make up your own version of it that you understand.
However this link describes what I am saying. Momentum is conserved, it does not change in either elastic or inelastic systems. You have to take the whole system of momentum and not just parts. If NO FORCE is present the momentum does not change in a collision. You do not grasp this point.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/momentum/2di.cfm#:~:text=Elastic%20collisions%20are%20collisions%20in,kinetic%20energy%20after%20the%20collision.&text=In%20the%20collision%20between%20the,total%20system%20momentum%20is%20conserved.
Norman, you’re still having trouble with Newton’s 2nd Law.
To help you understand, run in front of a high speed 18-wheeler. The big rigs have a lot of momentum. I can guarantee you will learn some physics then….
Clint R
No I am having no trouble with Newton’s second law. I have already explained this to you. It goes over you head and beyond. You do not grasp what you can’t make up.
The Second Law states a force causes a CHANGE in momentum!! Momentum is NOT a force. When two object collide (be it hammer and hand or human and semi) the force that transfers the momentum from one to the other is called impulse. The momentum of the system of objects does not change. The momentum does not turn into a force.
If momentum changes there is a force. In the case of collisions this force is known as impulse. The momentum does not change itself. Maybe read the links I post rather than make up your own ideas.
Norman, why pretend to be a girl?
Your perverted lifestyle choices fit with your perverted physics.
Clint.
Clint.
Please.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, do you troll here because you are anti-science, or just insecure about your pathetic knowledge of English and science?
> Nikola Tesla, Aleksandar Tomic or Joseph Postma
Who’s that guy in the middle?
PS: Chill, JP. We all have strange hobbies. At least I do. I’m here.
Chill? What’s the matter with you?
Here he is, Watson:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=1450-55841301135T
To harp about appeals to authority (which you get wrong) while going for the “secret knowledge and scientific qualification allowing just you to pretend that” ad hominem is unbecoming, JP.
There’s a saying according to which “retweets are not endorsements.” If kiddo only posts stuff he finds “interesting,” that’s his business.
Wee wonky Willy,
So “kiddo” is what, exactly?
A term of endearment?
It looks like you are trying to be insulting (or uncouth and discourteous, at the least).
Oh dear, Wannabe Willy, maybe you could defend yourself by whining “but what about Swenson?”.
You can never reach my level, pea brain (I intend no disrespect to peas, of course).
Good morning, Mike.
Slept late yesterday?
Nevermind.
We’ll catch up tomorrow.
Ta.
Witless Willy posts irrelevant nonsense again.
Oh well, don’t be too hard on him. He obviously needs compassion rather than condemnation.
Forgive him, because he knows not that he knows not.
What a Wally! I’d call him a Willy, but no doubt someone would cry “You call THAT a Willy?”, and dissolve into laughter!
Next time wake up earlier, Mike.
You know that otherwise you end up alone at Roy’s.
See you in a few hours.
Whatever, idiot.
Enjoy your week-end, Mike.
Only one day left for you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If Earth ocean had uniform temperature of 5 C rather average temperature of 5 C, then it could have polar sea ice.
But the interesting bit, is how long would there not any polar sea ice?
I would say at least, 5000 years.
And ocean with average temperature or uniform temperature of 5 C
is still a cold ocean.
Though another aspect of uniform rather average ocean temperature, is earth average global temperature would be a lot colder.
Or with our ocean the surface average temperature is about 17 C and average temperature tropical ocean {world’s heat engine} is about 26 C.
So average global temperature would be at least 10 C colder.
And another interesting question is how long before global temperature would return to about 15 C {and/or get to higher average
temperature than 15 C].
It seems to get up to about 15 C average global surface temperature
it would take couple months. And maybe a year to get significant warmer than 15 C.
But could we polar sea ice sooner than in 5000 year?
What would your guess be, within 100 years??
It seems a factor is how much snow is caused in polar region by having an ocean with uniform temperature of 5 C.
Would there be little snow, a moderate amount more snow than the average we get now, or a lot more snow?
” It seems a factor is how much snow is caused in polar region by having an ocean with uniform temperature of 5 C.
Would there be little snow, a moderate amount more snow than the average we get now, or a lot more snow? ”
Tricky.
To get snow you need warmth and cold. To load up the atmosphere you need evaporation and convection, usually from water. The warmer the water, the wetter the atmosphere.
To get snow it must fall through air below 0C onto a land surface below 0C. Once you get below 0C it doesn’t really matter if it gets colder.
You need warm water upwind and cold land downwind. The classic example is lake snow in the Eastern US which starts with evaporation from open water in the great lakes and ends with snow falling on the cold ground further East.
In the Arctic you get either ice or open water at 5C.
Ice does not evaporate so you get no snow downwind for lack of water vapour.
Open water will allow evaporation so there will be more precipitation downwind. Whether this is snow or rain will depend on the land temperature downwind.
Will there be more snow or less as the Arctic warms? I don’t know. With less ice cover there’ll be more precipitation. Whether it will be more rain or more snow depends on the probability that the land temperature is below 0C.
If I had To guess I would expect more snow in the short term due to more evaporation and less snow in the long term due to warmer land.
Various commenters have been trying to support their pseudoscientific points of view by referring to the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy..
I point out that these people are mistaken.
Conservation of energy applies to a closed system, regardless of which discipline you choose to take your definition from.
The Earth is not, by any stretch of the cultist imagination, a closed system.
There is no energy in = energy out. Even the mass balance of the Earth is not fixed. A simple example, which should impress itself on the mind of even the most dedicated cultist: – less than a gram of matter was converted into energy, when the atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima during WW II.
The resultant energy fled to space, either immediately by direct radiation, or very shortly thereafter, at longer wavelengths after interacting with matter. The mass left the Earth as radiation.
So there is your “energy balance” – a figment of cultist imagination. Just like the GHE and the “missing heat”, Mann’s Nobel Prize, Schmidt’s climate science qualifications, and any number of other non-existent things.
Next?
“Ice does not evaporate so…”
Ice does not evaporate much if there is enough partial pressure of water vapor {and if more partial pressure of H20 gas then get deposition- so, ice can have sublimation or deposition. But either way it tends be a slow process}. Though if freeze isn’t/does defrost and keep the door open a lot one can get quite a build up in a month or two.
Chart for ice:
https://www.lyotechnology.com/vapor-pressure-of-ice.cfm
0 C is 611.1 Pa
-10 C is 259.9 Pa
-40 C is 12.84 pa
Liquid water
0 C is .6113 KPa { 611.3 Pa}
5 C is 0.8726 kPa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
0.8726 kPa = 0.0086 and = 0.12642 psi
And compared to 30 C:
4.2455 kPa = 0.0419 atm = 0.61593 psi
And tropical ocean average about 26 C and with around 4% of lower atmosphere being water vapor. 4% equals about 40,000 ppm.
And outside tropic the average is far less than 1% or far less than 10,000 ppm. So, say somewhere around, 3000 ppm.
30 C: 4.2455 kPa vs 5 C: 0.8726 kPa
1 to 46.4 C but I don’t think it’s that simple, probably 5 C is about 1000 ppm. Which might {maybe} have more deposition on the on the colder land, than snowing. At beginning before the land warms up- say in first few weeks.
Oh, I guess it matters when this start: summer, equinox, winter or other equinox.
Pick whatever one you like.
Or when would it snow the most?
“” 1 to 46.4 C “”
Should have been: 1 to 4.865
{ don’t how I managed to type: 1 to 46.4 C }
No worries. We all get finger trouble, not to mention the absurdities inflicted by “intelligent” spell checkers.
The correct figure was easily inferred from context.
Tanks!
But isn’t there anyone on this blog, that thinks an ice-free arctic ocean is a little bit scary.
This is arctic ocean, that rather is the coldest ocean basin in the world, “becomes” the hottest ocean basin in our present world.
Though with all ocean basins becoming an uniform temperature, it starts out being the same temperature {or all the ocean basin become the same “hotness” and hotter then they are now.].
It seems to me the arctic ocean will cool the fastest, and how does this, not if it does cool, is the matter at hand.
Or if there any CAGW, it’s with a warm ocean. Oh, forgot something,
the 5 C ocean will have thermal expansion of about 1 meter higher sea level then present sea level.
Oh to Canadian, BC poster, the Strait of Georgia is now 47 F [8 C]
so that water will become cooler. And of course, Europe would be in trouble for few months.
The heat added to Earth surface is equal to 1500 C added to Atmosphere.
Not scared??
Oh, and in few months after it begins global water vapor will have risen, and it will probably double {from current levels] in few years.
Oh, warming arctic cold water would have more thermal expansion, so in blink of warming it, we not going to consider the wave of water that this would make. Or we will assume at start there less water in Arctic ocean basin- or it equally rises 1 meter as does the rest of world.
And the 5 C will melt any coastal inlet ice existing, and take awhile to melt. Or one could assume no ice is warmed up 5 C, just existing liquid seawater become 5 C. Or if start it in winter, it could take week or month to melt all polar sea ice, likewise it take awhile increase glacial ice which is flowing into ocean.
But a good portion of that 1500 C atmosphere heat added would be heating the coldest ocean basin.
And since cold seawater falls, the ocean will cool as cold water is falling into the basin- ocean gets colder from bottom up. Or any ice in ocean is only matter of fairly short time period before it melts- but if 5 meter thick it take more time than 1 meter thick.
So, for maximum snow, I going to pick time of spring equinox.
So around March 20, things were the typical Earth stuff and as dawn broke over arctic with it’s 12 hour day. Earth’s ocean when from 3.5 C to 5 C average {and uniform} temperature.
And in tropics when dawn come, the the tropical ocean being around 26 C, dropped to have temperature of 5 C. And at dawn and on land, nothing abrupt seems to have happened. And in other parts of tropics
and say on ocean, the surface water cools to 5 C, and air doesn’t do much immediately or somewhere around +20 C. But the atmosphere is collapsing, it might make a noise, low noise and growing over time.
They say, Venus has sound at it’s terminator line, though Venus is big sky and suppose to make large sound. So not sure how noise it will make. But suddenly you got cold water with a lot warmer air above. And cold water and warm air, makes fog:
“Advection fog forms when warm, moist air passes over a cool surface.”
So 20 C air in tropic is warm and moist air. So seems addition to some sound, one might get a lot fog.
If at a beach, sound, fog, and 1 meter high tsunami, one wave and it stays. Though it could like a tide coming in, but much faster.
The clouds should still be in the air. And clouds and fog should “burn away” from Sunlight.
It seems in first day most of sound and fury would occur in the tropics. And after this settles down, the tropics will get colder. Back at the arctic, you also get fog:
“Steam Fog “Steam fog”, also called “evaporation fog”, requires a body of water. It forms when cold air moves over relatively much warmer water.” And in a day a fair amount ice will melt.
Well, that a start.
So, in month or two all polar sea ice should have melted and arctic ocean surface temperature should at least 5 C and it’s April 20 or May 20 and will at 5 C because sunlight will at low angle and heating the ocean surface.
And could more glacial ice flowing in the ocean which should melt pretty quickly. And one question is how much is it snowing on Greenland.
Now anyone living near coastal region in Greenland {where everyone who live in Greenland, live. Will have warm weather since March 20, those could more rain than is usual. Not to mention the fog. It might been a lot fog for week or so. Now, wouldn’t fog in areas which cover polar ice, but more ice area that melts would cause more fog- until the atmosphere warmed up. And whereas weak sunlight near polar won’t burn it off as quickly and because it might more cloudy than is “normal” the warm ocean without ice on it, should be doing most of warming the atmosphere.
Let’s get some idea of how water vapor which then condenses and warms the air is needed to warm 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter. Specific heat is based amount joules need to heat a gram or kg of air:
“At 300 K (27oC) , the specific heat of air is 1.005 kJ/kg⋅K”
So 1 per gram or 1000 per kg or 1 million per tonne. So 10 million joules of heat.
And water vaper is 2,260 kJ/kg, so 2.2 million joule per kg or per 1 mm of water evaporated. So 5 mm of water per square meter.
In terms of inches, 5 mm is 0.19685 inches or 1 mm is 0.0393701″
I wonder how long a tea saucer with a bit water in it would evaporate in a refrigerator. I put about 5 mm in small plate outside in desert and air temperature is suppose to be about 63 F or 17 C and predicted to cool to 50 F {10 C } and about 2 mm in fridge. And don’t expect either to be dry by morning. But it will warmer tomorrow, so I expect 5 mm outside to evaporate quicker than the 2 mm in fridge. And fridge water should be cooler than 4 C, check outside water in a hour- tap water at 17 C at moment.
So I would say week or more to warm atmosphere, though tropical ocean heat engine will not warming polar regions for months, or maybe a year or more.
Now, make all kinds of sense for water to evaporate in desert region, but why does it evaporate anywhere. Or if something is sheltered, so don’t get dew or rain, clothes or whatever going to dry out, if give them enough time. Though dry clothes could become slightly damp outside or could not get as dry as clothes drier makes them. Anyhow outside saucer is closer to 15 C now. And fridge water is about 9 C. And less than hour from 17 C.
And damp lawn and dirt about 10 C, dry concrete about 17 C.
Anyhow since all the daylight and after 1 month or two surface of ocean should warmer than 5 C. And when get close to summer, a lot warmer. So it should cause more rain and snow before summer. But it could snow more in the fall. And the next year’s fall.
binny the naive…”You just need to download C D. C data…”
The CD-C have a rich history of corruption. Funds ear-marked for a study into the possible cause of autism by vaccines was stolen by a CD-C researcher. They are still looking for him.
The former CEO of the CD-C, a female, had to step down over corruption. She was immediately hired by a pharmaceutical company.
Covid related: The CD-C noted that 40% of those testing positive show no symptoms. They labeled the 40% as ‘silent carriers’, without the slightest bit of scientific evidence that is true.
HIV related: in the 1990s, when the HAART antiviral drugs were introduced, AIDS deaths were already declining. With the drugs, the number of AIDS deaths started to increase, so the CD-C separated those deaths related to the drugs from the actual AIDS death count, so it would not appear that the drugs were not only ineffective, they were actually killing people.
The drug companies were straight about it in their data sheets. They admitted the drugs could not cure HIV and that they could cause serious blood disorders as well as liver and kidney damage leading to death.
part 2…
Treating people who tested HIV positive with such dangerous poisons was akin to genocide. The first antiviral, AZT, was so dangerous it was discontinued as a cancer chemotherapy drug. Yet, the CD-C et al had no problem putting HIV-positive people on it for life.
These SOBs should all be in jail for criminal negligence but now they are misinforming people on covid.
Just me, or are half the bloggers here completely nuts? Reminds me of home.
March Hare
No, it’s not ‘just you’.
Exactly above your comment you see the dumbest, most ignorant boaster of all, who doesn’t know anything, and spends his time here in distorting, discrediting, denigrating and lying, of course cowardly hidden behind a faked, pseudoreal name.
He should be sent to Brazil for six months, helping there in hospitals – of course without any protection against COVID, as that virus does not exist, as we all know.
The problem with this blog is that it lacks any moderation, and that anybody here can write anything.
And that is exactly what so many here misuse: they would be banned within two hours anywhere else.
J.-P. D.
MH, the ones here that deny reality are referred to as “idiots”. Their benefit is to be the “bad examples”. People that don’t fully understand the science can often quickly recognize an idiot spouting nonsense.
Don’t be too quick to favor censorship. When one of the idiots becomes too obnoxious, I just ignore their “droppings”.
Clint R says: April 16, 2021 at 4:14 AM
Here’s my clinical diagnosis of Clint R based on an analysis of just his ~ 300 posts so far this month. Free of charge.
Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for excessive attention.
People with the disorder can:
Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive attention.
Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it.
Exaggerate achievements and talents.
Be preoccupied with fantasies about success or brilliance.
Believe they are superior.
Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior.
Expect unquestioning compliance with their expectations.
Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious.
Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior.
Thanks for proving me right, TM.
And did you really count all my comments?
Cool, I have another idiot stalker!
And did you really count all my comments?
Yes. I use a notepad and tally marks while scrolling down the page; sometimes I hit refresh inadvertently and have to start over.
“Yes. I use a notepad and tally marks while scrolling down the
page;…”
Just use control shift, and copy paste: Clint R says
And in 1 second, I get 218 posts
This will be my 55th post.
But I probably used far more words in the posts.
gbaikie 1:24 AM
Can you spell sarcasm?
Thanks for correcting TM, gbaikie.
He’s trying to claim I’m the “narcissist”, as he types his name in ALL CAPS!
You can’t make this stuff up….
TYSON MCGUFFIN
I had thought Clint R was a Contrarian but I think your analysis sounds even more accurate.
You may be on to something, Norman.
I am contrarian to nonsense, perversion, dishonesty, and idiocy.
Norman 4:18 PM
He’s more like a Mississippi leg hound.
Tyson please stop trolling.
> are half the bloggers here completely nuts?
https://i.imgflip.com/562m4r.jpg
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier on, someone wrote –
“If I had To guess I would expect more snow in the short term due to more evaporation and less snow in the long term due to warmer land.”
CO2 achieves miracles! Whatever you guess, you get. Or maybe not.
Dr David Viner – ” . . .children just arent going to know what snow is . . . “. Hmmm. Subsequent record snowfalls must be due to global warming.
Tim Flannery –
In 2007, Flannery declared even the rain that falls isnt actually going to fill our dams and river systems. Until 2012, of course. Widespread drenching rains, flooded towns and cities, and dams full to the brim and overtopping.
Once again, obviously the miracle of CO2!
You couldn’t make this stuff up!
If I ever get to isolate the most important bingo squares, “but predictions” will be one of them:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
Idiot Willy,
I assume you are desperate for people to click on your links.
Who would be so stupid?
Gavin Schmidt and the bumblers at NASA produce pointless computer games called “global climate modelling”.
Are they better or worse than the “bingo squares” you mention? It seems that you can’t even be bothered finishing your game. Pointless waste of time, would it be?
Dream on, laddie.
Steady on there, Mike.
Are you exhibiting bad form due to ignorance, or just being gratuitously offensive?
Or maybe you are just uncontrollably narcissistic. I find it difficult to believe you consider your comments to be part of normal etiquette, but I must accept your assurance if this what you believe.
May I have your permission to adopt a similar approach in relation to responding to any future comments you may care to make?
Live well and prosper.
Willard please stop trolling
Bill, please stop on links not clicking.
Willard please stop trolling
Hubris Friday
Swenson says: April 15, 2021 at 8:39 PM
Conservation of energy applies to a closed system, regardless of which discipline you choose to take your definition from.
The Earth is not, by any stretch of the cultist imagination, a closed system.
Reply
Obviously he was never taught how to solve problems in Thermodynamics. Here’s what every high-schooler learns about analyzing and solving this type problems which serves them well in their further studies:
1) Summarize given data in own words.
2) Clearly understand/identify what is being asked for.
3) Define system boundaries, noting if it is an open or closed system.
4) Plot the known states on a P-v/T-v/T-s diagram.
5) Apply conservation of mass to process.
6) Apply conservation of energy to process.
7) Apply entropy balance and/or ( the second law of thermodynamics).
8) Solve algebraically for desired quantity using combination of mass balance, energy balance, and definitions.
9) Perform heat transfer analysis to get Q.
10) Perform work analysis to get W.
11)Find properties using Tables or models, such as equations of state.
12) Substitute numbers into equation and solve for desired quantity.
13) Sanity check magnitude of answer and direction (if any) to see if the solution makes sense.
Science always wins.
T,
The Earth is not a closed system, and therefore “conservation of energy” does not apply to the Earth.
Your nonsense makes no sense. Some people quote the Scientific American as an authoritative source, so here’s a quote –
“The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constantit can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside.”
If you don’t believe that the laws of thermodynamics admit of no exceptions, that is your right.
Maybe you could state whether you believe the Earth is a closed system?
Idiot.
Swenson 5:36 PM
Step # 3 above clearly states Define system boundaries, noting if it is an open or closed system.
See, that is the beauty of Thermo, once I define the system and write the balancing equations I am better than half way to a solution. You on the other hand become paralyzed by your own ignorance.
I can’t even begin to imagine how painful it must be for a layman living in this complex world.
T,
The Earth is not a closed system. You can define it as such if you wish. It still won’t change reality.
Your nonsense about writing balancing equations is just, well, nonsense. As to being half way to a solution, more nonsense.
There is no solution for your form of idiocy.
I can’t even begin to imagine how painful it must be for a layman living in this complex world.
“On 6 August 1945, atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima by the USA. It killed thousands of people. The incident showed the impact of science on human life. It left everyone stunned and confused. Above all, the layman was frightened by science, as never before.“
Tyson, please stop trolling.
tyson snape…”Obviously he was never taught how to solve problems in Thermodynamics”.
Nor were you, snape.
Gordon Robertson 6:35 PM
We’ve already established that you are a pretend Engineer so your opinion on this matter is worth Zero.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
TEE Dumb….” Gordon Robertson 6:35 PM
We’ve already established that you are a pretend Engineer so your opinion on this matter is worth Zero”.
***
Yeah, just like you established AGW as pseudo-science. Why is it I understand the advanced physics and math and you don’t? And why did you have to change one nym for another?
You’re the fraud, not me.
Where is the “stop trolling” gnome when you really need it.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
there you are though a little late!
#2
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Here is question that anyone can attempt to answer. How much solar energy does Earth receive at TOA in one orbital cycle? What is the average flux this amount of energy represents? Show your work.
Good idea, b
Perhaps you could explain:
to make sure you don’t get too many postmanesque answers.
…that you won’t understand.
b’s explanation or Joe’s crap, kiddo?
Yeah. Sure. TSI is the solar flux perpendicular to the surface at TOA (top of atmosphere) averaged over one orbital period. The keyword here is perpendicular. In other words it assumes the surface upon which falls has flat geometry. If the surface does not have flat geometry then the TSI must be projected onto the surface via transformation function. I want to see how contrarians are going to deal with this.
I see two solutions:
S1. DIVIDE BY TWO.
S2. Consider the chicken.
You can actually do it without dividing by 2 if you are willing to do a bit of calculus. You can never go wrong with chicken rotisserie though.
A BIT OF CALCULUS?
Who do you think I am, Terence Tao?
Alright. Got some business to attend. Might take the week-end.
Laterz.
“b’s explanation or Joe’s crap, kiddo?”
How can you say something’s “crap” when you don’t understand it?
You already forgot:
OK, kiddo.
You also forgot to OK that bit, kiddo`
Interesting.
OK, kiddo.
Good.
Since you changed your mind, kiddo, let me remind you of what Joe said:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2012/11/06/on-the-absence-of-a-measurable-greenhouse-effect-part-1-the-failure-of-ipcc-energy-budgets/
Nothing you said so far goes beyond that sentence of Joe.
When will you speak of nights and days?
OK, kiddo. Sorry for your failure to understand.
You can’t repeat “at once” over and over again like it’s some kind of magical incantation, kiddo.
Well, you did. But then you can’t pretend that your repetitions explain.
Well, you did. But then you can’t complain that your esoteric stance isn’t understood.
Well, you did. But then you can’t pretend you’re not the one who brings the communication to a close.
Well, you do, over and over again. But then you can’t pretend presenting a scientific case.
Well, you don’t, or do you? You just say it’s “interesting,” except when you say:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662912
But then you can simply say “OK” and wash your hand over this silly playbook of yours.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Or, wall else fails, kiddo, you can always pretend you’re Roy’s moderator and say “please, stop trolling.”
Nothing has failed, you just won’t stop trolling, accusing me of everything under the sun just because you couldn’t understand the reasoning behind the divide by 2. I went over it and over it with you, and you simply could not grasp it. That’s not my fault, kiddo.
Now, please stop trolling.
Willard do you have doubts that he is moderating?
I have no doubt that kiddo isn’t moderating, Bill.
We both know what Roy thinks of Moonies who peddle Joe’s crap.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m more into slayin’, kiddo.
Keep on guessin’.
#3
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey, stealing my earlier idea?
4,152,000,000 TWh
1361 W/m2
Ok, I think I messed up. Should be:
117,590,400 w/m2
1361 * 60 * 60 * 24
I think this is actually a nonsensical question.
Analogy:
– total distance travelled = 100 miles.
– what is the average speed this distance represents?
Huh?
You’ll have to specify a time period for your question to be answerable.
10 parsecs per Kessel run?
No, you need to specify a time period for the question to make sense.
Answerable. Make sense. It’s two sides of the same coin. I don’t think anyone is going to seriously challenge this either way.
You would not challenge the question if someone asked what velocity 100 miles represented?
I’m saying no one is going to seriously challenge your point. The point being that to be able to answer question you must have sufficient inputs to perform the calculation. Asking someone to provide the average velocity for a body that travels 100 miles without also specifying the time period involved isn’t going to cut it.
Sorry to nitpick.
My answer is:
1361 joules/second/square meter
117,590,400 joules/day/square meter
The question is…how much energy does Earth receive from the Sun at TOA over one orbital period?
Let’s see.
Solar constant is 1360.8W/m^2.
That is 1360.8 Joules/ second/m^2
That becomes 1.360.8*60*60*24*365.25 =4.292 * 10^10 Joules/m^2/year.
Earth intercepts 4.292*10^10*pi*(6*10^6)^2 =
4.853*10^24 Joules/year.
And just for fun.
Add up the gain in ocean heat content, ice melt and warming of land and atmosphere and Earth gains 3.03*10^21 Joules/year.
Outgoing longwave radiation is therefore 4.853*10^24 – 3.03*10^21 = 4.850*10^24 Joules/year.
Yeah. It looks you used radius = 6000 km for Earth. When I use 6378 km I get 5.48e24 joules. This averages out to a flux of about 340 W/m^2.
Guilty of approximating the radius. Smile.
I also forgot to allow for albedo when calculating OLR, so my approximate total outward longwave radiation becomes 4.853*10^24*0.7 – 3.03*10^21 = 3.394*10^24 Joules/year
Before homogenization, 8 of 16 (total) stations showed no warming trend in GHCN V4 unadjusted, but NASA “homogenized” the data and now all 16 of 16 stations have warming trend in GHCN V4 adj – homogenized. This is how climate scientists come up with “warming”.
Rarely do we see data homogenized so that a warming trend gets changed to a cooling trend. It’s always the other way around.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/16/8-longterm-australia-stations-altered-from-warming-to-cooling-by-nasa-giss/
S.K. Dodsland
That is Gosselin’s dumb, dishonest Trick Zone. Even worse than Goddard aka Heller.
Do you know, Genius Dodsland, how many GHCN V4 stations there are in Australia?
The answer was, as I downloaded GHCN V4 data on Jan 4 of this year:
1,304
Why, do you think, were exactly those chosen which were presented on the stuff you linked to?
You are such a naive, gullible follower of Goddard, Gosselin and of all others distorting our view on temperature data…
Weiter so, Dodsland!
J.-P. D.
binny…”The answer was, as I downloaded GHCN V4 data on Jan 4 of this year:
1,304″
How many of them are used by NOAA in their time series? According to NOAA, they use less than 1500 surface stations globally, so I am reasoning that 1304 of them are not in Australia.
Robertson
Again and again, your STUPID lies concerning NOAA data.
NOAA has over 40,000 stations worldwide, you dumb ass.
Your are really the dumbest, most stubborn person writing on this blog.
‘Robertson’ and ‘reasoning’ ?
Two words permanently excluding each another.
Why can’t you stop lying about everything, Robertson?
You lie about Evolution, Einstein, viruses, Moon’s spin, GPS.
WHY?
J.-P. D.
binny…”NOAA has over 40,000 stations worldwide, you dumb ass”.
***
https://web.archive.org/web/20150410045648/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.
Wake up and smell the roses, moron. Your fake 40,000 stations have shrunk to less than 1500 stations. Your authority figure, NOAA, is pulling the wool over your eyes, and like a good sheep, all you do is bleat.
Baaaa-innny. Baaaa-inny.
GR,
You posted that same link last time. The response is going to be the same now as it was then. The 1500 cited in that article are those that provide their observations promptly. At the time of writing NOAA was actually using about 7,500 stations worldwide to compute the global mean temperature. Today they are using over 27,000.
You can download the GHCN-M data file including the station inventory here. https://tinyurl.com/csfr49ap
bdgwx
It makes no sense to reply to such a dumb ass with technical arguments: I myself forget that all the time.
What Robertson refers to is a web page dated 2009, which was on the Wayback machine until around 2017.
The best is to ignore what liars a la Robertson write ad nauseam.
He’s just a dumb provocateur.
And he is also a disgusting liar, denigrating persons who contributed to our understanding of science.
I recall him writing a few months ago – yeah: on this blog – about Andrew Motte, one of these great persons who translated Newton’s Principia Mathematica, written in Latin, into English, the following words:
” In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB. ”
Only a coward, reckless and respectless Ignoramus like Robertson can write such things.
And such people whine about me insulting them!
What else do they merit?
J.-P. D.
Why is do every homogenized data set trend higher?
There is no surface temperature warming just data altering.
IPCC/NOAA no longer have any credibility and your insults won’t change that.
S.K.,
What is the global mean surface temperature warming trend using unadjusted vs adjusted?
S.K. Dodsland
Insults?! Are you serious?
Just because I name you a naive and gullible follower of people a la Goddard?
Wow.
I’m insulted here all the time, by people who moreover even insult historical scientists like e.g. Cassini and Mayer.
And especially to people like you I say:
Oh! How interesting to note that NOAA ” no longer have any credibility” – with one exception, however.
NOAA has full support by all Pseudoskeptics when it shows… La Nina keeping pretty good alive, and hence supports their strange hope for cooling.
By the way, you didn’t answer bdgwx’s question (I would have wondered about you being able to).
I have some idle time today, and will do that for you downthread.
J.-P. D.
S.K. Dodsland
Do you remember bdgwx’s question:
” What is the global mean surface temperature warming trend using unadjusted vs adjusted? ”
Here is the answer you should have given her/him:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-667914
*
Should you have managed to understand what I wrote there, so you are kindly, politely invited
– (1) to engineer, exactly as some people like MrZ and myself did, a software package processing the GHCN V3 sources you find below
https://tinyurl.com/yo6fvbs4
(tinyURL’d because of a ‘d c’ character sequence in the original link)
– (2) to start comparing, for each of all 7,280 stations, the adjusted vs. the unadjusted variant, by trying to understand their difference
– (3) to write a comment about the results you obtained.
*
Then, Mrs/Ms/Mr Dodsland, we will at the end see how much remains of your superficial, gullible claim:
” There is no surface temperature warming just data altering. ”
Good luck, Dodsland!
J.-P. D.
If I understand correctly –
1361 w/m2 would fall uniformly across a circle with Earth radius.
This is the equivalent of 680.5 w/m2 averaged over 1/2 of round earth.
Or, 1361 w/m^2 averaged over 1/4 of round earth.
Which is why I thought it was funny that Clint whines about averaging fluxes, but had no problem with agreeing that 1/4 of Earth surface absorbs 960 w/m^2, which is itself an average!
–
@ bdgwx,
That was the first of two questions, and already answered:
4,152,000,000 TWh
???
Close. That is the correct figure for absorbed solar radiation. TOA is 6,080,000,000 TWh.
That’s not you asked for. You asked for the energy arriving at TOA, which as March and I calculated is a little over 4*10^24 Joules/year.
I asked for TOA. But ASR is useful too.
TOA = 5.48e24 joules = 1,520,000,000 TWh
ASR = 3.84e24 joules = 1,072,000,000 TWh
BTW…I have no idea how I got 6,080,000,000 TWh above. That was a mistake.
bdg…”That is the correct figure for absorbed solar radiation. TOA is 6,080,000,000 TWh”.
1)with clouds or without clouds?
2)Constant? Or does it vary with the location on the planet?
3)Does it vary with the Earth’s position in its orbit?
4)As the exposed hemisphere rotates, is their more or less absorbed at various locales on the hemisphere? How would you formulate a differential equation, given the different absorp-tion factors of different materials so you could apply an integral to work out the correct figure?
Gross generalizations lead to the pseudo-science we have today based on AGW.
I goofed. It is actually 1,520,000,000 TWh or 5.48e24 joules.
1. Irrelevant. This is the total amount of energy that TOA is exposed to each year.
2.A. It is not constant. It varies due to solar output and orbital perturbations.
2.B. Irrelevant. This is the total amount of energy that TOA is exposed to each year.
3. It varies a little bit.
4.A. Irrelevant. This is the total amount of energy that TOA is exposed to each year.
4.B. Irrelevant. This is the total amount of energy that TOA is exposed to each year.
bdg…”1. Irrelevant. This is the total amount of energy that TOA is exposed to each year”.
We live on the surface in different locations that receive different amounts of solar radiation.
Nice dodge. When you feel trapped, try going with the science.
> We live on the surface in different locations that receive different amounts of solar radiation.
That may not imply what you presume, Gordon.
Check back Fourier’s law and report.
GR,
You asked if the 5.48e24 joules of energy in one year at TOA was with clouds or without. The answer is it doesn’t matter because clouds have no impact on this figure either way. Just because you asked an irrelevant questions doesn’t mean I’m dodging it. If you don’t understand why it is irrelevant then please ask questions.
Likewise, things solar radiation variation and the places people live are also irrelevant to the mount of energy the Earth is exposed to at TOA. Again, if you don’t understand these concepts then please ask questions.
Whickering Wee Willy wrote –
“Check back Fourier’s law and report.”
Obviously delusional, is Willy. Believes he has the power to issue instructions, and have others leap to obey!
Unfortunately, he can’t even string a coherent sentence together. “Check back Fourier’s law and report”? Wee Willy attempts to plumb new depths of obscurity and crypticism, with some success.
What an idiot!
Start here, Mike:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier's_law
You’re welcome.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please note that terawatt hours refers to a quantity of energy, not a rate.
I completely screwed up!
I assumed the question was –
How much total solar energy falls on TOA in one day?
To answer, I cheated:
https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/
I simply multiplied 173,000 TWh by 24 = 4,152,000 TWh
But then, as seen above, I accidentally added too many zeros. Right or wrong, sorry for the confusion this caused!!
Another screw up –
Only 1/4 of earth surface averages 1361 joules/second/square meter at top of atmosphere.
But the question was how much does Earth as a whole receive, so the answer should be 340.25 joules/second/square meter.
I would never have made it as an engineer!
Ha…no worries. I screwed up above too. I threw out 6,080,000,000 TWh for TOA over a year above, but have no idea how I got that now. I’m pretty sure this is right though.
TOA = 5.48e24 joules = 1,520,000,000 TWh
ASR = 3.84e24 joules = 1,072,000,000 TWh
TOA-flux-average = 340 W/m^2
ASR-flux-average = 240 W/m^2
BTW…here is how I did it without using the division or cross section shortcuts…
E = T * integral(0, pi/2, 2pi*r^2*cos(t)*S*sin(t), dt)
…where T is time in seconds, S is the solar constant, little r is the radius, and little t is theta or the angle from the equator. The idea is that rings get bigger in proportion to cos(t) and flux gets smaller in proportion to sin(t) as you move down the latitudes.
b,
Nice bit of irrelevant and pointless diversion.
Or do you have point? As I have pointed out, the Earth is not a closed system, and you have confirmed this by attempting to calculate some of the energy entering the system from the outside.
To what end? To show you can use a calculator?
Good for you!
b,
Nice bit of irrelevant and pointless diversion.
Or do you have point? As I have pointed out, the Earth is not a closed system, and you have confirmed this by attempting to calculate some of the energy entering the system from the outside.
To what end? To show you can use a calculator?
Good for you!
Swenson
Doing science is fun. That you do not understand this simple truth says more about you than anything else you’ve written.
Good point.
One could also ask: a diversion from what?
Gavin, the IPCC, or any other of his favorite scapegoats?
Jefferson, Feynman or any other of his gurus?
In any case, I will always welcome Mike’s divertimenti.
The idiot brigade are so divorced from thermodynamic reality that they carry on as though the Earth is a closed system.
The fact that they can see things like the Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies, from the Earth might be a clue to them that the Earth is not a closed system, and the concept of some “energy balance” is merely cultist fantasy.
Their heroes are non-scientists like Gavin Schmidt, supposed mathematician who publicly asserted that a 0.38 probability of an occurrence meant more likely to occur than not!
Or Michael Mann,( faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat), who believed that printing himself a certificate declaring himself a Nobel Laureate (he wasn’t, of course), would result in world-wide adulation(it didn’t, of course).
Oh dear. The climate cultists supposedly believe in something – but they can’t actually describe it! Strange, isn’t it?
And so it’s a diversion from your favorite scapegoats, Mike.
Thank you for clarifying.
Wandering Willy,
Why do you bother asking gotchas when you think you already know the answer?
Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. You are an idiot.
You wrote –
“And so its a diversion from your favorite scapegoats, Mike.”
Three mistaken assertions in eleven words!
There was only one assertion, Mike.
You don’t seem to be in shape today.
So let’s cut to the chase:
You really don’t get to decide what’s topical.
Which is a good thing, for you can’t.
You’re a clown with a limited repertoire of tired bits.
Enjoy your afternoon,
W
Dimwitted Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“So lets cut to the chase:
You really dont get to decide whats topical.”
Let’s not. You may cut to any chase you fancy. I get to decide what I write, and I really don’t care what you think.
Take it or leave it – it’s all the same to me.
> I get to decide what I write
Are you sure about that, Mike?
Bear in mind that your repertoire is quite limited.
You’re evading my point, however:
Your scapegoats, your gurus, and your talking points are mere diversions.
May you enjoy your scribblings as much as I do!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wow!
Here is what it looks like using http://www.desmos.com
https://i.imgur.com/cmdZFYD.gif
entropic…”Your God, if he exists, is a complex system.
Who made Him?
And who created His creator?”
***
This is a tired, old, ad hominem attack. Why is it, when the supporters of the inane theory of evolution cannot respond to a claim about the faults of the theory, that the supporters try to brush off the commentary as being related to God, or Creation theory?
Can none of you think for yourselves? Darwin put his theory together as a thought-experiment without scientific proof other than his thoughts on the origins of the flora and fauna of Pacific islands. The theory of natural selection is nothing more than a vague intelligence that has never been proved to exist.
Evolution theory falls apart right at the beginning, and never recovers. The beginning of evolution is abiogenesis, a process in which inert materials like oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus (why phosphorus??) and hydrogen are claimed to somehow form life.
There is nothing in covalent or ionic bonding theory to support the formation of life. The DNA molecule is obviously made up of atoms bonded into a large molecule and it contains codes required to synthesize amino acids, the precursors of proteins. Codes are intelligence and the chances of those codes forming out of a fluke bonding of basic elements is billions and billions to one.
Even if you constructed a strand of DNA, complete with codes, the biologist Rupert Sheldrake compared getting life from that DNA to dropping off a load of construction materials at a site and expecting the material to form themselves into a building.
There is an intelligence inherent in life that cannot be denied by a rational mind. It’s far too complex to explain with complex organisms like the human and its far too coincidental the way parts of the humans body operate, like the eye. We can explain how light is focused by the lens on the retina but we cannot explain what happens after the retina converts the EM to biochemical processes. And we certainly cannot explain how the image formed on the retina is projected outward to see it at a distance.
Only an idiot, like Darwin, would leap to such a mammoth conclusion regarding the origins of life. And only idiots would line up to accept his theory without giving the slightest thought to alternative explanations.
Have we so collectively lost our ability to think that we can no longer say, “I don’t know”?
In 1953, an experiment was performed to create life by mixing the necessary ingredients. All they got was a lump of goo. It was concluded afterward that the environment required to produce the goo was not conducive to life.
Actually, if people ask, I say that I am a Pastafarian.
I agree with Bertrand Russell’s argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them.
Proof of creationism, please.
Then no one has ever seen God, and there is no evidence Jesus ever walked the Earth.
It’s all superstition.
bobd…”there is no evidence Jesus ever walked the Earth”.
Yes, there is. The Romans recorded their actions, the crucifixion is confirmed in Roman history. Unfortunately, not many people recorded the history of the era so we are limited to reports from eyewitness accounts.
If you are interested, which I doubt, try ready scholars on the subject like Elaine Pagels. Pagels gives unbiased reports of that era, at least, as much as she can report with the information available.
You don’t think the influence Jesus had on Western culture came from a mythical figure do you? The man was crucified for challenging the powers that be, mainly due to his on-going message to look after the poor and for going against traditional, Jewish religious beliefs. It was due to the efforts of Jesus, and his emphasis on forgiveness, compassion, and love that we managed to get as far as we did.
Your attack on him is strictly an ad hominem attack and it reveals a cynical, bitterness inside you.
Sorry Gordon,
Those Roman reports are well know to be forgeries.
And I have a few Pagels books on my bookshelf.
“Creation” is a belief, there is no “proof”. There’s a lot of evidence, but no scientific proof. It’s a belief.
Just like “evolution”. Evolution is a belief. There is no scientific “proof”.
There’s no “proof” in empirical sciences, Clint.
Science can’t replace common sense.
Yes, agreeing with me is always a safe path.
Keep it up.
[VLAD] Creation is a belief, there is no proof. Theres a lot of evidence, but no scientific proof. Its a belief.
[ESTR] Theres no proof in empirical sciences, Vlad.
[VLAD] Yes, agreeing with me is always a safe path.
Witless,
I have to make a shameless appeal to authority here –
Albert Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Climate cultists get around this by never committing themselves to anything that can be experimentally shown to be wrong. Too big, too complicated, “we haven’t got another Earth”, the excuses go on and on.
The practitioners of this nonsense cannot even say where the wondrous “Greenhouse Effect” can be observed, let alone describe it in any useful way.
Ah, cults! Belief triumphs over all.
Pity nobody can point to a single benefit to humanity from the beliefs of the Climate Cult.
Sad, really.
Mike,
Thank you for your contribution:
[VLAD] Creation is a belief, there is no proof. Theres a lot of evidence, but no scientific proof. Its a belief.
[ESTR] Theres no proof in empirical sciences, Vlad.
[VLAD] Yes, agreeing with me is always a safe path.
[ESTR] No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Wee Willy,
Whatever.
You are an idiot.
And you are a very good reader, Mike.
Champagne!
Willard, please stop trolling.
entropic…”Proof of creationism, please”.
Who’s talking about creationism, I am talking about science? I am talking about an intelligence and an order in life that has no explanation, especially in the lame theory of evolution.
I know nothing about how life began but I can observe the wonders in the human body that cannot be explained by evolution theory.
binny…”Exactly above your comment you see the dumbest, most ignorant boaster of all, who doesnt know anything, and spends his time here in distorting, discrediting, denigrating and lying, of course cowardly hidden behind a faked, pseudoreal name”.
Your venom knows no bounds. You cannot answer a post using scientific understanding, your responses are either vile ad hominem attacks or an appeal to authority.
I am going to have to demote you from idiot to moron.
Thomas Jefferson (known to many Americans as one of the Founding Fathers, and Third President) said –
“. . . . it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
On the other hand, there are many people who seem overly concerned about what their neighbour may or may not believe, for no apparent good reason.
In this regard, I am a Jeffersonian. I really don’t care if you are a Rastafarian or a Pastafarian.
On the other hand, climate cultists continually demand that I change my life at their behest, and spend my money as they see fit.
I’ll stick with Jefferson, and let the climate clowns continue their mad dance to nowhere. They might have to accept that if they stick their noses into my affairs, I might respond in like manner, by pointing out their derangement to the world at large.
Dance on, I say!
On the subject of how warming is affecting snowfall – a short essay explaining my thoughts:
snow is decreasing from the edges inward and upward, even if more snow is falling in the middle or top.
So; for example, the snow-line on most mountains is moving upwards, but more snow could be falling on top (because with more water vapor in the atmosphere, and because at high elevations precipitation is often the bigger constraint to snowfall than temperature).
At some point, though, an observational tipping point will be reached. This is when a bunch of low elevation snotel sites (locations where meteorologists have kept long term records of snow water equivalent) start falling below the snow line, thereby going from a potentially deep snowpack to none at all, by virtue of the natural tipping point which is ~0 C.
Another edge involves latitude, with snowfall moving towards the poles. Again, more snow could be falling at North Pole because of increased WV, even as the latitude edge moves north.
The other edge involves seasons, with typical snowfall days decreasing, but likely an increase falling in the middle of winter (more WV).
Sounds about right. It will snow less often, but to a greater depth when it does.
Glaciers are a good snowfall indicator. They were in dynamic equilibrium. Snow fell on their tops and compacted. The ice then flowed downhill and ended at the point where the rate of melt equalled the rate of flow.
Now they are shrinking. The amount of snow falling on their tops is decreasing so ice is flowing away from the source faster than it accumulates and is getting thinner.
At the bottom temperatures are increasing and the melting points are retreating upstream.
This is happening worldwide, from the Alps to the Andes and Kilimanjaro to Fuji.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55346329
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55206215
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-56247945
Glaciers are somewhat shrinking in some areas due to this natural warming trend.
I wonder if the CO2 Alarmists will try to use this as “proof” of their anti-science nonsense?
They claim passenger jets fly backwards in order to protect their Moon anti-science nonsense. It’s always anything to protect their cult.
“They claim passenger jets fly backwards ”
Simple logic. The Earth rotates once every 24 hours. Thus at the Equator the Earth”s surface is moving Eastwards at 1042mph.
An airliner flying West along the Equator at an airspeed of 600mph is also being carried Eastwards at 1042mph by the Earth’s rotation.
Add the two vectors and the resultant is an Easterly movement at 442mph. The airliner is moving backwards.
QED
Thanks for confirming you’re an idiot, Ent.
Never look into why planets were called “planet,” Clint.
Willard
Please don’t tell Clint R that whole planets can go backwards too.
The poor lad is confused enough already.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/astronomy/why-do-some-planets-appear-to-move-backwards-through-the-sky/
ASTROLOGY!
It’s like my birthday — every day!
You guys give me so much attention and do all the work proving you’re idiots.
The gifts just keep coming.
Everything confirms what you knew all along, Clint.
It’s SCIENCE.
Clint R
“Its like my birthday every day!
You guys give me so much attention and do all the work proving youre idiots.
The gifts just keep coming.”
Glad to help. Now that we know you have Narcissistic Personality Disorder we are glad to help you, as we would help anyone sick.
E wrote –
“Now that we know you have Narcissistic Personality Disorder we are glad to help you, as we would help anyone sick.”
The psychobabblers return.
The cultists are being faced with reality, and so have to turn to pointless silliness.
You’re real to me, Mike, but you can’t speak for reality.
Unless:
https://youtu.be/LyzOq40rpwQ
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growing#:~:text=New%20data%20collected%20in%20March,change%20to%20cool%20ocean%20waters.&text=The%20glacier%20has%20not%20advanced,continues%20to%20slow%20and%20thicken.
Here, Bill:
I took the liberty to emphasize the bit you omitted.
Woeful Wee Willy,
And your point is?
Or is your comment, as usual, pointless?
Have you noticed how the quote starts?
Which part of “Jakobshavn has spent decades in retreat” you do not get?
Have you ever consider how decades compare to 2016 and 2017?
Why are you giving me an open net like that, Mike?
Do you need more tea?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Excellent.
Jakobshavn glacier has been setting speed records for years. Nice to see it drop back to normal.
Global warming is over!
This glacier was at the heart of alarmist sea level rise predictions, producing 10% of the melt from all of Greenland.
This was the central story of great canyons of water melting under the greenland glacier. The following images are rather interesting.
Retreat history:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003395/JakobshavnOverheadWdates.1024.jpg
aerial photo
https://www.google.com/maps/@69.0565755,-49.6986052,65500m/data=!3m1!1e3
Jakobshav watershed:
https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/files/2016/06/figures_1-01-1.jpg
The data on this report is 2 1/2 years old. With last retreat noted in August 2015, thus we are perhaps on our way to the 6th year of advance.
Last advance lasted 14 years from the map above firing up around 2001 and ending according to the original link story in August 2015.
and finally a rather balanced article on the topic.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/03/26/the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-greenlands-jakobshavn-glacier-slowing-and-gaining-mass/?sh=570b2e262179
“Yes. I use a notepad and tally marks while scrolling down the
page;…”
Just use control shift, and copy paste: Clint R says
And in 1 second, I get 218 posts
This will be my 55th post.
But I probably used far more words in those posts.
gbaikie 1:26 AM
Can you spell sarcasm?
Speaking of spelling, it’s not control shift, it’s control F
Although I agree with Oscar Wilde when he wrote, “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence,” it does lose its utility when you have to spell it out.
T,
Maybe if you tried not being quite so clever, you might be better off.
What utility do you ascribe to sarcasm, that cannot be achieved by using clear English expression?
If your audience doesn’t understand you, whose fault is that? Theirs, because you are so clever, or yours, because you cannot communicate effectively?
Try spelling things out. Unfortunately, you won’t be able to comment nearly as often, because facts are not something you have in abundance.
Oh well, you might have to go back to sarcasm, obscurity, and crypticism.
Good morning, Mike.
How many sugars in your tea?
Whatever.
Idiot.
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed!
T,
Whatever.
Are you the idiot’s cultist twin? Or just a random cultist idiot?
Don’t tell me you put milk in your tea, Mike.
M,
Wee Willy can’t even bring himself to dispute what Mike Flynn wrote.
At least he is forced to face reality, even reluctantly.
If he disagreed that climate is only the average of past weather records, or that future weather can not be “studied”, he would no doubt say so.
Of course, he’s an idiot, and ignorant to boot!
Why bother quoting someone who doesn’t support your silliness? Apparently, he doesn’t care for Mike Flynn’s style. Poor Wee Willy – can’t find anybody who cares what he thinks. That is sad.
> cant even bring himself to dispute what Mike Flynn wrote.
You’re not in the proper subthread, Mike, and there’s no need to pay any attention to your villainous monologues.
See you tomorrow
Witless Willy,
You wrote –
“You’re not in the proper subthread, [Swenson], and there’s no need to pay any attention to your villainous monologues.”
Ooooh! How cutting!
I did put it in the wrong place. I apologised after putting it where it should have gone.
As to not needing to pay attention to my “villainous monologues” (I like the turn of phrase), I suggest you don’t bother. Others might be capable of deciding for themselves.
What do you think?
> I suggest you dont bother.
You go first, Mike.
Wee Willy the idiot wrote –
“You go first, [Swenson].”
No. Issuing commands he is powerless to enforce is one sign Wonky Wee Willy is an idiot.
Not terribly bright, is Woebegone Willy, and a slow learner to boot.
Ah, the things I do to help those unable to help themselves. It’s obvious Wee Willy can’t help himself – he does the same things over and over. He doesn’t even know why he does them.
Poor Wee Willy. Bullied, abused, jabbed – in his imaginary fantasy world, of course. The lad is obviously a bit defective in the self esteem area.
He’ll probably blame that on the same Mike Flynn he blames for all his other deficiencies. who cares?
One has to wonder what Mike did to Willard.
but no worries I am sure mommy will eventually put a pretend bandaid and a kiss on Willards little booboo.
Thank you for chiming in, Bill.
You are very welcome Willard. I sure that everything will soon be better.
Before getting enough coffee, I wondering does Earth need horse latitudes. And was wondering about this in regards Earth getting a uniform ocean temperature of 5 C.
I think the conventional understanding is that as world warms the horse latitudes shift poleward.
But if Earth got ocean with an uniform temperature, could they simply disappear?
It could be with massive warming of ocean of 5 C, it skips the intermediate steps slight warming of further poleward movement and leaps to their disappearance all together.
The horse latitudes are the junction where the Hadley cell meets the Ferrel cell. The descending air creates a calm, warm, dry region which gives you deserts on land and horse latitudes at sea. The junction shifts with the seasons and has been drifting gradually further from the Equator. This shows in Europe as the Meditteranean countries experience higher temperature and lower rainfall and as the US deserts drift nortwards.
One of the more speculative ideas going around is that the three cell Hadley circulation might break down into a single cell reaching all the way from Equator to Poles.The Horse latitudes would disappear.
So, I am agreeing with someone. That’s nice.
Now, what about if less extreme, like uniform temperature of 4.5, 4.0, or 3.5 C. {or even 3.0 C}. Or just having Arctic basin being warmer.
So, makes wonder ocean temperature history of Arctic ocean.
“Here we estimate intermediate water temperatures over the past 50,000 years from the Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca values of ostracods from 31 Arctic sediment cores. From about 50 to 11kyr ago, the central Arctic Basin from 1,000 to 2,500m was occupied by a water mass we call Glacial Arctic Intermediate Water. This water mass was 1-2°C warmer than modern Arctic Intermediate Water, with temperatures peaking during or just before millennial-scale Heinrich cold events and the Younger Dryas cold interval. We use numerical modelling to show that the intermediate depth warming could result from the expected decrease in the flux of fresh water to the Arctic Ocean during glacial conditions, which would cause the halocline to deepen and push the warm Atlantic Layer into intermediate depths. Although not modelled, the reduced formation of cold, deep waters due to the exposure of the Arctic continental shelf could also contribute to the intermediate depth warming.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260208706_Deep_Arctic_Ocean_warming_during_the_last_glacial_cycle
Probably I should look around more. But that is something.
EM
Not necessarily wrong, but sort of a confusing way of putting it.
Most often when annual snowfall is greater than ablation, and the glacier is expanding, the extra weight will cause the ice to flow downhill faster and faster (easier to overcome surface friction). And conversely most often a shrinking glacier will flow downhill at a slower pace.
Just a generalization, though. Lots of exceptions to what I just wrote:
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/glacier-flow-2/glacier-flow/
Weird.
I copied and pasted a snip from your earlier reply, but the quote completely disappeared!
This happened a few times yesterday too.
Earlier, Wee Willy (Willard) mad the following breathtaking pronouncement –
“Science cant replace common sense.”
Really?
A couple of seconds searching finds this –
“Its important to realise that science is not about common sense. Nowhere is this more evident than in the worlds of quantum mechanics and relativity, in which our common sense intuitions are hopelessly inadequate to deal with quantum unpredictability and space-time distortions.”
On occasion, science, backed up by reproducible experiment, shows that common sense does not reflect reality. Nor do you.
swenson…”Its important to realise that science is not about common sense. Nowhere is this more evident than in the worlds of quantum mechanics and relativity, in which our common sense intuitions are hopelessly inadequate to deal with quantum unpredictability and space-time distortions.
A friendly comment. There are instances in both quantum theory and relativity that make sense and instances that don’t. However, it would seem the AGW alarmists have forsaken science for what they regard as common sense.
The author of your citation are a bit too loose with their definition of science as related to quantum theory and relativity, especially the reference to space-time distortions.
In my field, the electrical, electronics, and computer field, electronics theory, based on the electron, is based on quantum theory as started by Neils Bohr. So is the field of chemistry related to chemical bonding of atoms into molecules. I have no quarrel with quantum theory in that direction.
Your author seems to be claiming that common sense does not apply in quantum theory and relativity, but it really does, unless you get into the more esoteric applications of both. The fact that common sense did not apply to the more esoteric aspects of quantum theory caused Einstein and Schrodinger to distance themselves from the more far-out theories. Then, Einstein turned around and introduced and even more obscure theory about time dilation.
It makes sense to me that electrons are tiny particles with a negative charge which produce a magnetic field when they move. Everything I have done at a macro-level with transformers, relays, electric motors, etc., corroborate that theory. In fact, all electrical/electronics theory based on that theory is now common sense to me.
I am not convinced that electrons actually orbit atomic nucleii as claimed by Bohr, especially in discreet quantum orbits. That is not common sense. Neither is the notion that an electron can affect another electron at great distances.
With regard to relativity, the basic theory makes sense from a perspective of both Newtonian and Einstein’s relativity theory. Relativity between masses moving at different velocities is complicated by the inability of the human mind to observe such a motion in real time. However, there are equations in Newtonian theory to cover such relativity. Einstein admitted that.
The reason Newtonian theory fails at the atomic level is obvious. Quantum theory as defined by Bohr relies on a fictitious quantum level defined by Bohr for electron orbits. No one to this day knows if that is true. As Feynman claimed, quantum theory works, but no one knows why.
Those quantum levels cannot be measured at the macro level therefore there is no way for Newtonian methods to measure them or the related electron motion. Therefore, it’s not fair to claim that Newtonian methods fail, there is simply no measurement possible.
With regard to space-time distortion, it makes no sense at all, in fact, it has no existence. The authors are claiming it is not common sense but it does exist. Perhaps they could demonstrate space that distorts and time that dilates.
As I have pointed out, to the point of boring everyone to sleep, time is an invention of the human mind and based on sub-divisions of the relatively constant rotational period of the Earth. That appeals to one’s common sense, but the dilation of that time based on the velocity of a body wrt the speed of light, makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it’s not true.
Mike,
There’s an easy way to show the compatibility between the two claims. Put them one next to the other. Like this:
(1) Science cant replace common sense.
(2) Science is not about common sense.
It should be obvious even to you that there’s no incompatibility.
But just in case you’re too dim, consider the following:
(3) Science is not a substitute for common sense, but an extension of it.
Notice how the three claims tie all well together?
That’s what I thought.
Stick to cheap shots. You got no chance with these lousy epistemological swings.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Create a straw man or two. Fight them furiously. Claim victory!
Oh, wait a moment. You just did!
Well done, Willy!
> You just did!
Where, Mike?
Show me.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Show me.”
No.
No problem, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Prepare to be Amazed, kiddo.
Your very welcome Willard. I am sure it will be all better soon.
I should feel welcome about what, Bill?
You were thanking me Willard. Just wanted to acknowledge that.
In this sub-thread I wasn’t, Bill.
I thanked you for many things on this page. For reminding me of Akasofu’s crap. For some crucial contribution. For chiming in elsewhere.
My bet offer is still open.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
You and Willard are like a couple in a rom-com.
M,
The difference seems to be that Willard is infatuated with the pseudonymous Mike Flynn, and fantasises that I am him.
I wasted a bit of my time, and was not all that surprised to find that a while ago, a commenter who seems to have been banned, accused “Mike Flynn” of using a pseudonym, as he couldn’t establish Mike Flynn’s true identity! Go figure.
Oh well, Wee Willie claims that “Mike Flynn” and I are both pseudonyms for some mysterious other person, who apparently remains anonymous.
At least it gives him the opportunity to avoid addressing reality.
Our love affair (ho, ho, ho) exists only in the mind of Wayward Wee Willy. Maybe he is just trying to be gratuitously insulting, and this is how he attempts it. Who knows and who cares?
It’s a free world, supposedly.
<3
March,
You have seen nothing yet.
Suppose you want to know what Mike thinks about science:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fjudithcurry.com+%22mike+flynn%22+science
That should give you the same pretentious and void cap you read at Roy’s by a guy who still pretends he’s not Mike.
A random quote:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/27/year-in-review-top-science-stories/#comment-754552
Now, check for “prediction” on this page.
It’s not even close.
M,
Sorry. I inadvertently posted this in the wrong place, previously.
Wee Willy cant even bring himself to dispute what Mike Flynn wrote.
At least Wee Willy is forced to accept reality, reluctantly.
If he disagreed that climate is only the average of past weather records, or that future weather can not be studied, he would no doubt say so.
Of course, hes an idiot, and ignorant to boot!
Why bother quoting someone who doesnt support your silliness? Apparently, he doesnt care for Mike Flynns style. Poor Wee Willy cant find anybody who cares what he thinks. That is sad.
> Sorry. I inadvertently posted this in the wrong place, previously.
You still did, Mike.
You really are on a roll!
No, I didn’t.
Of course, you are entitled to your stupid opinion. It’s worth whatever someone will pay you.
How much will you get for it, do you think?
Your comment is in reply to mine, Mike.
You address it to March.
For a guy who cries about reality, get real.
Keep at it, Witless Wee Willy..
I’m happy with where I put my comment, I really don’t care what you think.
I’m surprised you think I should act in accordance with your wishes. I act in accordance with mine – I do as I wish.
If you don’t like it, tough. If you reject reality, you’re an idiot.
> I’m happy with where I put my comment,
I’m glad you’re happy, Mike.
You still replied to my comment while pretending you were talking to someone else.
You still made a comment that diverted from what I was saying.
Should I look into when you stopped calling yourself Mike at Roy’s?
Willard, please stop trolling.
bobd…”Then no one has ever seen God, and there is no evidence Jesus ever walked the Earth.
Its all superstition”.
**
More on your cynicism.
I am not religious, I have no belief system. Ergo, I have nothing to gain from a religious perspective by defending Jesus. Isaac Newton, on the other hand, wrote several volumes on Christianity.
It may have escaped your mind that Christianity was the motivating factor for our current Western way of life. Although compassion, love and tolerance have been natural factors in the human body, until the beginning of Christianity they were largely ignored and suppressed.
Have you also missed the name ‘Christ’ in the word Christianity? Do you think Christianity began when it did out of a sheer fluke? Do you think it’s a coincidence that Jesus was claimed to be born around the beginning of that era and that Christianity began immediately following his death?
Circa 325 BC (note the BC), the Roman Emperor Constantine called a meeting at Nicea to formulate a creed, now called the Nicean Creed. It laid out the basis of a belief system for Christians but it is riddled with doubt due to modern findings of Christian dissidents of the day who were excluded at Nicea.
The Nicean Creed is not the point, the point is that a Roman Emperor thought Jesus existed in that he lead a group of Christian leaders, wherein the name Christian is based on the name Christ.
The meeting was also about the Bible, wherein the first 4 books of the New Testament are largely about Jesus. Why would scholars of the day write about a fictitious figure?
Something major happened back then and although we have little in the way of direct physical evidence, as with the Pharoahs, we have decent eye witness accounts, or reports based on eye-witnesses.
The fact that Jesus is still the focus of modern day life to many people, while the gods of the Egyptian Pharoahs, the Romans, and Greeks have faded into obscurity is a testament to the man.
Early Christians practiced sharing, tolerance, compassion and love, behaviors that were unknown in a general populace till then. Not only that, they were willing to die for their faith. Those qualities became the focus of life for many and that persists to this day. No other person has had nearly that effect on humanity.
Even though I am not religious and have no belief system, I admire the man for what he brought to humanity and his courage to stands up to the powers that be who were still practicing human sacrifice. In other words, Jesus brought us into the modern age.
That could not have happened had humans not already been provided with the natural abilities for love and compassion. Jesus identified those positive attributes in humans and the question might be asked as to how he knew that. Where did he get the awareness and insight?
Gordon,
Looks like you know as much of Christianity as you do thermodynamics, astronomy, chemistry and biology.
Or science even.
“Circa 325 BC (note the BC),”
Really, note the BC?
This one is as bad as Earth’s shadow causes the phases of the Moon.
Just look shit up for once.
The first Roman emperor was Augustus, in 27 BC.
And the Council of Nicaea was in 325 AD, note the AD.
I have seen Gordon use this technique several times.
If you want to make a point, you must find a way to get around the bias of the individual. In addition, you must get people interested and involved. Advertisers know this well. You can’t just say “Drink Coca-Cola”. That’s boring and easily dismissed. You come up with something interesting, like images of polar bears drinking Coca-Cola. That gets people thirsty.
bob blurted out that there “…is no evidence Jesus ever walked the Earth.” So Gordon makes a gaffe big enough no one can miss it. Now we have bob teaching us that there is considerable evidence that Jesus was a real person. Gordon has got bob proving that bob was wrong!
Brilliant.
Clint RE,
That there was a council of Nicaea isn’t evidence that Jesus was a real person. Remember that at that meeting they voted on whether or not Jesus, was divine, and if you voted no, they threw you in the dungeon.
All the gospels were written at least 50 years after he was supposed to have been crucified and resurrected.
One of them was written by a dude that wasn’t even anywhere close to Jerusalem.
Clint R, you want to post any evidence that there actually was a Jesus Christ, I’ll be happy to debunk any thing you have to offer.
All you have is belief, no evidence.
Yes bob, I know about your “debunks” of reality. If you’re not making up equations, like your “valid thermodynamic equation”, or denying the demonstration by NASA astronauts, or claiming that circumnavigating jets are flying backwards, then you’re cussing folks out in one of your immature fits.
And it that’s not funny enough, Gordon got the best of you!
Clint R,
So you don’t have any evidence Jesus was real, thought so.
You only bring up your past failures to understand science.
Remember the astronaut only showed a hammer and a feather fall at the same rate, nothing about torque.
Subsonic jets can’t fly faster than the Earth turns, so yes they fly backwards.
Yeah, I typed an equation wrong once, just get me that list of everything you got wrong again.
bob, it wasn’t as basic as typing “an equation wrong once”. You failed to understand your mistake even after I mentioned it.
You don’t understand the basic physics. And you reject reality.
What if I told you that our first socialist zombie turned water into cold wine, Clint?
Ask me how I know it was cold wine.
bobdroege
The topic of the existence of Jesus has been studied. Even the ashiest bible scholar Bart Ehrman believes an actual human, named Jesus and was crucified.
The evidence is sources outside the Christian Faith like Roman historians that would have no interest in perpetuating a myth.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
I agree with Gordon Robertson on this. It is highly unlikely that a total made up myth would spread and continue for the duration. I think all the major faiths we have were started by actual living people. It would seem a logical conclusion that Christianity as well had a real person source.
Norman,
You may disagree, but I think religion is just made up fairy tales to control people.
There is too much documented forgery in the New Testament to take any of it as gospel.
The teachings of Christianity and what an actual first century human could possibly be are so far apart.
Yeah, Jesus turned water into wine, nope, he provided the wine for his wedding.
I am just saying that the actual real life person Jesus, which wasn’t even his real name, is not the Jesus of Christianity.
Gordon probably didn’t read his Pagels, she’s a known heretic, thinking like her would have gotten you burned at the stake in the middle ages.
“I never really understood religion
Except it seems a good excuse to kill”
Alvin Lee
Jesus the son of god, definitely never walked the earth.
No such thing as god, no one has ever seen him.
bobdroege
” I never really understood religion
Except it seems a good excuse to kill
Alvin Lee
Jesus the son of god, definitely never walked the earth.
No such thing as god, no one has ever seen him. ”
*
How not to agree – unless you were perverted by religion itself?
Thanks for your comment.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, bobdroege, Norman, and Willard are known perverters of reality.
Here, Norman weakly tries to hold to some reality. But, his lame effort fails. He’s too absorbed with suckling on the teat of “intellectualism”. He can’t leave his cult.
Clint R,
You need to take that ******* ***** out of your ***** before you **** on this *******!
Number of “reality” = 143.
Number of “cult” = 95.
bobdroege
YOU: “There is too much documented forgery in the New Testament to take any of it as gospel.”
That becomes an issue similar in complexity to the climate science issue. I find that the climate science just seems to grow in vastness and complexity the more one goes into it.
On the forgeries that also is quite a complex and controversial subject being strongly debated in the circles of Bible Scholars. Not so easy to find any definitive answers on that topic.
https://www.risenjesus.com/review-of-bart-ehrmans-book-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god
bobd…”All the gospels were written at least 50 years after he was supposed to have been crucified and resurrected”.
Wrong. The recent discovery of the ancient scrolls in the Egyptian desert, of which Elaine Pagels has written extensively, reveal that one Gospel was written by the disciple Thomas, aka Doubting Thomas. Thomas was able to quote Jesus directly.
Thomas is referenced in the Book of John and he was a thorn in the side of those who wished he would disappear.
Although what you say is true, that the 4 opening gospels of the NT were written at least 30 years after the death of Jesus, and none were written by the Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, but by scholars representing them who could read and write Greek, the scholars got their information from reliable sources.
There were problems. Luke, for example, was caught up in the Jewish/Romans wars and he had to be careful what he said. The discoveries in the Egyptian desert have corroborated much of what was written independently and they have added information omitted at Nicea.
At Nicea, the backers of the Gospel of John prevailed, and they omitted the Gospel of Thomas from the Bible they developed. They leaned on the teachings of Irenaeus, who objected to Christians preaching anything other than orthodoxy. The teacher of Irenaeus taught from the Gospel of John, therefore that book of the NT prevailed in the early Bible.
As you pointed out, anyone objecting to the Nicea council was ostracized and or killed. Hardly Christian, but that is the basis of the Catholic church. In fact, a 5th century bishop tried to infer that Mary Magdalene was a whore. That lie persisted till 1939 when the Catholic church rescinded that decree and gave Mary proper respect.
Mary Magdalene was obviously a respected companion of Jesus. However, male chauvinism, even among disciples, like Peter, was rampant and that chauvinism continued through Nicea and beyond.
> Thomas was able to quote Jesus directly.
Even if true, that work isn’t part of the canonical gospels.
Seems that there are two camps on its composition date: those who put it ca 100 and those who put it ca 200. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Date_of_composition
bobd…”Just look shit up for once”.
How about answering the thrust of my reply rather than focusing on an obvious mistake of mixing up BC and AD? Anyone with a smidgen of common sense would have gotten it that I could not possibly be talking about BC if they were discussing Christ in the BC era.
When you claim to work in an advanced science realm, It seems to me you are the janitor.
Gordon,
You did post “note the BC”
And I am the janitor because I call you out on your continuous stream of bullshit.
You want to have another go at the no one has ever seen a photon or a virus.
The miraculous laws of fizzix breaking phantasmagorical back radiation energy amplifier has appeared again
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/17/atmospheric-energy-recycling/
E,
From the link –
“In steady-state, on average, the energy flux leaving the atmosphere must equal the energy flux entering the atmosphere. Hence, any energy flux that doesn’t reach space must be returned to the surface, for energy flux balance to hold.”
Unfortunately, there is no “steady state”. No “energy flux balance”.
Both energy and mass (mass is energy, but some people think otherwise) enter and leave the Earth, as Nature commands. No closed system. Deranged cultists make stupid statements along the lines of “the surface has to warm . . . “.
Complete nonsense. It’s been cooling for billions of years, and without additional heat, the seas are unlikely to boil again. CO2 and H2O neither provide additional heat, nor “amplify” existing heat.
All fanciful wishful thinking.
Eben
Oh yes…
And above all, I was TERRIBLY impressed by the level of science contained in your comment there:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/17/atmospheric-energy-recycling/#comment-3227685
What is terrifying is that people like you are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict what persons like Bob Wentworth write, but nonetheless manage to woefully discredit them.
And that you cowardly, comfortably do behind a pseudonym…
I use a pseudonym too, but I do not discredit the work of others.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says, “…but I do not discredit the work of others.”
Bindidon, you do not discredit others because you are incompetent. You TRY to discredit others, but nothing you throw up sticks.
That’s why you’re always frustrated and angry, you have to live with your own incompetence.
Clint R
” Bindidon, you do not discredit others because you are incompetent. ”
+
From my point of view, the inverse is the case.
You do discredit others because you are incompetent.
Simply because only absolutely incompetent people can write:
” Cassini and Mayer weren’t astronomers; they were astrologers. ”
In all the incompetent stuff you wrote until now, there are many more examples like that above; bit this one is the very best.
J.-P. D.
Idiot Bindidon (and you haven’t earned that “distinction” without considerable effort), you can’t claim someone else is incompetent when you’re massively incompetent.
So your task here is to provide links to the FULL context of my comment, then provide PROOF that anything I stated was incorrect.
Failing that, you’re just another incompetent idiot.
IOW, you’re just another incompetent idiot.
That was a good article. He does a pretty good job debunking the myths that the effect is saturated and that it violates the 2LOT. It is also clear that he understands the purpose of these 3 layer models and even discusses expanding it to up to 50 layers as a means of better approximating the effect. He does mention that anything past 5 layers might not be worth the effort. It is also reassuring to see that he understands that these simple models are only meant for communicating main points and that climate scientists use vastly more complex models (GCMs) when trying to analyze the details of the climate system.
The usual BS from the GreenHouse Effect Defense Team. Will be interesting to read through the comments over the next few days, at least.
It’s just the same old GHE nonsense. It’s the same old cult chant: “Cold can warm hot, but that doesn’t violate 2nd Law!”
Especially funny was his statement that the Sun could never warm Earth beyond Sun’s emitting temperature. At least he understands the 800,000K is pure nonsense.
But in reality, Sun could never warm the planet above the BB equivalent for the Solar Constant.
And, as with the GHE nonsense, he confuses increased energy with temperature increase. He’s still trying to make things hotter by adding more ice cubes….
> he confuses increased energy with temperature increase.
Hence why Bob writes sentences like:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/17/atmospheric-energy-recycling/
Next time, put on your reading glasses.
Yup, he’s still trying to make things hotter by adding more ice cubes….
No “ice” has been harmed in the making of Bob’s post, Clint.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“But in reality, Sun could never warm the planet above the BB equivalent for the Solar Constant.”
Do mean about 120 C, or for sphere which is about 5 C?
And then we got Planet Venus.
And I agree the sunlight doesn’t directly warm any part of Venus atmosphere as much as 190 C, but lapse rate of Venus atmosphere causes higher surface air temperature then energy of sunlight can provide.
Though it’s possible Venus heat from it’s formational heat and/or nuclear energy generation from the planet’s interior, might be explanation of why Venus air is about 460 C. I tend think due solar energy heating the upper atmosphere, which results in the higher temperature at the surface.
And then we got Planet Venus.
And I agree the sunlight doesnt directly warm any part of Venus atmosphere as much as 190 C, but lapse rate of Venus atmosphere causes higher surface air temperature then energy of sunlight can provide.
—————————
Why would you think that? Solar irradiance at Venus is 2601w/m2 capable of >460K.
Why would you think that? Solar irradiance at Venus is 2601w/m2 capable of >460K.
460 K = 186.85 C
Sunlight at Venus distance is: 2,576 to 2,647 watts per square meter.
190 C is a “round number”, I actually doubt anything in the Venus sky is heated by sunlight much more than 150 C.
But I assume that if something were made by humans and put in the Venus atmosphere then around the hottest the surface could get is somewhere around 190 C.
And if I said some number like 186.85 C that could indicate an unwarranted precision.
And I didn’t want to give it in K.
I am more used to C or F- and assumed others also more familiar with C.
Wiki:
“Venusian clouds are thick and are composed mainly (7596%) of sulfuric acid droplets.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Other places as recall say up 97%. And imagine it could get rarely get even higher than 97%.
The boiling point of 100% sulfuric acid is 337 C and wiki says:
“When sulfuric acid is above 300 C (572 F; 573 K), it gradually decomposes to SO3 + H2O”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid
So I would guess the Acid of clouds which were the closest to 100% could get the hottest temperature. But stuff the elevation and how big the droplets are, surrounding air temperature, would be factors. But sulfuric acid gets warmer when water is added, so if got hot from that chemical reaction- I wouldn’t call that heated by sunlight.
Though sunlight would have caused to to get more concentrated by make the acid evaporate H20 in the very dry atmosphere. And it rains acid {which evaporates when falls, and it’s complicated] but as analogy it’s kind of similar sort of with Earth’s ozone, which also involves chemical reaction- O3, splitting to 02 and O and O again combining with O2 to make O3 again that could be not quite simple as it seems- and Venus should more complicated. But in term some substance which is violent, 03 and/or atomic oxygen probably wins the prize.
An earth cloud 1 km cube can have about 500,000 kg and if had 1 million kg it’s equal square km at 1 mm depth. So cloud if had 500,000 it equal 1/2 mm depth.
And tropical ocean evaporate a few mm of ocean surface water a day and that’s what makes it the world’s heat engine.
I doubt earth’s sunlight in a day could evaporate a 1/2 mm of 1 km deep cloud. Or sunlight does burn off relatively thin fog commonly.
With Venus one has more intense sunlight, and acid droplets are semi-transparent [yellowish] and don’t reflect sunlight as well as water droplet or ice particles of H20.
So, if Venus had water clouds at 50,000 meter elevation [50 km}. Well the air too warm, so if had cooler air, which you make cool if dumped a lot water into Venus atmosphere- the energy sunlight would quickly evaporate the clouds.
But generally speaking any kind of cloud doesn’t heat the atmosphere as well as an ocean, or even a land surface. Venus with more sunlight and absorbs less heat and emits less heat than Earth does, indicates this is the case.
But I say the venus clouds act as “second rate surface” and surface doesn’t radiate a lot of energy into space {like a land surface would] and there huge effect from lapse rate from such a high elevation.
Geez bdgwx you could get arrested for trying to sell that as a product to a customer!
I especially like how the molecules sit there locked in place so as to repeatedly send back radiation before emitting anything upwards.
What a joke!
The correct model is as a conveyor belt from the surface to TOA, no waiting emissions to space before beginning the journey back down to pick up another load.
Do you really believe that the TOA is a belt, Bill?
No Willard its not a belt. Belts have their own rigidity.
But at least I can actually sell my model legally because I am advertising it as zero insulation.
I even offered you a deal on some CO2 overalls and you declined.
Bottom line is to sell it as insulation you actually have to demonstrate that the principle works. But every attempt ends up in abject failure.
Have you figured out why yet Willard?
Figure out what, Bill: why you keep trying to have it both ways by hiding behind both the Sky Dragon and the luckwarm playbooks when you should know they’re not compatible?
You already have my working hypothesis.
Willard you are operating a very crude form of radar.
To begin with I haven’t seen an official definition of what the pejorative ‘sky dragon’ means. I haven’t read the book.
But the Urban dictionary describes it as such:
”One who is so infused into the hippie culture that they forget that one needs to actually work to get something achieved. They also tend to forget to buy new clean clothes. This is a group of people who will pay more for used goods than new ones.”
One angle has something to do with ‘needs to actually work’. I would take that to mean something other than having yo daddy do or have done the work for you.
Thank you for playing dumb, Bill:
[VLAD] so what is a sky dragon?
[ESTR] I thought you knew Judys, Bill.
Almost a week ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-662673
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
Earlier that subthread there is this splendid one, Bill:
You dont think its zealotry claiming twice the observed warming rate?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-657993
Your DSouza impersonation remains my favorite so far in the thread.
You want more?
—————————————-
Willard the foundation of science lays on proving the science. Unproven science foisted on the people is no more than religious or authoritarian fiat.
The only thing I can do is like what is done here:
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
and here:
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
and here:
file:///C:/Users/bonit/Desktop/gerlich%20and%20tscheuschner.pdf
and many more attempts that all fail to produce any effect beyond the error that might be expected in an experiment of this nature.
You want to replace that with imaginative untested theory.
What can I say other than do you really want to give up your right of due process without so much of a grunt?
> the foundation of science lays on proving the science
Citation needed for that “but science” squirrel, Bill.
To reveal information about your personal architecture may not meet the best auditing practices.
Thanks for your contribution to the “but science” dialog, Bill:
[VLAD] Creation is a belief, there is no proof. Theres a lot of evidence, but no scientific proof. Its a belief.
[ESTR] Theres no proof in empirical sciences, Vlad.
[VLAD] Yes, agreeing with me is always a safe path.
[ESTR] No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
[VLAD] The foundation of science lays on proving the science.
Citation needed for that squirrel.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
bdgwx
Indeed, that was a good article, and no one wonders about the fact that exactly those people here discredit it, who lack ANY scientific / technical knowledge to contradict it.
The words of a former professor keep unforgotten to me:
” Who isn’t able to contradict soon starts to discredit “.
*
This layer approximation in Wentworth’s article reminds me an article written in 2011 by two French scientists, Jean-Louis Dufresne and Jacques Treiner:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit
I didn’t want to translate this article into English: it was absolutely evident to me that it would be redundant work.
Simply because it would have been denigrated in the same way as is today Wentworth’s guest post at WUWT.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says:
”Indeed, that was a good article, and no one wonders about the fact that exactly those people here discredit it, who lack ANY scientific / technical knowledge to contradict it.”
Bin is going to go down with the ship. . . .the Captain just informed him the iceberg hit has done little damage there is nothing to see here so just go on about your own business.
hunter
What else could I expect from a ‘portfolio manager’ who thinks he accumulated enough knowledge to write as if he had been an engineer?
Zero DOT zero science in all your replies, hunter – especially when you try to deny Moon’s spin – even when obtaining a source absolutely clearly explaining how its axis was comnputed.
You are such an ignorant dumbass, hunter.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon preaches: “Who isn’t able to contradict soon starts to discredit”.
Then Bindidon exhibits his hypocrisy: “You are such an ignorant dumbass, hunter.”
And, Bindidon believes he’s an intellectual!
The idiots provide such great entertainment.
Number of “idiot” in the page: 198.
This one’s free of charge, Clint.
Willard, please stop trolling..
GHCN V3: differences between adjusted and unadjusted station data
At the beginning of the month, there was a discussion concerning an allegedly huge difference in the GHCN V3 data set, between adjusted an unadjusted station data.
In that discussion, commenter bdgwx was, regarding politeness, contenance and argument quality, way superior to the permanently aggressive TallDave.
The more people out their ‘lol’, ‘troll’, ‘ROFLMAO’ stuff, the less they can convince.
*
Years ago, Goddard, today aka Heller, presented, for single, GHCN V3 stations, a comparison of the two variants, showing what he considered to be inacceptable differences, leading to higher warming trends than those existing really.
At that time (around 2015 I think) I checked Goddard’s results; many were correct, but some weren’t. I didn’t keep these checks: my bad!
What I nevertheless retained form the checks was:
– (1) certainly due to some miracle, Goddard found ONLY stations for which adjusted data had shown a higher trend than the unadjusted source;
– (2) he never did at that time a complete analysis of the two data sets, which would have easily easily proven that about 40 (yeah: forty) % of the stations in fact show either the inverse or a trend for adjusted data equal to that for the unadjusted one.
{ Recently Goddard published a (correct!) comparison of raw vs. adjusted station data for USHCN; that he’d better done for GHCN V3 years ago! He would have appeared way more credible. }
*
Now back to GHCN V3.
Here is a chart comparing, in anomaly form wrt the mean of 1981-2010, for about 5500 of the 7280 GHCN V3 stations during the period 1895-2019, their adjusted and unadjusted data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uc1p82_llPTbHKyOd_M6Uo9aYaB0-VIV/view
Over 1500 stations were rejected because of a lifetime less than 30 years, or insufficient data during the baselining period, or due to a spurious liefetime trend, mostly arising from too many operation interrupts during the stations’ lifetime.
The average trend difference between adjusted and unadjusted data is, for the entire period
0.028 +- 0.04 C / decade
i.e. 0.35 C for the 125 years.
And here is a chart showing, for these stations, the trend differences between their adjusted and unadjusted data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OxZ9ith9rvAWvU-mvZAWaKigJREJRBKE/view
56 % of the stations show a trend difference higher than +0.01 C / decade; 14 % a difference between -0.01 and +0.01, and 30 % a difference lower than -0.01 C / decade.
Thus yes: there are more stations showing higher trend for their adjusted variant. At a first glance: correct.
But… it is by no means sufficient to simply claim about such trend differences; if you want to do a professional job, you have to carefully analyze the data for all single stations, in order to classify and understand the differences’ origin.
*
This is best shown by using a real example.
Some years ago, a commenter presented on a blog the GHCN V3 station PRAHA RUZYNE located in Prague (Czechia, Europe).
Very probably impressed by Goddard’s reports, he was 100 % convinced of that station’s adjusted data being wrong, and that only because of the trend diffrerence wrt its original, unadjusted source (unadjusted: -0.11 C vs. adjusted: +0.09 C / decade, i.e. +0.2 C difference):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdeNtl2SEhzFoEZ7oXlLeLgDXJ2bGy6G/view
(the unadjusted plot post 1948 is behind the adjusted plot, as they are identical).
But… the adjusted data came simply from the fact that in this RUZYNE station, the measurements were wrong during decades (1.72 C too high), what was then communicated by the Czechs themselves.
This is best visible when comparing the GHCN V3 RUZYNE data with that of the GHCN daily data for Prague’s KLEMENTINUM station:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1alDZO7zCrpk58MXDEc9kqJ6-bIzKyw0_/view
Thus the question here is: if one, allegedly as wrong declared adjustment is found to be correct upon a check, how many of these will be found, if the entire data set is inspected?
*
That is exactly what I don’t like in how people like Goddard ‘work’: they pick a few stations out of over 7,000 and compare the difference between their unadjusted resp. adjusted variants, and soon pretend that GHCN V3 adjusted is making the world unduly warmer.
This is NOT SOUND skepticism, and moreover unprofessional engineering work.
And what I consider really worst is that, even if Goddard possibly never pretended that the adjustments made for the PRAHA RUZYNE station example were incorrect, his unsound skepticism, replicated ad nauseam on numerous blogs, nonetheless had such a great influence that other people gullibly followed his way of ‘thinking’, and pretend similar things without any proof.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, do you have an obsession with Goddard?
Years ago, Goddard, today aka Heller,
I checked Goddards results
Goddard found
Recently Goddard published
Very probably impressed by Goddards reports
how people like Goddard work
Goddard possibly never
Number of “ice cubes” on this page: 28.
29 if we count that last sentence.
Do a count on “Willard says”.
I already did, Clint.
Still less than our dynamic trio’s count.
Do the count, troll.
Pay me, Clint, and I’ll add Bill’s count to our dynamic trio’s.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” … do you have an obsession with Goddard? “
Oops?!
I must have hit the wrong key…
Why don’t you ask me, and not all the people who refer to him all the time, gullibly believing all what he writes since about 10 years?
Clint R
Oh I forgot to add, that, as usual, your reply avoids any technical context.
Simply due to the increasing evidence that you
(by the way like Robertson, hunter, DREMT)
never were, nor are, let alone ever would be able to technically, let alone scientifically contradict the results of my analysis.
All you four are able to do is… stubborn polemic, like
” The usual BS from the GreenHouse Effect Defense Team. ”
“Cassini and Mayer weren’t astronomers; they were astrologers. ”
” In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB. ”
etc etc etc.
So you are, you pseudoskeptic Geniuses…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, give me one example where you have understood physics.
You’re so naive you believe you can twist Newton’s words!
Clint R
I rather think YOU have to exactly explain where I allegedly twisted Newtons words.
Where was that, Clint R?
J.-P. D.
I asked first.
Give me one example where you have understood physics.
What’s the relationship between stations data, B’s topic, and physics, your superego, Clint?
Station data ain’t about physics, Clint.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT
Trough permanantly avoiding to please the real trolls to stop trolling, you make yourself a troll.
J.-P. D.
No, I am asking the right people to stop trolling.
Wondering if the backradiation component of the GHE is a little oversold, and needlessly confuses people?
GHGs continuously absorb surface IR, and continuously share this energy by collision with the 99% transparent gasses that would otherwise be unable to make use of it.
Essentially, countless trillions CO2 and WV molecules are busy warming their neighbors.
The surface, meanwhile, assumes a temperature very close to the temperature of the layer of air directly above it, with this layer of air, not the surface itself, comprising the GMST.
“Wondering if the backradiation component of the GHE is a little oversold, and needlessly confuses people?”
The main element determining global average air temperature is the amount of heat stored in the ocean. The average temperature of water is 3.5 C. If the ocean were warmer or colder this has large effect.
The ocean temperature is like bank account, same reason our ocean is cold is same reason a warmer ocean is warming effect. Arctic cold surface water falls. And it fallen a lot over the millions of years- Earth’s bank account is seriously in the red- and we are in icehouse climate.
GHE is oversold and misinforms what what is the important elements which determine global average air temperature. Important aspects is bulk of the atmosphere, without having 10 tons of air per square meter, the atmosphere could not hold the amount heat it does- it would freeze before the sun goes down. And water vapor does more than have some radiant effects- it latent heat, both in terms evaporation and when it freezes. But in terms H20 radiant effects, it’s far more than CO2. Where matters, the tropics [which gets the most sunlight] it’s 40,000 ppm vs about 400 ppm of CO2. Half of Earth atmosphere {1/2 mass} is below 5.3 km [5300 meter]. And of course most mass of entire atmosphere which is warm is in the Tropics.
“The surface, meanwhile, assumes a temperature very close to the temperature of the layer of air directly above it, with this layer of air, not the surface itself, comprising the GMST.”
“This true of the surface of the ocean which is 70% of surface and determines the global average temperature”
But land {ground] has wider difference of temperature with air above it {generally] and such differences are greater with drier land rather than wetter land. If is sun is higher in sky, drier ground surface can typically warm to 60 C, with air about 30 C. And can warm to 70 C if air is warmer than 40 C.
Imagine a one way street, where GHG molecules absorbed surface IR, but did not reemit? The atmosphere would heat up like an oven because it could no longer cool to space. A massive imbalance at TOA.
Notice there is no backradiation in the above scenario.
March Hare
” Notice there is no backradiation in the above scenario. ”
Indeed!
But there is no need for this backradiation anyway to explain energy imbalance.
The simple fact that the presence of molecules
– absorbing IR emitted by the surface (or reemitted by molecules of the same kind located below)
BUT
– reemitting it in ALL directions (i.e., not only to space)
is enough to explain it.
And if that still wasn’t enough, there remains in addition the fact that, due to higher reemission altitudes and hence lower temperatures where CO2 still is present, the energy obtained when IR reaches outer space becomes lower.
J.-P. D.
Imagine if greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere only emitted and didn’t collect infrared.
They would still get their energy levels excited by collisions with the oxygen and nitrogen molecules and would still emit infrared up and down, both warming the surface and cooling the upper atmosphere.
Yeah with a theory that would get you sued by a homeowner if you tried to sell him that.
Would that homeowner win, tho.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Only if it were a person doing the selling. Governments are exempted from liability related to such fraudulent activities.
Good luck with making the homeowner’s case, Bill.
Well it is difficult to sell to homeowners, or at least those who worked hard enough to buy their own home.
Most of the buyers were trailer trash that didn’t have the money in the first place so they just bought some rolls of tinfoil at the grocery store. Can’t sue the supermarket as they aren’t trying to sell it as insulation.
> it is difficult to sell to homeowners,
To sell them that you could represent them might refute that idea, Bill.
> it is difficult to sell to homeowners
If you can represent them, Bill, they can be sold anything.
Yeah, but I am giving it away for free, ever think of that mr smarty pants?
Render onto Mr. Smarty Pants what belongs to Mr. Smarty Pants, Bob!
Willard, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
JPD
I agree with you that the imbalance at TOA is the result of GHGs absorbing IR and then remitting this energy in all directions.
My point, though, is that once this imbalance at the TOA has occurred, the atmosphere would accumulate energy – with or without an increase in backradiation striking the surface.
March Hare
You are of course right.
J.-P. D.
March Hare
But was that not what I wrote above?
” But there is no need for this backradiation anyway to explain energy imbalance. ”
Germans would say here: “Hauptsache, wir sind uns einig”.
J.-P. D.
Gordon’s kingdom is approaching glacial maximum:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sunny-weather-bc-temperature-records-april-2021-1.5990511
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ok.
But my main point is seen in the first post, where I tried to explain AGW without ever using the words imbalance, TOA or back radiation.
Dumb it down for the WUWT crowd.
You can respond to commenters by clicking on “reply” right under their comments, March.
Here’s Eli’s simplest explanation:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/simplest-explanation.html
Simpler than that the explanation may stop being one.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”Each part of the Earth’s surface emits heat in the form of infrared (IR) radiation. The peak of this emission is right at the frequency where CO2 absorbs strongly. While the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is small, 380 parts per million or 0.038%, this is still a large number of molecules, large enough that near the surface, at wavelengths where CO2 absorbs, the average distance light will travel before being captured is a few meters (a couple of yards)”.
***
Eli lacks a clear understanding of thermodynamics. He was told that by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both of whom have degrees in the field. Eli does not understand the 2nd law, that it was created by Clausius in relation to heat transfer and that it has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.
Eli begins his comment above by claiming, “Each part of the Earth’s surface emits heat in the form of infrared (IR) radiation”. This statement is egregiously wrong and demonstrates Eli’s inability to understand heat or heat transfer.
No heat is emitted from the surface, in fact, the heat in the surface is lost during the conversion from heat to EM. To understand that, one must go to the atomic level and into quantum theory. EM is emitted from an atom (not a molecule) by electrons related to the atom. When those electrons drop from a higher orbital energy level to a lower orbital energy level, they emit a quantum of energy equal in intensity to the difference in orbital energy levels through which they electron dropped. That drop in energy level is akin to a loss of kinetic energy, which is heat.
It needs to be understood that kinetic energy is not an energy per se. Kinetic means only that an energy is in motion and that applies to any energy. In this case it is a reference to thermal energy, aka heat.
So, electrons, en masse, lose kinetic energy, which is heat. The body, or in this case, the surface cools while EM is radiated from the surface. EM = electromagnetic energy which has an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field.
Why electric and magnetic? Glad you asked.
The electron is a physical particle that carries an electric charge. When it moves, the electric charge generates a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of the charge. Is it any wonder, then, that the energy emitted when an electron loses kinetic energy is in the form of an electric field and a magnetic field?
This is where Eli’s argument falls completely apart. The reverse process in which EM is absorbed by electrons, forcing them to higher energy orbitals, is restricted. The incoming EM must have the proper frequency and intensity, otherwise it cannot be absorbed by an electron in a mass at a certain temperature.
Electrons in atomic orbitals are resonant particles with a definite frequency, the frequency being determined by the number of orbits per second. Since kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2, the velocity of the electron in its orbital determines the kinetic energy level of that orbital. An electron will not jump to a higher orbital level unless the incoming EM can supply the energy for the electron to make the jump and the frequency for the electron to resonate with it.
EM from a cooler body does not meet that criterion. It lacks the intensity and the frequency to force an electron in a hotter mass to rise to a higher energy level.
The 2nd law covers this even though Clausius knew nothing about electrons in the days when he wrote the 2nd law. Eli is totally ignorant of this aspect of the science and I think that’s why he presents his articles as a smart-assed rabbit using a nym. His real name is Josh Halpern and he has a degree in physics. The fact that he teaches undergraduate chemistry classes may offer insight to his abilities as a physicist.
> His real name is Josh Halpern and he has a degree in physics. The fact that he teaches undergraduate chemistry classes may offer insight to his abilities as a physicist.
See, Gordon?
*That* is an ad hominem.
You might as well out him for real:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joshua-Halpern
I see 173 pubs.
How many do you have?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Any well educated bunny would know that a course in quantum mechanics is required for a degree in chemistry or physics.
And at least at the university I attended, it didn’t matter which course you took, the Physics department would accept the chemistry course, and the Chemistry department would accept the physics course.
Of course it’s all math and took the class in the English building.
It was required to rub Lincoln’s nose before any exam.
First level toward getting the ring inserted.
Or, an even simpler explanation my still be useful.
If someone responds to my comment, March, your response will be detached from the comment to which you respond.
Click on the appropriate “reply” button, quote to what you respond, or both.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Number of ” please stop trolling”: 163.
Willard
Imagine the DREMT guy wouldn’t be Robertson’s and some others’ submissive altar boy!
You would then see everywhere
” Gordon, please stop trolling. ”
” Clint R, please stop trolling. ”
” bill, please stop trolling. ”
etc etc etc.
Your stat soon would bypass burj khalifa.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, do you have anything other than your opinions?
Parmenides has spoken!
Whingin Wee Willy,
Only 163? Obviously not enough to convince you that silly irrelevant and pointless comments are actually – trolling!
Good morning, Mike.
Compare:
and contrast:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/how-the-media-help-to-destroy-rational-climate-debate/#comment-380566
Bill will opine on the styles shortly.
Wee Willy Idiot,
Begone, troll, begone!
No U.
Willard says:
Begone, troll’
and contrast:
Troll, begone!
————————
Willards method of determining scientific certainty!
Where did you get the idea that empiricism was all about certainty, Bill?
Willard says:
Where did you get the idea that empiricism was all about certainty, Bill?
———————————
Yep you could be looking in a mirror.
You would make for a well-trained seal in a circus act Willard.
> you could be looking in a mirror.
Here’s what it reveals, Bill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-668230
Proof goes well with certainty, don’t you think?
Woebegone Wee Willy wrote –
“The foundation of science lays on proving the science.”
Witless Wee Willy wrote –
The foundation of science lays on proving the science.
So saith the idiot. Reality says “Errr, no”.
As Einstein said –
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Now Wily Wee Willy might claim that’s what he really meant, hoping that someone might believe him!
Errr, no.
Wee Willy doesn’t like Richard Feynman, so I’ll quote him again –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Whining Wee Willy doesn’t want to face reality, so he tries to redefine it to suit himself.
Won’t work Willy. You can’t fool Nature.
> Woebegone Wee Willy wrote The foundation of science lays on proving the science.
That’s Bill who wrote that, Mike.
Take it with Bill.
binny…”some others submissive altar boy!”
You speak with authority on submissive altar boys. Perhaps you were one yourself, or maybe you still are, as an adult.
For calming down the alarmistas (in whichever direction – cooling or warming)
Currently all is well!
1. Snow cover
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uBLq_FlpeaYvwf4eCcF6a2Hjgj0KqQBO/view
{ Be careful: don’t trust too much in snow mass data: it indicates wetter snow rather than more of it. }
2. Arctic sea ice extent (view over 150 days)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mN-EMjLMAAHwZkz_VQLDd-KYV5MXesj9/view
As you can see: business as usual.
But some weeks ago, Charles Rotter reblogged at WUWT some coolista stuff from Gosselin’s Tricks zone, who published their Arctic sea ice data with the delicious hint:
” Arctic sea ice resists melting. ”
Hmmmh. Superb.
3. Antarctic sea ice is desperately stable:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BY_ACQnX5hfQbvPAih6YTzsYEISTatTO/view
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, just keep commenting without making a point.
People will not be able to distinguish you from an idiot.
Something is likely not right on my end, and not just placement. Recently, If I try to copy and paste something another blogger on this forum has written, it disappears. If I copy and paste a snip from an internet article – no problem.
Using an IPhone10
Be careful with the character sequence D followed by a C. Any post containing that sequence will be filtered.
March, that’s the problem with technology. People with “smart” phones believe they are smart.
It’s like Norman with his keyboard….
clint…”March, thats the problem with technology. People with smart phones believe they are smart”.
Smart phones are actually very bad computers that can be programmed as a telephone. They are not very good at either.
I note that the “energy imbalance” silliness continues.
The Earth is not a closed system. No energy in = energy out.
This is just another mad fantasy, brought to you by the same blundering buffoons who initially claimed the “Greenhouse Effect” was so named because it represented the mechanism of actual greenhouses!
As matter of fact, NASA is still promoting this nonsense. Here –
“As you might expect from the name, the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse! A greenhouse is a building with glass walls and a glass roof. Greenhouses are used to grow plants, such as tomatoes and tropical flowers.
A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter.”
No doubt due to the magic of CO2?
No GHE. No “energy balance”. No ERL. TOA is a pointless piece of alarmist jargon.
> The Earth is not a closed system.
Time flies like an arrow:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
Fruit flies like to go bananas.
Wily Wee Willy,
You are apparently quoting Roy responding to Mike Flynn. Completely irrelevant, not to say pointless.
The Earth is not a closed system. Are you trying to convincer Dr Spencer otherwise?
Try again.
Idiot.
Have you ever wondered why you share all of Mike’s opinions, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
NASA is not the science/engineering organization it was founded to be. It is now just another bloated bureaucracy. A complete delousing is required to exterminate all the corruption and perversion.
A 50% cut in annual budget would be a good start.
Science should NOT be about politics.
Clint R
Have you ever considered cleaning your own closet? You are an arrogant nobody that pretends to know things. We all notice that you never (and I mean NEVER) support any of your make believe fantasy physics with any supporting evidence. You come on here and accuse all of being idiots, perverted, unable to grasp reality. All that you accuse others is inside you. You don’t know any physics. You pretend to be some expert but you can’t support even one of your ideas. Maybe clean up your own act before attempting to find flaws in others.
Norman, does this mean that you did not do your assigned homework?
You did not understand that momentum represents a force. So, I told you to put your hand on a table, and hit it with a hammer, as hard as you could.
That’s the “evidence” and “support” that you claim I don’t supply. I supplied a real-life experiment you can do with little expense.
If that didn’t convince you, then you could run in front of a high-speed 18-wheeler.
You are unwilling to learn….
Clint R
I have linked you to links about momentum. That you do not wish to read them is your choice. I have done my job in supporting my claims. You are lacking considerably in doing anything but insulting nearly everyone who posts on this blog, and for no real reason. This makes you a troll and DREMT a phony because, you, who are clearly a troll never gets the “Clint R please stop trolling” from the false moderator.
Momentum does not represent a force even in collision. Impulse is the force that exchanges momentum in a collision. The momentum does not change itself.
You supply nothing but blathering points that mean nothing.
Continue to troll, it is all you know how to do. Again you are not a very smart person. Just a typical a-hole troll out to cause trouble on blogs. You are not the first and not very good at it.
Norman, the links you find only verify you don’t understand physics. When I give you examples to help you understand, you get frustrated and start the insults and false accusations.
Momentum certainly does represent a force, especially in a collision. “Impulse” is the name for that force. It comes from Newton’s 2nd Law, F = ma = mdv/dt = mdp/dt. You can hit your hand with a hammer to verify I’m fight. Reality is out there.
You never get things right. You’re just an angry, frustrated troll that sometimes comments under a girl’s name.
Get help.
> When I give you examples
C’mon, Clint.
There’s the hammer. The cone. The ice cube.
Am I missing any?
Willard, please stop trolling.
And Norman, I forgot to ask, do you wear dresses when you’re pretending to be a girl?
Oh, Clint.
How fragile of you!
Have you ever considered cleaning your own closet? You are an arrogant nobody that pretends to know things. We all notice that you never (and I mean NEVER) support any of your make believe fantasy physics with any supporting evidence.
———————–
Physics is about evidence Norman what do you use for physics to explain the GHE via an insulation model Norman?
bill hunter
Yes there is much evidence to support this claim.
I choose the desert location since it has clear values.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_607cfe8e00602.png
The first graph includes multiple radiant energy measurements. They are listed in the graph of what each color represents.
The second graph is only the IR portion. The IR emitted by the hot surface and the downwelling IR emitted by a warm atmosphere (warm at the location it is emitting to the surface).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_607cfee77e6c2.png
The insulating effect is a product of the Stefan-Boltzmann heat transfer equation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
In the second graph the surface is emitting between around 400 W/m^2 up to over 600 W/m^2 during the peak daylight hours (Noon).
The downwelling IR (based upon the temperature of the atmosphere) is just below 400 W/m^2.
The Net surface radiant loss is the product of these two opposing flows of energy. The surface would lose 600 W/m^2 during the day if not for DWIR. It is reducing considerably the amount of energy lost by the surface. You can see the amount in the NET IR line. This is how much energy the surface is actually losing via radiant loss. It is much less with an atmosphere than without.
Does that help?
b,
The idiots claim that the GHE is just another word for insulation. They obviously don’t believe themselves, otherwise they would just quote Raymond Pierrehumbert, who wrote “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
Nothing about greenhouses at all. Actually, many greenhouses are made of glass – not generally known for its insulating properties. NASA might claim that greenhouses stay warm during the winter, but they can’t actually produce one which does.
So cultists like Norman have only confusion and obfuscation left. These fools try to convince you that magical radiation of, say, 240 W/m2, increases temperatures – they can’t say where, when, or by how much!
Ice can emit 300 W/m2, but because it is not magic, it can’t be used to make anything warmer than itself!
Even the idiots think that Norman should be booted out of their club. He is not smart enough, and delusional to boot.
where are the convection calculations?
bill…”Physics is about evidence Norman what do you use for physics to explain the GHE via an insulation model Norman?”
Norman relies on textbooks which he fails to understand. When you disagree with the errors in his textbooks, he attacks with ad homs and insults like any other loser alarmist.
bill hunter
What is your purpose in requesting convection calculations? You asked for evidence that the GHE acts as an insulation which I provided. If you are not a troll or contrarian the evidence I submitted is more than enough. Other factors are not needed to explain the GHE effect. Convection is a surface heat loss mechanism. It would not help keep the surface warmer it would cool it. So the logic to your question is lacking.
Gordon Robertson
Textbook knowledge is infinitely superior to your contrarian opinions on any science related topic.
You don’t understand relativity or accept the many many actual experiments that have been done to prove it is valid. gallopingcamel even explained to you that he used relativity equations in his work and they were valid.
You don’t understand Inverse Square Law of radiant energy. You think, because your hand does not burn from an oven burner, that all the Earth’s surface radiant IR diminishes to very low amounts after a few feet.
You can’t grasp the concept of molecular vibrations although it is firmly established science in Chemistry and used daily in IR spectroscopy.
There are others. So no your ideas and thoughts are very poor and of course I will not accept them as valid over textbook material.
Norman, this is another example of you not understanding the links you find.
To make it easy for you, go to one site, and select only one graph — “Total Net”.
When the Sun is “up”, the “Total Net” is positive. When the Sun is “down”, the “Total Net” is negative. That debunks the GHE nonsense so clearly even idiots can understand.
> go to one site
Which site would you suggest, Clint?
At some point your armwaving needs to stop..
Norman says:
bill hunter
Convection is a surface heat loss mechanism. It would not help keep the surface warmer it would cool it. So the logic to your question is lacking.
———————————–
So in your mind cooling doesn’t count? You are going to go with some propaganda instilled idea that if there is a cooling influence in the system no need to provide for an explanation of it?
The problem as I see it is climate is a soup sandwich and seems likely to remain that way for sometime.
As you may know practically no sunlight reaches the Venusian surface because of clouds and aerosols.
Yet you see the claim here: Aerosols reduce sunlight to the surface and thus reduces the greenhouse effect.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/do-humans-also-exert-cooling-influence-earths-climate
And we are regaled with clouds also being a cooling influence.
But aerosols and clouds are implicated for the warming of Venus, contributing to the greenhouse effect via absorbing incoming solar and thus suppressing convection from the surface. A surface with a very tiny amount of solar radiation actually reaching the surface, putting the conclusion of governments pushing cooling aerosol effects maybe a lot less than half the story. The real story Norman is about seizure of power.
And you like a trained Sea World sea lion gobble it up like the sea lions gulp tossed mackerels at Sea World.
Funny that you mention sealions, Bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Troll-ard can’t even figure out “site”!
Give the URL, Clint.
Why the hell do you think that by insulting people they’ll work for you?
YOU handwave to a site, YOU link to it.
Troll-ard can’t figure it out. He’s so frustrated. But, that’s just part of being an idiot.
Despite all his bluster, Willard has to be one of the thickest trolls I have ever encountered.
Clint does not want his argument to appear on “but ABC”:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
So he’s not making any.
He’s just hinting.
Clint the Hint.
Willard
Yes thanks for the link to “sealioning” that is exactly what bill hunter is doing. I had hoped he was not just another troll or contrarian. Too many scientifically ignorants on this blog.
I like the skeptic process but these are just trolling contrarians.
I will seek to avoid further replies to bill hunter. He is not interested at all in trying to find the truth on this complex issue. Just out to troll.
“Too many scientifically ignorants on this blog.”
Norman, you wouldn’t be so scientifically ignorant if you would do the hammer/hand experiment. What’s the risk? You’ve got two hands….
Clueless Clint, oblivious that his point has already been refuted many times, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-640525
There are 825 occurences of “momentum” on that page.
Heck, there are 63 occurences of “hammer.”
There are more than 1000 occurences of “moon” in that page. There are still 108 here. Let’s keep it that way.
Norman says:
I will seek to avoid further replies to bill hunter. He is not interested at all in trying to find the truth on this complex issue. Just out to troll.
————————
That would be an excellent idea since you have nothing more to offer on the Venus cloud and aerosol conundrum.
Norman says: I will seek to avoid further replies to bill hunter.
Norman, how do I get on your “do not call” list?
You might need to post a video of you doing the hammer experiment, Clint.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The science doesn’t appear to be settled just yet – still a bit of dissension in the ranks.
Judith Curry wrote –
“I avoid papers dominated by climate model wankery, which increasingly dominates the field.”
“Climate model wankery”? Would that be Lacis, Schmidt, et al. playing with their knobs? (CO2 or otherwise.)
I believe Dr Curry got the boot from the society of alarmist true believers. Pity.
swenson…”I believe Dr Curry got the boot from the society of alarmist true believers. Pity”.
Judith was one of the few with the integrity to call a spade a spade. She was slagged by the hero Michael Mann who used ignorant sexual slurs against her. Now the hero has been inducted into the National Academy of Science by the cheating climate alarmist SOBs who have taken it over.
After Climategate, we now know that leading climate alarmists are a load of cheating, conniving, pseudo-scientists.
Tsk, one wonders why Curry then uses models ferself.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/15/jcli-d-17-0667.1.xml
She seems to have a different voices for research and blogging.
b,
From your link –
“These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.”
Climate model wankery, do you think?
Don’t you read what you link to?
Tsk.
> Climate model wankery, do you think?
Could be observation wankery, Mike.
Could be measurement wankery too.
Or statistics wankery.
Or equation wankery.
Or else.
Lots of theories.
But it’s probably High Expectation Father wankery.
If you don’t specify what would convince you beforehand, Mike, it’s easy to whine about wankery at every step of the process.
Witless Wee Willy,
Here’s what Dr Curry wrote –
“I avoid papers dominated by climate model wankery, which increasingly dominates the field.”
Are you really being witless enough to say Dr Curry didn’t mean what she wrote”?
You have no “theories”, you idiot. Your mindless maunderings are not “theories”.
Just more cultist fantasies. Bad luck for you!
Good morning, Mike.
Let me raise you an Eli:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html
There’s nothing special about what Judy does. There’s too many papers for a single human being to read, even in one’s discipline.
I’m sure many climate scientists do the same with “her” work.
Where did you got your quote?
Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“There’s nothing special about what Judy does.”
And Im equally sure nobody cares about your opinion, but you obviously have a different view. Good for you.
As to rest of your fatuous nonsense . . .
You can’t even take an agreement, Mike.
Do you even URL?
Oh dear, Witless Wee Willy,
Still trying for the appearance of intelligence through cryptic obscurity?
How’s that working out for you? Not too well, I guess, but who cares?
You are an idiot.
Try this, Mike:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism
Kidding. You don’t read.
Swenson says:
”Barry’s source says: ”These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.”
Climate model wankery, do you think?”
Willard’s philosophical source says: ”Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system.”
This is especially true in imagined theories and computer models freed from empirical reality. As an apprentice I learned that the power of computer models to misrepresent truth actually goes beyond the imagination of most. And indeed the judge confirmed that.
> This is especially true in imagined theories and computer models freed from empirical reality.
It’s also especially true in any auditing gig, Bill.
Think about it.
I’m gonna give you an evening. Meanwhile, have another Sky Dragon:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/01/27/a-note-on-fourier-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
Thanks to your evasive techniques, I now have an RSS reader.
Sorry.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“Don’t you read what you link to?”
I do. Curry has her own climate model, so it seems she thinks they are “wankery” one day, but not when it suits her to write a paper.
Barry I think the reading problem is your problem. Curry clearly states that climate models are not in compliance with instruments analyzed through energy budget models (not climate models).
”At the heart of the difficulty surrounding the values of ECS and TCR is the substantial difference between values derived from climate models versus values derived from changes over the historical instrumental data record using energy budget models.”
Here, Bill:
What do you think energy models are: cooking recipes?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Look, Bill.
In one subthread you whine about energy balance modulz:
In the next appeal to them.
To deny that they’re models at all won’t do.
You have no idea how many times I’ve been over this point, e.g.:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/judith-curry-confuses-laypeople-about-climate-models/
Your next move should be to try to argue that they’re observation-based.
Willard, please stop trolling. #2
Climate models ARE energy budget models of the Earth. Curry’s simpler model includes forcings and time-dependent analysis, doesn’t include a gridded Earth, and uses observed temperature data.
The observed temp data comes from Had.CRU, which is a pack of fudge-filled lies on most days, but OK! by ‘skeptics’ when employed for a result they like.
She also uses as inputs the outputs of CMIP5 climate models she describes as “wankery.”
Her talking out of both sides of the mouth is hardly new. Neither is the blithe inconsistency of AGW ‘skeptics’.
Barry, please stop trolling.
I found Dr. Christy on Mark Levin a few years back. Impressive.
I also find it queer that it is seldom mentioned that the 10 billion ton per year fossil fuel contribution is so minor compared to the rest of the CO2 sources…. 200-300 billion tons (BT) per year. Just from humans breathing (2.8 BT), ants (>10 BT), termites even more, Earth’s ‘basal ecosystem’, the microbial action and rot in the soil of the earth, according to the USGS: 103 BT (2011). The normal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about (3760 BT). It has gone up more than twice the fossil fuel contribution in the past 20 years.
(I’m not suggesting that we eradicate ants, although the case could be made that they are causing more global warming than fossil fuels.)
JCH http://www.thinkforonce.com
Henson
You probably are the millionth poster writing this eternal blah blah.
Rear Ferdinand Engelbeen’s stuff about CO2
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_variability.html
and come back here when you got all of it into your head.
Do you REALLY want to tell us that you ignore that prior to 1850, there was a CO2 equilibrium at 280 ppm?
J.-P. D.
Binny,
You wrote –
” . . . and come back here when you got all of it into your head.”
I am curious – what happens if he doesn’t? Are you going to ban him, whack him with your goose-stepping boots or riding crop, or deport him to a Covid-19 ward, where you hope he will die a lingering death?
Or maybe you are completely powerless in reality, just under the illusion that your fantasy might become fact?
Have you considered that it is possible that nobody might pay attention to your demands?
Apart from those extremely gullible or of limited intelligence, of course. Are these really the sorts of people you want as your followers? I wouldn’t.
> maybe you are completely powerless in reality
Our Sock Puppet Hath Spoken!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindidion
Do you really think that the ant population could not have doubled?
Or that the CO2 increase must be the significant cause of warming instead of a coincidence? Dinosaurs did not drink whisky. Have some before you to are extinct.
It’s the sun. Call me in 10 years when skiing is better.
JCH
JCH, interesting facts about CO2. I had heard the figures from termites, but ants are just about as bad, t seems.
It’s a good thing CO2 only slightly cools….
norman…”Momentum does not represent a force even in collision. Impulse is the force that exchanges momentum in a collision. The momentum does not change itself”.
Don’t be silly, Norman. Momentum is created by force and it requires a force to stop it. If it is a large object opposing a mass with momentum, the large object represents the equal and opposite force required to stop the momentum.
Newton said that a mass in motion will continue with that motion unless an equal and opposite force is applied to stop its motion. Mass…force, the only real phenomena acting.
Momentum itself is a potential force just as EM can be a potential form of heat. That’s why it’s silly to measure EM in w/m^2 since the w/m^2 does not apply till the EM is converted to heat, or an electrical current in a conductor.
It’s pointless to talk about momentum unless it is acting as a force, somehow. The Moon in its orbit has linear momentum that act like a force to counteract the effect of gravitational force. Since gravitational force attracts the Moon to the Earth, a force of some kind is required to overcome it and form a resultant orbit.
If you have a large ocean liner, going slowly, it has tremendous momentum. If it collides with a wooden wharf, it will destroy the wharf. Do you think it’s momentum doing that or the mass of the ship acting as a force?
Gordon Robertson
You have not followed my posts with Clint R.
I post actual physics. You have your ideas and your common sense but those are not physics. You might want to try to learn actual physics and skip your own ideas. The topic has been well investigated over long periods of time.
Here;
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/calcpad/momentum#:~:text=Momentum%20is%20simply%20transferred%20from,two%20objects%20after%20the%20collision.
The momentum of one object transfers to another in a collision. The total momentum does not change unless a force is present. The momentum does not change without some force.
With inelastic collisions the concept is more difficult so stick with elastic collisions. The momentum transfers it does not change, not force is present under this condition. Momentum changes when a force is present. If you throw a ball up in the sky, the momentum changes because of the force of gravity. If you throw and object on the ground the momentum changes because of the force of friction. Momentum is conserved in a collision. Read more on it.
Norman, when you do the hammer/hand experiment you will have a much better understanding of the physics involved.
“Momentum is created by force … “
Yeah. And velocity is ‘created by’ acceleration. So you are not wrong here. However, the two quantities in each pair of the two items in each pair different quantities with different units. They are NOT the same. We could just a legitimately say kinetic energy is created by force.
“Momentum itself is a potential force just as EM can be a potential form of heat. Thats why its silly to measure EM in w/m^2 since the w/m^2 does not apply till the EM is converted to heat,”
First, momentum is not just a ‘potential force’. Momentum is a useful quantity in its own right. They have different unit — kg*m/s vs kg*m/s^2. They can certainty be related, but not the same.
Measuring EM in W/m^2 and measuring heat in W/m^2 is actually LESS silly, since both are measured in the same units. Both are power moving across an area.
“Its pointless to talk about momentum unless it is acting as a force, somehow. The Moon in its orbit has linear momentum that act like a force to counteract the effect of gravitational force.”
This is just plain wrong.
1) It is completely useful to talk about momentum all on its own, just like it is useful to talk about mass or electric charge or energy on their own.
2) Momentum does not ‘act like a force’ and it does not ‘counter act effect of gravitational force’. Whether the moon is moving or not, the force of gravity is the same: F = G m(m) m(e) / r^2. As a result the moon accelerates toward the earth at a = G m(e)/ r^2.
tim…”And velocity is created by acceleration”.
Tim, old boy, both velocity and acceleration are created by force. It depends on the balance between force and mass whether the result is velocity or acceleration.
Suppose you’re in a car and stopped at a light. The light changes and you apply gas to the engine via the accelerator. If there is not enough force generated by the motor to accelerate the car, it just sits there. If you apply enough gas via the gas pedal to overcome the inertia of the car, it starts to move.
Suppose you have an automatic and you are in drive. You take your foot off the brake and the idling motor will normally start the car moving. Will it accelerate? Likely not. It’s more likely to move at a constant acceleration till you apply more fuel to the motor.
I did this once in the Canadian Prairies. The accelerator cable ran through a sheath and it froze within the sheath. I had to get under the hood and pry the accelerator cable off the throttle and start thinking really quickly. I ended up increasing the idle speed and allowing the car to run at idle speed which was around a velocity of 20 kph.
Now accelerate to 50 kph and ease back on the gas pedal till the car maintains 50 kph. The car is moving at constant velocity even though a force is applied.
Momentum is now measured as the mass of the car times the velocity of 50 kph. What does that tell you exactly if the car never collides with anything. And what would it take to stop the momentum completely?
An equal and opposite force, right?
What does Newton have to say about that? In modern terms, a car in motion will remain in motion unless an equal and opposite force is applied. Part of that opposite force is tire resistance. However, having experienced this several times to my detriment on the Canadian Prairies in winter, if your car is on an icy road, you can hammer the brakes all you like and the car won’t slow down till it’s good and ready. The car slides on the ice and there’s no stopping it.
Since it requires an equal and opposite force to stop momentum, the momentum must represent a potential force. If you collide with another vehicle, the damage caused is the kind only a mechanical force could cause.
I agree that it’s useful to talk about momentum on its own but only as a potential, not an actual phenomenon. As long as that car does not collide with anything, the momentum has no meaning.
There is one area where it might. If you have to apply the brakes suddenly, you should be aware of the momentum available in your car and the brakes’ ability to apply an equal and opposite force to stop the momentum. A careful driver always leaves enough room between his/her car and the car ahead while hoping the driver of the car behind has the same sense.
Lunar momentum certainly does affect the Earth’s gravitational force’s ability to accelerate the Moon toward the planet. Were it not for the lunar linear momentum, the Moon would be attracted directly toward the Earth. If you could turn off its momentum suddenly, the Moon would be accelerated straight at the Earth.
It’s the resultant between the gravity vector and another vector that determines the resultant lunar orbit. What is that other vector? You cannot claim it does not exist. I call it a potential force vector representing the lunar momentum. I would calculate it by determining the force exerted on the Moon if it crashed into an immovable object, then reverse the direction of that vector.
This is some fun ramblings and anecdotes, but hardly inspired Physics. There are too many basic errors.
>>” If you could turn off its momentum suddenly, the Moon would be accelerated straight at the Earth.”
Ummm … if the moon continues with its current momentum, it STILL accelerates straight toward the earth!
>> “If you apply enough gas via the gas pedal to overcome the inertia”
No. You might say you are overcoming *friction*. But you don’t ‘overcome inertia’.
>> ” You take your foot off the brake and the idling motor will normally start the car moving. Will it accelerate? Likely not. ”
When the car starts moving, by definition it is accelerating!
>> “As long as that car does not collide with anything, the momentum has no meaning.”
This would mean that mass and velocity have no meaning. If mass and velocity DO have meaning, then so does momentum!
>>”I call it a potential force vector”
You can call it anything you like. It is not part of physics — no textbook will include your ‘potential force’. A ‘resultant vector’ must be the sum of two vectors, and the vectors must have the same units. The ‘gravity vector’ sounds like a force (but might be an acceleration). What force (or acceleration) vector are you adding to this???
>> “if it crashed into an immovable object”
Ain’t no such thing as an immovable object!
Tim Folkerts says:
Momentum is created by force
Yeah. And velocity is created by acceleration. So you are not wrong here. However, the two quantities in each pair of the two items in each pair different quantities with different units. They are NOT the same. We could just a legitimately say kinetic energy is created by force.
——————————-
Tim can you at least acknowledge that they are directly linked physically and mathematically? Why all this ridiculous hair splitting that has zero effect on the conclusions being drawn from it? Is that what is known as obfuscation? Hmmm, seems bell clear to be the case here.
Bill,
The obfuscation here is the rambling discussion of ‘potential force’ and ‘momentum acting like a force’ ‘overcoming gravity’ and ‘EM radiation can’t be measured in W/m^2’. None of that is correct physics.
Pointing out obfuscation is not itself obfuscation.
OK so you are just marking down folks for grammar right?
Bill, there is an old joke attributed to Abraham Lincoln.
You can call these grammar errors, but that doesn’t make them grammar errors. These are indeed misunderstandings about basic physics.
So you are claiming that Gordon’s discussion of a momentum being the result of a force and thus holding the potential of acting as a force is impossible and contrary to physics?
Gee that sounds contrary to what I know about physics. Please explain then.
UPDATE
The number of “reality” went from 143 to 151.
Cult remained stable, from 95 to 97.
We note a small surge in the number of idiot: from 198 to 210 in a few hours.
Tune in tomorroe!
IPCC/NASA/NOAA have zero credibility.
Recently it has been shown that NASA has been busy changing long-term cooling into long-term warming by altering the data.
A few years ago we reported that in the 10 years from 2008 to 2018, NASA artificially added 53% more warming to the 1910-2000 global temperature record by cooling the past and warming up more recent temperatures.
Now, with its cartoonish superhero appeals to children and simplistic imagery in claiming greenhouse gas molecules “turn into tiny heaters” in the sky, there is credible evidence NASA is actively engaged in peddling climate propaganda.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/19/nasa-pushes-propaganda-for-kids-casts-greenhouse-gases-as-superheroes-that-turn-into-tiny-heaters/
I rather like this page, SK:
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/
Not sure it’s skydragon-proof, however.
Whether it’s skydragon proof or not, it is not science.
The idea they are poisoning our children’s minds should be concerning.
> It’s not science.
Toy models are part of the ways we communicate our understanding of the world, SK.
Perhaps you’d prefer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/
I have yet to see anything that could be contrarian-proof, so it should go without saying that there’s nothing skydragon-proof.
Willard flips out:
‘A pot of water warming on a gas stove is useful for demonstrating basic concepts of energy gain and energy loss, which together determine temperature of the water in the pot.’
That doesn’t justify telling kids ‘death rays’ from ‘CO2’ are going to warm the surface about 1.5degC, and that is society’s biggest challenge. . . .especially when we don’t even know if that is a supportable conclusion.
A true conservative is one who looks at the MIC pleading the necessity of spreading democracy by force if necessary in the same light. This isn’t a Democrat vs Republican issue. Though because of Trump the R’s are paying more attention to it. Otherwise it would have been a choice of two hawks on the ballot.
> A true conservative
Perhaps, Bill, but how about a true Scot conservatives who peddles “death rays” when nobody but him talks about them?
“…so it should go without saying that there’s nothing skydragon-proof.”
You’re very critical of “the Slayers” for someone who doesn’t understand even simplified versions of their arguments and who hadn’t even heard of Joe Postma until recently.
You’re very protective of Joe considering that you only find his post “interesting,” kiddo.
I never was into punching down, and Tony’s is too silly to be worth any due diligence. So imagine Pierre’s or Joe’s. Imagine you or Clint.
The Auditor’s, Judy’s, Lucia’s, now that’s more interesting.
It’s a bit sad that Mike got demoted even from Roy’s, to be honest. But I expected he learned nothing. He did not. Too slow. Too clumsy. No reading skillz.
DREMT
Please quit trolling. It gets old after a considerable period. Maybe realize Joe Postma is a lunatic and does not grasp heat transfer. He is not as smart as you make him out to be. I think he is rather stupid.
I never made him out to be anything, Norman. Only reason I mentioned him just now is because he is a well-known “Slayer”, yet Willard recently mentioned that he had never heard of him. Which seems odd given Willard’s critical stance on “the Slayers” which has featured in quite a few of his many, many comments on this blog. That was the point I was making.
Yep thats my take, can’t even get what the definition of a skydragon is in this forum since its being constantly thrown around without reference or consistency for that matter.
Urban Dictionary: sky dragon
One who is so infused into the hippie culture that they forget that one needs to actually work to get something achieved. They also tend to forget to buy new clean clothes. This is a group of people who will pay more for used goods than new ones.
Whickering Wee Willy wrote –
“Youre very protective of Joe considering that you only find his post “interesting” kiddo.
I never was into punching down, and Tonys is too silly to be worth any due diligence. So imagine Pierres or Joes. Imagine you or Clint.
The Auditors, Judys, Lucias, now thats more interesting.
Its a bit sad that Mike got demoted even from Roys, to be honest. But I expected he learned nothing. He did not. Too slow. Too clumsy. No reading skillz.”
Incoherent or incomprehensible?
Skillz?
What an idiot!
> cant even get what the definition of a skydragon
If only that was the only thing you can’t get, Bill.
How about denying the Tyndall Gas effect?
> Skillz?
Yes, skillz:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skillz
You’re new to the Internet since at least 2011, Mike.
Don’t ever change.
Weird Wee Willy,
So you don’t want to use normal English. Good for you, you rugged individualist, you!
You don’t accept normal physics – go for it!
Between the two, at least you will be extremely unlikely to be able to convince any normal person to pay you much attention.
That might be a good thing. If you don’t know what you are talking about, it’s a blessing that you remain incoherent and incomprehensible.
Maybe you could blame Mike Flynn for your deficiencies?
> Maybe you could blame Mike Flynn
I would never blame you for anything, Mike.
Your limitations are not your fault.
Why are you referring to you in the third person?
Willard says:
> cant even get what the definition of a skydragon
If only that was the only thing you cant get, Bill.
How about denying the Tyndall Gas effect?
==============================
Noticeably absent is your definition of skydragon Willard. Does that mean you just blindly repeat it because you heard somebody else saying it and it sounds cool?
You guys are incorrigible I point out that CO2 does not act like insulation, point out a steady stream of confirming experiments, practices, and standards.
And because you are so married to the idea and you have absolutely nothing to dispute it, you start making strawmen like Ford Motor company turns out trucks and autos.
Most of the CO2 warms the surface folks in here are looking like they may have gotten a science education but couldn’t make the cut in getting a real job.
You though Willard don’t even appear to have the education or the experience. So what are you doing in here?
> Noticeably absent is your definition of skydragon
You’re playing dumb once again, Bill.
Which part of “denying the Tyndall Gas effect” you do not get?
Willard please stop trolling
Let’s start with “to deny,” Bill:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deny
I adapted the examples just for you.
Willard please stop trolling #2
Sealions should beware their wishes, Bill.
Have another cookie:
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/greenhouse-gas-theory-trashed-as-dissenters-build-compelling-case/
Two Sky Dragons for the price of one!
Willard, please stop trolling #3
You’re not following kiddo’s convention, Bill.
To motivate you to be more circumspect, another cookie:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist/
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
norman…”Convection is a surface heat loss mechanism”.
Sorry, it’s not. Heat is lost at the surface via conduction wherein heat is transferred directly from surface atoms/molecules to air molecules. That air is comprised 99% of nitrogen and oxygen.
As the N2/O2 heats via conduction, it rises. That rising air is convection, comprised of molecules of air, mainly N2/O2.
Here’s the beauty in that. As that heated air gains altitude, it retains the heat due to the fact that N2/O2 are poor radiators and air molecules are poor conductors of heat amongst themselves. However, as the air parcels rise, they expand thus lowering the pressure. As the pressure lowers, the temperature lowers automatically, without the heat having to be dissipated to space.
In other words, the gravitation pressure gradient allows rising air to cool naturally via expansion.
I can hear the howls of indignation already from the conservation of energy crowd who believe the energy balance between Earth and space is all due to radiation. Not so, radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.
We humans live in a unique environment. We have a gravitational field that orders air molecules in the atmosphere into decreasing pressure bands based on altitude. As heated air parcels move through that negative pressure gradient they expand naturally, decreasing temperature naturally. This process has nothing to do with conservation of energy, in fact, it is a natural dissipation of energy.
At the same time, our planet rotates on an axis that is fairly close to perpendicular to solar rays and the rate of rotation is just right to absorb solar energy part of the day and allow heating from it to dissipate during the night phase.
There is no proof that energy has to be dissipated to space, it could simply be dissipated via expansion of a gas. Furthermore, the Sun has had a long time to raise Earth’s temperature to it’s current level. It is now a matter of maintaining that temperature level, not creating anew daily.
The notion of an energy balance applied to the Earth’s current condition is wrong-headed if it is based only on radiation in versus radiation out. Whoever came up with that theory is misinformed.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I can hear the howls of indignation already from the conservation of energy crowd who believe the energy balance between Earth and space is all due to radiation. Not so, radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation at terrestrial temperatures.”
No howls of indignation needed. You are too ignorant of physics, heat transfer, Chemistry or science in general to illicit howls of indignation. You are just a stupid person wasting everyone’s time posting things your are clueless about.
Just a contrarian troll wanting to be somebody. You could have done better in life if you actually attempted to learn a science subject instead of making up your own version.
You and Clint R are a lot alike. Both of you make up your own version of reality and pretend it is the real thing. You are a bit nicer than troll Clint R. You only used “idiot” occasionally.
There is much proof energy IR EMR moves to space. You can measure the quantity from satellites. Not that you can accept any of that. Maybe if you imagined IR could be measured from satellites you might just believe it was possible.
naive normie writes…”There is much proof energy IR EMR moves to space. You can measure the quantity from satellites”.
I have not disputed that EM radiates to space but no satellite can measure its quantity. Sats can only measure tiny windows of radiates gathered by their telemetry.
It is presumed that EM detected is cooling the planet by the only means available. That is a lie.
It would be nice, if just once, you could rebut the science I present but obviously you cannot. Therefore, you resort to childish ad homs and insults. I am immune to either but I can’t help feeling pity for you that you lack the ability to present a coherent, intelligent scientific argument. All the textbooks you read cannot prepare you to understand and rebut the science.
Gordon Robertson
Are you daft? I have spent many posts presenting coherent, intelligent scientific arguments for you.
When the claim is made that EMR is the only means to cool the planet they are not talking about the surface. They are talking about the planet as a whole. There is no conduction or convection possible in space. The only means for energy to exit the Earth system (not just surface, the whole system) is via EMR. The surface is cooled by radiant loss, convection loss (conduction only removes a small amount of surface heat, if the air did not move then the surface would cool very little by that means), and evaporative cooling. These mechanisms only help to cool the surface they cannot cool the Earth System. The Earth receives a continuous amount of energy from the Sun. If not for radiant loss the Earth would continue to heat up and become very very warm.
Satellites are constantly moving and cover quite a large area. They can circle the whole Earth in hours.
Here are some views of satellite measurements of the IR given from the Earth system, some from the surface, the rest from the atmosphere.
https://earth.esa.int/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/a/aqua
“As the pressure lowers, the temperature lowers automatically, without the heat having to be dissipated to space.”
Gordon, the factor that you seem to be missing is “what goes up must come down.”
For every parcel of air that ascends, another parcel must necessarily descend. If “it retains the heat” as you claim, then the parcel that returns will warm bar to the original surface temperature with its original ‘retained heat’. There is no “dissipation” in your model.
Tim Folkets says:
Gordon, the factor that you seem to be missing is ”what goes up must come down.”
———————-
That doesn’t apply to heat that gets radiated to space Tim.
And what you failing to acknowledge is the how CO2 emissions are distributed.
You want to look at a view from space that shows less CO2 heat than expected, then you apply your what goes up must come down measuring stick to it. Wrong!
But what is actually happening is a large part of that missing heat is being captured by various phases of water upon emission by CO2.
and that heat now to some extent in water vapor will fuel the latent heat express train to go higher in the atmosphere before unloading.
“That doesn’t apply to heat that gets radiated to space Tim.”
Exactly, Bill! Thanks for reiterating to Gordon the error he made.
“you apply your what goes up must come down measuring stick to it. “
No. We both agree this ‘measuring stick’ is wrong. I only ‘apply’ it to point out ho absurd it is. I thought you got that.
“You want to look at a view from space that shows less CO2 heat than expected”
Yes. Like this: http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran_iris.jpg The “missing radiation” is clearly due to GHGs like CO2. Whatever may or may not happen with latent heat or convection, the difference in radiation to space is ultimately due in large part to CO2. This ultimately warms the earth.
Tim, missing radiation in Modtran isn’t necessarily missing in the emissions to space. Only in the hermetically sealed world of CO2 unique emissions, which is the view of Modtran, can such an unworldly conclusion be arrived at.
Its pure horseblinder science. We know emissions are missing from CO2 but Modtran has an unempirical answer to where they end up. Its a shell game where only the modeler knows what shell he put the pea under until he chooses to unveil its location via (in the case of Modtran) a magical reappearance at the surface.
The communicators of this are quite expert at the deception as they now employ 3 shells in a modified game. the backradiation supplying the heat shell, the sun supplying the heat shell, and the resistance to convection supplying the heat shell.
The pea isn’t in fact under any of them until after the ‘mark’ points to the shell where the grifter showed the ‘mark’ the pea going under it. Then the grifter lifts that shell and show no pea. Then to show where the pea is he then lifts a shell, slides the pea in his hand under it, and goes viola there is the pea.
The game is remarkable in how much money it brings in. So no way does the grifter want to give up any shells as that would focus the criticism as well. A lesson in Sun Tzu divide and conquer.
The fact is all the money in the climate game is coming in from all three shells and only going out to all the scientists lining up to contribute to the empirical proof arising out of climate without serious consideration of other alternatives.
Ruminators like Einstein have to satisfy themselves with a job at the patent office. The vast majority of scientists are generally just mathematicians and statisticians. The Generals of that army are institutions solely surviving off the political largesse.
“Tim, missing radiation in Modtran isn’t necessarily missing in the emissions to space.”
That link was to actual satellite data for actual emissions to space from the actual Saraha desert. MODTRAN simply was theoretically matching the data! The radiation *is* necessarily missing!
“but Modtran has an unempirical answer to where they end up. “
You seem to be laboring under a false sense of what MODTRAN is.
“The MODTRAN® [1] [2] (MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission) computer code is used worldwide by research scientists in government agencies, commercial organizations, and educational institutions for the prediction and analysis of optical measurements through the atmosphere. …”
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_about
Tim you are changing goal posts and begging the question at the same time.
The Sahara desert has dynamics not embedded in Modtran. Of course its not going to match up. In fact its showing a huge imbalance that most likely doesn’t even exist locally, much less globally.
Its showing about a 30K imbalance (eyeballing at 290K radiation to space) Space radiation would be 401w/m2 and surface radiation 594w/m2. What do you honestly think that proves Tim?
“The Sahara desert has dynamics not embedded in Modtran. “
MODTRAN is *not* a climate model! Modtran takes a predetermined atmospheric composition/cloud cover/temperature profile/etc and calculates what sort of thermal radiation would result.
So you can input a ‘typical’ atmosphere similar to a desert and see a ‘typical’ output. The ‘typical’ output looks awfully darn close to the actual data. They could tweak parameters a bit more to try to get a more exact match. But that is not the point. The point is that the basic shape is quite good, so the model clearly works pretty closely.
“Space radiation would be 401w/m2 and surface radiation 594w/m2. What do you honestly think that proves Tim?”
That ‘proves’ that if we got rid of the GHGs, then suddenly nearly 200 W/m^2 more power would immediately start radiating from this region, and the surface would quickly cool from whatever temperature it currently was.
It is rather amazing what the human mind conceives Tim. If you got rid of GHG the clouds would disappear along with all snow, ice on the continents and more. The outgoing radiation would rise to somewhere around 341 w/m2.
GR said: The notion of an energy balance applied to the Earth’s current condition is wrong-headed if it is based only on radiation in versus radiation out. Whoever came up with that theory is misinformed.
Radiation is the only mechanism by which Earth receives and sheds energy. And per the 1LOT dE = ASR – OLR. Over the last decade or so dE has averaged around 14e21 joules per year.
bdgwx, there are actually a few other factors that should be included. For instance both the energy introduced by burning fossil fuels and the geothermal heat are a a few percent of that number you quoted. It’s not a huge correction, but these *are* measurable deviations.
ΔE = ASR – OLR + (geothermal heat) + (heat of combustion)
Of course, this is a small second-order correction. Gordon was making a large first order mistake.
That should have been:
Delta(E) = + ASR – OLR + (geothermal heat) + (heat of combustion)
Agreed. I think geothermal is about 0.1 W/m^2. Most of that is radiothermal. I think 0.01 W/m^2 tidal energy. Anthroprogenic energy consumption is about 0.05 W/m^2. So yeah, measurable, but relatively small.
Well, small compared to incoming sunlight and outgoing thermal IR. But the difference — the “Delta(E) term — is on the order of 1 W/m^1, so 0.1 W/m^2 is actually on the order of a 10% correction!
bdgwx, Tim, please stop trolling.
willard…”A pot of water warming on a gas stove is useful for demonstrating basic concepts of energy gain and energy loss, which together determine temperature of the water in the pot”.
The pot of water demonstrates HEAT gain and HEAT loss. You alarmists love to define heat only as a generic energy so you can convolute the 2nd law using inane, red-herring arguments that have nothing to do with heat or heat transfer.
A red hot electric ring on a stove transfers heat via conduction to the pot’s bottom end. That heat agitates the atoms in the steel, or whatever the pot’s design. Those agitated atoms have agitated electrons that transfer heat to electrons in the hydrogen and oxygen atoms of the water molecules in the water and they become agitated.
The increasing agitation of water molecules represents a rise in kinetic energy of the molecules which equates to an increase in thermal energy, aka heat. Temperatures is a human invention that equates the relative kinetic energy of the water molecules to the freezing point and boiling point of water as set points.
However, when the water begins to boil, the temperature of the water remains constant at 100C. Other processes kick in like the mechanical agitation of the water (boiling) and evapouration. You can add all the heat you want but as long as there is enough water in the pot, its temperature will remain constant at 100C.
Explain that.
This has nothing to do with heat gain/heat loss in the atmosphere, so adding a number of pots has no bearing on the energy balance in the atmosphere.
You mention other sites like The Auditor, Judy, Lucia, who present overly simplistic and inane alarmist arguments. On the Slayer’s side you have mathematicians like Claes Johnson who can disprove prevailing assumptions about black bodies and the likes using elegant mathematical arguments.
The difference between Claes and the idiots you mention is that Claes understands the thermodynamics and blackbody theory involved and he can apply advanced mathematics to it to support his arguments.
Another supporter of the Slayers, Philip Latour, is a chemical engineer with impressive experience in the field of thermodynamics. Here is an article which refers to Latour and his debate with Roy.
I have a policy of not commenting on Roy’s opinions out of respect for his scientific position and as owner of this blog. I really wish, however, that he had not published his “Yes, Virginia” article.
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2011/12/
Thanks, Gordon.
You might like:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/16/microagressions-on-social-media/
Gordon,
I found back the archived version of Philip’s reviewer-two post, which seems to have disappeared from John’s:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120228145757/http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still
Perhaps I should disclosed that me and Nullius (cf. the comments) go a long way, not far from my first threat at Keith’s.
We’re not buddies, but he’s no idiot.
Oh, and here’s the post that Nullius is citing in one of his comments:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/
My only comment in that thread was:
Bill will appreciate the presence of Arthur Smith in the comment thread, since he participated to the G&T debacle.
Willard says:
”Oh, and heres the post that Nullius is citing in one of his comments: https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/02/best-of-the-greenhouse/”
Well since you don’t understand that post nor what the S&O experiment portends to show, you can’t possibly understand what I have been saying.
Judith and Myself are in complete agreement on many aspects of that article.
”A great deal of confusion is caused in this debate by the fact that there are two distinct explanations for the greenhouse effect: one based on that developed by Fourier, Tyndall, etc. which works for purely radiative atmospheres (i.e. no convection).
But almost universally, when they try to explain it, they all use the purely radiative approach, which is incorrect, misleading, contrary to observation, and results in a variety of inconsistencies when people try to plug real atmospheric physics into a bad model.”
Read that carefully and note what the bad model is.
She is right when she says the Tyndall model that only considers radiation is a bad model for our atmosphere.
I do take some exception with one sentence of Dr. Curry’s above.
”one based on that developed by Fourier, Tyndall, etc. which works for purely radiative atmospheres (i.e. no convection). ”
”works for purely radiative atmospheres?” Sure you can have an atmosphere without any greenhouse gases but how does it work without greenhouse gases?
> Judith and Myself are in complete agreement
You don’t seem to realize that you’re quoting Nullius, Bill.
Take your time.
Dr. Curry: ”The problem with explaining the atmospheric greenhouse effect is eloquently described by Nullius in Verba:”
So what diff does it make Willard. . . .getting confused?
Yes, Bill. What follows is from Nullius.
Which is why what you said here:
looks silly even for you.
Well not as funny as the expression ”purely radiative atmospheres” which of course you are trying desperately to cover up.
Your incredulity is duly noted, Bill.
Try this:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%22purely+radiative+atmospheres%22
First hit I could copy-paste somewhat easily:
https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/barman_travis_s_200205_phd.pdf
Is it the plural that puts you off?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Were not buddies, but hes no idiot.”
That is obviously why you are not buddies. Why would he want to associate with an idiot?
Have you considered thinking before you start pounding your keyboard?
C’mon, Mike.
Everybody knows you’re Mike.
It’s just a flesh wound.
Get over it.
Roy won’t notice.
Wee Willy Idiot,
In you, the Mike fixation deeply rooted is!
Luckily, your hallucinations are not factual. Demanding that I “get over” something that I have never “got on” is unlikely to do you much good.
You really need to try another diversion. Don’t you like criticism? If you act like an idiot, don’t be surprised if people treat you like one.
Off you go now, back to your fantasy world, where you are powerful, respected, and people value your opinions.
Your denial is delighful, Mike.
Enjoy your afternoon,
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”We’re not buddies, but he’s [Nullis] no idiot.
Not suggesting Nullis is an idiot, however, he makes the mistake of getting caught up in blackbody theory while confusing heat with electromagnetic energy. That’s the same mistake Eli keeps repeating even though G&T pointed out to him that the 2nd law is about heat transfer only. Eli argued that EM could be summed with heat and he is just plain wrong.
I went into this in more detail in an earlier post so I won’t belabour the point here. To understand why EM from a colder body is not absorbed by a hotter body, as verified by Philip Latour, you have to go into basic quantum theory.
I have a strong background in the electronics, electrical and computer fields, especially related to the digital electronics used in computer hardware. What I learned at the university level in engineering studies, as well as in a year course in organic chemistry, is supported by the same quantum theory.
Quantum theory in its basic form is not related to the more esoteric claims of action at a distance, wherein electrons are implied to communicate mysteriously with other electrons at considerable distances. Nor is it about the current futile attempt to build quantum computers. It is, in fact, pretty straight-forward atomic theory in which Bohr formulated a stipulation for electron motion about a nucleus.
That is essentially what we were taught in both engineering classes and organic chemistry classes, the Bohr model, enlarged upon mathematically by Schrodinger, using differential equation theory based on the Newtonian wave equation. It is all based on the electron and its relationship with the nucleus.
Although some people claim the Bohr model no longer applies, they are mistaken. Quantum theory is still based on that simple model with additional theory being introduced to account for more complex atoms and molecules.
Bohr stated way back in 1913 that the electrons in an atom were limited as to the type of EM they could absorb. He brought that down to the intensity of the EM and its frequency. His work, in fact, is based on discrete emission of the hydrogen atom which take place as the adjective implies, at discrete frequencies/wavelengths.
There is a reason for that as he discovered. Whether his model is accurate or not, the electrons have to be restricted to certain quantum orbital energy levels. They must absorb energy, EM or heat, to move to a higher quantum level, and when they move back down to a lower level, they emit EM. Not broadband EM, but EM of an intensity and frequency dependent upon the difference in energy levels traversed and the frequency of the electron in its starting energy level.
Quantum theory is not about randomness, there is a very specific order to it. Latour claimed that EM from a cooler body will be rejected by a hotter body, and the answer as to why lies in quantum theory.
Eli Rabbett has no idea how quantum theory works, otherwise he would stop his nonsense about cooler objects transferring EM to hotter bodies and raising their temperatures. Nullis seems to lack that understanding as well.
If you arwave and spit at the same time, Gordon, don’t complain that your arms get wet.
It does not take much to recognize a phony, and Pierre sure looks like one. Take his last sentence:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120228145757/http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no-virginia-cooler-objects-cannot-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still
How can Pierre derive so many things based on ignorance is a thing to marvel, and I regret he has not cited his proof.
Just so you keep some spit, when I was referring to Pierre’s earlier, I was referring to NTZ.
I stopped here
“so this requires creation of energy”
The bs was too deep.
Gordon,
You are hopelessly confused about Quantum Mechanics.
There are plenty of reasons why.
The most important is that a photon does not know the temperature of the body that emitted it.
A photon can be collected by a solid and not by the electronic energy levels of the electrons but by the vibrational, stretching and bending modes of the atoms in solids.
So the warmer surface can collect the energy from downwelling infrared, no matter the temperature of the body that emitted it.
The temperature is just irrelevant, if there is an energy level transition available, the surface will collect the photon.
The photon doesn’t carry the information about the temperature of the body that emitted it.
Anyway, someone who is the department chair of physical chemistry is a reliable source for quantum mechanics, you should invest in a quantum mechanics textbook, the smaller the better, the little red book is invaluable. I am away from my library at the moment so I can’t give you the title, but maybe later.
Nice strawman, bob.
A photon does not know its temperature, but it knows its frequency.
And, it knows it can’t violate the laws of physics.
That’s how we know ice cubes can NOT boil water, no matter how many ice cubes you’ve got.
Some easy-to-understand reality for you, since you don’t understand quantum physics.
> someone who is the department chair of physical chemistry is a reliable source for quantum mechanics
Sometimes about ocean chemistry too:
https://judithcurry.com/2012/06/28/back-to-the-greenhouse-future/#comment-213801
You were optimistic regarding Latimer, Bob.
Clint R,
For one, I am not claiming you can boil water with ice.
For two, the temperature of the atmosphere does not determine the frequency of radiation emitted by CO2.
CO2 emits in certain bands no matter what temperature.
That’s the part you don’t understand with respect to Quantum Physics, or Quantum Mechanics, whatever you want to call it.
Yeah, I took a course in Quantum Mechanics, got a B+, you never even met the pre-requisites.
Willard,
Ah, the hopeless acidification arguments, perhaps the clown car can opine?
> perhaps the clown car can opine?
At their own peril, Bob.
As long as they help me improve my stub, I don’t mind:
https://climateball.net/but-semantics/
I should add Latimer’s quip and your reply later on.
Nice diversionary tactics, bob.
Your subject was “a photon does not know its temperature”. Now you’re trying to claim I said things I didn’t say, while diverting the subject to CO2 emission spectrum.
Let’s stick with the subject. A CO2 photon does not know its temperature, but it knows its frequency. And that frequency will determine whether or not it will be absorbed by a molecule. A higher frequency molecule does NOT absorb a lower frequency photon. That makes your statement invalid: “So the warmer surface can collect the energy from downwelling infrared, no matter the temperature of the body that emitted it.” As it implies “cold” can warm “hot”.
That’s why I reminded you: “That’s how we know ice cubes can NOT boil water, no matter how many ice cubes you’ve got.”
Clint R,
you know not of what you speak.
The frequency of a molecule, whatever that means, has nothing to do with whether or not there are available energy transitions in that molecule to collect a photon or not.
Quantum Mechanics is not your strong suit.
And it’s my turn to remind you
That’s why I reminded you: “That’s how we know ice cubes can NOT boil water, no matter how many ice cubes you’ve got.”
That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
The infrared from you ice cubes can and are collected by whatever molecule or body that they run into, and add their meager amount of energy to that body.
You may not be able to boil water with ice, but a finished igloo keeps you warmer than an unfinished igloo.
bob, if you don’t understand that molecules can have an associated frequency, then you don’t have a clue about quantum physics. You’re just talking blah-blah.
And the fact that ice cubes can NOT boil water is just a simple analogy of why your GHE nonsense fails.
Your resort to an igloo is disappointing. I was hoping for the usual CO2 laser in the sky!
Maybe next time….
Clueless Clint, the master of analogical physics!
Clint R
“bob, if you don’t understand that molecules can have an associated frequency, then you don’t have a clue about quantum physics. You’re just talking blah-blah.”
Only one? Most often zero? But sometimes more than 1?
Associated? Is it one to one and onto?
By the way, the frequency of a molecule, again whatever that means, isn’t associated with temperature.
You know nothing Clint Snow.
Try showing some knowledge of physics, you need to do more than claim I don’t understand Quantum Mechanics.
And don’t try to learn physics from Gordon, that’s a stupid move.
And why don’t you let him respond?
bob, your nonsensical comment confirms your ignorance of quantum physics. And, being an idiot, you can’t learn. So this is just for non-idiots:
When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, the vibrational frequency of the molecule then matches the frequency of the absorbed molecule. The molecule actually vibrates, as the energy is stored. When the photon emits that same energy, the new photon also has the same frequency. CO2 has more than one frequency it can absorb/emit. But a photon arriving that is too far away from those frequencies will either be reflected or passes through the molecule.
Clint R
Let’s break this down.
First we need to correct your post so it makes sense, then we can do the homework to see if it’s correct.
“When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, the vibrational frequency of the molecule then matches the frequency of the absorbed molecule. The molecule actually vibrates, as the energy is stored. When the photon emits that same energy, the new photon also has the same frequency. CO2 has more than one frequency it can absorb/emit. But a photon arriving that is too far away from those frequencies will either be reflected or passes through the molecule.”
Do you mean
When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, the vibrational frequency of the molecule then matches the frequency of the absorbed photon?
The molecule actually vibrates, true. And the energy is stored, true.
You know you just admitted CO2 can trap heat.
When the molecule emits that same photon, this new photon also has the same frequency? Is that what you mean?
bob, let’s break this down.
You merely copied my words, except for the “trap heat” part.
That means you’ve got nothing, except your trolling.
CLint R,
Maybe I copypasted too much for your brain, you posted
“When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, the vibrational frequency of the molecule then matches the frequency of the absorbed molecule.”
Right, the absorbed molecule.
You wanna correct that?
One of my infamous typos.
CORRECTION: When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, the vibrational frequency of the molecule then matches the frequency of the absorbed photon.
Sorry for the confusion.
Clint R,
Thank you for the correction, we all make mistakes.
But then
“CORRECTION: When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, the vibrational frequency of the molecule then matches the frequency of the absorbed photon.”
That has nothing to do with the temperature of the CO2 molecules.
Am I right?
And if it emits at that wavelength, it absorbs at that wavelength, am I right?
No matter the temperature, am I right?
So now we have to discuss whether solids, like the surface of the Earth can absorb those wavelengths, am I right?
That has nothing to do with the temperature of the CO2 molecules. Am I right?
We typically don’t attribute temperature to individual molecules. You could estimate all the molecules in a mixed gas were the same temperature as recorded by a thermometer, and that estimate might be good for some purposes, but there could be unknown errors involved.
And if it emits at that wavelength, it absorbs at that wavelength, am I right? No matter the temperature, am I right?
Not really. Molecules also can gain/lose energy due to collisions. So it all depends on what is happening to the molecule. One thing we can be absolutely certain of is molecules don’t emit more energy than they have.
So now we have to discuss whether solids, like the surface of the Earth can absorb those wavelengths, am I right?
Many molecules on the surface of Earth can absorb photons, if the photons have the right frequency for the particular molecules. Since average surface temperature is about 288K, it is safe to conclude that CO2’s 15μ photon will be largely reflected. 288K corresponds to a photon of about 10μ. A 15μ photon has about 50% of the frequency of a 10μ photon. You could expect Earth’s surface to be very discriminating to a photon with that much frequency difference.
But even if a surface at 288K managed to somehow absorb 15μ photons, it is more likely the surface would be cooled rather than warmed. That’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes.
Hey Clint R,
You want to check your math?
“A 15μ photon has about 50% of the frequency of a 10μ photon.”
bob, don’t get so hung up on nitpicks that you miss the point.
10μ photon >>> ~30 THz
15μ photon >>> ~20 THz
Clint R,
Well if you won’t admit you fucked up the math, then you won’t admit you are denying Kirchoff’s law where the emissivity is equal to the absorb.itivity.
“Not really.”
Bob, please stop trolling.
Bob, please stop trolling..
“Well if you won’t admit you [censored] up the math, then you won’t admit you are denying Kirchoff’s [sic] law where the emissivity is equal to the absorb.itivity.”
bob, when you resort to profanities and false accusations it’s time to moderate you, but not before some necessary corrections:
First, the pedantics you love:
1) His name is spelled “Kirchhoff”.
2) It’s spelled “absorp.tivity” (without the “.” of course).
Next, the physics you avoid:
3) “Emissivity” and “absorp.tivity” are properties of a surface. Neither is determined by Kirchhoff’s Laws.
4) Kirchhoff’s Laws are merely a subset of “Conservation of Energy”. A molecule gaining energy from a photon, and then losing energy from a collision is NOT a violation of any laws of physics. You just don’t understand physics.
(I won’t respond here.)
GR said: …EM from a colder body is not absorbed by a hotter body…
There is definitely some confusion here. EM from a colder body can definitely be absorbed by a hotter body. That does not mean that the colder body cools and the warmer body warms though. The reason why heat flows from warm to cool is because the colder body is absorbing more energy than it is emitting and the hotter body is emitting more than it is absorbing. Photons have no idea what the temperature of either body is. A body cannot tell if an arriving photon was emitted by a cooler/warmer body either way.
bdgwx, you were signaling your confusion as I was clearing things up for bob:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669279
A lower frequency photon can NOT raise the frequency of a higher frequency molecule.
At the macro level, that means “cold” can NOT raise the temperature of “hot”. That’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes.
Hey Gordo, as a self proclaimed expert on quantum theory, tell us why there are so many spectral emission lines for the CO2 molecules in air?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
GR said: Explain that.
Enthalpy of vaporization. The mass continues to take up energy via a phase change. This is similar to enthalpy of fusion in which the air temperature over warming snow/ice cover will clamp out at 0C until all of the snow/ice is melted. If you focus only on temperature you may erroneous conclude that heating as stopped when in reality it continues except by causing a phase change instead of temperature increase.
b,
Phase change may result in energy being absorbed, with no temperature change, as you point out.
Talk of snow or anything else “warming” without a temperature rise, might lead to climatological silliness of the “slowing the rate of cooling is really getting hotter” type.
Still no GHE, regardless of how how you play with semantics. The focus on temperature is the result of AGW supposedly resulting in elevated temperatures, which are supposed to lead to poor outcomes for humanity.
Predictions of temperature doom seem about as well founded as other cultist predictions of doom.
willard…”Toy models are part of the ways we communicate our understanding of the world, SK”.
If the toys are validated, good, if not, rubbish. We are currently using those kinds of rubbish toys to evaluate climate science and medical science, a la covid. Rubbish from both.
> If the toys are validated, good, if not, rubbish
Again with the concepts you obviously don’t master, Gordon.
The very idea of validating a toy model would be silly. What you’re looking for is something like fit for purpose. The purpose of Roy’s example is to convey an intuition as to why pots warm. It does the job.
If you prefer, I have to cook an egg, to buy dividend stocks, and to do an American stop:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/02/17/only-connect/
Silly semantic fights will get you nowhere. It won’t be fun for me. It definitely won’t be for you.
Woeful Wee Willy wrote –
“Silly semantic fights will get you nowhere. It won’t be fun for me. It definitely won’t be for you.”
How does Wee Willy figure that anything he does won’t engender feelings of mirth is someone?
Ho, ho, ho!
Much mirth:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-667362
Witless Wee Willy,
Mirthiness. Another link for me not to follow? I wonder why you bother!
Ho, ho, ho!
Ho, ho, ho indeed, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
williard…”Silly semantic fights will get you nowhere. It wont be fun for me. It definitely wont be for you”.
It would not be a semantics problem had you not made it one. I am making the point that unvalidated models are useless till validated. Yet, here we are in climate science and medicine, creating hysteria globally over the rantings of modelers who don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground.
Gordon,
I’m not the one who’s whining about scientific models right now, and models are related to semantics, which can be a formal discipline:
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=semantics
You’re obviously not a formal guy, and so might prefer a more mundane way to look at it. Which is why I mentioned something like the cardinal rule of model specification. If you’re a computer engineer, and many contrarians are, you should know what I’m talking about when I tell you that models are meant to be fit for purpose. Toy models are no exception.
Perhaps you’re not an engineer either and are mostly rehashing conspiracies for the fun of it.
So where does that leave us?
Wee Wondering Willy,
If 32 climate models all produce different results, then at least 31 are wrong.
You say “models are meant to be fit for purpose. Toy models are no exception.”
What is the purpose of a climate model, then? To produce a useless incorrect result?
Here’s what Gavin Schmidt said in January 2021, about climate models –
“they’ve done a pretty good job of predicting what has happened.” He then blames “people” for the lack of model precision! So the models are pretty good at vague, useless, predictions, unless “people” are involved, when they are completely useless!
You ask “So where does that leave us?”
It leaves you up the creek without a paddle. You’ll just have to keep fantasising, I guess.
> at least 31 are wrong.
All models are wrong, Mike.
Some are useful.
Except for models of Mike.
All models of Mike are prfct.
Enjoy your morning,
Woeful Willy,
I see. Which climate models are useful? You can’t actually identify one?
Tsk, tsk!
> I see
Not sure about that, dearest Mike.
There are many kinds of models, and there’s a difference between theories and models.
Incredulity and old popular books by Dick can only get you so far.
Weirdly Wondering Wee Willy,
Still can’t identify a single useful climate model?
You could always try evasion and obfuscation.
Wait, you did! How is that working out for you?
Do you think you might do better producing one of those “theories” to which you refer? Of course, you can’t actually think of one, can you?
That’s because you’re an idiot, Wee Willy.
All models can be useful in their own ways. Depends what you do with them. And oftentimes having many models is a Good Thing.
How can you know how and why scientists do with their models when you obviously never did anything in your life, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
UPDATE
” cult” = 64
“idiot” = 224
“reality” = 156
” troll” = 292
This update has been brought to you by Clueless Clint’s ice cubes:
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-city-breaks-140-old-095758835.html
Erratum:
troll = 340
Is “Willard says” over 500?
No idea, Clueless Clint. Search and report.
Here’s our Dark Triad results:
Mr. N = 259
Mr. M = 369
Mr. S = 395
For a total of 1023 comments.
Add Mike’s and you get above 1250 comments.
Adjust for quotations and you’re not under 1200 comments.
That means I still have work to do.
600?
That would be Bill’s average comment word count, Clueless.
Which is still less than the number of “real” on the page.
Wanna know how many?
680.
Appealing to reality is a bit silly, for if we could access it immediately like you pretend to do we would not need science in the first place.
Willard, please stop trolling
This supposed back radiation mechanism by Wentworth that increases its own energy and increases its own temperature is a mathematical psychobabble describing an over unity perpetual machine like energy amplifier that catches back its own emitted radiation and ads it up to itself.
It is no different than eating a thousand calories lunch, then vomiting it, then eating it again, and then claiming you are getting fatter because you doubled you calories intake.
Only people like Bindidong Et All totally ignorant of basic laws of fizzix believe this nonsense
Eben
Until now, you never were able to provide for any valuable thought.
All you are able to do is to distort, discredit and denigrate work done by people who understand 1,000,000 times more than you do.
You would NEVER be able to scientifically contradict Wentworth; thus, you discredit him.
Even what you name ‘basic laws of fizzix’ you wouldn’t be able to tell us anything about!
You are no more than a gullible believer of Goddard, TricksZone and similar people paid by Heartland, GWPF and others.
J.-P. D.
eben…”This supposed back radiation mechanism by Wentworth that increases its own energy and increases its own temperature is a mathematical psychobabble describing an over unity perpetual machine like energy amplifier that catches back its own emitted radiation and ads it up to itself”.
That’s right, but the alarmists who post here are so caught up in an appeal to authority they fail to see the obvious. According to AGW theory, the surface radiates EM that is collected in a tiny part by a trace gas that warms after absorbing the EM. Then the trace gas allegedly transfer heat to the surface where it is allegedly absorbed, warming the surface to a higher temperature than it is warmed by solar energy.
That alleged recycling of heat to raise the temperature of the source is indeed psychobabble, better know as perpetual motion. It’s also a blatant contradiction of the 2nd law in that heat is transferred from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface that supplied the heat.
The very notion that GHGs can only absorb a tiny fraction of the mammoth amount of surface radiation, which represents a mammoth (area-wise) cooling of the surface, yet those same GHGs can transfer an equal amount of heat to the surface, is beyond sheer stupidity.
“It is no different than eating a thousand calories lunch, then vomiting it, then eating it again, and then claiming you are getting fatter because you doubled you calories intake.
Only people like Bindidong Et All totally ignorant of basic laws of fizzix believe this nonsense”
The temperature of gas is the velocity of gas molecules.
One question is, if got molecules glowing and most molecule not glowing as much, can glowing molecules increase the average velocity of other gas molecules.
How could it increase the average velocity of other gas molecules?
Rather make molecule travel faster in straight line, it could perhaps add energy by making molecules, spin.
Or in terms of kinetic energy, it’s moving in straight line and/or spin.
Two possible ways: increase velocity of molecules and/or add spin
The other idea is insulating- prevent radiate energy from leaving Earth.
Say, had 20 by 20 by 20 foot room. And say ceiling of room was 20 C warmer than the rest of room.
I don’t the hotter ceiling going warm the room. Nor I think having warmer air and warming ceiling make the room more insulated.
Nor would it seem to help if made room a 200 foot cube rather a 20 foot cube. Nor if were a 2000 foot cube.
gbaikie…”How could it increase the average velocity of other gas molecules?”
I don’t think that answer is known. If you could lower the gas temperature to -273C or 0K, supposedly the molecules would stop moving. If you gradually introduced heat, apparently they would start moving again, Those electrons have negative charges, but why?
Although some theorists claim otherwise, there has to be some kind of electrostatic interactions between the molecules. Since the nucleii are surrounded by electrons, that would suggest a negative field around the atoms making up the molecules and suggest further that those negative fields would repel each other.
I know that atoms in the balanced electron-proton configurations are regarded as neutral but who said the charges between free atoms/molecules are neutral?
It is suggested that atoms/molecules in a gas collide with elastic collisions but atoms/molecules are not solid particles. They are dynamic units with electrons moving around a nucleus. I think collisions would be far more complex than two solids colliding.
Eben said: …is a mathematical psychobabble describing an over unity perpetual machine like energy amplifier…
Wentworth described no such thing. If that was your impression then you probably didn’t understand what was said.
Eben said: It is no different than eating a thousand calories lunch, then vomiting it, then eating it again, and then claiming you are getting fatter because you doubled you calories intake.
Strange analogy aside you missed one essential element. In addition to regurgitating calories you also take in another thousand calories from fresh food each time you regurgitate. As long as you consume (either fresh or regurgitated) more calories than you expel (either burned or vomitted) you will get fatter.
Upthread we read:
” A lower frequency photon can NOT raise the frequency of a higher frequency molecule. ”
Nobody did ever pretend such a nonsense.
J.-P. D.
“Nobody did ever pretend such a nonsense.”
Is it possible for you to get that translated into English for us?
Nobody never pretended such nonsense, asshat.
Better?
As usual, you’re making it worse troll.
Does “nobody never” mean “someone did”?
No it does not, Clueless Clint.
Wait – does my “no” and “not” mean I said “yes”?
Trolls thrive on confusion.
Clueless Clint clamors.
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s better, kiddo-Bill.
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…” A lower frequency photon can NOT raise the frequency of a higher frequency molecule.
Nobody did ever pretend such a nonsense”.
To show us you understand the issue could you go into a bit deeper? What is your objection?
The objection is that your issue with the Tyndall Gas effect is merely semantic, Gordon.
You don’t get to decide what “warms” means.
Willard you probably ought to actually find out what Tyndall discovered before starting to assume what he didn’t discover.
Not sure where I said anything about what John didn’t discover, Bill.
Now, suppose I fell for your bait and asked you to teach me what John discovered. Wouldn’t you be caught pants down once again?
Kidding. I won’t ask.
willard…”The objection is that your issue with the Tyndall Gas effect is merely semantic, Gordon”.
From my perspective your responses are more about Willard’s gas, aka hot air, than anything. Imagine introducing semantics because you don’t understand what is being said.
Mention has been made of Bob Wentworth, and “energy recycling”. More climatological jargon, presumably because somebody cannot understand physics, or doesn’t believe their intended audience does.
Energy is not “recycled”, regardless of what some Wikipedia editor might say.
Why might this distinction be important? Bob Wentworth wrote “Sometimes people are incredulous at the idea that the back-ration flux, B, is greater than the absorbed insolation, S. Yet, this is what is measured to be true.”
Well, no it’s not, unless you start creating magical “energy recycling”. Energy may be transformed from one form to another, but losses always occur, and entropy increases.
Trying to pretend otherwise invariably leads to the conclusion that perpetual motion is possible, and that heat can spontaneously transfer from cold to hot. The end result is that the cold body inexorably cools to absolute zero, as the hot body gets hotter and hotter!
Throwing ice cubes in your hot soup will not make it hotter. Unless you believe in the miracle of “energy recycling”, that is.
Placing a ton (roughly) of air over every square foot of surface will not make the surface hotter, if the air in question is colder than the surface. And it is, of course, “energy recycling” notwithstanding.
“Energy recycling” is an odd name and perhaps not a very apt description of what happens. But there really can be more average back-radiation than average original sunlight without violating any laws of physics. No Magic. No perpetual motion.
There are plenty of simple analogies with flows of money or with flows of water. Plenty of textbooks that validate the theory. This idea is not actually controversial at all!
tim…”But there really can be more average back-radiation than average original sunlight without violating any laws of physics”.
How? The trace gas claimed to be at the centre of this theory, CO2, makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. There is a mammoth amount of radiation from the surface, and at best, CO2 can only intercept about 5% of it. How does intercepting 5% of the radiation turn into returning more radiation than solar radiation?
I would think the amount of solar radiation is closer to surface radiation, since it produces the radiation that heats the surface, which converts solar radiation to terrestrial IR. With CO2 absorbing only 5% of surface radiation, and that’s an upscaled guess, how the heck does it amplify its flux to equal incoming solar?
You are asking good questions and focusing on important topics.
“CO2 can only intercept about 5% of [outgoing thermal radiation. ”
CO2 can actually intercept about 10% of the energy from my estimates. But yes, that is still a relatively small proportion.
“The trace gas claimed to be at the centre of this theory, CO2 …”
All GHGs are ‘at the center’ of this theory — along with clouds. They all contribute. CO2 is only ‘at the center’ of some of the changes.
“how the heck does [CO2] amplify its flux to equal incoming solar?”
Again, CO2 does not do this alone. All of the GHGs + clouds together do this. Water vapor contributes more (a lot more) than CO2 to this ‘amplification” or “recycling”.
tim…”All GHGs are at the center of this theory along with clouds”.
Ah…the goalposts are moved even further. Since when are clouds a GHG? Clouds are actually modeled as small, floating lakes since the water droplets making up a cloud are not water vapour.
That opens a can of worms since clouds block/filter solar radiation. Solar radiation would warm them. Do clouds block terrestrial IR radiation as well?
“Ah…the goalposts are moved even further.”
No. This particular discussion is about energy ‘recycling’ and whether thermal IR from the atmosphere toward the earth can be larger than the initial solar radiation. Clouds are part of the proposed ‘recycling’ process and hence are an integral part of the the discussion.
“Do clouds block terrestrial IR radiation as well?”
Of course they do. If you truly don’t know this, then you have a LOT of studying to do to be in a position to discuss climate and the greenhouse effect!
Tim, please stop trolling.
TF gets it wrong again: But there really can be more average backradiation than average original sunlight without violating any laws of physics.
“Averaging” original sunlight is ALREADY violating the laws of physics. Flux cannot be averaged! 960 W/m^2 will fry an egg. But when “averaged”, 240 W/m^2 will freeze an egg!
Why are so many idiots attracted to the AGW cult?
“Averaging” is a mathematical operation. Mathematical operations don’t violate any laws of physics. I can find the average speed of air molecules. I can find the average mass of the planets in the solar system. I can find the average momentum of 6 cars driving on a highway. Doing a calculation will not change the universe nor cause any laws of physics to be broken.
Now, if I claimed that this average flux had the same effect as the actual, original distribution, that would be an error. That would lead to predictions that would violate laws of physics.
The point in this discussion is that the total energy arriving over the entire earth’s surface any any given time from sunlight is less than the total energy leaving from the entire earth’s surface any any given time from thermal radiation.
That statement is true for total energy. It is equally true for total energy divided by total area.
TF, speed, mass, momentum, and energy are all scalar quantities. They can be averaged. Flux can NOT be averaged. This is stuff kids learn in freshman level physics. Do you even know the difference between a fried egg and a frozen egg?
Your belief that Earth emits more energy than Sun supplies is bogus. You have been brainwashed. Just more nonsense from your cult — the corrupt “Earth Energy Imbalance”, (EEI).
And, you didn’t answer the question: Why are so many idiots attracted to the AGW cult?
ClintR,
Momentum is actually a vector quantity as is velocity. It’s moot though because you can indeed take an average of a vector quantity. BTW…what does the average of velocity tell you? How might it be exploited to provide useful information?
bdgwx, did you place your comment in the wrong location?
It makes no sense.
Yes. You said momentum was a scalar. It’s not; it’s a vector. You also implied that only scalar quantities can be averaged. That’s not true. As an example I asked what averaging velocity (a vector) tells you and how it can be exploited to provide useful information. You’re a smart guy. You’ll figure out the answers.
That’s correct bdgwx. Momentum is definitely a vector. I need to start proof-reading better.
Scalar quantities can be averaged, but flux is NOT a scalar quantity. I’ve supplied several examples. Luckily I have time this morning for one more:
Two identical plates are both at the same temperature — 288K, emitting 390 W/m^2.
The same two plates are then at different temperatures — 278K and 298K, emitting 339 W/m^2 and 447 W/m^2, respectively.
But, the “average” of 339 and 447 is 393! The two plates have the same average temperature, 288K, but their “average” flux is not the same.
Flux is not a scalar quantity and can NOT be averaged.
The issue is not that you can’t average fluxes; you can and it’s quite easy (339+447)/2=393. What you cannot do is plug this average flux into the SB law and expect the resulting temperature (288.5K in this case) to be an accurate reflection of the true average temperature (288.0K in this case). That is an example of an abuse of the average flux. Nobody is saying that you should use the average flux inappropriately like this not the least of which is Trenberth 2009 who has a whole section dedicated to explaining why that is invalid.
Nice subterfuge there, bdgwx.
If you didn’t know the temperatures of the plates, you would believe the second scenario had the more CO2!
The simple example is why averaging flux is meaningless. That, and the fact that flux is not conserved, should be enough for you to understand the EEI is nonsense. But we both know you can’t leave your cult.
“The same two plates are then at different temperatures 278K and 298K, emitting 339 W/m^2 and 447 W/m^2, respectively.
But, the ‘average’ of 339 and 447 is 393! The two plates have the same average temperature, 288K, but their ‘average’ flux is not the same.
Flux is not a scalar quantity and can NOT be averaged.”
Cmon, that example has no vectors in it. Red herring alert!
It does have ave(T^4) not/= ave(T)^4. Which everyone knows!
Strawman Team strikes again!
I forgot the plate, Clint.
So it’s the hammer, the cone, the ice cube, and the plate.
> Momentum is definitely a vector. I need to start proof-reading better.
Does that mean momentum can’t be averaged, Clint?
That’s why I keep my examples simple. That way it’s easy to tell who the idiots are.
I ask simple questions for the same reason, Clueless Clint.
I also use quotes:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669649
The only reason you provided so far NOT to average flux is because it’s not a scalar quantity.
And you just realized that momentum isn’t a scalar quantity either.
So I’d say you have MORE than a proof-reading problem here.
bdg…”its a vector”.
The v in mv is a vector but is the m? I think it gets a bit dicey. If the v becomes dv/dt, p = mv is no longer valid. As we know f = ma = mdv/dt, which is acceleration.
As I implied before, momentum has no real meaning until the mass with the momentum crashes into something. Till then, it is a potential force. I don’t see how a potential force can be a vector quantity.
You can only claim momentum has direction based on its velocity component, presuming the velocity remains constant.
If you take a mass moving at velocity v, and you are interested only in the velocity factor, then the mass has a velocity vector, v. Seems to me momentum is entirely dependent on velocity with regard to direction.
I’d say m is a scalar quantity and v is a vector quantity. It’s OK to multiply a vector by a scalar quantity but what do you have? A velocity vector.
This comment to be included in our pitch for the new show:
Climate Deniers say the Darndest Things.
Nate, please stop trolling.
This “energy recycling” is effectively absorbing some portion of sunlight energy by 150%.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere {model} absorbs close to 100% of sunlight. Whereas a surface which is blackbody surface at Earth distance from sun, heats to 120 C. Or hottest surface gets
of ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere is 5 C {it has uniform temperature of 5 C}. {and it’s magical}.
But Earth ocean is similar, sunlight can shines on for months and it will not warm up to 5 C. An atmosphere {without or with greenhouse gases] is similar to the ocean- it takes some time to heat up an atmosphere or ocean.
swenson…”Why might this distinction be important? Bob Wentworth wrote Sometimes people are incredulous at the idea that the back-ration flux, B, is greater than the absorbed insolation, S. Yet, this is what is measured to be true.”
I might add that back-radiation has not been measured at a level exceeding solar radiation. It is based entirely on a theory put forward by Kiehl-Trenberth and they admitted they had no physical evidence to corroborate the claim.
The number, and that’s all it is, a number, was created to balance the energy budget. I think that is called inflation in economic circles where money is printed to balance budgets.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260208782_An_update_on_Earth's_energy_balance_in_light_of_the_latest_global_observations
bobd…”You are hopelessly confused about Quantum Mechanics.
There are plenty of reasons why.
The most important is that a photon does not know the temperature of the body that emitted it.
A photon can be collected by a solid and not by the electronic energy levels of the electrons but by the vibrational, stretching and bending modes of the atoms in solids”.
***
Bob…don’t lecture me on my lack of understanding of quantum theory when you write drivel like this. You claim a photon can be collected by the vibrational stretching and bending modes of the atoms in a solid. What is there in a vibration or a stretch that can absorb anything?
The electrons produce those vibrational and stretching modes, you numbskull!!!! Vibration comes from the interaction of the orbiting electrons with the static nucleii. So, does stretching/bending of the orbital path. Bending is generally an interaction between bonding electrons in atoms due to differences in electronegativity between atoms in a molecule. What do you think causes electronegativity. Hint: electrons have a negative charge.
You make it sound as if photons can simply disappear into a void. The interaction of electrons with the nucleii is the basis of quantum theory. It is defined upon that interaction. Schrodinger’s equations are about that interaction.
Claiming a photon has no idea of the temperature of its source is not only inane, it has nothing to do with it. Besides, a photon is defined as a particle with momentum and no mass. How does such a particle have a frequency?
An electron has a harmonic frequency related to it angular frequency in an orbit. If an electron was shooting through space like an EM photon it would have no frequency. On the other hand, if it is in an energy orbital with an angular frequency, f, and it is contacted by a quantum of EM with a lower frequency, it will ignore that energy.
It’s about resonance, a principle employed in bandpass filers in electronics. Only frequencies aligning with the bandpass frequency are allowed through, all others are rejected or seriously attentuated. And what do you think is flowing through the inductors in a bandpass circuit…electrons?
That’s the case between EM from a cooler object contacting an electron at a higher energy level in a hotter object. The photon, as you call it, from the cooler body does not need to know anything about the temperature of its source. It has a frequency and intensity related to the temperature of the source, and if it is a smart photon, it will know about its source temperature and know better than to bother electrons in hotter temperature atoms.
The smart photon will be thinking, “I don’t want to be rejected again, so I’m staying away from those hotter electrons”.
It comes down to what everyone who understand physics knows about energy. Energy can only be transferred from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential. Water flows naturally downhill, rocks fall naturally off cliffs, etc. Heat can only be transferred from hotter, higher energy, sources to cooler, lower energy targets.
So Gordon, let me return the complement you fucking numbskull.
If you knew anything about Organic Chemistry and the orbitals involved with the molecules formed from carbon atoms, you would know about hybrid sp orbitals.
Those electrons are no longer orbiting the nucleus.
“Vibration comes from the interaction of the orbiting electrons with the static nucleii.”
Nope, numbskull, the nuclei are not static, strike one.
“Bending is generally an interaction between bonding electrons in atoms due to differences in electronegativity between atoms in a molecule.”
Nope, bending is due to the molecule being in a higher than the ground state, due to absorbing energy from somewhere, maybe a photon, maybe a collision with another molecule. Strike two.
“You make it sound as if photons can simply disappear into a void. The interaction of electrons with the nucleii is the basis of quantum theory. It is defined upon that interaction.”
No, I am saying a solid can absorb a photon, and gain the photon’s energy. And we are not talking about the interaction of photons with nuclei, that’s a whole nother ball of wax. Quantum Theory has little to do with nuclei, it’s mostly about describing the motion of electrons.
“An electron has a harmonic frequency related to it angular frequency in an orbit. If an electron was shooting through space like an EM photon it would have no frequency. On the other hand, if it is in an energy orbital with an angular frequency, f, and it is contacted by a quantum of EM with a lower frequency, it will ignore that energy.”
I am in the Copenhagen Interpretation camp, a sub majority plurality. But if you will argue that electrons in orbit around nuclei do have an orbital frequency, still that frequency is so high, that your subsequent contention that a quantum of EM with a lower frequency would not be absorbed, even in the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, is rejected by the experimental evidence.
“It has a frequency and intensity related to the temperature of the source,”
Nope, false, it has frequency related to the energy level change in the emitting molecule or atom. For example CO2 only emits certain wavelengths, not determined by the temperature of the CO2.
Intensity is related to the temperature of the source, but not the energy and wavelength and frequency of the emitted photons.
“it will know about its source temperature and know better than to bother electrons in hotter temperature atoms.”
There is no such thing as a temperature of an individual atom, sorry. But temperature is related to the kinetic energy of the atoms as a group, the CO2 molecules could be moving very fast, but still most of them would be in the ground state with respect to the vibrational, bending and stretching modes.
“Energy can only be transferred from a higher energy potential to a lower energy potential. Water flows naturally downhill, rocks fall naturally off cliffs, etc.”
Yeah, but there is reflected power, tsunamis, and rocks bounce.
Strike three!
bobd…”If you knew anything about Organic Chemistry and the orbitals involved with the molecules formed from carbon atoms, you would know about hybrid sp orbitals.
Those electrons are no longer orbiting the nucleus.
Vibration comes from the interaction of the orbiting electrons with the static nucleii.
Nope, numbskull, the nuclei are not static, strike one”.
***
Finally figured out what the d means in bob d…bob dumb.
With bonding in simple molecules like H2, the electrons circle both nucleii. In more complex molecules they have complex orbitals.
I have stated several times that I am not sold on the Bohr model in which electrons behave like tiny planets orbiting nucleii. However, the math applied a la Schrodinger works and compensation has been added to the simple model to account for more complex molecules.
With your sp orbitals, the model is only specifying the odds of finding an electron in the space depicted by the orbital model. The sp specifies highly theoretical sub-orbitals. What’s the rest of it spdf?
With regard to static nucleii, you were referencing a solid. Even in a solid, the nuclei vibrate, but compared to the motion of the electron the nucleii are static.
You talked about electrons moving from their base level to higher energy levels and you mentioned EM and collisions. What if there are no collisions?
How about heat? It can move the electrons to higher energy levels and if enough heat is applied, the electrons jump right out of the atom.
Surely you can do better than to nitpick in this manner. If you understand bonding theory or quantum theory, let’s hear it.
Gordon,
“With bonding in simple molecules like H2, the electrons circle both nucleii. In more complex molecules they have complex orbitals.”
Actually, no, it doesn’t work that way, look it up. For the hydrogen atom it’s more complex, and it’s not only an oversimplification, but it’s also wrong to state that the electrons circle both nuclei.
“With your sp orbitals, the model is only specifying the odds of finding an electron in the space depicted by the orbital model. The sp specifies highly theoretical sub-orbitals. What’s the rest of it spdf?”
Take a course in Quantum Mechanics from someone qualified to teach you. I can not do that, I don’t even think you can meet the pre-requisites.
But here are the basics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_hybridisation
“With regard to static nucleii, you were referencing a solid. Even in a solid, the nuclei vibrate, but compared to the motion of the electron the nucleii are static.”
These vibrational states in solids allow the collection of infrared photons coming from colder places.
“How about heat? It can move the electrons to higher energy levels and if enough heat is applied, the electrons jump right out of the atom.”
Yes, of course, with heat you can ionize atoms, break chemical bonds and all that.
“You talked about electrons moving from their base level to higher energy levels and you mentioned EM and collisions. What if there are no collisions?”
In that case you would have a pretty hard vacuum, then the molecules or atoms would collect and emit radiation based on the population and availability of excited states.
Back to the basic question of whether or not the surface of the Earth can absorb a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
If the solids on the Earth’s surface have the necessary and vacant orbitals with the right energy, and they do, why would they not absorb the photon from CO2?
bobd…”These vibrational states in solids allow the collection of infrared photons coming from colder places”.
Again, Bob, what is there in a vibration that can absorb EM? What is a vibration? It’s an on-going change in displacement is it not, often with a regular, harmonic motion.
The vibrational states in atoms, say in a solid, are due to the electrostatic forces binding the electrons and protons in the nucleus. The displacements representing the vibrations are particles moving back and forth. So, what absorbs the IR?
Protons in the nucleus don’t so it comes down to the electrons. That’s the basis of quantum theory proposed by Bohr and explained mathematically by Schrodinger.
With molecules, it’s the same process with a slight difference. Electrons are involved in bonding the nucleii in a molecule as well. However, vibration involves the interaction of atoms externally as well as internally. So we get hydrogen bonding forces, van der Waal forces, electronegativity (differences in electrical potentials), all causing vibration.
Through all that, it is the electron emitting and absorbing EM.
Gordon,
It could be electrons doing the collecting and emitting.
Plural, more than one, combinations of two or more electrons, like twelve if you are talking benzene.
Oh yeah, and some famous Nobel prize winning dude modeled electron bonds as harmonic oscillators.
b,
You wrote –
“So Gordon, let me return the complement you fucking numbskull.”
Did you mean “compliment”?
Maybe,
Maybe I just can’t spell.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
DRUMPTY,
Please stop drooling.
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
‘The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down substantially from the February, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C’
To all the CO2 proponents:
Interesting how the global temperature response to a small change in ocean temperatures is almost immediately observable – in this case from a La Nina – yet, we have yet to see that same kind of fingerprint from CO2, other than in theory.
As has been discussed already the -0.01C March anomaly was expected. In fact, we expect another negative anomaly for April. The trend line currently sits at +0.21C with departures from that trendline having a SD of 0.18. La Nina’s tend to cause negative departures with a peak lag of 4-5 months. The CO2 signal is observed via the +0.14C/decade TLT trend and +0.42C/decade TLS minus TLT trend. The March value did not significantly change these trends. The Earth energy imbalance still sits at +0.8 W/m^2. Secular warming will continue albeit with high TLT variability.
When TLT is this close to zero, there is no “energy imbalance”, bdgwx. That should convince you that the EEI is bogus, even if you don’t understand the physics.
That doesn’t make any sense. TLT being close to zero just means the temperature is close to the 1991-2020 average. It happens to be highly variable with month-to-month values having an SD of 0.25 as well. And regardless it tells you little about the EEI since TLT represents less than 1% of the thermal mass of the climate system. Oh…and the 1LOT and the concept of dE = Ein – Eout is an uncontroversial physical law of reality that has yet to be seriously challenged. My advice is to accept it and move on. It’s okay to challenge AGW, but you’re going to get better traction if do so without challenging fundamental tenants of reality.
IOW, no matter what happens to temperatures from here, you’re going to cling to your cult’s “EEI”? Even though it’s known nonsense as fluxes don’t balance as energy does.
bdgwx
Ah, but just as the recent negative anomaly was expected due to cooler ocean temperatures, so too were positive anomalies expected due to generally warm ocean temps over the past few decades, producing a warming trend. Still no sign/proof that CO2 is the driver though.
But when one looks at ocean temperatures, the correlation and causation is clearly there (because H20 is the most potent GHG), as global air temperatures closely follow ocean temps. CO2 just happens to be rising, in the background, but the global air temp response follows much more closely with changing ocean temps when one looks at graphs.
“Ah, but just as the recent negative anomaly was expected due to cooler ocean temperatures, so too were positive anomalies expected due to generally warm ocean temps over the past few decades, producing a warming trend.”
Positive anomalies don’t produce a warming trend. You can have a warming trend even if all the anomalies are negative. All you need is for later temperature anomalies generally to be warmer than earlier anomalies.
Lol – barry, you’re mincing words, and making things confusing. and not to mention – missing the point.
Yes, ‘You can have a warming trend even if all the anomalies are negative.’
-But- it depends *how* negative they go, and for how long.
And anyway, the point to my comment was about ocean temps’ influence on global air temperatures.
Yep its so predictable. A major ENSO event and the pause is dead so all we need to do is now shape the trend into something that resembles the rate of increasing CO2.
The pause is a problem because it tells us to beware of confusing weather for climate.
Lets do a little analysis on the end of the pause which ended in 2014.
I do a slope analysis of warming since that event. 2014 to present represents a .273c/decade warming trend.
2015 to present represents a zero warming trend. So all the post pause warming is attributable to one year and one event.
Further that is only just over 6 -7 years well within the range of weather perturbations in the past.
Since climate is somewhat shakily defined as about a minimum of 2 decades we are well short of concluding the pause has not continued.
Another indicator of that is that since 1996 the warming trend has been less even with this big El Nino at the end than the trend is for the entire satellite record.
After Da Paws came Da Surge, Bill:
https://archive.vn/CiszD
Gee Willard. Perhaps we are in agreement more than we thought. I agree that pretty much sums up the science behind global warming. . . .really the whole enchilada with beans and rice on the side!
Besides the fact that you’re clinging to a meme that has died around 2013, Bill, we might indeed be in violent Climateball agreement.
What are you accusing me of here Willard. Officially (as a standard of science) what has occurred since 2013 is weather. So are we really talking weatherball agreement here? Or have you lost it?
Funny that you’re peddling “But Da Paws” [1] while failing to recognize that it might have been weather.
[1]: https://climateball.net/but-da-paws/
Willard, I am just using the current science ‘standard’ of 17 years established by Ben Santer in his ‘fingerprint’ of global warming study.
I have advocated that is too short. But that is a different debate than if one wants to talk the same language as your debate opponent.
If you are ready to one:
1) recognize that Santer was full of BS
2) recognize that the difference between TCR and ECS is something that can take longer than 500 years to playout with rather steady warming occurring in the interim.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm
3) you need to accept that a recovery from the LIA could be ongoing contributing something on the order of .5c/century for a forcing of a 2c TCR impulse. (same source as #2)
Then going beyond that one needs to consider impacts of a solar grand maximum that plays out in say 1986 (TCR) it has momentum as well.
Then if that isn’t enough you have an ocean oscillation pattern that in the early 20th century add .55c warming in about 3 1/2 decades.
On top of that ENSO events (though perhaps represented in the .55C warming from one event.
Very high solar continued through cycle 22 that ended in Uh 1996 and the start of the pause.
Cycle 23 was slightly above the average (that doesn’t include the maunder minimum) Cycle 24 was the smallest in about a 120 years and second smallest in the last 200 years.
Natural variation is still a 100% in the game. Its certainly fair to think otherwise until we actually confirm a few things we think we know about GHGs.
> I am just using the current science ‘standard’ of 17 years established by Ben Santer
Thanks, Bill. I forgot that Santer was that powerful.
Da Paws was between 1998 and 2013. That’s 15 years.
Are you suggesting there was no Paws?
Actually Willard it lasted almost 19 years. And we know for sure that to do that it had overcome the LIA recovery which is a recovery that is going on and according the IPCC will be going on for at least another 200 years, not to speak of what CO2 effects it had to overcome.
I won’t make a lot out of that it is just clear that what temperature change we have had so far isn’t distinguishable from the range of possibilities for natural warming.
Show me where you see 20 years, Bill:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1995/to:2020
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2016/plot/uah6/from:1997.3/to:2016/trend
Why the dangling “.3,” Bill:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2016
I said it was just short of 19 years. You don’t need to do that for 17 year trends. https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1995/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:1996/to:2013/trend
> I said it was just short of 19 years.
Indeed, Bill, and you had to fish before 1998, using the only dataset that gives you a fighting chance.
Interestingly, UAH 6 got released two years after Da Paws was dead.
“what has occurred since 2013 is weather.”
Sure. If cooling or flat, like between 2007 and 2012, that’s CLIMATE.
When we have warming, like between 2014-2020, that’s WEATHER!!
The powerful effects of the Denier Distortion Field at work.
Nate, don’t know who you are talking about but if its not you then we are in agreement. Its weather!
Besides that Nate, if you look at this:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm
You will observe a stepping of feedbacks. An initial decade of rapid feedback, then a transition to moderate feedback, with these processes completed around 40 years. Then followed by a long period of slow feedbacks that likely only occurs in the case of the initial forcing remaining in place.
Scratching my own itch, seems that UAH 6 might not appeal to an auditor who complains about adjustments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
“An initial decade of rapid feedback, then a transition to moderate feedback, with these processes completed around 40 years. Then followed by a long period of slow feedbacks that likely only occurs in the case of the initial forcing remaining”
Unwarranted assumption that AGW ‘feebacks’ are varying.
Why do you ignore other climate Forcings and natural variation that we know are present? Volcanoes circa 1905-1915. ENSO 1940s.
Nate a decade of volcanoes and an ENSO is why Santer set the minimum climate period to 17 years. I don’t think 17 years is adequate. Its been political pressure that made it that small when before NASA was looking at climate with 60 year smoothing which makes a lot more sense but prevents early response.
The whole solar issue was handwaved away from the 60 year view the professionals previously held out of legislative and executive mandates to do something about climate.
Such events are short term, can make large temporary excursions of temperature but are too short lived to build up big feedback momentum. Feedback momentum builds just like momentum in physics. Its a process of changing the huge stores of energy held in unfrozen water. Ice and cold water is a manifestation of cooling for centuries as has been the gradual melting and warming of same. If ENSO or volcanos went up and stayed there for 60 years that would be a big deal.
So you deal with volcanoes and ENSO by smoothing them out with linear trends. If you just measure them by surface temperature you can deceive yourself that they have any real climate meaning over the long haul while clearly they do over short periods. Its important to have a climate view of things as opposed to a weather view.
And oh if solar activity stays low for 60 years or so and the temperature responds to that. That will be proof the experts had it right before the politicians got impatient.
And finally before they started fiddling with the surface instrument records, 8 tenths of a degree warming and cooling events were seen in the global temperature record as natural variation. Thats what I saw in the first surface temperature record I inspected.
> if solar activity stays low for 60 years
Making bets beyond your own expiration date, Bill?
How courageous of you!
bill hunter says:
”And oh if solar activity stays low for 60 years or so and the temperature responds to that.”
Willard says:
> if solar activity stays low for 60 years
Making bets beyond your own expiration date, Bill?
How courageous of you!
=====================================
Willard, please stop trolling. . . .and making up strawmen as well.
Please stop entertaining silly counterfactuals, Bill.
Willard you may be convinced but you are an amateur so you are forgiven.
> you may be convinced
My opinion on AGW is none of our concerns, Bill.
I’m here because you help me build a Climateball Bingo.
Here is a visual:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/offset:-0.8/plot/uah6/offset:-0.8/trend
Joe,
Indeed. There is a high correlation between SSTs and air temperature. SSTs and oceanic heat content (OHC) in general are both increasing. This is due to the positive Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) . The EEI is the result of all climate forcing agents working in tandem. CO2 is but one of those agents though it happens to be one of the dominant ones today. H2O is important as well, but it is not a forcing agent since it is a condensing gas whose concentration is modulated by temperature via the Clausius–Clapeyron relation. That means it amplifies temperature changes that were catalyzed by another agent.
LOL! Not a forcing agent?
You crack me up bdgwx. Talking about talking yourself into something with pretzel logic!
The sun, the frequency of its light, the magnetism it generates, are all acknowledged to have some affect on processes important to water phases, not at all dissimilar to the affects mankind has on CO2. So very clearly if there is feedback from temperature change. We really have little clue what effects TSI can have considering we actually may not have a clue about what the greenhouse effect consists of.
We see circular logic everywhere. Models influence temperature trends then temperature trends are used to justify the models. Models influence OHC and then OHC is used to justify missing heat.
Science is too puzzled to even offer a description of a physical process that ‘doesn’t have it’ operating as an insulator and they are too embarrassed to even suggest thats how it work at TOA.
IMO, there is a great case for convection ending and a single layer greenhouse effect. But variability of that effect isn’t enabled by that notion, and even then it only establishes itself as a piece of the total puzzle that results in surface warming and variability around that.
Its an ingenious scam. Sell the BS insulation argument to the masses and you can avoid talking about the details.
And of course if they offer up an insulation argument at TOA
somebody might actually start thinking and start asking questions. And that is a threat to the Goose that lays the Golden Egg.
I love and advocate for science but see this whole sordid affair in the same light I see those executives working for short term profits. Exactly the same!!!
And it leads to the same kind of long term results.
That’s it, Bill.
I think you wrote the ultimate Bill comment.
Well done!
bill said: Not a forcing agent?
That’s right. If there is something you don’t understand about this then ask questions.
Oh I understood what you were saying. If you want to defend it though please be my guest.
Here is a good place to start.
https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Meteorology/Book%3A_Practical_Meteorology_(Stull)/04%3A_Water_Vapor/4.00%3A_Vapor_Pressure_at_Saturation
And of course you can’t defend it. While water vapor isn’t accused of moving itself higher into the atmosphere and emitting less it can be excused from that view of forcing.
But a not small problem remains. Modifying the lapse rate is some water is known to do without that process of sneaking further up into a troposphere where water actually does already go.
bdgwx
“That means it amplifies temperature changes that were catalyzed by another agent.”
Lol, how can CO2 be pushing around ocean temperatures (which control water vapour), when the top tier of the ocean holds 99% of the heat content of the planet? More likely it’s the other way around. CO2 rises and falls based on ocean temperature changes, since cold water absorbs CO2 and warm water out-gasses CO2 (also does same for water vapour).
Joe,
Water vapor mixing ratios are modulated by atmospheric temperature. When the temperature is higher/lower the atmosphere holds more/less of it. This is because H2O is a condensing gas. Perturbations above/below the equilibrium level enhance condensation/evaporation to bring the level back toward equilibrium. Note that this behavior is strikingly different compared to CO2 which is a non-condensing gas. In other words, H2O’s concentration in the atmosphere is dictated by the temperature while CO2’s concentration is not.
CO2 and other GHGs create a positive planetary energy imbalance. CO2 is being forced into the atmosphere not by rising temperature of the ocean, but by human emission. This creates the initial energy imbalance on the planet that forces the ocean, air, land, and ice to take up heat.
BTW…the ocean is a net carbon sink right now. Carbon is actually increasing in the ocean right now despite the temperature rise.
bdgwx, that might be true if the greenhouse effect reacted the way you believe it reacts.
But since you can’t even describe how it works much less calculate it and there are many other possibilities of how it works you are just essentially parroting what politicians want you to believe.
Greenhouse gases don’t force anything they are limper than a wet rag. Even saran wrap works but it stretches a good deal but its still stiffer than a wet rag.
Put a cloud of CO2 gas out in outer space and shine a light on it and poof it will just disperse and not give you any effect at all.
bdgwx – you wrote, “Water vapor mixing ratios are modulated by atmospheric temperature.”
Actually, it’s more like ‘Atmospheric temperature is modulated by water vapor mixing ratios.’
– Water vapour has a much bigger influence in areas where it’s cold (especially in the winter), such as the polar regions, than where it is warm, such as the tropics. That’s why, the Arctic for example, has seen such a temperature increase in winter.
Also, notice that there are mixing ratios for water vapour but none for CO2 – because CO2’s effect is negligible.
Tim Folkerts wrote above –
“The point in this discussion is that the total energy arriving over the entire earth’s surface any any given time from sunlight is less than the total energy leaving from the entire earth’s surface any any given time from thermal radiation.”
Absolutely correct. This is why the Earth cools.
As Baron Fourier wrote (translated into English) “Thus the earth returns to space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part from its original heat.”
Resulting in — cooling. Fourier went on to calculate the cooling rate, but not knowing about radiogenic heat, he was as wrong as Lord Kelvin, much later.
However, cooling, no matter how slow, is cooling. Getting colder. You are right.
Yes, the core of the earth cools. It has been doing this for billions of years. But no, this core cooling in no way invalidates the idea of surface climate changes, which have undergone both significant warming and significant cooling many times during earth’s history.
Also no, this core cooling is not related to the imbalance I mentioned. The surface receives about 160 W/m^2 of sunlight. It radiates nearly 400 W/m^2 or thermal IR. This difference is not a result of cooling in the core of the earth.
T,
You wrote –
“The surface receives about 160 W/m^2 of sunlight. It radiates nearly 400 W/m^2 or thermal IR.”
A body which radiates energy faster than it receives is cooling.
However, your figures are nonsensical. Stick with Fourier. Of course, you may believe you are more intelligent or better informed than Fourier. If so, good luck convincing anyone apart from yourself in a mirror.
The Earth is not a closed system. No energy in = energy out. Complete fantasy.
Have fun.
“A body which radiates energy faster than it receives is cooling.”
No, actually. A body which loses thermal energy by ALL means faster than it gains thermal energy by all means is cooling (or perhaps condensing or freezing). The two numbers I gave only give *part* of the story. We still need to consider the IR radiation received. For the real earth, we would also need to consider convection and evaporation.
Once again, Fourier’s work is not germane here. He is quite correct about how to calculate the cooling rate for the interior of the earth, and I am not taking issue with that work. But the bulk cooling of the interior is a completely different issue than the warming/cooling rate for the atmosphere around the earth.
“The Earth is not a closed system.”
I never said anything about the earth being open or closed.
“No energy in = energy out.”
Well, of course not! Otherwise the average temperature could not shange!
TF, Swenson has you trapped in your own nonsense.
Either you have to admit the “EEI” is nonsense, or you have to admit Earth is cooling, i.e., emitting more energy than it is absorbing.
Why do you think idiots are attracted to the AGW nonsense?
If Charles literally meant what Mike puts in his mouth, Clint, the Earth would have been in energy deficit every day since the beginning of times.
Mike’s quote does not appear in two of the translations of his M\’emoire I checked.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tim read this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
Bill, the linked post is a bit muddled. A ‘pull yourself up by your own bootstraps’ sort of error.
A ‘slab of atmosphere’ doesn’t ‘warm itself’ by radiating from the bottom or top of the slab into the slab. A slab warms by OTHER slabs radiating energy into the slab. Likewise, it cools by radiating TO other slabs.
Instead of …
“But because the bottom is warmer than the top, an increase of one degree throughout the slab must radiate more heat up from the bottom than down from the top. ”
you should be thinking about …
“But because the bottom is warmer than the top, an increase of one degree throughout the slab must radiate more heat DOWN from the bottom than UP from the top.
Tim you are not considering Swanson’s demonstration that shows downward radiative blocking actually works.
The surface is insulated from TOA but TOA is not insulated from the surface.
So how does the radiation get down to the surface through all these blocking layers? If we use the upward radiative-only blocking scale of 93%+ a one degree increase at TOA should be able to warm the surface by about .065 degrees, assuming its not all CO2 frequency, in which case it would be a lot worse.
> [Mike]s demonstration
What demonstration, Bill?
All Mike demonstrated is that he can’t cook eggs.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Compare and contrast:
[MIKE] No energy in = energy out.
[JO] Thus the solar heat accumulates in the interior of the globe, and renews itself constantly.
Willard, please stop trolling. #2
Please don’t tell that one to Mike, Bill:
[JO] The course of centuries would cause great changes in these interior temperatures; but at the surface these changes are [already] accomplished, and the continual loss of original heat cannot cause any further cooling of climate.
Willard, please stop trolling. #3
bdg…”GR said: …EM from a colder body is not absorbed by a hotter body…
There is definitely some confusion here. EM from a colder body can definitely be absorbed by a hotter body. That does not mean that the colder body cools and the warmer body warms though. The reason why heat flows from warm to cool is because the colder body is absorbing more energy than it is emitting and the hotter body is emitting more than it is absorbing. Photons have no idea what the temperature of either body is”.
***
After spending considerable time laying out my reasoning as to why EM from a colder body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body, you reply with a completely generalized incorrect explanation related to your emotional beliefs rather than the atomic/quantum theory that underlies this issue.
Who is confused, me or you? None of you alarmists seem to understand the atomic basis involved. Bob d talks about vibrations and stretching absorbing EM in a molecule, completely oblivious as to what the vibrations and orbital stretching is about. Norman has responded that electrons have nothing to do with EM, going so far as to claim that EM cannot be absorbed by electrons at terrestrial temperatures. Then he accuses me of making things up.
You need to study some basic atomic theory, bdg, and some basic quantum theory. I have been studying the basics of both as part of my career in the electrical, electronics, and computer fields.
Unless you have a clear understanding of the relationship between electrons, EM, and heat transfer, you will never understand the 2nd law and why heat cannot be transferred by EM cold to hot.
Robertson
” I have been studying the basics of both as part of my career in the electrical, electronics, and computer fields. ”
YOU?
Never and never could you have been studying all that, let alone was any ‘career’ part of your life, Robertson.
I did study in German universities, during 7 years.
I have 40 years experience in software engineering.
None of my former colleagues did ever behave so superficial, so dumb, so ignorant, so pretentious, so arrogant as you show here.
None of my former colleagues has ever distorted, discredited and denigrated science and scientists!
You are a liar lacking any professional experience, Robertson.
Any attempt to deceive us is doomed to failure.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, Gordon actually comes across as a quite stable, unpretentious, chap with loads of common sense, including the ability to think for himself. His knowledge of science far exceeds yours.
You are addicted to your cult, and like a good cult member, you hate people not in your cult. Your hatred, combined with your poor education in languages and science, makes you an especially funny idiot.
Bindidon, you are right on the nose.
GR is not an engineer, he does not have a career of any accomplishment or note, and he definitely did not study anything formally despite vague claims to the contrary. Yes, this is obvious to anyone with relevant experience.
And yes, he will refer to this as an “ad hom” attack, when he logs in after walking up at 4 pm or so.
He degrades the discourse here and everywhere – a man too stubborn to appreciate the giants he denigrates, but yet he will advocate for posers and rejects in their fields (eg Lanka, Duesberg, all his other beloved losers. He identifies with losers).
> everywhere
Where else?
rp…”And yes, he will refer to this as an ad hom attack, when he logs in after walking up at 4 pm or so”.
It’s an ad hom attack because you cannot supply evidence to back your claim. Nor can you discuss the electrical or electronics field with me. You cannot refute anything I’ve claimed about quantum or atomic theory, covid theory, nor do you know a thing about Lanka or Duesberg.
Do you seriously think that Duesberg, the youngest scientist of his time to be inducted into the National Academy of Science got that honour for no reason? No, he was honoured for discovering the first cancer gene. Unlike Mann, whose climate alarmists cronies, who have hijacked NAS, got him in, Duesberg earned the honour.
In the end, Duesberg was vindicated by Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering HIV. He now admits HIV does not cause AIDS and is harmless to a healthy immune system. That’s what Duesberg said nearly 40 years ago.
Lanka discovered the first virus in the ocean and he has convinced two German courts that no scientific evidence exists to support the claim that HIV and the measles virus exist. Lanka has not claimed neither virus exists, he has only claimed there is no valid scientific evidence.
That was seconded by another Nobel Laureate, Kary Mullis. He searched for ten year to find one paper that proved how HIV causes AIDS. He found nothing, even though he asked Luc Montagnier for a reference. Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, could offer him no help.
Montagnier admits he did not discover HIV in that he did not see it or physically isolate it, he inferred it. In fact, he changed the way a virus is isolated from the true meaning of isolate, which means to separate, to ‘infer’, which does not mean separate. Covid, like HIV, is based on inference and consensus.
Drosten, credited with creating the current PCR test for covid admits he did not isolate a virus. The researchers in Wuhan who first reported on the contagion did not claim to have isolated a virus, they claimed only an association based on Montagnier’s inference.
The difference between me and you is that I care about science and how scientists are treated. You, on the other hand, are nothing more than a bum-kissing SOB who lives to be accepted. You’ll grovel on your hands and knees just to get that acceptance.
What have you done besides throw out uncorroborated ad homs in a blog?
binny…”Never and never could you have been studying all that, let alone was any career part of your life, Robertson”.
Care to discuss electronics or electrical theory, at any depth you like?
“I did study in German universities, during 7 years.
I have 40 years experience in software engineering”.
Ok, so define a ‘class’ in the C++ language in 7 words or less.
Robertson
You really are even dumber than I imagined.
If I didn’t know anything about classes, I simply would have to copy and paste something out of the Web.
Did you ever use such concepts? I have some doubt.
When you’ll have implemented a language supporting multiple inheritance, so feel free to knock at my door.
And if I were you, I would stop all your ridiculous lies about Montagnier and HIV, you dumb ass.
J.-P. D.
This is the way it is GR. Hot bodies definitely absorb EM from cold bodies. It’s just that hot bodies are emitting more than they are absorbing because…ya know…they are hotter. This is trivially explained by Planck’s Law. Take the difference between the curve of the hot body and the cold body and what you get is the transfer from hot to cold for each frequency. Notice that at all frequencies the hot body is emitting more than the cold body. That is why heat is transferred from hot to cold.
Think about this another way and try to answer the following questions. If the hot body really did not absorb photons from cold bodies then 1) how is the temperature of the cold body communicated to the hot body and 2) what happens to the photons that are not absorbed?
1) The temperature of the cold body is not communicated to the hot body. The only information a photon carries is its frequency, which relates to its energy and wavelength.
2) Photons not absorbed are either transmitted or reflected.
Clint R,
1) is not correct, a photon carries three pieces of information.
2) is also not correct, there are two other things that can happen.
Didn’t study physics, now did you?
And now you can’t learn.
“2) Photons not absorbed are either transmitted or reflected.”
By black bodies? No. Wrong. False.
Charcoal does not magically become a mirror for photons it deems unworthy. Nor does it ever become see-thru.
More made-up physics from the Climate Clown Posse.
Nate, you poor unthinking illiterate:
1) I did NOT indicate “black bodies”. You are misrepresenting me.
2) A black body is an imaginary concept. You are unable to learn.
Today I learned sleeping half your life and fighting online the other half is a “career.”
rp…”Today I learned sleeping half your life and fighting online the other half is a career.”
It’s what you haven’t learned that is the problem. You have still to learn that your mind is full of garbage that prevents you from becoming aware of the real world.
Gordon,
A body that can emit photons of a certain frequency can collect photons of that frequency.
Same with CO2, it can collect photons of the same frequency that it emits.
That’s why the surface can collect the photons from CO2 so there is transfer of energy from cold to hot.
Temperature is irrelevant for this to happen.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation Tmean.earth
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean.
Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Te……..Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K.325,83 K..340 K
Earth…255 K……287,74 K..288 K
Moon….270,4 Κ..223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars…209,91 K..213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 C difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature. Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical: Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
“(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)”
Where from? Citation please.
Exactly, Christos Vournas.
The 288K is valid from several different methods/measurements. The nonsense begins when it is compared to the imaginary blackbody sphere’s 255K. It makes no sense to compare incomparable things.
But, that’s how false beliefs get started, and then develop into cults.
Could you explain a bit more about the “solar irradiation accepting factor Φ“. Your website is not the easiest to follow.
Ah, here he is!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’ve seen your website before. I have the same questions as Nate and DREMT. In addition can your model explain the +0.14C/decade UAH TLT warming rate?
I made two efforts to answer, but it was not accepted. Why? Was my explanation post too long?
This blog is annoying. It filters posts all of the time for unknown reasons sometimes. Anyway…one thing to keep on eye out for is the character sequence D followed by C. That will definitely get filtered. Another one is that you’ll see us spell it absor.p.tion with periods because that word sometimes triggers the filter.
Thank you, it was the absor.p.tion…
Also I have r and m in power 2, but instead it appears single rand single m.
Next time I’ll write rΛ2 and mΛ2.
Yes, it is a times like this when we wish Dr Roy had an Emergency Moderation Team dedicated to facilitating the exchange of ideas. Sigh!
Please stop trolling kiddo, T.
Where’s kiddo?
There are specific keywords that trigger the filter as well. I believe several of ClintR and Swenson’s aliases are blacklisted. It’s not likely you were using any of those though.
Cristos might be here because of me, b:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/17/week-in-review-science-edition-125/#comment-947844
Perhaps we’ll learn why kiddo divides by 2 before I finish my post.
If you divide the insolation by 4 you are spreading it over the entire Earth’s surface area. So if you divide it by 2, you are only spreading it over a hemisphere, half of the Earth’s surface area. In real time, the sunlight falls only on one hemisphere of the Earth, so dividing by 2 is appropriate for the real time solar input.
“In real time, the sunlight falls only on one hemisphere of the Earth, so dividing by 2 is appropriate for the real time solar input.”
Plus, 480 W/m^2 gives more realistic results for Earth’s average temperature — 303K.
The “steel greenhouse”, with Earth values, gives the same result — 303K.
But the idiots MUST divide by 4 to keep their nonsense going.
ClintR said: Plus, 480 W/m^2 gives more realistic results for Earth’s average temperature — 303K.
That’s the average flux on the lit side only. The average flux on the unlit side is 0 W/m^2. Assuming each is balanced by equal emission and via the SB law that produces a global mean of (303+0)/2 = 152K.
ClintR said: But the idiots MUST divide by 4 to keep their nonsense going.
Trenberth 2009 estimates an average flux of 396 W/m^2 off the surface. Adjusting for the 6 W/m^2 of rectification effects due to spatial and temporal sampling (pg 315) means we actually need to plug in 390 W/m^2 into the SB law. That yields 288K. So the “idiots” get 288K using their divide by 4 model while your model yields 152K. So you tell us. Which one is more realistic, 288K or 152K?
"That’s the average flux on the lit side only. The average flux on the unlit side is 0 W/m^2. Assuming each is balanced by equal emission and via the SB law that produces a global mean of (303+0)/2 = 152K."
The Earth rotates, bdgwx. If it didn’t, you might have a point. Then again…have you heard of Noonworld?
GROSSLY wrong, bdgwx! You don’t understand ANY of this.
The 480 W/m^2 comes from dividing 960 W/m^2 by 2, instead of your cult’s “divide by 4”.
So you are able to perform the arithmetic, 960/4 = 240, but you can’t perform the arithmetic, 960/2 = 480!
See what being in a cult does to your brain?
PS Trenberth is not what you want for a role model, unless you’re content being an idiot.
> The 480 W/m^2 comes from dividing 960 W/m^2 by 2
Everybody knows that, Clint.
The question is more about a good reason to do so.
“So I can get twice the power while working with twice the area of the Earth’s shadow” isn’t one.
Besides, do bear in mind all the algebraic operations you’re doing with fluxes right now…
The reason for doing so is because the sunlight is only falling on one hemisphere of the Earth at any given moment.
> the sunlight is only falling on one hemisphere of the Earth at any given moment.
If you take the hemisphere, kiddo, you need to take into account for the fact that only one point or area is perpendicular to the Sun. That means you need to adjust *all* the other points or areas on your hemisphere.
Do you know how to do that?
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/08/how-to-calculate-the-average-projection-factor-onto-a-hemisphere/
> And so it turns out that the weighted integrated average projection factor on a hemisphere is the same as the simple linear average, even though the weighted projection function is not linear.
LOL.
Yes, turns out it’s still "divide by 2". Not sure why that’s funny.
Once again, we see how what idiots the cult members are.
In their cult, it’s okay to divide by 4, but it’s not okay to divide by 2! And as usual, they can’t make any sense out of reality. bdgwx believes then Earth will only be receiving 480 W/m^2 total!
“That’s the average flux on the lit side only. The average flux on the unlit side is 0 W/m^2.”
Don’t tell him the other side is getting 480W/m^2 also. And NOW, they don’t want to divide up the flux. It debunks their nonsense.
Sometimes we just get to laugh at them….
> Not sure why that’s funny.
You’re right. It shouldn’t. After all, Joe’s answer is correct, give or take 1/2…
OK, Willard. If you have an alternative to “divide by 2”, let’s hear it.
If I post it, kiddo, will you stop commenting at Roy’s for three months?
No.
Do you know why I offered you this challenge, kiddo?
ClintR said: In their cult, it’s okay to divide by 4, but it’s not okay to divide by 2!
Its not okay to divide by 2 for the same reason its not okay to divide by 1. The Earth isn’t a hemisphere anymore than it is a flat disk.
ClintR said: bdgwx believes then Earth will only be receiving 480 W/m^2 total!
Nope. I’ve consistent in my acceptance that the Earth absorbs on average 240 W/m^2. In one year that is 240 W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 1 year = 1.22e17 W-years or 3.86e24 joules of energy.
ClintR said: Don’t tell him the other side is getting 480W/m^2 also.
Not at the same it isn’t.
ClintR said: And NOW, they don’t want to divide up the flux.
There is nothing wrong with dividing the flux to come up with average over space and time. We just don’t want to divide inappropriately or use the result inappropriately. Plugging an average flux in the SB law is inappropriate (unless rectification effects are considered). Likewise, dividing by 1 and treating the Earth like a flat disk or dividing by 2 and treating the Earth like a hemisphere is appropriate. An appropriate way to do it is like how Trenberth 2009 did it which yields a global mean temperature of 288K which is very close to the true value.
> dividing by 1 and treating the Earth like a flat disk or dividing by 2 and treating the Earth like a hemisphere is [in]appropriate.
I suppose you meant to write “inappropriate” here, b.
Come to think of it, to divide by 2 without further correction is like taking the shadow of a planet twice the size of the Earth.
bdgwx gets desperate:
“The Earth isn’t a hemisphere anymore than it is a flat disk.”
Very good bdgwx. Earth isn’t a hemisphere, it’s two hemispheres.
In response to me mentioning that the 480 W/m^2 applies to both hemispheres: “Not at the same it isn’t.
Just like the 240 W/m^2 doesn’t affect all are at the same time.
“There is nothing wrong with dividing the flux to come up with average over space and time.”
It’s a violation of physics, that’s all. 960 W/m^2 can fry an egg. 240 W/m^2 will freeze an egg.
> Earth isn’t a hemisphere, it’s two hemispheres.
Not exactly, Clint, for then the Earth’s area would be 6πr^2.
“The Earth isn’t a hemisphere anymore than it is a flat disk.”
If you are treating the incoming solar radiation to Earth in real time, then dividing by 2 is appropriate, because the radiation does fall on only the lit hemisphere on a second by second basis. Cry about it all you want. 480 W/m^2 matches 240 W/m^2 out, because the surface area over which the incoming is received is only half that over which it leaves.
ClintR, using your 480 W/m^2 approach can you show that calculation and result for how much energy Earth absorbs in one year?
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
The energy is the same, bdgwx.
The 480 W/m^2 gives you better results because it is closer to reality.
How much energy the Earth absorbs in one year, Clint?
ClintR,
I’ll repeat the question. How much energy does the Earth absorb each year? Show your work.
You missed it, bdgwx.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-670799
I don’t see a calculation showing the amount of energy Earth absorbs in one year. I don’t even see a figure sans the calculation even.
The energy is the SAME, bdgwx!
The calculation is the SAME as for 240 W/m^2.
Just use your SAME calculation and change the flux and the area.
In one year that is 480 W/m^2 * (510e12 m^2)/2 * 1 year = 1.22e17 W-years or 3.86e24 joules of energy.
The energy is the SAME!
> Just use your SAME calculation and change the flux and the area.
Double the area, get twice the power.
As Newton would say, Majick!
Perfect. You get the correct amount of energy absorbed. Now way just need a calculation for the global mean temperature with that model. You have an average of 480 W/m^2 over 205e12 m^2 of surface. How do you handle the other 205e12 m^2 of surface area? What are you using for the average emission flux to be plugged into the SB law?
The point you are trying to miss, bdgwx, is that you can’t treat flux as energy. You’ve been taught that flux can be averaged by your cult, but that ain’t science.
What temperature would you like? Note that energy is the same in each example.
S = 960 W/m^2
E = SA = 960A
E = (S/4)4A = SA >>> T = 255K
E = (S/2)2A = SA >>> T = 303K
E = (S)A = SA >>> T = 361K
How about dividing by 10?
E = (S/10)10A = SA >>> T = 203K
How about some reality for breakfast — 960W/m^2 will fry an egg. 240W/m^2 will freeze an egg.
ClintR said: Youve been taught that flux can be averaged by your cult, but that aint science.
Your 480 W/m^2 figure is an average over the lit hemisphere.
ClintR said: What temperature would you like?
The task is to provide an estimate of the average temperature over one orbital cycle over the entire surface area of Earth. Using your 480 W/m^2 value show how you arrive at the global mean temperature.
Wrong again, bdgwx. My “task” is to counteract the teachings of your cult. That is, bringing some science (aka “reality”) to the discussion.
Solar can fry eggs. Your bogus 255K only freezes eggs.
Or in simple terms for idiots — “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Christos…”The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites”.
How about Venus, with a surface temperature of about 450C? Do you have an equation for that?
>How about Venus, with a surface temperature of about 450C? Do you have an equation for that?
Yes, I have.
Please, visit my site’s page for planets’ with atmosphere surface temperatures theoretical calculation
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Well, I will cut it in three parts then.
Φ factor explanation
There is need to focus on the Φ factor explanation.
Φ factor emerges from the realization that a sphere reflects differently than a flat surface perpendicular to the Solar rays.
Φ is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
“Φ” is an important factor in the Planet’s Surface Mean Temperature Equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ /4σ ] ∕ ⁴ (K)
It is very important the understanding what is really going on with by planets the solar irradiation reflection.
There is the specular reflection and there is the diffuse reflection.
The planet’s surface albedo “a” accounts for the planet’s surface diffuse reflection.
So till now we didn’t take in account the planet’s surface specular reflection.
A smooth sphere, as some planets are, have the invisible from the space and so far not detected and not measured the specular reflection.
The sphere’s specular reflection cannot be seen from the distance, but it can be seen by an observer situated on the sphere’s surface.
Thus, when we admire the late afternoon sunsets on the sea we are blinded from the brightness of the sea surface glare. It is the surface specular reflection what we see then.
When we integrate the specular reflection from the parallel solar rays hitting the disk of radius “r” and the cross-section “π r ” over the sunlit hemisphere of radius “r”, the result is 0,53π r S.
Thus the 0,53π r*S is the specular reflected fraction of the incident on the smooth planet’s spherical surface solar flux.
Φ = 1 – 0,53 = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Thus the 0,47π rS – is The What Is Left Fraction of the incident solar flux for the planet’s smooth spherical surface to absorb because of the spherical surface’s specular reflection.
What we have now is the following:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) *Jsw.incoming
And
Jsw.absorbed = Φ*(1-a) *Jsw.incoming
Where
(0,53 + Φ*a) + Φ* (1-a) = 0,53 + Φ*a + Φ – Φ*a =
= 0,53 + Φ = 0,53 + 0,47 = 1
The solar irradiation reflection (the specular plus the diffuse) over the planet’s sunlit hemisphere is:
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) *S *π r
For a planet with albedo a = 0 (completely black surface planet) we would have
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*0) *S *π r =
= Jsw.reflected = 0,53 *S *π r
For a planet without any outgoing specular reflection we would have Φ =1
And
Jsw.reflected = a *S *π r
continues
In general:
The fraction left for hemisphere to absorb is
Jabs = Φ (1 – a ) S π r
The factor Φ = 0,47 “translates” the absor.p.tion of a disk into the absor.p.tion of a smooth hemisphere with the same radius.
When covering a disk with a hemisphere of the same radius the hemisphere’s surface area is 2π r.
The incident Solar energy on the hemisphere’s area is the same as on the disk:
Jdirect = π r S
But the absorbed Solar energy by the hemisphere’s area of 2π r is:
Jabs = 0,47*( 1 – a) π r S
It happens because a smooth hemisphere of the same radius “r” absorbs only the 0,47 part of the directly incident on the disk of the same radius Solar irradiation.
In spite of hemisphere having twice the area of the disk, it absorbs only the 0,47 part of the directly incident on the disk Solar irradiation.
Jabs = Φ (1 – a ) S π r ,
where Φ = 0,47 for smooth without atmosphere planets.
and Φ = 1 for gaseous planets, as Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Venus, Titan.
Gaseous planets do not have a surface to reflect radiation. The solar irradiation is captured in the thousands of kilometers gaseous abyss. The gaseous planets have only the albedo “a”.
And Φ = 1 for heavy cratered planets, as Calisto and Rhea ( not smooth surface planets, without atmosphere ).
The heavy cratered planets have the ability to capture the incoming light in their multiple craters and canyons. The heavy cratered planets have only the albedo “a”.
Another thing that I should explain is that planet’s albedo actually doesn’t represent a primer reflection. It is a kind of a secondary reflection ( a homogenous dispersion of light also out into space ). That light is visible and measurable and is called albedo.
The primer reflection from a spherical hemisphere cannot be seen from some distance from the planet. It can only be seen by an observer being on the planet’s surface. It is the blinding surface reflection right in the observer’s eye.
That is why the albedo “a” and the factor “Φ” we consider as different values. Both of them, the albedo “a” and the factor “Φ” cooperate in the Planet Rotating Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
Φ*(1-a)*Sπ r = 4π r*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴
And they are also cooperate in the Planet’s Surface Mean Temperature Equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ ( K )
Planet Energy Budget:
Solar energy absorbed by a Hemisphere with radius “r” after reflection and diffusion:
Jabs = Φ*πrS (1-a) ( W )
Total energy emitted to space from a whole planet:
Jemit = A*σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ ( W )
Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
(1 – Φ) – is the reflected fraction of the incident on the planet solar flux
S – is the Solar Flux at the top of atmosphere ( W/m )
Α – is the total planet surface area ( m )
A = 4πr (m), where “r” is the planet’s radius
Tmean – is the Planet’s Surface Mean Temperature ( K )
(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ – dimensionless, is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
Thus
energy in = energy out
Φ*(1-a)*Sπ r = 4π r*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴
For Earth’s surface we would have:
Jabs.earth = 0,47 ( 1 – 0,306 ) So π r =
= 0,47*0,694 * 1.361* π r ( W ) = Jabs.earth = 0,326 So π r =
= 0,326* 1.361 π r =
= 444,26 π r ( W )
Jabs.earth = 444,26 π r ( W )
I am not averaging Jabs.earth = 444,26 π r ( W ) over the entire Earth’s surface, because it is a wrong approach.
It is a misleading mistake to average the “absorbed” incident solar flux’s fraction over the entire earth’s surface.
Also I have put the word “absorbed” in brackets, because it is not exactly absorbed, but instantly emitted back to space as an IR radiation.
The end
> [A] smooth hemisphere of the same radius r absorbs only the 0,47 part of the directly incident on the disk of the same radius Solar irradiation.
How did you calculate that, Christos?
Thank you for asking
The total amount of the specularly reflected portion of solar flux.
The calculation
Specular reflection from a body of water is calculated by the Fresnel equations.[6] Fresnel reflection is directional and therefore does not contribute significantly to albedo which primarily diffuses reflection.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448587170
Willard, please visit the above page in my site to see how I calculated, because it is not easy for me to copy-paste the page here.
Thank you,
Christos
christos…”Moon rotates around its axis at a slow rate of 29,5 days”.
Christos…what good are mathematical equations if you cannot observe accurately? A simple observation of the Moon, with the same side always pointed at the Earth, makes it obvious that the Moon cannot rotate on it’s axis.
The Moon is performing curvilinear translation without local rotation. Take a closer look.
Christos Vournas 8:36 AM
Reply
You would think that such consequential work would get you at least an honorable mention in Reuters list of the world’s top climate scientists
T,
There is no such thing as a “climate scientist”. Climate is the average of weather. The pointless average of temperature can worked out by a competent child.
Whatever you have linked to is nonsensical.
Maybe you can define “climate science” in some way that makes sense. Generally, a subject with “science” in its description, is anything but. Political science, social science, behavioural science – all produce wannabes who desperately wish to be able to cry “But the science says . . .”.
Just more rubbish. Scientists say things. Sometimes, what they say is true, sometimes not.
Experiment shows the facts.
From https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443779687:
“Moon rotates around its axis at a slow rate of 29,5 days.”
Oh, boy!
Moon orbits the Earth, and thus exposes all of its surface area to the sun’s rays (which is what is relevant from Cristos’s point of view) at a slow rate of 27.3 days. The issue of whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not thus has no bearing on these calculations.
I’m still struggling with the solar irradiation accept factor (phi). I read through the article on your site and I get that it is a kind of transformation of S onto spherical geometry which takes into account water’s reflectivity with high angled rays. That’s totally fine. But then why divide by 4 in your main formula?
Also, can you explain this snippet as well.
0.3 * 1.362W/m² + 0.434 * 1.362W/m²
I get the 0.3 and 0.434 values. But why add the albedo adjusted term and specular adjusted term together?
And can you explain this snippet as well.
1 – 0.53 = 0.47
Where did the 0.53 come from?
Same concerns.
The Earths calculated albedo that you used is an average reflected fraction. Thus it should already account for what it seems you have calculated as acceptance.
You are double counting.
I am not double counting.
Planet Radiative Energy Budget
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589400363342._szw1280h1280_.jpg
The Budget considers the planet’s energy balance in Total, and not in average as the Greenhouse warming theory very mistakenly does. The Planet Radiative Energy Budget can be applied to all planets.
We have Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ varying
0 ≤ a ≤ 1
Notice:
Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets (spherical shape).
Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term.
So Φ and Albedo are always bounded together.
The diagram considers the planet’s energy balance in Total, and not in average as the Greenhouse warming theory very mistakenly does.
The Planet Radiative Energy Budget diagram can be applied to all planets.
When studying it again we realize some interesting patterns.
We have Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ varying
0 ≤ a ≤ 1
In the diagram the horizontal and the vertical lines are crossing somewhere inside of the orthogonal.
So, when a varies from 0 to 1, the Vertical line moves from the right to the left, till the diffuse reflection area covers the entire orthogonal.
And, when Φ varies from 0,47 to 1, the Horizontal line moves upward, till the (not reflected) area covers the entire orthogonal.
Also there is the case when a planet is very dark, so it doesn’t reflect diffusely (a = 0 ) but Φ may vary (0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1)
There are planets which reflect only diffusely (heavy cratered Io, Calisto, Pluto, Charon, and gaseous planets Titan, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune)
For smooth surface planets Φ = 0,47 is an exact number (Earth, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Europa, Ganymede)
Triton is a very special planet – because for Triton’s only case we cannot estimate the exact Φ value. For Triton the value of Φ lays somewhere in between (0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1).
And it is good, because it is a prove of the syllogism:
Planets’ surfaces billions years past History shaped them one way or another. Planets posses either very smooth surfaces (Φ = 0,47), or heavy cratered surfaces (Φ = 1). Triton is the exception.
Notice:
Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets (spherical shape)
Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term.
So Φ and Albedo are always bounded together.
I still owe an answer to bdgwx
> The diagram considers the planet’s energy balance in Total, and not in average as the Greenhouse warming theory very mistakenly does.
Sounds like saying that to take the total distance is correct but the average speed isn’t to measure if overall you’re moving.
Willard:
>Sounds like saying that to take the total distance is correct but the average speed isn’t to measure if overall you’re moving.
Surface doesn’t emit on average. Every infinitesimal spot at every infinitesimal instant emits IR radiation intensity W/m^2 of its own.
Stefan-Boltzmann emission is not linear.
> Surface doesn’t emit on average.
Neither do airplanes really fly at average speed, Christos.
You might like:
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html
Willard:
> Neither do airplanes really fly at average speed, Christos.
Yes, airplanes do not fly at average speed. Also airplanes do not fly at average high.
Planet doesn’t emit IR radiative energy on average. Planet emits IR radiative energy on the very instant the incident solar SW radiative energy flux hits surface.
Only a very small portion of the incident solar flux’s SW radiative energy is accumulated during the surface solar lit hours.
At night, when there is not any incident solar SW radiative energy hitting planet surface, planet emits as a classical Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody according to the surface absolute temperature fourth power emission law.
> [The] Planet emits IR radiative energy on the very instant the incident solar SW radiative energy flux hits surface.
Yes, and it makes sense to average over the period of interest, say an orbit. Same for speed and height. Harder to average averages, I concede: try with 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Your Total should change every orbit you measure it. If did not correspond to any kind of central estimate, it would be true once and only once. Thus your Total corresponds to an implicit average.
Strictly speaking, it’s not the unit (like watt, meter, or second) that is averaged, but the quantities of interest. What can be measured with a unit system can be averaged, otherwise it’d be really hard to estimate our uncertainties over it. This should apply to every unit of the SI conventions.
> try with 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Erm. Add 4.5 between 4 and 5.
God I hate Roy’s parser.
Thank you bdgwx.
You ask:
“Im still struggling with the solar irradiation accept factor (phi). I read through the article on your site and I get that it is a kind of transformation of S onto spherical geometry which takes into account waters reflectivity with high angled rays. Thats totally fine. But then why divide by 4 in your main formula?”
Sorry, I don’t know how to highlight the chosen sentences, that is why I copy-paste them again…
“…it is a kind of transformation of S onto spherical geometry which takes into account waters reflectivity with high angled rays. That is totally fine.”
The calculation is a demonstration of the planet’s smooth surface (sphere) specular reflection phenomenon. This specular reflection phenomenon occurs on the smooth surface celestial bodies’ regardless of the surface being water or soil.
“Φ” is only the planet spherical shape and the smooth surface coefficient.
So, I didn’t derive the Φ = 0,47 from the above calculation. I only did the calculation to demonstrate that actually there is specular reflection from planet’s smooth surface, which is not been taken in account yet.
I have to demonstrate the existence of planet’s smooth surface specular reflection.
When I saw the Fresnel’s water reflectivity graph I took the chance to demonstrate that planets’ smooth surfaces reflect not only diffusely, but also planets’ smooth surfaces reflect specularly.
Thank you for asking. I will continue in about half an hour.
“I only did the calculation to demonstrate that actually there is specular reflection from planets smooth surface, which is not been taken in account yet”
No. All the reflected SW light from Earth has been carefully measured by CERES satellite. It already is taken into account in the average albedo.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo#:~:text=Using%20satellite%20measurements%20accumulated%20since,albedo%20is%20about%20about%200.30.
Nate:
> No. All the reflected SW light from Earth has been carefully measured by CERES satellite. It already is taken into account in the average albedo.
CERES omits planet specular reflection.
Specular reflection from a parallel solar rays hitting planet spherical surface cannot be “seen” by spacecraft’s SW radiation measuring sensor.
Specular reflection from sphere never gets onto the sensor’s plate.
Therefore planet specular reflection is not taken into account not only for Earth, but also for other smooth surface planets without atmosphere (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede).
Thank you,
Christos
“CERES omits planet specular reflection.”
Evidence? A reference?
I know that you will find none, because this is simply not true. CERES simply measures all of the reflected solar, and thus cannot distinguish specular from not specular.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/toa_spinning_globes_1080p.mp4
“Specular reflection from a parallel solar rays hitting planet spherical surface cannot be ‘seen’ by spacecrafts SW radiation measuring sensor.”
No. As you can see in the description, the instrument scans from ‘limb-to-limb’, gathering all reflected light, even specular.
“Each CERES instrument can scan in threeprincipal modes: fixed azimuth plane (FAP or crosstrack), rotating azimuth plane (RAP), andprogrammable azimuth plane (PAP).
In crosstrack mode, CERES scans from limb-to-limb perpendicular to the groundtrack. This mode provides global coverage daily.”
“But then why divide by 4 in your main formula?”
Planet Radiative Energy Budget
Energy in = Energy out
Φ*(1-a)*Sπ rΛ2 = 4π rΛ2*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴
Solving for Tmean we obtain:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ ( K )
So, the 4 times the planet’s cross-section area is the entire globe’s surface area in
Εnergy out = 4π rΛ2*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴
Because the entire globe’s surface area emits IR radiative energy out.
Notice:
The planet doesn’t emit as a whole the
Jemit = 4π rΛ2*σTmean⁴ (W)
But planet emits as a whole the
Jemit = 4π rΛ2*σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
“why add the albedo adjusted term and specular adjusted term together?
And can you explain this snippet as well.
1 – 0.53 = 0.47
Where did the 0.53 come from?”
Albedo adjusted term accounts for the solar lit Hemisphere’s diffuse reflection.
Specular adjusted term accounts for the solar lit Hemisphere’s specular reflection.
The (diffuse reflection + specular reflection) = planet’s Total SW reflection.
When I found Φ = 0,47 is the smooth planet’s surface shape and roughness coefficient, then 1 – 0,47 = 0,53.
What is the 0,53*S ?
It has the physical meaning. For smooth surface planet without diffuse reflection (a = 0), there is always present the specular reflection of 0,53*S.
The smooth dark, smooth but almost invisible planets, the planets with a very small albedo (like Mercury, a = 0,068) there is still a strong specular reflection of 0,53*S*πr^2 (W)
Thank you for asking.
Christos
How much warmer is Earth due to it’s fast rotation?
I think because Earth is water planet, it’s spin has less warming effect as compared a dry world like Mars or the Moon.
There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
Here is how the planet rotational warming Phenomenon occurs.
Lets consider two identical planets F and S at the same distance from the sun.
Let’s assume the planet F spins on its axis Faster, and the planet S spins on its axis Slower.
Both planets F and S get the same intensity solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exactly amount of solar radiative energy.
The slower rotating planet’s S sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than the faster rotating planet’s F sunlit hemisphere.
The surfaces emit at σT⁴ intensity – it is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
Thus the planet S emits more intensively from the sunlit side than the planet F.
So there is more energy left for the planet F to accumulate then. That is what makes the faster rotating planet F on the average a warmer planet. That is how the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon occurs.
The Planet Surface SPECIFIC HEAT “Cp” Warming PHENOMENON
Now, how the planet surface SPECIFIC HEAT “cp” warming Phenomenon occurs.
Lets consider two identical planets “H” and “L” at the same distance from the sun. Lets assume the planet “H” has a Higher average surface specific heat, and the planet “L” has a Lower average surface specific heat.
Both planets “H” and “L” get the same intensity solar flux on their sunlit hemispheres. Consequently both planets receive the same exactly amount of SOLAR RADIATIVE ENERGY.
For Lower average surface specific heat planet “L” the sunlit hemisphere surface gets warmed at higher temperatures than for Higher average surface specific heat planet “H” the sunlit hemisphere.
The surfaces emit at absolute temperature fourth power Jemit =
σT⁴ intensity it is the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
Thus the planet “L” emits more intensively from the sunlit hemisphere than the planet “H”.
So there is MORE ENERGY LEFT for the planet “H” to accumulate then. That is what makes for Higher surface specific heat planet “H” to be a WARMER PLANET.
That is how the Planet Surface SPECIFIC HEAT “cp” Warming PHENOMENON occurs.
The Planet ( N*cp ) product IMPORTANCE
Lets proceed the syllogism.
N is the planets rotational spin
cp is the planets average surface specific heat
N*cp is the product of planets N and cp
Now, lets have two identical planets, but with different rotational spin N1 and N2, and with different average surface specific heat cp1 and cp2. Which planet has the highest mean surface temperature Tmean ?
Of course, since every planet has its own unique rotational spin (diurnal cycle) and every planet has its own unique average surface specific heat we should compare for the two planets N*cp the product of N and cp.
Consequently, the planet with the highest N*cp product should be the planet with the highest mean surface temperature Tmean.
Example:
Earths N.earth = 1 rot /day
Moons N.moon = 1 /29,5 rot /day
Earths cp.earth = 1 cal /gr.oC (watery planet)
Moons cp.moon = 0,19 cal /gr.oC (regolith)
For Earth the (N*cp) product is:
(N.earth)*(cp.earth) = 1*1 = 1 rot.cal /day.gr.oC
For Moon the (N*cp) product is:
(N.moon)*(cp.moon) = (1 /29,5)*0,19 = 1 /155,3 rot.cal /day.gr.oC
Lets compare the products:
(N.earth)*(cp.earth) / [(N.moon)*(cp.moon)] = 1 / (1 /155,3) = 155,3
What we see here is that the Earths N*cp product is 155,3 times higher than the Moons N*cp product.
And the satellite measured mean surface temperatures are
Tmean.earth = 287,16 K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
Tmean.moon = 220 K
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
It is obvious that Earths higher rotational spin and Earths higher surface specific heat make Earth on average a warmer than Moon planet.
gbaikie:
>How much warmer is Earth due to it’s fast rotation?
Thank you for asking.
The planet mean surface temperature equation is for planets WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE planet equilibrium emission concept.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp) ¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ] ¹∕ ⁴
When applied to the planets the equation produces remarkable results. The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………Te………….Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The results speak for themselves – it has become possible to calculate planets mean surface temperatures very closely matching the measured by satellites.
When we compare the results for Planet Earth we realize that there is very small difference between the Tmean = 287,74 K and the Tsat.mean = 288 K.
This observation can only be attributed to the fact that there are only traces of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Also the Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any significant Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
–The results speak for themselves – it has become possible to calculate planets mean surface temperatures very closely matching the measured by satellites.
When we compare the results for Planet Earth we realize that there is very small difference between the Tmean = 287,74 K and the Tsat.mean = 288 K.–
A problem with that is that I don’t think we have measured Earth’s [or any planet’s] temperature accurately.
The UAH Global Temperature is measuring differences of measured estimated temperature over time.
And changes quite bit over time.
But it’s my understanding that roughly the average global land surface air temperature is about 10 C. And average global ocean surface air is about 17 C- but when it’s been 16.0, 17.0, 18.0 C on some date, like say July 15 2020, if averaged over month of July 2020, or whether over the year of 2020, it’s any exact number between 16 and 18 C- I can’t say
Or I am stuck with saying it’s about 17 C until such time as it’s measured accurately.
Likewise the Earth on average emits about 240 watts per square meter. Or don’t know exactly when Earth emitted 240 watts per square meter, precisely.
Though numbers given precisely, but precise only in the sense that it’s related other precisely stated numbers.
And in terms increase to global temperature to rising CO2 levels. No one knows how much it’s been.
My opinion is it’s been .2 C or less over last hundred years. IPCC is very confident that in last few decades it’s been .2 C or more.
And in terms next hundred years, if CO2 level have gone from 280 to 560 ppm than seems to me it could cause earth average temperature to rise: 0 to .5 C.
And regard to rising global air temperature of about 1 C over last 100 years, has being related to recovering from the Little Ice Age.
How precise these numbers are, or error bars in the measurement, is argued endlessly.
And if doubling of CO2 causes .5 C increase, I regard that as huge effect to occur within 100 years.
But I am also aware that we living in Ice Age, and would be quite happy if Earth warmed a couple of degrees. And I know that 15 C is actually, cold.
> A problem with that is that I dont think we have measured Earths [or any planets] temperature accurately.
I agree. The planets’ temperatures are not the exact planets’ surface temperatures.
They have been estimated by the satellite the planet IR emission measurements…
I was wondering, how it was possible for the planet mean surface temperature equation, which calculates on a theoretical basis the planet mean surface temperatures…
How it was possible to theoretically calculate so much close to the planet’s surface temperatures?
The planet surface temperatures are IR emission measurements by the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law the temperatures T measurements.
In other words, the sensor measures IR emission and sensor is calibrated to provide a temperature in Kelvin.
Equation uses Planet Radiative Energy Budget
energy in = energy out
To theoretically calculate, by the use of the same Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, the same planets average surface temperatures…
So, when the data used in the theoretical equation happens to be correct (S, Φ, a, N, cp) the equation produces the almost close to the satellite measurements numbers.
But what actually are the planets surface temperatures is not exactly known.
And it is a very different temperature the IR emission temperature, which is based on the surface tiniest skin emitting layer, when compared to the actual thermometer’s deepened in, say, 1 cm into the ground.
Test
[ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ /4σ ] ∕ ⁴ (K)
Test 2
(I’ve never seen superscripts work here.)
(288)⁴
OMG
Clueless Clint will put numbers to his hammer, his cone, his plate and his cubes!
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Gaseous planets do not have a surface to reflect radiation. The solar irradiation is captured in the thousands of kilometers gaseous abyss. The gaseous planets have only the albedo a. ”
Jupiter doesn’t do too badly. Bond albedo of 0.34 to Earth’s 0.3 and the big planet shows up pretty well in my 6″ reflector.
Gaseous planets do not have a surface to reflect radiation…”
Thank you for noticing. I should had written:
” Gaseous planets do not have a surface to reflect specular radiation”.
So, Gaseous planets reflect only diffusely. They have albedo.
For Gaseous planets the
Energy in = (1 – a)S πr^2
The only difference between specular and diffuse reflection is that while for the former case incident and reflected angles are equal, diffuse reflection goes in arbitrary directions.
To add the two makes no sense. Averaging them does, however.
Buenas noches
J.-P. D.
Above, I provided a quote from Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, translated by one W M Connelly.
The quote was – “Thus the earth returns to space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part from its original heat.”
Woeful Witless Wee Willy complained he couldn’t find the quoted material. Incompetent Wee Willy.
To help him out, here is another –
“Thus the Earth returns to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the Sun, and adds to it a part which derives from its own primitive heat.” – translated by R T Pierrehumbert.
I wonder if he recognises the names of the translators?
Wee Willy obviously doesn’t trust translators. Bad luck for him.
Good morning, Mike.
I trust Ray more than our Stoatness; I distrust you.
Here’s how grown-ups cite and quote:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf
Failure to quote the full paragraph can be frowned up. The reader might fail to notice that you’re quoting an energy balance model. One could even argue that Charles is hinting at a circulation model! I thought you disliked models. Nevermind.
Since you prefer our Stoatness’ translation:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
The [38] refers to this footnote:
One can find the orginal works at Gallica.fr or here:
https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Fourier/Fourier_pdf/Mem1827_p569_604.pdf
You can do better, Mike, but it’s a start.
Wee Wayward Willy,
Not even a good try. First you imply that i have misquoted.
Now you complain that one translation is preferable to another, and tell me I prefer one to another. Mind reading again, are you? You failed!
You say you trust some anonymous person “Stoatness” less than another. Who cares whom you trust? My translation of Baron Fourier’s writing is along the same lines as both people I quoted. What have against the “Stoatness”? Has he a record of inept translation?
You can frown upon anything you like. I don’t care whether you frown or not. That is your affair, and nothing to do with me.
The undisputed point here is that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and Fourier explained why.
Muddy the waters all you like. It just shows you up as an alarmist idiot, and delusional to boot, with your bizarre fixation on mysterious non-existent entities. Mike, Charlie, Stoatness . . ., you are deranged!
As Fourier translatedly said “Thus the Earth returns to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the Sun, and adds to it a part which derives from its own primitive heat.” – or something very similar.
In other words, the Earth has a cooled since it was a molten blob. And will continue to do so, no doubt, your alarmist delusional fantasies notwithstanding.
Have nice day.
> Now you complain that one translation is preferable to another
Not at all, my dear Mike.
I’m merely observing that you did not cite your source and that you failed to quote the whole paragraph. If we read it as a whole, we get a qualitative model of the energy balance of the Earth. Something that Ray noticed too, incidentally.
In other words, your gotcha is a dud.
***
I forgot to add note [39], after all the terrestrial effects of the solar heat are modified by the interposition of the atmosphere and the presence of the waters:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
So the translator thinks that Fourier doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Are you really trying to depend on Fourier’s authority, when you appeal to the translator’s opposing authority?
Whom do you believe? Fourier, or Connolley?
You’re not only an idiot! You’re an illogical idiot.
Carry on.
> Whom do you believe?
Certainly not you, Mike. At the very least our Stoatness read Charles. Here’s another key concept that Charles introduced:
Again, see http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/fourier-and-greenhouse.html and click on “points the bunnies at the first chapter.”
If you want to read a text like it was something sacred and inerrant, you need to read it, you know.
Witless Willy,
Baron Fourier wrote –
“Thus the earth returns to space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part from its original heat.”
Wriggle, wriggle, Warmist Worm! (Adapted from Mike Flynn – credit where it’s due.)
Your continued attempts at diversion, by quoting irrelevancies, just make you appear as stupid as you are.
Don’t be so sloppy and incompetent. The Earth has cooled. Accept it or don’t. Your choice.
Be a delusional fool I& you wish.
> Baron Fourier wrote […]
Quote mine all you want, Mike, it won’t change the fact that you start your selection with a “thus” that comes after:
The unit of discourse is the paragraph.
Don’t forget that none of these claims are based on measurements. I’ll let you work out why.
Enjoy your afternoon.
Wee Willy,
No measurements? Are you quite mad?
Try reading Fourier’s paper. Do try to comprehend what he wrote.
Then tell me about no measurements.
What an idiot you are!
> Try reading Fourier’s paper
Have you, Mike?
You can’t even quote the paragraph from which you quote the single sentence you quoted so far. Let me remind you the claims Joseph made:
– “The solar heat accumulates in the interior of the earth”
– “whose state becomes invariable.”
– “That which penetrates in the equatorial regions is exactly compensated by the heat which flows across the polar regions.”
Do you really think he went to the poles?
We still haven’t measured the center of the Earth, BTW.
You’re quoting Joseph qualitative model.
That’s on you, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Whacky Waffling Wee Willy wrote previously –
“If Charles literally meant what Mike puts in his mouth, Clint, the Earth would have been in energy deficit every day since the beginning of times.”
I don’t know who Charles is, or what words Mike “put in his mouth”, but Wee Willy is correct.
That is why the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Dear oh dear! Poor Wee Willy! Whatever will be do now? Frown, look masterly, laugh maniacally?
Maybe Wild and Woolly Wee Willy really does believe the Earth heats up and cools down through the magic of the Greenhouse Effect!
What an idiot!
> I dont know who Charles is
His last name is Fourier, Mike. No need to mention your last name. Everybody here knows it.
Don’t worry, nobody will tell Roy.
***
Looking back into my notes, I found back this chapter:
You can get it via (trying to fight spam):
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/fourier-and-greenhouse.html
With my emphasis.
I duly submit that Sky Dragons like you should leave Charles alone. You lack the discipline to study texts. Reading is hard.
You jab. I read. Everybody wins.
Wee woeful Willy,
No wonder you are confused.
I quote translations from Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, you claim I am putting words in someone else’s mouth! Learn to read.
Then you go to claim Charles wrote something someone else wrote. Tut, tut.
I don’t need to click on your pointless links. There are numerous translations of Baron Joseph Fourier’s 1827 paper. Anyone can find a facsimile of the original with little effort.
You wrote –
“You lack the discipline to study texts. Reading is hard.
You jab. I read. Everybody wins.”
I even told you who the author of the paper was. Obviously, for you, comprehension is impossible. Learn to read, before you start spouting irrelevant nonsense.
The Earth has cooled. Still cooling. Believe it or not as you wish.
> I quote translations from Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier
Well played! My mistake.
It still would have been fun to pull that one!
***
> The Earth has cooled. Still cooling. Believe it or not as you wish
You don’t need Joseph to appeal to the entropy of the universe, Mike.
Wayward Wee Willy,
Fourier wrote –
“Thus the Earth returns to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the Sun, and adds to it a part which derives from its own primitive heat.”
You don’t like what Fourier wrote, because it happens to be true.
Who is appealing to the entropy of the universe? Are you quite mad? Maybe you need to pull your head out of your fantasy, and learn clear English expression. After learning comprehension, of course!
Good luck.
Swenson
You might find the numbers of interest.
Incoming shortwave radiation 240W/m^2 (after subtracting albedo)
Outgoing longwave radiation 239.3W/m^2
Geological heat flow 0.1W/m^2
E,
Your numbers are irrelevant. Nobody has ever managed to measure the total incoming radiation, nor total outgoing radiation.
Even worse, comparing the unmeasurable energy in one band with the unmeasurable energy in another band is totally pointless.
Look at WMO pyrgeometer calibration procedures. Just a taste –
“The calibration uncertainty of the test pyrgeometer is obtained by taking into account the following uncertainty components (expressed as expanded uncertainty, 95% coverage interval):
Uncertainty of the WISG based on the ASR and its internal variability, typically 2.6 Wm-2
Uncertainty of the thermopile signal, 1 V
Uncertainty of the temperature measurements of 0.02 K
Uncertainty of the instrument constants [k1,k2,k3] =[0.03 0.0008 0.2]
Standard deviation of the retrieved sensitivities C”
So much for measuring total energy to 0.1 W/m2.
No closed system. More energy out than in. It’s called cooling.
Ent claims: “Incoming shortwave radiation 240W/m^2 (after subtracting albedo)”
They keep making the same mistakes.
The “240” is the “average” (after albedo) surface incoming flux divided by 4. IOW, it’s pure nonsense. If Earth were only receiving 240 W/m^2 over its surface, the ocean would be ice covered!
It’s like they can’t learn….
Clint R
“If Earth were only receiving 240 W/m^2 over its surface, the ocean would be ice covered! ”
Indeed.
The Earth’s surface and atmosphere absorb 240W/m^2 and radiates almost 240W/m^2 to space, yet the Earth’s surface loses 503W/m^2 by radiation, convection and evapotranspiration
Where does the surface get all that extra energy from?
Those numbers come from the bogus “EEI”, Ent.
As I stated, if Earth only received an average of 240 W/m^2, it would NOT have an average temperature of 288 K. Your cult’s EEI is invalid. And passenger jets do NOT fly backwards and sideways when they circumnavigate Earth.
Flux can NOT be treated as energy. When you violate the laws of physics, you get nonsense.
Your cult teaches nonsense, and you believe it.
Please, Clint.
You’re making Joseph and Mike sad:
“All the terrestrial effects of the solar heat are modified by the interposition of the atmosphere and the presence of the waters. The great movements of these fluids renders the distribution more uniform.”
ClintR said: As I stated, if Earth only received an average of 240 W/m^2, it would NOT have an average temperature of 288 K.
288K is Earth’s surface temperature. That is different than its brightness temperature as observed from space.
Anyway, yes, if Earth’s surface only absorbed 240 W/m^2 and nothing else and it emitted 240 W/m^2 as a black body it would only be 255K.
But, Earth’s surface actually absorbs 161 (solar) + 333 (DWIR) = 494 W/m^2 (Ein). It sheds 17 (sensible) + 80 (latent) + 396 (UWIR) = 493 W/m^2 (Eout). That means if it emitted that 396 W/m^2 as a black body its temperature would be 289K. And when factoring in the 6 W/m^2 of rectification effects (due to spatial and temporal averaging) you actually get 288K which is a very close match to the true global mean temperature.
And with Ein – Eout = +0.9 W/m^2 we know that the surface will continue to warm.
Figures are from Trenberth 2009.
Wrong bdgwx. None of those figures has any validity. They are all made up to distort reality. It’s just like you trying to distort reality by claiming, repeatedly, that the cone was absorbing 180 W/m^2. You refused to acknowledge that the cone was only absorbing at its base. You could not face the reality that flux is NOT conserved.
* Solar does NOT add to DWIR.
* No one even knows what “average” DWIR is, because “averaged flux” is a meaningless value.
* Energy in the system does NOT add to the incoming energy.
That’s just a start….
With a cult leader like Trenberth, there is no limit to how far you will go to pervert reality.
You seem to be suggesting that numbers are real, Clint.
Are you a closet Platonist?
Let me ‘fix’ for Clint by multiplying by the area of the earth, 5.1e14 m^2.
Anyway, yes, if Earth’s surface only absorbed 122 PW and nothing else and it emitted 122 PW as a [uniform] black body it would only be 255K.
But, Earth’s surface actually absorbs a total power of 82 PW (solar) + 170 PW (DWIR) = 252 PW (Ein). It sheds 9 PW (sensible) + 41 PW (latent) + 202 PW (UWIR) = 251 PW (Eout). That means if it emitted that 252 PW as a [uniform] black body its temperature would be 289K.
Well, that’s a start, TF. At least you’re trying to balance energy, instead of flux.
But, you have to match the correct flux with the correct area.
> you have to match the correct flux with the correct area.
At the right angle too, Clint.
Please don’t pull a Joe.
But, I DID match the correct flux with the correct area. And — what do you know! — the answers are the same either way.
Wow TF, that must have been a lot of work — matching the correct flux with the correct area.
And, you did it so quickly!
Just out of curiosity, what emitting surface area did you use for that little mountain in Colorado called “Pike’s Peak”? And what were the emitted fluxes for both sides, day and night, summer and winter, with the coinciding areas, of course?
Thanks.
Here is a simple linear regression of all data from 1979 for 6 major global temperature data sets:
https://tinyurl.com/4tbmrdz2
The trends are in C per decade:
RSS4 : 0.22
BEST : 0.19
GISS : 0.17
HAD4 : 0.17
UAH6 : 0.14
NOAA : 0.18 [data not included in the applet linked above]
The satellite-based lower tropospheric trends (RSS and UAH) have the largest disparity, of 0.08 C/decade, while the surface data sets disagree by 0.02 C/decade.
I favour none of the data sets. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Also, a linear regression doesn’t give any great detail, just the overall change. All the trends are highly statistically significant: the largest uncertainty for any of the data sets is +/- 0.053 (for RSS – UAH is +/- 0.051) based on an autogregrssive linear analysis.
Interesting barry.
Unfortunately, the “hotter” methods will now be “refining” their work to be more in line with reality. But, we have their history.
barry says:
All the trends are highly statistically significant.
——————–
Yes indeed it is warming. And what is needed is a broad brushed honest analysis born out of a respect for science traditions; regarding why it is warming and not some phony self constrained analyses playing homage to religious edicts arising out of a failed radiation model.
barry
Thank you for the numbers, and also for reminding me by the way that it was time for me to update a lot in my home data!
One remark: I think you interverted GISS (a bit over 0.19) and BEST (a bit below 0.17).
*
” Also, a linear regression doesnt give any great detail, just the overall change. ”
Correct! I made a (somewhat overloaded) chart with 36 month running means instead of linear estimates.
You see UAH6.0, RSS4.0, JMA, GISS Had-CRUT, NOAA and BEST for Jan 1979 – Jan 2021:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GFRb0ZM5nxSohwbwW-wKkH__u6sRZ_Hs/view
Certainly due to the lack of any interpolation and also to their COBE-SST2 (way ‘cooler’ than ERSST5 probably used by all others), JMA has the lowest estimate of all surface series: 0.14 C / decade, a tiny bit above UAH.
Surprisingly, BEST is even lower on trend than NOAA.
J.-P. D.
barry
I don’t understand your offsets in the WFT graph: you hardly could compute a correct displacement for UAH and RSS wrt the mean of GISS’ reference period (1951-1980), as there is no data for the two in that period.
Correct would be to have UAH6.0 without offset, and to displace all others wrt UAH.
I didn’t compute these offsets wrt 1991-2020 yet; thus in the following WFT graph, everything is still wrt 1981-2010 – including UAH6.0 of course:
https://tinyurl.com/37mywnwd
I included UAH5.6 just for fun, so we can see how far both UAH6.0 and RSS4.0 have drifted away from the 5.6 revision.
It seems that WFT’s conceptor Paul Clark did not switch yet to the GISTEMP data based on GHCN V4: the green plot stops much too early.
J.-P. D.
Yes, GISS is previous version, and Had.CRU is previous version, too, at woodfortrees. The tends I reported are correct for GISS and BEST per woodfortrees – you can click on ‘Raw Data’ at the link to check.
I didn’t think of JMA. Here is a visualisation of the differences in coverage.
https://i.imgur.com/20uDZ27.png (This is from 2013. I couldn’t find a more recent chart. The other data sets have more coverage since, but JMA is still similar)
I adjusted the offsets to put them together, and as two of the data sets were already very close at the start point I adjusted the rest to them. It makes no differences which are offset for the visualisation.
I didn’t make an interpretation of the differences, but I was expecting to see others put their own spin on it and they didn’t disappoint.
Thanks for the ensemble you plotted.
CERES omits planet specular reflection.
Specular reflection from a parallel solar rays hitting planet spherical surface cannot be seen by spacecrafts SW radiation measuring sensor.
Specular reflection from sphere never gets onto the sensors plate.
Therefore planet specular reflection is not taken into account not only for Earth, but also for other smooth surface planets without atmosphere (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede).
Why it is a problem?
It is a problem, because by omitting the planet specular reflected portion of the incident on the planet surface solar flux the planet effective temperature (equilibrium temperature) Te is calculated wrongly.
To calculate planet’s Te we should know the exact “absorbed” (not reflected) portion of the incident on the planet solar energy flux.
Te – planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Te.correct – the planet corrected effective temperature
Te.correct = [ Φ (1 – a) S /4σ ] ∕ ⁴
Φ – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (it is the planet surface spherical shape, and planet surface roughness coefficient)
Φ = 0,47 – for smooth surface planets without atmosphere
Φ = 1 – for heavy cratered without atmosphere planets
Φ = 1 – for gases planets
In the Table we have the planet effective Te and the planet corrected Te.correct (which are calculated with the Te.correct equation) comparison.
Planet…….Te……Te.correct
Mercury….439,6 K…..364 K
Earth……255 K…….210 K
Moon……270,4 Κ……224 K
Mars……209,91 K…..174 K
When comparing the Te and Te.correct it becomes obvious how important is the planet surface specular reflection portion for the correct calculation of the planet theoretical equilibrium temperatures.
To have calculated the planet equilibrium temperature we should have estimated the planet radiative budget:
Energy in = energy out
Φ(1 – a)S πr^2 (W) is the planet’s energy in (the “absorbed” not reflected portion of the incident solar energy).
This points out the mistake in dividing the flux, and expecting to then calculate meaningful temperatures. For Earth, 210K is even worse than 288K.
Look at the improvement when the actual surface incoming flux (960 W/m^2) is used:
T= [(0.47)*960/σ]^0.25 = 299K
The reason, of course, is the factor (0.47) is close to the “divide-by-2” factor (0.5):
T = (960/2σ)^0.25 = 303K
“For Earth, 210K is even worse than 288K.”
That should be:
“For Earth, 210K is even worse than 255K.”
Yes!… and…Yes!
Thank you,
Christos
Clint R
The only point on Earth likely to receive 960W/m^2 is the subsolar point. That is the point on Earth’s surface where the Sun is directly overhead.
Due to the Earth’s rotation the subsolar point moves Westward at 1041mph. Any location in the tropics will at best only receive the full 960W/m^2 for two minutes twice a year while the Sun is directly overhead.
???
Ent, you’ve really stepped in it this time.
Consult data collected by folks selling solar panels. The information is out there, from numerous reliable sources.
Of course your cult does not supply such data, so you haven’t seen it.
> does not supply such data
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-664351
I would side with Clint R on this point. Many locations receive considerably more than 960 W/m^2 solar flux for a few hours.
Here is one measured value.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6081f6d3f0b1a.png
You are right.
My back-of-the envelope calculation assumed an albedo of 0.3, hence the 960W/m^2.
For Desert Rock the albedo is less than 0.2.
“Specular reflection from sphere never gets onto the sensors plate.”
The ocean provides myriad tiny reflecting surfaces bouncing off at the same angle from ‘normal’ as the incoming solar radiation. Why would not some portion of that reflected sunlight be captured by satellite sensors, and, like other sources of upwelling radiation, be averaged out over many satellite sweeps to get a reasonable estimate globally? Perfect specular reflection is at the same frequency as direct sunlight, which is certainly detectable by satellite sensors. Even imperfect specular reflection, such as in the Earth system, maintains a very similar frequency to source.
barry,
> Even imperfect specular reflection, such as in the Earth system, maintains a very similar frequency to source.
Yes, you are right, but it is not measured, and it is not taken in consideration in planet albedo estimation.
a = 0.3
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
19940020024.pdf (nasa.gov)
On Identifying the Specular Reflection of Sunlight in Earth-Monitoring Satellite Data
“Among the background signals commonly seen by Earth-monitoring satellites is the specular reflection of sunlight off of Earths surface, commonly referred to as a glint…”
Jackson et al (2009)
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71326774.pdf
‘CERES omits specular reflection’
Christos, Simply declaring falsehoods like this will win you no converts.
“In crosstrack mode, CERES scans from limb-to-limb perpendicular to the groundtrack. This mode provides global coverage daily.
>In crosstrack mode, CERES scans from limb-to-limb perpendicular to the groundtrack. This mode provides global coverage daily.
It is limb-to-limb perpendicular to the groundtrack…
Perpendicular…
The specular reflection doesn’t reach the sensor’s plate to be measured…
If we look in a common mirror, we see the diffuse reflection of sun’s light. When we adjust mirror to see the sun’s specular reflection – it is blinding!
This is a rather obvious problem when CERES orbits over the polar regions when the solar zenith angle is high because the reflected sunlight tends to follow that same angle, producing a Fresnel image commonly called Sun Glint. The same situation also applies to lower latitude areas during the hour or so after sunrise and the hour before sunset, but the CERES orbit with a fixed LECT can’t cover the Earth’s limbs.
Yes
Are there not other satellites that cover the poles better?
barry
What I’m really wondering about is the strange covering difference in UAH’s data between the revisions 5.6 and 6.0.
When you look at UAH’s grid for revision 6.0, you see in all grid files, e.g. in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2017_6.0
that the three northernmost/southernmost latitude bands do not contain any valuable data: both begin and end of each month’s 72×144 grid consist of 27 lines of 16 (i.e. 432 or 3 x 144) cells with ‘-9999’ (undefined) as value.
But when you move to the good old UAH5.6 revision corner, you see that the monthly grids are full, from -90 till +90 degree:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltmonamg.2017_5.6
No idea what this is due to. Sure Mr Spencer will know…
*
Btw: UAH’s grid data format (16×5 = 80 bytes) reminds me those times as we used IBM card punchers/readers at the university… that’s was a little while ago, 1970.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, The difference in coverage would appear to be due to the differences in the processing of the swarth data. Up to the version 5.6 analysis, they mixed the data from each cross track swath before binning the resulting data value into the 2.5×2.5 degree grid cells. The highest latitude for the satellite ground tracks are about +/- 81 degrees, thus the 80 to 82.5 cells are the most poleward actual data points. Christy and Spencer used to interpolate across the poles to fill in the grid points toward the poles. Note that RSS has excluded data from 70S to the South Pole because of the high elevations in the area, which distort the measurements.
With the latest Version 6 approach, they create a stacked grid with one layer for each scan position corresponding to it’s offset from nadir, with the first layer being nadir, AIUI. Then, they go back and combine those layers along the vertical direction above each of the lowest grid location, fitting a curve to the stack, then calculating a single value based on a predetermined angular offset for each of those curves, placing this value into the final 2.5×2.5 grid. This would appear to present a problem for grid cells poleward of the 80-82.5 set, since there are no longer any data points for the first level. One consequence of this processing is that the dates for the measurements in the vertical mix are never the same, which might be OK if one is looking at just overall zonal trends, but I think that the gridded data is suspect.
To add to the confusion, they treat the data from the MSU and AMSU instruments differently, first using a 1.0×1.0 stacked grid layout for the MSU and “smearing” the individual scan position data into 3 adjacent grid boxes. After building the stack of grid boxes, they somehow convert them into the previously described 2.5×2.5 grid stack. The AMSU data is apparently binned directly into the appropriate locations of the stacked grids.
If you find this rather confusing, so do I.
AOC has figured out the cause of climate change. It is due to racial injustice. We can all go home now.
Is this meant to be a joke?
Sure, barry
Written by a thoroughly krank guy who urged to say that Augusto Pinochet was a ‘Leftist’.
J.-P. D.
stephen…”AOC has figured out the cause of climate change. It is due to racial injustice. We can all go home now”.
These rocket scientists have also concluded that kids using knives in fights is normal for teens, therefore police should not interfere. The other day, a woman who happens to be black was in the process of stabbing another woman when the police shot her. Now the police are getting the blame.
We are dealing with politically-correct freaks who cannot think clearly but want everyone to think like them. AOC needs to spend time under psychiatric observation.
Happy Earth Day Beaches
Exxon eyes Houston for $100B carbon capture hub
“We believe the time is right for a large-scale collaboration in the United States between government at every level, private industry, academia and local communities to create an “Innovation Zone” approach to dramatically accelerate Carbon Capture and Storage progress,” Joe Blommaert, president of Exxon’s new low-carbon business, said in a blog post Monday evening. “And we think Houston is the perfect place for such a concept.”
Exxon on Monday said it has been studying the concept of creating carbon capture and storage hubs around the country to help the U.S. reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. After a three-year study, the company landed in Houston because of its large concentration of carbon-emitting industries, and its location near the Gulf of Mexico that could store large amounts of carbon dioxide safely and permanently.
Old oil and gas formations in the Gulf of Mexico have long been viewed as having the potential to store large quantities of carbon dioxide. Early projections show 50 million tons of carbon dioxide per year could be stored beneath the Gulf of Mexico by 2030, more than all the carbon capture and storage projects operating globally. Exxon said that figure could double by 2040.
Exxon’s proposal calls for the company along with many private and public partners to build a carbon capture facility to collect emissions from refineries, petrochemical plants and other industrial facilities along the Houston Ship Channel.
The Energy Department estimates the U.S. Gulf Coast has enough storage capacity to hold 500 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, more than 130 years of the country’s total industry and power generation emissions based on 2018 data.
TYSON MCGUFFIN
” … and not distributed externally. ”
Thanks for reminding us…
I had seen that splendid sheet of paper somewhere years ago, but… I forgot to bookmark it. My very bad.
J.-P. D.
Christos Vournas
It’s not the first time I see you walking here along on Roy Spencer’s blog with your strange ideas:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/comments-by-ross-mckitrick-on-the-continuation-of-climate-model-failure/#comment-405558
And here, you even felt the urgent need to waste Judith Curry’s blog with your thoroughly unproven stuff:
https://judithcurry.com/2020/04/03/week-in-review-climate-science-edition/
*
When will you, Mr Vournas, be finally courageous enough to present your ‘genial’ results to a really qualified community (even if not peer-reviewed, that really doesn’t matter here) ?
Your incredibly superficial thoughts might then, within such a community, be checked by e.g. two French scientists, Jean-Louis Dufresne and Jacques Treiner, who wrote this paper in 2011:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit
Unfortunately, it has been written in French, the PDF file is hard to copy & paste, but a simplified resumee exists in pasteable HTML form however, so you can easily translate it using Google’s tool:
https://www.centrale-energie.fr/spip/spip.php?article151
When you will have digested that stuff, Mr Vournas, you will be also able to understand, and to accept, that your knowledge and experience both are incredibly insignificant, compared with that of such people.
***
By the way: please let me inform you about a little detail you might have overlooked.
Namely, that nearly all people agreeing, on this blog, to your superficial ‘No GHE’ stuff also are exactly those who are, by using similarly trivial examples (ball-on-a-string, merry-go-round, coins etc), ‘convinced’ that the Moon can’t rotate about an interior axis (because it always shows the same face to us, hmmmh) ?
Do you, Mr Vournas, agree in turn with this Moon nonsense, propagated (at least) by the commenters
– Gordon Robertson
– Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
– Clint R
– Swenson
– bill hunter ?
Do you, Mr Vournas, also think that historical scientists like e.g.
– Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace
and many others, were all wrong?
And that contemporary scientists like e.g.
– Habibullin, Eckhardt, Chapront, Calame, Migus, Moons
and many others, who did also compute Moon’s interior rotation axis and period, were all wrong too?
J.-P. D.
Bindidion, thanks for the mention, as brief as it was. You correctly put me in with a good group.
However, Cassini does not belong in a grouping with Newton. Newton was a scientist….
> Newton was a scientist.
See for yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies
wollard…”See for yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies”
You have serious problems, Willard.
You don’t seem to realize that Clint dismisses Cassini’s work because he was an astrologer, Gordon.
Don’t worry. I’ll put it on your open tab.
Clint R 12:14 PM
Let’s go to the tape shall we…
Clint R says: …hollow out both hemispheres of the moon. Fill one hemisphere with hammers, and the other hemisphere with feathers…
TM, I could have guessed you don’t understand “density”.
So thanks for making me right again.
What is this? A competition to see who can waste more of other peoples’ time?
Mindless linking is generally the province of the lazy and incompetent.
Good morning, Mike.
I too would prefer if we stuck with sentences such as “The earth conserves in the interior of its mass a part of the original heat, which it contained when the planets were formed.”
That’s when we recognize a connaisseur!
Wee Willy,
Absolutely true. As I keep saying.
Are you trying to practice the Zen art of expressing disagreement by agreeing?
You’re a strange laddie, Wee Willy. Maybe you could quote something I said, and show why you think I’m wrong?
Only joking. You can’t! That’s why you resort to the nonsense you write.
Have fun.
> Are you trying to practice the Zen art of expressing disagreement by agreeing?
That depends, Mike. Sometimes it’s called Agree and Amplify.
In this case, it helps me recall another note from our Stoatness:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html#n5
Wriggling Wee Willy,
You agreed, but I see no amplification whatever.
You may recall anything you like, from any cryptic and mysterious source you like.
You are still an idiot.
Have fun.
> I see no amplification
I agree, Mike.
You don’t see much.
See?
Willard, please stop trolling.
> and many others, who did also compute Moon’s interior rotation axis and period, were all wrong too?
J.-P. D.
Thank you,
Christos
christos…”> and many others, who did also compute Moon’s interior rotation axis and period, were all wrong too?”
Yes, all of them, including NASA. I have been in touch with NASA and they justified their position by claiming they were measuring Moon rotation from a perspective of the stars. When I pointed out the obvious, that a body NOT rotating from one perspective cannot rotate from any perspective, they did not reply.
Look at the problem more closely, Christos, without the math. Assume a circular orbit and draw an imaginary radial line from the centre of the Earth right through the centre of the Moon. Hopefully you agree that the near side of the Moon must always face the Earth. So, draw a line perpendicular to the near side where it is intercepted by the radial line. That line is now the tangent line at that point to a circle traced by the near side.
Do the same for the far side. You now have a tangent line representing an outer concentric circle representing the far side. Do the same for the centre of the Moon and you get a concentric circle between the near side circle and the far side circle. If you do the same for each point along the radial line within the Moon you get an infinite series of concentric circles.
That means all points on the Moon are turning in concentric circles ABOUT THE EARTH and under those conditions it is impossible for it to turn about its own axis.
Tesla proved it using a more elegant argument.
What you are seeing with the Moon is a rigid body with only linear momentum. Without Earth’s gravitational field the Moon would move off in a straight line. However, the gravity field nudges that linear momentum gradually into a resultant orbital path.
The Moon is translating without rotation and translation explains why the Moon points in different directions as it orbits while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth. Local rotation could not allow the near side to always face the Earth. By the half orbit point, the near side would have to be pointing away from the Earth with local rotation.
Thank you Gordon. I understand now that “Moon is translating without rotation”.
Instead of Moon’s rotational spin, or any other moon’s in solar system, since all of them are tidally locked to their parent planets, instead of rotation on its axis, we should refer to the Moon’s diurnal cycle period.
It is clear now, why Moon has not a magnetic field…
“The Moon does not currently have a global dipolar magnetic field and only has crustal magnetization likely acquired early in its history when a dynamo was still operating.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Magnetic_field
Christos Vournas
I don’t wonder about your reverence to Robertson’s mix of ignorance and pseudoknowledge concerning the Moon.
*
Maybe you try to obtain some more valuable info about Moon’s spin,
e.g. from
Lagrange: Théorie de la libration de la Lune
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vXxroMHi8H_GBI9925-ZUe437wZLMQeN/view
(a translation of Lagrange’s introduction to his work explaining that Moon’s longitudinal libration is mainly due to Moon’s spin motion)
*
or from
a review of Tobias Mayer’s treatise about Moon’s spin (1750), by Steven Adriaan Wepster:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
Look there in section 9.5.1 “Locating the rotational axis”, pages 173-175.
*
or from
a review of all the work done about the Moon at Kazan’s Observatory (Russia)
selena.sai.msu.ru/Symposium/kazan.pdf
*
or from
a description of the influence of Moon’s spin on Apollo Moon landing windows
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/nasa_tn_d_2795.pdf
*
Feel free to compare all that with Tesla’s quickshot about the Moon, or with coins, merry-go-round, ball-on-a-string, etc etc.
*
Moreover, Moon’s magnetism disappearance has little to do with the supposed lack of its spin.
Wiki is a good source, but
https://tinyurl.com/43pf36df
might this time go a bit more deep into the stuff.
*
Btw: on page 168 of his Moon spin treatise, Mayer gave the result for his computation of Moon’s spin period:
27 d 7 h 45 ‘ 11 ” 49 ”’
Feel free to compare this with the current value, obtained through processing of Lunar Laser Ranging data in France and in the US.
*
Are you really willing to deny all that, Mr Vournas?
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, are you still trying to pervert reality?
The correct model for a body orbiting, but not rotating about its axis, is a ball-on-a-string. The same side always faces the inside of the orbit.
If you have a different model for a body orbiting, but not rotating about its axis, that does not violate the laws of physics, please present it.
Otherwise, you’re a pompous idiot.
Bindidon
I know
Mayer gave the result for his computation of Moon’s spin period:
27 d 7 h 45 ‘ 11 ” 49 ”’
It is the spin period relative to stars, and
29,5 days
Is the spin period relative to the sun…
Celebrating Earth Day with David Attenborough
https://youtu.be/tm4AM5VDii4
The very slow Spring-time surface warming
The very slow Spring-time surface warming phenomenon confirms our thesis about the instant IR emission almost of the entire “absorbed” (not reflected) portion of the incident solar flux’s energy. We have already explained why we put the word “absorbed” in brackets. We do it because the incident solar radiative energy, when interacting with the surface, does not get absorbed….
The radiative interaction with the surface is not similar to the blackbody Type 1 emission concept. The blackbody Type 1 emission concept has to do with a blackbody already being warm and emitting from a warm surface, the surface energy is constantly supplied from inner source, or from the previously accumulated amounts of energy…
For blackbody Type 2 the incident solar flux doesn’t have to warm the surface first in order to emit after,,, The emission happens simultaneously on the instant, the same instant the reflection (specular and diffuse) occurs.
When interacting with the surface the incident solar flux is almost entirely gets pushed out, except for a very small portion, which is what accounts for a very slow by the surface heat accumulation during the Spring-time periods.
And it is very well known and observed fact, that at the time of summer solar Solstices (in mid of June) the conditions are not so much hot as in July, and July plus the first week of August are considered the warmest period of the year. In mid June the sun climbs at its highest position on the midday sky, on mid June the day is the longest, but, nevertheless, the temperatures are not the highest.
The surface has yet to warm more, because the small amount of energy which is provided for surface’s heating continues to get accumulated and doesn’t have reached its maximum in mid June.
There is still a lot more energy to be accumulated to reach the maximum summer temperatures… and it is a well known fact and a well known observation. This phenomenon occurs because the portion of the incident solar flux’s energy to be accumulated is very small, compared to to Solar flux’s intensity and solar flux’s long summer day implementations.
And, during the incident solar flux the transformed into the accumulated heat solar energy, should account not only on the IR emitted portion, but on the entire incident solar flux’s energy – reflected SW (specular and diffuse) IR emitted and a very small portion transformed into heat and accumulated in the surfaces inner layers. (It is a suggestion – but the radiative energy flux cannot get engaged in an interaction by simply being totally reflected from the matter, and without leaving a least energetic “footprint”. It is a materialistic suggestion – there is not a perfect, there is not “a non energy consuming” reflection process in NATURE, because there are not perfect processes…)
So, the developed on the surface’s every infinitesimal “i” spot temperature Te.i does not account as the Te.i inducing a necessary temperature gradient between the solar flux and the receiving energy surface. The incident solar flux’s-surface interaction cannot be considered as an analogous to a hot surface being put in contact with the colder one… The solar flux will only add some small amount of energy to a hotter surfaces, like the hot iron rod, which when solar irradiated becomes even hotter.
The incident solar flux’s-surface interaction cannot be considered as an analogous of a hot surface being put in contact with the colder one… The solar flux will add some energy to a hotter surfaces, like hot iron rod, which when solar irradiated becomes even hotter.
The analogue we can find in the thermal behavior of an electric resistance heated element. The element will continue to release energy, no matter how hot the environment is.
The released energy is proportional to the electrical current going thru the resistance and does not depend on the surrounding environment’s temperature.
So, we can consider the small portion of the incident solar flux’s energy as the surface’s “resistance” to the energy hitting, or the energy transformation loss.
christos…”The analogue we can find in the thermal behavior of an electric resistance heated element. The element will continue to release energy, no matter how hot the environment is.
The released energy is proportional to the electrical current going thru the resistance and does not depend on the surrounding environments temperature”.
***
I understand what you are getting at but your analogy is not exactly true. Resistors are rated by their ability to dissipate heat and if the environment becomes to hot, they cannot dissipate the heat and they will burn up if the current produces a power dissipation the resistor cannot maintain.
If the current through the resistor produces x watts, the resistor must be able to dissipate that x watts. It does so by radiating it to space or by heat transfer to wherever it is mounted. If you keep raising the external temperature to the point where the environmental air exceeds the temperature of the resistor, the resistor must absorb heat. The 2nd law says so.
It is important in electronics/electrical design to build in a comfortable fudge factor so no device comes close to it heat dissipating capacity. That’s why heat sinks are used in more extreme cases, and in some cases, environmental temperature control.
This is more applicable to transistors, or semiconductors. They are also rated at a certain power dissipation. They depend on a cooler environment to dissipate the heat and if the environmental temperature exceeds their ability to dissipate heat adequately, they heat up and self-destruct (thermal runaway).
I’ve had this argument before with alarmists on this site who think heat can be transferred from a colder mass to a warmer mass. One of the guys, Swannie (aka Swanson), built an evacuated chamber in which he had installed a plate (think it was metal). I think it was heated by solar energy. He measured the steady-state temperature of the plate and noted it.
He also rigged another plate, which he could raise in front of the existing plate, and noted that the temperature of the existing plate rose when the raised plate was in place. He concluded that was evidence that heat transferred from the colder raised plate could raise the temperature of a hotter plate, thus overturning the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I have tried to point out to Swannie what you are currently talking about. When a heat source has a certain temperature it is not the natural temperature of the source since it has been dissipating heat to the environment. When Swannie raised the plate in front of the existing plate, since both were in a vacuum, the raised plate was blocking radiation from the existing plate hence preventing it dissipating as much heat as before. Therefore the temperature of that plate rose due to a reduced heat dissipation, and not due to a heat transfer from a colder object.
What we have here is a plate in an evacuated chamber. Also we know the plate is heated to maintain a constant temperature. The plate is in a thermal equilibrium with chamber’s walls.
The plate’s radiative energy budget is balanced
energy in = energy out
energy in [from heating + from walls (the backward IR reflection and emission)]
energy out (IR emission from plate towards walls)
In my point of view it is a Type 1 surface blackbody emission concept plus Type 2 surface blackbody emission concept.
Sun also has an infinitive source of energy and sun’s “surface” in equilibrium temperature Te.
Sun emits out to the vast space… The fraction of IR emission from solar system planets towards sun… and the received light from the stars are very insignificant to be taken in consideration in sun’s energy budget.
In the Swanson’s experiment the chamber’s walls also exchange radiative energy with the environment.
When another plate was raised in front of the first plate, Swanson observed a rise in the first plate’s temperature.
A new radiative equilibrium was established.
The heated plate continued to receive from its external source of energy the same amount of heat.
The chamber’s walls continued that amount of heat to dissipate to the environment.
When risen, the second plate had some temperature (which was higher or smaller than that of the first plate)
The new radiative equilibrium determines the second plate’s temperature.
Also it is the new radiative equilibrium which determines the first plate’s temperature.
Now, the first plate is warmer, because it is the one which receives a constant flow external heat (and also a radiative interaction with the walls of chamber).
So, the first plate is an analogue of sun.
Second plate is colder than first. Second plate’s energy income is from the first plate’s stronger radiative flux and the interaction with the walls of chamber.
Since it is in equilibrium, second plate instantly reflects and emits some of its outgoing IR energy towards the first plate. The rest is energy reflected and emitted towards the walls.
The first plate’s temperature gets now higher.
Should we consider the second plate’s reflection and emission towards first plate as a supplement source of energy?
Does the once emitted from first plate energy considered as a gone forever?
Does the received from the second plate energy considered as the returned energy, since the external source of heating the first plate is known?
Notice:
There is always walls constant equilibrium interaction with the surrounding chamber environment. The environment surrounding chamber has an infinitive volume of energy…
I think, it is much simpler with the sun’s radiative energy interacting with the planet surfaces.
1). There are not walls.
2). There is not a surrounding walls environment.
3). The planet’s back-to-sun radiative energy can be neglected.
4). The very large distance from the sun, compared to the planet size, allows the assumption of the sun’s flux having parallel beams.
5). Planets have an established balance between the incoming from sun and the outgoing to space energy. It is a simple task to estimate, now, that we know about the smooth planets’ without atmosphere very strong specular reflected portion of the incident solar flux.
What complicates in the sun-planets case?
Planets rotate (having diurnal cycle).
So, planets do not establish a permanent surface equilibrium temperature interaction with the sun.
And planets do not have uniform surface temperature.
It is a totally wrong what the greenhouse warming theory preaches about.
Planets do not reflect and emit on average, as it is pictured on the Earth’s Energy Budget illustrations.
First they show a cycle (Earth) receiving solar parallel beams irradiance from one side 1362 W/m^2 * 0,7 = 952 W/m^2.
And, second, they show a cycle (Earth) getting rid of that received solar radiative energy (supposedly SW reflected and IR emitted) by getting it out from the entire cycle’s circumference at the the same averaged rate 240 W/m^2 !!!
Small correction.
“The plate is in a thermal equilibrium with chambers walls.”
No.
Thermal equilibrium means equal temperature and no hest flows.
Thank you,
Christos
To follow up on what Nate said …
When people say “equilibrium” what they often truly mean is “steady-state”. As long as everyone is on the same page and understands the intended meaning, this is not a problem. But when we need to be precise, then accurately stating “steadystate” vs “quilibrium” is important.
I agree Tim. In fact the dynamics of many systems prevent any kind of steady state and equilibrium just means a potential steady state that the system fluctuates around.
willard…”That which penetrates in equatorial regi[o]ns is exactly compensated by the heat which flows out through the polar regions”.
If this is a quote from Fourier, you have to forgive him. In those days they thought heat flowed through space as heat rays. We now know that heat does not flow through space like EM and the only way to transport it is via convection, or someone picking up a heat source and moving it. Of course, it will move freely through a conductor.
Heat is a property of atoms, it is the kinetic energy of atoms. Temperature was invented to measure the relative level of that kinetic energy, which is heat.
It’s not heat penetrating the equatorial regions it is electromagnetic energy. EM is not heat. Therefore, heat can hang around a lot longer in molecules like N2 and O2, which make up 99% of the atmosphere.
As heat in a gas, measured by temperature, the heat can be dissipated by changing the pressure, volume, or the number of molecules per unit volume, as per the Ideal Gas Law. Presuming that volume is constant, the number of atoms per unit volume can change by expansion as a parcel of gas rises to higher altitudes. That lowers the pressure of the parcel therefore its temperature drops automatically.
Ergo, there are other means of dissipating heat without radiation to space. The fact that ‘heat in’ (based on conversion of EM to heat in atoms/molecules) does not equal heat out (as measured by conversion of heat to IR) explains the so-called greenhouse effect.
The planet is warmer because heat in does not equal heat out. We don’t need that nonsense about greenhouse effects and anthropogenic warming.
Fourier was a cool dude but unfortunately he did not have all the tools and understanding we have today. He did remarkably well considering what he had at his disposal. He is better known for his Fourier series.
> If this is a quote from Fourier, you have to forgive him.
Of course I forgive Joseph, Gordon. And you’re right that he was a cool dude. More impressive administrator which earned him his honorific title!
I even forgive Mike and Joe for trying to use him as some kind of contrarian guru!
Should I forgive Roy for trying to suggest that AGW is 50% of what models predict:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-670959
Of course I do!
There’s no reason to expect Roy to act otherwise.
Should I forget too?
Wily Woeful We Willy,
Who cares who you forgive? Nobody? That sounds about right!
Should you forget? That’s up to you. Don’t you know what you want to do?
I feel sorry for you – because you are an idiot!
> I feel sorry
I doubt you can, Mike.
Enjoy your afternoon nevertheless.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard…”I even forgive Mike and Joe for trying to use him as some kind of contrarian guru!”
The problem lies with alarmists who quote Fourier out of context. He said nothing about catastrophic impacts of GHGs in the atmosphere, he was only commenting on the known science at the time. I have no problems with the comments of Fourier, it is the distorted meaning given to them by alarmists that is my problem.
> The problem lies with alarmists
https://climateball.net/but-ism-word/
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
Gordon,
It’s like I pull a string on a child’s toy, and off you go. Cluck cluck cluck. Moo moo moo.
Go back to sleep, GR, the world has passed you by.
plastic…”ts like I pull a string on a childs toy, and off you go”.
I see it differently. I see it as an opportunity you have given me to set the record straight so an independent reader can see what a goof you are.
Lanka and Duesberg are honourable scientists who have contributed much to science in their own manner. Your ad homs against them are based on nothing more than an appeal to an incorrect authority.
Lanka’s evidence about a lack of scientific proof to support the HIV and the measles virus was accepted by German courts. Duesberg was proved right by Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, who now claims HIV dos not cause AIDS and is harmless to a healthy immune system.
The scary part is that covid theory is based on the theories of Montagnier re HIV. He admits he did not physically isolate a virus and that he developed a new method to INFER a virus. That’s right, covid, like HIV, is an inferred virus. Furthermore, the PCR test for covid was invented for HIV, in part by Fauci, because no one could isolate the virus physically.
The same PCR test is now used to infer covid. You should be concerned about that rather than engaging in meaningless repartee but I gather you are too stupid to understand what I’m trying to tell you.
If the tests are wrong, and they are detecting something other than a virus, which is highly likely, it explains why we are still locked down nearly a year and a half after the inferred virus was declared. And we’ll be locked down 50 years from now unless someone with a smidgen of sense has the guts to see through this farce.
Let’s not talk about the vaccines, aimed at an inferred virus. No one has any idea what the long term effects of these vaccines could pose to the human cells never mind the genome.
Cluck, cluck, cluck, Robertson.
You delusional, misinformed wonder.
plastic…”You delusional, misinformed wonder”.
Still awaiting your scientific proof. Your nym is appropriate…plastic.
__n__n__n__n__n__
It is a test. I am trying to drew the planet diurnal cycle’s graph.
__n_n_n_n_n__
Well, it is a poor result, but it permits to the following important thesis.
Planet emits the “absorbed” (not reflected) portion of the incident solar flux on the very instant.
“n” represents the day-hours planet surface temperatures curve.
“_” represents the night-hours planet surface temperatures.
Night-hours temperatures’ graph is linear (almost) and has a very low emission capacity.
So, conclusively, everything – the entire interaction happens during the day-time hours.
So = 1362 W/m^2
When considered the Albedo = 0,7
the So*0,7 = 952 W / m^2
Since the whole interaction happens during the day-hours in order to approximate the “absorbed” = emitted energy
we shall divide by 2
952 W / m^2 : 2 = 476 W / m^2
Te = ( 476 W / m^2 / σ ) ^ 0,25 = 303 K
It is an approximate calculation of the Earth.s WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE the day-hours uniform day-time Hemisphere radiative effective temperature.
For the rest, the night hours dark Hemisphere there is not incident radiative energy left in this model.
If we decide to approximately calculate Earth.s entire globe surface average (mean) temperature we do not have the night-hours temperatures available to do that.
So, the only thing available, we can “borrow” the close by Moon.s measured night-hours temperatures which are
max = 125 K
min = 93 K
Average moon night T = (125 + 93)/ 2 = 109 K
Now, let’s calculate the approximate Earth.s mean surface temperature
Tmean = ( Tday-time + Tnight-time ) / 2
Tmean = ( 303 + 109 ) / 2 = 206 K
Not good enough !
Above I made an effort to calculate
“the approximate Earth.s mean surface temperature
Tmean = ( Tday-time + Tnight-time ) / 2
Tmean = ( 303 + 109 ) / 2 = 206 K
Not good enough ! ”
For Earth the mean surface temperature number Tmean = 206 K is not good.
But actually, what we have above calculated is the Earth.s effective temperature
Te = 206 K
(it is very close to the planet corrected effective temperatures calculation, with the use of the ( Φ = 0,47 ) for the smooth surface without atmosphere planets…
The calculations I have already posted here, but for reader’s convenience reasons copy-paste it again as follows below).
Specular reflection from a parallel solar rays hitting planet spherical surface cannot be “seen” by spacecraft’s SW radiation measuring sensor.
Specular reflection from sphere never gets onto the sensor’s plate.
Therefore planet specular reflection is not taken into account not only for Earth, but also for other smooth surface planets without atmosphere (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede).
Why it is a problem?
It is a problem, because by omitting the planet specular reflected portion of the incident on the planet surface solar flux the planet effective temperature (equilibrium temperature) Te is calculated wrongly.
To calculate planet’s Te we should know the exact “absorbed” (not reflected) portion of the incident on the planet solar energy flux.
Te – planet effective temperature:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ] ¹∕ ⁴
Te.correct – the planet corrected effective temperature:
Te.correct = [ Φ (1 – a) S /4σ ] ¹∕ ⁴
Φ – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (it is the planet surface spherical shape, and planet surface roughness coefficient)
Φ = 0,47 – for smooth surface planets without atmosphere
Φ = 1 – for heavy cratered without atmosphere planets
Φ = 1 – for gases planets
In the Table we have the planet effective Te and the planet corrected Te.correct (which are calculated with the Te.correct equation) comparison.
Planet…..Te…..Te.correct
Mercury…439,6 K….364 K
Earth……255 K…..210 K
Moon……270,4 Κ….224 K
Mars……209,91 K…174 K
When comparing the Te and Te.correct it becomes obvious how important is the planet surface specular reflection portion for the correct calculation of the planet theoretical equilibrium temperatures.
To have calculated the planet equilibrium temperature we should have correctly estimated the planet radiative budget:
Energy in = energy out
Φ(1 – a)S πr² (W) is the correctly estimated planet’s energy in (the “absorbed” not reflected portion of the incident solar energy).
christos…”Above I made an effort to calculate
the approximate Earth.s mean surface temperature”
Thanks for your explanations. I gather you are basing your calculations on radiation only, as in a black body. Lindzen proposed that the Earth’s surface temperature without convection would be above 70C.
Gordon… Yes, I am basing my calculations on radiation only, as in a black body.
I do not agree with … Lindzen proposed that the Earth’s surface temperature without convection would be above 70C.
210 K is Earth.s surface theoretical uniform temperature, the so-called effective temperature Te.
It is used to be calculated as Te = [ (1 – a) So /4σ ]^0,25
Te = 255 K
It is not correct, because it does not take in consideration the specular reflection from the planet.
The Earth.s corrected theoretical uniform temperature, the Te.correct
Should be calculated as Te.correct = [ Φ (1 – a) So /4σ ]^0,25
where Φ = 0,47 (For smooth surface planets without atmosphere. Those planets are Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europa and Ganymede, the last two are moons of Jupiter.)
This corrected calculation obtains Earth.s effective temperature
Te.correct = 210 K
Now, in the new approach the Earth.s average surface (for theoretical purposes only) the average surface incident solar flux is calculated as
112 W /m^2
and not the wrongly estimated
240 W /m^2
It is a very big difference. And this difference occurs because of the not considering the planet very strong specular reflection.
Earth radiative behavior is of planet without atmosphere, because Earth atmosphere is very thin.
Earth high Albedo a = 0,306 accounts for the clouds in atmosphere, and that it is. For the rest, atmosphere has a very insignificant greenhouse effect, not worth mentioning.
And not the +33 oC.
We should not compare the
Te.correct = 210 K
with the planet surface average temperature
Tmean = 288 K
because the Tmean = 288 K is calculated based on the
Te.correct = 210 K
plus the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING phenomenon.
Thank you for your patience.
Christos
christos…”I do not agree with … Lindzen proposed that the Earth’s surface temperature without convection would be above 70C”.
***
Forgive me, I am not trying to insult you. However, Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist who taught at MIT. He has published over 300 papers on the atmosphere at a high level. Unlike dishonest climate alarmists, he does not rely on biased peer review to publish papers. In fact, he has to fight the bias, like Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH.
Unlike alarmist climates types, he does not rely on garbage from climate models nor does he theorize using only math.
My problem with calculations based purely on math, and based on blackbody theory, is that Kircheoff applied blackbody theory in thermal equilibrium only. Speculation about BB theory involving bodies of different temperatures are highly theoretical. As long as they respect the 2nd law they hold no interest for me.
If you are going to present mathematical arguments, I feel it is necessary to supply physical proof. I don’t trust mathematics on its own, it is only a tool in physics and can be highly misleading in the wrong hands.
Where is proof of the BB models? The Sun is about as close as we can come to a blackbody yet it it argued that BBs absorb EM as well as they radiate it. Therefore, the Sun should be absorbing EM and converting it to heat as well as it radiates EM. I find that concept to be highly unlikely.
Climate alarmists are using BB theory as an argument to circumvent the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In doing that they are regarding EM as a form of heat, which it is not. Heat has little to do with EM as a form of energy.
I had an email exchange once with physicist Stefan Rahmstorf. He claimed that back-radiation from GHGs could be added to solar energy to increase solar energy input. Alarmists claim the same based on a bad application of Stefan-Boltzmann and a misunderstanding of BB theory.
Conduction of heat directly to atmospheric gases, in which 99% of the gases are N2 and O2 are obviously are a more important factor for heating the atmosphere than surface radiation. According to R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, surface radiation loses its effect after only a few metres due to the inverse square relationship of radiation.
Lindzen places more emphasis on convection of heat from the tropics pole-ward to explain so-called greenhouse warming. Obviously that convection involves mainly O2 and N2. And, the heat obviously gets into the O2/N2 via conduction from warm Tropical oceans and land surfaces.
Test
Φ = 0,47
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ] ∕ ⁴
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Above I made an effort to calculate
the approximate Earth.s mean surface temperature
Tmean = ( Tday-time + Tnight-time ) / 2
Tmean = ( 303 + 109 ) / 2 = 206 K
Not good enough !
For Earth the mean surface temperature number Tmean = 206 K is not good.
But actually, what we have above calculated is the Earth.s effective temperature
Te = 206 K
(it is very close to the planet corrected effective temperatures calculation, with the use of the ( Φ = 0,47 ) for the smooth surface without atmosphere planets
The calculations I have already posted here, but for readers convenience reasons copy-paste it again as follows below).
Specular reflection from a parallel solar rays hitting planet spherical surface cannot be seen by satellite.s SW radiation measuring sensor.
Specular reflection from sphere never gets onto the sensor.s plate.
Therefore planet specular reflection is not taken into account not only for Earth, but also for other smooth surface planets without atmosphere (Mercury, Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede).
Why it is a problem?
It is a problem, because by omitting the planet specular reflected portion of the incident on the planet surface solar flux the planet effective temperature (equilibrium temperature) Te is calculated wrongly.
To calculate planet.s Te we should know the exact absor.bed (not reflected) portion of the incident on the planet solar energy flux.
Te planet effective temperature:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ] ∕ ⁴
Te.correct the planet corrected effective temperature:
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ] ∕ ⁴
Φ is the solar irradiation accepting factor (it is the planet surface spherical shape, and planet surface roughness coefficient)
Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets without atmosphere
Φ = 1 for heavy cratered without atmosphere planets
Φ = 1 for gases planets
In the Table we have the planet effective Te and the planet corrected Te.correct (which are calculated with the Te.correct equation) comparison.
Planet..Te….Te.correct
Mercury.439,6 K.364 K
Earth.255 K..210 K
Moon.270,4 K.224 K
Mars.209,91 K174 K
When comparing the Te and Te.correct it becomes obvious how important is the planet surface specular reflection portion for the correct calculation of the planet theoretical equilibrium temperatures.
To have calculated the planet equilibrium temperature we should have correctly estimated the planet radiative budget:
Energy in = energy out
Φ (1-a) S (W)
is the correctly estimated planet energy in (the absor.bed not reflected portion of the incident solar energy).
I hope it is better now …
> Not good enough !
Zero-dimension models have limited accuracy.
“But actually, what we have above calculated is the Earth.s effective temperature
Te = 206 K”
No. The “effective temperature” is defined as the temperature of a black body that emits the same total radiation. This is NOT the same as the average temperature, which is what you have here.
What you really need is to average the power emitted, which is proportional to T^4.
[ (303^4 + 109^4) / 2]^0.25 = 255 K.
You actually DO have exactly the correct “effective temperature” using those two temperatures.
TF, did you learn your math from the same cult you learned your physics?
Average 1 and 2, the TF way:
[(1^4 + 2^4)/2]^0.25 = 1.71
Average 1 and 2 the correct way:
1.5
Cults are dangerous.
Clint, Clint, Clint.
I am not finding an “average temperature” here. I am finding the “effective blackbody temperature”. Two different things.
It turns out the the effective temperature requires averaging the outgoing power. It is pretty straight forward.
Half of sphere:
303 K: 478 W^2
Other half:
109 K: 8 W/^m^2
Average power = (478+8)/2 = 243 W/m^2
Hmmm .. what blackbody sphere would *also* emit 243 W/m^2?
256 K: 243 W/m^2
Hmmm … who had just predicted that result (give or take 1K of rounding)? I skipped straight to the end, but my one equation incorporates these steps all at once.
I’m not sure you understand “averaging”, TF.
I’m still waiting for your values from Pike’s Peak.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-670758
I thought that the averaging I did was pretty clear:
(478+8)/2 = 243
What about that do you find challenging?
As for the other post, the answer is already there. For global values, we use the well-known surface area of the earth. For global values, ‘small’ surface topography details like the Grand Canyon or Pikes Peak are insignificant perturbations.
I know that you reject reality TF.
So this is verify that you can’t support your own nonsense:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-670758
>No. The “effective temperature” is defined as the temperature of a black body that emits the same total radiation. This is NOT the same as the average temperature, which is what you have here.
Why not? Why it is not the same number for a black body for the effective and the average temperature?
I just showed the calculation why they are not the same. The short answer is because power is proportional to T^4′ power is not proportional to T. It is the same way you got 303 and 109 K to begin with. You forced the total power to be the same.
303 K is the approximate average of the day-time Hemisphere…
109 K is the approximate average of the night-time Hemisphere…
(303 + 109) / 2 = 206 K
Yes, 206 K is the “average temperature”. But 206 is not the “effective blackbody temperature”. A 206 K object does not radiate as much as a half 303K & half 109K object.
While I am at it, a couple other brief thoughts.
1) The very purpose of the “Bond Albedo” is to find the fraction of the total energy scattered/reflected back to space. I have not studied closely how astronomers have determined that value. I do, however, think it would be exceedingly unlikely that they overlooked something as simple as the well-known ways that light reflects at differing angles.
2) Your “beta” factor is questionable. Rotation rate does matter, as does specific heat. Larger values of each do indeed raise the surface temperature. But I wonder why you choose (β*N*cp)^0.25. It seems arbitrary — and has a couple obvious flaws.
A) if the planet were not rotating (N=0), then the predicted temperature would be 0 K!
B) a small planet or small moon that spins very fast would have and arbitrarily large temperature. For instance, If I spun a chunk of moon rock 1 time per minute, your formula predicts it would warm to 435 K!
Both very fast and very slow rotations fail with your formula.
Thank you.
Please, it will take me 10 – 15 minutes. I’ll answer some, because it is getting late in Athens, Greece where I am. It is 23:55 p.m.
The rest I’ll do tomorrow.
Suggestion:
“Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
For a very high N, will you get a very hot planet?”
Answer:
For the final Tmean result N (rotations/day) value is operated twice in forth root .
Example: Let’s say N = 100.000.000
[ ( 100.000.000 )∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴ = ( 100 )∕ ⁴ = 3,1623
And for N = 1000.000.000 it is 3,6525
But for N = 10 it is 1,1548
If Earth were rotating 10 times as fast, Earth’s mean surface temperature would be:
288 K * 1,1548 = 332,58 K
Of course the formula is not 100% perfect, but it covers the normal planets’ spins.
Thank you for asking.
I will continue tomorrow.
Christos
Christos Vournas
You seem fairly bright to come up with such formulas but your process is very flawed. Speeding up a planet spin cannot make it warm up more than it could with the energy available to it.
If the Earth were a blackbody able to absorb all the solar energy that hit it, this amount of total energy will equal
1.714187 x10^17 joules of energy per second.
At 288 K the surface of this blackbody earth would be emitting 1.9892 x10^17 joules/second (watts).
Regardless of rate of rotation the Earth could not reach a 288 K temperature without a GHE.
I notice you also select not to use Venus. Why is Venus surface so hot? How does you equation cover this planet?
If you add albedo to the Earth you will only reach a temperature of 255 K. The only thing spin will do is cause a cooler average surface, it can’t make the surface warmer than the available energy. It can’t radiate away more energy than it is receiving. Not possible. Your equations fail fundamental physics and therefore are easily rejected.
Norman to be honest, you need to always include the fact that you don’t even understand the basics.
And, that you often comment as a female….
Clint R
You obsessed with that point. Is there an issue in your mind with that? Are you suppressing some hidden feelings and can get it out with your posts?
My calculations are quite correct so I am not sure what your whining about.
Norman, pretend to be a female all you want.
Pretend to know science all you want.
But, when the hammer hits your hand you will face reality.
Clint R
I know you like to ignore direct questions with some snide insults. Fine do what you need to do.
However prove your point. What do you fail to understand with my post to Christos Vournas?
Also Clint R Please Quit Trolling.
Wrong Norman, I always try to answer responsible questions. You never have any, like this time. You’re asking what I “fail to understand”. You immediately assume it is me that doesn’t understand, when the reality is it is YOU that doesn’t understand.
Your second sentence is already incorrect: “Speeding up a planet spin cannot make it warm up more than it could with the energy available to it.”
It depends on a lot of factors, but speeding up the rotation typically means a higher average temperature. Solar heating is faster than infrared cooling, so a faster rotating planet would tend to be warmer. If Moon were really rotating about its axis, it would have a warmer average temperature, for example.
Of course, with that mistake, the rest of your comment is garbage, as usual.
Clint R
I am aware that a faster rotating planet will have a higher average temperature than a slower one exposed to the same solar flux. Not my point at all.
You have basically spent a post with zero refute of my post.
Solar input will heat the surface faster than it cools only to a point (when the input equals the emission rate). But this statement would not allow a planet surface to get warmer than the available energy. Note I used the Earth as a blackbody so it will emit all the radiant energy that strikes its surface, that is the maximum energy this body can receive. It will also emit at the maximum rate for its temperature.
It will receive less solar energy than it emits. Not possible.
You do not address this point at all.
So again Clint R please stop trolling.
It is only the opinion of a few contrarians, like yourself, that strongly believe the Moon does not rotate on its own axis. You can take a ball and move it around an “orbit” and notice you have to rotate it on its axis to keep it facing the center. This simple experiment at least demonstrates the possibility you may be wrong and the rest of the science community is correct. In science you must be willing to accept your ideas are wrong, especially when evidence suggests they are.
It’s like two bimbos arguing with each other:
Norma: “Speeding up a planet spin cannot make it warm up more than it could with the energy available to it.”
Lori: “I am aware that a faster rotating planet will have a higher average temperature than a slower one exposed to the same solar flux.”
Funny!
Bimbos could do simple experiments, like the hammer/hand or the ball-on-a-string, but bimbos won’t learn.
Clint R
Is it my fault now you are not able to process material?
The statements I made are both correct. You have to expand your thinking so that you might be able to understand. A closed mind is not a valid tool in understanding.
The rate of spin can get you to the effective temperature (very fast spin) but the rate of spin cannot get you to exceed the effective temperature.
Again Clint R please stop trolling and when you are ready to present rational thought, that would be a better time for you to post.
Sorry Norman but the two statements are conflicting.
You’re going to have to choose which one of the two bimbos is right. You can’t have it both ways.
So what do you do? You make another mistake: “The rate of spin can get you to the effective temperature (very fast spin) but the rate of spin cannot get you to exceed the effective temperature.”
The rate of spin can most definitely cause a planet to exceed the effective temperature! You’ve trapped yourself again. I don’t have to do anything. No one can make you a bigger idiot than you.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
No the rate of spin will not allow the surface to exceed the effective temperature. You will violate the First Law if that were to occur. You would be making energy from nothing.
When you state that Solar heating is faster than infrared cooling, that is only true until you reach the effective temperature (steady state). The solar heating and infrared cooling are the same at that point. The surface has warmed up enough that it is now emitting IR at the same rate it absorbs solar input. You cannot reach a higher temperature than this by rotating the planet faster. You can get much lower if the planet rotates slowly but you can’t get higher. It is the limiting factor for a non-atmosphere body.
Mercury’s average temperature could not exceed its effective temperature even with rapid rotation. It certainly can have a colder average temperature.
You are wrong on this point. I am not sure you yet realize it. You are so much wanting to point out the flaws of others that in your enthusiasm to do this, you neglect your own flawed thinking.
Norma does it again: “You will violate the First Law if that were to occur. You would be making energy from nothing.”
That’s wrong also, but it’s a good place to end this.
Norma has just debunked the GHE!
Clint R
You are wrong again. I did not debunk the GHE. The GHE keeps the surface warmer, it does not make the Earth system hotter, the radiant energy leaving the Earth (average) is 240 W/m^2, the same as the incoming solar spread over all the Earth.
So far you have not made one valid or logical thought. Mostly insults and nonsense. Come back when you feel like an adult and wish to discuss intelligent topics.
Norma, first you said a planet’s faster rotation rate would not result in a higher temperature. Then, you said the opposite. Then you said a planet could not exceed its “effective temperature” due to “First Law”.
So Earth cannot be above 255K, due to Norma’s “First Law”!
Clint R
One thing you might do that would be appreciated would be to correctly address what a poster actually stated rather than make up something that was NOT said.
My actual points (not your twisted versions): “I am aware that a faster rotating planet will have a higher average temperature than a slower one exposed to the same solar flux. Not my point at all.”
Then: “The rate of spin can get you to the effective temperature (very fast spin) but the rate of spin cannot get you to exceed the effective temperature.”
And: “No the rate of spin will not allow the surface to exceed the effective temperature. You will violate the First Law if that were to occur. You would be making energy from nothing.”
Ok that is what I actually said. You perverted it into things I did not state. Basically making things up like you do physics. Yes the Moon rotates on its own axis.
YOU: “you said a planet’s faster rotation rate would not result in a higher temperature. Then, you said the opposite. Then you said a planet could not exceed its “effective temperature” due to “First Law”.
Basically not only do you have great trouble getting physics right, you can’t get a poster’s comments right either.
I think there is help for your condition, only I am not the one to relieve your condition.
Norma, you forgot the quote that started all your nonsense: “Speeding up a planet spin cannot make it warm up more than it could with the energy available to it.”
You don’t want to leave out anything. People might think you’re being dishonest.
I appreciate all the effort you go to here — denying your own words and arguing with yourself. It’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
Not sure what you find “nonsense” with my statement? Again you bluster but then nothing follows.
Here is the point in complete: “The only thing spin will do is cause a cooler average surface, it can’t make the surface warmer than the available energy. It can’t radiate away more energy than it is receiving. Not possible. Your equations fail fundamental physics and therefore are easily rejected.”
Without any content to your posts, you offer only snide insults that have zero meaning.
We could have many trolls like you that state opinions, insult posters and offer zero useful information. What does that actually accomplish?
If you have a valid point make it. If not then Clint R please quit trolling.
Norma, my “valid point” is that you are anti-science, uneducated in physics, and a denier of reality.
But, I enjoy your performances, especially when you trap yourself, as you have here.
Clint R
Again you present nothing of value. Some insults that are designed to provoke me, pointless.
You say I trapped myself and yet you are not intelligent enough to explain how or why you think this. Again just another pointless opinion. No validation, nothing from you at all.
Again Clint R please stop trolling.
That’s an example of your being a “denier of reality”, Norma.
Thanks for proving me right, again.
Norman,
Thank you for rising very important issues.
I am systematizing all comments I have received here and I will answer them all one by one.
Below it is a link to my site’s page which is devoted to planets with atmosphere mean surface temperatures theoretical calculation
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ~ This section will be for planets with atmosphere. The wonderful thing is that when calculating, for planet Venus we obtain the Venus’ mean surface temperature T.atmo.mean.venus = 733,66 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
But, before discussing Venus, I should explain the initial steps which led me to these formulas.
Thank you again,
Christos
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
I would like to thank every one of you who commented on my posts here.
I like all your comments, I have them in one place, to study them in a systematic way and to get myself “organized” to answer every thought you very much rightfully expressed – and I thank you for that.
I very much appreciate your comments, because they are being made in good faith. Your comments are being expressed because all and everyone of you is deeply concerned with the issues risen in my posts.
Thank you again,
Christos
In this PDF you can read about the specular reflection not being associated with diffuse reflection and not being taken in consideration when estimating Earth.s average albedo value of
a = 0.3
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
19940020024.pdf (nasa.gov)
………………………….
NASA Technical Memorandum 104596
An Earth Albedo Model
A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation From the Earth Below
Thomas W. Flatley
Wendy A. Moore
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
1994
(NASA-TM-IO459&) AN EARTH ALBEDO MODEL: A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE RADIANT ENERGY INPUT TO AN ORBITING SPACECRAFT DUE TO THE DIFFUSE REFLECTANCE OF SOLAR RADIATION FROM THE EARTH BELOW (NASA) 33 p
Page 1
“With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.
Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.”
Page 2
“According to Wertz, Fsun, the solar constant in the vicinity of the Earth, is approximately 1358 wad/m2. The sunlight strikes the Earth with this intensity at point B. At locations away from this point, the intensity of the incoming sunlight decreases proportional to cos_, so that the solar flux reaching any given incremental area is:
Fin = Fsun(ne’,S) wa_/m2
This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedo constant, ALB, which depends on the Earth’s surface characteristics. (See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earth’s surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3”
Page 15
“Conclusions
This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. It is based on several approximations. Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected. For an elliptical orbit, the unit vectors associated with the incremental areas should change direction with altitude; instead, this algorithm assumes a circular orbit. The albedo constant is set to the annual global average for the entire Earth; Appendix II illustrates how the percentage of light reflected truly varies with geographical features. The Earth is considered a perfect sphere which does not rotate; it was unnecessary to model rotation since the albedo constant was not varied.”
christos…”What we have here is a plate in an evacuated chamber. Also we know the plate is heated to maintain a constant temperature. The plate is in a thermal equilibrium with chambers walls.
The plates radiative energy budget is balanced
energy in = energy out
energy in [from heating + from walls (the backward IR reflection and emission)]”
***
Why is the plate in thermal equilibrium with the chamber walls? The walls are in thermal equilibrium with the outside room environment, they cannot be in thermal equilibrium with the plate at a higher temperature since the plate is internally heated and at a higher temperature.
I don’t think the plate’s environment has anything to do with back radiation from the walls. The walls will absorb IR from the plate but the walls at room temperature of about 20C will hardly be affected by the plate radiation unless it is very hot.
Given that the walls completely surround the plate, at least on all sides and above, as with a Bell jar, the heated plate’s radiation will mostly be absorbed by the walls and its temperature will be determined by how quickly it can radiate the heat away. However, any heating of the wall interior by the hotter plate will be conducted quickly away and dissipated by the external wall at room temperature.
With a 100 W incandescent light bulb radiating to a room at room temperature, obviously the glass of the light bulb will be hotter than room temperature and will heat a bubble zone of air around the lamp. If the room is a freezer at -20C, obviously the glass walls of the light bulb will not heat the air significantly.
Since the incandescent bulb is evacuated, the glass heating is due to radiation and perhaps conduction through the filament base into the socket then the glass. The temperature of a 100W incandescent lamp is about 4600 F (~2538C). You can’t claim with any accuracy that the heated glass bulb will radiate IR back to the filament. It will, but it will be ignored.
Same with Swannie’s experiment. The walls of the evacuated Bell jar won’t be radiating IR back to the heated plate, that can make any difference to the plate temperature. The temperature of the Bell jar walls will definitely influence the rate of heat dissipation from the plate.
Given a thermal steady-state between the plate and its environment,a temperature will be established for the plate based on its heat source. It will stay at that temperature because it can radiate freely in every direction. The instant you raise a plate in front of it, you block a good part of its radiation and lower its heat dissipation. That’s why the plate warms.
You’d get a similar effect if you had a wall immediately next to an incandescent lamp. I predict the lamp would run hotter under those conditions. If you enclosed it in a box, the temperature should rise as well. It’s a lack of heat dissipation that causes a radiation body to get hotter.
Gordo, as usual, repeats his delusional physics, claiming that in my Green Plate Demos, the Green plate “blocks” the IR EM emission from the Blue plate, saying:
He has never provided a physical explanation describing his so-called “blocking” of those IR emissions from the Blue plate. He always falls back on the G & T assertion that it’s impossible for the IR “back radiation” from a colder source to increase the temperature of a warmer body, even though such a result is widely accepted by engineers in real world situations.
He (and others around here) continue to ignore even the simplest experimental data, such as my Ice Plate Demo, which prove him wrong. That’s why I call these guys “Denialist”.
E. Swanson, you keep distorting and denying the physics. You keep trying to claim the “green” plate can warm the “blue” plate. Your “experiment” is nothing more than an attempt to pervert reality.
If the two BB plates were in exact contact, with the blue plate absorbing 400 W/m^2 on one side, at equilibrium both plates would be 244K, with both emitting 200 Watt/m^2 to space.
If the two plates were then slightly separated, nothing would change, in the perfect scenario, where there are no loses, perfect conductors, etc. A slight vacuum gap would not affect energy flow. Energy would flow from the blue plate to the green plate, just as when they were in contact.
The “silly” solution says that the blue plate would increase in temperature due to the “back-radiation” from the green plate. Of course, that violates the laws of thermodynamics. It has an increase in internal energy with no increase in energy flow. The “silly” solution claims the BB green plate acts as insulation.
Clint R, the sock puppet/troll, insists on proving how little he knows about physics, writing:
For energy to flow from the Blue plate to the Green, the Green must be colder than the Blue, a fact of thermodynamics about which you have been informed several times. Repeating your idiocy for ever won’t make it true, it just makes YOU look ever more “silly”.
E. Swanson, you’re confusing “energy” with “heat”. “Heat” only moves from hot to cold, but energy can go anywhere it wants.
You can see an ice cube because the photons from the ice move to your eyes. But, any heat transfer would be from your eyes to the ice.
If you had ever had any education in physics and thermodynamics, this would have been thoroughly covered. Obviously subjects like this are not taught in typing school.
More lunacy from the sock puppet troll. The photons from your ice cube don’t originate from the ice cube, they are produced from a high energy light source and are reflected from the cube thence to your eye. Your eye can’t “see” an ice cube in a dark room, even though it may be emitting thermal IR EM.
More misrepresentation and misunderstanding from E. Swanson.
No one said visible light originated from the ice cube. “Eye” and “see” should have been enough for you to understand. So I never know if you are that ignorant, or just sincerely confused.
Most likely it’s both.
swannie…”He has never provided a physical explanation describing his so-called “blocking” of those IR emissions from the Blue plate”.
***
In an earlier reply I supplied a good physical explanation. I presumed you had used a metal plate for the green plate. Metal will block any EM radiation totally as is well-known in the field of electronics. Metal is used as a shield to block EMR which is an acronym for EM radiation.
The valence electrons in metals are not tightly bound to the atoms of the material as in insulators. When the metal plate encounters an EM field, the electrons in the metal absorb the EM causing them to form looping currents called Eddy currents.
Eddy currents will heat the metal but I doubt at that level of Em radiation they could heat the GP significantly.
Norman has argued that the relationship between electrons and EM does not apply at lower frequencies. It applies at 60 Hz, where electric currents (electron streams) create magnetic fields to power motors and are the basis of transformer action. The EM field created is a near-field effect but it can be detected around electric equipment.
I am not talking about electrons jumping between orbital energy band here, I am talking about the blocking ability of metal and the production of Eddy currents in the metal. That blocking of EM from the BP causes the rate of heat dissipation to lower and the BP to heat.
Gordo presents another example of his delusional physics.
Yes, my painted plates were metal, but so what? Other IR absorbing/emitting materials work the same way, such as glass, many plastics and ceramics. A highly polished metal surface will reflect the IR, but a thin layer of paint or oxide will absorb it. At thermal wavelengths, the treatment of the surface determines what happens and longer wavelength EM radiation can pass straight thru an IR absorbing surface layer. In the solar energy field, special surface treatments for metal result in IR reflection but absorp-tion of SW (visible) EM radiation.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordon… “Given a thermal steady-state between the plate and its environment, a temperature will be established for the plate based on its heat source. It will stay at that temperature because it can radiate freely in every direction. The instant you raise a plate in front of it, you block a good part of its radiation and lower its heat dissipation. That’s why the plate warms.”
I completely agree with you. And I like to communicate with you.
The walls are in a much lower – the room temperature, so their IR radiation towards the hot plate can be easily neglected.
What I imagined in the case of the second, the rising plate:
The first plate got warmer, but why?
What I think is that the first plate, when the second plate was risen, the first plate received a supplementary radiative energy from the second plate, thus having warmed more.
By the way, please visit the 1994 NASA
“NASA Technical Memorandum 104596
An Earth Albedo Model
A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation From the Earth Below”
In this PDF you can read about the specular reflection not being associated with diffuse reflection and not being taken in consideration when estimating Earth.s average albedo value of
a = 0.3
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
19940020024.pdf (nasa.gov)
I would like to have your opinion on that.
christos…”What I think is that the first plate, when the second plate was risen, the first plate received a supplementary radiative energy from the second plate, thus having warmed more”.
Thanks for reply. I have another explanation and you have spoken about it.
In the following, the electrically-heated resistor becomes the blue plate in Swannie’s experiment.
A resistor’s power rating is based on an ambient room temperature of 25C. Although resistor operating temperatures can vary from -50C to 150C, there is usually an optimal temperature rating provided. One resistor I saw had an optimal temperature rating of 70C. Beyond 70C, its ability to dissipate heat falls of linearly.
Although you won’t see this stated on a spec sheet, it is presumed that the resistor is free to conduct heat to the room air at 25C and that enough room is supplied around the resistor to convect the heat away from the resistor’s surface. Also, it is presumed the resistor will be free to radiate EM as another means of dissipating heat.
If there is anything blocking conduction, convection, or radiation, so the temperature rises, the resistor must be derated. That means the amount of current it can safely pass before exceeding its power rating must be reduced. That applies not only to resistors, it applies to conductors used by electricians.
In the electrical industry, based on electrical codes, a conductor is rated in free air with no adjacent conductors within a certain distance. If you move conductors into a conduit or another channel, especially a metallic conduit where EM is blocked, for keeping them together, you must derate the current the conductors can carry. Otherwise they heat up and could cause a fire. Or the insulation could deteriorate and cause a short circuit between conductors.
It all comes down to what I described above: if you block conduction, convection, or radiation of heat from a resistor, a conductor, or any current carrying device, the device will heat up.
If I take the same resistor and wrap it in insulated material and I cover the insulation with a metallic foil, I block conduction, convection and radiation from the resistor. Therefore I block its ability to rid itself of heat. The temperature of the resistor must rise.
In fact, if you completely insulate the resistor so that no heat can be dissipated, provided the resistor has a high enough power rating, the resistor will continue to heat till it reaches a maximum temperature based on the current through it.
Say that temperature is 100C, which I have referred to as its natural temperature with that current. If I now remove all the insulation and leave the resistor in free air, the temperature will drop to a temperature where heat in balances heat out.
In Swannie’s experiemnt, the BP is at the lower temperature where it is free to radiate in all directions. As the GP is raised in front of the BP, especially if it is metal, and the same size as the BP, it will block all radiation on that side of the BP, which could be half the radiation or more.
Cutting the radiation in half in an evacuated chamber will cause the BP to rise toward its natural temperature where all heat dissipation is blocked.
“In fact, if you completely insulate the resistor so that no heat can be dissipated, provided the resistor has a high enough power rating, the resistor will continue to heat till it reaches a maximum temperature based on the current through it.”
If you completely, perfectly insulate a resistor so that no heat can be dissipated (which is not actually possible) and connect it to a constant voltage source, the resistor will continue to heat till it burns itself up. You are continuing to supply energy without end (V^2/R), but not letting any escape.
Your ‘100 C’ would be the ‘natural temperature’ with some specific insulation, where the dissipation balances the input = V^2/R. Add more insulation, and the ‘natural temperature’ would go up higher.
It amazes me that Gordo continues to post idiotic stuff like his “natural temperature” for the resistor. He really has no clue about heat transfer, which posting this crap just proves, yet again. Makes one wonder whether he took ANY Engineering courses.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“If you are going to present mathematical arguments, I feel it is necessary to supply physical proof. I don’t trust mathematics on its own, it is only a tool in physics and can be highly misleading in the wrong hands.”
I agree with your problematic. Mathematics should be only a tool in physics, because otherwise mathematics describe a world which does not exist.
Please, I would like to invite you visit my site:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have developed there, first in the home-page, and then in the supplementary over 80 additional pages the Planet ROTATIONAL WARMING theory.
And, by this New theory, there are considered two types of blackbody surface concept.
The blackbody Type 1 concept, it is when the body has infinite inner energy supply (sun, stars) or it is a previously heated hot (an iron rod) and for a infinitesimal instant of time can be considered having a constant uniform surface temperature.
The blackbody Type 2 concept, it is when a body has not its own inner source of energy. In this case the blackbody Type 2 concept surface is, when it is irradiated, it reflects, and IR emits on the very instant the entire amount of radiative incident energy.
I would like to discuss the topics arisen in the Planet ROTATIONAL WARMING theory with you.
Please, visit
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Best wishes,
Christos
There is only one “type” of blackbody — a surface that both perfectly emits and perfectly absorbs radiation.
Your “type 2” actually sounds like a perfect reflector — the exact opposite of a blackbody!
Tim,
“There is only one “type” of blackbody — a surface that both perfectly emits and perfectly absorbs radiation.”
I see the blackbody as a surface, not as a body.
Sun and hot iron rod have surface. That surface envelops something (the body), which is providing the surface from the one side (the inner side) with energy.
Surface spontaneously gets rid from that energy supply, but since it is a constant and infinitive energy supply, on the surface a balance
energy in = energy out
is established.
The energy out is the
Jemit = σ Te^4 W/m^2
This Jemit is what determines the surface uniform temperature Te , because we consider blackbody objects with surface uniform temperatures (sun, iron rod).
Now, the incident, on the blackbody, the radiative energy from another source of radiative energy, I consider not perfectly absorbed, but re-emitted on that very instant.
Example
When the hot iron rod is put under the sun. The iron rod will reflect and emit the incident on its solar lit side solar energy.
The solar lit side will emit more energy then, and the solar lit side will be a slightly warmer.
……………….
“Your “type 2” actually sounds like a perfect reflector — the exact opposite of a blackbody!”
The Type 2 has not an inner energy supply. The only energy is the incident on its surface radiative energy from another source.
The surface on the instant reflects and emits that incident energy away. We should formulate an axiom here
the matter does not like energy
energy in = reflected + not reflected
energy out = reflected + emitted
Each instant the
energy in = energy out
energy out = reflected + Jemit = σ Te^4 W/m^2
Jemit = σ Te^4 W/m^2 (the emitted energy intensity is what determines the surface instant temperature Te)
In both, Type 1 concept and Type 2 concept blackbody surface, the incident radiative energy is not considered “absorbed”, it is considered not reflected, but instantly emitted.
In that point of view on the blackbody surface behavior the energy reflection and emission are two in one get rid of the energy processes.
The real world the not perfect surfaces reflect and emit according to their reflecting-emitting properties.
Some reflect more intensively and have left to emit less intensively.
Others reflect less, and emit more – those surfaces appear as the warmer ones.
Here comes the surface specific heat.
When the surface specific heat is low – that means there are less atoms and molecules spread on the interacting with the incident radiative flux energy.
(like the surface shrinks ) so it gets hotter for the same solar flux W/m^2, each atom or molecule is hotter, and
Jemit = σ Te^4 W/m^2 emits more intensively from a m^2.
Water has a higher than soil, 5 times higher specific heat, because water consists of many more, but smaller atoms than soil.
So every atom and molecule of water has less energy to share . So every atom and molecule of water emits less.
Here comes the nonlinear S-B emission law.
So altogether, the 5 times more emitting units (molecules, atoms of water) altogether they emit less W/m^2 energy intensity, and there is left more energy to accumulate in form of heat.
So, the radiative energy, when interacting with matter, is getting reflected and emitted. Radiative energy does not warm the surface first and only then getting emitted.
Surface accumulates only a very small portion of the incident solar flux radiative energy.
In the case of Moon regolith my rough estimation is about some 1,5 % is transformed into heat from the incident So = 1362 W/m^2.
Thank you for your patience.
IT would make more sense to continue at your site, but I can’t seem to write more than about 2 lines there.
“The surface on the instant reflects and emits that incident energy away. We should formulate an axiom here”
Again, by definition a blackbody surface reflect exactly 0 energy away. There is no reflection. (Real surfaces will never match this ideal, but some are quite close.)
Further, if the surface *instantly* emits the incident energy, then if would be impossible to warm such a surface. But clearly black surfaces can and do warm by radiation (eg black cars)
“So altogether, the 5 times more emitting units (molecules, atoms of water) altogether they emit less W/m^2 energy intensit”
You are mixing up different ideas. As long as you are assuming a blackbody surface, then the ‘number’ or ‘size’ of molecule doesn’t matter. The surface emits P/A = (sigma)T^4.
“In the case of Moon regolith my rough estimation is about some 1,5 % is transformed into heat from the incident”.
I would say that since albedo – 0.11 for the moon, then 1 – 0.11 = 89% of incoming sunlight is absorbed, becoming thermal energy of the rocks. The rocks then emit based on their own temperature and emissivity. The net result over on lunar cycles would be ~ 0.0% gain. since there is no significant long-term temperature change.
“The surface on the instant reflects and emits that incident energy away. We should formulate an axiom here”
> Again, by definition a blackbody surface reflect exactly 0 energy away. There is no reflection. (Real surfaces will never match this ideal, but some are quite close.)
Yes, you are right. I got carried away, yes, the theoretical perfect blackbody reflect exactly 0.
> Further, if the surface *instantly* emits the incident energy, then if would be impossible to warm such a surface. But clearly black surfaces can and do warm by radiation (eg black cars)
Yes.
I imagine the perfect blackbody as a surface, which cannot get warmed itself. As a boundary from where the energy is emitted.
In Type 1 blackbody surface concept, the surface energy emittance is provided by a constant inner energy source. (It is like being solar irradiated from inside – surface is considered here as a boundary.)
Yes, the surface of a car feels hot when on sun, but as soon the sun has gone, the car is very soon cold again.
I have an outer wall in our apartment which is South oriented.
In winter (December, January) the days are short, but we have some very sunny days. Sun is low in the sky and therefore hits the wall strongly.
When I touched the outside surface of the wall, it felt pleasantly warmed.
But the inside surface of the same wall felt stone cold, it was winter-time. (We do not practice in Athens-Greece 24 hours central heating system, usually the system works 3-4 hours in evenings.) So the inside walls felt very cold.
I had a happy thought, that since the outside surface of the wall got warm, eventually, gradually, till the sunset the warmth will be transferred to the inside surface, and, therefore, the result will be the inside of the room to get warmer.
None of this happened. The inside surface remained as cold as stone, no energy transfer at all.
And no, as soon as the sun started going down, the outside surface of the wall almost at the instant felt again stone cold. The same winter stone cold as it was before sun hitting it in the morning.
How one can measure the outside wall surface temperature? Only by touching it with the palm of the hand. If we put out a mercury thermometer on the sun, it will roughly measure the mercury’s Te.
When sun went down, the outside wall felt as it never been warmed.
One would suggest, that wall should have accumulated heat, since it was exposed to the direct sun rays for, say 4 hours.
And when sun vanished, the wall outside surface temperature should cool down gradually… but no, the impression I have, it was stone cold almost at the instant.
So I concluded there was not a substantial amount of energy entered the wall in form of heat.
> You are mixing up different ideas. As long as you are assuming a blackbody surface, then the ‘number’ or ‘size’ of molecule doesn’t matter. The surface emits P/A = (sigma)T^4.
Yes. For the perfect blackbody surface emits P/A = (sigma)T^4.
> I would say that since albedo – 0.11 for the moon, then 1 – 0.11 = 89% of incoming sunlight is absorbed, becoming thermal energy of the rocks. The rocks then emit based on their own temperature and emissivity. The net result over on lunar cycles would be ~ 0.0% gain. since there is no significant long-term temperature change.
I think, for moon, the 89 % of incoming sunlight is “absorbed” and emitted on the same instant. Only a small fraction remains as a heat accumulated in rocks. That heat accounts for the Moon night-hours very low IR emission intensity.
Also, I account for specular reflection, so only the 0,47 * 89 % = 41,83 % is emitted. The rest is reflected (diffusely and specularly). But it is another issue.
It is spring now. The late days of April in Athens. Sun is high enough and when outside in the sun it is burning hot. When outside I look for the shaded side of the street to walk by.
But, nevertheless it is cold in the apartment. About 100 m^2 outside in the sun walls receive 900 W/m^2 solar flux for approximately, say 3 hours.
It is a huge amount of energy. Say roughly 70 % is reflected (diffusely and specularly), but still there is huge amount left to be accumulated.
But no, almost all the solar energy incident on the walls is either reflected or emitted, only a very small portion is accumulated, and that is why it is almost May, but it is cold inside the apartment.
Inside is not warm enough. It is 18-19 oC where I am with the keyboard on the table.
And when I open the balcony door to let the outside warmth to get in, see what happens – the outside air is very cold yet, regardless the sun burning hot for many hours.
So, we have the doors and windows closed, to keep the inside of apartment warmer.
Of course, sun is getting in through the windows and doors glass and it warms us, as long as sun is there.
But as soon as sun is gone, without sun getting through the windows, it is chilly again.
What do you think about that?
Here is the link to the very interesting graph:
Typical diurnal course of the Moon’s equatorial surface temperature according to Diviner radiometric measurements and simulations by the revised TWO model (based on data in Figure nine(a) of Vasavada et al. 2012). Also shown are the maximum (T max ), minimum (T min ) and mean (T mean ) temperature of the lunar Equator. In agreement with Hölder’s inequality, T mean = 213 K is about 57 K cooler than the Moon’s effective emission temperature (270.2 K) calculated from Eq. (3).
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723/figures/5
Also the very interesting article where it is from:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Best wishes,
Christos
“I imagine the perfect blackbody as a surface, which cannot get warmed itself. “
OK. I understand. You are thinking about something like a layer of paint or a thin oxidized layer.
“How one can measure the outside wall surface temperature?”
Use an infrared thermometer!
Your experience with the sun on the wall sounds pretty typical, actually. There’s plenty of software for engineers that deals with such issues.
The low sun might be about 500 W/m^2. IF the walls are light color, maybe only 100 W/^2. That would only warm the exterior by about 20 C until it was radiating away all the extra heat. Warmer but not hot. A small temperature difference like that will hardly cause much heat to go through an insulated wall.
Tim,
The outside wall felt like 40 oC. I checked the feeling of warmth by touching my cheek, which is 36,5 oC.
The amazing thing is, that as soon sun stopped shining on the wall, the warmth disappeared very much quickly. The wall felt colder than from onside then.
The same with a mercury thermometer. On the sun it showed some 55 oC, but as soon the sun vanished, it shoved 5 oC.
So I concluded there was very little energy accumulated in.
“The amazing thing is, that as soon sun stopped shining on the wall, the warmth disappeared very much quickly. The wall felt colder than from onside then.”
That does not seem so amazing to me. The wall will have low thermal conductivity. With no sunlight, the surface will pretty quickly come to (nearly) equilibrium with the surroundings. The tiny bit of thermal conduction through the material of the wall will not be able maintain the surface at an elevated temperature.
A rough calculation. A concrete wall that is 10C warmer 10 cm from the surface will only conduct ~ 20 W/m^2. That would only keep the outside of the wall slightly warmer than the surroundings.
Tim,
> That would only keep the outside of the wall slightly warmer than the surroundings.
Yes, I agree.
So, the wall has not accumulated enough heat to support the outside surface temperature.
When sun goes, the first layer is warmer than the second layer in the inward direction.
My impression is the wall emits stronger than accumulates.
Christos Vournas
” It is the spin period relative to stars… ”
That is evident, but imho was not what primarily had to be considered.
The point I wanted to be highlighted was the incredible accuracy of Mayer’s spherical trigonometry computations (made 270 years ago, and based on data coming from really primitive observations, when compared with today’s telescopes).
When you convert Mayer’s result into decimal days
27.321665 days
you obtain nearly the same value as what is computed nowadays for Moon’s sidereal rotation period:
27.321661 days
You need to go to the sixth place after the decimal point to see a difference.
*
And his observations were based on a small telescope
https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/2349154119_54a0044db7.jpg
on which he fixed a a micrometer with 1 arc minute precision, and on a metronom with 1 second precision!
Hats off!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
> 27.321661 days
You need to go to the sixth place after the decimal point to see a difference.
Of course, Hats off!!
Please, Bindidon, teach me how to write bold and italic here, because I do not know how.
Best regards,
Christos
A guide to formatting.
http://documentation.diyartportfolios.com/posts/formatting-text
Thank you
Christos Vournas
I can’t simply write it, because it then is evaluated.
Simply use the HTML stuff (‘b’ or ‘i’ enclosed in and brackets), as explained on the page
https://tinyurl.com/jetw7kmw
The reason for using tinyURL is the character sequence ‘p’ ‘t’ in the original link; the blog blocks comments containing them, as well as those containing a ‘d’ ‘c’ sequence.
Underlining (u) should work as well, I never use it: topic.
J.-P. D.
No it doesn’t!
Thank you
Test
Test
christos…I will look at your site when I have more time to understand the math. Right now, my brain is too occupied with other matters to concentrate.
Have you seen this paper by Claes Johnson, which covers blackbody theory and the history behind it? Although Norman likes to quote from textbooks he doesn’t like textbooks that don’t tell him what he wants to hear. This is one he does not like, so much so, that he calls Claes Johnson bad names.
In this mini-book, Claes goes deeply into the related mathematics, something you might appreciate.
https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
One thing he points out is that a black surface, which is supposed to emulate a blackbody, absorbs high frequency energy from the Sun but only emits low frequency energy. He doesn’t like the definition by Planck of a blackbody as a cylindrical object with a peep hole for observation.
In other words, blackbodies are not perfect absorbers and emitters, they only emit a fraction of the frequencies they absorb. There is a cutoff frequency in BBs that determines the frequencies they can emit as opposed to the frequencies they can absorb.
He also points out that blackbodies are defined at one temperature and not over a range of temperatures.
Gordon,
In this mini-book, Claes goes deeply into the related mathematics, something you might appreciate.
https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
It is a big enough book. I started reading it now. It is very interesting. Thank you.
Best regards,
Christos
Christos Vournas
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/b/blackbody+radiation
” A blackbody is a theoretical or model body which absorbs all radiation falling on it, reflecting or transmitting none. It is a hypothetical object which is a ‘perfect’ absorber and a ‘perfect’ emitter of radiation over all wavelengths.
The spectral distribution of the thermal energy radiated by a blackbody (i.e. the pattern of the intensity of the radiation over a range of wavelengths or frequencies) depends only on its temperature.
J.-P. D.
The important thing to remember Bindidon, is that a black body is imagainary. That means it can’t be used to violate the laws of physics. So throw out your “blue/green plates” nonsense and your “33K” nonsense.
There’s not much left to your cult religion when all the nonsense is thrown out, huh?
imaginary
“That means it can’t be used to violate the laws of physics.”
Then quit using it to violate Laws of Physics!
Black bodies cannot become mirrors. Real grey bodies cannot become mirrors.
I agree Nate. I hope the idiots quit trying to violate the laws of physics.
Imaginary black bodies are not mirrors, I agree again.
You’re trying to face reality. Keep moving in that direction. You’ve got a long road ahead of you.
binny…” A blackbody is a theoretical or model body which absorbs all radiation falling on it, reflecting or transmitting none. It is a hypothetical object which is a perfect absorber and a perfect emitter of radiation over all wavelengths”.
Lot of confusion out there about BBs.
As Claes points out, a black surface exposed to the Sun is close enough to the definition of BB. Black surfaces are black because they absorb all EM, reflecting none. However, a black surface exposed to solar radiation absorbs the high frequency solar energy and radiates only low frequency radiation (IR).
Your quote above contradicts itself. It claims a BB reflects or transmit no radiation then they claim it is a perfect emitter over all wavelengths. They are obviously wrong since BBs absorb all radiation at a certain temperature but radiate only frequencies below a certain threshold as evidenced by the black surface.
If BBs could emit all frequencies of radiation the body would glow like the Sun.
“If BBs could emit all frequencies of radiation the body would glow like the Sun.”
Only if they were as hot as the sun!
A blackbody is indeed (by definition) a perfect emitter, but that does NOT mean it emits all frequencies intensely enough to see.
@ 5500K, the sun emits close to 50% of its energy as visible light.
@ 3300K, a light bulb filament emits a little over 10% as visible light
@ 2100K, less than 1% of BB radiation is emitted as visible light
@ 1300K, about 0.01% of BB radiation is visible light.
Below about 800 K, the visible portion is so low that it is no longer visible. But is is STILL emitting “perfectly” for its temperature.
Robertson
Jesses what are you a boring, stubborn person…
Who stays in guessing without reading never learns.
Read the stuff I wrote above again and again and again.
One day you will understand.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon,
It is a very interesting issue, the blackbody radiation.
When (February 2019) I discovered the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law, I suddenly realized it was the easiest part.
The difficult part, which occupies all my time since, is to explain the New law ( new, because it is not known ).
Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law
Planet Energy Budget:
Solar energy absorbed by a Hemisphere with radius “r” after reflection and dispersion:
Jabs = Φ*πrS (1-a) (W)
What we have now is the following:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Φ = (1 – 0,53) = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Φ is the planet’s spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming
And
Jsw.absorbed = Φ* (1-a) * Jsw.incoming
Where
(0,53 + Φ*a) + Φ* (1-a) = 0,53 + Φ*a + Φ – Φ*a =
= 0,53 + Φ = 0,53 + 0,47 = 1
The solar irradiation reflection, when integrated over a planet sunlit hemisphere is:
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) *S *π r
For a planet with albedo a = 0
we shall have
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*0) *S *π r =
= Jsw.reflected = 0,53 *S *π r
The fraction left for hemisphere to absorb is:
Φ = 1 – 0,53 = 0,47
and
Jabs = Φ (1 – a ) S π r
The factor Φ = 0,47 “translates” the absorbed of a disk into the absorbed of a hemisphere with the same radius. When covering a disk with a hemisphere of the same radius the hemisphere’s surface area is 2π r. The incident Solar energy on the hemisphere’s area is the same as on disk:
Jdirect = π r S
The absorbed Solar energy by the hemisphere’s area of 2π r is:
Jabs = 0,47*( 1 – a) π r S
It happens because a hemisphere of the same radius “r” absorbs only the 0,47 part of the directly incident on the disk of the same radius Solar irradiation.
In spite of hemisphere having twice the area of the disk, it absorbs only the 0,47 part of the directly incident on the disk Solar irradiation.
Jabs = Φ (1 – a ) S π r , where Φ = 0,47 for smooth without atmosphere planets.
and
Φ = 1 for gaseous planets, as Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Venus, Titan. Gaseous planets do not have a surface to reflect radiation. The solar irradiation is captured in the thousands of kilometers gaseous abyss. The gaseous planets have only the albedo “a”.
And Φ = 1 for heavy cratered planets, as Calisto and Rhea ( not smooth surface planets, without atmosphere ). The heavy cratered planets have the ability to capture the incoming light in their multiple craters and canyons. The heavy cratered planets have only the albedo “a”.
Another thing that I should explain is that planet’s albedo actually doesn’t represent a primer reflection. It is a kind of a secondary reflection ( a homogenous dispersion of light also out into space ).
That light is visible and measurable and is called albedo.
The primer reflection from a spherical hemisphere cannot be seen from some distance from the planet. It can only be seen by an observer being on the planet’s surface.
It is the blinding surface reflection right in the observer’s eye.
That is why the albedo “a” and the factor “Φ” we consider as different values.
Both of them, the albedo “a” and the factor “Φ” cooperate in the Planet Rotating Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Jsw.absorbed = Φ * (1-a) * Jsw.incoming
Total energy emitted to space from entire planet:
Jemit = A*σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ (W)
Α – is the planet’s surface (m)
(β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ – dimensionless, is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
A = 4πr (m), where r is the planet’s radius
Jemit = 4πrσTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ (W)
global Jabs = global Jemit
Φ*πrS (1-a) = 4πrσTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴
Or after eliminating πr
Φ*S*(1-a) = 4σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴
The planet average Jabs = Jemit per m planet surface:
Jabs = Jemit
Φ*S*(1-a) /4 = σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ (W/m)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ /4σ ] ∕ ⁴ (K)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N rotations/day, is the planets axial spin
cp is the planet surface specific heat
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
Here (β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ – is a dimensionless Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴/(β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ (W)
The year-round averaged energy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is Sο = 1.361 W/m.
With an albedo of a = 0,306 and a factor Φ = 0,47 we have Tmean.earth = 287,74 K or 15C.
This temperature is confirmed by the satellites measured Tmean.earth = 288 K.
christos…Jabs = Φ*πrS (1-a) (W)
Just testing to see if the Greek letters can be posted from my end. Must be nice to live in Greece and have a keyboard that produces Greek characters.
My guess is CV’s Greek server is somehow attaching HTML codes that do not get removed by this blog’s editor. That’s why you can copy/paste the Greek letters from him.
Also, he is able to use superscript. I can’t even do that with the proper HTML codes!
Plus, Greece has nice beaches…..
You should be able to copy Unicode characters directly.
subscript ₀₁₂₃₄₅₆₇₈₉
Superscript ¹²
Dang! guess not!
Now that’s weird! The first time I looked it was wrong. Not it is right and I see the subscripts & superscripts just fine!
Tim,
I think blog sometimes does not show subscripts on the second or third Replays…
I see the same thing for formatting, and it is not clear when or why. Some quote marks might look fine on posting, and then be garbled on refreshing the page, and then fine again, for no reason that I can think of, other than Roy has visited the site, kicking off something just by entering and exiting. I see this not only with my own post, but with others as well.
It’s something we try to work around, Christos, with mixed results. Some people are careful not to post certain characters and don’t have to deal with it.
Christos
As mentioned by others, a surface could not be warmed radiatively if emission instantly matched the incoming flux. An imbalance between the two is what creates temperature change.
Nice observations regarding the building where you live, but erroneous conclusions.
If I understand correctly, you came up with the global mean surface temperature based solely on rotation speed and surface albedo, no GHE required?
If so, please take your work to RealClimate where Gavin and others could have a look, and post again at the top of next UAH monthly update, (so Spencer and Christy will surely see).
March, you lose all credibility if you believe Gavin has ANY knowledge of physics.
MH…”If so, please take your work to RealClimate where Gavin and others could have a look…”
Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician who specializes in programming climate models, and badly. Engineer Jeffrey Glassman exposed Schmidt’s total lack of understanding of positive feedback, a prime component of climate model theory that produces way too much heating. Schmidt could not supply a mathematical formula to describe PF.
Schmidt has also claimed a warming effect for CO2 of 5 to 25% without giving scientific evidence of his claim. Having Schmidt et al at realclimate look at anything related to science would be an utter waste of time. And that applies equally to their guru, Raymond Pierrehumbert.
And don’t forget Schmidt was afraid to debate Spencer on the John Stossel show years ago. Gavin has nothing except the awareness to run.
I thought you were into Reality tonight, Clint.
Do you think that She cares about debates?
Rest assured, I *do* care for “but debate me”:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Un-Scientific Un-American has been attempting to pervert reality for about 30 years. Remember their dismissal of Forrest Mims, for example. This article is just more of the same old cult dogma, i.e., no science at any time!
“Climate models indicate”
Obviously the article was written by someone completely unfamiliar with photosynthesis.
Sorry, should have written,
…… based solely on rotation speed, surface irradiance, and albedo measured by satellites at TOA.
March,
> If I understand correctly, you came up with the global mean surface temperature based solely on rotation speed and surface albedo, no GHE required?
Yes, is not it amazing! no GHE required !!!!
What is more wonderful, is that the equation
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp) ∕ ⁴ /4σ ] ∕ ⁴ (K)
the equation is not derived for the planet Earth!
The equation is for planets or moons without atmosphere.
The smooth surface planets and moons without atmosphere are
Mercury
Moon
Mars
Europa (of Jupiter)
Ganymede (of Jupiter)
For them Φ = 0,47
The heavy cratered are
Io (of Jupiter)
Calisto (of Jupiter)
Enceladus (of Saturn)
Tethys (of Saturn)
Pluto
Charon (of Pluto)
For them Φ = 1
No need to say, the results are very much close to those satellite measured…
When I applied the equation
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
for the case of Earth (without atmosphere) the mean surface temperature I obtained was
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K
So I applied the equation to the Titan (of Saturn) which also have atmosphere (so the for Titan Φ = 1), and the result was
Tmean.titan = 96,03 K
To compare with the Tsat.titan = 93,07 K
Well, all these wonderful things happened in early spring 2019.
It is already two years ago…
March, you are completely right:
no GHE required
tim…”A guide to formatting.
http://documentation.diyartportfolios.com/posts/formatting-text”
***
Thanks Tim.
tim…”A guide to formatting……
http://documentation.diyartportfolios.com/posts/formatting-text ”
***
Thanks Tim.
You are welcome.
swannie…”It amazes me that Gordo continues to post idiotic stuff like his natural temperature for the resistor”.
***
A lot of stuff amazes you Swannie, like the 2nd law.
What would you call it? If a body arrives at an equilibrium temperature depending on its environment, how would you know the natural temperature of the body without that environment?
Do you not understand that the temperature of a resistor in free air, heated by a current, is totally dependent on its ability to dissipate the heat caused by the current? That temperature is not the true temperature caused by the current, it is a temperature arrived at AFTER much of the heat has been dissipated. It’s a balance of heat in versus heat out.
I want to know the temperature the resistor would reach if all means of dissipating heat was removed. Spec sheets of resistors deal with such data by specifying the resistor’s temperature with a certain current running through it and in an environment of a certain temperature, often room temperature at 25C.
They don’t need to know its natural temperature with a certain current running through it and all means of dissipation blocked. However, they are doing the same thing as I have suggested, they are taking into account various environments at a certain current limit before the current the resistor can carry safely is reached.
I don’t care about natural current without dissipation I am only trying to emphasize why the blue plate heats up. It’s temperature as measured by you is dependent on its ability to dissipate heat via radiation. If that same BP was measured while tin foil was wrapped around it to block all radiation, its temperature would be a lot higher.
That’s why it heats. You have blocked half of the radiation it is capable of emitting by placing a metallic plate in front of it. The BP responds by raising its temperature toward the temperature it would be if all radiation was blocked.
Your explanation, that heat is transferred from a cooler GP is a load of nonsense. If you think you have discovered an exception to the 2nd law, publish your paper and be prepared to be laughed out of town.
“I want to know the temperature the resistor would reach if all means of dissipating heat was removed. “
This is similar to the issue where Pierhumbert got called out.
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 × 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of
getting rid of it. ”
Hypothetically you can ‘remove all means of dissipating heat’ — and have temperatures run away to infinity. In reality there is always at least some conduction or radiation to carry heat away. In reality, the resistor would melt/crack/turn to smoke at some point.
tim…”the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of
getting rid of it. ”
Hypothetically you can ‘remove all means of dissipating heat’ — and have temperatures run away to infinity.”
I think Pierrehumbert is a nut job. Why would heat run away? It is caused in a resistor by collisions between electrons and other atoms and the amount of heat generated is limited. Same with solar energy, there is a limited rise in temperature of the material affected.
I really don’t think Pierrehumbert understands hard physics. I think he is a theoretician who lacks a firm grasp of hard physics.
“the amount of heat generated is limited”
Only by physical limitations of the resistor. The heat generated, Q, is (power x time) = (IV)t. As long as voltage is supplied and current flows, there will be power generated and heat will continue to be added to the resistor. If you ‘block all means of dissipation’ for that heat, it has no where to go but into more thermal energy of the resistor.
Only when the resistor overheats and fails will the heat stop. But that was not what you were talking about. You were talking about a ‘natural temperature’, but ‘natural’ would be the steady-state situation where the resistor was dissipating the same heat as it was gaining (not dissipating zero heat).
OK, so now Gordo starts discussing resistors operating “in an environment of a certain temperature, often room temperature at 25C”. There’s no argument from me about that, it’s where you claim that a resistor operating within an insulating surroundings, even one where there are several such resistors operating within an enclosure lacking air flow. Of course, when there’s little of no cooling, the resistor’s temperature would be greater than that when cooled in “free air”, and could fail. The resulting higher temperature depends on the amount of insulation, as well as the current.
You stubbornly continue to repeat your nonsense about metal plates, when other non-metallic materials with high emissivity also produce back radiation and thus warming. I clearly demonstrated this effect with my Ice Plate experiment, which you (and your anti-science buddies) continue to refuse to comment on.
The presence of back radiation does not violate the 2nd Law, any more than adding insulation to a boiler and it’s plumbing “creates” more energy. Radiation shields with reflective (i.e., low emissivity) materials also work, as you admit, and shielding with high emissivity materials also provide more useful energy from said boiler.
Swanson, thanks for providing that “Ice Plate experiment” It clearly shows how incompetent you are. Since you are unable to describe your effort coherently, readers are allowed to make their own interpretations.
Idiots and trolls will think you know what you’re doing.
The rest of us won’t waste time on such nonsense.
Thanks, again.
> The rest of us
Who’s that, Clint: you and Joe?
…and Willard proves me right, again!
Diijja voo:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-663173
…and again.
\o/
More Sky Dragon WIN!
Willard, please stop trolling.
swannie…”The presence of back radiation does not violate the 2nd Law, any more than adding insulation to a boiler and its plumbing creates more energy”
Adding insulation does not create more energy, it slows down the loss of existing thermal energy. You don’t even understand that.
Well DUH, that’s exactly my point. You appear to have a problem with reading comprehension, is English a 2nd language for you?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordon
The blue plate is an inanimate object. As such, it cannot sense the presence of another plate nearby and choose to stop emitting.
https://www.google.com/search?q=peesonification&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
I suspect the green plate was coated with a material good at absorbing infrared, so as not to act like a space blanket and reflect it back to the blue.
A faster rotating planet does not attract more solar radiation. A faster rotating planet has a higher mean surface temperature.
Energy in = Energy out
Energy in = Reflected SW (diffusely and specularly) + emitted IR
When planet rotates faster (everything else equals) the same amount of emitted IR energy is distributed more evenly.
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean
It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the night time minimum temperature rises.
But there is something else very interesting happens.
When a planet rotates faster it is on average a warmer planet. (it happens because Tmin↑↑ grows higher than T↓max goes down).
The understanding of this phenomenon comes from a deeper knowledge of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
It happens so because when rotating faster, the planets surface has emission temperatures more evenly distributed.
So that is what happens:
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean
It happens in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Lets explain:
Assuming a planet rotates faster and Tmax2 -Tmax1 = -1C.
Then, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: Tmin2 -Tmin1 > 1C
Consequently Tmean2 > Tmean1.
Assuming a planet rotates faster (n2>n1).
If on the solar irradiated hemisphere we observe the difference in average temperature
Tsolar2-Tsolar1 = -1C
Then the dark hemisphere average temperature
Tdark2 -Tdark1 >1C
Consequently the total average
Tmean2 > Tmean1
So we shall have:
Tdark↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓solar
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
A numerical example
Here it is the improved numerical example which proves, the Tmean > Te when the planet rotates fast enough:
As you will see in the numerical example, which I have shown below, when planet rotates faster, on the planets solar irradiated side the Te.solar temperature subsides from 200 K to 199 K.
On the other hand on the planets dark side, when planet rotates faster, the Te.dark temperature rises from 100 K to 107,126 K.
So when the solar irradiated side gets on Te.solar cooler by -1 degree C, the dark side gets on Te.dark warmer by +7,126 degrees C.
And as a result the planets total Te temperature gets higher. It happens so because when rotating faster (n2>n1) the planets surface has emission temperatures Te the new distribution to achieve.
It happens so, because we have assumed planet emitting as a blackbody with two separate hemispheres.
The solar hemisphere emitting some of the absorbed incident solar fluxs energy, and the dark hemisphere emitting the rest of the absorbed solar fluxs energy.
Also, when the two hemispheres blackbody planet rotating faster
the energy in = energy out
balance should be met.
The faster rotation does not change the real planets energy balance.
Also, the real planet never achieves uniform temperature, because it receives the solar flux only on the sunlit side.
Because we consider the faster rotating real planet at the same distance from the sun, with the same albedo and Φ factor
energy in = energy out
balance should be met.
The numerical example:
Assuming a planet with two hemispheres Te temperatures
Te.solar1 = 200 K, and Te.dark1 = 100 K
Assuming this planet rotates somehow faster (n2 > n1), so assuming the new Te.solar2 average temperature resulting
Te.solar2 = 199 K.
What would be the planets Te.dark2 then?
Jemit.solar1 = σ*(Te.solar1)⁴ ,
(200 K)⁴ = 1.600.000.000*σ for (n1) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 = σ*(Te.solar2)⁴ ,
(199 K)⁴ = 1.568.000.000*σ for (n2) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 Jemit.solar1 =
= 1.568.000.000*σ 1.600.000.000*σ =
= 31.700.000*σ is the difference in the Te solar side emitting intensity when (n2>n1) and 199 K 200 K = 1C
So we have ( 31.700.000*σ ) less emitting intensity on the solar side (2) when n2>n1.
It should be compensated by the increased emission on the dark side ( + 31.700.000*σ ) for the energy balance equation to get met:
Jemit.dark1 = σ*(Te.dark1)⁴ ,
(100 K)⁴ = 100.000.000
Jemit.dark2 = σ*(Te.dark2)⁴ ,
(Te.dark2)⁴ = (100.000.000 + 31.700.000) = 131.700.000
The dark side higher temperature (2) to compensate the solar side cooler emission (2) by ( 31.700.000 ) would be
Te.dark2 = (131.700.000)∕ ⁴ = 107,126 K
As we see in this numerical example, when the planet rotating faster (n2>n1) the Te temperature on the solar irradiated side subsides from 200 K to 199 K.
On the other hand the Te temperature, when planet rotating faster (n2>n1) on the dark side rises from 100 K to 107,126 K.
So when rotating faster (n2>n1) the solar irradiated planets side gets on Te cooler by -1 degree C, the planets dark side gets on Te warmer by +7,126 degrees C.
And as a result the planets mean Te temperature gets higher.
It happens so because when rotating faster (n2>n1) the planets surface has emission temperatures Te the new distribution to achieve.
Consequently, when rotating faster, the planets mean temperature rises.
Because Te.solar2-Te.solar1 = -1C Then the dark hemispheres Te temperature Te.dark2 -Te.dark1 = +7,126C
And Tmean = [ Φ (1 a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Tmean = [ Te⁴ (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
Tmean.solar2 = [ (Te.solar1 -1C)⁴ (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
Tmean.dark2 = [ (Te.dark1 +7,126C)⁴ (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ ]∕ ⁴
(Tmean.solar1 + Tmean.dark1) / 2 Tplanet.mean1
So we shall have: when n2>n1
Tmean.dark↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓mean.solar
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
Because Te.dark2↑↑ grows higher (+7,126C) than the T↓e.solar2 lessens (-1C).
Thus when a planet rotates faster its mean temperature is higher.
Conclusion:
Earths faster rotation rate, 1 rotation per day, makes Earth a warmer planet than Moon.
Moon rotates around its axis at a slow rate of 1 rotation in 29,5 days.
Notice:
In the above numerical example we assumed a rotating planet blackbody with two hemispheres Te.solar and Te.dark.
It was an assumption, because the blackbody by definition has a uniform temperature on its entire surface.
Also we assumed, that the blackbody somehow had accumulated some of the daytime solar energy.
In this numerical example we have a combination of the blackbody and the real planet emitting behavior. And it is also an assumption.
Real planet does not emit according to the exact Stefan-Boltzmann emission law. Real planet emits exactly according to the new Universal law:
Jemit.planet = 4σ Tmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕⁴
A faster rotating planet does not attract more solar radiation. A faster rotating planet has a higher mean surface temperature.
Moon receives 30% more solar energy than Earth because Moons Albedo is a = 0,11 vs Earths Albedo a = 0,306
Moon is not a freeze to death planet
The Moons day-time temperatures are much higher than those on Earths day-time.
Moon is much colder than Earth in the night-time.
And that is why on average Earth is a warmer planet than Moon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Could you explain where 0,47 comes from?
Equals 47% ?
What exactly does it mean and how did you arrive at that value for Earth?
March,
> Could you explain where 0,47 comes from?
When I realized that for the smooth planets surface the parallel solar rays irradiation should be not only diffusely reflected, but also specularly reflected, when I realized that I started searching for papers describing the solar parallel beams reflection from the spheres.
No matter how hard I searched for, there were none. So, I concluded there are not papers about the sphere’s the parallel solar beams specular reflection.
Since I could not let it there unsolved, I decided to look somewhere else.
I knew about the different shape bodies having different resistance to the liquid parallel flow when the Reynold’s Number is Re < 5000.
So I looked for a Table of Measured Drag Coefficients.
So, for a smooth sphere the Measured Drag Coefficient is
0,47
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/14ilf1l.svg/800px-14ilf1l.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
I welcomed the 0,47 as the planet spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor for the smooth surface planets without-atmosphere (an analogue of parallel liquid flow resistance).
Φ = 0,47 (Φ is from the Greek word Φως [phos], the light. Like in the Phosphorus.
So Φ varies from 0,47 for smooth surface without-atmosphere planets to 1 for heavy cratered planets, and 1 for gases planets.
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
Thus, solar system planets surfaces have been divided in three major categories – the smooth without atmosphere ones, the heavy cratered without atmosphere and the gaseous.
The heavy cratered planets and the gases planets do not reflect specularly, they reflect only diffusely.
During their multibillion years History, every planet has developed either a smooth surface Φ = 0,47 , or a heavy cratered Φ = 1.
Only Triton (Neptune’s satellite) does not get in either categories. In the case of the Triton Φ is neither 0,47 , no 1, but somewhere in between.
Thank you for asking.
https://www.cristos-vournas
And here I was thinking you were much more sophisticated and that you did something like integrating the curve below for the reflection of light from a sphere of water. (And of course, you are actually looking at rough rocky planets, but even even they could have a similar function and reflect better at low angles.)
The fact that your ‘light scattering factor’ actually comes from a completely unrelated drag coefficient is disappointing.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Water_reflectivity.jpg
Tim,
“The fact that your light scattering factor actually comes from a completely unrelated drag coefficient is disappointing.”
Phi is the planet spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor. It is a planet surface shape and planet surface roughness coefficient.
And Phi varies from 0,47 for smooth surface without-atmosphere planets to Phi = 1 for heavy cratered surface planets, which are very rough surface planets.
It is not a completely unrelated area though.
1). The Drag Coefficient accounts for a parallel flow.
2). The shape is spherical.
3). The Drag Coefficient is a well measured and well known value.
4). The Drag Coefficient also has not been calculated mathematically.
Now, we have three major categories for planet surface reflecting properties.
1). Smooth surface without atmosphere Phi = 0,47 (Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europa of Jupiter, Ganymede of Jupiter).
2). Rough surface without atmosphere Phi = 1 (Io of Jupiter, Calisto of Jupiter, Enceladus of Saturn, Tethys of Saturn, Pluto, Charon of Pluto).
3). Gases planets Phi = 1 (Venus, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune )
For those above planets and moons the New equation produces remarkable, very close to the satellite measured mean surface temperatures results.
The theoretical calculations to produce so much satisfying numbers happens because of the very much correct estimation of the each planet not reflected SW = IR emitted portion of the initially incident on the each planet solar flux.
The correct estimation of the IR emitted portion is used in the New equation which is based on the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.
Thank you for your interest in my findings. Your questions help me in further developing the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING Theory.
Best regards,
Christos
One more question/comment/critique.
Your division into “smooth” vs “heavily cratered” seems arbitrary. Just looking at images of the moons and planets, of the “smooth” ones seem rougher than some of the “heavily cratered” ones.
There should be some objective standard. Also, it seems there should be a continuous scale from 0.47 to 1.00 based on just how cratered it is.
Tim,
Very good question!
Rough for the solar irradiation 100 % capturing ( Phi = 1 ) example is a dense urban area. When solar rays hit the walls of the buildings the rays are multiply specularly reflected with a general direction towards the bottom, and till the energy is completely diffusely reflected or “absorbed” and IR emitted.
> Also, it seems there should be a continuous scale from 0.47 to 1.00 based on just how cratered it is.
Yes, I thought about it a lot.
What I came with is that when surface is at a Phi = 0,47 state, it cannot become even more smooth, to specularly reflect more than 0,53S is not possible.
And like-wise, when the surface is at the rough Phi = 1 state, it cannot capture even more solar light (even more higher buildings).
The states in between could not been conserved, because of the multibillion years planet-surface-shaping HISTORY, which was shaping surface towards one Phi = 0,47 (the smooth version), or towards the another, the Phi = 1 (the heavy cratered, the rough version).
Thank you
According to NASA, only about 47% of the solar that arrives at TOA is actually absorbed by surface. So I assume this is where the 0,47 comes from?
mh…”The blue plate is an inanimate object. As such, it cannot sense the presence of another plate nearby and choose to stop emitting”.
An inductor is an inanimate object but when you run a current through it, the inductor coils produce a magnetic field due to electrons running through them. That magnetic field induces a back-EMF that produces a current that opposes the current that creates the magnetic field.
Coils are used as series devices in circuits, called chokes. If a voltage spike occurs, which is a fast transient, the sudden rise of voltage causes a sudden rise in the magnetic field, and that magnetic field produces a current that opposes the spike.
All done using natural phenomenon without a brain to think. Why does the BP need to think? All it senses, if that, is that it can no longer radiate EM in the direction of the GP. Therefore half of its ability to dissipate heat is gone, so it warms.
The physicist David Bohm went into interesting areas where he claimed electrons ‘may’ communicate via quantum means. Who knows what goes on at the atomic level, it is not measurable directly and requires a lot of theory.
> According to NASA, only about 47% of the solar that arrives at TOA is actually absorbed by surface.
NASA considers Earth having a strong greenhouse effect +33 oC.
Also NASA considers Earth interaction with the solar flux on average surface values.
According to NASA Earth receives TOA 1362 W/m^2(after diffuse Albedo a = 0,306) it is 960 W/m^2
NASA divides 960 by 4 and has 240 W/m^2 the average absorbed by atmosphere and by surface.
From that 240
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/EnergyBalance/images/global_energy_budget_components.png
So, in NASA graph, from the average incident on TOA Earth 340 W/m^2 the absorbed by surface is 48%.
According to greenhouse theory 30% is diffusely reflected from clouds and surface and 23% is absorbed by atmosphere… in sum = 100%
Now 0,48*1362 /4 = 164 W/m^2
Then NASA adds back radiation from atmosphere to acquire the average surface absorbed 398 W/m^2 which is accounted for the earth surface average 288 K
But planets never emit from the surface at the average surface temperatures…
I made a graph “Planet Radiative Energy Budget”
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589400363342._szw1280h1280_.jpg
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448704125
so for any entire Planet in total
energy not reflected = energy IR emitted = Φ (1 – a)S πr^2 W
The absorbed by Earth surface in total we shall have then
0,47 (1- 0,306) 1361 = 444 W/m^2 or 32,6%
Nevertheless, the Rotational Warming phenomenon keeps Earth average surface temperature Tmean.earth = 288 K, as I have shown in the above posts.
For moon surface
0,47 (1- 0,11) 1361 = 569 W/m^2 or 41,8%
We observe here that moon has 30% more then Earth the not SW reflected energy to IR emit (moon 41,8% vs earth 32,6%)
But moon much slower rotation 1 /29,5 and moon low surface specific heat (1 /5 times of that of earth) keeps Moon average surface temperature at the low Tmean.moon = 220 K.
Also I have calculated the Venus average surface temperature 735 K using the same equation, where I only added a coefficient for the greenhouse gases density factor. In this section I also have calculated the Earth and Titan with atmospheres…
Please visit my site at the page about Venus.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
Best regards,
Christos
christos…”NASA considers Earth having a strong greenhouse effect +33 oC.
Also NASA considers Earth interaction with the solar flux on average surface values”.
***
To be fair to NASA, the pseudo-science coming from NASA GISS does not represent the intelligence of which NASA itself is capable. GISS are a load of pretenders who program unvalidated climate models and their physics is fictitious.
Thanks Christos
Backtracking a little to your notion that a surface will instantly emit the energy it absorbs. This is exactly contrary to what you call rotational warming!
The moon is a good example – it rotates so slowly that there is very little lag between what a surface absorbs from the sun and what it emits because surface temperatures are easily able to keep up with changes in insolation. This helps create large temp
variations from one place to another.
On Earth, the faster rotation helps create a lag, with many surfaces not warming or cooling fast enough for their upward emission to match the downward flux. Less temperature variation from one place to another.
MH…”The moon is a good example it rotates so slowly that there is very little lag between what a surface absorbs from the sun and what it emits ”
The Moon does not rotate on a local axis, it is warmed according to its position in its orbit. When the Moon is between Earth and the Sun, its dark side is warmed. That is, the side we never see. When the Earth is between the Moon and the Sun, its near side is warmed, the side we always see.
You can see from that alone that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
In any case I see a pretty big hole in your work. Saving it for after the lag discussion. 😏
Ok, I like every moment of it.
Please wait a little.
March, please visit this graph of Typical diurnal course of the Moons equatorial surface temperature…
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723/figures/5
Typical diurnal course of the Moons equatorial surface temperature according to Diviner radiometric measurements and simulations by the revised TWO model (based on data in Figure nine(a) of Vasavada et al. 2012). Also shown are the maximum (T max ), minimum (T min ) and mean (T mean ) temperature of the lunar Equator. In agreement with Hlders inequality, T mean = 213 K is about 57 K cooler than the Moons effective emission temperature (270.2 K) calculated from Eq. (3).
It is taken from:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
What we observe in the graph is the very abrupt fall in lunar surface temperature when on the day-night boundary.
Also, when on the night-day boundary, the rise in lunar surface temperature is tremendously fast.
But it is not the case during the lunar night. The temperature falls almost linearly.
So, what I conclude is lunar surface, when solar irradiated emits IR very much strongly, almost the entire incident solar energy is IR emitted out.
Well, I will continue in 10 minutes.
The solar energy intensity W/m² primarily reaching the planet’s surface is what actually determines the planet’s surface temperatures.
In other words it is the distance from the sun which makes the solar energy reaching planet weaker.
It is the square inverse law: 1 /R² – where R is the distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units).
What planet’s surface is capable to do with the incoming solar energy (how effectively it is capable to hold the incoming energy) also determines the level of the surface temperatures.
One of the energy “holding” planet’s surface properties is the atmosphere greenhouse effect.
In Earth’s case the greenhouse effect is very weak and cannot be considered as an important Earth’s surface warming factor.
Other factors influencing planet’s surface temperature are the planet’s surface reflection ability and the planet’s surface emission /accumulation ratio.
On Planet’s surface the energy Emission /Accumulation ratio
The by solar irradiated planet’s surface the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
When solar irradiated, planet’s surface always has a certain the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
It happens so because those are different mechanism energy transfer processes.
The incoming solar energy is one a pure radiative energy.
When solar irradiation interacting with the planet’s surface there are two different physics phenomena take place.
The by the surface instant IR emission and by the surface heat accumulation (conduction).
And it is observed that when the surface’s temperature is higher, everything equals, the
Emission /Accumulation ratio is higher.
Consequently when rotating slower and having a lower cp the planet’s surface gets hotter and the planet’s surface emits more and accumulates less.
And the opposite, It is observed that when the surface’s temperature is lower, everything equals, the
Emission /Accumulation ratio is lower.
Consequently when rotating faster and having a higher cp the planet’s surface warms less and the planet’s surface emits less and accumulates more.
Why? How can it be explained?
It can be explained by the difference in energy transfer by radiation vs energy transfer by conduction.
The energy transfer by radiation is in fourth power of the surface’s absolute temperature.
The energy transfer by conduction is linear of the surfaces absolute temperature.
Example:
Let’s have a planet’s surface T = 100 K
Jemission = σT⁴ = σ*100.000.000
Jconduction = cT = c*100
Jemission /Jconduction = σ*100.000.000 /c*100 = 1.000.000*σ /c
Let’s have a planet’s surface T = 200 K
Jemission = σT⁴ = σ*1.600.000.000
Jconduction = cT = c*200
Jemission /Jconduction = σ*1.600.000.000 /c*200 = 8.000.000*σ /c
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
c – is the coefficient of conductivity
Thus in this simple example we have illustrated that when a planet’s surface gets warmed at higher temperatures, everything equals, the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio is higher.
The planet’s surface accumulates less.
And when a planet’s surface gets warmed at lower temperatures, everything equals, the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio is lower.
The planet’s surface accumulates more.
That is why sea accumulates much more heat than land.
That is why, when we have Earth and Moon having the same solar flux of So = 1361 W/m Moon rotating slower and having a lower cp, at daytime is getting hotter and having a higher the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
So Moon’s surface accumulates less.
Earth rotating faster and having a higher cp, at daytime getting less warm and having a lower the energy
Emission /Accumulation ratio.
So Earth’s surface accumulates more.
All fine, but what in my comment do you disagree with?
When a surface is absorbing 960w/m2 from the sun, and at a temperature where it is also emitting 960 w/m2, I would say the surface is in radiative equilibrium.
You call this situation instant emission, so maybe just a difference in semantics?
I use word absorbing in brackets. I prefer instead the (not reflected portion).
MH…”When a surface is absorbing 960w/m2 from the sun, and at a temperature where it is also emitting 960 w/m2, I would say the surface is in radiative equilibrium”.
The 960 w/m^2, if that is correct, is high energy radiation from a higher frequency portion of the solar spectrum. Therefore, the lower frequency, lower intensity radiation emitted by the Earth cannot possibly be 960 w/m^2.
You have also omitted the portion of surface heat transferred to the atmosphere via conduction at the surface. Heat in versus heat out is far more complex than radiation in versus radiation out.
HEAT IS NOT EM.
Should be obvious that there is no law forcing radiative equilibrium, or, using your term (?), no law forcing instant emission.
> Should be obvious that there is no law forcing radiative equilibrium, or, using your term (?), no law forcing instant emission.
What do you mean? I am struggling with the mechanical translator, but please, can you say the same in some other way, so I understand exactly. I am sorry again, but sometimes I cannot understand what you maybe considering as a simple. It is different when one speaks on his native language…
CV, your translator is doing fine.
There are several idiots here that are NOT doing as well. You must always consider the source. Several here just want to pervert reality to fit their false beliefs. Here’s a list of the known idiots and trolls:
Bindidon
bdgwx
Ball4
Entropic man
Tim Folkerts
Nate
TYSON MCGUFFIN
Norman, aka Norma, aka Lori, as Nomran
Willard
E. Swanson
bobdroege
Each one has a history of attempting to pervert reality.
There are several others that comment less frequently. I’ll try to keep you appraised.
Show your bench, Clint.
Where’s the Sky Dragons list?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint R
The really funny thing is all those in your list know actual real physics (you know the stuff you can’t understand like textbook physics).
On the other hand the only ones making up their own physics (with no support for any of it ever. You constantly make false statements about physics then when proven wrong you divert attention away).
You: Clint R
Gordon Robertson
DREMT
Swenson
bill hunter
All wrong everyday and over 90% of your posts. It seems none of you care to learn actual physics but you like to ridicule people who know the real deal and can actually use it in calculations.
Anyway troll on, insult, denigrate and pretend youj are smart. Will not change the real world, it will not change any actual laws of physics.
Norman, please stop trolling.
I do not know. Have we completed the lag discussion then?
Well, I am sorry, my English, I do not always understand English well enough.
I am thinking about the “I see a pretty big hole in your work.” now.
What it is you see? I am very interested in your comments. I cannot decide about everything all by myself. Please continue, tell me.
And, please, where you see it is necessary, help me.
christos…”I am thinking about the I see a pretty big hole in your work. now”.
Christos…March Hare is an idiot. Does idiot translate to Greek? In Greek, it think it translates to fool, although the word idiot in English is more extreme than fool.
MH is being stupid, he does not understand what you are talking about and claiming there is a hole in your theory is MH trying to appear as if he is intelligent. The hole he is seeing is a hole in his brain which likely involves most of his brain.
Gordon, I can’t divine what ‘holes’ March Hare has noted, but there are indeed some serious problems with the theory as presented.
Perhaps the most obvious that that for a non-rotating planet (N=0), it predicts a temperature of 0 K! (Conversely, a rapidly rotating planet/moon/rock can get arbitrarily hot just by spinning fast enough!)
First a quick example on the same topic –
Place a metal plate in the sun, absorbing 900 w/m2.
The plate is sitting on top of a block of dry ice.
The plate surface (facing sun) could reach a steady temperature where, say, 500 w/m^2 is conducted to the ice below, but only 400 w/m2 is emitted. In which case your idea of instant emission fails.
Next, remove the block of ice, leaving the plate in the sun.
The plate is still absorbing the 900 w/m^2, but only emitting 400 w/m^2.
The imbalance will cause the plate to warm.
Eventually, but not instantly, the plate will reach a temperature where is emits 900 w/m2, at which point temperature will be steady.
The above is an over simplification, but you should get the idea.
MH, before you start commenting, you should try to learn the basics.
A two-sided plate absorbing 900 W/m^2 will NEVER emit more than 450W/m^2.
Learn before commenting, unless you just want to be a troll, like bdgwx, Entropic man, Norma, Willard, Ball4, E.Swanson, Bindidon, Folkerts…
Remember, idiots can’t learn. So prove you’re not an idiot.
Clint, your statement would imply that if I place a two-sided plate on the ground and it absorbs 900 W/m^2 of direct sunlight, that the plate could not warm above 299 (26 C), emitting 450 W/m^2 back upward from the top side of the plate. (and presumably emitting 450 W/m^2 from the bottom side).
It that *really* what you mean to say?
TF, had you been able to understand MH’s scenario, the plate was receiving 900 W/m^2, and emitting from both sides. “Next, remove the block of ice, leaving the plate in the sun.”
MH’s example was horribly worded. He was obviously confused, and I knew idiots would be confused. That’s why it was necessary to correct him.
No, Clint, his example was quite clearly a horizontal plate resting on top a block of cold dry ice with direct sunlight coming down on one side. Then the ice was removed so the plate could rest on the warm ground instead, with the sun still shining the same of the top of the plate.
I don’t think anyone else was confused.
Once again, for idiots:
“Next, remove the block of ice, leaving the plate in the sun.”
Clint, Your misunderstanding seems to be that you interpret “leaving the plate in the sun” to mean “now leaving the plate in the sun which had not been true before” rather than “still leaving the plate in the sun as it had been before“.
Once again, for idiots:
“Next, remove the block of ice, leaving the plate in the sun.”
“Third Time’s a Charm”, as they say.
Since you seem to be unable to engage with what I wrote, let’s try engaging in what YOU wrote.
“A two-sided plate absorbing 900 W/m^2 will NEVER emit more than 450W/m^2.”
Place the plate on the ground. Every second the plate is absorbing 900 J on each square meter of the top surface, facing the sun. If only 450 J can leave from each square meter of that top surface, where do you imagine the half of the energy goes? Out the back side and into the ground?
Once more, for idiots:
“Next, remove the block of ice, leaving the plate in the sun.”
#4
Says hi to gator, Clint:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
I was wondering when a troll would show up to help TF.
But, it’s too little too late.
Dear Clint,
No need to wonder anymore.
Here’s where he appeared:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-677365
Willard, please stop trolling.
mh…or snape…”The plate surface (facing sun) could reach a steady temperature where, say, 500 w/m^2 is conducted to the ice below, but only 400 w/m2 is emitted. In which case your idea of instant emission fails”.
As I told Christos, you’re an idiot trying to appear intelligent. The dry ice would cool the plate to a lower temperature and it would radiate based on that temperature.
BTW…I am an idiot too, like all humans. The difference is that I am aware I am an idiot. That’s the beginning of all intelligence…awareness. When you are aware that you’re an idiot you can begin to do something about it. When you become stuck in an illusion that you are not an idiot, there is no hope.
The beginning of your awareness would be to stop changing nyms. Who are we dealing with? Snape?
You are trying to simplify a complex problem to a simple addition. With the Earth’s surface, its radiating temperature is deeply affected by the amount of heat it transfers to the atmosphere directly by conduction. It is also affected by the type of material in the surface. Therefore, with the Earth, you cannot claim its radiation alone as a having significance as far as heat in/heat out is concerned.
The alarmist pseudo-physics of trying to relate all heat transfer to radiation, while ignoring conduction and convection, is based on idiocy itself. Yes…all climate alarmists are egotistical, self-centred idiots.
“Therefore, with the Earth, you cannot claim its radiation alone as a having significance as far as heat in/heat out is concerned.”
His example was specifically *including* conduction for his heat in/heat/out calculations. Not radiation alone.
Yes, now I got the idea.
Well, what I “see” is somewhat different. When 900 W/m^2 hits a plate…
I am sorry, I have to go now. It is very late in Athens 23:32 p.m.
Tomorrow, we shall continue…
Thank you
March.
> Backtracking a little to your notion that a surface will instantly emit the energy it absorbs. This is exactly contrary to what you call rotational warming!
The moon is a good example it rotates so slowly that there is very little lag between what a surface absorbs from the sun and what it emits because surface temperatures are easily able to keep up with changes in insolation. This helps create large temp
variations from one place to another.
On Earth, the faster rotation helps create a lag, with many surfaces not warming or cooling fast enough for their upward emission to match the downward flux. Less temperature variation from one place to another.
Yes, March. I understood everything now. I agree with every word you said here.
My notion ( that a surface will instantly emit the energy it absorbs. This is exactly contrary to what you call rotational warming!)
That is right. ( I see there is a term called instantaneous emission, which is simply the rate of emission at a given moment or instant ) I see now, I will use this term everywhere, instead of the (instant IR emission ).
Instantaneous emission then…
Great!!!
Thank you
Sure.
I see there is a term called instantaneous emission, which is simply the rate of emission at a given moment or instant, so maybe the semantics problem was with me?
Anyhow, this is very different than thinking the upward flux will instantly emit the same as the downward.
MH, also, try to place your comment where it fits. Pay attention to the “Reply” button.
Just replying anywhere indicates you don’t know what you’re doing.
We don’t need anymore idiots here.
This ain’t your blog, Clint.
Go hide under Joe’s dress.
It’s almost your bedtime, Willard.
Get to bed so you can do good in high school typing class tomorrow.
Someday, you’ll make a good secretary.
Don’t be sad, Clint.
The Flames will make the playoffs next year.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Christos
The hole in your equation:
There is tropics-to-pole convection, in both the ocean and atmosphere, that help moderate global temperature extremes, just as surely as faster rotation does:
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-weather-works/global-air-atmospheric-circulation
So, illogical to exclude tropics-to-pole convection from your equation, right? But if it were included, you would end up with a too high global temperature.
Something is not right.
March
> So, illogical to exclude tropics-to-pole convection from your equation, right? But if it were included, you would end up with a too high global temperature.
Something is not right.
Yes!!!
The Earth mean surface temperature actually is not 288 K.
What New equation theoretically calculates is the Planet Effective Temperature…
Which “effective temperature” do you mean? The most common “effective temperature” I have seen is the “effective blackbody temperature”, treating the surface as if the sunlight were uniform over the whole surface. This temperature is about 255 K for the earth.
Tim,
> Which “effective temperature” do you mean? The most common “effective temperature” I have seen is the “effective blackbody temperature”, treating the surface as if the sunlight were uniform over the whole surface. This temperature is about 255 K for the earth.
Yes, you are absolutely right, Tim. The ““effective blackbody temperature”, treating the surface as if the sunlight were uniform over the whole surface. This temperature is about 255 K for the earth.
The whole endeavor with the New equation started from the very first effective temperature formula:
Te = [(1-a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (for Earth Te = 255 K)
Then the realization of the planet specular reflection being ommitted lead to the Φ factor being inserted in the first equation.
So the Te.correct had corrected the planets initial Te.
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (since for Earth the Φ = 0,47 we came up for Earth Te.correct = 210 K )
Next step was to apply to the Te.correct equation the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING phenomenon:
Te.correct.rot.warm = [ Φ (1-a)S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
This New equation, when applied to the planets and moons of the solar system gave the very close to satellite measured results.
When we used the New equation on the planet Earth, for a very important purpose, to estimate the Earth atmosphere greenhouse temperature enhancement (since the 33 oC is very exaggerated number for Earth atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content) the New equation came with
Te.correct.rot.warm.earth = 288 K
In my first posts in Dr. Judith Curry Climate Etc… I was referring to Earth 288 K as Earth’s Complete Effective Temperature.
In any case, guessing there are many other problems – this was just something an amateur like myself was able to notice.
Tim,
> Which “effective temperature” do you mean? The most common “effective temperature” I have seen is the “effective blackbody temperature”, treating the surface as if the sunlight were uniform over the whole surface. This temperature is about 255 K for the earth.
Yes, you are absolutely right, Tim. The “effective blackbody temperature”, treating the surface as if the sunlight were uniform over the whole surface. This temperature is about 255 K for the earth.
The whole endeavor with the New equation started from the very first effective temperature formula:
Te = [(1-a)S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (for Earth Te = 255 K)
Then the realization of the planet specular reflection being omitted lead to the Φ factor being inserted in the first equation.
So the Te.correct had corrected the planets initial Te.
Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a)S /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (since for Earth the Φ = 0,47 we came up for Earth Te.correct = 210 K )
Next step was to apply to the Te.correct equation the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING phenomenon:
Te.correct.rot.warm = [ Φ (1-a)S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
This New equation, when applied to the planets and moons of the solar system gave the very close to satellite measured results.
When we used the New equation on the planet Earth, for a very important purpose, to estimate the Earth atmosphere greenhouse temperature enhancement (since the 33 oC is very exaggerated number for Earth atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content) the New equation came with
Te.correct.rot.warm.earth = 288 K
In my first posts in Dr. Judith Curry Climate Etc I was referring to Earth 288 K as Earths Complete Effective Temperature.
I had to do twice the same post because the equations did not appeared in the first. Now, they are looking even better in the first than in the second try…
“Then the realization of the planet specular reflection being omitted”
I still don’t understand:
1) why do you think astronomers got this wrong? . Astronomers are pretty smart people. The “Bond Albedo” is a pretty basic and important parameter. I simply can’t imagine that 1000’s of astronomers over many decades missed the fact that planets reflect in ways that are perfectly well understood.
2) Why do you chose “0.47” as the value? If this were based on some equation for specular reflection from a sphere, that would be great and might make be think there was something fundamental here. But you say it is based on drag for a sphere in a fluid.
I also still don’t understand why you chose (β*N*cp)^(1/4). Why not ^1/2 or ^1/3 or ^1/5? Yes, increasing N or cp will increase the average temperature, but this specific function seems arbitrary (and it gives T=0 for N=0!). Why not some sort of logistic function that asymptotically approaches some expected max and min temperatures?
tim…”Astronomers are pretty smart people”.
I would not count on that. Some of them are smart (like Wal Thornhill) but others go into astronomy because it’s easy credits. I once passed an astronomy exam with a horrible hangover. During the exam, I was so bleary-eyed I went to the front to ask the prof how many metres there are in a parsec. He smiled knowingly and shook his head.
Later, He asked how I screwed the exam so badly after doing so well during the year. I passed it, but barely. I told him I had a horrible hangover and he laughed again.
Emgineering was hard because of the immense work load. A common practice was to pick three courses to fail so you could rewrite them during the summer. Whereas I did not subscribe to that theory I did tend to ignore courses like astronomy, which was an elective. Barely cracked a book all year and still passed.
Courses like astronomy and geology simply don’t require the academic discipline of physics and math. I mean, what is there to study in astronomy? The course I took was about the relative brightness of stars relative to their size, gas spectra, etc.
I did learn that visual telescopes are pretty useless in astronomy, most work being done via radio-telescopes. Astronomy is largely the study of spectral radiation and absorp-tion on stars. Makes me giggle when desperate astronomer announce a new proto-planet based on nothing more than a slight perturbation in stellar spectra.
That’s like saying “I took a CPR course once. Based on that, med school must be easy.”
tim…”That’s like saying “I took a CPR course once. Based on that, med school must be easy”.
Med school is hard because of the work load, not the intellect. Look at the sorry mess of medical science recently with covid. The problem, as outlined by another medical authority, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, is that med students are forced to accept a paradigm, without question, if they are to get through grad school. Then, when they graduate, with a huge debt load, they must accept a paradigm to get work.
In other words, med students have immense pressure put on them to conform and not many have the guts to resist the powers that be and think for themselves.
Astronomy and geology are not that much better than anthropology. There is literally nothing to measure in space except through the study of electromagnetic energy given off by stars. Geology suffers from the same restrictions. There is nothing that can be observed directly under the surface or in the past. Therefore astronomy, geology, and anthropology are largely about consensus.
“There is literally nothing to measure in space except through the study of electromagnetic energy given off by stars.”
Well. Except for neutrinos.
Oh, and rocks brought back from the moon.
Also, electromagnetic energy from nebulas. And from planets and near blackholes and galactic cores. And from cosmic microwave background radiation.
Don’t forget gravity waves.
Face it, there is actually a LOT to study that you don’t even know about. You don’t have the background to get admitted to a graduate astronomy program, let alone the knowledge from advanced courses.
tim…”Well. Except for neutrinos. Oh, and rocks brought back from the moon. Also, electromagnetic energy from nebulas. And from planets and near blackholes and galactic cores. And from cosmic microwave background radiation. Dont forget gravity waves”.
***
You are really struggling here, Tim. Everything you mention except for rocks and neutrinos is EM, as I mentioned. Neutrinos are particularly interesting if they turn out to be the aether that Einstein admitted will destroy his relativity theory. However, neutrinos are seriously hard to detect, never mind measure.
Moon rocks?
Tim,
> I simply cant imagine that 1000s of astronomers over many decades missed the fact that planets reflect in ways that are perfectly well understood.
Tim, I do not understand it either. A guess I have, astronomers… well, they did a mistake. But it is necessary to be corrected.
I am still searching for a material about that. And what I have found confirms my first point that the planet specular reflection is being omitted in planet energy budget estimations.
Here it is what I have found on the matter:
In the below NASA Technical Memorandum 104596 you can read about the specular reflection not being associated with diffuse reflection and not being taken in consideration when estimating Earth’s average albedo value of
a = 0.3
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
NASA Technical Memorandum 104596
An Earth Albedo Model
A Mathematical Model for the Radiant Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft Due to the Diffuse Reflectance of Solar Radiation From the Earth Below
Thomas W. Flatley
Wendy A. Moore
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
1994
(NASA-TM-IO459&) AN EARTH ALBEDO MODEL: A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THE RADIANT ENERGY INPUT TO AN ORBITING SPACECRAFT DUE TO THE DIFFUSE REFLECTANCE OF SOLAR RADIATION FROM THE EARTH BELOW (NASA) 33 p
Page 1
With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.
Here, we consider the sunlit potion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word albedo in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.
Page 2
According to Wertz, Fsun, the solar constant in the vicinity of the Earth, is approximately 1358 wad/m2. The sunlight strikes the Earth with this intensity at point B. At locations away from this point, the intensity of the incoming sunlight decreases proportional to cos_, so that the solar flux reaching any given incremental area is:
Fin = Fsun(ne,S) wa_/m2
This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedo constant, ALB, which depends on the Earths surface characteristics. (See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earths surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. A good estimate of the Earths annual average albedo constant is 0.3
Page 15
Conclusions
This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. It is based on several approximations. Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular reflectance is neglected. For an elliptical orbit, the unit vectors associated with the incremental areas should change direction with altitude; instead, this algorithm assumes a circular orbit. The albedo constant is set to the annual global average for the entire Earth; Appendix II illustrates how the percentage of light reflected truly varies with geographical features. The Earth is considered a perfect sphere which does not rotate; it was unnecessary to model rotation since the albedo constant was not varied.
“Conclusions
This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. ”
Simplified model.
For spacecraft control systems simulations.
Course Sun Sensors.
So no, this is NOT an admission that astronomers in general have overlooked specular reflection for albedo.
Tim, the definition of Albedo is a diffuse reflection.
“Using satellite measurements accumulated since the late 1970s, scientists estimate Earth’s average albedo is about about 0.30.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo
“Earth’s ability to reflect the Sun’s light, called albedo, is influenced by the color, type and texture of surfaces ranging from snow, vegetation and urban areas.”
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/albedo.html
“Albedo (prounounced /ælˈbiːdoʊ/; Latin: albedo, meaning ‘whiteness’) is the measure of the diffuse reflection of solar radiation out of the total solar radiation and measured on a scale from 0, corresponding to a black body that absorbs all incident radiation, to 1, corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Also it should be noticed that blackbody has not shape. The incident on the blackbody radiation is considered perpendicular to the surface.
I thought AT was clear on this, Christos:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190798
christos…”Tim, I do not understand it either. A guess I have, astronomers well, they did a mistake. But it is necessary to be corrected”.
Astronomers have made many mistakes as have theoretical physicists. The Big Bang theory is a major error. There is absolutely no physics to back the theory and the evidence they present is flimsy. It’s not even a theory, no one has ever seen mass produced out of nothing.
There is no scientific reason why it should appear out of nothing. Part of the theory may have come from nonsense from Einstein where he theorized electromagnetic energy, when absorbed, adds to the mass of a body.
The BB theory is based on two factors: a Doppler shift in the spectra of stars and a residual heat they claim is left over from the BB. The latter is nonsense. They are mistaking electromagnetic energy for heat and the EM they claim is heat is obviously from stars and other sources.
Black holes are more nonsense. No one has ever seen a black hole and the only evidence is an absence of light in parts of the universe where they THINK it should be.
Astronomers have speculated that the Moon was ejected from the Earth and that planets were formed from dust around the Sun. Sheer speculation with no science to back it.
The worst for me is astronomers claiming that light arriving at the Earth represents time. They think we are looking back in time when we observe light from stars. Nonsense. The light we observe is right here, right now, otherwise we could not see it.
Tim,
> Why do you chose 0.47 as the value? If this were based on some equation for specular reflection from a sphere, that would be great and might make be think there was something fundamental here. But you say it is based on drag for a sphere in a fluid.
Tim, I agree with what you are saying. But I couldn’t find a single publication on specular reflection from sphere. So I concluded it is still an unchartered for fundamental sciences research area.
The very fact that there is not a single publication on specular reflection from sphere partly explains why astronomers have omitted planet specular reflection in their planet energy budget estimations…
I chosen “0,47” because it was the only one I had. And it proved to be the right choice.
Tim,
> I also still dont understand why you chose
(β*N*cp)^(1/4). Why not ^1/2 or ^1/3 or ^1/5? Yes, increasing N or cp will increase the average temperature…
I chose the (β*N*cp)^(1/4), I chose the forth root here. When the (β*N*cp)^(1/4) is inserted in the New equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
the planet surface (N*cp) product “formats” the final Tmean result at (N*cp) sixteenth root (1/16). In the New equation the (N*cp) is being twice the forth root operated, thus it is the (N*cp) product’s sixteenth root which affects the final result.
The METHOD I use is the PLANET SURFACE TEMPERATURES COMPARISON.
When comparing the different planets’ satellite measured mean surface temperatures, what I found is planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as the planet surface (N*cp) product’s sixteenth root.
I have demonstrated this phenomenon in my site, where I have for the different planets the satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparison.
Tim,
> Yes, increasing N or cp will increase the average temperature, but this specific function seems arbitrary (and it gives T=0 for N=0!). Why not some sort of logistic function that asymptotically approaches some expected max and min temperatures?
Yes, you are right, it gives T=0 for N=0!
But when N is very much close to the N=0, but still it is not N=0…
Example
Say N = 10⁻⁸ (it is a very close to N=0 number)
But when the sixteenth root is operated the result is
(N)^1/16 = (10⁻⁸)^1/16 = 0,316
Why not some sort of logistic function that asymptotically approaches some expected max and min temperatures?
Well, maybe it is possible. I don’t know. I am a mechanical engineer. I need a help of a mathematician…
Earth / Europa (Jupiter’s moon) satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 102 K comparison
All the data below are satellite measurements. All the data below are observations.
Planet…..Earth…..Europa
Tsat.mean…288 K…..102 K
R……….1 AU……..5,2044 AU
1/R²…….1………0,0369
N……….1………0,28159 rot./day
a………0,306……0,63
(1-a)…..0,694……0,37
coeff…..0,9127…..0,3158
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1-a)*(1/R²)*(N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,694 * 1 * 1 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9127
Europa:
Tsat.mean = 102 K
[ (1-a)*(1/R²)*(N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,37*0,0369*(1/3,5512)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴ = 0,3158
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. /Europa coeff. =
= 0.9127 /0,3158 = 2,8902
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.europa =
= 288 K /102 K = 2,8235
Conclusion:
Everything is all right. Everything is based on observations.
Notice:
We could successfully compare Earth /Europa ( 288 K /102 K ) satellite measured mean surface temperatures because both Earth and Europa have two identical major features.
Φearth = 0,47 because Earth has a smooth surface and Φeuropa = 0,47 because Europa also has a smooth surface.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*°C, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
Europa is an ice-crust planet without atmosphere, Europa’s surface consists of water ice crust, cp.europa = 1cal/gr*°C.
And
It is a confirmation that the planet axial spin (rotations per day) “N” should be considered in the (Tmean) planet mean surface temperature equation in the sixteenth root:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴.
Christos
A spherical planet covered with sand and gravel would have mostly diffuse reflection.
A planet shaped like a cube, but covered with smooth glass, would have mostly spectral reflection.
But the 0,47 in your equation comes a chart of various shapes, and nothing to do with surface material. Makes no sense.
Spring, thank you for asking.
> Christos
A spherical planet covered with sand and gravel would have mostly diffuse reflection.
A planet shaped like a cube, but covered with smooth glass, would have mostly spectral reflection.
But the 0,47 in your equation comes a chart of various shapes, and nothing to do with surface material. Makes no sense.
Yes, a planet shaped like a cube, but covered with smooth glass, would have mostly specular reflection…
Now, let’s imagine a spherical planet covered with smooth glass…
For smooth sphere Φ = 0,47
So the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux S would be:
not reflected = IR emitted = Φ(1 – a)S πr^2
a glass covered planet resemblances the case of the Earth (Φ = 0,47)
Let’s now imagine a planet covered with glass cubes…
The sizes of the cubes compared to the spherical planet size is what determines the Φ (the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient).
Spring,
> A spherical planet covered with sand and gravel would have mostly diffuse reflection.
So, sand and gravel covered planet is like being covered with small-size cubes.
A planet covered with sand and gravel resemblances the general case of smooth surface planets without-atmosphere Φ = 0,47.
But if the sizes of cubes are 10-20 stores high buildings, the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient Φ will approach very much close to the Φ = 1.
We have Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ varying
0 ≤ a ≤ 1
Notice:
Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets (spherical shape).
Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term.
So Φ and Albedo are always bounded together.
I have a page in my site (φ FACTOR EXPLANATION)
LINK TO THE PAGE:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383819
Testing –
Diffuse versus spectral
https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/reflection/specular/index.html
Good day to everyone!
I have prepared a page in my site which I call
SOLAR ENERGY BUDGET.
It is the last page in the site’s bottom. I have made several orthogonal illustrations/schemes to demonstrate the whole Albedo and Φ factor “involvements” in Planet’s Radiative Energy Balance:
I describe in the page the different Albedo – Φ factor cases.
There are planets with zero Albedo, also planets with 100% Albedo.
Also there are planets with Φ = 1; And with Φ = 0,47;
The Budget considers the planet’s energy balance in Total, and not in average as the Greenhouse warming theory very mistakenly does. The Planet Radiative Energy Budget can be applied to all planets.
We have Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ varying
0 ≤ a ≤ 1
Notice:
Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets (spherical shape).
Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term.
So Φ and Albedo are always bounded together.
LINK TO THE PAGE:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448704125
mscwin รวมความบันเทิง ไว้ทุกรูปแบบ ที่ pgslot เว็บไซต์สล็อตของพวกเราการพัฒนาระบบนั้นพาไปสู่ความนำสมัยที่เดี๋ยวนี้นั้นท่านไม่สามารถที่จะหาได้จากที่ไหนอีกแล้ว pg slot ตรงนี้ที่เดียวในโลก
การีน่า Service เมก้า เกม เกม บริการได้รวมทั้ง บริการใดๆก็ตามที่มีให้ผ่านซอฟท์แวร์เกมบนแพลต์ฟอร์มของ Garena หรือบริการใดๆก็ตามที่เข้าถึงได้ผ่านเกมของ megaslotgame Garena หรือเว็บ เมก้า เกม ที่น่าสนใจ
ipad air 4 เล่น Mega Slot ยังไงก็รวยใช้ ipad air 4 เล่นเกมในเว็บ Mega Slot ได้เเล้ววันนี้ เกมสล็อตเล่นได้กับทุกอุปกรณ์ เล่นยังไงก็ปัง เพราะระบบดี ระบบเสถียรมีเเจกโบนัส
I know many of you are very keen to learn more about the cluster, so I already have asked Matthew (fire219) and Marek (gamiee) to write a technical blog post about it once the dust settles. I know that there are at least two other services that the guys want to host on the server, and once thats done you can expect a progress report directly from the people involved in making it happen. What I can tell you is that the cluster is running mainline Debian and the nodes are network booted from a 1TB NVMe SSD. All databases are backed up and mirrored to another 1TB SSD. Were currently using 8 of the 24 nodes at our disposal so there is plenty of room to grow in the future. Were also aware that not everything is working 100% flawlessly just yet, but were going though the bugs list and hope that the minor issues will not detract from our systems overall usability.
cheers a good deal this website is definitely official along with informal