Home/Blog
If global warming was a concern in the 1800s, Hollywood might have portrayed the COP21 Paris global warming pow wow like this…
Of course, Hollywood seldom uses such racial stereotypes anymore…unless they are of White Southerners.
Vice-Chief Kerry of the Developed Tribes: “All chiefs must dance to the rain gods, or no rain will fall on our lands. Or too many rains. After rain dance, we smoke peace pipe.”
Chief Boingo of the Undeveloped Tribes: “Our people will not dance. Unless much wampum is given to our people. For we have suffered greatly. The clouds do not give their tears. Or give too much…whatever. Only after much wampum will we then smoke peace pipe.”
Vice-Chief Kerry of the Developed Tribes: “How much wampum does Chief Boingo speak of?”
Chief Boingo of the Undeveloped Tribes: “As much wampum as stars in sky and as many moons have passed since our ancestors fell asleep”.
Vice-Chief Kerry of the Developed Tribes: “Hmmm. That’s much wampum. My people will not be happy. What say we smoke-um peace pipe and tell our peoples rain dance was good, anyway? We send a few wampum as we can. And we throw in some fire water?”
Chief Boingo of the Undeveloped Tribes: “Ugg. Just like other pow-wows, eh? OK.”
Chief Obama of the Developed Tribes addresses all tribes of Earth: “After many moons of rain dance and pow wow talk, the Developed Tribes chiefs have made peace with the Undeveloped Tribes, and with Earth. Now the clouds will cry tears of joy, and the great waters will be kept from our villages.”
NOTE: For the humorless few who don’t get it, the Paris COP21 meeting is little different from ancient people who thought they could control nature through meaningless gestures. The gestures made them feel good about themselves, that they have done something useful, and maybe even had some fire-water-fueled fun in the process. But the leaders are simply posturing, knowing full well that their successful pow wow and rain dance will have little effect, but will nevertheless calm the tribes. To call the above “racist” neglects the real racism: that Paris-supported energy policies pushed by mostly white-skinned rich westerners would kill millions of mostly dark-skinned poor people by making the energy they desperately need to be inaccessible.
This is the funniest thing i saw so far about the “saving the earth” meeting in Paris.
You should have the option to share this on facebook.
done.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/paris-pow-wow-heap-good/
post this on facebook
Walking in the footsteps of Christ, Roy? Not very Christian of you. Read 1 John 2:9 and 2:11
Proverbs 8:13
It is better to laugh than to weep.
What is thy name, thou preacher?
Not sure what Monty considers factually incorrect about this version of what happened in Paris, or why it is considered “hateful” from a biblical standpoint.
Maybe preacher Monty will explain his rationale, but maybe not. I would guess that your spoof is abominable for him. So he attributes his own feelings to you. I think that is known as “projection” in psychology.
What does St. Thomas of Aquinus have to say about immigration?
Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, peaceful, to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or hostile to its citizens.
Google the first line.
Isaiah 5:29
Matthew 6:24
I’m looking for substitutes for WUWT after reading the AGU meeting post.
1 Timothy (somewhere)
“Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.”
And why not.
Cheers.
Thanks, I needed that.
I’m glad Paris pretty much followed the script. Well, not their script, but the script of the past COPs, including the venerable “We must get together for another party like this soon.”
yes, “fire water” was my euphemism for “party”.
What’s the PC-incorrect term for caviar?
Chinese woe.
In my part of Indiana we had a high of 65 deg. F yesterday. High today forecast to be 62 deg. F
According to the climate record our normal temps for December are:
Mean 31.2
Max 39.2
Min 23.1
Obviously we must take drastic action and since the world wide tribal council in Paris has met and their Shamans smoked a lot of weed, imbibed in a concoction made from the divine cactus (Peyoti)during their meditations, spent days in their sweat huts, and then read their chicken entrails and threw their bones and have finally ordained that we must make sacrifices. It has been decided that since we have no active volcanoes in Hoosier land, our only option is to make sacrifices in an abandoned limestone quarry in Southern Indiana as the Mayans once did in some sink holes. So plans are being made to grab a virgin to sacrifice on the way down if we can possibly find one on the campus of IU in Bloomington, IN. 😉
Pence has refused to obey the Obama EPA edicts, and with good reason. IN gets most of it’s electricity from coal, and complying will be devastating. It really is astonishing for them to continue to offer up wind and solar as solutions, when there is no way you could power the IN economy with wind and solar. Both Germany and Spain have gone down this road, and it was a failure. You wouldn’t know that from listening to Merkel, but you would if you listened to her energy minister.
And yet despite all that we see wind farms poping up all over on Indiana farm land.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/USA_Indiana_location_map.svg/250px-USA_Indiana_location_map.svg.png
Well of course, the subsidies keep rolling in so the wind farms keep popping.
Meanwhile, CA is shoveling several feet of frozen permanent drought. Those poor folks can’t catch a break.
Rah,
That’s never gonna happen in Bloomington, Indiana for the same reason why Jesus could not have been born there….they couldn’t find 3 wiseman and a virgin.
I know Tom. It is probably going to be mission impossible. I was a student there for a couple years in the 70’s. Made to every home game the season Bobby Knight led them to become undefeated NCAA champs. Even back then they showed porn movies in the common area of the quad.
I lived in McNutt Quad and well remember the ash from the physical plant ruining the fire engine red paint job on my 1972 Nova with a 396 turbo I had put under the hood, Hurst 4 on the floor, and Crager wheels. That was a fun car to drive because nobody expected it to have the power it did. Had to chain the engine down because I kept busting the motor mounts. It was a good thing I was a good sized kid because the heavy duty clutch I put in it would give a man a real work out. No woman I ever let try to drive it could deal with the heavy clutch pedal pressure required.
Seems like the agreement is a lot of measuring and reporting. Transparency through bureaucracy?
My thoughts? Well since you asked, if the agreement binds the US to any reporting requirements, the Senate might take notice and ask a few questions of Kerry, who might subsequently squirm and wriggle a bit. We shall see.
All one needs to know to understand how little real substance there is in in this “agreement” is to see that instead of putting limits on CO2 or other “green house gases” emissions they used temperature as their metric. If there is accepted science that has proven what component of temperature change is the result of natural variation and what is from human causes I would like to see it. Without that their metric is useless.
Physicist Lubos Moti does a very good job of tearing that aspect apart in this blog article:
Stunning scientific illiteracy behind the Paris 2 °C target
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/12/stunning-scientific-illiteracy-behind.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
This is funny but sad that modern governments are so certain about the unknown.
The Mayas would have decided to paint an additional coat of human blood on their pyramidal temples to please Sun and Rain.
Rats, I was going post an image of the Ad that showed here, but it changed. It was for “Discover your American Indian Heritage.” Probably not the best match today. 🙂
Is this Dr. Roy Spencer’s official scientific opinion? I hope his brain is functioning better when he does actual science.
It’s a spoof, Neil, but you don’t think it’s funny, do you? Snarling aside, do disagree with James “boil the ocean” Hansen’s judgement on COP21?
Wow. Predictably racist and lame.
Kinda like The Lone Ranger (2013), eh?
Roy, I don’t remember the Lone Ranger, (or Silver for that matter) being lame.
What minute of the movie was that?
Excellent insight on this evil farce; totally appropriate on both cultural and intellectual levels, and I really needed the endorphins from laughing my head off. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
Racist?
Not is geran imo approves, which he does!
“if”, not “is”.
(Too much “peace pipe”.)
Stick to making low-rent propaganda videos, Peter..
Its all you have.
And the UN IPCC is not inherently racist? The measure they propose always disadvantage the poor and vulnerable who are overly represented of certain races.
Wow, a predictably false and lame hit-and-run there greenman3610.
But not unexpected coming from the alarmist climate propagandist who in 2010 made the false claim that “the Great Lakes have lost most of their winter ice over the last 3 decades.” (based on a cherry-picked 2002 chart 8 years prior to making the claim I would add)
How’s that claim worked out for you Peter? LOL.
Oh my, the last 2 years have been the two highest actual measured(blue bars) ice years in the 43 years of data!
http://iceweb1.cis.ec.gc.ca/IceGraph/ct?charttype=rmax&ssnsta=1973&ssnend=2015&histdtsta=1204&histdtend=0514®ion=glakes&nrmlsta=1973&nrmlend=2015&showwarn=true&plotnormal=true&plotmedian=false&plottrend=false&plotwarn=true&plotscaled=true&cachelife=0&errorpage=errorPage.jsp&format=ct&sizex=1230&sizey=780&lang=en
Right back to the levels of the late 1970s! It’s natural variability, just like I told you back then Peter.
And during that 43 year period, humans have added over 1 trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere (2/3 of all the human CO2 added since 1750), and the max Great Lakes ice coverage is highest in the entire 43 year record.
Tell us again how anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver of climate warming and how catastrophic of an impact it has had on ice cover Peter. LOL
You are correct RealOldOne2. A few bars of radiation from cold carbon dioxide (nothing at all like that from a black body at similar temperature) cannot help the Sun’s weak radiation (mean 168W/m^2) raise the mean surface temperature above zero.
But if you say too much that is contrary to Roy’s belief system, you will find yourself banned and your comments deleted after the style of SkS, SoD, Lucia, Tallbloke, WUWT, PSI and plenty of other’s with they obvious agenda’s.
well, Doug, I’m obviously in good company, then.
Of course Roy
They are all Lukes like yourself, and you are all just as wrong in your “science” as the AGW crowd.
You can read about errors on WUWT on this page of my website. I’ll add a page regarding “Roy Spencer errors” when I have time after our summer holidays. (By the way, one Sydney suburb had a record 200Km/hr tornado today.)
But, as I have told you Roy, radiation is not the primary determinant of planetary surface temperatures and you’ll get AU$10,000 paid via PayPal if you’re first to prove me wrong.
You will never defeat the AGW crowd whilst you still accept their fictitious, fiddled physics regarding radiative forcing. The Sun’s radiation is, on average, like that from a nearby iceberg at -40C. It doesn’t account for the mean surface temperature, so the rate of cooling is irrelevant. In any event, nitrogen and oxygen molecules do most of the “slowing of cooling” via conduction.
Luke, I was just poking fun at Peter Sinclair, aka greenman3610, and reminding him of his false ‘Great Lakes ice have lost most of their ice’ claim a few years back, that he clung to even after I showed him empirical data that it wasn’t true.
I have great respect for Roy, his beliefs, and his courage for publicly blogging and standing strong for real science based on empirical data, and not being bullied into silence by the groupthink CatastrophicAGW crowd.
While I believe the empirical data shows us that the impact of CO2 on climate are hugely exaggerated, I’m not a ‘SkyDragon’ who (I think) believe it has no effect at all.
I’m not worried about being banned here because I don’t plan on disrupting conversations. My observations are that Roy is very patient with opinions which differ from his, and only takes action when people get overbearing and disruptive.
RealOldOne2:
Firstly, I’m here to teach Roy and others what correct physics tells us. I’m not paid for the time I spend.
Regarding the ‘Sky Dragons’ you may wish to read this page on my website (Slaying the Slayers) regarding the errors they make.
It’s important that people understand that planetary surface temperatures are not primarily determined by radiation reaching such surfaces. When two or more simultaneous fluxes of radiation from different sources strike an object, only the one which is effectively the hottest has any effect on the temperature of the target. This is easily demonstrated with a circle of electric bar radiators. For example, a ring of 16 radiators focused on a central object don’t make the temperature of that object twice that achieved by one radiator, but climatologists seem to think they can add all such fluxes (eg back radiation and solar radiation) and, when they add 16 identical fluxes and enter the total into Stefan-Boltzmann calculations (where flux is proportional to T^4) they thus get double the absolute (K) temperature with 16 times the flux. And they just won’t ever admit that their calculations are wrong.
Regarding Earth’s surface, there are further errors because the flux is very variable, but they treat it as a homogeneous flux striking a flat Earth orthogonally 24 hours a day.
So no one here has been able to answer my question as to how they think they can explain Earth’s mean surface temperature with radiation calculations. The fact that it is impossible to do so leaves my hypothesis standing alone as the only correct one. Prove me wrong.
“When two or more simultaneous fluxes of radiation from different sources strike an object, only the one which is effectively the hottest has any effect on the temperature of the target.”
This is lunacy.
Radiation carries energy. How does one photon know where the other phonons were emitted?
What happens to the energy of the photons which aren’t the hottest.
This is as bad as the Dragonslayers. Worse even.
What is it about these endoftheworlders that results in a complete lack of a sense of humor? Pete, buddy, take off the tin foil hat and look around you. Doomsday is NOT happening.
Peter Sinclair, you are not cool, not even with your juvenile “Wow”. James Hansen thinks that the COP21 agreement is “bullshit..a fraud”. Your hero, Peter: James “boil the ocean” Hansen, so why the race-baiting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PEi0Retg8A
Your transparent dodge of attributing this racist and frankly idiotic post to old Hollywood wouldn’t have spared you being censured at many universities. Maybe UAH has lower standards, maybe not.
Magma: “racist and frankly idiotic post”
###
C’mon, magma, why not tell us what you really think.
Better head to your “safe place”.
I’m starting a petition to ban all reruns of “F-Troop”.
You can be the first to sign.
How they stereotyped the US Calvary was nothing but hateful! 😎
Best read while listening to Arthur Godfrey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL64S4BVh1g
What an XXXXXXX you are dr. roy spencer.
(Edited for general audiences. -RWS)
That about sums it up. Great enactment!
What a pathetic Christian response from a scientist who should be able behave better then this. The Paris agreement is NOT about changing our weather. This whole agreement is about FUTURE generations that will live on this earth for thousands of years into the future. Let’s not get caught up in some apocalyptic vision of Revelations like ISIS (Such is the decrepit state of evangelical theology in the US). We hope and pray these deniers and their magical wizardry die off. To say with such arrogance there is nothing wrong with Earth’s resources and energy trajectory beggars disbelief. We are better off without Roy Spencer for the sake of future generations. Hopefully the bad theology developed in the present (as implied biblical) will die a quick death. I have a hope it becomes the trash and pollution of the 20th and early 21st century. A time that simply expressed the indulgence and wastage of this generation. I wonder at the hypocritical pharisee that sit in your church pews every Sunday! God forgive you Roy Spencer.
Is this what meteorologists mean when they talk about “an upper level disturbance”?
“this whole agreement is about FUTURE generations”
BULLS**T
Its about money.. and bureaucratic control. Nothing more, nothing less.
These guys don’t give a stuff about the MASSIVE amounts of CO2 they spew at the get-togethers.
If they cared about the future and feeding the planet, the very last thing they would do is try to curtail CO2.
Actually, this piece of paper will have ZERO effect on atmospheric CO2, so the whole nonsense must be all about the control.
But, Ross, there will be nearly 500 years of natural, long-term cooling starting before 2100, and you can’t prove (using correct physics) that either carbon dioxide or water vapor could warm Earth’s surface. Until you and other Warmists and Lukes can give a cogent proof based on verifiable physics and supporting experiments, how about quitting your fraudulent promotion of the hoax? There’s thousands of dollars awaiting you on this website if you can prove you’re right.
Would that be to give them something to laugh at or someone to blame for their poverty?
Dang, and here I thought I was the least PC commenter around! Bravo, Dr. Roy!
However, you really should put a trigger warning on your post for the professionally offended class, to let them know that their heads might asplode when they read it and they should run, don’t walk, to their nearest safe space until the storm blows over …
Curiously, this class of folks is rarely offended on their own behalf. Oh, no, they are almost always offended on someone else’s behalf.
I have a couple rules of thumb on these matters.
The first rule is, the fact that I am offended does not mean that you are offensive. This is the most crucial rule, and one that I struggle to remember in times of stress …
The other rule is, pay no attention to those who are offended on behalf of a third party. If the third person wants to register a complaint with me, I’m more than happy to listen. But I want to talk with the organ grinder and not with the monkey.
Anyhow, I found it funny, and entirely descriptive of the level of magical thinking involved in making “the seas stop rising” …
w.
“If the third person wants to register a complaint with me, I’m more than happy to listen.”
I say..”bring it on” !!! 🙂
Offence is the most selfish of concepts – it can only be taken, never given.
I like your rules Willis :-))
“the seas stop rising”…don’t forget the glaciers. We’ve got to stop the glaciers from melting too.
It’s quite simple to stop the glaciers from melting. Just raise the freezing temperature of water. Make it freeze, say, 5C instead of 0C as it does now.
God help this world if any of these anti-science Republican runners up get to be president. Insane idiots! This anti-AGW site is all about your political agenda. Some mistaken crazy God given thought bubble of yours. It is not about logical application of the actual data. That is what many refuse and turn deaf ears to and go on living in some fantasy world. A salvation found in predatory Capitalism and self centered selfishness. Use your commonsense brains that God gave you all! Yea your snow still falls in record abundance and many are trying to tell you that these are also abnormal signs. In other parts of the world beyond your own USA short sighted existence – things are dire. In my own country and state despite some of my state being in the tropics we are now 80% drought declared with extreme heatwaves killing off what little moisture is left in the dust. Try temperatures on some cattle properties at 116 degrees F. To the north fires obliterate the sky. To the south many deaths by some of the most extreme fires we have ever seen. Sometimes temperatures remain about 86 degrees F all night. When the fires burn it vaporizes hundreds of acres of wheat plains in seconds. This nonsense of a global warming pause. Wake up conservative America. If you don’t do anything and just sit on your hands, sleeping China whose air is so bad and acrid will beat you at RENEWABLE ENERGY and lead the world.
It’s not about data, Ross, because proving that there is long-term warming for about 500 years since the Little Ice Age does not prove carbon dioxide caused it. And when it cools for 500 years starting later this century (as it did before the Little Ice Age) that cooling will not prove anything about carbon dioxide either.
You cannot prove with correct physics that water vapor and carbon dioxide raise the surface temperature by most of “33 degrees” as claimed with fictitious physics such as in Pierrehumbert’s book.
The effect of a force field (such as in a vortex tube) is to create a temperature gradient radially. Gravity does the same, and that is the reason a planet’s surface temperature is raised. Back radiation cannot raise the temperature above the effective temperature of that back radiation. On Earth the mean temperature of the back radiation is about 257K and that of direct solar radiation reaching the surface is about 233K. The back radiation wins, but cannot explain the surface temperature. You can’t add them. Only the state of maximum entropy explains the observed surface temperature, and the best explanation of that physics is here and in linked sites and papers.
So, does any reader, Roy included, dare to try to set out in a comment here appropriate calculations (making some allowance for the fact that radiation is variable) supposedly explaining the mean surface temperature of Earth? There’s a reward of over US $7,000 for the first to do so and leave me stumped for a correct refutation. Yes, I’m throwing down the gauntlet to ANYONE in the world to prove me wrong with valid physics.
You’re an anti-science kook. Crop yields are 15% higher today than they would be if CO2 were at 300ppm. That creates more food, which drives food prices down, feeds more people, and enables fewer of them to die from starvation or malnutrition. Arid and semi-arid regions of the world are greening. Google “Sahara desert greening” or “Sahel greening”. Jesse Ausubel has concluded based on his research that the globe is adding about 2 billion tons of additional biomass to its surface every year. The idea that the planet is dying is dangerous propagandist insanity.
I am sorry for the people being killed by the environment. People die in earthquakes, floods, freezes, blizzards, tornados, drought, hurricanes, heat waves, etc. every day. Mother Nature is a vicious killer. She especially likes to prey on the poor who can not afford to defend themselves against her. Fossil fuels are the cheapest, most reliable, most portable fuel source that can help poor people protect themselves against the murderous Mother Nature and help them lead a more dignified life.
There is absolutely nothing in your hysterical emotional rant that Mother Nature has not done unlimited times before – regardless of how much invisible, odorless, colorless carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere.
Very well said Groty.
The cost is huge. Money formerly used for real humanitarian aid is now being diverted to carbon dioxide aid. For example, the Australian Government very specifically stated that $200 million a year will be diverted out of humanitarian aid to help keep global warming under 2 degrees. It won’t be more than half a degree anyway before 1.5 degrees of cooling over nearly 500 years starts before the year 2100.
God is in control of climate. He knew the world would industrialize. He set the planets in place to regulate climate, probably through the influence of their magnetic fields (which reach to the Sun) and gravitational fields which regulate such things as the 100,000 cyclic change in Earth’s eccentricity – probably regulating glacial periods. He placed the Moon to provide tides and possibly stabilize Earth’s rotation. He made the atmosphere just the right height to provide a pleasant temperature range, rather than a much higher atmosphere which makes temperatures like those on Venus. He added water and water vapor – that most prolific of greenhouse gases – to lower the temperature gradient with its radiation, as does carbon dioxide to a minute extent, thus reducing the effect of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient – and lowering surface temperatures. God answers when we ask. He gives people like myself, who do ask, insight into how His climate system really works.
People like Hansen, Pierrehumbert et al think they know better than their Creator – think mankind can outwit God and control climate with one molecule in every 2,500 other air molecules. Roy would do well to tune into what He has revealed through people like myself who understand physics. He must realize that AGW is evil.
http://SavedByTheLamb.com
Dear Mr Cotton I would like you to know I have been saved by the Lamb too. So I am enlightened on Spiritual discernment that matters. As well, I think your understanding of climate science is so poor that Anthony Watts was correct for once. You are bereft of any semblance of good sound God given logic. Stick with the gospel and get off web sites wasting your time and making a fool of yourself.
From Hot Whopper:
you know one explanation for science deniers not “believing” thaY weather extremes are getting more extreme more often? It’s because they only read climate conspiracy blogs, like WUWT. …..
For example, in the last few days there were at least 245 people who were killed as a result of unseasonal torrential rains in Chennai, India. You can read about that disastrous weather event at the Times of India, which reported that:
The deluge destroyed crucial road and rail links, shutdown the airport, snapped power and telecom lines and left lakhs [hundreds of thousands} of people stranded.
Then there’s northern England and Scotland that was drenched and battered by record-setting Storm Desmond. You can read about that at the BBC. There are also some photos on Quartz, just in case you thought it was a fuss over nothing. It isn’t. The BBC reports that thousands of homes were flooded, one person died, and power is slowly being restored to thousands. As quoted on Quartz:
Storm Desmond dropped a total of 262.6 mm (10.3 inches) of rain in Cumbria county, in northwest England, from Friday through Sunday. Floods minister Rory Stewart told the BBC that Desmond had broken all the UK rainfall records. There’s also wild weather in the Pacific north west. Not as bad as the flooding rains in the UK, but the storm has caused power outages affecting 18,000 homes in Washington state.
While down here in Australia not long ago, there were deadly bushfires. The fire in South Australia’s mid-north was burning at a rate of 580 acres a minute. One woman described it as “”It was like a fireball, 90 kilometres an hour.” If you can’t imagine a fire burning that quickly, then just make sure you aren’t in the bush on a catastrophic fire danger day. To make matters worse, the communications systems failed the volunteer firefighters. Two people died in those fires, and at least 87 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. One man was watching his property burn from 3,000 km away (from Darwin) via a feed from cameras he’d installed. He saved his home by activating sprinklers via his mobile phone. The ABC has mapped what happened where in the fires in South Australia’s mid north. The agricultural land could take years to recover. From Hot Whopper Blog.
Another upper level disturbance from hoosit
Ross: Just curious, when you actually do try to think and use common sense, does your brain start hurting and the result is this drivel?
Ross,
Since the 1920s deaths from extreme weather have decreased by 95% .
Ross, You come from a land of droughts and flooding rain.
Climate wise, rather a sh*t of a country. Fires, flies, poisonous lergy, killer floods, withering droughts,…and you call it “the lucky country”. So you’ve got “extreme weather” already inbuilt + mainly coal sourced electricity supply to reinforce the fossil fuel, AGW guilt trip.
I’d say this to the Hot Whopper lady, but she’d only send me to the Whoppery for a good Wopping.
Ross
Your comment has not a word of physics, let alone any reference to my website, blog, papers, videos or book, all explaining how the “heat creep” hypothesis is developed directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You won’t get the AU$10,000 reward for a “last resort” comment such as that you wrote above. Meanwhile, you still have not been able to explain Earth’s surface temperature with radiation calculations, so I rest my case unless and until you start talking about entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If … your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
The radiative GH conjecture totally ignores the Second Law.
And, Ross, for the umpteenth time, I am not interested in proof that the globe is still warming out of the Little Ice Age. It did likewise between the Dark Ages and the Medieval Warming Period – all by itself. And then it cooled for about 500 years. I live in Sydney and today (in summer) a Sydney suburb experienced a record-breaking 200Km/hr tornado – but I’m not making any point out of that regarding the effect of carbon dioxide. Only correct physics can determine that, and I have presented such which, for your sake not mine, I hope you really study carefully one day, as it’s not hard to understand.
I am not sure what this is, but I know it isn’t science…
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html
What is your country, Ross?
my guess is he is from Australia judging by his rant which is a shame because thats were i come from
This is very ugly.
The good news is, indigenous people from around the world played a huge role in the activism at Paris, from this flotilla http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2015/12/video-flotilla-paris-cop21-canoes-from.html to crucial behind-the-scenes roles in trying to push governments for real action.
This is what happens when the places where your culture has persisted for thousands of years are under existential threat. And it’s very effective: without indigenous leadership bitumen would be flowing through the Keystone pipeline, and we’d be drilling in the Arctic. My guess is that this effectiveness is precisely what brings out this kind of ugliness, but it is very sad to see.
Bill McKibbon,
What is ugly is the hysteria behind the climate alarmism. What is ugly is the Paris street mob with its echo of the lanterns and the guillotine.
What is ugly is the proponents of extremism such as yourself who are a threat to society and a menace to our freedoms.
What is ugly is the idea of thought police and state repression to stifle the opponents of such extremism.
What is ugly is the demonization of atmospheric CO2, the basis of life.
What is ugly is the ugliness of Greenpeace and its thuggery.
What is ugly is freezing in the dark when the sun doesn’t shine and the windmills are frozen up.
What is ugly is the intolerance of those such as yourself, expressed here against our protesting the modern day witch hunt which is taking place.
To be continued.
No, what’s ugly is racism. One can debate the things you apparently want to debate–say, whether wind power and solar power work efficiently enough to deal with the climate crisis–without resorting to the ugliest tropes of the last few centuries. I worry that in the age of Trump it’s getting hard to remember, but the tone of this essay is deeply wrong for reasons any student of American history should be able to quickly summon to mind.
You are the racist one, Bill McKibben, as you promote energy policies that will cause widespread death among poor people of a different skin color than you around the world, just so you can make money and be praised by your rich friends. Shame on you.
That at least is an argument (the part about energy policies and their effect on poor nations)–I disagree heartily with it, but we could debate it. And it didn’t involve mocking groups of people, holding forth about ‘firewater,’ and so on. It’s ad hominem, but at least it’s not grossly racist.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: December 14, 2015 at 5:42 AM
You are the racist one, Bill McKibben, as you promote energy policies that will cause widespread death among poor people of a different skin color than you around the world, …
————————
@RWS
How will low cost (western salaries, impossible cost 3rd world salaries) energy help the poor. How can they/their governments afford the required infrastructure? Is the weswt going to pay? How are the poor going to afford the $0.06 min cost per kwh? How are the poor going to afford the refrigerator they so need to preserve food? How are they going to afford the electric cooker to stop their lungs being destroyed by cooking fires?
Show me your data for widespread deaths and the causes. Showw me how you will finance this magical electricity stuff.
Better is to give them efficient cookers with chimneys.
Better is to give a village solar electric panels and batteries if they really need electricity.
Without proof of what you say, this is just drivel and propaganda.
[do you actually need data that access to abundant and inexpensive energy saves lives? wow. Well, try this for a start…
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4trrBL8KVLY/UR13Ru70goI/AAAAAAAACek/czCziHdBFjo/s1600/PCEUvLE2010.jpg ]
Bill McKibbon, you have been called out on your race-baiting. It won’t work, its too obviously a smear.
The developing nations intend to lift themselves out of poverty and this means cheap and accessible power. As the Paris farce proves, they are not impressed by the alarmism, nor by windmills.
Your alarmism aims to deprive the peoples of these nations, and confine them to poverty which they struggle to escape. You cannot dictate to them, and your race baiting will not impress them.
TFP: Go give your views to the leaders of developing nations. Explain to them that they are doing it all wrong. Explain to them that they need windmills and solar panels and that they should forget about power grids because their people are poverty stricken and can’t afford refrigerators.
And see how far you get.
Rich people from rich countries met in Paris with rich people from poor countries and decided to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries and screw poor people everywhere”
(CW 2015)
The issue, Bill McKibben is that radiation from cold carbon dioxide actually makes the surface very slightly cooler (though by less than 0.1 degree) and there is no physics which can be used to prove it could warm. I’m offering you AU $10,000 (~US $7,000) if you can prove with correct physics how and why the surface temperature is what it is, supposedly based on radiation reaching that surface. That’s just not how it works. Details of the “bet” are here where I put my money where my mouth is.
Yes Roy we’ll lift their poverty and give them poisonous acrid air and polluted landscapes in your fossil cheap landscape worldview.
God is NOT in CONTROL of our planet in the sense of its resources for us to use. WE DETERMINE by the injunction of Genesis to subdue the earth and its resources. But we are to act with a great sense of responsibility and awe at the creation.
Your site is a narrow minded bigoted look at otherwise God given insights from science (via common grace). Your waving of the hand and glimpse at poverty is like a man in the mirror – you forget what you really saw and use convenient truths and cliches to satisfy a very wrong political agenda.
I have watched you and your mate act like carping babies in the hands of Republican wingnuts in congress. Not all of them are that bad. Some are good and need to be there. However, you pass onto these selected wingnuts platitudes are that quite sickening. In the name of false re-assurances, you say everything is fine.
This reminds me of those false lying prophets of the Old Testament who gave comfort to the Nation saying everything was okay. They did not need to change their habits. All they were, were false words and without the proper insight of the real Creator.
You mark this space in history. Certain names will go down in history as obstructionist and cause great loss as to humanities well being in the future.
The theological statement by the Cornwall Alliance is utter NONSENSE. I also note the bad theology that exists in most climate change deniers on your site.
Ross Implicit in your statement regarding God not being in control of our resources is your incorrect assumption about carbon dioxide, based on fictitious physics promulgated by Hansen, Pierrehumbert et al who, I suggest, have not gained insight from God as to how temperatures are determined, not only in the tropospheres and surfaces of planets and satellite moons, but also in any crusts, mantles and even their cores. I know that because their “physics” is clearly ignoring the Second Law and the associated maximization of entropy which explains the stable temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere.
God has given me insight as to how these temperatures, and the necessary energy transfers, come about, and it’s not by way of radiation reaching the surface. I suggest you go back to this comment – and those reading this who consider Jesus Christ was lying when He said He had come down from Heaven, where He had been “before Abraham” might care to read what I wrote at http://SavedByTheLamb.com.
What is ugly is the race-baiting so avidly seized by you, Bill McKibbon, and others as an instrument to bludgeon dissent and smear the host of this blog. Even uglier is your attempt to use this spoof of the COP21 agreement, which James Hansen himself has condemned as “bullshit” and a “fraud”, as means to advance your own personal standing in the eyes of the “denier” hating zealots.
Ugly is you, Weepy Bill, with your emotional posturing that is calculated to ensnare the weak and susceptible and fill your coffers with green tribute.
mpainter
So pleased to see you think James Hanson is someone to be listened to. Now listen to all that he has to say, or are you selective in your science like most contrarians.
Selective to the nth degree and I am a skeptic, thank you. The term “contrarian” was borrowed from the investment world and does not fit in climate science.
Concerning James Hansen, do you agree with his assessment of the COP21 agreement?
Myself, I agree with Roy Spencer who called it “green fluff”.
mpainter
Cop 21 hugely exciting. I am still worried it will be too watered down. Bur remarkable effort to get to this stage. If nothing else it sets us on the right path. And…if you don’t like the term contrarian, don’t act like one.
Simon, call me names if that is the best you can.
I myself take pride in being skeptic. By the way, you forgot to race-bait.
mpainter
“By the way, you forgot to race-bait.”
No point. I think when someone stoops to the level of racial bigotry that this article has, where they feel the need to belittling another culture to make themselves feel superior, they are past redemption. All a bit sad really though don’t you think.
Simon serves up another nasty tidbit of his festering soul. Who are you?
mpainter
Mmmm it is not my soul that is festering. I am entirely comfortable with my point of view on the race issue. I find it entirely repugnant that anyone would find it acceptable to denigrate another persons culture, particularly one that has suffered so greatly. Are you telling me you find the mocking tone of the article funny? If so, I think you would be best to take a look at your own soul.
Who are you?
I’m not sure why it matters which one of the 7.3 billion people I am that lives on this astonishing planet?
Bill Mckibben,
the US has built over 12,000 miles of pipeline in the last 5 years, that is ten keystones.
I used to worry that the mad greens would have some effect on the use of fossil fuels.
I now realize it is the same being in government as being a postman and having to deliver past the mad dog, you have to throw it a bone once in a while – Copenhagen, Paris…..
“Pipelines in the oil and gas business
To support this growth in energy demand, pipeline infrastructure has grown by a factor of 100 in approximately 50 years. It has been estimated that world pipeline expansion could be up to 7% per year over the next 15 years. This means over 8000km/annum of pipeline being built in the USA alone, at a cost of $US8 billion/annum.
Figure 8. New, large diameter pipelines are expanding Internationally, 32,000km of new pipelines are constructed each year: this is a $US28billion business, and 50% of these new builds are expected in North and South America.
Additionally, 8,000km of offshore pipelines are being built per year: this is a $5billion business with 60% in NW Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico.
The total length of high pressure transmission pipelines around the world has been estimated at 3,500,000km. The ‘split’ is:
~64% carry natural gas;
~19% carry petroleum products;
~17% carry crude oil”
“World Oil And Gas Pipe Demand To Reach 51.8 Million …
http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com/……
World demand for oil and gas pipe is expected to increase 5.3% per year, … Demand for line pipe will benefit from construction of new transmission lines needed” ..
“As 2015 began, operators had announced plans to build more than 41,700 miles of crude oil, product, and natural gas pipelines extending into the next decade, a 21% increase from data reported last year (OGJ, Feb. 3, 2014, p. 90). Most of these plans (more than 66%) are for natural gas, consistent with the share for this segment seen in previous years”
Bill,
lets take a look,
it’s in the third world that the populations are increasing, a sign of a benign climate and good agriculture, in fact the amount of land used for agriculture has declined since 1997 as the worlds population has increased. The world food index is at an 8 year low, China , a country known for extreme weather ( see floods 1931, the worst in the 20th century) has had ten years of bumper crops.
The world has been greening for the last 30 years, a marvelous trend.
Cities are up to 15 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside , way hotter than an expected 2 degree rise and yet birds, bees, flowers and trees positively thrive under these conditions.
could go on and on but enough for you to mull over,
the last world wide droughts were in 1934.
Bill,
one of the biggest problems effecting wild life species and causing fires, especially in the US is cheat grass,
It is catastrophic though these effects are usually blamed on global warming.
Cheat grass has spread across the Us, into Canada , into Hawai,
the interesting thing is cheat grass does not like hot dry weather, so much for the idea of more warming in the US!!
regarding the seas and Ph, the seas vary from 7.5 – 8.5, even lower around coastlines, and are stable .
Where man does not go the coral thrives- see bikini atoll .
The last island wiped off the face of the earth was back in 1905 and is now growing and greening.
Fish and coral love oil platforms at sea and see massive increase in numbers,
the coral at the Maldives was destroyed by building back in the 1970s- 1990’s until a ban was put on using it – it was estimated that it would have been gone in 30 years, today it is growing back.
Get off that moral high horse Bill McKibben,
You have real live murderers on your side.
https://youtu.be/W4TPlpU0f6s
The world needs to push the atmospheric CO2 level up to at least 700ppm..
350ppm is barely subsistence level.
I DARE you to live only on food grown at 180ppm
Your anti-CO2 rants are DISGUSTING in the extreme because they would force the world’s growing population to live with an ever decreasing food supply. This would affect third world countries most.. and is thus disgustingly RACIST.
There is only ONE chemical reaction that feeds the whole world, and that is PHOTOSYNTHESIS, and to operate properly and effectively, it need upward of 700ppm CO2 preferably lots more.
Rich people from rich countries met in Paris with rich people from poor countries and decided to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries and screw poor people everywhere”
(CW 2015)
Anybody know what the emoticon is for “applause”?
the electric networking in the UK has been built on the backs of large taxes paid in the past and cheap labour.
Ask any one who has had electricity connected to a remote cottage recently about the true cost.
Another example is internet connections. Where we live a max adsl bit rate is 1 to 8mbits/sec. There are 200 houses in the village. There is no way that any commercial concern can connect this to a fibre network for 21st century speeds. But the government has seen fit to provide £0.5M to fibre up such places. This money will never returned to the government.
Do the governments of your poor have vast funds for providing an electricity/broadband/telephone grid? Can they police the grids to stop interruptions/thefts? Surely local generation is best for all? And will require the smallest input from rich nations (which makes the input more likely)
TFP: Rural electrification was achieved in the US in the thirties, during depression years. Get out your atlas, compare the sizes of the US and UK and population densities of that era with today’s and you will begin to understand that your comments are b.s.
Hi mpainter,
Rural electrification was not achieved in the US in the thirties, it was achieved after WWII. It is not I disagree with your basic thesis, but you lose creditably when you misstate historical facts.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry, you mean completed after WW 2. the program was initiated in the mid-thirties and was interrupted by the war, as you pointed out. By achieved, I meant the legal enactment of the program which meant its inevitable completion.
Please, no silly semantic arguments.
Have an even better day.
Hi Jerry L Krause,
Mpainter is correct. Electrification began well before the 1930’s. The work of Edison and Tesla (AC current and mass electrification) in the mid to late 19th century yielded much fruit in the early 20th century. They didn’t call the 1920’s without a reason. Electrification had already arrived in many large US cities by then.
Have a great day!
Correction, my statement should have read:
“They didnt call the 1920s the Roaring 20’s without a reason.”
Wabash Indiana became the first electrically lighted city in the world March 31,1880. Not by light bulbs but by four large early versions of flood lights called “Brush lights” for their inventor. If your passing through that way you can see one of those original lights and get information on the system to power them at the little museum at the Wabash county courthouse.
Though Edison helped the development initially he later became a hindrance to that development because of his insistence on using DC instead of the much better AC. Telsa won that battle though it was Westinghouse that reaped the benefits. Edison, an astute business man, died very wealthy and with much acclaim. Telsa a far more competent researcher, scientist, and engineer died penniless and with far less notice.
Telsa said of Edison upon the laters death:
“If he had a needle to find in a haystack he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once, with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was almost a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
And that pretty much expresses the difference in their approach to problem solving. And thus we have the oft repeated Edison quote:
“Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.”
Hi Johnkl,
Mpainter is correct. Words do not have any meaning that is of importance. He wrote: “Rural electrification was achieved in the US in the thirties.” Do you understand the word: rural? And if it was achieved in the thirties, or even twenties, why was it that my family were still cooking with cook stoves fueled by wood or coal and lighting our homes with kerosene lamps yet in 1947. But I guess my problem is that I make “silly semantic arguments”.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hi Jerry L Krause,
Please accept my apology. The REA began via Executive Order May 11, 1935 and helped develop “rural” electrification. Prior to that, by the 1930’s 90% of urban dwellings had electricity but only 10% of rural dwellers. So while private markets had gone into rural areas, it was to a much smaller extent.
Thank you for the correction, and…
Have a great day!
yeah, so how’s that wind and solar working to make things better for ya? Only an idiot would look at the increases in longevity, prosperity, standard of living in the last 100 years and claim that inexpensive and abundant energy did not fuel it.
It would not have happened without fossil fuels.
Yes, fossil fuels are a finite resource, but you cannot legislate replacements into existence.
Let the market work. Everyone needs energy, and so replacements WILL be developed…there is no stronger market force than the need for energy.
Well, if the people I’ve talked to (former military) are correct, the government is sitting on some pretty fantastic technology that would transform the planet, if they would release it, but that is not how the game is played. You can’t have a world where people are not connected to a grid you control.
Now, to add some cred to this Obama ordered the release of anti-gravity technology in 2012. It’s been an open secret for decades the military has this. That’s how B2 bombers have such amazing range. Okay, so let’s consider this. We are supposedly on the brink of catastrophic climate disaster. The US has a technology that would cut aerospace consumption of carbon to the bone, and would drastically cut costs, but this is not even mentioned at the Paris conference. If this crisis was real, the technology would be released around the world and fast-tracked. Words and actions are not adding up at all.
http://amunaor.com/2012/07/26/obama-declassifies-anti-gravity-technology/
In this case, “the market” (if there is such a thing) is not working, because it’s not getting the right signals. Fossil fuels are much more expensive in reality than their cost suggests. This is a problem for free markets advocates, who typically have a huge blind when it comes to valuing natural resources.
Dan Hue
What I see as the problem is that people like you have a huge blind spot when it comes to dealing with the realities of a capitalist world.
This country as a whole is a much cleaner place in every respect, be it water or air quality that it was 50 years ago. It is POVERTY which leads to pollution and filth and all the human costs associated with it while capitalism, while not perfect by any means, leads to a much higher standard of living and longer life spans for people. And fossil fuels are what have fueled that.
For “green” energy to prove it’s worth is must first demonstrate that it can supply the needs to sustain our standards and in fact expand to accommodate advances in those standards. It is failing to do so. One would need to cover all of the state of Connecticut with wind farms just to supply the base load requirements of the NYC metropolitan area and then would STILL need alternative on demand sources to make up all deficits when the wind isn’t blowing.
I wonder how far advanced fusion or cold fusion reactor teleology would be now had the world put all the resources that have been expended on “green” energy and climate change into such development?
Well said, Roy, but what I wrote to Bill in this comment applies, and you need to come to grips with the fact that the whole of the AGW concept that radiation sets surface temperatures is wrong. The Sun’s radiation reaching the surface is like that from a nearby iceberg at -40C. The radiation from the atmosphere is overstated at 324W/m^2, because that corresponds to the temperature close to zero which, on average, is found only 2Km up in the troposphere – hardly an average tropospheric temperature – probably measured from low clouds. Even most of the water vapor is higher than 2Km. But, whatever the flux from the atmosphere, it cannot be added into Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Two colds don’t make a hot.
And even if you use their incorrect 390W/m^2 into the surface, it is a mean of variable flux, and the effect is nothing like that of a constant flux of that magnitude. Variable flux having a mean of 390W/m^2 would not raise the surface temperature much above freezing point. And it’s wrong to include the back radiation in there anyway. It’s just not how planetary surface temperatures are determined. What happens is here and genuine questions are welcome on that blog. God tells me I’m right Roy. You should ask Him.
thefordprefect,
While I respect your appreciation of Douglas Adams, the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” is science fiction.
Fiber optics on the other hand is science fact that reduces the cost of broadband services by several orders of magnitude compared to copper cables. I teach people how to use this technology:
http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html
Attend one of my courses and you will understand how to install fiber optic cables that deliver >100 Megabit per second broadband service at unbeatable prices. That bit rate means that you can watch multiple 4K television programs without the need for a “Set Top Box” or a DVR. Sign up for Netflix and you can watch all the movies you want (free of advertising) for $9 per month.
Thank you for the reference.
Have a great day!
Roy
I hope you enjoy(ed) your 60th birthday this month. My 70th is next week. That’s over 50 years since the Physics Department of Sydney University awarded me a scholarship, and I’ve been keeping up with physics ever since. Hopefully in your next decade, as the hiatus continues, you’ll come to realize you could learn a lot about the relevant thermodynamics from me.
Doug,
Thanks for that interesting biographical information. My 78th birthday is next week. I was awarded the “Major Scholarship” in physics at Pembroke College, Cambridge and the “College Prize” for physics. Also other awards for academic achievement. I still teach on a part time basis:
http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html
That means that my comments here are are based on science rather than emotion.
While thermodynamics is not one of my strengths I trust my ex-colleague Robert G. Brown rather than you.
Your problem seems to be confusion compounded by misplaced arrogance. Please stop wasting our time with your BS. You are not amusing anyone.
gallopingcamel:
I have soundly refuted Robert G Brown on this page of my website, but you’d understand the refutation better after studying my “heat creep” hypothesis in detail.
Now, I throw down the gauntlet to you. When you brush up on developments in thermodynamics since 1980 (as this guy talks about at http://entropylaw.com ) and study my website, linked papers and blog, and watch my 43 minute video, let’s see your submission for the AU $10,000 reward.
It will make great reading for Roy, too, to watch the two of us with a background in physics argue the toss. You could post your comments on my blog and duplicate them here.
Robinson & Catling have a radiative/conductive model that I find helpful:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
Their model works well for Titan:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
I met with Tyler Robinson with a view to improving the R&C model. I propose to add cloud layers using Finite Element Analysis. This approach worked well for airless bodies:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/
Will FEAs work for bodies with significant atmospheres? Sadly my paid employment has exploded (I teach fiber optics) to the point that I don’t have enough time to spare for serious “Climate Science”
Exchanging a
GC: Robinson and Catling are wrong in saying “atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue.”
Think, man, think!
The thermal radiation reaching the lower troposphere of Venus is very significantly attenuated by then and could not even melt ice. How could such solar radiation be “causing temperatures to increase” in the vicinity of 700K near the Venus surface? In the case of Uranus, solar radiation doesn’t even exist in the lower regions of its 350Km high nominal troposphere.
Many have fumbled around with ideas about pressure, gravity or something causing the observed temperature gradient. No one but myself has explained very precisely (and based on the Second Law) just how the required thermal energy gets down to the base of a planet’s troposphere, into its surface and then into sub-surface regions right down to the core.
It’s all at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com and in linked papers, websites and my book.
And GC, seeing that your comments are based on “science” (as mine most certainly are too, I myself having specialized in extensive post-graduate study of thermodynamics, and helped undergraduates understand such) and seeing that your comments are not based on “emotion” – just on “trust” of an “ex-colleague” then no doubt you will have no trouble answering the question I have posed to many others who are apparently unable to explain Earth’s mean surface temperature with radiation calculations. Let’s see your personal attempt to do so, remembering that the solar flux with a mean of about 168W/m^2 reaching Earth’s surface is in fact a very variable flux over the whole globe. Hence, because of the T^4 relationship in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, you would agree with me that mathematically we can prove that the mean temperature achieved by variable flux is always colder than the temperature that would be achieved with uniform flux having the same mean as the variable flux. So, let’s see your computations – your personal computations, GC – not links – not calls to authority – just scientific discussion, such as was sadly lacking in your first comment.
For more detail, GC, go back to this comment to which there is as yet no response from anyone. Likewise, even with about 700 visits to my latest blog in its first three weeks, no one has attempted a refutation that addresses what is explained in my hypothesis.
Don’t gallop off, though, for I’ve asked you to answer so that you can demonstrate to the many silent readers that you do in fact base your beliefs on science as you say. When we get past that first question (and you realize that the radiative forcing GH conjecture is not based on correct science) then perhaps you will be more receptive to investigating what it is that does explain temperatures in the tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons. You’ll even understand why it’s hotter than Earth at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus. Your ex-colleague, Robert Brown would be at a loss to explain such.
@rws:
do you actually need data that access to abundant and inexpensive energy saves lives? wow. Well, try this for a start
——————
are you actually serious?
fossil fuel use has to exponentially increase to give linear life expectancy increase!
If I plot life expectancy vs increase in coffee drunk there would be a better correspondence!
That plot shows no scientific link between fossil fuel use and life expectancy.
At least tell me how the poor will pay for the electricity.
The poor need education (minimal energy requirements)
they need safe water (minimal electricity use – unless desalination where intermittent power is adequate)
They need safe food and place to grow it
they need safe cooking that is minimal cost.
they need stability to enable them to live in the harsh climate.
I’m sorry but you show no insight into the poor’s requirements.
Thefordperfect
Yes! You tell them!
The only missing piece is that you personally go tell the “poor” in third world countries how much they only need “minimal energy requirements”, oh, and because of your enlightened educated state you perceive those “poor” sods also only need education (then they will be just educated though hopefully not ignorant, like you!
I am sure you will be embraced with much joy, and cries of “Hurrah, some one finally has come to tell us what we need, because we are too poor to know that for ourselves!”
BTW I am sure you found that life expectancy and coffee consumption do correlate, since they measure the same parameter, number of living people. So not useful at all. Is this the best you have to offer?
Now comparing energy usage (Joules) in a society with
1)the first derivative of technological advancement in that society, that would be useful comparison,
2) product of education level and numbers of the educated,
3) lifespan, a proxy for medical advancement,
4) sustained population in a society,
such are useful measurements.
Stick to the science guys. Spare us the political niggle and God BS. Why stoop to their level?
Please
M
So anonymous Michael C, let’s have your version of “the science” which you think explains with correct physics why the Earth’s mean surface temperature is whatever you think it is and how it gets the required thermal energy. No links: just your own personal explanation in your own words.
I rely on sound scientific observation – which ever pitch it supports.
I am not anonymous. My name is Michael Carter. I live in Raglan New Zealand, with a MSc in Earth Science.
I only seek truth. My own (present) conclusion on probability is largely intuitive, built around Earth’s history and regulatory systems.
It’s not just physics.
The thermodynamics of a planet’s troposphere is what determines its temperature at any altitude, and at the interface with the surface. This guy’s website may help you understand entropy maximization: http://entropylaw.com and my blog will explain why it’s not carbon dioxide doing the warming. There’s no need to buy my book because the original paper is now free to read here. It’s good that you seek truth. So did I until I found it.
When you’ve studied the paper, Michael, you’ll find (and understand why) no one can answer the question I asked you, because the surface temperature is not determined by radiation. I’ve asked that question many times. No one can answer. But, because the question can’t be answered with radiation calculations, there is no answer either as to how radiation from carbon dioxide could or would affect the surface temperature.
A new hypothesis in science must, first and foremost, be in accord with accepted laws of physics. (My hypothesis is, whereas the radiative forcing GH one is not.)
Then, if the hypothesis passes this first test it must then stand up to observation, experiments etc. You should not build an hypothesis on observation alone, and you should rule out any hypothesis which is in violation of accepted physical laws, even if the hypothesis seems to agree with observation. My point is, Michael, that observation alone (no matter how scientific) is not good enough.
PS: I’m in Sydney – I’ve driven through Hamilton, NZ (50Km from you) and must see the Bridal Veil Falls next time.
‘My point is, Michael, that observation alone (no matter how scientific) is not good enough’.
Nothing in isolation is good enough. This puzzle is made up of thousands of pieces. They will accumulate over time. We can only honestly project using degrees of approximate probability.
I’m not talking about projections in this instance, Michale, although the planets give some clues regarding the future, as in this plot based on their angular momentum. What I am talking about is one straight forward fact that I have proved using the laws of physics, and verified with data from other planets and experiments with centrifugal force, and that fact is that IR-active gases (like water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane) cause the planet’s surface to be cooler than otherwise, not warmer.
TFP, I’m afraid it is you who lack insight. You also show that you are very poorly informed.
Roy,
I not one of your fans but this time you nailed it.
COP21 was another fantastic junket for the clueless who think they can control the climate. What a bunch of hypocrites!
There is a vanishingly small probability that CO2 emissions will fall over the next 85 years. Yet there is also a vanishingly small probability that the climate will warm by anything approaching 2 Kelvin over the same period.
Mother Nature has such a wicked sense of humor……she may deliver a sharp reduction in temperature to embarrass these imbeciles. The imbeciles won’t care as long as the COP junkets remain well funded.
Thus the COP 21 folks can congratulate themselves for “Saving the Planet” even though they achieved absolutely nothing besides promising to fund a few kleptocrats.
gallopingcamel you say
“Mother Nature has such a wicked sense of humorshe may deliver a sharp reduction in temperature to embarrass these imbeciles.”
Don’t underestimate the warmists ability to produce ‘peer reviewed papers’ which explain that this is exactly what you would expect from global warming
Wow Roy, you really are a racist fuckwit.
A good example of what the other side has to bring to the issue.
gallopingcamel
“Your problem seems to be confusion compounded by misplaced arrogance. Please stop wasting our time with your BS. You are not amusing anyone.”
Yep all demonstrably true … but
He is the greatest genius never acknowledged.
And despite being multiply banned on here (as well as every other denier blog).
The Troll comes back and entices someone to feed him.
The more you do the hungrier he gets.
Yes, well I suggest that you, anonymous Toneb go back to the three comments starting here and see if you can help GC respond scientifically. You’d do well to catch up on some thermodynamics yourself. Perhaps you’re among those PhD’s referred to in the comment thread for GC’s ex-colleague’s post here who have forgotten about the temperature gradient formed by gravity which obviates the need for concern about greenhouse gases.
PS: Maybe you should also read the comment I wrote on WUWT which appears at the foot of this page about GC’s ex-colleague’s pathetic attempt at trying to “explain” thermodynamics, whilst completely disregarding the process of maximum entropy production, which is what the Second Law is all about. (LOL)
When someone is losing an argument the fallback position is always “racism’. I have witnessed many types of racism for years, however it’s racism against Caucasians that does not matter. After selling products to a “native” run casino for years our company was told they would no longer be dealing with us. Was it the product…the price…the service. None of the above. We were informed they were dropping us because they were now going to purchase through a native company. To drop one company for another because of “race” is of course “racism’. Imagine the uproar if the tables were turned.
Roy, you have some nerve critizing COP leaders when you have done everything in your power to undermine any considerations of the impact of global warming.
Too bad they didn’t take your suggestion to involve ISIS, right?
https://www.facebook.com/roy.w.spencer/posts/10200870908412704
David Appell:
You have some nerve promulgating the radiative forcing hoax when you can’t even use the concept to explain observed surface temperatures. How does the Venus surface rise in temperature each Venus day from about 732K to 737K when such temperatures are way above what the incident solar radiation (even at TOA) could achieve for a blackbody? Why is it hotter than Earth at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus, where there’s no surface, no incident solar radiation and no convincing evidence of significant net energy loss at TOA and it’s about 30 times further from the Sun than we are? If you can’t explain with radiation why the mean surface temperature of Earth is whatever it is, then you can’t explain what would happen if radiation varied. Radiation reaching a planet’s surface (if any) is not the primary determinant of the temperature thereof.
You (or any reader) may respond on my blog if you think you can prove the “heat creep” hypothesis wrong.
Still trying to convince the world that, with ‘heat creep’, cooler things can raise the temperature of warmer things without any external help. Tch! Tch!
542 million years of evolution on land required substantial atmospheric CO2. That there has been no sustained temperature change is compelling evidence CO2 has no effect on climate. More on this and identification of what does cause climate change (97% match since pre 1900) is at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com ‘Heat creep’ plays no part.
DP: Solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface does not explain the observed temperatures. No such radiation does, and you cannot prove me wrong on that one. CO2 actually cools the surface but by less than 0.1 degree. Water vapor (the main greenhouse gas) cools by a few degrees.
Heat creep is a process in which entropy increases, as I have proved. That’s what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will happen, in case you don’t know. It happens in experiments with centrifugal force. When you actually understand what it is, then by all means submit your attempted refutation and apply for the AU $10,000 reward on my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
A credible approximation of heat balance for the planet is at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Cloudaltitudevsglobaltemperature.pdf
It is only the net radiation that matters. The net between the surface and the atmosphere is the 40 that goes directly to space and the 40 that gets thermalized (conducted to other molecules, nearly all of which are non ghg).
DP: I have already soundly refuted calculations such as that which you linked: see the section headed “WHY THE IPCC AND PIERREHUMBERT ARE WRONG” on my blog: https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com/
Will you get it into your head that the mean temperature achieved by very variable flux is far colder than the mean temperature achieved by steady flux with the same mean as the variable flux. This is blatantly obvious because flux is proportional to the fourth power of temperature. Furthermore, you cannot add fluxes from different sources and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. To do so demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of radiation. See my 2012 paper on radiated energy and the Second Law linked from the ‘Evidence’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com
Furthermore, DP, it is well known that radiation from the colder atmosphere does not penetrate ocean surfaces by more than a few nanometers and it is thus also blatantly obvious that it can’t help the Sun to raise the surface temperature of the oceans. The mean Solar radiation is like that from a nearby iceberg colder than -40C. That’s all there is in the way of radiation that could warm the ocean surface, and you’d need more to compensate for simultaneous evaporative cooling and sensible heat loss both into the atmosphere and down into the ocean thermocline.
Radiation from an effectively colder source is not thermalized in a warmer target, just as low frequency radiation in your microwave oven is not thermalized in those plastic microwave bowls. I trust you know that such ovens warm water molecules because their radiation is designed to resonate at the appropriate frequency. This is not normal atomic thermalization associated with Planck functions.
You have a lot to learn about 21st century developments in our understanding of radiation and why every independent one-way pencil of radiation will obey the Second Law. See my 2012 paper on this subject. It’s linked from the ‘Evidence’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com
And no, DP, you can’t just excuse a violation of the Second Law on the basis of some “net” result. That is also explained in the above paper. If the Second Law said you could, then you could use it to prove that water could flow up a mountain and into a lake at the top because it “knew” it would flow further down the other side and thus result in a net increase in entropy. Every INDEPENDENT process in nature must obey the Second Law.
What you write is the epitome of the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology with which you have been brainwashed.
No, you have not explained the Earth’s surface temperature with radiation, and you never will be able to. Nor can you explain how a location on the Venus surface gets the required thermal energy to warm from 732K to 737K over the course of the four-month-long Venus day. The Sun’s radiation reaching Venus is only strong enough to raise the temperature of regions at high altitudes where the temperature is less than about 400K.
DP: I agree that climate change is all 100% natural, with possible causes relating to planetary orbits (see http://climate-change-theory.com) and their effects which could pertain to variations in solar activity, sunspots, cosmic ray intensity, cloud formation and solar intensity varying because of variation in the distance from the Sun. I’ve said all that on my first website years ago.
What I don’t agree with is the radiative forcing conjecture that radiation from the cold atmosphere helps the Sun to raise the surface temperature to observed values. You cannot add the two and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, but Hansen and Pierrehumbert thought they could get away with doing so: after all, politicians are ignorant about such matters and so are brain-washed climatologists.
Only maximum entropy production can do that in the process wherein new thermal energy absorbed in the upper troposphere makes its way to the surface by natural convective heat transfer which is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium or, in other words, maximizing entropy. On what point do you have difficulty in your understanding of this standard physics based on the Second Law?
You have really talked yourself into a mess here. The clear atmosphere is essentially transparent to radiation from the sun. Clouds absorb some, reflect some, and transmit some. Start there or just look at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Cloudaltitudevsglobaltemperature.pdf
Firstly, there is no such “clear” atmosphere on any planet in our Solar System. There is usually at least one layer in the upper troposphere or the stratosphere of a planet which absorbs some solar radiation and acts as an anchor for all temperatures. For example, on Uranus there is a methane layer that is maintained at about 60K by the very weak solar radiation reaching TOA.
It I were wrong, it would be the most extraordinary coincidence that all planets just happen to have core temperatures at just the right level such that the expected g/cp temperature gradient is evident all the way out to the anchored layer where miraculously (you might assume) temperatures get down to just the right level at just the right altitude.
But I am right, and temperatures build up from the outer anchored layer going down (that is inwards) and so we know that it is the Sun which supports all temperatures, even to the core, and no planet will cool significantly unless the effective temperature of the Sun cools.
In fact, strange as it may seem to you with your lack of understanding of radiative heat transfer, DP, most of the Sun’s direct radiation reaching the surface is not actually thermalized in the surface (whether the atmosphere is “clear” or not) because, for the vast majority of the globe, the surface has already been warmed more than the Sun’s radiation can achieve by the process of entropy maximization that leads to heat creep. Radiation from a blackbody is only fully thermalized in a target at absolute zero (0K) whilst, for any warmer target, some of the electromagnetic energy in the incident radiation just becomes a part of the target’s own radiation quota (as per its Planck function) and is not thermalized in the target. Physicists call it pseudo-scattering. All this was in my 2012 paper to which I have referred in other comments. Solar radiation reaching the ocean surface does not explain the observed temperatures, and nor does back radiation which does not even penetrate the ocean surface.
Now, DP, in regard to your link to your own article about average cloud altitudes, yes, I totally agree that raising the anchored altitude (and also altering albedo by varying the total cloud cover) will explain the natural climate cycles which are evident. See http://climate-change-theory.com where there is reasonable evidence that natural climate cycles are regulated by planetary orbits which I postulate can affect sunspots because the magnetic fields of planets reach to the Sun. But this does not prove water vapor warms, because the volume of water vapor is the same. The IPCC wants you to believe that WV warms by about 20 degrees for each 1%, so rain forests are over 50 degrees hotter than deserts.
But what goes up must come down. There will be no long-term warming due to clouds rising without subsequent natural cooling due to clouds falling. The clouds are not going to keep rising in altitude indefinitely because the height of the troposphere is limited by the existing air mass.
And, by the way, DP, many clouds are also warmed by the heat creep (non-radiative) process. The lower clouds can easily be already above the maximum temperature which the solar radiation is able to warm them. It is very obvious on Venus that the solar radiation warms nothing that is in the lower regions where temperatures are between about 400K and 735K.
The reason I agree that raising the average cloud altitude will indeed warm the surface is not to do with radiation at all. It is to do with my hypothesis and it simply because there is a greater distance between the anchoring altitude and the surface. In that the temperature gradient is pre-determined by the force of gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases (with an adjustment for inter-molecular radiation) then simple geometry indicates that the supported surface temperature will be warmer because of this greater distance.
DC – If you had looked at my stuff you might know better.
I initially thought that T^4 should be a factor in the radiation from the planet and included it in the equation. Apparently any effect that it has is accounted for by the sunspot number anomaly time-integral because when R^2 was maximized, the influence coefficient on the T^4 factor turned out to be zero. Subsequently, as stated in the AGWunveiled document, the influence coefficient for the T^4 factor was set to zero.
From what you assert, it appears that you have a fundamental misconception of how radiation heat transfer works and apparently also in other engineering science.
It is revealing that first you accuse me of doing things that I did not do and then berate me for having done them.
If you had even glanced at my stuff you might have noticed that nothing you are talking about is mentioned in the equation which calculates a 97% match since before 1900 with measured average global temperatures.
Dan Pangburn: You are way off track. You are talking about the T^4 factor not being very significant for OUTWARD radiation from the surface. Fair enough! But read what I wrote: I was talking about it being significant for inward radiation from the Sun which, in case you haven’t noticed, contributes zero at night and very little when its angle with the horizontal is small, because we multiply by the sine of that angle to get the equivalent orthogonal flux – and not much when there’s cloud cover. I’d say it varies between about 0 and just over 1,000W/m^2 with a mean between 160 and 170W/m^2 reaching the surface.
Doug: Whe are you finally going to screw up the courage to submit your claims to a peer reviewed science journal?
Too scary for you?
When are you, DA, going to “screw up the courage” to study what my hypothesis is actually all about, and then write your refutation so that I can shred it to pieces – whether or not you believe my offer of AU$10,000 is genuine? So far you have done nothing but regurgitate typical AGW “arguments” which I refuted years ago – see this article of mine for example.
And just to refresh your mind, David Appell …
Why we need the heat creep process:
(copied from the comment thread on my blog)
We know that, apart from direct solar radiation, there must be additional thermal energy entering a planets surface each morning and early afternoon because otherwise we dont have any warming at those times, and we dont have overall energy balance at the surface for each complete rotation, such as each 24 hours for Earth. In typical Earth energy diagrams like the one on this page, they show back radiation of about 324W/m^2 into the surface, but the electro-magnetic energy in that radiation is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, and so there is no heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions. Such heat transfers can never happen by radiation. Instead, a similar amount of thermal energy is actually delivered into the surface by conduction across the interface with the atmosphere. This was energy originally absorbed each morning from new solar radiation that is strong enough to raise the cold temperatures found mostly in the upper troposphere and above. This new energy must be what makes its way to the surface, but it does not do so by radiation. Only non-radiative processes (natural convective heat transfers) can transfer thermal energy up the sloping thermal plane, provided that the process is increasing entropy. This is because such processes depend upon energy being transferred by molecular collisions, and gravity acts on molecules in flight between collisions increasing their kinetic energy as their gravitational potential energy decreases. But, by definition, no energy is transferred across internal boundaries in a perfect state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Energy transfers only happen when new energy creates a state that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so that entropy can increase. If the new energy is at the top of a column of the troposphere, then a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated temperature gradient) can only be attained if some of that new thermal energy at the top is dispersed downwards to warmer regions. That is what I have been first to explain does in fact happen, so that we know this heat creep process is possible, and it is indeed the correct physics which explains the missing energy that raises the surface temperature each morning, even under thick cloud cover.
David,
Nobody believes in “Global Warming” any more.
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-calculations/
You again? Didn’t you learn your lesson about your Venus claims — the ones that missed trillions of Watts?
David Appell, who ougt to know more about thermodynamics, and his warmist pals imply that the Venus surface is warmed each Venus morning by about 20,000W/m^2 of back radiation from the less-hot atmosphere which (by their claims) must by amplifying the energy that comes in at the top by at least a factor of 8 so as to deliver far more energy out of the base of the atmosphere than the Sun delivers into the atmosphere from the top.
PS: Does your version 6 correct the significant cold bias Po-Chedley and Fu found in your global TMT trend?
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/jtech.pochedley.2012.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00131.1
David, are both satellite datasets faulty? Because RSS shows an even cooler trend than UAH.
Are do you simply have it in for Roy? Because there is nary a word of complaint from you concerning RSS.
I guess Roy can’t be bothered to answer questions. Let alone publish a paper that everyone can read about version 6.
I guess David prefers RSS to UAH. Hard to understand his carping, as there is no real difference between the two. I think he resents Roy’s outspoken skepticism.
It’s a basic question about UAH v6 — has the bias identified been corrected?
I don’t know why any scientists would find that too threatening to answer.
Just because UAH and RSS agree lately — at least for the LT, not so much for the MT or LS — doesn’t mean the models are identical or that UAH has addressed this bias.
Bias? Right.
Physician heal thyself.
Heap load of wampum in Paris peace pipe.
Hi Roy,
You rightly stated:
“For the humorless few who dont get it, the Paris COP21 meeting is little different from ancient people who thought they could control nature through meaningless gestures.”
Yes. I wonder who at the meeting would be intellectually destitute enough to actually believe they have some sort of control knob to global temperatures when they cannot even predict them in advance and have shown no ability in this regard ever.
Have a great day!
If existing albedo is 30% (of which two-thirds is due to cloud cover) then an increase to just 31% lowers the temperature by about 0.9 degree which is comparable with the difference between the Maunder minimum temperatures and the mean temperatures over the last ~1000 year natural cycle. The radiation from CO2 (like that from water vapor) works against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, thus leading to lower surface temperatures because, in case you don’t know, the so-called wet adiabatic lapse rate is less in magnitude than the dry rate. How could you possibly maintain radiative balance with the Sun if the thermal profile did not rotate about a pivoting altitude and become lower at the surface end? You can’t raise the surface temperature with more water vapor and, at the same time, have a less steep temperature gradient, because radiative balance would be way out and soon correct itself by lowering the whole thermal plot whilst retaining the same gradient.
This is the epitome of self-contradiction in the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture. A higher surface temperature due to water vapor and yet a less steep temperature gradient !?!?!
If gravity explains atmo temperature, please explain how it predicts this curve:
http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/temp_profile.html
and this one:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
John,
The difference is significant. The ancients sacrificed virgins etc. to the gods. The AGW true believers will sacrifice the middle class, the poor and the destitute. If they actually believed, they would be practicing what they preach: they do not. Their policies, economically and socially destructive as they are, are not meant for them, but for others.
Take Obama and his mentor in this, Igore, neither does anything to limit the use of hydrocarbons in their own lives or policies. Flying, motorcades etc. are the rule of the day.
For me, I continue to believe that Salvatore will be proven correct.
As far as David hapless and Doug Wool(over his eyes) the first appears to be a paid shill, the second just ordinarily delusional.
Hi Lewis,
You state:
“If they actually believed, they would be practicing what they preach: they do not. Their policies, economically and socially destructive as they are, are not meant for them, but for others.
Take Obama and his mentor in this, Igore, neither does anything to limit the use of hydrocarbons in their own lives or policies. Flying, motorcades etc. are the rule of the day.”
Their policies are designed in my opinion to abrogate the American public’s rights and claims to the resources of the country, especially hydrocarbons, and pass it over to a phony administrative elite drawing it’s pseudo-justification from climate change delusion and deception. Note if I remember correctly Al Gore already admitted to doing as much in regards to supporting Ethanol subsidies that benefited agricultural interests friendly to him. It doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to understand what’s going on. Take Vladimir Putin calling climate change a fraud then signing the 190 nation deal. Why? Imo, not because he believes any of it. He wants to sign a deal that as Roy points out does next to nothing in forcing Russia to change it’s pattern of hydrocarbon use all the while pretending to be a friend of the planet. The problem is that by doing so he adds legitimacy to fatuous pseudo scientific nonsense.
You correctly note the climate change peddlers often live quite wasteful lives in regards to the planets hydro-carbons and they don’t care because they see the average American as stupid, gullible and unwilling to complain until it’s too late. Do you know anyone who ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public?
Have a great day!
Mmmm “fatuous pseudo scientific nonsense”
I think I’ll add that “f” word and make it …
fatuous, foolish, fictitious, fiddled physics
Hi JohnKl,
“You correctly note the climate change peddlers often live quite wasteful lives in regards to the planets hydro-carbons and they dont care because they see the average American as stupid, gullible and unwilling to complain until its too late.”
Studies have shown that the average IQ of Americans who deny climate warming is lower that that of those who accept it.
Seig heil!
Just another counterfactual Dr. No sponsored study. While the climate changes Dr. No, have you analyzed your supposed contribution? We’d all love to see the data. What is Dr. No’s carbon footprint? Probably comparable to Sasquatch. How much petrol does it take chase Ursula and Oddjob around the globe with spy cams?
Have a great day!
Just another counterfactual Dr. No sponsored study. While the climate changes Dr. No, have you analyzed your supposed contribution? Wed all love to see the data. What is Dr. Nos carbon footprint? Probably comparable to Sasquatch. How much petrol does it take chase Ursula and Oddjob around the globe with spy cams?
Have a great day!
Dr. No: The affluent burn more fossil fuels than the poor. That’s why we need a price on carbon, with all money collected distributed back on an equal per capita basis, something like what Alaska does with its Permanent Oil fund.
60% of Americans would get back more than they paid.
Prove I’m wrong, Lewis. There’s AU $10,000 on offer subject to conditions explained here. Put up or shut up. You’re now on my watch list.
As if you would ever pay $10k to anyone.
Appoint an independent arbiter, or knock it off.
It’s a drop in the bucket my friend – I donate far more than that each year to Christian causes. The public will be able to view all relevant attempts on my blog and my responses. When are you going to study the physics I have presented, carry out the study that is required for submissions (or find one that has been published and which has similar methodology) and post your refutation on the blog, duplicated here if you wish? I look forward to exposing your false physics, as I have already done in another comment today regarding TOA spectrums.
And Lewis what qualifications, if any, do you have in physics? Have you done extensive post-graduate study in the very specialized field of thermodynamics, as I have, and published papers and a book on the subject?
The irony is, Lewis, that in fact I provide you, Roy and others who are fighting the hoax with the very ammunition you all need – correct physics which reveals the errors in the radiation paradigm and provides the correct explanation which works for all planets. You can “prove” just about anything with temperature data, but you can’t prove correct physics to be wrong. No one on any blog has ever done so by finding any fault in my hypothesis. Write your submission for the AU$10,000 reward here.
The “heat ceep” hypothesis even explains the core temperature of the Moon and the radial temperature gradient formed by centrifugal force in a vortex tube seen here on the “WUWT errors” page. I suggest you study some of my comments, such as this one and see if you can respond.
Doug,
A bit touchy are we?
One doesn’t need a degree in anything to note that the temperature drops at night, more in dry areas than wet, less on cloudy nights than clear.
If your theory was accurate, the time of day wouldn’t make any difference that is, whether the sun is shining or not.
Merry Christmas.
Lewis the solution to climate change (which Im glad to see you implicitedly acknowledge as real) cannot be addressed at the individual level. It must be addressed at the institutional level.
You, or me, or the President could live in tent. It wont help. First of all that isnt a safe or pleasant life, and the associated CO2 reductions wouldnt be nearly enough to solve the problem.
In fact, it could make the problem worse, as our reduced demand for fossil fuels would lower their price, so that people who dont care about climate change could use even more CO2-producing fuels.
The solution will only be in generating the energy we need in ways that do not admit carbon. Rich countries like the US should be the first to do this, given our large cumulative emissions to date 2.4 times that of China, and 10 times that of India.
And it is cumulative emissions that determine total warming, not recent emissions.
Lewis writes: “One doesnt need a degree in anything to note that the temperature drops at night, more in dry areas than wet, less on cloudy nights than clear.”
Your comment has no relevance whatsoever to my hypothesis. Planetary surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation of any kind, from the Sun and/or the atmosphere. You mistakenly think they are. Your comment says nothing about average temperatures, and it is nothing but hand-waving and simply not correct anyway. It certainly does not show rain forests being 50 degrees hotter than deserts, as the IPCC “science” implies they should be, because water vapor is supposedly doing most of “33 degrees” of warming. In fact it cools because it makes the temperature gradient less steep.
But, by all means spend half a day doing your own study of real-world data, and then submit it on my blog showing opposite results to my published study in the Appendix here where my results for 30 years of data from 15 inland tropical locations on three continents were, after adjusting for altitude …
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8C 20.1C
Medium (06-10): 33.0C 21.2C
Dry (11-15): 35.7C 21.9C
Who’s next to take me on?
Davie says: “In fact, it could make the problem worse, as our reduced demand for fossil fuels would lower their price, so that people who dont care about climate change could use even more CO2-producing fuels.”
Hey Davie, I filled up my tank yesterday for $1.85/gal. I can’t wait to go back for another refill. You better turn off all your lights and heat to try to make up for my “carbon footprint”!
And, of the two of us, I’m the one that is “saving the planet”!
There is a glaring mistake with your logic. Humans have been able to transform this planet for centuries. From reducing species to the brink of extinction, pumping 50% more CO2 into the atmosphere , creating vast lakes ,connecting oceans and removing whole forests. We can do something about all these issues…no rain dancing is needed.
@ michael blazewicz,
Well, it’s time we got round to doing something about the distance this planet travels from the Sun..we need real action on climate change.
Facts as laid plain and bare by 12 scientists:
1) The statement that the world has warmed at half the rate predicted in 1990 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is false. The IPCC predicted that warming between 2015 and 1990 would be between about 0.35 and 0.60 C. The actual temperature change during that period is 0.5 C. The statement, besides being false, also ignores that the world has already warmed a total of 1 C since the start of the industrial revolution, and that as temperatures continue to climb, we are headed into territory not seen in thousands of years. The assertion that the world has been warmer several times in the past 10,000 years is not supported by the most comprehensive temperature reconstructions, and ignores the fact that a continued temperature rise this century will rapidly take the world beyond any climate experienced in that 10,000 year period.
2) The statement that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts also is flat-out wrong. A recently-released UN study found that both the frequency and intensity of storms and floods has increased over the past decade, and that weather-related disasters are occurring at almost twice the rate as they did two decades ago. The authors also ignore the clear increases in the most deadly type of extreme events caused by climate change heat waves.
3) The claim that Antarctic ice is increasing is based on an isolated paper that has numerous uncertainties associated with it and is contradicted by many other observations. But more importantly, everywhere on Earth, it is clear we are losing ice and that we have likely already entered a period of major ice shelf retreat, with no mechanisms in sight to stop this retreat over the next hundreds to thousands of years. As University of Bristol Professor Jonathan Bamber has written: West Antarctica has been losing mass at an increasing rate since the 1990s and that trend looks set to continue. The Greenland ice sheet has also been losing mass at an accelerating rate since around 1995. These trends at both poles are huge signals that are unequivocal and uncontested.
4) Finally, the assertion that the cost associated with warming does not significantly deviate from zero until 3.5C warming is one that hardly any scientists or economists agree with, and is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of evidence showing that the adverse impacts from climate change will far outweigh the benefits.
Ross – You need to get out more.
There is more to the climate story than what 12 ‘warmers’ with an agenda to spread the wealth of successful nations to less successful nations have to say.
And Dan, if you really want to be effective in the fight against the hoax, you only defeat yourself by reiterating the false physics that Hansen dreamed up about the effect of backradiation. I suggest you read and think about my comment just written to Ross, that you learn the 21st century thermodynamics about which I have written two papers linked from the ‘Evidence’ page here, and read about maximum entropy production (and the Second Law page) at http://entropylaw.com (not my site) and, if you do nothing else, think about the content in my 43 minute video presentation, because I’m right and I know that because the physics is supported by evidence throughout the Solar system, as well as by experiments with centrifugal force and thousands of vortex tubes* being used all over the world.
* The same physics can be used to explain and quantify the radial temperature gradient in a vortex tube which is formed by centrifugal force in the same way that gravity forms a radial temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere and even its sub-surface regions.
DC – Apparently you still have not looked at my stuff at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com or at best, did not recognize what you were looking at.
I do not use, or need, physics in either my identification of what causes climate change or my discovery of the compelling evidence that it is not CO2, although an understanding of physics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, calculus, spectroscopy, the kinetic theory of gases, and the rudiments of quantum mechanics all helped in getting there.
But, Ross, even with a AU$10,000 reward on the table, …
1) You cannot produce any valid physics which supports the IPCC claim that water vapor does most of 33 degrees of warming. I have published a study which demonstrates that it cools. Nor can you prove CO2 warms.
2) You cannot produce any valid physics which explains the mean surface temperature based on radiation calculations. If one bar radiator at a certain distance raises the temperature of an object to 350K, sixteen (2^4) such radiators do not raise it to 700K or anywhere near that. For the same reason, you cannot explain Earth’s mean surface temperature by adding solar radiation and back radiation together, and yet that is what is implied we can do in all the energy diagrams.
3) Because of the T^4 relationship in Stefan-Boltzmann computations, the mean flux that would be required to explain the surface temperature of an Earth covered with black asphalt would be well over 500W/m^2. But if you walk on a black asphalt road or path at noon on a clear day in the tropics your feet will tell you it is hotter than the water in the nearby ocean, or even a deep lake. Thus it is absurd to calculate temperatures to which you think radiation raises ocean surfaces by using emissivity of about 0.99 as if the transparent, evaporating ocean surface were anything like like a black body. It is absorptivity which is relevant, and absorptivity by warmer water for back radiation from a colder troposphere is very close to zero for the obvious reason that we know such back radiation does not penetrate more than a few nanometers.
Because no one can explain ocean surface temperatures based on radiation (and never will be able to) you CANNOT claim to know what would happen to surface temperatures with the addition of extra radiation from increased CO2. In any event, the whole Earth+atmosphere system acts close to a true black body and always radiates back to Space what it receives within a range of plus or minus about 0.5%. Hence the radiation back towards the surface also remains within tight bounds and it does not get thermalized in a warmer surface anyway. To think in terms of radiation the way climatologists do is to think in the wrong ball park – the wrong paradigm – altogether. The correct paradigm is explained here and is confirmed throughout the Solar System.
“But, Ross, even with a AU$10,000 reward on the table, ”
Here’s what’s on the table: $0.00
Because Doug has appointed himself arbiter, and guess who Doug will vote for?
Doug is afraid of an independent arbiter, just as he’s afraid of the peer reviewed literature.
Go back to this comment.
Ross, your brain is eat up with CO2. That is the only danger of that gas, which is otherwise entirely beneficial. Regarding your alarmist handwringing, go study the UAH temperature chart posted here on December 1st. That should clue you in. Otherwise, leave off the junk science and the alarmist screeching.
Here you go, Ross, a comment by Eric Steig on ClimateAudit:
Posted Dec 5, 2015 at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Reply
Steve,
I found your post pretty interesting and have no quibbles with the it except youre unfair to Bamber, who indeed *has* spoken out about uncertainties in these sorts of data (including his own analyses) on numerous occasions. In his RealClimate post, Bambers really not saying Zwally is wrong. Hes simply saying its premature to conclude we know the answer.
###
Let’s see if you can figure this out (another IQ test). Hint: first look up Eric Steig.
From Real Climate on specific review of the paper – simply TOO MANY uncertainties and CONTRADICTIONS to other empirical data that shows Anartica is LOSING ice mass, not gaining!
Results from the newest satellite that can make this type of elevation measurements, CryoSat 2, which arent included in the Zwally et al. study, may yield a different picture yet again (Fig 2). Indeed, comparing results from CryoSat-2 height change for 2011-2014 (Fig 1) with those for 2003-2008 from Zwally and others is not very encouraging. Although inter-annual variability in snowfall is important, the estimate from CryoSat-2 is less than half that from the Zwally laser altimetry result. Such a large difference (about 110%) is more than would be expected from snowfall variations alone. This doesnt show that Zwally et al. results are necessarily wrong, clearly, this is challenging measurement to make, and translating these measurements into mass change adds yet more uncertainty.
One scientist against 12. Roy does not have specialty in many of these endeavors of science. He should not simply ignore their results of their studies and with a wave of hand say they are ALL wrong. There is also mounting evidence that version 6 (UAH) has too much of a COOLING bias in their computer coding. After all Roy is simply modelling (by formulas of computer algebraic code throughput and resultant temperature coherent data output) and reshaping satellite temperature readings so they coherent sense.
The world is warming and is still in temperature ranges so as to still alarm 97% of all scientists who work SPECIFIC in these fields.
But neither you nor anyone can prove carbon dioxide warms the surface Ross, so there’s nothing mankind can do except adapt. Put the $100,000,000,000 a year into air conditioners and levy banks. The planets tell us here that 500 years of cooling will start before the year 2100.
The fictitious, fiddled physics has been exposed for what it is, and I’m still waiting for your response to this comment. The 97% have been fooled as is obvious from what I have pointed out.
Proof carbon dioxide warms the surface:
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Ha ha, Appell trots out his favorite kneeling curve, which he has not read and cannot explain, as usual.
It hasn’t nothing to do with Keeling. Shows me you don’t understand the paper at all.
I met the lead author on Wednesday. He says there’s a similar paper coming out soon on atmospheric methane.
Stay tuned….
It hasn’t nothing to do with the Keeling Curve. Shows you don’t understand the paper at all.
I met the lead author on Wednesday. He says there’s a similar paper coming out soon on atmospheric methane.
Stay tuned….
The science, Ross, which tells us all about heat transfers and planetary temperatures is PHYSICS (specifically thermodynamics) and your 97% of all “scientists” are NOT those (like myself) who have specialized knowledge in the SPECIFIC field of thermodynamics. From what they write, they very clearly have INCORRECT UNDERSTANDING of such.
And Ross the words of three or four people such as myself who understand entropy maximization and thermodynamics are far more likely to be correct than those of the 97% masses who don’t have a clue about it and teach themselves the wrong concepts which thus pass pal-review.
I quote others who DO understand below …
“I have been earning a living as an engineer specializing in cutting edge technology for very large scale thermal energy transfer processes and power systems for close to 40 years. My credentials include BS, JD and PE, and I have four patents. As for my qualifications to engage in argument with PhDs, I have many times been part of and have led teams with PhD team mates. I was also married to a PhD for 20 years. Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHGs. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhDs, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.” [source]
“Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of ideal gases in a gravity field. … A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW, accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes causing climate change.” [source]
DC “shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”
John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
And Ross flunks.
Eric Steig is the colleague of Professor Bamber both at RealClimate and as a “specialist” in Antarctic mass balance study. So I have not doubt that he knows better than one anonymous “Ross” as to Bamber’s real thoughts on the subject, as in the above quote. Ross shows only a supeficial understanding of the Antarctic mass balance question.
mpainter – you are an idiot. I was QUOTING Eric Steig from REAL CLIMATE.
More on Antarctica mass……..
There is another way to measure the changing mass of the ice sheet and that is to weigh it using the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) twin satellites. This mission measures gravity anomalies around the Earth every 10 days and has, for example, been able to detect the groundwater depletion in California in recent years. It can also measure the growth of mass-loss of an ice sheet, but the signal from the ice is confounded by another signal from the bedrock beneath, which is responding to changes in ice loading over thousands of years. This response is known as glacio-isostatic adjustment (GIA), and in the interior of East Antarctica we have very limited information on how big the bedrock signal is. Geophysicists have attempted to model how the solid Earth responds to changes in ice loading and, although the physics is fairly well known, some critical variables such as the viscosity of the lower mantle and the history of ice load changes are not. Zwally argues that the GIA estimates that have been used for correcting GRACE data are wrong in East Antarctica because they do not know the full ice loading history over the last ~22,000 years. Maybe. But GIA in the EAIS is poorly constrained and there is, in general, poor agreement among different estimates of GIA over the EAIS.
So what is really happening? One thing that Zwallys study does highlight is how difficult it is to nail what is happening in East Antarctica because the signal is small and contaminated by unwanted effects that are as large or even larger. Zwally et al get a different result from previous studies because they make a different set of assumptions. Those assumptions are, by their nature, subjective and difficult, without additional evidence, to corroborate. There are, however, other lines of evidence that suggest that Antarctica is unlikely to have been gaining mass in the last few decades. That would, for example, make closing the sea level budget a whole lot harder (that is, making the sum of the sinks and sources match the observed rate of sea level rise). One other thing is certain: West Antarctica has been losing mass at an increasing rate since the 1990s and, irrespective of what is happening further East, that trend looks set to continue. Going to the other end of the Earth, the Greenland ice sheet has also been losing mass at an accelerating rate since around 1995. Greenland is now the single biggest source of mass to the oceans. These trends at both poles are huge signals that are unequivocal and uncontested.
mpainter better NOT just depend on Spencer’s cooling. As it is called Dunning Kruger syndrome. I strongly feel that Roy Spencer’s treatment and sanitation of Global Warming along with Christy are doing irreparable damage to the Republican Party. There is warming trend and it is a lot more then Spencer’s and Christy’s output from their re-written algorithms of code. We know for certain we definitely are headed for 2 degrees and the higher end 3 degrees+ by the end of this century. Models of Australia suggest a drying continent with major wheat and cattle farming failures (1000s of acres). We are beginning to see the entrant effects at 1 degree increase since around 1830. In line with MODELLING of climate temperature increases as bench marked globally from ALL sources not just UAH. Eggs in one basket excuse for cooling or lack thereof of climate insensitivity to CO2.
According to Bamber, 50% of the Antarctic “specialists” doubt that mass loss in that continent is due to AGW. So much for your panic. This according to Eric Steig at CA.
For the last four years, estimates of mass loss there via Grace have been revised downward because of improved constraints on GIA (GPS data). For east Anarctica, there is uncertainty as to the sign of GIA, whether positive or negative. So much for your panic.
Here is what is going on. The public posturing of these specialists is alarmist, but their language in their studies and their serious discourse is much more conservative, without the notes of panic and they confess their uncertainty. Bottom line, it’s not clear whether Antarctica is losing or gaining mass, or if it is losing mass, whether it is AGW or simply Holocene continuity.
You have been suckered, like all the other poor, gullible and deluded types. And you come here to invite the rest of us to be suckered like you. No thanks.
“We know for certain we definitely are headed for 2 degrees and the higher end 3 degrees+ by the end of this century”.
Ha! Play the stock market, you cannot fail to become a Billionaire 🙂
Oops. sorry – above reply is @ Ross
lol, straight after Paris-
“India to allow more state-run companies to sell coal
India wants to increase supply to meet demand”
India has a tax on coal.
The US does not.
Ross:
“Ross, your brain is eat up with CO2. That is the only danger of that gas, which is otherwise entirely beneficial. Regarding your alarmist handwringing, go study the UAH temperature chart posted here on December 1st. That should clue you in. Otherwise, leave off the junk science and the alarmist screeching.”
Welcome to Deniersville Ross.
Lot’s of hand-waving and some ad hominem – from this, err, sceptic anyway.
Where UAH is king (Used to be RSS but now V6 is here the crown has gone to UAH again).
Why? …
Because it shows a smaller warming trend.
And is, of course, untouched by human hand. Read not homegenised, as is GISS.
That it is worked out from algorithms determining/differentiating many things pertaining to orbital sat parameters and radiative sensing … matters not.
That we do not have the algorithm that is used and that it is now on V6 (cooling from the previous version) matters not a jot ….. because it’s cooling you see. Silly.
Here is a history of, err, changes in the record…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
(note the latest V6 is not listed despite the page last being updated on the 8th of this month).
In fairness this is Spencer’s post on V6 changes …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Quote:
“One might ask, Why do the satellite data have to be adjusted at all? If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.”
Quite:
And, so obviously a better record than the thermometer one ( remember painter – irony)
This in comparison with the thermometer record where homoegisation reasoning/methodology is exhaustively explained, and actually ends up warming the past over oceans to give a smaller warming trend to global AGW.
They do not understand that you need to compare like with like.
EG:
TOBS: That to take a daily max temp in the early evening (and resetting the thermometer) will quite often result in the that max being recorded again the following day ” when a cooler day follows)….
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
“The gradual network-wide switch from afternoon to morning observation times after 1950 has introduced a CONUS-wide cooling bias of about 0.2 to 0.25 C.”
It matters not that Carl Mears, a Senior Scientist at RSS. says in a blog post.
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”
You know the score – I intend to take Mr Twain’s advice.
TaTa for now.
Thus our would-be scientist dismisses satellite temperature data. He doesn’t have a name, but he knows better than Roy Spencer about the subject. Right.
So which teams analysis method is correct? Throughout the history of Tropospheric temperature measurement, the UAH analysis has always been lower than RSS for all temperature products. However, as time has gone by they have been drawing closer together. Currently their TLT trends are RSS 0.147 C/decade and UAH 0.138 C/decade which are down from earlier trends due to the slow down in warming in recent years. The convergence of their results may be due to the diminishing impact of the overlap problems between NOAA-9/NOAA-10. By comparison, the Fu et al method applied to RSS TMT & UAH TMT give RSS/FU 0.153 C/decade , UAH/FU 0.112 C/decade. Vinnikov & Grody have given around 0.20 C/decade while Zou et al give 0.137 C/decade; both without Stratospheric bias adjustment.
Which of the techniques of UAH or RSS are correct? Both have weaknesses UAH use comparisons between different view angles from one scan in two different parts of their analysis, magnifying the sensitivity to errors. RSS use a short term climate model rather than just data. Commentators seem to prefer the RSS analysis. Neither applies the lat/long dependent analysis of hot source calibration used by V&G so this could well increase their trends somewhat. And applying the Fu et al technique to V&G or Zou may give more divergent results again.
Perhaps what can be said is that the UAH/RSS approach probably straddles the result their methods would find. Other methods suggest higher values. So a reasonable estimate at this point is that warming lies somewhere between the mid estimate of UAH/RSS and the figures that would be produced by V&G & Zou if Stratospheric cool biasing were removed. This suggests a long term trend of around 0.15 to 0.18 C/decade for the lower Troposphere, much in line with the surface trends. And similar or higher for the mid-Troposphere based on the fact that Fu et al is looking at the entire Troposphere and V&G are showing higher Tropospheric than surface warming through the mid and tropical latitudes.
So these various analyses clearly show that the Troposphere IS warming, as determined from multiple sources. And if anyone quotes satellite temperature data to make a point with you, make sure you ask them which series they are referring to. If they simply say the satellite data from UAH, they may not know what they are talking about.
Let be frank here. We need the whole truth not just SOME of the truth.
They are both correct. None of the datasets show a warming trend this century. Why the handwringing?
Even if it warmed, it would be confined mostly to the higher latitudes during the winter. Is this any reason to preach doom? Warming is beneficial for the biosphere, this I know from my founding in the life sciences. The killer is cooling. This planet has been cooling since the Holocene Optimum. The last four thousand years is known as the Neo-Glacial because of the return of glaciation to places where it had been absent. Warming is good, cooling is bad. Wise up. This is the law of the biosphere.
Do you also want to screech about sea levels? The trend is flat, as indicated by tidal gauges on stable coasts. It has been flat for thirty years or more, according to NOAA gauges on stable coasts.
The poor, gullible weak fools who swallow the panic-mongering of the climate cult are to be pitied. We who are called skeptics know better.
And guess who now scorns renewable energy and calls for nuclear generation of power? Just guess.
Using 60-year moving averages the rate of warming was 0.06C/decade a hundred years ago, and 0.05C/decade now. Anything but 60 year averages will be incorrect as it will reflect a portion of the superimposed 60-year cycle. Talk all you like – facts are facts and there is a 60-year cycle regulated by planetary orbits (as here) and as clearly seen in the Appendix here where the decline in the rate of increase is also shown by the negative gradient of the green line.
And, in that you, Ross, cannot explain the Earth’s surface temperature with the obviously incorrect paradigm of radiative forcing, your implications that mankind’s carbon emissions have anything to do with the natural warming (which you double) remain nothing but hand-waving based on totally false physics.
There’s more on the 60-year cycle here …
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60571419/Nicola-Scafetta-ICCC6-PPT
Lots of hand waving Doug. I have read widely. I cannot concur with you about your theories. I tend to side strongly with science and of the scientists who research specific to global climate – There are many Christian believers who are fully fledged Climate Scientists that disagree completely with Roy and John about there cooler claims of temperatures reading from satellites and concur the validity of CO2 effects on energy conservation affecting Global Climate. This is attributed to man made warming as a great proportional part. I disagree that the science of CO2 is incorrect. It is you that needs challenging by not me but a process of self critical self-analysis and much more data from climate science – NOT BLOG information that has no scrutiny. You have enough information to develop what is called the Dunning Kruger syndrome. Unfortunately you have the issue is spades. I can tell you, the Lord has not inspired you and I pray the higher critical mind that God gave you can correct you.
The 60-year trend for NOAA’s global average surface temperature is +0.14 C/decade, not +0.06 C/decade.
You’re off by a factor of over 2.
data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
You Ross cannot even get off Square One with the GH fictitious, fiddled physics that simply CANNOT explain the mean surface temperature of Earth.
The radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture gives a totally wrong temperature for Earth’s surface, when it is remembered that the solar flux is quite variable and the back radiation does not penetrate the oceans. When an hypothesis in physics is proven wrong by even a single experiment or discrepancy like this, then it is wrong right through and through.
No one has found any evidence what-so-ever that refutes what my hypothesis would indicate would happen. Whereas my hypothesis can be used to explain what happens in vortex tubes, the core of the Moon, the tropospheres, crusts and mantles of all planets and satellite moons, and why water vapor cools, in contrast the greenhouse radiative forcing guesswork cannot explain one single fact such as in the above list.
Whereas my hypothesis is developed directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the GH radiative forcing conjecture totally ignores that law. Until you prove me wrong about maximum entropy production you are not of Square One in that regard either.
You are so gullible Ross, I feel sorry for you, because the IPCC conjecture implies that each 1% of water vapor raises the surface temperature by at least 20 degrees, whilst simultaneously reducing the magnitude of the temperature gradient and so raising the temperature near the tropopause by over 60 degrees and throwing radiative balance with the Sun way out. And you try to kid me that this doesn’t matter?
And Ross when you incorrectly add back radiation to solar radiation and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations you are indeed inventing “science” not using it. Go and find fault with the computations in “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” and argue with the brilliant Professor of Applied Mathematics who wrote it.
And who are you to think you can prove wrong the brilliant 19th century physicist, Josef Loschmidt, who was first to estimate realistically the size of air molecules and to explain the gravito-thermal effect, which is now proven to exist in thousands of 21st century experiments – indeed in vortex tubes all over the world, and in modern experiments with centrifugal force such as this.
I too am very widely read in all the junk “science” and I have pinpointed the errors in Pierrehumbert’s “gold standard” book. Your understanding of maximum entropy production is sadly lacking, and that is why Hansen, Pierrehumbert et al have been able to pull the wool over your eyes. No one pulls wool over Cotton’s eyes, my fiend – least of all you.
Sorry Ross – typo “friend” not “fiend”
Now study the issue in this comment. Your radiative GH conjecture certainly can’t explain what happens there. My hypothesis does, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
There’s is no evidence that I have found anywhere in the Solar System that I can use to prove me wrong.
David Appell
I wasn’t talking about “60-year trend” – I was talking about the trend in 60-year moving averages and I cited my reference linked from http://climate-change-theory.com – see Appendix of my 2012 paper. My figures are correct.
Besides, O nameless one, do you expect to be taken seriously? That your pretense that you know better than Dr. Spencer will impress any other than fools? Think again.
David,
Igore was positioned to make millions by his political position, in which his family helped, and from his position, his manipulation of the crony capitalistic system. So no, not everyone is able to follow in his footsteps, although many, especially politicians, try.
It takes a special, greed driven, lying personality to do as Gore has done. I, an average businessman, but being fair and honest, will do only average.
Lewis: That’s a lot of nice, vague accusations.
How exactly has Gore manipulated “the crony capitalistic system?”
The most solid proof that the radiative forcing GH conjecture is wrong comes to us in data for the planet Uranus.
1) It receives little more than 0.1% of the solar flux that Earth receives.
2) There is no convincing evidence of significant net energy loss and thus no evidence of long-term cooling.
3) It there were long-term cooling, then it would be an unbelievable coincidence that the temperature gradient is as we can calculate (about 90% to 95% of -g/cp) and yet temperatures get down to just the right temperature (about 60K) at just the right altitude where there is a methane layer near TOA which is in radiative balance with the Sun.
The above facts can be explained with my hypothesis, because temperatures build up from the anchoring methane layer, becoming warmer towards the core, the energy being supplied by maximum entropy production that propels the process I call heat creep.
Doug, at this point I want to move this debate to a courtroom, where we can sue these lying frauds for stealing from us. There are some in the community that sincerely believe in AGW, but there are plenty that know that they are lying. (Bill Nye, Gore, Tom Steyer) Steyer and Gore, of course, perfectly positioned to make billions, while seniors on a fixed income watch their electric bill skyrocket.
Wouldn’t we have a case against Gore now that we can prove harm? I would love to see him squirming on a witness stand.
How is Gore going to make “billions?”
Why can’t you do the same as him?
Brook – I’m not kidding about my plans to organize a class action by large companies that are financially affected by government decisions and laws that are based on the fictitious, fiddled physics claiming carbon dioxide warms the surface, but I’m doing this just in Australia for starters. My idea is not copyright – see what you can do over there, but make sure I’m engaged to testify. I can expose the errors that will be made by anyone testifying against us, and do so more cogently than anyone I suggest. See this comment.
PS Brook: Write to me regarding court action at the email at the top of this page: http://climate-change-theory.com
David Appell asks:
“How is Gore going to make billions?
Why cant you do the same as him?”
Do you think agri-business and corn growers will continue to forever pay propagandists to tout the mythical benefits of Ethanol in stopping global warming? Does Doug want to be a carbon credit gate-keeper allocating fuel credits to friends and bootlicking lap-dogs? Would you do any of the above?
Have a great day!
John: Corn growers don’t need “propagandists” to push the advantages of ethanol — they have the voters of Iowa to do that, first caucus in the nation.
See how it works?
Have a damn nice day!
Doug;C says:
“Brook Im not kidding about my plans to organize a class action by large companies that are financially affected by government decisions and laws that are based on the fictitious, fiddled physics claiming carbon dioxide warms the surface, but Im doing this just in Australia for starters.”
Dougie: The US isn’t the Australia. We have something here called the First Amendment, which means government can’t tell the press what to publish or what not to publish.
Please sue us. It would be great fun. As a science writer I’d love it.
Hi David Appell,
You stated:
“John: Corn growers dont need propagandists to push the advantages of ethanol they have the voters of Iowa to do that, first caucus in the nation.
See how it works?”
Of course. Well the Iowa voters and corn growers can seek to rally the nation in support of ethanol subsidies. What’s new about self-interest. The rationale according to Gore doesn’t make good policy. The corn growers in the past certainly felt different about Al’s support, despite his apparent change of mind.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ethanol-gore-idAFLDE6AL0YT20101122
Have a great day!
Carl Mears, leader of the RSS satellite group, Sept 2014:
“Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is no. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.
“The truth is that there are lots of causes besides errors in the fundamental model physics that could lead to the model/observation discrepancy. I summarize a number of these possible causes below. Without convincing evidence of model physics flaws (and I havent seen any), I would say that the possible causes described below need to be investigated and ruled out before we can pin the blame on fundamental modelling errors.”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
Any “sort of explanation” that also ignores (indeed, defies) the entropy-maximization process which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will happen is false physics. False physics is useless to anyone except perhaps those with potential financial gain to be made by promulgating such and confusing governments. The models are based on false physics and you cannot prove me wrong on that point.
Damn good satire young man.
So, Paul Ryan starts his tenure as Speaker with a bang and hands Obama everything he wants, to indirectly include all the money Obama has promised to fork over to some global warming body to redistribute. Imagine being one of the lucky few in charge of that account. You can charge a $ 5 mil (consulting fee) for your services, and nobody will ever question it. Traitors and narcissists are running the asylum.
Buried deep in the legalese is a Climate Justice Tribunal — called a tribunal, because somebody objected to the word “court”. I suppose you can now take your grievances to this tribunal, but haven’t all these cases against oil companies over climate change all been thrown out?
Dr. Spencer,
Have I annoyed you or yours?
If so, how?
Is Doug Cotton serious?
Hey there Georgie boy! If you don’t think the physics I present is correct, then study carefully what I have explained and write your refutation showing why entropy would not be maximized, and showing why vortex tubes should not create hot and cold streams of air because you think in terms of 19th century Clausius claims that are actually only applicable in a horizontal plane. You may also submit your claim for AU $10,000 with a copy of your attempted refutation also posted as a comment on my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com – and so I throw down the gauntlet to you to try to prove correct what is in reality fictitious, fiddled physics self-taught among climatologists and their pal-reviewers and to prove my physics wrong, whilst producing a study of temperature-precipitation correlation similar to mine but showing opposite results. When I tear apart your response you’ll get the answer to your question, now won’t you just?
One of the major objections to AGW alarmism is the waste of money involved in developing unnecessary technology, and the likely rise in the price of energy as a consequence, which affects everyone’s living standards, on average.
The argument is often presented that the poor will suffer the most if higher energy prices result from an imposition of renewable energy methodologies, and that it would be more ethical and morally responsible to allow underdeveloped countries to exploit the cheapest forms of energy so they can raise themselves out of poverty.
I would have no objection to such a proposal if there were some reasonable expectation that the real pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, SO2, NO2, CO, particulate carbon, and certain heavy-metal oxides etc, would be adequately controlled.
However, the great flaw in this very admirable and humanitarian proposal to allow the poor nations to fully exploit the cheapest sources of energy, is that such cheap energy will also be exploited in the cheapest manner, that is, with poor emission control, which will not only have future consequences for the health of the population, but also for the health of other population who live near-by.
During the pre-monsoon period in northern Thailand and many parts of Indonesia, a burn-off takes place every year, whereby trees, weeds, various plants and grasses, are burned off in preparation for the growing season. The cleared land is fertilized with the carbon ashes from the burning process, and the decaying roots of the burned foliage, resulting in good crops for a year or two.
Unfortunately, the resulting smoke from this burn-off spreads far and wide. Often people in Singapore and Malaysia have to wear masks because the smoke haze, originating in Indonesia, is so bad. Those living in northern Thailand are sometimes hospitalized, as they sometimes are in Beijing where pollution is just awful.
The great flaw here, to which I want to bring attention in this post, is the naive notion that undeveloped countries are able to learn from history and organise their own affairs to their own long-term advantage.
This notion is simply not realistic. The fundamental reason why some countries have remained underdeveloped for many decades, and even centuries, is because they are hopeless at arranging their own affairs in an economically sound manner. They are hampered by corruption, incompetence, a lack of education, and ancient traditional practices which are inappropriate in a modern society.
It is not politically correct to invade and colonise such nations, and I’m not recommending that. I’m recommending that we increase aid in the form of solar panels and small batteries that can be installed in derelect villages with no power supply. Such people might not have power for 100% of the time, due to the stochastic nature of sunshine and the limitations of the battery storage, but anything is better than nothing.
A solution which does not have harmful consequences for the future is surely preferred. I would also imagine that some of the young children in these derelict, impoverished villages, would be inspired by the magic of the solar energy process, which surely must be amazing for them, and would be motivated, at least some of them, to study science and technology to help their country.
SO2 and N2O (not NO2) have been under a cap-and-trade program since 1989, when GHW Bush signed it into law.
It’s done a lot of good — SO2 emissions are down about half since then:
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/locus/index.shtml/amateur_guide_for_air_quality_000.shtml
There is nothing green about solar panels. They require rare minerals that have to be mined all over the world, and the “carbon footprint” for that is enormous.
It seems to me the decision has been made that it is just easier to tear down the West than build up the 3rd world, and you see that happening right in front of your eyes. This is obvious to anyone paying attention. Countries like Sweden have about 10 years left, if that long, before they’re 3rd world.
“There is nothing green about solar panels. They require rare minerals that have to be mined all over the world, and the carbon footprint for that is enormous.”
So what is the total carbon footprint for a solar panel, per kilowatt-hour of energy produced?
How does it compare to coal? Oil? Natural gas?
The climate hoaxers have been caught out cheating.
As I have been saying, ALL climate change is natural. Correct physics PROVES carbon dioxide and water vapour COOL rather than warm.
Now the FIDDLING of the records has been exposed and we see that US climate records (which dominate the global average calculations) have been tampered with (“adjusted”) so that good weather station records have been adjusted upwards by about 30% so as to show the steeper warming measured in poorly located weather stations that have been affected by urban crawl – that is, the encroachment of buildings and large masses of artificial material like concrete.
“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts. This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAAs methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected. He added: We also see evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record.
See full report here http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/watts-et-al-temperature-station-siting-matters/#more-20689
Why are you wasting your time on a blog nobody reads? If you want your Earth-shattering “result” known to the world, you have to submit it to a real peer reviewed journal that all the scientists read and that the media pays attention to.
That’s how your genius will be recognized and why your Nobel Prize will be awarded.
So when can we expect such a paper, Doug?
David Appell
The media will pay attention to a multi-million dollar class action involving many large companies in 2017.
How much media attention did Dr Hans Jelbring (with his PhD in climatology) get in the last 12 years for this published paper? Go and read about the effect of gravity there, and stop being so naive about what gets media attention.
You greatly underestimate me: my other qualifications are in economics and business administration, and I have about five decades of experience in marketing – and a bit of money to help.
Don’t tell me how to “be recognized” naive and gullible David with your lack of understanding of maximum entropy production – you who is bluffed by the hoaxers who we learn today (as if we didn’t suspect) boosted warming figures by about 30% because they didn’t correct for urban sprawl. They are the ones who think radiation to the surface can explain the surface temperature – what a joke! They are the ones who imply rain forests are 50 degrees hotter than deserts. They are the ones who think water vapor can make the temperature gradient less and simultaneously raise the surface temperatures. They are the ones whose conjecture fails dismally on other planets, and is proven wrong by ever vortex tube on the planet.
Force fields create stable temperature gradients. Water vapor lowers the temperature gradient formed by the force field of gravity, thus making it cooler at the surface.
PS Over 115,000 have visited my climate websites. Thousands have viewed my climate videos. The new blog has had about 850 views in its first three weeks and no one has refuted the content as you can see from the comments. In addition to climate blogs, I have posted on at least 500 social media threads relating to climate and sent thousands of emails to politicians, universities and climate authorities.
Yes, this may be a small blog, but, as a fellow Christian (and Gideon) I genuinely want to help Roy understand where he has be misled. I’ll be patient Roy – just remember I’m right.
You’re going to sue media companies to force them to publish your claims?? Sure.
One elementary problem with your hypothesis, among many, is that it does not explain the observed top-of-atmosphere radiation spectrum leaving Earth:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
How and why is it not explained? The information has long been understood. Did you just come across it?
Have a great day!
Yes DA it does explain the observed TOA spectrum, because energy absorbed by CO2 is transferred by diffusion to any other air molecules and eventually mostly to water vapor molecules which allow it out of the atmosphere via another gate. You could have read my explanation of that over four years ago. You really are naive, gullible and ignorant regarding simple thermodynamics.
One problem with the AGW crap is that is doesn’t explain why the surface temperature of Earth is what it is, nor does it explain how the Venus surface warms by day, nor does it explain anything at all about temperatures in the Uranus troposphere, not does it take into account the entropy maximization that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about, nor does it show why empirical evidence is that water vapor cools, nor can it predict temperatures, nor does it take account of natural cycles, nor do the temperatures recorded take into account urban crawl, nor does it recognize the empirically proven fact that a force field creates a temperature gradient, nor does the GH conjecture conform with the laws of physics or anything relevant that is observed.
“Yes DA it does explain the observed TOA spectrum, because energy absorbed by CO2 is transferred by diffusion to any other air molecules and eventually mostly to water vapor molecules which allow it out of the atmosphere via another gate.”
Then it does NOT explain it, because the outgoing IR spectrum clearly shows more variations than from water vapor alone. It shows a decrease at wavelengths water vapor does not absorb.
Hence your hypothesis is wrong.
Doug:
Simple resolution here — simply post the graph that shows your hypothesis’s prediction for the Earth’s outgoing, top-of-atmosphere electromagnetic spectrum.
Then we can compare it to reality.
One Cotton or another wrote:
“One problem with the AGW crap is that is doesnt explain why the surface temperature of Earth is what it is.”
Completely false.
Read Manabe & Wetherald 1967:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ThermalEqu.pdf
The mistake that Manabe made is explained here.
No data supports the radiative GH conjecture. You, David Appell, can’t explain what happens in Uranus or Neptune or Venus or our Moon – just for starters. What happens in these proves the radiative GH conjecture is false.
David Appell
The outgoing radiation spectrum, like the incoming one measured at the surface, shows what has been absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor etc as the radiation passes through the atmosphere. That’s what you should expect. It has nothing to do with my hypothesis, however, so there’s no point in my wasting time over red herrings. When you’ve read my hypothesis feel free to ask genuine questions, here or on my blog, relating to such.
“Force fields create stable temperature gradients. Water vapor lowers the temperature gradient formed by the force field of gravity, thus making it cooler at the surface.”
Let’s see the math, and its predictions.
What can you predict that AGW can’t?
David Appell:
The computations are in my paper linked from http://climate-change-theory.com as you should have expected. There are also my computations that quantify the temperature differences in vortex tubes in the ‘Talk’ pages at Wikipedia. Calculations pertaining to other planets have appeared in various blog comments that I written, and I really can’t be bothered re-writing it all with appropriate links to supporting data. I’ll get around to that as part of my evidence when I represent the group of large companies who will be sponsoring court action against the Australian Government probably starting by mid 2017.
What I have explained, David Appell, which AGW can’t explain, is how the required thermal energy gets down to the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus in order to make it hotter than Earth’s surface, despite being about 30 times further from the Sun and there being no solar radiation reaching down there – oh, and no surface either. I have been first in the world to do so, my friend, and you can’t prove me wrong. And the same process functions on Earth, Venus and everywhere.
Once again, you cannot explain surface temperatures by adding back radiation to solar radiation and bunging the total into Stefan-Boltzmann computations.
Go and argue with the good professor here.
“They are the ones who imply rain forests are 50 degrees hotter than deserts.”
Doug, you make stuff up, and then blame the made up stuff on those who hold opinions other than you.
Not very scientific.
Simply show what predictions your hypothesis makes that agree with observations in a way that the AGW hypothesis doen’t.
David Appell
My hypothesis shows why water vapor cools the surface, which is in agreement with the study of real world temperature and precipitation data. However, the IPCC and others claim that an average of about 1.25% water vapor causes most of “33 degrees” of warming. So each 1% causes, say, 20 degrees. If a rain forest has 4% water vapor (a realistic amount) it would be warmed 80 degrees, whilst a dry region at similar latitude and altitude with 1% water vapor would be warmed 20 degrees, according to what the IPCC implies, and so the rain forest would be 60 degrees hotter. The calculations are so simple that I would have thought even you could do them without my having to spell it all out.
Likewise with simple geometry you can calculate planetary surface and tropospheric temperatures once you know the solar radiation, the weighted mean altitude of the principal absorbing layers, the acceleration due to gravity, the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, and the proportion of IR active gases which reduce the gradient. With that information I calculated the temperature at the base of the Uranus troposphere to be about 290 to 300K, and could have done so before Voyager 2 passed by with its instruments. And, by the way, I think the cited 320K figure in Wikipedia and elsewhere is a little on the hot side, being based on slightly inaccurate extrapolation from the upper troposphere measurements.
David Appell,
Nobody reads your blog either so you are no better than Doug.
When people are dumb enough to comment on your blog you insult them. Here is a recent example of your weird behavior:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/12/even-if-watts-et-al-claim-is-true-no.html?showComment=1450838804358#c6356036407998769257
Blind dogmatism only works for people with real power (e.g. the Mullahs in Iran).
Yes, GC. People can read the comment thread on my blog and see that I stick to the physics when, for example, explaining why Stephen Wilde is mistaken. Does anyone see David Appell responding to my comments with any discussion of the physics?
Roy
The last piece of the jigsaw is in place. Nicola Scafetta thought warming was 80% natural plus 20% man-made. Mmmmm. Man-made fiddling of the temperature records more than accounted for that 20%. It’s ALL natural Roy. It all works via maximum entropy production. You should learn some real thermodynamics one day –
I’m years ahead of you in researching all this Roy.
What a shame you are afraid to submit your work to a journal.
My response is here.
As I wrote: what a shame you are afraid to submit your work to a real journal.
Please sue me too, Doug. Please.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/
David Appell,
In your link I looked at one article you wrote titled “Dangerous Climate Change is Already Here”.
In this article you use the Munich Re graph of disasters to try and prove the point weather is getting worse. I questioned this graph a few years back on Skeptical Science (this was the line of thought that got me banned from that blog).
In it, weather events are shown to be going up over the time period of 1980-2015 but if you will note the geological ones are basically flatline except a couple of years in the middle. The odd thing is major earthquake activity did rise considerably during this time and should be reflected in the Munich-Re graph and it is not. It makes me suspicious of how this graph was generated and without a really good understanding of how Munich-Re came up with this graph I am not sure it should be used as a scientific proof that severe weather events are increasing.
http://www.science20.com/florilegium/blog/why_so_many_earthquakes_decade-65178
By the looks of the graph the major earthquake number went from around 110 a year to up to about 150 which is about a 25% increase that is not reflected in the Munich-Re graph.
Do you have an explanation? Do you know how Munich Re came up with their graph? Do you know why it does not reflect the increase in major earthquake activity but it does reflect and increase in weather related events?
Latest warming news from Oz:
“Adelaide, which was declared the hottest city in the world by the United Nations in 2014, is forecast to reach 43C on Saturday, capping a four-day run of 40C-plus temperatures.
I think by the end of this run we would have had four days in a row above 40, which we have not experienced in December before, the SA duty forecaster Simon Timcke said. And we will have had six days above 40 in December in total, which we have not had before. ”
“The global average temperature for November, released by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was 0.97C warmer than the long-term average between 1901and 2000 , making it the warmest November on record.
In a statement released on Friday, the Climate Council said November was the eighth month to set a new record for global average temperatures in 2015, meaning it was now virtually certain that 2015 will surpass 2014 as the hottest year globally on record.
Come on guys – admit defeat !
What! You mean a record temperature in Adelaide during one month is representative of global warming!!
There are usually record temperature somewhere, in some place, during any year, whether record low temperatures or record high temperatures.
One should also bear in mind that a record temperature only applies to the period in which reliable records have been kept.
It has just occurred to me..
My physics is useless. I have been wasting my time.
Observations show that the number of record high temperatures around the globe far exceeds the number of record low temperatures. And even NOAA now calls 2015 the hottest year (globally) on record.
The “pause” has evaporated.
I withdraw my $10,000 offer to all and sundry.
I apologise to Roy and acknowledge that Dr No is a genius.
How can we deny the warming ? The glorious warming ! The prelude to chaos and world government ! Led by Al Gore ! Repent, like me, before it is too late !
This above is not from me. The writer even got the middle initial wrong, showing he/she didn’t study my papers.
This above is not from me. I do not know who Doug;C is. Most likely an impostor.
You’ll find out who I am (Doug;C and similar) if you visit some of my websites linked from http://douglascotton.com
Don’t listen to this impostor. He uses so many aliases. I am the original DouglasECotton and I have repented !
Dr. No quotes:
“I think by the end of this run we would have had four days in a row above 40, which we have not experienced in December before, the SA duty forecaster Simon Timcke said. And we will have had six days above 40 in December in total, which we have not had before.
How old is SA duty forecaster Simon Timcke and his friends? How much experience does he have? Who consistently monitored the temperatures and for how long?
Have a great day!
“How old is SA duty forecaster Simon Timcke and his friends? How much experience does he have? Who consistently monitored the temperatures and for how long?”
How the hell would I know about Simon and his friends?
I would imagine he is about 30yo, with about 10 years experience. So what ?
Given that the temperature records go back to the 19th century I guess the person who has “consistently monitored” them is a bit long in the tooth by now. They must have to wheel him out of the nursing home every day so that he can read the Adelaide thermometer at the bottom of the garden. Then wheel him back again at the end of the day in time for his evening meal. There he can argue with James Bond and Patrick Moore about the numbers.
I’m very disappointed that a recent post of mine, in this thread, has been censored.
In the past, when posting on sites that are AGW biased, my opposition to the AGW theory has been censored on occasions, but not for reasons of ad hominem attacks, which would be understandable.
On such forums, I have often defended Dr Roy Spencer against criticism that his views are unreliable because of his religious belief in Intelligent Design and his skepticism of the processes of Darwinian Evolution.
I don’t understand the censorship of my previous post. It would be helpful if there were a communication of some sorts explaining why my post had been censored.
Okay! Thanks Dr Spencer for releasing my posts.
Vincent, alias Andrew.
What correct physics is telling us is explained here where you are invited to make a submission for a reward of several thousand dollars if you can prove the thermodynamics wrong and produce a study showing opposite results to mine which showed that more moist regions have both lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitude and altitude.
Q.1: What is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapor in the atmosphere?
Q.2: Based on your answer to Q.1, how much warming does a mean of 1.25% of water vapor produce?
Q.3: Also based on the above, how much hotter should be a rain forest with 4% WV compared with a dry region with 1% WV?
Q.4: Taking into account the fact that solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface ranges between zero and about 1,000W/m^2 with a mean between 160 and 170W/m^2 and that radiation from the colder atmosphere is known not to penetrate water more than a few nanometers (thus unable to “warm” it) explain, using the Stefan Boltzmann equation and a typical range of flux between 0 and 1,000W/m^2 how the ocean surface reaches observed temperatures.
For answers, study the new 21st century paradigm shift in climate change science which will be widely publicized in 2017 and common knowledge by 2025 whilst the current hiatus continues until about 2028 to 2030. Long-term (500 year) natural cooling will start before 2100 and mean temperatures will not rise more than about 0.4 to 0.6 degree before the cooling starts, as shown here.
Who’s next to take me on?
Q1..Zero…there’s no such thing as “sensitivity”. It’s just science nomenclature gobble-de-gook.
Q2…Means nothing. see Q1
Q3.. Irrelevant. see Q1
Q4…You’re wrong. The solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface does not have a mean between 160 and 170w/sq.m . The mean is about 340w/sq.m.
Using the Stefan Boltzmann equation with an emmissivity of the Earth’s surface taken as 0.82…the flux of 340w/sq.m…(area as 1sq.m)..we get the answer of about 18 or 19 degrees C ..which is about the mean temperature of this Earth.
No “greenhouse effect” …. and none of your quack “Gravitational – Thermal” crap either, Duggie boy.
Thanks, Mack.
At last, you proved me wrong.
You win the $10,000 !
And finally, Dr.Spencer will be happy.
There won’t be any further cotton delivery, I promise.
It seems I have to deliver yet another Mack Attack:
You, Mack, haven’t even mentioned entropy, so how the hell do you think you’ve proved my hypothesis wrong?
I doubt that you even understand how entropy is maximized, and you probably don’t even know what the Second Law says.
You’ve also got no understanding of how radiative flux is reduced by about 50% due to the fact that about 30% is reflected and another 20% absorbed by the atmosphere before it gets to the surface. Hence you don’t even understand the basic energy diagrams put out by the IPCC – there’s one on this page showing 168W/m^2 solar radiation into the surface, but if you have other ideas, go and argue with them.
Your variable flux with a mean of 340W/m^2 would not produce a mean temperature above freezing point anyway.
You also have so little knowledge of physics that you can’t even use the Stefan Boltzmann equation.
Mackie Boy doesn’t have a clue about either my hypothesis or the greenhouse conjecture and it’s energy budget diagrams. But he’s a beggar for punishment, and still cannot explain Earth’s surface temperature. Everything he writes is half baked without any computations or conclusions.
For the benefit of silent readers, the Earth’s surface loses thermal energy simultaneously by evaporative cooling and sensible heat loss (conduction) into the atmosphere and also downwards from the warm ocean surface to the cooler layers in the ocean thermocline. Mackie Boy forgot about this simultaneous energy loss of well over 100W/m^2. He also forgot about the fact that the Earth is not a flat disc receiving uniform flux of whatever figure he likes to use. If for example, we use his incorrect mean of 340W/m^2 (where he forgot about reflection and absorption) and we consider, as a better approximation than a flat Earth, that there are five regions receiving 20%, 60%, 100%, 140% and 180% of his incorrect 340W/m^2. My figure was after reflection, so we assume his is also after surface reflection, so we use 1.000 absorptivity for the rest of the radiation (which is really 168W/m^2 not his 340W/m^2) and we get, with his incorrect mean of 340W/m^2 ….
68W/m^2 … Blackbody temperature: 186.1K
204W/m^2 … Blackbody temperature: 244.9K
340W/m^2 … Blackbody temperature: 278.3K
476W/m^2 … Blackbody temperature: 302.7K
612W/m^2 … Blackbody temperature: 322.2K
Mean flux …………. Mean Blackbody temperature
340W/m^2 …………….. 266.8K
And we haven’t even deducted the 100W/m^2 being lost by non-radiative processes. So go back and use 20%, 60%, 100%, 140% and 180% of 240W/m^2 instead and we’re all frozen to death.
Asian? that’s a bit racist Duggie boy? Actually “Dough*Cotton” gave me a response which I’d hoped would happen from you…but noooo. I just get the same disappointment..and lashed by an angry loon.
Anyhow, the “silent readers” may be interested in our conversation here….
http://principia-scientific.org/is-no-greenhouse-effect-possible-from-the-way-that-ipcc-define-it.html/
And Mack admitted on that thread …
“The reason I wont admit that is because Im just a layman, so havent a clue how or why this hypothetical temperature of -18 degree C is arrived at …”
5:23am: The real Doug, after thousands of hours of deep study, points out temperatures cannot be added to find a mean since temperature is an intensive property. Nice work Doug, though this has been known a long time, there is nothing new here.
However Doug should note – use from now on – the median of a set of temperatures can be correctly found in Doug’s list:
Median flux . Median Blackbody temperature
340W/m^2 …….. 278.3K
——
I also read above that the real Doug has not yet accomplished his studies well enough to know that Dr. Spencer’s testing of the real atmosphere falsified all Doug’s hypotheses in this thread as that only takes 1 test counter to Doug’s claims. Here is the test analysis, data, evidence that proved Doug is wrong, God does not play dice:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
And you both Bart and Ball4 cannot explain the Earth’s surface temperature. Nobody has and nobody ever will do so with radiation calculations. I’m betting AU$10,000 I’m right. So I throw down the gauntlet to you also. My hypothesis is supported by evidence and over 1,000 experiments: the GH conjecture is not supported by any single piece of empirical evidence. Show me some if you think I’m wrong, and I’ll show you why you’re wrong.
And, as for Ball4, he still incorrectly adds in the back radiation which does not penetrate the oceans to get his 340W/m^2, and then he tries to make out that we should use medians rather than means. But he fails to apply such nonsense to solar radiation itself. Maybe he should look at a Planck function some day and note where the median is for the Sun’s Planck function. It is the mode (not the median) which is proportional to temperature, Ball4. Go back to school and study Wien’s Displacement Law. And tell all the climatologists that they should have been basing all their warming data on the median, not the mode of all their weather stations. It would be so much easier with the predominance of weather stations which they have in the US, about two thirds of them now overestimating temperatures due to urban crawl as Anthony Watts exposed. (I don’t often give Anthony a pat on the back, but that post was a good one.)
If Ball4 were right about adding solar and back radiation fluxes, then he should find that, if one electric bar radiator makes an object 350K then 16 radiators should make it 700K by his false method. Of course we know Ball4 is one of the many gullible ones to have lapped up the GH radiative forcing ficticious, fiddled physics so we need to feel sorry for him and just take what he says with a grain of salt.
Some will miss the irony in my reference to modes. Of course climatologists use mean temperatures, not medians, and the mean temperature achieved by variable flux is always colder than the mean temperature achieved by uniform flux with the same mean as the variable flux. That’s a mathematical fact.
And as for Roy’s test analysis, it has absolutely nothing to do with my hypothesis.
Everyone knows radiation slows that component of cooling of a warmer object which is itself by radiation. But note also that the presence of nitrogen and oxygen molecules dramatically slows the rate of surface cooling in the late afternoon, and so, luckily for us, the warmth of the day is extended into the night. This is all very common physics which, as it happens, I wrote a paper about nearly four years ago, Ball4. Do you seriously think Roy “taught” me anything?
I quote from my 2012 paper ….
“4. Quantification of one-way radiation causing heat flow
“In calculating heat flow it is found that, for the case of two parallel plates, we get a satisfactory result by determining the radiative flux from each, then taking the difference to get net flux and determining heat flow from that. Such calculations of net flux effectively subtract the area under the curve of the cooler target from the area under the curve for the warmer source. So, in straight forward cases, the calculations are actually working with the area between the two curves.
“Can any physical significance be placed upon this area between the curves if we are going to use just that area and consider only the radiation from the warmer source, is regarding the radiation from the cooler target?
“It is indeed necessary to place a physical significance on such an area between the curves, if and only if it represents all the radiation from the warmer body which is actually absorbed by the cooler one. It must do just that, because that is the area which approaches zero when the temperatures approach each other. This area has a corresponding actual heat transfer, whereas the total areas under each curve do not.
“Such a hypothesis requires the assumption that the portion of radiation from the warmer body which is represented by the area under the curve for the cooler one is all rejected by some physical process, and is thus not converted to thermal energy. An equivalent radiative flux from the cooler body to the warmer one is also not converted to thermal energy, but it does limit the amount by which the temperature of the warmer one can fall until both are at the same temperature. Obviously, if the warmer body’s temperature were to fall below the cooler one, then the heat transfer reverses direction, because the latter would then be warmer.”
And, Ball4, when are you going to publish your paper claiming that the mean (or median) surface temperature for Earth is, as you claimed at 1:56pm above, 278.3K which is five (5) degrees C? Don’t forget to mention that you believe all the other energy diagrams are wrong when they deduct over 100W/m^2 to allow for the simultaneous energy losses by evaporation, conduction and convection. You must, arrogantly as usual, claim emphatically that the Earth’s surface is a true blackbody and so you, being who you are, can ignore these non-radiative heat losses because you (like Jesus I suppose) have control over the storms and all the non-radiative energy losses. And, after all, you can tell the back radiation to transfer heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface because you also have dominion over all nature and can toss the Second Law to the wind – which you calmed over the seas as your disciples worshiped you.
Ball4,
With Doug nothing will change. He is a broken record and has said the same thing for years and he really does not listen or consider anything counter to his own personal belief system. You will never be able to change him since what you say does not enter his though process. He just mechanically responds to posts without thinking what is being said.
I challenged him on his temperature study with very good links and evidence to totally prove his thesis wrong (water vapor cools) but it meant zero to him. He said I had “cherry picked” locations. My point to him was that wetter areas receive much less solar energy than dry ones and gave him a link so he could look at a list of many cities. All show the same results. Wetter cities receive less solar energy per average (due primarily to cloud formation). It means nothing to him. I explained to him the Uranus temperature he constantly uses is a hypothetical extrapolation on a Wikepedia page but he uses it as an established fact. He may not be an idiot but he is too closed minded to think. I read some of Mack’s exchange with him on PSI and others. It is endless waste of time to reason with this individual and he thrives on the attention (he must be a very lonely man indeed).
If you Norman (or any other readers) wish to challenge my study (in the Appendix here) of 30 years of temperature and precipitation data for 15 randomly selected inland tropical locations on three continents (in my paper linked from my latest climate website visited by 14,100) then I suggest the obvious place to start is a discussion of the methodology, spot checking of the data (which is all openly listed) and a counter study of your own with methodology that you can support logically and which is clearly explained, along with a full list of your raw data and any adjustments such as for variations in altitude and angle of inclination of the Sun.
If you produce a counter study (based on a similar volume of data) showing water vapor warming by at least 20 degrees on average (as per IPCC claims) and much more in rain forest climates like Singapore, then you’re half way to the reward. To gain the reward you also need to fault the thermodynamics and the method used to determine when entropy is maximized, as the Second Law says will tend to happen.
But do it soon because by Christmas we’re all going on a summer holiday here in my family who, by the way, can be seen here (visited by 17,900) where I guarantee you’ll enjoy watching the videos of my son playing bowls at the age of 8 when he was already the second best under 18 junior in our club. Have a good Christmas and remember the reason for the season, as explained here in another of my websites visited by 6,900.
I think you’re right, Norman.
Norman and David – One simply has to separate Doug’s political views from Doug’s science views.
Dr. Spencer’s test on the actual atmosphere proved Doug’s science views (hypotheses) are wrong as that 1 experiment I linked is all it takes. 100s of AU and USA politicians have that simple atm. science experiment available to them (and many others) so they will not be swayed by Doug’s purported science. Any defense team will also have Dr. Spencer’s test available to them so any 2017 class action Doug brings is doomed to fail based on Doug’s faulty science right from the start.
To win Doug’s AU$10,000 offer one has to prove Doug’s political views are wrong which is, of course, not possible as it is patently obvious Doug’s offer perfectly represents his political views. Seeing that is the case, as Doug reports, no one has even tried – since obviously the effort would be futile. The politicians & many others know a political view when they see one.
BTW: Counter to Doug’s claims, the Earth and Venus et. al. solar system objects median surface temperatures (and T profiles) are explained in course work for Atm. Thermo. 101 which Doug is not accomplished enough to muster the pre-req.s to actually attend for credit.
Norm, you obviously took this from your Bio. I fixed it back for you.
“With Norm nothing will change. He is a broken record and has said the same thing for years and he really does not listen or consider anything counter to his own personal belief system. You will never be able to change him since what you say does not enter his though [sic] process. He just mechanically responds to posts without thinking what is being said.”
You’re welcome.
Go to this comment Norman.
Doug: Still waiting for you to explain — in detail, with no handwaving — whether your hypothesis explains these observations:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
The response you deserve DA was in this comment and of course in another comment and in my paper regarding the stratosphere – you continue to ignore my responses and then say I haven’t answered!
I’m not going to wade through all your junk — I simply want to see your graph that predicts the actual outgoing spectrum of the Earth.
Link?
I simply want to see your valid calculations of the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus based on valid physics, not the fictitious, fiddled physics you promulgate – reiterated from the climatology stable where hardly any author has studied more than a year’s physics at tertiary level and thus does not understand entropy maximization. This is continued here.
Doug, it’s your hypothesis. Let’s see how it predicts the observed TOA outgoing spectrum of the Earth. This:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
If it can’t do this, it’s wrong.
You DA first “explain” the supposed relevance of the outgoing spectrum, especially when measurements of incoming and outgoing radiative intensity cannot tell us in any convincing fashion that there is energy imbalance at TOA. And even when there may be (rarely outside the limits of plus or minus 0.5%) there is no valid physics which can be used to support the fictitious conjecture that such radiation imbalance is the cause of climate change, rather than merely the result thereof. Correlation does not imply cause. No valid physics implies so-called radiative forcing raises the surface temperature, thus helping the Sun’s direct radiation which, of itself, falls way short of being what would be needed to explain surface temperatures. Adding back radiation in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations is outright wrong, and I don’t care what you learn in climatology fictitious, fiddled “fissics” courses. The lecturers in such courses don’t have a clue about the relevant entropy-maximization process.
Specifically, you ignored my response in this comment. An apology would be in order.
Why are you so afraid of being quantative?
Where is the outgoing spectrum of the Earth derived from your hypothesis?
I’ve asked several times now. Time to produce it, or admit you can’t.
My hypothesis is not about radiation, so I don’t need to discuss outgoing radiation, which, by the way, evidence shows is always within plus or minus about 0.5% of incident solar radiation at TOA anyway.
If you think you can prove my hypothesis wrong, you won’t do so with irrelevant discussion of radiation. You can’t explain the mean surface temperature of Earth (let alone Venus) with the absurd GH radiative forcing conjecture (that ignores the laws of physics) and so you have no argument what-so-ever that you can base on radiation.
It’s a pity you don’t read my hypothesis sometime, rather than making a fool of yourself to those who have read it. Here’s what someone who understands the physics had to say about my book which was based on my original 2013 paper …
He said that DC “shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”
John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
It’s actually quite laughable that David Appell thinks I haven’t quantified anything. Theoretical quantification of expected temperatures in surfaces and at the base of the tropospheres of Earth and several other planets has been one of the main ways of verifying that measured data does indeed support my hypothesis.
I have also used the hypothesis to quantify the expected temperatures 10Km below the surface in Germany – temperatures of about 300C which “surprised” the borehole drillers, but didn’t surprise me. And I was probably first to qualify the temperature differential between the outer warmer air and inner cold air in a vortex tube using the same hypothesis. I quantified temperatures in the core of the Moon, and the temperature gradient in Earth’s mantle where it is far less steep than in the outer crust. And I quantified the expected amount of cooling as the percentage of water vapor increases, and verified such with a comprehensive study of temperature-precipitation correlation, results of which have been quoted in at least three other comments – copied from my 2013 paper.
David Appell can’t even quantify the mean surface temperature of Earth with radiation calculations, because nobody can, for the simple reason that it is not radiation reaching a planet’s surface which is the primary determinant of the temperature thereof, and it never will be for any planet in the Universe that has a significant atmosphere.
“My hypothesis is not about radiation, so I dont need to discuss outgoing radiation, which, by the way, evidence shows is always within plus or minus about 0.5% of incident solar radiation at TOA anyway.”
Ha ha. 0.5% of 1365/4 W/m2 is 1.7 W/m2. That’s a fairly large forcing.
So, yes, you do need to discuss outgoing radiation. Especially as a function of wavenumber. Let’s see your hypothesis account for this:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
If your hypothesis can’t predict this curve, it is wrong, period, and your own me $10,000 ($AU or $US).
“David Appell cant even quantify the mean surface temperature of Earth with radiation calculations, because nobody can, for the simple reason that it is not radiation reaching a planets surface which is the primary determinant of the temperature thereof, and it never will be for any planet in the Universe that has a significant atmosphere.”
Doug: Your job is to explain the observations, not whine about me.
Manabe and Wetherald first calculated the correct global average surface temperature in 1967.
You, however, have not.
David Appell:
There’s no such thing as radiative forcing in a planet’s atmosphere whereby you imply that radiation could force a surface temperature to be hotter than the incident solar radiation could make it. That’s physics.
Radiation from a colder atmosphere can only slow the rate of radiative cooling of a surface which is warmer. The Earth’s surface has already been made warmer on average than radiation could make it – by the process involving entropy maximization.
Nitrogen and oxygen molecules are far, far more effective in slowing the non-radiative rate of cooling of the surface, totally eclipsing any effect of carbon dioxide.
But the proof that carbon dioxide does indeed absorb radiation supports my hypothesis, because it is the very process in which water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane etc radiate and absorb radiation which leads to the temperature leveling effect (well known to physicists) of inter-molecular radiation.
That’s why the “moist adiabatic lapse rate” is lower than the g/cp value, just as is the temperature gradient in the troposphere of Uranus about 5% to 10% lower due to the methane radiation properties. Such lowering of the gradient causes the supporting temperature at the base of all such tropospheres to be lower.
Doug: Where is your calculation of this:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Manabe and Wetherald made huge errors of physics and ignored the fact which was first explained by Loschmidt in the 19th century (and is now proven experimentally this century) that force field like gravity create a stable temperature gradient – which obviates the need for concern about greenhouse gases. So relax – it’s all wrong!
“David Appell cant even quantify the mean surface temperature of Earth with radiation calculations, because nobody can, for the simple reason that it is not radiation reaching a planets surface which is the primary determinant of the temperature thereof”
For the Nth time already, Manabe and Wetherald did this in 1967:
Manabe S & Wetherald R T. Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. J. Atmos. Sci. 24:241-59, 1967.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ThermalEqu.pdf
You can’t prove they were right. I can prove with correct physics that they were wrong. Hence you will never convince me otherwise because I can see the glaring errors in their work, and that of Pierrehumbert and Hansen. So it’s quite pointless your trying to convince me they were right when I know for certain that their physics was wrong.
Your problem david Appell is that you don’t understand the relevant thermodynamics and entropy maximization processes whereby unbalanced energy potential dissipate, and neither did they. Their knowledge and understanding of the very relevant physics concerning entropy was pathetic.
Manabe and Wetherald were wrong because their basic assumption that rising air (their idea of what “convection” means) consists of parcels which expand and cool. No such thing happens. There is nothing that will keep an initial collection of molecules held together even for a few nanoseconds as they dart about randomly between collisions at speeds in the vicinity of 1,800Km/hr at the base of the troposphere and about 1,200Km/hr near the tropopause.
Their “layers” (in Appendix 1) are assumed to have initially the appropriate dry temperature gradient but they say it is due to the above process, whereas in fact it does not happen due to parcels of air rising, but it all happens at the molecular level as explained in my hypothesis.
Now, what Manabe and Weherald then do is absurd. They simply calculate that the temperature of the bottom of each layer is indeed warmer (for the wrong reasons) and they try to make out that it is then radiation which is maintaining the temperature gradient, when in fact it all has to do with thermodynamics (not radiation) and maximum entropy production which in dry air would create the -g/cp gradient.
The only effect that their radiation can have would be a temperature leveling effect, and we do know of course that is what happens, and the “wet adiabatic lapse rate” is less steep. It is so blatantly obvious that an increase in water vapor cannot raise the surface temperature whilst at the same time it does indeed make the temperature gradient less steep. To do so would raise the temperature in the upper troposphere far more than the supposed raising at the surface end of the temperature plot.
It’s all just so absurd! Radiative balance with the Sun would be thrown out by more than 10%, whereas we know empirically that it is never out by much more than 0.5%, and even that is uncertain because the error bars in measuring incident radiation and outward radiation at TOA are more than 0.5% anyway, so we don’t know for certain if the net effect is positive or negative. There is absolutely no empirical evidence supporting the false GH radiative forcing conjecture, and there never will be because it’s WRONG>
DA: Go to this comment.
Doug: Before you starting expecting answers from others, how about explaining how your hypothesis explains the observed outgoing EM spectrum of the Earth?
As a function of frequency. Let’s see it.
You tell me DA why you think I have to explain such, when my hypothesis accurately explains what’s happening in all planets without any need to discuss the missing frequencies in outgoing radiation. In the case of Earth, the energy just exits via water vapor molecules, and I have no idea why you can’t understand that when I’ve explained it in detail as to how CO2 molecules warm other molecules in collisions, and some of the new energy makes it into water vapor molecules.
You have no empirical evidence that the energy leaving the planet is less than that received.
In the period since 1998 peak temperatures it is highly likely that slightly more energy has been radiated out in total than was received. Clearly Roy’s data indicates cooling since then, and I don’t trust the weather station data because Anthony Watts has now completed a study which proves that the warming has been overstated by about a third by deliberately ignoring urban crawl effects. That’s not just naive on their part – it’s outright fraud.
Go to this comment
This was delicious. Despite probably half of the responses being DC silliness, you obviously struck a nerve. Love especially Willis’ response – I too am sick and tired of PC brigades taking umbrage on behalf of unnamed others.
׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510
DJC,
I see you are going on Christmas holiday soon! Great! You will have a wonderful time and you won’t haunt climate blogs with your nonsense! It will be a mutual benefit to all!
Here DJC, From an earlier thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203810
The links in my post lead to data of how much overall solar energy is reaching the surface of many different cities around the world. You can see that wetter climates receive a lot less solar energy.
Here is a solar map of the USA. Do you know the approximate location of Huntsville, Alabama and Las Vegas, Nevada?
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_us_annual10km_dec2008.jpg
Las Vegas receives almost twice as much solar energy to its surface than Huntsville. Most will understand that this is the main reason Huntsville will record lower high temps than Las Vegas. You can’t understand this. Yet you claim to have some background in science. Also I linked you to a humidity calculator that shows that moist air holds a lot more energy than dry air at the same temperature. You also ignore this in your simplistic study. Like I said you ignore all that proves you wrong and just keep going without a second look.
“You can see that wetter climates receive a lot less solar energy.”
You don’t say, Norman! /sarc
But you’re referring to what reaches the surface, some of it having been blocked by clouds. What reaches the top of the troposphere depends on season, altitude and latitude, not water vapor content. So moist regions at noon in Singapore can be hotter than dry regions in winter in Invercargill NZ which is at about 45 degrees latitude. But that does not prove me wrong, and nor do you.
It’s not the fact that more solar radiation reaches the surface: it’s the fact that more reaches the upper troposphere, the clouds and the ozone layer where that solar radiation is still strong enough to raise the somewhat colder temperatures up there. On average, it is rarely strong enough to raise the 24-hour mean surface temperature to the level that gravity has already raised it by maximum entropy production.
Why don’t you just read my study of 15 locations and do your own proper study like mine, rather than cherry picking only two locations?
What is it Norman that you don’t find blatantly obvious in my results, or that you can’t confirm about my data from the source I cited?
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8C 20.1C
Medium (06-10): 33.0C 21.2C
Dry (11-15): 35.7C 21.9C
Why should I heed your two location “study” (without any cited data, altitude information, information about distance from oceans, information about angle of inclination of the Sun etc) when I have done a far more comprehensive study with sound and fully documented methodology and quoted data. If you want to prove my study wrong, I suggest you at least refer to it in some small way. You’ll have plenty of time to select randomly your own set of 15 locations and do a similar study of your own between Christmas and New Year. I may still comment before Christmas, but I’m rather busy. So I look forward to your study by January 1st your time.
Now read my new comment Dec 20, 7:10am.
DJC,
You do not read or understand. Pointless effort to spend any more time responding to even one of your mindless posts. You will keep spamming the blogs posting material off topic and will not care to look at any counter point. I was hoping you might click on the links to see what they show but obvious that is far too much effort for you and it will also prove you completely wrong and we can’t have that can we?
I was hoping you, Norman, might learn some thermodynamics and realize that surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation at all, so your discussion is not about my hypothesis and thus not of interest to me. The IPCC implies that rain forests should be more than 50 degrees hotter than deserts, so they’re wrong about water vapor feedback.
DJC
You need to back up and relearn physics you are really lost in a world of senseless delusion!
“surface temperatures are not determined primarily by radiation at all”
Really sad to read someone who is an adult post this child like notions. Where does this stupidity come from?
Your own simplistic study of cities shows considerable variation in night and day temperatures strongly showing radiation is the major contributing cause of surface temperatures. How in the hell does IPCC imply rain forests should be more than 50 degrees hotter than deserts? You make as much sense as going to a preschool class and asking them about science. Hopeless case you are.
Your very mindless comments that you repeat 10,000 plus times (and they never get better or more real, all delusion)
You cannot understand radiation at all, you keep acting like you understand Stefan-Boltzmann but you absolutely clueless. The equilibrium temperature that would be reached by Stefan-Boltzmann is only the case if nothing is stopping the outward radiant flow. If you redirect outgoing energy back to the radiating source the equation is not valid (like a thermos). The hot coffee sends out radiant energy and would cool at the rate determined by the S-B equation of 4th power radiation loss except if you have a mirror surface it sends this radiant energy back into the coffee keeping it from cooling.
The temperatures at the base of a planet’s troposphere are not determined primarily by direct solar radiation reaching that region, or any surface there. There is no solar radiation reaching the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, but it’s hotter than Earth’s surface down there. The process whereby these regions are warmed is of course the subject of my 18 page paper.
Norman wrote:
“The hot coffee sends out radiant energy and would cool at the rate determined by the S-B equation of 4th power radiation loss except if you have a mirror surface it sends this radiant energy back into the coffee keeping it from cooling.”
It’s not the radiation which is raised to the fourth power, Norman, it’s the temperature.
But, yes, Norman, your very simplistic description is a good childlike explanation, though the coffee does cool – just more slowly, and the mirror does not make it boil away. In fact the mirrored surface just has a very low absorptivity, and so it doesn’t absorb much of the thermal energy being radiated, but it does absorb plenty that is conducted into and through it via molecular collisions.
I note you don’t seem to know much about conduction and diffusion, Norman. But that’s to be expected from someone without any qualifications in physics who believes Maxwell Planck should be stripped of his Nobel Prize and it should be awarded for this new hypothesis that we can create energy and make something hotter still, and it’s all done with mirrors.
By the way, I wrote about the actual radiation process in my 2012 paper – see Section 4 and 5 here.
From Section 4:
“In calculating heat flow it is found that, for the case of two parallel plates, we get a satisfactory result by determining the radiative flux from each, then taking the difference to get net flux and determining heat flow from that. Such calculations of net flux effectively subtract the area under the curve of the cooler target from the area under the curve for the warmer source. So, in straight forward cases, the calculations are actually working with the area between the two curves.”
From Section 5:
“Hence, while the surface remains warmer than the base of the atmosphere, any radiation from the cooler atmosphere will undergo resonant scattering and this process leaves no additional thermal energy in the surface. So, under normal weather conditions, no thermal energy can be transferred from the atmosphere by radiation or any other spontaneous process.
“In fairness, there would be a slight slowing of the rate of cooling when the temperatures approach each other, because of the way in which the area between the Planck curves reduces. But this only applies to radiation, so evaporation and diffusion could easily compensate and it does not mean energy is added to the surface or the atmosphere.”
Hi Norman,
You stated:
“The equilibrium temperature that would be reached by Stefan-Boltzmann is only the case if nothing is stopping the outward radiant flow.”
Not to be picky but nothing stops the outward radiant flow! Redirecting energy back to the surface in no way impedes the surface from radiating energy. In fact, it only means some quantum of energy returns to the surface.
You go on:
“If you redirect outgoing energy back to the radiating source the equation is not valid (like a thermos.”
Why does re-directed energy invalidate the equation when direct energy doesn’t? Your thinking or phraseology does seem unclear on this.
Have a great day!
Please read this comment Norman.
Norman wrote “Your study DID not include solar energy reaching the surface.” My study was just about real data temperature and precipitation correlation. Your “solar energy” reaching the surface has a mean of about 168W/m^2 which S-B will show you is like radiation from a nearby iceberg at -40C.
That “solar energy reaching the surface” is not what determines the mean surface temperature Norman as you would know if you understood my hypothesis, as this guy does ….
“The fallacies in the greenhouse conjecture are exposed rigorously and backed up by a comprehensive study (in the Appendix) which compares rainfall and temperature data for locations on three continents. The study concludes convincingly that the wetter regions do indeed have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. This supports the hypothesis in the book which shows that so-called “greenhouse gases” (mostly water vapor and a little carbon dioxide) do in fact reduce the lapse rate and thus lower the “supported” temperature at the surface. In other words, water vapor cools and so does carbon dioxide, the latter by only a minuscule amount.
“The book discusses how and why surface cooling slows down almost to a halt in the early pre-dawn hours as the supported temperature is approached. This slowing down process is well known, but the concept of the supporting temperature (due to a temperature gradient autonomously induced by gravity) was not understood, even though this “gravito-thermal” effect was originally proposed in the nineteenth century. Modern day physics can now be used to prove the Loschmidt effect is indeed a reality, as this book shows.
“As a physicist, I can honestly say that the physics is indeed mainstream and valid in all respects. It discusses the maximum entropy conditions that evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached, and then goes on to develop a real break-through hypothesis of “heat creep” which, when we consider what happens on Earth and other planets with atmospheres, we see must be the process which explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period. Indeed all planetary temperature data, even that below any surface, can be explained by the hypothesis in this book, which is indeed a totally new paradigm that completely demolishes the old greenhouse conjecture that was based on mistaken understanding of the laws of physics.
“I would expect “warmists” and “lukes” alike to attack the reviews of this book, but the astute reader will realise that is just their normal mode of approach to all such matters. To them science matters not – just their vocation or other pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo. They would do well to consider the final comment in Chapter 1: “One wonders how many lives may have been saved had such funds been devoted instead to humanitarian aid.”
I reckon Bill Mckibben is right- check this out for one year’s worth of hell-
DROUGHTS AND STORM EVERYWHERE.
‘The world’s weather has been specialising in droughts,’ . says Dr.E; E. Free in the New York ‘Times.’- ‘Over the eastern two-thirds of the United States damage is estimated….”
“Only two Julys in the past century wrere drier….”
“Great Britain has been similarly parched. Not only has agriculture been damaged ‘ severely, but the water supplies of many towns and villages have failed, some for the first time”
“from the other side of’the world, in South China, come reports of droughts, with famine threatened and suffering already acute.
‘The meteorological factor back of this unusual weather would be obscured, however, if one assume that droughts are the only extremes,that have been exhibited. Only recently Central Connecticut experienced what was probably the severest thunder storm and hailstorm in its history.The streets of Hartford were inches deep, it is reported, icy marblies as large as hickory nuts.
On 18th July occurred the Colorado cloud burst, which caused the wreck of the Rocky Mounted Limited*
Four days earlier a similar storm,swept seven people to their deaths at Moselle, Missouri.
‘Elsewhere in the world the weather’s record of violence is ever more striking. Early in July torrential floods swept Eastern India, with stories of hundreds of elephants floating helplessly to drown. Four hundred human beings were drowned by floods on 10th and 11th July .Turkish floods two days later caused more than 5OO deaths.
On 6th July there swept across Central Europe a storm’ of thunder, wind and hail, unexcelled in volence or damage since the unforgotten record hail ,storm of 13th July, 1778, said to be the most terrific storm of the sortin weather history.
In Japan three fourths of the of the average month’s rainfall fell within eighteen hours in the violent downpour of 23rd May, causing milllions of yen of damage to railways, and a score or more of fatalities.
‘During January and February of last winter : Europe – experienced the greatest cold ill over two centuries.
Trains were snowbound for two weeks in the Balkans; Rome was snow-covered,. and ice-crusts formed on Venetian canals. Hunting wolves appeared in villages -in Yugoslavia, Hungary and Spain. ‘The Flame of Remembrance in’ Paris,’ intended to be eternal, went out because the gas frose up.
The registrar-general ascribed more than 60,000 extra deaths in England to the weather.
Droughts, crop failures and forest fires are reported from Europte, from the West Indies, from Australia and elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere. India and South Africa report the severest hailstorms there on record.
In Yugoslavia, in the early months of the year oyer 100 people were killed by lightning.’
ooops, Bill, sorry this was from 1929 when the co2 level was 350ppm. Do you want me to report on 1934!!
Good one, Richard!
Roy
If readers wish to understand what’s wrong with the GH conjecture, I suggest that they think on this:
Every engineer knows that two parallel plates (initially at different temperatures) radiating at each other will tend towards having the same temperature somewhere which will end up being between the two initial temperatures. Radiation has a temperature leveling effect.
Now, to understand what radiation on its own does, you should not make the mistake that Manabe and Wetherald made. Instead, you imagine the Earth’s surface as one plate (say it’s vertical and on the left) and imagine the atmosphere all condensed into a thin layer represented by a parallel plate on the right, there being vacuum between the plates and everywhere else. Think of the Sun’s radiation coming in from the right of the right hand plate (the atmosphere) and only being able to warm it to some cold temperature probably quite a few degrees below freezing point.
Then, to avoid confusion with backradiation, think of the Sun’s radiation to the surface as coming from a Sun on the left of the left-hand plate that represents the surface. That solar radiation is also far too weak (on average) to raise the surface temperature above freezing point. That’s a fact you can check with Stefan Boltzmann calculations using mean solar radiation absorbed by the surface as being 168W/m^2.
Now, all that all the radiation between the two plates (the surface and the atmosphere) does is have a temperature leveling effect, which means that the temperatures of the two plates tend towards being equal, but neither can become hotter than the Sun can make the hotter of the two in the first place.
So no internal radiation between the surface and the atmosphere can make the surface or the atmosphere hotter than the Sun can make the hotter of the two.
And the Sun’s direct radiation cannot make either hotter than freezing point. So the whole paradigm is wrong as I have explained at http://climate-change-theory.com and you need to understand how non-radiative processes have established tropospheric temperature gradients over the life of each planet as gravity acts on individual molecules in free path motion between collisions, forming a density gradient with faster moving molecules at lower levels supporting that density gradient and keeping it stable. If it were not hotter (that is, if mean molecular kinetic energy were not greater) at the lower levels, the atmosphere would collapse, because higher molecules would gain KE moving downwards and “knock” more of the now less-warm molecules at lower levels to lower levels yet. It’s not hard to understand.
Relax this Christmas – it’s all wrong – natural climate cycles explain everything and it will start cooling again within 100 years or less. Carbon dioxide does not warm. So be blessed, and study what Christmas is all about, instead of trying to prove me wrong, because you never will.
We’re all going on a summer holiday.
Just to reassure everyone, I will be taking a break. I am going to spend the $10,000 that I had on offer but which has now been withdrawn.
I may even enrol in a remedial physics course for senior citizens.
I am also thinking of travelling, probably to a cooler clime well above the shoreline (that was a joke!).
On the other hand I may spend the money tracking down that other DougCotton who keeps impersonating me.
Silent readers will note that Norman’s lack of understanding of thermodynamics is epitomized in his coffee cooling conjecture in a comment above. If his coffee were in a thin-walled mug (even with a lid) where the inside walls are polished silver and the outside is charcoal black, his coffee would of course cool faster than that in the vacuum flask.
Norman probably doesn’t even know why it is called a vacuum flask, because he can’t see the second outer wall or the vacuum between the inner and outer wall. He certainly doesn’t mention its important role. It is the vacuum which stops convection and diffusion across the space between the walls – and that’s the main insulation.
Likewise, it is the vacuum of space which helps keep the atmosphere warm because convective heat transfers cannot continue upwards past the top of the atmosphere – only radiation can get energy back out into space.
Ordinary air molecules (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) maintain the surface temperature because gravity sets up an equilibrium temperature gradient in the troposphere and the stratosphere acts like a dam wall, being kept warm itself mostly by absorption of solar radiation by ozone. If you keep the stratosphere at a certain mean temperature, then you automatically keep the surface at a warmer temperature, and the crust, mantle and core at hotter temperatures still. It’s the Sun Stupid!
Roy and others:
We shall all wait with anticipation for Norman’s improvement on my study that showed more moist regions are cooler than drier regions, and for his attempt at refuting my physics. He and anyone else may submit their conjectures to win the AU$10,000 reward, conditions for which are on my blog and all submissions must discuss the process of maximum entropy production and explain why they consider there would be a different outcome as entropy tends towards a maximum.
My hypothesis is developed from the Second Law, so you need to prove that wrong first.
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927) [source]
In summary, please see this comment on a more recent thread.
Doug, if your hypothesis doesnt predict the actual observed outgoing IR spectrum of the Earth, it is wrong. Period.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
And so says all of yourself, DA – assertively as usual.
Your statement is as wrong as the radiative forcing conjecture itself. In that you cannot use that conjecture to explain the mean surface temperature of Earth, the conjecture is thus falsified. I have explained why all attempts by climatologists to do so are incorrect because they assume one can add radiative fluxes and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. If one electric bar radiator warms an object to 350K you’ll find that 16 such radiators don’t raise it to 700K. Until you produce an experiment demonstrating that the temperature does get even close to 700K I rest my case.
DJC,
Your whole conjecture of Earth’s surface temperature relies upon some temperature of an imagined “anchor point” that somehow is responsible for the surface temperature. How about reality? The surface is the anchor point that determines what a given temperature will be in the troposphere based upon the lapse rate. Water vapor lowers the lapse rate (meaning wet moist air does not cool as fast as drier air that is moving upward in the atmosphere do to convection currents). If you reverse reality as you have chosen to do, you have an arbitrary anchor point in the sky that then determines the surface temp.
No Norman the surface is not the anchor point. On Uranus, for example, it is the methane layer that is anchored at about 60K due to the level of solar radiation, and it’s near TOA. You cannot produce valid Stefan-Boltzmann calculations supporting your strange concept that the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus are anchor points maintained at observed temperatures by the incident solar radiation. Let’s see your calculations! Yes I have an anchor point in the “sky” but it’s not arbitrary: there are very good reasons why it is where it is and at the temperature that it is. It may, however, be in effect a weighted mean of several anchoring layers, especially on Earth where the stratosphere can be warmed by solar radiation and so too can be the tops of clouds. If you, Norman, reverse reality, then you have no explanation as to what happens on Earth or any other planet. What I have explained is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is correct.
DJC
The equilibrium temperature of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not the highest temperature a surface can reach. If you have 1000 watts/m^2 hitting a highly absorbing surface it will reach a temperature that it will now radiate out 1000 watt/m^2 and that will determine its equilibrium temperature. If you have a material that allows all 1000 watts/m^2 in but only allows 50% to leave what now happens to the surface? The surface must continue to warm (as it is constantly receiving energy) until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature that allows 1000 watts/m^2 to leave. You still have 1000 watts/m^2 entering both systems. Both have 1000 watts/m^2 leaving. They are both at an equilibrium state.
In the first case (with no barrier to radiation loss) the surface temperature will reach about 91 C and be at equilbrium.
In the second case the surface must heat so that is emitting 2000 watts/m^2 in order to establish equilibrium with the energy in (of 1000 watts/m^2). 50% of 2000 is 1000 watts/m^2 and that is how many watts must be leaving to balance the watts coming in. The surface in case 2 will continue to warm until it reaches an equilibrium with incoming and outgoing radiation.
The surface temperature in the second case would reach about 160 C to be at an equilibrium temperature.
This case is why you need to think deeper about radiation and what happens when you redirect its flow.
Nice little energy generating perpetual motion machine you’ve invented there Norman: provide it with 1,000 joules of energy in some given time and out comes 2,000 joules in that same time. Put the output of 2,000 joules into another similar machine and get out 4,000 joules, then another machine to get 8,000 joules etc, etc, etc. Who needs coal?
DJC
I know you are off and I hope you enjoy the holidays but you really do not comprehend well. The situation I posted above does not add 1000 joules of energy in some given time. There is an external source of energy that is constantly and continuously adding 1000 joules/sec-m^2 to a surface. You do have problems understanding an open system one where energy is constantly flowing in and out.
You need to study some Chemistry. You will learn to balance equations, my posts will then make some sense to you because at this time I will be unable to reach you with a rational argument you are able to understand.
Dougie: Why afraid to submit work to professional journal?
DA: Are you “afraid” to even write a comment explaining in your own words just precisely how the temperature at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus is at least as hot as Earth’s surface, whilst measured temperatures well above that exhibit the expected temperature gradient?
Norman – I am quite aware of the standard radiative forcing incorrect fictitious fiddled physics such as “explained” here by NASA: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
It’s just wrong.
DJC,
The link you posted from NASA is not wrong you just have no ability to understand what is being said so it seems silly or wrong. If you could comprehend the concept presented you would not make an ignorant claim that this is just wrong.
Oh I “comprehend the concept” all right Norman. And I also comprehend why it is at odds with correct thermodynamics.
Norman, Roy and others:
The above-linked NASA “explanation” quite clearly says (quite incorrectly) that we can add back radiation to solar radiation and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations.
There are two main errors …
1) The net total they get after adding back radiation has a mean of about 390W/m^2 but is very variable flux. Such would not produce a mean temperature above about 5 degrees C. So, because the actual mean temperature is greater, the GH radiative forcing conjecture is wrong.
2) As explained in my 2012 paper (which was a review-type paper of 21st century understanding of radiation) and in the good professor’s publication “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation“ the electro-magnetic energy in back radiation is not converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, and it cannot raise the surface temperature in any way above the temperature of the location in the atmosphere from whence it came. Back radiation does not even penetrate warmer water surfaces by more than a few nanometers, so how could it warm the oceans? And so, once again, the GH radiative forcing conjecture is wrong.
DJC
I get tired of being repetitive. You constantly use this “Strawman” argument about the GHE and then demolish what is not being said. The GHE does not make the claim that back radiation raises the surface temperature. In you own post you know this but are not connecting. The GHE claim is the Earth’s surface is emitting 390 watts/m^2 (on average only) and that the back-radiation from the atmosphere (which is just a redirection of this 390 watts) is 324 watts/m^2 for a net energy flow away from the surface of 66 watts/m^2 which would be cooling the surface. Back radiation is not warming the surface…the surface reaches a higher equilibrium temperature because of a constant influx of energy. It is not a static situation. New energy is always entering the system.
Doug, if your hypothesis doesnt predict the actual observed outgoing IR spectrum of the Earth — which the AGW hypothesis DOES predict — it is wrong. Period.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Norman – see this comment.
Hi Norman,
Thank you for the post, but I think you’ve made an error. You state:
“In the second case the surface must heat so that is emitting 2000 watts/m^2 in order to establish equilibrium with the energy in (of 1000 watts/m^2). 50% of 2000 is 1000 watts/m^2 and that is how many watts must be leaving to balance the watts coming in. The surface in case 2 will continue to warm until it reaches an equilibrium with incoming and outgoing radiation.”
Frankly, I agree with Doug on his critique of your post at this point in time. In the second case where “you have a material that allows all 1000 watts/m^2 in but only allows 50% to leave” it means only 500 W/m^2 leave. So the temperature must rise enough to allow double this amount or 1000 W/m^2 to leave, not 2000 W/m^2 as you claimed.
Have a great day!
DJC
Here is one reason I think you have huge holes in your understanding of radiation physics: In a quote above (in an attempt to make fun of me I think) you say:
“I note you dont seem to know much about conduction and diffusion, Norman. But thats to be expected from someone without any qualifications in physics who believes Maxwell Planck should be stripped of his Nobel Prize and it should be awarded for this new hypothesis that we can create energy and make something hotter still, and its all done with mirrors.”
Mirrors actually can make things much much hotter still. No place on Earth can you boil water with just sunlight correct? But get some mirrors that can focus and you can boil water with just sunlight and much more. Ever hear of a solar furance?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8
Norma, your pseudoscience is always hilarious!
Now, you think that mirrors reflecting sunlight “proves” that CO2 is “boiling the oceans”.
(BTW, was the sex-change operation painful?)
Hilarious.
geran,
Why?
Because Norman if you place a candle between two parallel mirrors you will get a huge amount of radiative flux being generated which, by analogy with what you think happens, would create enormously hot temperatures. Photons are not like little hand grenades depositing thermal energy into everything they strike. Read “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation“ from which I quote …
“Radiative heating of a blackbody is an irreversible process, because the heating results from dissipation with coherent high frequency energy above cut-off being transformed into internal heat energy. We assume that the dissipation is only active above cut-off, while the radition is active over the whole spectrum. Below cut-off radiation is a reversible process since the same spectrum is emitted as absorbed. Formally, the radiation term is dissipative and thus would be expected to transform the spectrum, and the fact that it does not is a remarkable effect of the resonance.
“The string representing a blackbody is brought to vibration in resonance to forcing and the vibrating string string emits resonant radiation. Incoming waves thus are absorbed into the blackbody/string and then are emitted depending on the body temperature.”
You have just so much physics to learn, Norman.
Roy and others – please see this new comment on a more recent thread.
PS: You could have read about this resonance in Section 5 of my paper that was published on several websites in March 2012, nearly four years ago Norman – and you still haven’t done so.
Yes Norman, I wrote several blog comments about solar cooking funnels years ago. Magnifying glasses can also be used to set fire to paper. I tried that over 60 years ago.
Marvelous what you can do when you focus radiation, thus making the effective temperature of the source far hotter. Parallel mirrors don’t do that. Nor does the atmosphere magnify energy and send more energy out of its base (into the surface) than it received (after reflection) at the top.
Energy balance at surface … [source]
Solar radiation in: 168W/m^2
Net radiation out: (390-324) = 66W/m^2
Non-radiative heat transfer out: 102W/m^2
Total energy out: 168W/m^2
Stefan Boltzmann temperature for 168W/m^2 = 233K.
You’re a beggar for punishment, Norman. I suggest you study my writings one day so you at least know what I’m talking about: it’s not about radiation.
Nah , you’re still wrong Duggie boy
Solar radiation in ..340w/sq.m.
Emissivity …0.82
S-B equation….18-19degrees C
This is the real Earth’s temp.
It’s radiation from the Sun, stupid.
You’re still wrong Mackie Boy. The solar radiation is variable and you forgot about the T^4 relationship – and about half gets absorbed or reflected – as you also apparently forgot. Oh, and it’s absorptivity you need when calculating how hot radiation makes something – not emissivity – Big Mack Mistake yet again.
Who’s next to take me on?
Dougie, if your hypothesis doesnt predict the actual observed outgoing IR spectrum of the Earth, it is wrong. Period.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
I’m not interested in your assertive hand-waving statements David Appell.
The greenhouse conjecture is not in accord with the laws of physics, so it does not get off the ground.
I suggest you read this comment written to Norman and help him with the requested experiment.
Unless you can produce that experiment the greenhouse is smashed.
1ķӶô㣿
źҪĹؼʻӣɽ롰ԱġѡӦĶڡҪ޸ġֱڱҳн°µҪзϵͳὫйʣֱתС
2ٶӶſ֣
ƽ̨ӶһԪ
3ֺܵˣ
ֺ24СʱὫӶֵ˺С
4ַʽļ֣
Ŀǰƽֻ̨֧֧Ƹͨ֡
http://www.pugongcao.com/?t=1421
To Roy, David Appell and others:
The difference between my correct hypothesis and the incorrect radiative greenhouse one is that I correctly explain (based on the laws of physics) how the required thermal energy gets down into a planet’s lower troposphere, surface, crust, mantle and core primarily by non-radiative processes, not much of it by radiation.
Hansen, Pierrehumbert and most climatologists are unaware of the ramifications of maximum entropy production (which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about) and so they were out of their depth and wrongly assumed that it must be back radiation supplying the missing energy – what else they thought?
But radiation from the atmosphere is like that from a blackbody a little below freezing point, whilst solar radiation reaching the surface is like that from an iceberg at about -40C. Two colds don’t make a hot. That’s not the way radiation works. The good professor tells you what happens in Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation. You can test this by noting that, if an electric bar radiator warms an object to 350K, then you can’t assume that 16 such radiators would raise it to 700K, but that is what you would get if you entered 16 times as much radiation into Stefan Boltzmann calculations, because the temperature is proportional to the fourth root of the flux and the fourth root of 16 is 2, so we double 350 to get 700K. But it’s not confirmed by evidence and so the IPCC are wrong in their fictitious, fiddled physics that assumes incorrectly that two cold fluxes can be added in S-B calculations. They can’t be because of the resonance process shown to exist by the good professor. My 2012 paper linked here extended the work of that professor in that it explained how the transfer of thermal energy is related to the area between the Planck functions because that represents the radiation which does not resonate and thus gets thermalized.
Experiments with centrifugal force confirm that a temperature gradient is formed by a force field – something that Hansen et al ignored – and so we don’t need backradiation to have to raise the surface temperature by 33 degrees. Gravity does more than enough, and then inter-molecular radiation (mostly between water vapor molecules) reduces the temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) and lowers the mean surface temperature from around 300K to whatever it is – perhaps 285K to 288K I would suggest.
Now it’s the morning of mt 70th birthday and my 9 year old son is calling for me to open presents. Bye.
Doug, if your hypothesis doesn’t predict the actual observed outgoing IR spectrum of the Earth, it is wrong. Period.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Two lots of “cold” radiation cannot be added together to make the equivalent of hotter radiation supposedly warming Earth’s surface. If one electric bar radiator warms an object to 350K, then 16 such radiators do NOT warm it to 700K. You need to think on that. I can lead a horse to water but I can’t make him think. Thinking is you problem, David.
And seeing that your hypothesis can’t explain the Earth’s surface temperature with correct physics, or that on Venus, or any other planetary temperature data, it is wrong. Period.
The observed outgoing IR spectrum is as observed because physics is physics and there is absolutely nothing unexpected about the spectrum which of course shows notches for absorption by carbon dioxide. The more it absorbs the more its extra energy is transferred (by diffusion via any other air molecules) eventually to water vapor molecules which radiate the energy to space. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon act like a blanket, holding about 98% of the thermal energy in the atmosphere, whilst radiating molecules reduce the temperature gradient (as you know water vapor does) thus cooling the surface – and also acting like holes in the blanket radiating energy to Space.
The total energy radiated to Space has very rarely been measured as being more than 0.5% different from the incoming energy – sometimes a positive difference and sometimes a negative difference. Any such difference is the result of natural climate change, not the cause.
Join the 3,100 who have watched my first climate video made on Christmas Day four years ago here.
Now I’m off to my 70th birthday dinner and the day after Christmas on a relaxing summer holiday (until January 2nd) in beautiful sunny Australian weather forecast to be mostly around 25C to 30C in northern Victoria and the NSW South Coast. We have about the best climate in the world, and it’s staying that way.
In fact, where we are going in Northern Victoria has had very slight long-term cooling over the last 100 years, according to valid temperature records that no one tampered with. As it happens we will be driving through Yackandandah (near Rutherglen) which got a mention on Jo Nova’s climate blog this week … see the 100 year temperature records here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=082039&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
DA: Consider my reply in this comment as applying to yourself.
JohnKl
I saw this post of yours way up there.
“Hi Norman,
You stated:
The equilibrium temperature that would be reached by Stefan-Boltzmann is only the case if nothing is stopping the outward radiant flow.
Not to be picky but nothing stops the outward radiant flow! Redirecting energy back to the surface in no way impedes the surface from radiating energy. In fact, it only means some quantum of energy returns to the surface.
You go on:
If you redirect outgoing energy back to the radiating source the equation is not valid (like a thermos.
Why does re-directed energy invalidate the equation when direct energy doesnt? Your thinking or phraseology does seem unclear on this.
Have a great day!”
My choice of words may not be the best to generate a clear picture. By stopping outward radiant flow it is meant radiation that would permanently leave the system. This would be energy lost. If you have a radiation shield (they use them in space all the time to keep electronics from getting too hot or cold no conduction of convective heat losses in space) the radiation of a surface will not longer be leaving the total system and can keep the surface at a temperature much higher than it free to radiate which would follow the Stefan-Bolzmann law of 4th power loss based upon temperature.
No outward radiation gets “stopped” Norman. Read this comment just above. You really can’t think in terms of entropy and the Second Law can you Norman? I have no idea why you imagine yourself as an expert in physics because you have memorized all the Hansen / Pierrehumbert false physics which of course we all know about as well as you anyway. There’s not a comment of yours that I could not have written myself if I, like you, were hell-bent on promulgating the hoax to protect my source of income.
mDoug!C
I do not imagine myself an expert in physics. The concepts you reject are not complex physics but very basic. I am not an expert just much more informed than you (which does not say much!). The difference between our two approaches to physics is you come with an agenda and closed mind which is a crippling mental state. I am open to all ideas, I am not going to reject the science of GHE without at least making a full attempt to understand what is being said. You do not have this desire. You constantly repeat what is not being said by anyone that knows. Link me to a claim where scientists claim a colder atmosphere warms the Earth’s surface. All the energy budgets show the opposite so I have zero clue where you get this notion. The actual energy budgets show the surface radiating more energy than it is receiving from back radiation.
Your good professor’s paper on radiation physics can be proved or disproved by very simple experiments. Get a monochrome infrared light of 14 micron wavelength with about 300 watt power. Now get two spectrographs of radiation emitted by the surface. One before you turn the light on and then one after. If the hypothesis that this light will not be absorbed but scattered is true you will see a hump in the spectrum at 14 microns after the light is turned on. If the spectrum remains a bell curve it should indicate the energy is absorbed and thermalized.
We don’t get monochrome light emitted naturally by blackbodies in nature. You have provided insufficient information for anyone to determine from physics what should happen. We need distance and temperature data for starters. But the Stefan-Boltzmann law is inapplicable because the source is not a blackbody.
Stefan-Boltzmann calculations apply for blackbody radiation, nothing else. For example, monochrome low frequency radiation is emitted in your microwave oven but is not absorbed in the usual sense at the atomic level by anything. All it does is add kinetic energy to rotating water molecules because their natural frequency is in synchronization with each passing wave, as the designers of the machine made it happen. It does not warm those plastic microwave bowls at all. This proves that the electro-magnetic energy in photons is not always converted to thermal energy in everything they strike. Solar radiation would warm those plastic bowls in some circumstances.
And, by the way Norman, the pseudo scattering process which physicists talk about, is not like reflection sending your 14 micron radiation straight back into your spectrometer. The vast majority would be scattered in other directions.
In any event, no blackbody will emit intensities at any frequency which exceed the intensity indicated by its Planck function. It just uses the energy in the incident 14 micron radiation (assumed “cooler” than the surface itself) for its own quota of 14 micron radiation as determined by its Planck function. So its atoms that are capable of emitting at 14 microns do so using the incident electro-magnetic energy rather than converting thermal energy from the surface into electron energy and thence into photons. That’s why the surface cooling that is by radiation is slowed as every engineer knows. But non-radiative cooling is not slowed.
Whilst a machine may well emit higher intensity 14 micron radiation, no natural body at a cooler temperature will emit a higher intensity of 14 micron radiation than will a warmer target be capable of doing. The Planck function for the cooler source is always fully contained within the area under the Planck curve for the warmer target. That’s a mathematical fact. Hence the 14 micron radiation from a natural source will never exceed what the warmer target could radiate at 14 microns. All this was in my 2012 paper which you don’t deign to read, and thus you continue to put your foot in it.
The issue, Norman, is that neither the Solar radiation nor the back radiation is, on average, sufficient intense to explain the observed surface temperatures. And the radiation from these two cold sources cannot be compounded, as the 16 radiator experiment shows. (You can do a smaller version of the experiment by buying four identical electric radiators for which you might have a use afterwards.)
It does not matter if the rate of radiative cooling is slowed, because non radiative cooling then accelerates. What really matters is the supporting temperature towards which the surface temperature approaches at night. That’s why cooling slows down and may stop in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours. Who cares if it takes a few extra minutes (or just seconds) to get down to the supporting temperature at that time? And guess what determines that supporting temperature, Norman? The gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and the “heat creep” process that is obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The “very basic physics” Norman is so “basic” that it’s wrong. The correct physics is at the fore-front of post-1980 understanding of thermodynamics. See http://entropylaw.com and read about developments since 1980.
Norman wrote: “The equilibrium temperature that would be reached by Stefan-Boltzmann is only the case if nothing is stopping the outward radiant flow.”
Nope. That’s not what Max Planck, winner of a Nobel Prize in physics, said.
The equilibrium temperature attained by a blackbody depends only upon the strongest incident radiation. Additional radiation from an (effectively) cooler source (like back radiation) has no additional warming effect. Fullstop. That’s correct, valid, standard, verifiable physics and you, Norman, cannot link me to any standard physics documentation saying otherwise. Put up or shut up, Norman. We are all sick and tired of your personal conjectures that you try to tell us about in assertive tones.
JohnKl
In another post above you state:
“Hi Norman,
Thank you for the post, but I think youve made an error. You state:
In the second case the surface must heat so that is emitting 2000 watts/m^2 in order to establish equilibrium with the energy in (of 1000 watts/m^2). 50% of 2000 is 1000 watts/m^2 and that is how many watts must be leaving to balance the watts coming in. The surface in case 2 will continue to warm until it reaches an equilibrium with incoming and outgoing radiation.
Frankly, I agree with Doug on his critique of your post at this point in time. In the second case where you have a material that allows all 1000 watts/m^2 in but only allows 50% to leave it means only 500 W/m^2 leave. So the temperature must rise enough to allow double this amount or 1000 W/m^2 to leave, not 2000 W/m^2 as you claimed.
Have a great day!”
With Doug or geran there is zero chance of them understanding or wanting to understand some basic concepts and they will mix and mess up anything you attempt to explain. With geran I think he does it for fun and with DJC I think he is serious but neither minds can be reached. You are far different. Intelligent and thinking. If I present the case to you in a proper fashion you will be able to understand it. You may not agree but at least you will see the point.
With Norman there is zero chance of him understanding or wanting to understand some basic concepts and he will mix and mess up anything you attempt to explain.
Norman, Roy and others:
The Earth’s surface is nothing like a black or grey body because thermal energy also enters and leaves it by non-radiative processes. It is totally irrelevant for you or anyone to try to explain its temperature with radiation. The radiation in does not equal the radiation out for starters. The temperature is determined primarily by input of thermal energy by non-radiative processes that cause conduction across the surface-atmosphere interface.
There is no way that solar radiation is anywhere near sufficient to explain the mean surface temperature of the oceans. Much of the solar radiation only warms colder regions below the ocean surface, and that extra energy cannot then raise the temperature of the already-warmer water above.
The ocean surface is primarily maintained at existing temperatures via non-radiative conduction and convection processes between the water molecules and all the normal air molecules at the interface, these being mostly nitrogen and oxygen molecules of course. This is what we can deduce from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it is an entropy maximization process.
The GH conjecture is WAY off track, and you should remember that back radiation does not even penetrate the thin ocean surface layer – not even more than a few nanometers of it.
JohnKl
In may example. Think it through. The question to you is if 50% of the radiation cannot leave in the second case and you have a constant input of 1000 watts/m^2 hitting the surface, what would the surface of case 2 have to emit to get 1000 watts/m^2 out?
If only 1000 watts/m^2 are emitted by the surface in case 2 then only 500 will leave the system and you will have an energy imbalance that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. You will have more energy entering than you have leaving but it won’t do anything.
Your post stated: “So the temperature must rise enough to allow double this amount or 1000 W/m^2 to leave, not 2000 W/m^2 as you claimed.” In order for the second case to get 1000 W/m^2 to leave the surface has to be emitting 2000 W/m^2 since only 50% of this 2000 can make it through the barrier material. If the surface is emitting at 2000 W/m^2 and only 50% of this is leaving you end up with 1000 W/m^2 leaving the system and it perfectly balances the 1000 W/m^2 constantly entering the system. Both the cases have 1000 watts in and 1000 watts out. They are at equilibrium temperature. One with a radiant barrier will reach a higher equilibrium temperature.
All that all the radiation (in any direction) between a warmer surface and a colder atmosphere does is to transfer some thermal energy (far less that the radiative flux itself) from the surface to the atmosphere, thus cooling the surface. That’s physics, and it’s explained by the good professor with whom you are entitled to argue if you wish Norman, because JohnKl and I have had enough of you imaginary fictitious, fiddled physics. So go on, find fault with the computations in Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation and tell that professor of applied mathematics that his mathematics needs brushing up, as you think my physics needs brushing up, despite the thousands of hours that I have devoted to studying such and, more importantly, thinking about the consequences of maximum entropy production. Unless and until you start asking sensible questions about entropy, Norman, I am really not interested in trying to explain to you why radiation is almost completely irrelevant. The reasons are of course in my papers.
Your “barrier material” Norman cannot exist: it is just another version of Maxwell’s demon about which you should read.
Standard physics, used by engineers as well, tells us that the only transfer of thermal energy by radiation is from the effectively hotter body to the effectively cooler one. All that radiation between the warmer surface of Earth and its atmosphere does is to cool the surface by transferring some thermal energy out of the surface and into the atmosphere, that being quantified (as engineers know) by the area between the Planck curves, about which I wrote in 2012 here in my paper which was reviewing standard physics.
In summary, Norman, you (like climatologists everywhere) think that every one-way pencil of radiation transfers equivalent thermal energy even into a warmer target. It doesn’t, and we know that because we know about the resonating process which the good professor proved computationally from standard physics. Physicists have also known it from experimental evidence and the fact that the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be obeyed in every independent process in nature. (Net effects do not let you off the hook.) We also confirm what the good professor explained with experiments wherein we find by measurement that, if one electric bar radiator warms an object to, say, 350K, then 16 such radiators all at the same distance surrounding the body do not raise it to double the temperature (2 being the fourth root of 16) that is, they do not raise it anywhere near 700K.
So back radiation (equivalent to radiation from ice at little below 0C) and solar radiation, whose mean is equivalent to radiation from an iceberg at about -40C) cannot be added together (as the IPCC et al most certainly assume they can be) to explain the surface temperature. There is absolutely no experiment that could show this happening. Two colds don’t make a hot.
Hi Norman,
Thank you for the reply. You state:
“The question to you is if 50% of the radiation cannot leave in the second case and you have a constant input of 1000 watts/m^2 hitting the surface, what would the surface of case 2 have to emit to get 1000 watts/m^2 out?”
Your verbiage seems confused but let me take a stab at it. When you claim 50% of the radiation cannot leave the surface that seems to me the same as saying the surface will only emit 50% of the incoming radiation that impinges the surface at the temperature found when the incoming radiation first arrives. Iow, the 50% constraint must be temperature dependent. If the temperature rises more the surface emits more energy that then leaves the surface (system if you will). To balance 1000 w/m^2 incoming radiation absorbed by the surface the surface in turn must emit the same 1000 w/m^2 away from the surface to the environment. If at first the surface only emits 50% or 500 w/m^2 the temperature merely needs to rise enough for surface emission to equal the 1000 w/m^2 incoming radiation. Am I missing something?
You go on:
“If only 1000 watts/m^2 are emitted by the surface in case 2 then only 500 will leave the system…”
Please explain this comment. If the surface emits 1000 w/m^2 then 1000 w/m^2 leaves the surface. You appear to contradict yourself, but I may just not understand what your trying to state. What do you mean by system? Emitted energy by definition leaves the object emitting it.
“…and you will have an energy imbalance that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.”
Not if energy absorbed equals energy emitted by the same surface. Please clarify your statement further, it maybe I’m missing what your trying to state. Later you state:
“In order for the second case to get 1000 W/m^2 to leave the surface has to be emitting 2000 W/m^2 since only 50% of this 2000 can make it through the barrier material.”
Again, how and why do you differentiate emitted energy and energy leaving the surface? Thanks for any help you can provide and …
Have a great day!
Norman and JohnKl
You can only boil a kettle by putting energy into it via the power cable: the surface temperature of a planet only rises each planetary morning because the required amount of thermal energy is put into it. It does NOT just rise because it has to emit a certain amount, or because we know it does emit that amount or because you just feel warm in the sun. You can feel warm because the air molecules colliding with your skin are warm, not necessarily the solar radiation. However, some of your skin may be oriented orthogonally to the incident solar radiation (unlike the Earth’s surface which may be receiving that radiation at an acute angle) and so your skin may well be raised to a temperature above normal body temperature by such orthogonal radiation around noon on a hot clear day in summer. So what? You’re in the relatively small portion of the globe where that is happening at that moment. What happens in that small region where there are no clouds and the Sun is almost directly overhead has little effect on the global mean temperature.
The mean solar radiation reaching the surface each 24 hours over the whole globe is less than 170W/m^2 and that cannot explain the mean surface temperature. The surface receives the extra energy it requires to rise in temperature each morning by the process I have explained complete with diagrams here. Back radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot add to the thermal energy already in the surface – it’s against the Law.
JohnKl
To clarify my post about two surfaces. In the first case you just have a plate in space with a near black-body absorption. It is receiving a constant flux of 1000 W/m^2 so will reach an equilibrium temperature where it has to emit 1000 W/m^2 to balance the energy equation.
The second case was not explained too well by me. I was thinking you had a material plate above the second surface plate that allows all radiation in but only allows 50% to leave. The system I am talking about is a multiple plate system. One plate is similar to case 1. The plate above has the property of allowing all the incoming radiation to hit the surface but only 50% can leave (it would be like the incoming energy is mostly visible but the second plate above the surface plate stops 50% of the IR emitted from the warming primary surface plate…the upper plate does not absorb any incoming energy).
In the second case the surface keeps warming because the second plate is sending energy back to it.
Example for system 2 (two plates, one absorbing plate and another acts as a radiation barrier). The surface of the primary plate has reached the temperature where it is now radiating 1000 W/m^2. This emitted energy reaches the second plate that only allows 50% of this energy to leave. There is a constant flux of 1000 W/m^2 hitting this surface so it will keep warming until it radiates 2000 W/m^2 of which now 1000 W/m^2 will leave the second radiation restricting plate and the overall system will be at equilibrium with the incoming radiation equal to the outgoing radiation. Does that clear it up for you?
JohnKl,
If may long post (or rant as geran calls them) does not clear it up I have another way of saying it that might make more sense. The concept I am bringing up is equilibrium states.
Take boiling water. At normal pressure water will boil at 212 F (100 C). The temperature of the water will remain at that temperature as the fluid boils. It is an equilibrium state. Even if you add more heat the water will not get hotter it will just boil more vigorously. But the equilibrium temperature of water is not a constant, it is dependent on the pressure above the water.
http://www.engineersedge.com/h2o_boil_pressure.htm
The resistance to boiling determines the equilibrium temperature. The energy in vs the energy out. You can reach higher water temps than 212 with a pressure cooker. Increasing the pressure to 15 psi can make the water temperature rise to 250 F. By restricting the rate of energy loss the fluid will get hotter even if both boiling systems have the same energy input.
Hi Norman,
Thank you for an excellent clarification. We can discuss more on upcoming threads. Btw, I forgot to mention to you and all Merry Christmas and I hope you have a Happy New Year!
Norman! Stop inventing Maxwell demons! If a plate is not emitting what it is receiving (and it is in a vacuum such as Space, so there is no non-radiative heat transfer) then it is NOT in an equilibrium state. Stefan Boltzmann calculations ONLY apply to equilibrium states. You make the same mistake that most climatologists do – they use the equations of physics without respecting the necessary pre-requisites for these to be applicable.
The Earth’s surface is neither a black body or a grey body and so you can determine nothing what-so-ever regarding its temperature based on radiation calculations.
As I have said many times, the mean solar radiation of less than 170W/m^2 that reaches the surface cannot explain the observed temperatures which are already far hotter than such radiation could make them in the vast majority of the Earth’s surface, with just a few exceptions around noon on clear days in summer in tropical and some other regions. You CANNOT add another flux like back radiation and expect hotter temperatures than either flux could achieve on its own.
The reason the surface is already hotter than the radiation could make it is clearly set out at http://climate-change-theory.com and nowhere else, so it’s about time you studied it and realized it is correct physics, as some others with qualifications in physics have now also confirmed.
Until you, Norman, do an experiment with 16 radiators achieving 700K temperatures and one achieving only 350K, I’m just not interested in your hand-waving assertions that are nowhere to be found in standard physics documentation – in which you are not qualified and I am.
The Real Doug 6:03am – “As I have said many times, the mean solar radiation of less than 170W/m^2 that reaches the surface..”
Dr. Spencers simple test on the actual atm. linked above proved Dougs science view is wrong. No hand waving involved. Of course, Dougs political views prove that Dougs AU$10,000 on offer wont ever be paid out.
I apparently fed all my apostrophes to the host program as a Xmas gift. Merry Christmas too Doug.
Hi Norman,
Thank you again for a great reply and clarification. However, it illustrates to me exactly why so called green-house gasses cannot warm the surface directly and why whatever warming occurs cannot be catastrophic. First, atmospheric radiation cannot warm the surface, merely reduce the loss of surface energy over time due to radiation. By slowing the loss of surface radiation the sun can theoretically now raise the surface temperature to levels exceeding what would be capable had not the rate of cooling been slowed. For the second point let’s review your two plate special:
“The surface of the primary plate has reached the temperature where it is now radiating 1000 W/m^2. This emitted energy reaches the second plate that only allows 50% of this energy to leave. There is a constant flux of 1000 W/m^2 hitting this surface so it will keep warming until it radiates 2000 W/m^2 of which now 1000 W/m^2 will leave the second radiation restricting plate and the overall system will be at equilibrium with the incoming radiation equal to the outgoing radiation.”
Fine, but have you though this through? The Earth currently absorbs 240 w/m^2. If GHG’s absorb 50% ( in fact they can absorb and re-direct no more than 25% ) then the surface must emit 480 w/m^2 to reach equilibrium. The surface emissions remains well within normal human experience. Do you see why even your example proves far too excessive? Imagine for a moment that you stand on some flat dry lake bed like Groom lake or even better the Utah salt flats. A particle sits on the ground. This magical particle absorbs all IR that comes into contact with it and emits the same. 50% of it’s emissions do indeed get absorbed by the ground but the other 50% by atmospheric GHG’s that surround it within a distance of X meters ( X being the distance it takes for the atmosphere to absorb all the particle’s emitted infra-red radiation, for the sake of this discussion we will assert that X = 1 meter, the distance makes no difference to the analysis but makes the math simple ). Draw a circle around the particle with a radius of 1 meter. The hemisphere of the same radius above this circle is the region where particle radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and beneath the particle the region where the Earth absorbs the radiation. Now lift the particle in a straight line directly up one meter. At this point no infrared emissions by the particle reach the Earth surface nor does any radiation from particles above it reach the surface either. The region within one meter of the surface constitutes the lower tropospheric region at which all surface IR is absorbed by the atmosphere. The average between 0 and 50 percent absorption is 25%, or the amount of surface radiation GHG’s in this region can absorb and redirect back to the surface. If you draw a line from the particle one meter above the surface to the circle it falls at 45%. The volume of the enclosed cone of radius one meter will be 1/3 pi,r^2 or 1/3 pi. The volume of the sphere of radius one is 4/3 pi. Iow, the amount of radiation emitted by this particle that could ever possibly be absorbed by the surface within one meter of the particle at any point in it’s assent is 1/4 or 25%.
Unfortunately for alarmists it gets worse. As Claes Johnson once noted 40 w/m^2 of surface radiation never gets absorbed by the atmosphere at all but goes directly to space. So 1/6 of the amount of radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface gets re-emitted directly to space without interference by GHG’s. 5/6 x 1/4 = ~21%. So by your two plate analogy the Earth should emit 240 w/m^2/79% = ~304 w/m^2 to ensure that 240 w/m^2 escapes to space. However, let’s say Dr. No wants to cook up a really nasty GHG that absorbs all surface IR. No big deal! It only means all 25%of surface emitted IR absorbed within x meters of the surface gets redirected back to the surface. 240/75% = 32 w/m^2 is still a very comfortable surface emission level to me. The same easy math works for all atmospheric planets including Venus! If you do the math I think you’ll agree GHG’s cannot explain Venusian surface temperatures and CAGW is a joke! Again, if I’m missing something let me know and…
Have a great day!
Correction to my post above. My sentence should have read:
“240/75% = 320 w/m^2 is still a very comfortable surface emission level to me.”
Have a great day!
One other correction my sentence should have read:
“If you draw a line from the particle one meter above the surface to the circle it falls at 45 degrees.”
Correction my statement:
“The volume of the enclosed cone of radius one meter will be 1/3 pi,r^2 or 1/3 pi.”
The volume should read 1/3 pi,r^3. Please accept my correction and…
Have a great day!
DJC
The reason you are not a scientist is you do not comprehend the scientific method. You are a religious guru with your own brand of faith to peddle.
The radiation paper you refer to is a hypothesis. It is just an expert opinion and it will remain that until some tests are done and if the tests are positive it will become a theory. It will only become a law after many many tests and time.
You think that repeating the same thing numerous times makes it scientifically correct or true (your Uranus surface temperature which is not an established fact). This is not science but religion and ritual.
This is a science blog not a religious one.
Norman
Experiments have indeed confirmed what the good professor explained. Measurements show back radiation does not penetrate water surfaces because of what he explained. Measurements show that 16 electric bar radiators do not make an object twice as hot as one bar radiator because of what he explained. You are out of your depth as usual Norman. Radiation is not the principal determinant of surface temperatures. The greenhouse conjecture has most certainly not been confirmed with any experiment what-so-ever. I don’t care if you only consider the Venus temperatures which have been measured by probes dropped to the surface. Those temperatures prove my point, as does the fact that Voyager 2 measurements at the top of the Uranus troposphere confirmed the expected temperature gradient as far down as they could measure – and that was far more than the height of our troposphere – so get your perspective right!
You’re a beggar for punishment Norman. And you haven’t a clue about standard physics pertaining to entropy maximization because you don’t deign to read and study what I have explained about such standard, verifiable physics.
You, Norman, do not understand, for example, why it is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which physicists use to prove that the density gradient is stable in a planet’s troposphere.
I repeat: unless and until you start asking sensible questions about entropy, Norman, I am really not interested in trying to explain to you why radiation is almost completely irrelevant. The reasons are of course in my papers.
The greenhouse conjecture completely ignores and defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics which I doubt that you could even state, Norman the chemistry “scientist” without any qualification at all in physics and no understanding of entropy.
̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ÓλҵվseoerÇ°ÒµSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/
To Roy and others:
Please read my final two comments here on the “Watts” thread, as such should help your understanding as to the relevance of centrifugal force experiments which prove the radiative greenhouse conjecture to be wrong.
׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510
̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ÓλҵվseoerÇ°ÒµSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/
׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510
DJC
You make this claim: “The greenhouse conjecture completely ignores and defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics which I doubt that you could even state, Norman the chemistry scientist without any qualification at all in physics and no understanding of entropy.”
Doug it is you who lacks understanding of physics. In the past Curt tried to explain it to you but you would not listen and learn. There are three possible thermodynamic systems which you can’t seem to grasp. Isolated, closed and open systems. You only seem to understand the isolated system (no energy in or out). In this system entropy will always increase. In an open system entropy does not need to increase. Maxwell’s demon is a case to explain the second law in an isolated system. Two gases separated by a medium at the same temperature in an isolated system (no energy in or out) will not change in equilibrium temperature. In an open system one gas can definitely get warmer than the other (energy in). The Earth system is an open system and will not be described as a closed one no matter how much physics you believe you understand. That is why we have radical weather systems on the Earth (wind and storms). It is an open system and some of the incoming energy does work (moving air masses around). In an isolated system all weather would stop and all temperatures would equalize. Wake up and smell the physics. Open system!
̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ÓλҵվseoerÇ°ÒµSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/
JohnKl
I liked your post above on your take on the GHE. I am not sure how you derived your 25% for the effect. You posted that the average between 0 and 50 is 25%.
The primary purpose of the example I had given above was to demonstrate how his understanding of use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to determine a surface equilibrium temperature is limited. When the surface can radiate freely at it maximum rate possible (nothing to change the radiation flow direction) the surface will be the coldest possible state in a radiation flux. It can’t get colder than what DJC calculates but it can get much warmer. DJC incorrectly conjures up Maxwell’s Demon and thinks it is applicable in the case I described.
I think 40% is a more correct value for the Earth’s greenhouse effect.
http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/energy-budget
The surface in this image radiates at the rate of 396 W/m^2 and the outgoing radiation that can get through is 239 W/m^2. The amount of radiation emitted by the surface that leaves the system would be 239/396 = 60.35%. The amount of radiation not getting out because of GHG would be 39.65%. This is less than the 50% in my hypothetical but the effect would still be the same. 239 W/m^2 enter the system and 239 W/m^2 leave the system. With a GHE of around 40% you would increase the 239 W/m^2 by around 1.65 (2 is the factor if the GHE were 50%). 239 x 1.65 = 394.34.
I think in the example you provide, yes IR radiation will only move so far through an absorbing medium before it is absorbed. But once absorbed the same wavelength of IR will be reemitted just with another direction change. A CO2 molecule or H2O molecule act as individual oscillators and do not spread the absorbed IR among a curve like most solid surfaces do. The molecules absorb an IR going in one direction and then will act primarily just to redirect that initial direction without changing the energy content of that radiation. If a surface would absorb the IR it would be thermalized and the energy would be emitted at different energy levels. Am I helping?
Hi Norman,
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. The 25% figure represents a geometrically idealized estimation of the portion of IR emitted by greenhouse gasses within either X meters or 1 meter of the surface that returns to the surface in any finite time period however infinitesimal, assuming even distribution of said gasses within this region and similar emissions for all such gasses. However, neither assumption seems likely and the actual figure would likely be closer 30-40%. Absorbing gasses closer to the surface will likely be warmer, emit more IR and confront fewer similar gasses blocking their emissions to the surface. This percentage figure compares with the 50% of absorbed radiation that plate 2 returned to plate 1 in your example.
However, of note is your claim that approximately 60% of surface emitted IR reaches space unabsorbed by atmospheric gasses. If true you are way more optimistic than Claes Johnson! A surface absorbing 240 w/m^2 direct solar radiation would need to emit 240/.6 x .6, or only 240 w/m^2, for the same amount of radiation to reach space! Claes merely claimed 40 w/m^2, or 1/6 of surface absorbed direct IR, reached space unobstructed. Using a 40% figure, Claes’s claim leads to 240/.6 x .833 = ~333 w/m^2 surface emission required for 240 w/m^2 to radiate to space and maintain equilibrium. If a 30% figure is used only ~286 w/m^2 follows.
If my calculation seems odd it’s because I refuse to assume that all atmospherically absorbed IR returns to the surface, quite the contrary.
Have a Happy New Year and thanks for the very useful information contained in your posts!
JohnKl,
If I could find an online graph of an actual measured spectrum of IR emitted from Earth’s surface then one could either prove DJC and Claes Johnson right or wrong with actual data.
David Appell has linked to the IR spectrum at the TOA measured by satellite. It shows large chunks missing in the CO2 and H2O absorbing bands. This is a strong indication of IR energy being redirected in those bands.
If one could match this graph of IR spectrum to the one actually given off by the Earth’s surface you could tell what happens to downwelling IR. If it is “pseudo-scattered” as DJC proclaims (as fact with no supporting evidence) then the spectrum from the surface would have large humps in the absorbing bands of GHG since this energy is not being thermalized but scattered in its same form. If the spectrum is smoothed out and there are no humps in these wavelengths, then DJC and Johnson are both definitely incorrect in their current understanding of radiation absorption. If you can find one let me know, Thanks.
Have a Happy New Year and may 2016 be a good one for you and those around you!
There is supporting evidence for pseudo-scattering, Norman. If one electric bar radiator can warm an object to 350K then sixteen (16) such radiators cannot raise it to 700K, so we know that nearly all the radiation from the extra 15 radiators is pseudo-scattered by the object.
Also, the fact that those special plastic bowls used in a microwave oven do not get warmed by the low frequency radiation (though they could be warmed by solar radiation) also proves that pseudo-scattering happens. They are NOT transparent to such radiation. The radiation follows a random path being pseudo scattered as some of it passes through in a totally different way to that in which light passes through glass.
Doug!C
Others and myself have discussed at length the flaws in your reasoning on the microwave plastic bowls. The bowls are transparent to the microwave energy. The frequency of microwave radiation is at a frequency absorbed by water and tuned just for that. Carbon will absorb at this frequency and heat up in a microwave.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382009002513
I cannot see how you use the example of a microwave proves pseudo-scattering. Why do you strongly conclude that the plastic bowl is NOT transparent to microwave radiation. What is your source of this statement? What proof do you provide other than a declaration by your?
Hi Doug and Norman,
Your feud over microwaves and plastic should prove pointless if you go on line and Google plastics and microwave absorption. Wiley and Sons has a textbook segment claiming that some plastics reflect and some transmit microwave energy. As in most things it depends on the specific material.
Have a great day!
Doug!C
I have not experimented with different numbers of radiators and I believe such experiments could lead to many conclusions based upon how they are set up. I can’t comment either agree or disagree with you statement about 1 vs 16 radiators and how the difference in number will heat an object. Do you have results of tests you performed and are willing to share them? Or are you just making a statement with no supporting evidence?
And no, Norman, there would be no such “large humps” and, in assuming such, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the pseudo-scattering process. No black body radiates outside its Planck function. But it can reject any amount of radiation less than what it can radiate itself. In fact the surface cannot receive more radiation from the colder atmosphere than it can radiate, and so the electro-magnetic energy which is re-emitted in the scattered radiation merely becomes just a part of the Planck “quota” of outward radiation from the surface. I have explained this to you many times, Norman, but you don’t try to understand it.
The Second Law tells us that none of the electro-magnetic energy in the radiation from the colder atmosphere can be thermalized (converted to physical kinetic energy) in the warmer surface. You can’t argue that the Second Law is wrong, Norman: entropy will not decrease in this (independent) process.
I have also explained many times, Norman, that this is the reason for the well-known fact that back radiation slows the rate of radiative cooling of the surface. Meanwhile, nitrogen and oxygen molecules play a far greater role slowing the larger non-radiative component of surface cooling and supporting the minimum temperature so that the rate of all surface cooling slows right down in the early pre-dawn hours before the cooling stops and then turns to warming. That’s how the minimum temperature is determined, based on the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient.
Yes, Norman, it all works from the anchored layer way up in the troposphere downwards on all planets: quite the reverse of what climatologists incorrectly assume. The “coincidences” in all other planets confirm the extremely high probability that I am correct.
Thank Norman,
I wii look into it.
JohnKl,
I am not sure of this calculation you made in your post.
You state: “A surface absorbing 240 w/m^2 direct solar radiation would need to emit 240/.6 x .6, or only 240 w/m^2, for the same amount of radiation to reach space!”
Why did you add the multiplier of 0.6 to the calculation. If only 60% of the radiation emitted from the surface was able to leave, then at 240 W/m^2 the surface would have to emit around 400 W/m^2. Which is about what the surface is calculated to emit on average (actual is 396 W/m^2). 400 x 60% is 240. If the surface was emitting 240 and only 60% made it out, the energy leaving would be 240 x 60% which calculates to 144 W/m^2.
Since 40 W/m^2 go through the atmospheric window and are not at all absorbed by GHG. The actual flux leaving though the absorbing bands is only around 200 W/m^2. Doubling this you get close to 400 so it would seem the GHE is actually closer to 50% and the GHG we have present are absorbing all the IR in their path. The 50% number makes sense. 100% of the IR leaving the surface is going upward from the surface. If GHG absorb 100% of this radiation in the GHG bands (1/6 are not absorbed at all) then reemits it in random direction, 50% would leave the Earth system (directed upward) and 50% would be directed downward. I am not sure if GHG can direct more than 50% back down (which is the current case) based upon the nature of this system. Some come up with the layer theory to make the claim that it does more but the actual calculation seems to float around 50%. Clouds seem to be able to redirect much more.
Looks like under some conditions clouds can redirect over 90% of the radiation that hits them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_albedo
I think if you removed GHG you could get less than 50% but I am not sure you could get more.
I am thinking with Venus, a lot of the GHE there is because of the highly reflective clouds that send most the radiation from the surface back.
You are “thinking” incorrectly about Venus, Norman, because you cannot explain how the surface gets the required thermal energy to rise in temperature a little of the course of each 4-month-long Venus day, reversing the inevitable cooling at night.
You have already agreed that the greenhouse gas water vapor causes the Earth’s surface to be cooler, not warmer as the IPCC claims. It does so in two ways: (1) increasing albedo because of cloud reflection and (2) reducing the magnitude of the temperature gradient so that the plot of tropospheric temperature against altitude rotates downwards at the surface end whilst maintaining radiative balance with the Sun, as we know happens.
You need a better understanding of entropy maximization, Norman, in order to understand what is really happening with atmospheric physics in all planets. I suggest you read the quotes in this comment (hopefully) to whet your appetite for learning about recent developments in the understanding of the Second Law.
Doug!C
Entropy maximization will not take place in an open system like the Earth’s. The overall system (Sun and Earth) will increase in entropy over time (the sun losing hydrogen fuel to run its heat engine) but the Earth is an open thermodynamic system and entropy will not tend to maximize. Energy is moving in and out of the Earth system.
Hi Norman,
Thank you for a great response. I multiplied the fraction 240/.6 by .6 because of your post I responded to, I used a 40% of the emitted surface radiation made it to space without being absorbed by greenhouse gasses. In fact, on re-read it appears your post more radically claimed 60%. This figure greatly exceeds Claes Johnson’s claim of only 40 w/m^2 and lowers immensely the calculated emission. If you examine my analysis of Claes figures you will find the 200 w/m^2 in the analysis.
As to your 50% redirect figure by ghg’s I very much disagree. Read my previous posts as to why. In short most all IR emitted by ghg’s especially in the region in range of the surface gets absorbed by other ghg’s. The 50% number can only apply to the infinitessimal amount of ghg’s in near contact with the surface. For all ghg’s cumulatively within either 1 or x meters of the surface the total emission percentage falls at 25% assuming even distributin of ghg’s ( a fair assumption for most ghg’s especially CO2, although observation may show otherwise ), and even temperatures ( this assumption admittedly has problems ). As such I’m willing to increase the number to 35-40% for argument sake but 50% seems to me patently absurd.
As to clouds, reflected radiation can reach 90% theoretically but absorbed and emitted energy at less than 50% it seems to me. If not explain your reasoning. As to Venus the reflective particulate clouds reflect 95% of the incoming visible spectrum solar radiation. The outgoing IR is absorbed by the cloud layer and something less than 50% should theoretically be emitted back toward the surface. In my opinion the Venusian surface temperature profile is not stable and will decrease over time. Keep in mind solid particulates usually don’t reflect IR, but high albedo ones do reflect visible light.
In previous exchanges we’ve discussed the role water vapor plays in surface temps. You may wish to compare Death Valley an the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea is at a much lower elevation and somewhat lower altitude that should enable a higher solar irradiance. In fact, it’s less. Why? Imo, water vapor from the Dead Sea helps scatter and reflect away incoming solar visible spectrum radiation. Water in various forms gas, liquid and solid is reflective to a degree that helps cool whatever region it’s found in.
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
Allow me a small correction to my post. Inreference to the dead sea and death valley I used the term altitude, it actually should be LATITIUDE. My mistake.
Have a great day!
׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510
Why do you keep spamming this thread?
̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ÓλҵվseoerÇ°ÒµSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/
Doug!C
Your “heat creep” conjecture does not in any way help with Venus surface. GHE explains it much better and more completely. You have a surface radiating 16000 or so W/m^2. You have much lower amounts of radiation leaving the Venus system. What is happening to this energy. Try using the first law of thermodynamics for a while. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Something has to happen to the 16,000 W/m^2 since it is not leaving the Venus system. I really explains quite well what is going on, the surface radiates 16,000 W/m^2 up and most is redirected back to the surface keeping the surface at a high equilibrium temperature. The energy in only has to balance the energy out and the temperature will stay the same.
Hi Norman,
Thank you for the post, but I disagree when it comes to GHE explaining Venusian surface temps. Venus receives early twice Earth’s solar irradiance at ~2613.9 w/m2, but because of that high-albedo particulate layer only 90-95% of it reaches the surface. Moreover, while the particulate layer apparently reflects 90-95% of solar visible spectrum radiation it seems to me IR radiation from the surface or otherwise would be absorbed. How one can then explain ~16000 w/m2 seems to me a problem that hasn’t been explained by the GHE. You may find the following link from the so called “Skeptical Science” website interesting in this regard:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Venus-runaway-greenhouse-effect.htm
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
One addendum to my previous post you might find useful is that when I looked up the Venusian albedo it fell around .67. Which means that if only ~95% of dirct solar radiation reaches the surface then ~28% of direct solar radiation may be absorbed in the upper atmosphere. While no where near enough to explain the surface emission flux it provides an apparent source of energy some of which may reach the surface eventually.
In addition, I read somewhere that a sulfur compound ( I think sulfur dioxide ) in the Venusian atmosphere can scatter IR not merely absorb it. If true that may help explain energy transfer. Unfortunately, however, I’ve also read that sulfur compounds have reduced greatly in the Venusian atmosphere. As I’ve mentioned the Venusian atmosphere has probably coole greatly as volcanic activity subsides. Imo, volcanism, tectonic action in the Venusian past and possibly other catastrophic events and subsequent amelioration will be needed to explain past and current surface temperatures.
Have a great day!
JohnKl,
What I am seeking is not how it got hot (like maybe excessive volcanism) but why do you have a surface that is emitting around 16000 W/m^2 upward but you don’t see this level of radiant energy leaving the Venusian system? It would seem that something above the surface is preventing this radiation from leaving (as I explained to DJC, this is the first law of thermodynamics). His “heat creep” would not even come close to explaining this as the radiation loss if very very rapid and the “heat creep” is a slow mechanical transfer of energy via molecules moving far slower than the speed of light. The only viable proposal that seems to explain it is a redirection of the emitted surface energy back to the surface. I can’t explain it enough times but this does not violate the second law. The atmosphere acts like a giant mirror surrounding the surface. The energy is not being created by the atmosphere and sent to the surface, it is surface energy that can’t make it out and returns to the surface maintaining a hot surface. The atmosphere does not heat the surface it just maintains the surface temperature.
Can you provide a valid alternative that would explain why a surface emits 16000 W/m^2 but this energy does not leave? Where is this energy going? What happens to it? It is a constant flux as long as surface remains hot.
Hi Norman,
Thanks for another good post. To me it remains incomprehensible how anyone can expect to even begin understanding a phenomenon without measuring it. Their remains many mysteries surrounding Venus that have yet to be explained including Giovanni Riccioli’s observation of ashen light in 1643, which suggests that at times Venus may eve emit more energy at the surface than you’ve stated. Let’s review a few factual claims. Venus has a near perfectly circular orbit allowing solar irradiance to stay within a very tight ranged ~2613.9 w/m^2 according to NASA, or ~653.47 w/m^2 averaged over the surface of the planet. However, depending on who you believe the Venus albedo falls at either .67 or .76. Further complicating the matter is the apparent fact that less than 10% of solar incident radiation reaches the surface. This suggests that only 65.35 w/m^2 of incident solar radiation reaches the surface but another 14-23% may somehow effect the atmosphere in ways we don’t fully comprehend. The science of doom website claims that at TOA the Venus atmosphere emits 158 w/m^2 to space. That’s more than double what reaches the surface. Perhaps it’s the portion of incident solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere that never made it to the surface. The problem is the website mentioned calculated the figure as an estimate. I’ m curious know what the satellite measured thermal emission of Venus is? It would be helpful in gaining an understanding. In any case 65.35 w/m^2 of solar incident radiation at the surface cannot explain surface emissions given that the cloud/particulate layer apparently allows ~<10% of radiation to pass through. The question often posed by those who claim CO2 atmospheric gas emissions must account for surface temps is how else does the energy get to the surface and as you ask why does so little of it leave? Internal energy can account for more than people realize. Jupiter emits more than twice what it receives from the sun. The question as to why so little leaves requires a measure to answer. In short how much thermal energy has been measured to leave the Venusian surface to space by orbiting satellites at TOA and above? If the website I mentioned above is correct then less than 100th of the energy emitted at the surface makes it to space. Yet the sit never claimed to have arrived at the figure from direct measurement and this seems to contradict claims that closer to 10% of incident solar radiation makes it to the surface. If you have any knowledge please share it and …
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
You can ignore my question above. I think I may have found the figures i’ was looking for and in fact I have run across them before. Venusian thermal emissions at 0um and higher actually appear to be less than Earth’s which suggests the Venusian atmosphere is far better at retaining IR than even blocking visible spectrum radiation. It seems the sulfur dioxide particles must reflect a great deal of IR back to the surface, while simultaneously allowing solar direct IR and visible spectrum radiation in. It seems to me much more is going on here than just CO2 and I will need to seek further info.
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
Thank you for the reply. Just wanted to note a few facts that might be of interest. Since only about 65 w/m^2 reaches the Venusian surface, Venus absorbs less solar radiation than Mars that has a similar composition of CO2 in the atmosphere. Solar insolation on Mars falls at 715 w/m^2 max and 492 w/m^2 min. Mars albedo is .15-.17. So the minimum avg solar insolation absorbed at the surface would be ~102.09 w/m^2. The significant difference here is the density of the atmosphere and the apparent fact that on the Venusian surface CO2 is apparently at a supercritical fluid state. Mars surface pressure falls around 6.36 mb at mean radius (varies from 4 to 8.7 mb, or 6.9 to 9 mb (Viking 1 Lander site)) while Venus is ~92 b. Average temperature on Mars equals ~210k or (-63 C).
The Supercritical fluid state also means that like water CO2 in this state may absorb nearly all IR radiated to it not just those falling within it’s bandwidth. If you can obtain facts on this it would be great.
Btw, on rare occasions and in limited geography CO2 levels approach 100% on Earth, like at Lake Nyos. Lake Nyos is a Camaroon crater lake that contains large amounts of CO2 beneath, under pressure apparently. On occasion it comes out and being 1.5 times heavier than the surrounding air descends onto the nearby village displacing the normal air and suffocating many. Imo, people would suffocate from excess CO2 well before heat stroke bothers them, assuming any kind of potential energy redirection. People begin to experience breathing difficulties around 10000 ppm if I remember correctly.
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
After some thought for the GHE effect to sustainably determine Venusian surface temps the particulate layer must reflect back over 99.5% of surface emitted IR back to the surface given that only 65 w/m^2 of direct incident solar radiation actually makes it to the surface or if all direct solar radiation absorbed the either the atmosphere or the surface is included 215.65 w/m^2 then only 98-99% of surface emitted IR must be reflected back to the surface by the particulate layer. Given the IR reflection/scatter capability of sulfur dioxide combined with the enormously dense 92 bar atmosphere that allows for Raleigh scattering as well, it may be possible. However, this is not merely a result of the classic green house effect, not simply absorption and emission. A combination of events including volcanism, ghe, and high reflective compounds and super-dense Raleigh scattering atmosphere conspired it seems to create the wonderland we call Venus, assuming the temperature platform is stable. If not the forgoing may have a role but directional change may be coming.
Have a great day!
JohnKl,
I really like your thought provoking posts. You have an open mind and are willing to research.
I was thinking of another explanation but I have no proof on way or the other. A while ago I posted on Science of Doom,
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/22/venusian-mysteries-part-two/#comment-3314
It is assumed Venus emits around 16000 W/m^2 from it surface into the atmosphere but I do not think anyone has actually measured this amount, it is just assumed based upon the surface temperature.
My thought is that what if the high pressure atmosphere acts more like a liquid at the surface interface so that the surface is not actually radiating but conducting the energy. I may be wrong but I think IR radiation will only be emitted at a surface not internally among joined molecules. If the high bar Venus atmosphere acts more like a liquid then the actual Venus radiating surface is much higher in its atmosphere which may be in equilibrium with incoming solar flux.
If this is possible than your idea of volcanoes (I have read that some believe Venus surface to be fairly young). May be a correct explanation of the hot surface Venus currently has.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/surface.html
JohnKl
Here would give you an idea of what I am trying to state.
http://calculator.swiftutors.com/conduction-heat-transfer-calculator.html
The above is a link to a conduction calculator.
Venus surface is 467 C and about 50 km up it is around 30 C so these are the values I am using in the calculator. I put in 1 m^2 for the area.
Here is a chart of conduction through gases. As pressure goes up conduction rates increase. Venus is at 92 bar the article says you can get around a 1% increase in conduction per increase in bar.
http://www.electronics-cooling.com/1998/09/the-thermal-conductivity-of-gases/
For conductivity near Venus surface I used 0.017 x 93.
You get a number of 0.014 watts (joules/second). One m^2 surface of Venus would lose this much energy by conduction through the atmosphere (but the rate would change drastically as the pressure dropped). One cubic meter of granite weighs around 2500 kg. Heat capacity of granite is 790 Joules/kg-C. One cubic meter of granite would contain 1,975,000 joules/C. Depending upon how deep the hot surface went you could then get an idea how fast a hot surface could cool by conduction.
My main point is that I think it is just assumed Venus surface radiates like a near black-body. What if it does not actually radiate at all but conducts?
Hi Norman,
Thank you for yet another great reply. You stated:
“My thought is that what if the high pressure atmosphere acts more like a liquid at the surface interface so that the surface is not actually radiating but conducting the energy.”
You repeat this theme later and I fully agree with you and have thought along similar lines. In fact, the phase you speak of is known. It’s called a super critical fluid.
“A supercritical fluid (SCF) is any substance at a temperature and pressure above its critical point, where distinct liquid and gas phases do not exist. It can effuse through solids like a gas, and dissolve materials like a liquid.”
or…
“A supercritical (or critical) fluid is a liquid/gas under extreme pressure. These supercritical fluids have unique characteristics, the density of a liquid and the mobility of a gas. Supercritical fluids exist deep inside some planets; for example, there is supercritical water deep inside the Earth.”
You may want to review terminology from this website.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/physics/Phasesofmatter.shtml
I remember some months ago you mentioned that the atmosphere near the Venusian surface and the surface had the same temperature. Which seemed to me curious. Given standard GHE conditions the atmosphere should be cooler. After all radiated energy will dissipate over distance ( inverse square law ) and be absorbed over a much more massive 3 dimensional space or region. The absorbing compounds will share the energy with cooler neighbors etc. However, a fluid is somewhat different. In summertime Phoenix pool water will easily get to 95 deg F or more and be at the same temperature as the pool bottom. The bottom of the pool absorbs the incoming solar visible spectrum and conveys/conducts the energy to the fluid above and in immediate contact with it. The pool water and pool surface merge to similar temperature. Similar conditions apply in summertime Florida shallow ocean waters I’m told by scuba divers who go there.
You may remember also that at 92 bar the Venusian atmospheric pressure at the surface is similar to deep water. In fact, I’ve learned that 92 bar is roughly the same pressure as being 1 kilometer below the surface of the ocean. At the extreme pressure and heat found at the Venusian surface region I have very little doubt virtually all the surface energy is conducted to the atmosphere/supercritical fluid above it. The CO2 at this juncture mainly serving to provide sufficient mass and density to result in the aforementioned conditions. It remains an open question as to what region of the atmosphere do gas molecules primarily convey energy by radiation as opposed to convection.
Frankly, I enjoy the discussion and have much more to state, but for the moment let me suggest something for consideration. Remember from my previous post that since so little solar radiation makes it to the surface the atmosphere would need to reflect 98-99+% of the energy back to the surface depending on what figures you use. How is that possible when CO2 doesn’t even fully absorb the energy in it’s OWN BANDS?!!! David Appell himself noted this. Much more than 1-2% percent of emitted radiation gets by it. Notice that David A has noted the saturation fallacy of Angstrom and fails to see the inconsistency. The GHE simply doesn’t fully explain the Venusian story, and neither does “HEAT CREEP” in my opinion. For the numbers to work much more must be involved as I illustrated in my previous post. Venus is like an elephant and the theorists like blind men. One blind touches the elephant trunk and says it’s a snake, another blind man touches the leg and says it’s a tree stump and another blind man touches the elephant’s side and claims they’re both crazy it’s a wall! Likewise one theorists claims Venus is a runaway GHE, another claims it’s heat creep and all demand allegiance while selectively choosing their facts. Well, the map or model is not the terrain and science remains about the FACTS AND LAWS OF NATURE NOT THEORY AND CONJECTURE!
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
See this link:
http://www1.chem.leeds.ac.uk//People/CMR/whatarescf.html
JohnKl,
Thanks for the links on the super critical state.
I really like your words “Well, the map or model is not the terrain and science remains about the FACTS AND LAWS OF NATURE NOT THEORY AND CONJECTURE!”
Very well stated. The Runaway Green House for Venus is an interesting idea and has its place in creative thought process but it is not a verifiable science. One cannot make such claims as science unless one has verifiable evidence of a previous condition of Venus where it had a much more docile surface.
I had almost accepted the repeated claim that Venus surface radiates 16000 W/m^2 but it is made with no measuring instrument. It is just assumed to be true with no supporting evidence.
If the core of our planet were stripped of its insulating mantle and crust it would radiate away energy at an enormous rate of maybe around 43 million W/m^2 yet the energy that flows out from our core is only 0.09 W/m^2. I guess with good insulation (and carbon dioxide is such) if the surface of Venus was heated in the past by volcanoes or large asteroid strike it would take a very long time for this energy to leave the surface via slow conduction process.
Hi Norman,
Thank you for the reply. Just wanted to note a few facts that might be of interest. Since only about 65 w/m^2 reaches the Venusian surface, Venus absorbs less solar radiation than Mars that has a similar composition of CO2 in the atmosphere. Solar insolation on Mars falls at 715 w/m^2 max and 492 w/m^2 min. Mars albedo is .15-.17. So the minimum avg solar insolation absorbed at the surface would be ~102.09 w/m^2. The significant difference here is the density of the atmosphere and the apparent fact that on the Venusian surface CO2 is apparently at a supercritical fluid state. Mars surface pressure falls around 6.36 mb at mean radius (varies from 4 to 8.7 mb, or 6.9 to 9 mb (Viking 1 Lander site)) while Venus is ~92 b. Average temperature on Mars equals ~210k or (-63 C).
The Supercritical fluid state also means that like water CO2 in this state may absorb nearly all IR radiated to it not just those falling within its bandwidth. If you can obtain facts on this it would be great.
Btw, on rare occasions and in limited geography CO2 levels approach 100% on Earth, like at Lake Nyos. Lake Nyos is a Camaroon crater lake that contains large amounts of CO2 beneath, under pressure apparently. On occasion it comes out and being 1.5 times heavier than the surrounding air descends onto the nearby village displacing the normal air and suffocating many. Imo, people would suffocate from excess CO2 well before heat stroke bothers them, assuming any kind of potential energy redirection. People begin to experience breathing difficulties around 10000 ppm if I remember correctly.
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
Btw, Thank you for the kind words. Just to let you know, I appreciate our communication and I’ve learned from them. Hope you have to.
Have a great day!
JohnKl,
I am still researching your Dead Sea vs Death Valley comparison.
I did find this short article that kind of supports my position. It does not mean it is fact but it seems logical.
http://applet-magic.com/cloudblanket2.htm
The conclusion that clouds would have to reflect IR to maintain a surface temperature.
JohnKl
Looks like you are on to something with your Dead Sea post. It seems the solar radiation is being scattered above the Dead Sea.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370070305/abstract
Hi Norman,
Thank you for the link and research!
Have a great day!
̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ÓλҵվseoerÇ°ÒµSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/
Hello
Great work! That is the kind of information that are meant to be shared across the internet.
Disgrace on the seek engines for no longer positioning this submit higher!
Come on over and talk over with my web site .
Thanks =)