Home/BlogI my opinion, most of the climate research that gets published has little impact on the global warming debate. The field has become so specialized that seldom is there a finding that changes our understanding.
I think that the recent AGU poster by Anthony Watts et al. breaks this mold.
Anthony has spent years shedding light on the very real problem the thermometer network has for monitoring of temperature for climate change…most notably, local changes around the thermometer site associated with economic growth lead to spurious warming.
Back in 2010 I posted an analysis of global thermometer data which showed the very clear urban heat island (UHI) effect that exists. It averages at least 0.5 deg. C in going from completely rural to only 10 persons per km2 population density. Others have found the same thing over the years, and anyone who drives or cycles between rural and urban areas can easily notice it.
Without correcting for this, how can anyone believe long-term land-based warming trends? I’ll admit, it is not easy to correct for. UHI warming “looks like” global warming since it is more gradual than sudden, so break-point homogenization algorithms cannot correct for it.
Now, population density admittedly isn’t the best proxy for UHI…it was just an easily available one in my analysis. Even with no change in population, increasing prosperity inevitably leads to an increase in heat sources, both active and passive, around thermometer sites.
Anthony did a painstaking analysis of the USHCN thermometer network to find those thermometers which had good siting and which did not suffer from station moves and instrument changes. The result was that the NOAA analysis exaggerated the warming trend in recent decades by about 50%, compared to the trends computed from the best thermometer sites.
This is the kind of work NOAA should have done…but didn’t.
Instead, NOAA uses all of the thermometer data and employs statistical adjustments that many of us suspect forces the minority of good thermometer sites to match the majority of bad thermometer sites. In other words, it forces the rural data to match the urban data, rather than the other way around.
Watts et al. used only the best data….which I think is the best strategy. If one wants to use ALL of the thermometer data, then the bad data needs to be constrained so that it matches the good data.
As far as I know, this is not done by NOAA. And it’s a travesty that it hasn’t.
…and this is why Dr. Roy’s Global Warming site and Anthony Watt’s WUWT site are my first go-to climate web links, soon followed by Dr. Judith’s Climate Etc. and Doug Hoffman’s The Resilient Earth, all of these are sources of good science information and thoughtful insights.
“This is the kind of work NOAA should have donebut didnt.”
###
No, and they will ignore this, just as they ignore UAH satellite temperature datasets.
The global warmers, and that means the NOAA under the present administration, will never correct any spurious warming.
I have no idea how a rational person can not only believe but defend their constant “hottest month or year” ever hype based on surface temperature “data” when no other system corroborates their findings. But people do so all the time.
World wide thermometer derived surface temperature data today is spotty at best requiring massive interpolation/extrapolation to fill in the blanks and the further in the past one goes the spottier they get, yet their claims of “hottest ever” are embraced as the gospel by the press and so many of the people apparently.
mpainter…”No, and they will ignore this, just as they ignore UAH satellite temperature datasets”.
Don’t forget that the data comes from NOAA satellites. NOAA are ignoring their own data while they slash 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 then re-construct global temps using climate models to interpolate and homogenize the data from 1500 stations.
NOAA is no longer a scientific institution, they are in the business of synthesizing pseudo-global temps from real data for political purposes.
I heard the US Congress is investigating them. Let’s hope.
Very True, What is amazing to me is that nearly everybody on this side of the debate forgets to mention that there are in fact FOUR radiosonde data (with thermometers) sets that support the two satellite data sets.Why I ask? http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
It was only “en passant” that Ted Cruz mentioned this in the recent Senate Hearing
It seems to me that growth of urban effect generally raises daily low temperatures much more than daily high temperatures, while increase of greenhouse gases would increase daily low temperatures slightly more than daily high temperatures. And warming from other causes seems to me to generally raise high and low temperatures equally. (Except where surface albedo decreases due to temperature increase, in which case high temperatures can increase more than low temperatures.) Has anyone looked into this for separating and quantifying causes of the warming of recent decades?
Donald L. Klipstein…”Has anyone looked into this for separating and quantifying causes of the warming of recent decades?”
There’s no need to, the warming can be explained easily through natural causes.
The Tsonis et al study looked at the effect of the ocean oscillations like ENSO, the PDO, AMO, AO and so on. Over a century, they found that when the oscillations are in phase, the planet warms and when out of phase it cools.
Tsonis concluded there was no point studying AGW as a cause before investigating this natural cause.
Renowned astronomer Syun Akasofu claimed the IPCC erred by not building re-warming from the Little Ice Age into their historical record. Global temps were about 1 C below normal for nearly 400 years till about 1850. Glaciers increased size during that period as well as the polar ice.
The IPCC needs to go back and look seriously at the Little Ice Age and it’s effect on pre Industrial temperatures. Akasofu claims most of the warming can be explained as re-warming from the LIA.
The current 18 year global warming stoppage, as admitted by the IPCC, fits that theory perfectly. Akasofu claimed rewarming should have a rate of about 0.5C/century.
The IPCC recognized the LIA and the MWP in a 1990 review then both disappeared in the hockey stick (MBB98) review (2001). In the Climategate emails one of the MBB crew claimed they’d like to find a way to get rid of the MWP and LIA. They succeeded.
The hockey stick quietly disappeared in the 2007 review, being replaced by the spaghetti graph. The latter re-established the MWP and LIA and was filled with so many error bars it was named the spaghetti graph.
“The hockey stick quietly disappeared in the 2007 review”
I can bring it back in a way that Mann will not approve but….
It uses an observation that recent LOD changes appear to match to temperature changes.
This then prompted a comparison to UT1 (which is directly related to LOD).
It provides a surprising close ‘match’ to the temperature data, starting around 1890. The best ‘match’ is to BEST.
The comparison even provides a reasoning, with Ice at the Poles and water at the Equator providing the ‘governor’.
Entropy provides the slope and under or over that line provides the correcting force.
And the apparent Phase information is interesting as UT1 changes happen before temperature changes.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/a-hockey-strick-for-xmass/
This then prompted a comparison to UT1
===================
you should follow up on this and submit an article to WUWT. The fit is too close to simply be chance.
The thing that struck me was that the phase of UT1 leads Global Temperature!
I have tried WUWT. So far no luck.
Gordon – see this comment and the following footnote.
Looking at the Karl et. al. 2015 Figure 1 and thinking about the Watts et. al. 2016 results suggests to me a couple of thoughts. First, the global estimates in the Karl Figure must be dominated by the oceans (presumably based on the roughly 80/20 area contributions). Second, the adjustments Karl et. al 2015 made to the land trends were relatively small but presumably still maintained the bias Watts et. al 2016 will demonstrate. Third, as has been widely discussed, the major adjustment (in terms of relative magnitude of the trend) Karl et. al. 2015 made was to the ocean estimates in which 1) they deliberately excluded the satellite data because it introduced cooling and 2) they chose to adjust more precise data up to less precise data. Now, it looks like Watts et. al. 2016 suggests the land measurements may contain a bias of about +0.1 deg C. If one adjusts by eye the land estimates in Figure 1 Karl et. al 2015 down 0.1 deg C, then the resulting land trends would line up roughly with the ocean trends prior to the Karl et. al. 2015 adjustments and the global, land, and ocean trends would be in rough agreement. Just doing a quick Excel plot of the UAH global land and global ocean data and simple trend on each individually gives nearly zero trend for both (0.0010 degC/yr for ocean and 0.0015 degC/yr for land, but not distinguishable from zero or each other).
I may be overusing Occams razor, but it seems much simpler to me that the land trend generated by a Watts et. al. 2016 adjustment produces a much more consistent set of land/ocean trends considering both the satellite data and the pre-Karl et. al. ocean estimates. In other words, the land and ocean trends are roughly the same. I can think of a few arguments that short term variations of atmospheric temperature over land should differ from that over oceans as well as the value of Tmean itself, but I have a harder time imagining causes for a long term difference in trends, without conjuring up major trends in albedo, land use, humidity, etc.
According to the trends given in the news release, NOAA has overestimated the USA warming trend by 59%, not 50%.
Compliant trend: 0.204 C/decade
NOAA adjusted trend: 0.324 C/decade
NOAA overestimate: (0.324/0.204)-1 = 0.588 = 59%
Ja, again Groundhog Day by Watts et al. I still do remember the Watts et al. manuscript in 2012.
“No, and they will ignore this, just as they ignore UAH satellite temperature datasets.”
Its because nobody is really interrest in free tropospheric temperatures above the USA or do you live somewhat 4.000 Meter about Ground? Double Facepalm, some people really belive (in a way just like to god) that UAH says anything about the warming at the surface.
Most people already live in cities which are several degrees warmer than the countryside. So, it getting hot where people live is not the great concern that you seem to think it is. If it were, people would not have moved to the cities to begin with. Satellites measure temperatures were they would effect the weather the most. And this is the greatest concern.
“Most people already live in cities which are several degrees warmer than the countryside”
wild life loves it as well-
Wild Animals of All Stripes Are Adapting to the Cityscape …
http://www.scientificamerican.com/…/wild-animals-of-all-stripes-are-adapting-t..
Cities are brimming with wildlife worth studying | Science …
https://www.sciencenews.org/…/cities-are-brimming-wildlife-worth-study…
Bees-
Can cities save our bees? | Marion Tanguy – The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com Opinion Insects
23 Jun 2010 – Marion Tanguy: The alarming decline in the number of bees is well known, … that bees kept in urban areas are healthier and produce better honey. .
It is the trend that matters. Surface temperature datasets matched satellite datasets before 2010. Then the global warmers, in their desperation, started cooking their surface data.
Now you come along and do the global warmer “nobody lives in the troposphere” spiel. The joke is on you facepalmer, we all live in the troposphere. You are the fourteenth global warmer that I have seen utter that particular inanity. Thus global warmers.
In Fact, Spencers Update to UAH6.0 show that Surface is warming more then troposphere, Spencer pushes up the weighting-mean to 4km (from 2km) above Ground and said:
“The new LT trend of +0.114C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140C/decade, but about 0.010C/decade of that difference is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT weighting function to direct surface emission by the land surface, which surface thermometer data suggests is warming more rapidly than the deep troposphere. ”
Mhm, random or physics? Clear, physics, because high latitude warming (NH) was strong over last decade, physics here says, that Surface would warm much stronger on the surface then in free Troposphere and if you see Figure 5 of Spencers Blogpost to the new 6.0, ohh no its happen what would be expected caused by push up the weighting-mean, cool down on the arctic side and little more warming in the tropics. So since high Latitude Warming is stronger and low latitute warming is stalled or less, UAH must especially be cooler since 1998 im compare to surface data, if its not, it would mean that we had a Problem.
PS: I said: “free tropospheric temperatures” this is not the same to troposphere, because free troposhere exludes Surface
Or think about why RSS cut out Antartica and some other high
areas for tlt. Its not because they not covered.
It is not that they are not covered. It a problem with being able to retrieve accurate data. v6.0 has started to address that gap AFAIK.
All satellite data has problems at the poles and high in the atmosphere (see Tibet). That is stared clearly on UAH.
High latitude NH warming? As in faulty sites and UHI? See Watts et al.
“This is the kind of work NOAA should have donebut didnt.”
Come on Guy, you not that stupid, are you? There is something more then USA, if you belive it or not, there are other Lands with other Peoples and other languages.
If i write about high latitude warmning, its dump to argue with Watts el al. which is looking for US and which is more in the middel latitudes. So, its shown that sea ice is delcine, Summer and Spring-Snow Area is in decline but, if i understand you, thats all because of NOAA adjust the picture.. ahh okay..
The Point is, UAH is unable to meassure Surface-Temps, its because of some physic. A Example, in Germany, the January of 1996 was very cold with an anomaly of -2,8K against the Baseline of 1961-1990. What does RSS show for Germany in January 1996? 1-2K to warmer then the baseline of RSS. So this is a huge differenz of 5K which is not explained by different baselines. Where does ist comes from? Whats happen?
So in January 1996 there a high presssure System above and arround Germany, this pressure System also had a warm air mass, so in 850mb there was the temperature arround 0-5 deegress, but there was no strong surface winds, because of this, the temperature become invers (means very cold on Surface and warm above in 700-1000m)which was seperate by fog on border.
So, because RSS(Also UAH) is measure the passive microwave which comes from the atmosphere, it is unable to see the border and beyond.
So let guess, the cold January in Germany which conflicts with RSS-Data is not real, People who see and feel this month are all manipulated by NOAA…
Christian, please explain why you say AGW is confined to the surface. This is contrary to doctrine, is it not?
Does i said so or does i said that free troposphere temperature is not the same like Surface and this is true for such short timespanes we looking at, because troposphere warming depends also where does it warm.
Christian, I note your failure to explain how the troposphere warms at four feet above the surface but not higher. Perhaps you cannot. Perfectly understandable, as there is no valid explanation in AGW terms as to why warming should be limited to only that portion of the atmosphere. Clearly, the discrepancy between the two datasets can only be explained by faults in one of the datasets. That dataset has been identified as the surface one.
For more reliable information concerning global temperature trends, I recommend satellite data. It is free of the problems that beset the surface datasets that have always been known and now the Watts et al study further proves the unreliability of surface datasets for determining temperature trends.
Its the Bias on your thinking, beside the El-Nino Noise the free troposphere also warmed, but less because on surface the warming was mainly due arctic warming and on this side, the lapse rate is positiv, while its negativ in tropics.
See also my comment on December 22, 2015 at 12:47 PM
So this alle make sense, i would be more wondering if UAH/RSS has been risen faster then Surface-Data for the “Hiatus” Periode, then i would agree that something is wrong with our understandig of global Warming
And this was my last post to you, it seems to me, you are prejudiced and not ready to talk in a rational way
“El Nino noise” says Christian. This is the mindset of this AGW zealots, that any data that does not support the AGW meme must be noise.
“Bias” ha! 🙂 who?
“You are prejudiced”
Skeptical, Christian, I am a skeptic. Does it look like bias to you? Your could use a little healthy scepticism yourself, instead of swallowing that revisionist AGW garbage and then regurgitating it here in front of the world.
@Christian “So, because RSS(Also UAH) is measure the passive microwave which comes from the atmosphere, it is unable to see the border and beyond”.
The sats measure microwave radiation from oxygen. Are you trying to say that oxygen near the surface is not touching the surface? What do you think you are breathing?
The frequency of the radiated microwave energy varies with the temperature of the oxygen. That’s how the sats can focus in on the surface as opposed to the stratosphere or upper atmosphere.
If you have an inversion, as you claim, it will be averaged out with areas that don’t have an inversion. Surface stations cannot do that since they sit at a fixed altitude.
When we talk about the surface, we don’t mean the solid surface you walk on. No one bores a hole in that surface and inserts a thermometer. So we are talking about a layer of air above the solid surface.
How high does that surface air extend? No one seems to know and even uber-alarmist James Hansen agreed that it’s measure is controversial. He admitted that the placement of surface stations are controversial basically due to what you talked about, inversions.
Satellite telemetry is far more dynamic than surface technology. It’s coverage is 95% of the surface and each position of the scanner samples billions and billions of O2 molecules.
No one really cares about the surface upon which we walk. It varies from sea level up to nearly 30,000 feet at the top of Everest. The troposphere extends to 10 km which is just above the peak of Everest. Colorado in the US has a mean elevation of 4.4 km. The highest city in Peru is over 16,000 feet and the base camp on the Everest’s southwest face is at 18,000 feet.
In fact an explanation of why you think that the sparse point sampled thermometer data set is more accurate than the fully volume sampled data set is required.
Given that to get to the actual underlying 3D Temperature Field that they are both sampling, the surface record uses extrapolation/interpolation.
How accurate is that last step is the question most people are asking.
@ Gordon
“The sats measure microwave radiation from oxygen. Are you trying to say that oxygen near the surface is not touching the surface? What do you think you are breathing?”
Thats not the point, the point is where does the emission come from and what is there weigthing.
“The frequency of the radiated microwave energy varies with the temperature of the oxygen. Thats how the sats can focus in on the surface as opposed to the stratosphere or upper atmosphere.”
Ahh, yes at thats my it is not compareable to Surface-Messurements, because UAH/RSS are weigthing the troposhere to get an temperature.
“If you have an inversion, as you claim, it will be averaged out with areas that dont have an inversion. Surface stations cannot do that since they sit at a fixed altitude.”
Thats not correct, because area which covering in inversion varies a lot from time to time, you can only claim that it not cause a significant effect on globale Scale, but on regional scale its a huge effect. Yeah, why to the surface stations do that? Its not their purpose to do that.
Its show clearly why surface data and satdat not be directly compare without making a hyrid or so.
“No one really cares about the surface upon which we walk.”
No one really cares about the foods which we eat
Christian, this is the most basic misunderstanding and fallacious of comments. “Its because nobody is really interrest in free tropospheric temperatures above the USA or do you live somewhat 4.000 Meter about Ground?”
Ask Roy or any meteorologist why they concentrate study the troposphere, and not the surface where we live.
Or ask yourself:why do we have so many references to atmospheric change (and not surface) when studying climate and weather change? Or why are we concerned with atmospheric and not surface equilibrium?
Or you could just ask yourself why do you parrot the same inane nonsense?
Simpel:
The Surface constitution does matter, in Wintertimes it does matter, is the ground snow covered or not. So we say over a snow covered Area is a high pressure System with warm air (+5 Degree) in the upper parts (on 850mb) and the sun is shining… so since the area is snow covered, the albedo is high and if there is no winds, the surface temperature will still below freezing point and a cold nigth would following.
If you would make the same with a Area without snow cover, the albedo is low, the weak winter sun can warm the surface a little bit and is likly the Temperature will rise above freezing point.
So you see, same free troposhere Temperature could cause on surface another temperature if Surface constitution has changed.
PS: What Spencer said: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203356
“(3) how free tropospheric temperature doesnt have to warm as fast as the surface temperatureit all depends upon changes in precipitation microphysics, which are not well understood.”
And thats completly right, this can you see every El-Nino when free tropshere warms a lot more then surface because the tropical warming is stronger in free troposhere then on surface. But these Effects are not constant at all, on the high latitudes (or say arctic) warming/cooling would on surface be bigger then in free troposhere
Its because nobody is really interest in free tropospheric temperatures above the USA or do you live somewhat 4.000 Meter about Ground?
I rather suspect that the atmosphere above a desert is significantly different to that above a rain forest. All the way up to the top of the Atmosphere probably.
Can you not say so, warming in lower latitudes is often causing more Convection, which means more warming in the free troposhere as in Surface. On the other Hand, high latitudes have an stable stratification, so that the warming is more near Surface then in free troposhere
Christian, it is not apparent that you are familiar with the details the global warming theory. According to the theory, the increased CO2 at higher altitudes will trap and re-radiate heat toward the surface. Therefore, higher altitudes in the troposphere should warm more than the surface. (The stratosphere actually should cool because the CO2 in the troposphere reduces some heat from getting to the highest altitudes.) This theory is not flawed; it is a sound theory. But the question is whether the CO2 influence is swamped by other influences.
First of all, the stratosphere has not cooled in 20 years, so apparently other factors are swamping the CO2 effect there. Second, the adjusted surface temperatures are warming faster than the troposphere temperatures, so either the theory is incorrect, or the adjusted measurements are wrong, or other factors are swamping the CO2 effect. I doubt that the theory is wrong, and I believe both unreliable adjustments AND non-CO2 effects are in play. Scientific analysis would point to at least half dozen reasons why the adjustments are likely to be wrong. Here are three: (1) actual observations suggest that Great Lakes states had severely cold temperatures in recent years while adjusted temperatures say the winters were normal — but the Great Lakes had record ice. (2) state records for temperatures are not falling even though adjusted temperatures say that temperatures are getting much higher. (3) Adjusted temperatures imply that station moves and thermometer changes took place but we know they never took place in reality.
So yes, we do care about what happens higher than 4 meters. Not only is that where weather takes place, but it is also where we can determine whether the CO2 effect prevails or whether it is dominated by other factors.
You say:
“Christian, it is not apparent that you are familiar with the details the global warming theory. According to the theory, the increased CO2 at higher altitudes will trap and re-radiate heat toward the surface. Therefore, higher altitudes in the troposphere should warm more than the surface. (The stratosphere actually should cool because the CO2 in the troposphere reduces some heat from getting to the highest altitudes.) This theory is not flawed; it is a sound theory. But the question is whether the CO2 influence is swamped by other influences.”
Too simplified, troposhere is radiative connectiv, higher altitudes would only warm more because of lapse rate and this mainly in the tropics. This is called negative lapse-rate Feedback.
The warming is a result of less ability of cooling
So and Lapse-Rate is not constant an all, while is tropics negativ in higher latitudes positiv or see: Rune G. Graversen et al. (2014)
” The lapse rate feedback is negative at low latitudes, as a result of moist convective processes, and positive at high latitudes, due to stable stratification conditions that effectively trap warming near the surface.”
Mean, if warming is mainly due high latitudes and low latitudes are warming less or stand still, the free troposheric warming must be lower then its surface (because of positive lapse rate in higher latitudes). That is what we had seen in the so called “Hiatus” and its no wonder, that UAH/RSS are warming less in high latitudes in compare to Surface Data its simply because of physics.
The Rest of your post is a result of deficits in physical Understanding and just looking at Satdata (why not radiosonde its shows further cooling in stratosphere).
Man, before you asking for me for doing my homework, do your own at first
PS:
Just wait on January, you will see that UAH/RSS rise very strong (probably new records) and much more in compare to Surface, because of negativ lapse rate in tropics.
And by Summer where do you expect it to be? And next Winter?
The last paragraph of your March 10, 2010 post of your UHI analysis says
Was this ever submitted to a journal?
I suppose other that a possible ‘yes’ your question will not receive any more details as an answer. Their understandable need to prevent preventative, denigrating, attacks by others before publication is well documented.
Why make the same mistake twice (or more).
Solar cycle is declining, AMO has peaked and started down, el Nino has peaked and started sharply down. About the only thing left propping up reported global average surface temperatures are the reporting agencies with their thumb on the scale.
Big deal!
Assume Watts et al. are correct (arguable):
-Then they have actually confirmed a warming trend over the US over the past 30 years (i.e. no “pause”)
-The result only applies to ONLY 2% of Earth’s total surface.
-It is not applicable to the considerable sea surface temperature record.
As I predicted, the last refuge of scoundrels is to dispute the climate record when it suits them.
Yes,a landmark study. But, would you like to feast your eyes on an even bigger “deal”? Then check out UAH global temperature anomaly chart posted here December 1.
“Then they have actually confirmed a warming trend over the US over the past 30 years (i.e. no pause)”
Not true. I don’t have his data to run a regression, but just one’s eyeballs can tell you there was no temperature increase after 1998 (and, it looks like, from 1980 to 1997).
It is easy to argue that from 1980 to 1997 was essentially flat and 1998 to now was essentially flat, but from 1980 to now has had significant warming. It is notable that the upswing phase of the 1997-1998 El Nino has an amount of warming exceeding the amount of steady warming from 1979 to the warm period that started shortly after 2000.
Go to this comment, even though the physics may be out of your depth.
Donald, you have touched on one my observations about the global temperature trend: two flat trends connected by a step-up at circa 2000-2002, about a .25-.30C change. This step-up cannot be explained by AGW. Otherwise, any putative trend line from circa 1980-present is spurious, because a step-up is not a trend. It is this “step-up” that should be studied, if the science is to progress. Not that I have any great hope that this omission will be corrected. Trends are trendy, and thus climate science.
Taking the long view, entropy always wins in the end. Some ups and downs on the way may not be as significant as we obsess over.
Talk about straw man arguments, who ever claimed a 30 year pause. The pause is quite visible in Antony’s chart from present back to about 1998.
Yes Roy
And it explains why Nicola Scafetta thought all climate change was 80% natural and 20% man-made. The extra 20% was indeed man-made with fiddled temperature records, not carbon dioxide which cannot warm because of its radiation properties like those of water vapor which also work against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient.
One of these days, Roy, you’ll realize I’ve been right all along. Nobody has proved me wrong. The evidence and experiments with centrifugal force support what I say, as does my study that showed water vapor cooled, as expected. To your credit, Roy, your temperature records appear sound and in agreement with predictions I made nearly four years ago.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60571419/Nicola-Scafetta-ICCC6-PPT
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
Roy: I am sorry I was commenting on this over at WUWT without posting here first.
Can I get your opinion of this presentation of your data?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/twyt70hz4xyoeyo/UAH%20Global%2C%20Land%20and%20Ocean%20Anomalies.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lkcpax7yjkf6qm/UAH%20Northern%20Hemisphere%2C%20Land%20and%20Ocean%20Anomalies.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l057rkwhewr5xey/UAH%20Southern%20Hemisphere%2C%20Land%20and%20Ocean%20Anomalies.png
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gixvd270vdrl4z4/rlh-full-uah-triad%20plots.r
Dr. Spencer, with respect;
“Watts et al. used only the best data….which I think is the best strategy. If one wants to use ALL of the thermometer data, then the bad data needs to be constrained so that it matches the good data.”
In most engineering work there is no concept of “good” or “bad” data. There are obvious cases where a sensor went “hay wire” and the data cannot be used.
Other than those cases measurements are given an error or knowledge term that includes; calibration, drift, noise, etc.
For any meaningful analysis to take place the error/knowledge of your measurements should be several times smaller (at least one tenth) of the signal/result/effect you are trying to measure.
In climate science the error/knowledge of the temperature is just about the same resolution as the signal (i.e. the alleged “radiative greenhouse effect”). This makes definitive observation of the alleged warming impossible. And leads to totally wacky ideas like “constraining data”.
Bad data, get over there in the same nice orderly line as the good data….be constrained for heavens sake, the IPCC is watching…..
Again from Dr. Spencer’s post;
“If one wants to use ALL of the thermometer data, then the bad data needs to be constrained so that it matches the good data.”
I respectfully disagree, if one wants to use ALL of the thermometer data one needs to open the “error bars” to about plus/minus 1 (or 1.5) degrees C, and then the “warming trend” disappears, poof…. Gone in the noise, there may be a trend, it may be up, it may be down, it may be a pause, it could just be random noise, but it is certainly not definitive proof of anything.
Cheers, KevinK
Bingo.
A pleasure to read a post by someone who understand estimation of systematic and statistical errors and their importance.
The entire field of “climate science” with regards to AGW is nothing more than an artifact of underestimating statistical and systmatic errors.
Claims that we know what the “global temperature” was to within +/- 0.1C back in 1890 not only strains credulity, but tosses credulity in the blender and hit the pure button.
Our dear friend Roy Spencer DOES NOT understand thermometer homogenization. And I tell you what will not happen. It will never be published for review as long a handful of these denial American’s claim to have the “Good Oil” and monopoly on global warming temperatures for 2% of World’s surface. What a lot of rot the globe aren’t warming. I’m speechless at the cancerous rot that has set in on this site. It gives me no alternative but to tell everyone – Roy Spencer is a crank scientist.
It’s warming all right, for a few decades before 500 years of cooling. There’s AU$10,000 for the first to prove I’m wrong and water vapor and carbon dioxide warm. They don’t. The state of maximum entropy has a temperature gradient and that explains the surface temperature. Relax this Christmas – it’s not carbon dioxide after all. Nobody has, or can, prove my hypothesis wrong, least of all you Ross with your lack of understanding of the process of maximum entropy production.
Ross, drinking on Sunday? Tsk, Tsk. When you sober up you might ask Dr. Spencer to delete your comment. And he might do it, since he is a nice guy. But he might not.
my wife will admit I am, at times, a cranky scientist.
Well if you can say that here, she obviously tolerates you at the very least.
Kevin K,
No doubt you are correct concerning engineering practices, but this is not engineering. The object of science is to obtain the most meaningful data possible, which means the most accurate data one can obtain. This object in order to attain the truth, or at least the closest approximation one can, with ever the object of improving that.
Concerning error bars: for several global temperature datasets, over 70% of the data is “guesstimate”. One of these launched itself on a campaign of global warming hype and has not quit since. Their dataset is meant to cover the globe but it is all based on faulty data, if the Watts et al study is correct. So it might also be said that the object of science is to identify source of error lest that error be presented as the truth.
“So it might also be said that the object of science is to identify source of error lest that error be presented as the truth.”
Just so.
Errors that are demonstrated empirically and reproducibly (eg offsets from calibrated parallel measurement) can and should be applied as corrections to the data, and each and every such correction should individually be thoroughly justified and documented.
Errors that are demonstrated by statistical properties of the data itself, need to be either:
1) removed from the data as unreliable, with each such removal justified and the justification and description of the data archived with the “corrected” (“pruned?”) data; or
2) used as justification for expansion of the one-sided error bars by at least the size of the error demonstrated.
This is honest and open science. Alas, this appears not to be “worlds best practice” – nor in use – for any of the surface temperature data sets.
This is why I trust the sat data more than the surface data – two teams, both thoroughly and transparently documenting and archiving any and all changes, including before and after comparisons, etc. Not because I DO check, but because I CAN. Because it shows the attention to detail that is *required* – especially when your are trying to pull a signal from near the noise.
The Watts et al paper ends its study at 2008. I asked why the last few years weren’t added in, presuming that the number of stations suitable for the last 7 years were the same as in the previous 8 years (2008). The answer I got was oddly not clear, as if there weren’t enough left that were suitable for statistical purposes. Seems odd – is NOAA removing the highest quality stations as we speak? Or is NOAA’s definition of “high-quality” not Watts’?
I hate how studies about climate change seem not to be clearly exposed regardless of the position vis-a-vis anthropogenic influence. I’d love someone to be able to hold up a study without someone else saying, “Yeah, but ….”
I guess this is the problem when you are dealing with “settled science”: everything is up for grabs.
The WUWT crowd believes CO2 is “warming the planet”. Some of them have said things like “CO2 produces warming”. Anthony thrives in a business that keeps the hoax alive.
CO2 produces warming in a lab.
CO2 may produce warming in the atmosphere (see above).
The data we have does not absolutely confirm if 2 is true.
The majority of data we have is short in length and poorly distributed.
The comparison of point sampling instruments to area/volume instruments is not as easy as some would think.
Anthony tries to examine the above problems.
He does a fairly good job.
RichardLH, CO2 does NOT “produce warming in a lab”. It is NOT a heat source. It cannot “produce warming”.
Watts tries to censor and control science. He is an enemy of science. He has gone after numerous skeptics. He promotes Warmists. His goal is to keep the IPCC CO2/GHE/AGW hoax alive. He makes a living from the hoax.
He has fooled you.
“CO2 produces warming in a lab”
i have noticed the heating engineering companies rushing to produce thermal insulation, heat pumps , double glazing all using co2 as a medium.
All the horticulturalists with with co2 levels pumped up to 1200ppm in their greenhouses have said- yes, co2 causes runaway warming and they are appalled.
Richard, 1200 ppm in a 5 (or so) meters high air column in a greenhouse is probably not a good model for the atmosphere. The probability for a photon being intercepted in such a little space is still small, although more than 2.5 times higher than in a 400 ppm column of air of the same size.
Richard,
Geran is right…you are wrong.
“i have noticed the heating engineering companies rushing to produce thermal insulation, heat pumps, double glazing all using CO2 as a medium.”
1)Thermal insulation is not a source of warming. The insulation does not produce heat. 2)Yes, CO2 might act as a heat pump in the atmosphere to produce COOLING. Convection hoisting the molecule to height…gravity bringing it back down to pick up more heat, and round and round…= heat pump.
“All the horticulturalists with co2 levels pumped up to 1200ppm in their greenhouses have said- yes,co2 causes runaway warming and are appalled.”
You would be the same Richard who has said this here?..
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/greenhouse-effect-for-dummies-again/#comment-462955
Well Richard I would say your “co2 produces warming in a lab (or glass house)” is more imaginary crap.
Just more mythical rumours on the internet,about the magical properties of CO2, promulgated by brainwashed true believers like yourself.
“runaway warming” in a greenhouse because of CO2.
Aaaahahahahahaha…yeah,right.
Please note this greenhouse has no side walls and a fairly badly fitted ‘roof’.
And do please distinguish between Richard and RichardLH. We are not the same.
Whatever, both Richard and you,RichardLH, are wrong about geran.
What’s this bollocks about “a fairly badly fitted “roof”?.
The “blanket” has now become a “roof” has it now, RichardLH?. Endless innane “thinking” from the 2 Richards of the Great Brainwashed.
If you don’t get the reference to the fact that C02 distributions are not a simple, even, blanket coverage then…..
…then you are obviously not going to be gullibly taken in by a colouring book level of “science” analogy, that says the Earth is surrounded by a “blanket” stopping it from freezing to death.
That’s the level of “greenhouse” bullshit indoctrination you received at about the age of about 9yrs. eh RichardLH.?
You somehow seem to have got the impression that I believe that all is settled, scientifically speaking.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Do I believe that CO2 could be the reason. Sure. Does that stop me looking with a critical eye on other things? Nope.
The point I was making was that IF this is a greenhouse (as a mind picture that is often used), the a leaky roofed greenhouse with no side walls would be a better mind picture to ‘see’.
It actually fairly well summarises the physical picture here on Earth.
“…a leaky roofed greenhouse with no side walls would be a better mind picture…”
Aaahahahahaha…riiight. You believers are so amusing. We have to have a greenhouse of some description, eh RichardLH. So it’s a sort of semi-greenhouse..or 1/4 greenhouse..or maybe a Clayton’s greenhouse (the greenhouse you’re having when you’re not having a greenhouse)
And I’m having a little difficulty with the roofing concept..because I’m actually living in this “roof”..it’s all around me. Most of the roof would seem to be down around my ankles where atmospheric concentration and pressure is greatest. Nah RichardLH..not much of “roof” concept..especially with holes. Perhaps you should abandon the direct “greenhouse” analogy with its “roof” and divert to your old favourite illusionary tact of the “blanket”.
Yes, the “blanket”. A parallel warming concept thing.
The trouble is RichardLH, the blanket analogy doesn’t seem to conform to the basic properties of gases…namely that gases do not add energy, but disperse it. All gases (including CO2) dissipate heat. You can find that out for yourself if you hold a REAL blanket closely over your head and use your hair-dryer,(not in front of the missus)from beneath the blanket.
It will heat your head and maybe cure you of your false “mind picture” thought processes associated with the Great Deluded,RichardLH.
I am not responsible for the mind pictures others have used to describe reality.
I believe that mine is closer to the truth than others.
Please note, I do not claim that CO2 causes any rise in temps in the atmosphere in the same way as has been demonstrated under lab conditions.
The lab experiments are a fact.
How you deal with that fact is up to you.
The real question is, how much does the observed CO2 lab warming occur in the Global atmosphere and how can we detect it accurately enough to be ‘sure’?
Full circle for the fool. As Geran has told you. CO2 does NOT “produce warming” in a laboratory.
I’m afraid it does in fact.
The conditions and results are available for you to check if you like somewhere on the Web no doubt.
I just accept it as a fact.
The problem comes with the translation of the observed fact elsewhere.
That has not been proved, only suggested.
“I’m afraid it does in fact”
No RichardLH , you’re afraid it doesn’t in fact.
You’re afraid your AGW belief could be shattered. It’s far more disconcerting for you to contemplate that we have absolutely no effect on the global climate.
And the folly of seeing what you think you see rather than what is there comes to the fore.
I do NOT believe that CAGW has proved its case. No-where will you find that claim made by me.
I also do not believe that it can be dismissed out of hand.
I need a logical explanations of what we see, that is all
Richard and Roy:
The most relevant thing we can confirm from experiments is that a force field creates a stable temperature gradient, as explained here and as measured in vortex tubes all over the world.
Gravity creates a temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere, as measured in planets all over the Solar System.
As explained here this fact of physics “obviates the need for concern over GHG’s.”
The data we have confirms this is true.
The physics we have confirms this is true.
The physics we have confirms GHG’s cool rather than warm.
Only the fictitious, fiddled physics self taught among climatologists and their pal-reviewers “confirms” the opposite.
I’m betting AU$10,000 that I’m right.
Actually that’s a temperature field we are talking about. Point and volume sampled.
There is a gradient caused by gravity. But it is moving around a balance point with 50% of the mass of the atmosphere above and below. That’s a fairly dynamic system given the relative distances involved, horizontally and vertically.
I think I’ll stick with long established science (not necessarily the latest) to base any conclusions on.
(assuming you were addressing me – difficult to tell sometimes)
RichardLH
Yes – I stick with long established science too. Josef Loschmidt first explained the gravito-thermal effect in the 19th century, and now in the 21st century we can confirm it with experiments with centrifugal force. No one has proved it incorrect with physics that is in accord with the Second Law. I have confirmed it by using Kinetic Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, I would suggest, is one of the most firmly established laws in all of physics.
But feel free to submit your critique of the hypothesis here if you feel you can prove that there is some other result from entropy maximization. The conditions for the AU$10,000 reward (about US$7,000) are on that blog, and all submissions should be made on the comment thread where all can read my response.
By the way, do you have at least three years of university physics under your belt? I wondered, because you got it wrong about the altitude about which the temperature profile rotates because it has nothing to do with mass: it is determined by radiation, being the altitude where there is equal outward energy being transferred from above and below. It’s at about 3.5Km by my estimates. The thermal profile (graph) rotates in accord with the degree of inter-molecular radiation which is, of course, increasing as IR-active gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide increase. Such radiation has a temperature-leveling effect working against the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient. So the surface end is lowered by these so-called “greenhouse” gases which thus cool the surface and can never warm it. Also explained in my hypothesis is the process which actually transfers the required thermal energy into the surface, because direct radiation to the surface is insufficient. There’s no physics that you can produce which proves the IPCC conjecture about radiative forcing supposedly supplying this extra energy. And, obviously, if the IPCC were correct about water vapor doing most of “33 degrees” of warming, then rain forests would be at least 50 degrees hotter than dry deserts.
No Doug.
I was pointing out that this is a delicate sea-saw the atmosphere is balanced round, mass wise. The temperature profile is part of that balance, but not all of it. Water vapour, rotational energy and other things get a toe in as well. Gravity provides the sea-saw.
The large ratio between vertical (a few km) to horizontal (a few thousand km) means that the system will never be in stasis.
My qualifications? Well I meet your above criteria fairly well.
Practicing Logician by trade.
And as to your vortex observations, I will say that I see a system where the high energy molecules are distributed to the outside with the low energy ones in the middle.
No fancy physics needed to explain. Do I get the prize?
The total energy of the molecules tends towards being homogeneous, because that’s what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will happen as unbalanced energy potentials tend to dissipate. Hence, without phase change or chemical reaction, the mean sum of molecular (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) tends towards being homogeneous. Read the rest of teh explanation on my blog which is linked from this comment.
Roy, how does the trend at the high quality stations in Anthony’s study match the UAH trend?
How do you get from a sparse point sampled series to a continuous volume sampled one via the actual 3D Temperature Field they both ‘see’ needs to be answered first.
Leading up to COP 21 we were told that the globe had warmed by 1 C since the start of the Ind. rev. HAD 4 shows about 0.8 C since 1850 and Concordia Uni study found about 0.7 C since start of the Ind rev, or 1750.
What I’d like Roy or John or anyone to tell me is by how much do you think the planet has warmed over the last 265 years? Is 1 C about right or 0.7 C or what? Just asking?
If one could control for the heat island effect, we would expect more accurate records of what the temperatures have been. However, as Scott Scarborough said, those who live in the heat islands are concerned with what the temperature is there, not what it is 10 miles away. So here, as in other areas of climate records and research, we have divergent needs and desires.
Those who are seeking to understand long-term trends need records which are not influenced by microclimates. Thus Anthony Watts offers them a method of obtaining accuracy in what they need.
Those who are seeking current local information will not find his adjustments of use.
Those who are seeking support for their political position are of two schools and may or may not find his information helpful.
So here we have something for everyone, good or bad depends upon your desire.
The question I have is, if politicians in the AGW crowd say the temperature will be below 0′ C, and there will be rain/snow clouds in the sky, will it snow on Christmas Eve so I can have a white Christmas?
Dr Spencer – it’s very odd for any serious scientist to laud “published” research that is nothing more than a few lines on a graph. It’s especially odd when the research is being “published” for the second time. Or have we all forgotten Julyy of 2012 already? Let me remind you:
“WUWT publishing suspended major announcement coming
Somethings happened. From now until Sunday July 29th, around Noon PST, WUWT will be suspending publishing. At that time, there will be a major announcement that Im sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.
To give you an idea as to the magnitude of this event, Im suspending my vacation plans. I weighed the issue, and decided (much to my dismay) this was more important. I can go on vacation trips another time, but this announcement is not something I can miss now and do later.
Media outlets be sure to check in to WUWT on Sunday around 12PM PST and check your emails.
That’s what Anthony Watts had to say about the earlier version of this paper. Anyone with any sense looked at the ensuing paper and laughed.
Now it’s 3 and a half years later and they think they’ve fixed all the holes in their analysis, but it’s obvious they haven’t. Despite claims this paper would address the actual *physics* of the effect claimed, they now admit they don’t know the physics behind it.
There is also the problem of comparison to USCRN: USHCN is completely in agreement with USCRN. If Watts et al disagree with USCRN then their explanation – their mysterious, unphysical, “heat sink hypothesis” – falls apart, because USCRN sites are as good if not better than the subset Watts et al have chosen as unperturbed.
It’s also worth considering that the conversion to MMTS took place near the midpoint of their study time period. MMTS is *known* to have a systematic bias in both TMAX and TMIN that could well explain their results if not handled properly. Given that the bias is temperature dependent (Hubbard & Lin, 2004), using a simple offset is unlikely to remove the bias – especially since the value they’ve chosen was based on the entire population of reporting stations and not their smaller subset.
The earlier version of this paper was filled with novice errors. Anyone having their name attached to that 2012 abortion ought to be embarrassed. Right now this is just ‘science by press release.’ I’ll be surprised if it ever becomes much more than that. I’m sure they’ll find some journal somewhere to publish it, but reviewers will have a lot more questions to ask than just the few I’ve mentioned here.
And I think someone calculated that since the US is 1.6% of global surface area it would reduce the global temperature trend by 0.00048 C. Mountains out of molehills and the molehill itself is just a mirage at this point 🙂
That’s OK, Kevin. I know “the physics behind it” and it’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com with the relevant heat transfer mechanism being explained for the first time in world literature. And it’s all supported by evidence and experiments. No data has ever proved it wrong. No valid physics has ever been presented to refute it. You should study it some day.
I would be surprised if a published paper comes out of this. As you say, one obvious thing to do is to compare their subset to USCRN and expand their analysis to at least the record year 2012. According to their heat sink hypothesis their subset should have lower temperature than the worst sited stations in 2012. Problem is: that would also give lower temperatures than USCRN.
http://i.imgur.com/koKLtze.png
For them it is better to avoid that.
A paper will almost certainly come out at some point. It is a summary of existing data. The claims it appears to make are to do with quality, nothing else.
So there should be a simple. factual, critique if it is wrong after publication.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/a-hockey-strick-for-xmass/
Kyle,
Two things.
1) Do we know that Watt’s work would result in a lower trend than USCRN for the last 10 years? Just because his work results in a lower trend than USHCN for 30 yr doesn’t mean that it’s lower for the last 10–it could match for the last 10 yr quite well. I haven’t looked at his work at all, so maybe this has already been answered, but your statement above, by itself, is non sequitur.
2) You seem quite keen on comparison to USCRN and bashing Watt’s work due to a lack of comparison. I noticed on the linked earlier thread that you railed on Roy’s work a bunch too but never compared it to USCRN–what happen if you do compare UHA v6 to USCRN? As David Appell would say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/
-Scott
Do you mean to say that all stations have the same degree of reliability? That there are no stations free from UHE, or from site problems, or from other changes? If this is your message, then your criticism is without basis prima facie.
Roy Spencer’s comments are right on target. We finally have the proof of the neglect of the NOAA. Satellite temperature datasets confirm that the earth has not warmed this century, and corroborates the corruption of the surface data so revealed in the Watts et al study. Globally warming is a unicorn’s fart.
And the reason it’s as you say mpainter is because the correct physics tells us that entropy will tend to be maximized, and from that we can deduce that GH gases cool, but the cooling by CO2 is less than 0.1 degree. It can’t warm.
I suggest you link to the correct physics in future comments once you have studied it and understood such. I’m happy to answer any questions on my blog.
Well. Even Spencer says MSU/AMSU is not a good measure for surface temperature
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203356
Kyle Hilburn is ehak, right? Are you still in Santa Rosa?
Oh, Kyle (is it ok if I say Kyle instead of ehak?) From your link:
Roy Spencer:
“So please learn something about the issue, ehak, and stop making it sound like boundary layer vapor (which is basically what TPW is) somehow tells us what free-tropospheric temperature should be doing.”
Roy gave you good advice, Kyle Hilburn, if you would only pay attention to it.
But it is likely that the point sampled series will match the volume sampled series overall in the end.
Probably once someone sorts out the extrapolation/interpolation needed to estimate the temperature field correctly from the sparse dataset.
Roy
There have been about 1,000 views of my new blog in the month since November 23rd, many of them your readers. There have also been over 14,200 visits to my website in just over 11 months. You would learn a lot if you studied such, Roy. You won’t be able to prove me wrong – nobody has on any blog or any of about 500 social media climate threads. I’m happy to answer any questions, here or on my blog, Roy. It’s time to communicate on this, and perhaps you could start by studying some of my responses to lukes and warmists here on your own blog. What I say is confirmed by empirical evidence and actual experiments, and it’s right.
Now please read this comment.
PS: I mentioned the false temperature records (as exposed by Anthony) in this email that was sent to over 100 Australian politicians ….
To Hons Greg Hunt, Malcolm Turnbull and other politicians
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER
I have proved beyond reasonable doubt, based on the laws of physics (in which I am qualified and experienced over 50 years) that the radiative forcing greenhouse hypothesis is false. Carbon dioxide does not and cannot warm Earth’s surface.
What I say is backed up by the work of a brilliant professor of applied mathematics in his paper Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation* as well as by data from all planets, a study of temperature data for Earth and experiments with relevant devices as well. More importantly, it is based on correct physics, whereas what climatologists (unqualified in physics) teach themselves and their pal-reviewers is fictitious, fiddled physics.
I am happy to discuss this with you and at any enquiry you initiate, as you should do. Your government has failed to pay due diligence in checking the false science they promulgate. You have not checked with physicists who understand thermodynamics, as I do. I will prove anyone else wrong if they try to claim the current “explanation” is right. I have done so with many hundreds on climate blogs and never been proven wrong. I’ve even offer $10,000 if anyone can do so.
Note also that, whilst carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, there has been no warming at all since the maximum in 1998. Since then it has now been proven that the Americans are tampering with weather station records and ignoring the artificial “warming” cause by urban crawl, air conditioners near weather stations, etc, thus creating apparent warming that is not shown in the satellite measurements for the lower troposphere. In fact, as the past shows, there will be a period of nearly 500 years of long-term cooling starting before the year 2100, and temperatures will not rise more than about half a degree before that cooling starts.
If you fail to look into what I have explained at http://climate-change-theory.com and in my linked papers, my videos and my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” then I will start arranging a huge class action by major companies against the government aimed at forcing changes in any law or governmental requirement that is in place purely because of the false assumption that carbon dioxide warms, when in fact it can only cool by a minuscule amount.
“In fact, as the past shows, there will be a period of nearly 500 years of long-term cooling starting before the year 2100, and temperatures will not rise more than about half a degree before that cooling starts.”
I knew it! You are nothing more than a warmest in disguise predicting such a temperature rise. That proves that everything you have written is just a lot of rubbish.
You bring disgrace to the name Cotton so please stop using it.
“What I say is confirmed by empirical evidence and actual experiments, and its right.”
So take the time to do some proper publicity, locally at first. Set out your stall at a hall somewhere. Do the power points. Deal with any critics. Bring the press, they love a good story and your’s sounds — great.
I’ll do it my way thanks RLH.
I must try and remember to sent you a copy of “How to win friends and influence people”.
It would appear you missed it before. Do you think you can find a local copy?
P.S. Shouting very loudly usually means that people ignore you or laugh at you. Hadn’t you noticed?
Being less dogmatic helps as well.
Let me know RLH when you think you can prove my physics wrong. You won’t be able to though, and that’s why you write “last restort” comments without a word of physics. You don’t understand maximum entropy production, now do you? So you won’t even get off “Square One” as you’re out of your depth. You haven’t won a friend here or influenced me.
I don’t suppose any warmists have shouted very loudly or produced films and bluffed governments. For years to come, as the hiatus continues until at least the year 2028, I’ll just focus on my negotiations with leading law companies and major companies affected by the hoax and sing quietly …
Oh what a wicked web we weave
When in our head we do believe
That we can sway another’s mind
And, with some hoaxsters, lead the blind
To fear and tremble at the warning
That CO2 does all the warming
By sending down its radiation,
Fooling leaders of the Nation,
‘Til they from flooded houses sailing
Join the weeping and the wailing …
While Mother Nature calmly ruling
Turns that warming into cooling.
RLH: Consider my reply in this comment as applying to yourself.
And as to your vortex observations, I will say that I see a system where the high energy molecules are distributed to the outside with the low energy ones in the middle.
No fancy physics needed to explain. Do I get the prize?
—-
From up thread.
I know you obsess about your theory. It would appear from the evidence that you are not right. I do not have the time to undertake a full review of your work.
Please try to turn into a positive force. If what you say IS right, you are doing it a great disservice by your attitude.
You are making it more likely, not less that you will achieve your goals.
And of course, this being early in the Morning the words I type are in fact the opposite of what I meant.
Only the last sentence which should read ‘you are not helping your cause’ or words to that effect.
Let’s bring that down to the basics.
Vortex sort things. Dyson made a lot of money out of that observation.
Vortex sort mass very well.
As Mass and Energy are directly linked it comes no great surprise that they sort Energy as well.
No new physics at all.
Prize?
Gravity does the same. Tt is called Buoyancy
I’m glad RichardLH that you recognize that there is radial centrifugal force field acting in a vortex tube and, yes, apparently re-distributing molecules such that those with greater kinetic energy are on the outside. This is a process of maximum entropy production, just as happens in a planet’s troposphere where the force of gravity sets up the temperature gradient.
Your terminology is not quite correct though. Strictly speaking it is kinetic energy which is redistributed, because the molecules all started off with roughly the same mean kinetic energy. But that kinetic energy then changes by orders of magnitude in the vortex tube as KE and PE interchange whilst molecules are in motion between collisions. Obviously those in the center have huge potential energy relative to the radial force field, just as those at the top of the troposphere. As I showed in the Talk pages at Wikipedia about a year ago the temperature gradient set up in the vortex tube does in fact have the same formula as the “dry adiabatic lapse rate” being the quotient of the acceleration due to the force field and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. (See the two-line derivation of -g/cp in my paper.) So that is why I say the vortex tube experiments support my hypothesis, as do planetary tropospheres throughout the solar system.
Now, there is an infinitesimal probability that all planets would cool down to just the right temperature at just the right altitude where there is radiative balance with the solar radiation, and have just the right temperature gradient all the way, wouldn’t you agree? So it doesn’t happen that way – it happens around the other way altogether, as explained in my hypothesis. Temperatures build up from the anchored layer and the required thermal energy is transferred bythe non-radiative process I have explained in the hypothesis. See also my comments about the planet Uranus on various threads.
You are welcome to ask genuine questions on my blog as you do seem to be starting to understand what I have been explaining for over three years.
PS: You’ll find I write courteously to those who are courteous to me. I deliberately express anger at those who arrogantly promulgate the hoax because of their pecuniary interests in such, without having the required understanding of physics. My students whom I helped with undergraduate physics did well because I encouraged them to ensure they understood each step along the way, and did not use the equations of physics without recognizing the required prerequisites for such to be applicable. That of course was the major failing of James Hansen, and others just followed him over the cliff, as if demon-possessed.
And after I wrote that thought an observation came to mind. Both the forces sort. But the direction is interesting.
Vortex sort high energy to the outside (apparently).
Gravity sorts high energy to the top.
Below are copies of my writings on the Talk page for Vortex tubes …
It works because of the gravito-thermal effect [DC] (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains how a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves and has maximum entropy within the constraints of an isolated system. In a gravitational field (such as in Earth’s troposphere) thermodynamic equilibrium is also hydrostatic equilibrium because of the fact that each is the state of maximum entropy. When molecules are in free path motion between collisions, kinetic energy (KE) is interchanged with gravitational potential energy (PE). Temperature is based on the mean KE per molecule, as explained in Kinetic Theory. This means that gravity sets up both a density gradient and a temperature gradient. (The pressure is then a corollary, being proportional to the product of density and temperature, and it also has a Pressure-gradient force at hydrostatic equilibrium which is the same state of maximum entropy that is thus also thermodynamic equilibrium.)
“Now, by equating KE gain with PE loss, we deduce that the thermal gradient is the quotient of the acceleration due to the gravitational force and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, as derived under lapse rate. For the vortex tube, the effective gravitational force is between about 10^6 and 10^7g, so let’s say 5 * 10^6. The approximate distance (internal radius) is about 5mm. The above quotient gives 9.8 * 5 * 10^6 degrees per kilometer, and that reduces to about 250 degrees in 5mm, as is observed according to the article. If a particular tube only generates 10^6g we would expect 50 degree temperature difference. So the hypothesis appears to be well supported by the data in this article. [DC] (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
“The vortex cooling tube provides empirical evidence that a force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions causes an interchange of molecular potential energy (relative to that force field) and kinetic energy. This creates a temperature gradient in the plane of the force field because only the kinetic energy component affects temperature. That temperature gradient in a steady force field represents the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will tend to evolve autonomously. We note that specific heat (Cp) appears in the denominator of the temperature gradient, just as it does in expressions for the temperature gradient caused by the force of gravity in all planetary tropospheres. Such temperature gradients continue in sub-surface regions of Earth even down to the core. Because the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, any additional thermal energy supplied at the cooler (outer) end will disturb that state. The Second Law tells us a new state will evolve and this obviously entails some thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection towards the warmer regions as explained in our group’s website http://climate-change-theory.com and therein lies the explanation as to how thermal energy from the Sun makes its way to the core of any planet or satellite moon, including our own Moon where core temperatures are over 1300C. Chairman Planetary Physics (group of persons qualified in physics) (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
“What we have stated follows directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because when the sum of that potential energy and kinetic energy is homogeneous then, and only then are there no unbalanced energy potentials and thus entropy will not increase further.”
I suggest you read the hypothesis. For maximum entropy there must be no unbalanced energy potentials. Hence, assuming no other energy changes such as phase change or chemical reaction, the sum of mean molecular gravitational potential energy plus kinetic energy will be homogeneous. Hence there is a temperature gradient (temperature being proportional only to mean KE) and we equate PE gain with KE loss to get …
m.g.dH = – m.cp.dT
dT/dH = – g/cp
and this state of maximum entropy (with its associated temperature gradient due to the force field) is called “thermodynamic equilibrium” by definition in physics. When it is disturbed with new energy added (often at the top each morning) then there is a propensity for entropy to increase (unbalanced energy potentials to dissipate – see http://entropylaw.com) and that entails downward natural convective heat transfers which, in physics, include heat diffusion. That’s how the (rest of) the required thermal energy gets into the surface.
You could probably said that in less words and still have been understood.
The observation I was pointing out is that the signs are reversed. Are you missing a minus sign somewhere?
The minus sign is in the -g/cp expression. As I said, the mean sum of molecular (PE+KE) is constant. So, obviously where there is greatest potential energy relative to the force field there is least kinetic energy (coldest temperature) and you have not understood what’s happening in the vortex tube. The greatest potential energy is in the center – there’s no significant effect of gravity, so “top” and “bottom” are irrelevant and you can orientate the tube however you wish because centrifugal force is orders of magnitude greater than gravity in this case. So the centrifugal force field acts radially outwards, whereas in a planet the gravitational force field acts radially inwards. There’s no problem. I don’t make silly mistakes because I understand the relevant entropy maximization and the resulting thermodynamics based on the Second Law.
As a missing minus sign would reconcile both your and others viewpoints, I would consider it to be the most likely explanation, at least for now.
I assume you wrote that comment before reading mine above. I’ll forgive your error.
No. After.
So what I take from this conversation is this interesting but potentially boring observation
Gravity sorts Mass downwards
Gravity sorts High Energy upwards
Vortex sort Mass outwards
Vortex sort High Energy outwards as well
They are most obviously not the same force, although they have similar outcomes on Mass.
Then you need to spend more time and put more effort into trying to understanding the process of entropy maximization. My 43 minute video presentation is probably the best place to start. But first please read this comment below. I am here to help you and the hundreds of silent readers understand physics, just as I have helped undergraduates for about 50 years. By the way you “explain” what you think happens, I can tell you don’t understand entropy.
Entropy is the steady dissipation of energy as it spreads out throughout the Universe. An ultimate ‘averaging’ of all the energy available down to its ‘central’, low, combined value.
Losses though light alone are enough to drive our Solar system to that distant future. We lose Mass at the fringes as well which pushes the balance still further.
Internally to the Solar system, many objects try to share what energy there is out between themselves. And loose a lot to space, friction, gravitation drag and a host of others in doing so.
That will do for a working explanation IMHO.
Could probably do with some revisions, but it will do for a start.
Care to improve the wording?
Or if you wish to start from a formal definition
“According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases; such a system will spontaneously proceed towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy”
Entropy is not energy being dissipated off to Space. Entropy always increases as unbalanced energy potentials dissipate. That is altogether different from what you said. For example, even in a perfectly insulated sealed cylinder of air entropy can increase when the cylinder is rotated from a horizontal to a vertical orientation. As you know, a stable density gradient then forms due to gravity, and that means entropy has increased until it reached the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, namely maximum entropy. The Second Law thus tells us that the density gradient will form and be stable. I have explained why.
As I said, you don’t understand entropy maximization. Maybe this guy’s website will help you – also read his page on the Second Law: http://entropylaw.com
And, yes RLH, that’s a correct definition of the Second Law, but it’s not defining entropy itself in that definition. You will note that all through my writings I have used exactly that definition of the Second Law, so that’s a good starting point on which we each agree.
So, note carefully that the Second Law is all about systems moving towards the state of maximum entropy – maximum entropy production (MEP) as physicists call it.
As you will read at http://entropylaw.com this MEP process is measured by the progression towards thermodynamic equilibrium and this progression is intimately linked with the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials. When they have all gone, entropy is maximized.
When the Sun each morning raises the temperature in the stratosphere and upper troposphere it creates unbalanced energy potentials and some of that new extra energy at the top dissipates by moving towards the surface, even though that means an apparent heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions. It happens because the equilibrium temperature gradient is being restored and the whole overall level of the temperature plot rises to a new parallel position, thus warming the surface. It’s not hard to understand and the diagrams in my paper and website will help your understanding.
You will find it inadvisable to assume I’m wrong because I’ve given this far more consideration than you have, and I doubt that you’ve even read my paper yet. Instead I recommend that you take a long hard look at what I have explained, perhaps in your Christmas break. And any future discussion would be better submitted as comments on my new blog which has had 1,000 views in its first month. Out of all those readers only one has submitted an attempted refutation, but it was not based on what was in the hypothesis and was thus irrelevant. When you have understood the hypothesis, that is the time to speak – about what is explained in the hypothesis – not red herrings.
Actually your way more and unnecessarily detailed ‘explanation’ does not improve significantly on what I said.
The fact that you think lines and lines of words actually convey any real information is staggering.
Take a tip.
Reduce what you are trying to say to a list of, say, 10 bullet points.
Keep the words to a minimum. Only those that are actually needed. Stop being so bombastic. Start being a teacher (which you apparently were/are). You do your own profession a great disservice with your attitude. (And make other people read lines and lines and lines of the same stuff. Shouted, not explained. Everybody is listening less and less.
I only responded because you used my name. Perhaps I shall just ignore you from now on (as others mostly do).
….Oh, and find the missing minus.
1ķӶô㣿
źҪĹؼʻӣɽ롰ԱġѡӦĶڡҪ޸ġֱڱҳн°µҪзϵͳὫйʣֱתС
2ٶӶſ֣
ƽ̨ӶһԪ
3ֺܵˣ
ֺ24СʱὫӶֵ˺С
4ַʽļ֣
Ŀǰƽֻ̨֧֧Ƹͨ֡
http://www.pugongcao.com/?t=1421
Roy, perhaps Watts should submit his manuscript to the journal “Remote Sensing.”
What do you think?
Perhaps you David Appell should try to understand the relevant thermodynamics and maximum entropy production.
Until you produce the experiment described in this comment to Norman, you have no evidence that different (cold) fluxes (back radiation and solar radiation) can be added together and the total used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations, the latter being inapplicable anyway because the Earth’s surface does not meet the definition of either a black body or a grey body.
Perhaps you, DC, should try and understand why your, lone, opinion doesn’t carry more weight than the rest of science.
Ever thought ‘they’ might be right and you wrong?
No uncertainty. Absolute conviction. Shout louder.
All this is belied by glaciers. We don’t need thermometers to see that these “canaries in the coalmines” are largely (90%) retreating because of increased temperatures…they are rarely situated near man made colonies or urban heat islands and they act as a wick to real temperatures.
Have you ever considered this fact?
There is a well known and observed ~60 to 65 year cycle in the Climate data.
As your statistical lifetime is about the same is it possibly true to state that you will always see, and you should expect to see, weather/Climate you have not experienced before in your lifetime.
Go research storms and a 60-65 year cycle in the reports. It will appear as ‘unprecedented since 60 years ago’ or the like!
Has it occurred to you RLH what regulates the 60 year cycle that I have been talking about for about five years now, and what regulates the ~1,000 year cycle? Below is my “prediction” which was archived on my first climate website on 22 August 2011:
From 2003 the effect of El Nio had passed and a slightly declining trend has been observed. This is the net effect of the 60-year cycle starting to decline whilst the 934 year cycle is still rising.”
That of course is why the hiatus will continue until about 2028 wouldn’t you agree?
There’s a plausible indication of what regulates the cycles in the plot at the top of http://climate-change-theory.com and the correct physics follows there and in the linked papers, videos and my book. It’s the stars Stupid!
Continued above in this comment.
I will just point you to this observation.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/a-hockey-strick-for-xmass/
Have a good xMass. 🙂
There’s a graph like that showing the 60 year cycle which has been on my first climate website (earth-climate dot com) for about four years. But as we learnt recently (here) that the effects of urban crawl have been deliberately ignored in much of the “adjusted” climate data from the past. Jo Nova drew attention this week to the 100 year temperature records at Rutherglen in Australia showing no warming at all in this plot. As it happens, I will be in that region in two days from now. I will be passing through one little town Yackandandah in the general region where the small community has pledged to go fully “green” by 2022. Maybe I’ll point out to some there how mistaken is their belief that they will help cool the world.
Well my particular presentation of the UAH data (and others) has been around for a few years as well.
There are many problems with all the temperature measurements. Satellites seem to have the fewest problems, but the shortest record.
I rather suspect that nothing we have available as ‘data’ supports either case well enough to dismiss the other completely – yet.
You would probably be better advised to argue your case as it stands, rather than try and rubbish others. Tends to turn people away if you try it that way round.
Makes you much more a scientist IMHO
RLH:
I have many times said that temperature data does not support either position. None-the-less, I consider Nicola Scafetta has produced the best available analysis of climate cycles as here for example. He considered it all 80% natural, but was left with 20% in recent times which his cycles could not explain. We now know that the 20% didn’t exist but was fiddled data wherein, rather than reduce temperatures where urban crawl had affected them, they actually upgraded temperatures where there was no urban crawl so as to make the rate of warming similar to that in the majority of temperature stations where urban crawl had affected temperatures. Whilst I had suspected such manipulation, it was good of Anthony to put the effort into pinpointing what they had done. (I don’t often pat him on the back, mind you.)
However, my first paper that was published on several websites in March 2012 did attack the radiative Greenhouse hypothesis by exposing the false physics, and such is quite sufficient to refute any hypothesis. First and foremost an hypothesis must be in accord with the accepted laws of physics, and theirs isn’t.
It was not until about October that year (after several months of questioning and thinking about how the energy gets to the surface) that I realized what the Second Law implied must be happening in the process I called “heat creep” in my second paper first published that November, and the book based on that paper.
Of course those who don’t understand entropy and don’t read the paper itself will be skeptical if all they read are my comments on blogs. Hence I tend to explain entropy maximization in more detail now on such blogs because people are basically lazy and unlikely to click the links I provide.
Everything to date we have fails to explain accurately what we see. Some badly, some closer.
I believe that a logical, signal based approach, will most likely lead to a correct explanation. After all, this is a big mechanical system, with leads and lags like any other.
The work I have done so far (and more is planned for the New Year) is based on that simple concept.
So far it has uncovered things about the temperature record that I have not seen mentioned elsewhere before.
“Hence I tend to explain entropy maximization in more detail now on such blogs because people are basically lazy and unlikely to click the links I provide.”
There are other explanations as well for why people are not listening to you. Have you considered any of those as well?
El Nino has absolutely nothing to do with the recurring storms on the west coast. Rather, they are due to numerous and strong mobile polar highs that bring cold air masses and channelling moisture from the south. (http://twileshare.com/uploads/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-19931.pdf).
El Nino does not drive any particular weather pattern at the global scale, and is rather a consequence of the northern hemisphere weather dynamic.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=GAIRqv-kVSUC&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=el+nino+ruler+of+the+world+leroux&source=bl&ots=dD0jQs2Y63&sig=-XElHRBmi8A2-O7aFQi3vY31FRM&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjszInEq_LJAhVBiRoKHcQFCmIQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=el%20nino%20ruler%20of%20the%20world%20leroux&f=false
@paulmaxit
I think I would tend to agree.
El Nino/La Nina may well be the pulsing flow of energy between the poles and the equator.
The resulting pulses being caused by built up imbalances between the two Hemispheres and their respective NS energy flows.
Yes, RLH and others, weather conditions disturb equilibrium states, but the effects they have tend to average out over the whole globe. When considering what happens in a planet’s troposphere it is customary to think of an “ideal” atmosphere, and in fact the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus comes close to that with its near perfect -g/cp temperature gradient, as confirmed by passing spacecraft.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that entropy will tend towards a maximum. If we think of an “ideal” column of gas in an atmosphere (or even in a perfectly sealed and insulated vertical cylinder of argon) the Second Law thus explains how and why gravity forms a stable density gradient when entropy is maximized. That state also has a stable temperature gradient. By definition this state is called “thermodynamic” equilibrium” in physics, and by definition there are then no unbalanced energy potentials. Thus by definition, for any ensemble of molecules, the mean energy is the same. So there’s no such thing as “high energy” and “low energy” molecules. Some have more gravitational potential energy, and some have more kinetic energy, but the mean sum (PE+KE) is homogeneous.
This is long-established science first explained by Maxwell’s teacher, the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt who was the first to make realistic estimates of the size of air molecules – quite a feat in those days. He understood the effect that gravity would have on molecules in flight between collisions. So do many others now.
I write on climate blogs to help readers understand standard physics, including the thermodynamics of the atmosphere about which James Hansen has little knowledge, and what knowledge he thinks he has about radiation is completely false. As I have explained, you cannot add two or more fluxes of radiation and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations, but he did and climatologists have since been taught that is standard physics, but it’s wrong. What is correct is at http://climate-change-theory.com and I suggest you read the main paper and/or watch the 2015 video about this totally different paradigm which explains with correct standard physics just exactly how the required thermal energy gets down to the base of a planet’s troposphere, and then into any surface, crust or mantle before reaching the core. That’s what verifiable physics tells us, and what I say is verified empirically.
Centrifugal force is just as real as the force of gravity, and experiments like this show that centrifugal force also creates a stable equilibrium temperature gradient – the state of maximum entropy – as does gravity. Those in a space station experience centrifugal force acting in the opposite direction to gravity and, being equal in magnitude, thus canceling out the effect of gravity. Each force acts on molecules moving between collisions.
The very fact that we observed a radial temperature gradient due to centrifugal force in a vortex tube proves that the greenhouse conjecture is wrong, because there is no “33 degrees of warming” to be done by back radiation, since even more than that is done by gravity alone, with inter-molecular radiation (due to GH gases) reducing the temperature gradient and thus cooling the surface so it’s not at a mean around 300K.
“The very fact that we observed a radial temperature gradient due to centrifugal force in a vortex tube proves that the greenhouse conjecture is wrong”.
No it proves your thinking is invalid.
Gravity sorts Mass with low energy low in the Atmosphere
Vortex sort Mass with high energy outwards (cold air to the centre)
Thermal convection from the surface works against the Gravity gradient to produce what we see.
Thermal gradient is an observation of this later step with cold being at the top and warm being low down because that is where the heat source is.
No vortex comparison is possible.
Simple description. No fancy physics. Prize?
“Centrifugal force is just as real as the force of gravity”
It is indeed. But as I mentioned above (which you seem to have ignored) is that it may indeed be similar, but it acts differently when comparing their actions on Mass and Energy.
I believe that you have made a mistake in your calculations/thinking and missed a vital minus sign. That would then reconcile both yours and others beliefs.
Occam’s Razor then says that it is the most likely outcome. The one that requires least steps. QED.
Your belief RLH is wrong because you have not studied the response above that I have already provided in a comment above. The coolest temperatures are always where the potential energy is greatest. Obviously that is at the top of the troposphere and at the center of the vortex tube or centrifuge machine. They get temperatures down to 1K at the center of some centrifuge machines (as on my website) and, if you’ve ever ridden in a centrifuge at a theme park, I would suggest that you would have found it rather difficult to stand and jump towards the center as that requires a huge increase in your potential energy which your legs can’t provide. Just as a ball is slowed down when thrown into the air, so too are the relatively few molecules whose random motion sets them on a path that is more towards the top of the troposphere than towards the surface or, in the case of a centrifuge machine, more towards the center than towards the circumference. Occam’s razor is not based on science, and there is often ambiguity as to which is most likely or the simplest explanation. I find the explanation due to the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient the simplest and most likely – and the only one in accord with the laws of physics, because the GH conjecture is not.
I find the simple observation about which way things sort to just as valid and a lot clearer.
It demonstrates that your claim that Gravity and Vortex are the same is wrong.
You even provide, finally, a simple explanation of what you claim.
Which appears to be at odds with your final conclusions.
Missing minus as I say.
Footnote: You said, Richard, that gravity and centrifugal force act “differently when comparing their actions on Mass and Energy.”
Well, for a start, a force does not act on energy. It acts on mass and you probably remember F = ma from school boy physics. There’s no energy term in there. A force can redistribute energy, but it does not create or destroy it. If you were just referring to a redistribution then that’s fine with me. Gravity redistributes potential energy and kinetic energy, setting up a stable density gradient and a stable temperature gradient in an “ideal” troposphere when entropy is maximized.
But these forces don’t act differently on mass. The F in the above equation can be either (or any other) force. In a space station they act in the same way, but just in opposite directions, so they cancel out and men float about.
And gravity and centrifugal force act in the same way in tropospheres and vortex tubes respectively, creating temperature gradients that (for non-radiating gases) are expressed as dT/dH = -g/cp where g is the acceleration due to the relevant force and cp is the weighted mean specific heat of the gases involved. The direction in which H is measured is the opposite to that in which the force acts. Hence the direction of H in a vortex tube is inwards (towards cooler regions) and the direction of H in a planet’s troposphere is upwards, also towards cooler regions because the gradient dT/dH is negative if we use a positive value for g. Strictly speaking we shouldn’t, because once we have established the direction in which H increases we should be consistent and thus say g itself is negative because it is in the opposite direction to that in which H increases. You may be confused, but I’m right.
“You may be confused, but {I think} Im right.”
“You said, Richard, that gravity and centrifugal force act differently when comparing their actions on Mass and Energy.”
Well that’s your original observation, not mine.
The direction vortex sort energy is evidenced by the fact the cold air comes fro the centre.
The fact that is probably does not act directly on the object itself doesn’t mitigate that is what it actually does.
Cold to the centre, hot to the outside.
Gravity cold to the bottom, hot to the top.
Or are you somehow suggesting that is not true?
Oh…………… And find the missing minus.
I would help if your reply managed to keep to 10-20 lines of factual explanation. More that that and you are shouting, not discussing. You know, like you would ask any student.
RLH: It would help if you paid people the courtesy of reading and at least putting in your best effort to understand what is being said, rather than counting the lines.
I make no apology for the fact that my papers have dozens of pages in total and my 2015 video presentation takes 43 minutes. Detail is necessary: precision is necessary and physics is a very precise science. I can tell from what your write (and my experience helping physics undergraduates over five decades) that you are not used to thinking in such precise terms. For example, you keep writing about more energetic molecules, without clarifying if you are referring to total molecular energy or just the kinetic energy, which is what determines temperature. There has never been a problem regarding the sign in what I have written. That was your error because you did not make the effort to understand and think about what was being described. I don’t make such silly mistakes. Frankly it’s blatantly obvious that the molecules gain kinetic energy (warm) when they move in the direction of the force field.
Cue: If you do my work for me then I don’t have to (or similar).
I am discussing your work in the light of rational logic. My summation of what you are describing does just that. Nothing more.
The observations are apparently built on the assumption that Gravity and Vortex are two sides of the same force (or however you would wish to put that). My observation is that they are not.
Your own words and observations show that.
Vortex sort Energy, low (cold) inwards, high (hot) outwards.
Gravity sorts Energy, low (cold) downwards, high (hot) upwards.
These differ in their direction from the common effects as observed for Mass.
There is, therefore, a fundamental disconnect between what YOU have observed and what you are claiming. A missing minus?
Can you try and address that observation?
Can you also construct your response in a similar fashion that you would undoubtedly require of any student making a presentation to you? Makes for a much more, less cluttered, conversation.
Yep. The centrifugal force acts towards the outside of the vortex tube, and gravity acts towards the bottom of the troposphere. Thus it is warmer at the outside of the vortex tube and at the bottom of the troposphere. Potential energy is least in these locations, and so kinetic energy is greatest because the sum of (PE+KE) = constant. What the hell is it that you don’t understand about such a straight forward comparison?
Because you then step from what is observed to wild conjecture that is not supported by others work (or the facts apparently). A very big step that requires careful detailed explanation – not rabid shouting.
An of course I should have pointed out that you are mixing Mass and Energy when you know that they are not treated the same.
“Thus it is warmer at the outside of the vortex tube and at the bottom of the troposphere.”
Colder, heavier, mass is low not high.
Thermal energy convection from the surface then works against that to transfer energy to space.
What I say, RLH, is supported by copious empirical evidence, just some of which is mentioned on this page of my website, which has had over 14,500 visits in just under a year now. What I have explained is developed directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not from wild conjectures such as those postulated by Hansen.
When you start discussing the process of maximum entropy production (which is so highly relevant) then I shall pinpoint any errors you make with your physics. But to date your comments have not even been relevant to the “heat creep” hypothesis.
RichardLH uses the term “heavier” which is generally associated with weight in a gravitational field. What that has to do with the gas in the outer circumference of a vortex tube I have no idea. But, given that the centrifugal force is equivalent to many times the force of gravity, I suppose you could call the outer gas “heavier” and you will certainly feel heavier yourself in a centrifuge machine at a fun park. So what’s your point RLH? All you achieve is ongoing evidence (for all the silent readers to observe) that you don’t understand the process of maximum entropy production which is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about. You’re a beggar for punishment.
RichardLH writes: “Thermal energy convection from the surface then works against that to transfer energy to space.”
I have never said it doesn’t, but it’s a matter of degree. There is more thermal energy radiated out of the Earth’s surface than radiated into the surface. Conversely, there is thus more thermal energy transferred into the surface by non-radiative processes than is transferred out of the surface by evaporative cooling and conduction-cum-convection. If that were not the case, how would we get overall energy balance?
Footnote: Radiative flux does not indicate actual transfer of thermal energy as engineers and physicists know. I am talking about actual transfers of thermal energy. These only happen for each one-way pencil of radiation which is from an (effectively) hotter source to an effectively cooler target. The Second Law must be obeyed by every such (independent) pencil of radiation, regardless of what you may have been brain-washed into believing. The magnitude of such transfers is related to the radiation represented by the area between the Planck curves, as explained in this review-type paper published on several websites back in March 2012.
It is true assertions by the real Doug are not supported by other experimental facts. Doug has no correct atm. experiments. Dr. Spencer has performed a correct test on the actual atm. proving many assertions Doug makes are wrong.
“..because the sum of (PE+KE) = constant. What the hell is it that you dont understand about such a straight forward comparison?”
If Doug had ever passed atm. thermo. 101, he would then have learned PE+KE is not the conserved quantity in processes relevant to the atm. For those, enthalpy is conserved, the PE+KE+p*V conserved quantity of energy. Also enthalpy is relevant conserved quantity for the physics encountered in the vortex tube contrary to assertions by Doug.
Indeed. As I finally got to tease out of the shouted dialog I have engaged in.
DC is missing a minus sign. Simple as that.
Garbage RLH. Prove your point! Force fields create a temperature gradient such that temperatures warm in the direction of that force field. For example, they warm downwards in a planet’s troposphere because gravity acts downwards along each radius; they warm outwards in a centrifugal force field because that force field acts outwards along each radius. Experiments like this confirm that centrifugal force can indeed create cooler temperatures in the central region. Heat has been transferred (by the “heat creep” process) from there to warmer regions along each radius towards the outer circumference. So where’s the “sign” problem, RLH? Just in your confused mind I suggest.
You are totally confused Ball4 in that you mix up molecular gravitational potential energy with enthalpy. You are adding apples to oranges. There is no specific “V” (volume) involved here anyway, and pressure is irrelevant because pressure is not what maintains temperatures.
In all cases the temperature gets warmer in the direction of the force field – which is blatantly obvious because the force field, acting on molecules, increases their kinetic energy in that direction. In a centrifuge experiment they created temperatures as low as 1K at the center.
And whatever Ball4 thinks about enthalpy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics will always prevail and that law is all about entropy maximization – not at all about enthalpy. It is the Second Law which climatologists think they can get away with ignoring just because they think they show the First Law is obeyed. The Second Law is what tells us about what will tend to happen in irreversible processes that involve dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials. Of course the First Law must also be obeyed, but so what? See http://entropylaw.com
I quote from http://entropylaw.com ….
“According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a ‘law of disorder’. The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the “law of maximum entropy production” or “MEP” and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws.”
and from the linked page on the Second Law …
“The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis.”
and from Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927) …
“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.”
The real Doug: “Prove your point!” Et. al.
Insufficient, unconvincing try Doug. Point already proven by test. Beyond doubt actually.
Testing by Dr. Spencer on the actual atmosphere last northern summer proved Doug’s conjectures are wrong for all the known planets. Doug has never taken and passed a rigorous college atm. thermo. 101 course per his own admission thus misunderstands and misapplies the basic physics. Doug’s continued efforts have collapsed in the deepest of humiliations.
Sufficient evidence is Doug’s continuous fruitless efforts to convince critical, informed posters who have passed such higher level college courses based on actual experiment. For instance Doug would therein learn the basics shown by test:
Air pressure is not irrelevant.
There exists a volume of air.
Air PE is component of air enthalpy, the conserved energy quantity in relevant atm. processes (PE+KE+p*V) like the vortex tube.
Experiments would need perfect insulation for entropy to maximize; there is no perfect insulation. So entropy never maximizes in any real process.
Entropy law site gets it right, the real Doug gets it wrong as proven beyond doubt by atm. testing performed by Dr. Spencer.
What Roy did, B4, supports what I wrote in my 2012 paper about back radiation slowing the rate of radiative cooling of the surface. Of course it does – every engineer knows how to apply Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for two radiating bodies – and I wrote several pages on the topic nearly four years ago.
When you wish to discuss the process of entropy maximization and the “heat creep” hypothesis, I suggest you read about it first.
Now go to this comment.
PS: So you think entropy never increases, do you Ball4, thus tending towards a maximum? If there were no realistic close proximity to a maximum state then you might as well say that there would not be a relatively stable density gradient in a planet’s troposphere. If such a density gradient is acknowledged (being a direct result of the Second Law process) then, Ball4, you have exactly the same probability of a temperature gradient, because they are each one and the same thing – a state very close to maximum entropy.
The real Doug: “So you think entropy never increases..”
Hardly. What is it that turns Ball4 “never maximizes” into Doug “never increases”? Actually Doug, my “entropy never maximizes” means entropy always and everywhere increases. You would know this had you ever taken and passed atm. thermo 101.
Actually Dr. Spencer’s simple summer testing on the atm. disproves your 2012 paper Doug, demolishes your theory of “heat creep” and debunks pseudo-scattering & “GHGs cool rather than warm”. Doug could also have learned all this by simply passing atm. thermo. 101.
“Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis.” [source]
We are only interested in the direction in which “the world acts spontaneously to … maximize entropy” within the relevant constraints. That’s why there is a density gradient in a planet’s troposphere: it is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Those who teach “atm. thermo 1” need to update their “science” with more recent understandings of entropy and the Second Law dating from the late 1980’s.
Swenson, R. (1988). Emergence and the principle of maximum entropy production: Multi-level system
Swenson, R. (1989b). Emergent evolution and the global attractor: The evolutionary epistemology of entropy production maximization. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of The International Society for the Systems Sciences, P. Leddington (ed)., 33(3), 46-53.
Swenson, R. (1989d). Emergent attractors and the law of maximum entropy production: Foundations to a theory of general evolution. Systems Research, 6,187-1987.
No attempt to refute the “heat creep” hypothesis will be entered into unless it demonstrates that the hypothesis has been read and understood, and it then proceeds to pinpoint any assumed error in the physics. So far, in the last month or so, over 1,000 have visited my new blog and no-one has submitted an attempted refutation after having read and understood the hypothesis.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The hypothesis stands up to the most rigorous testing against any empirical evidence in the Solar System. And of course it extends well beyond the mutually exclusive radiative GH conjecture because it also explains temperatures and heat flows down to the core and in the depths of the oceans where there is a heat sink leading to the poles.
To submit your claim for AU $10,000 visit https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
And its a travesty that it hasnt.
First chuckle of the day.
Nyquist doesnt apply !!!! ????
Those words as uttered by a respected Climate Scientist are indicative, not only of staggering lack of understanding of what is being done to his data, but also it applies to not only his work but apparently of the whole field.
Nyquist Sampling Theorem applies to every picture you take, every chart you draw, every calculation you make, every machine you build.
To say it doesnt denies science.
The local thermal response to the solar input signal is first sampled as tMin/tMax over a day. That is the input frequency, modulated by orbital factors to provide the annual local cycle.
Nyquist also tells us that sampling hourly will get more accurate results than a simple tMin, tMax but we do not have that accuracy in most temperature series.
Nyquist is about the digitisation of an underlying signal, not the digitALisation. Applies to paper records as well as machine derivations.
We are trying to assess the local power transfer curve and its related usage to later compare to abstract, computer based, models of the same thing.
GIGO is not just a phrase, it is a real and living danger in all we do.
Each pixel in a photograph, each point you place on a chart, etc. have at their core Nyquist. It displays ignorance, not intelligence to make the claim that his work is irrelevant.
It also immediately labels all work that has that phrase attached that is has GIGO all over it.
For those who wish the academic view of Nyquist then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem will provide some clues.
A sufficient sample-rate is therefore 2B samples/second, or anything larger. Equivalently, for a given sample rate fs, perfect reconstruction is guaranteed possible for a bandlimit B < fs/2.
When the bandlimit is too high (or there is no bandlimit), the reconstruction exhibits imperfections known as aliasing. Modern statements of the theorem are sometimes careful to explicitly state that x(t) must contain no sinusoidal component at exactly frequency B, or that B must be strictly less than the sample rate. The two thresholds, 2B and fs/2 are respectively called the Nyquist rate and Nyquist frequency. And respectively, they are attributes of x(t) and of the sampling equipment. The condition described by these inequalities is called the Nyquist criterion, or sometimes the Raabe condition. The theorem is also applicable to functions of other domains, such as space, in the case of a digitized image. The only change, in the case of other domains, is the units of measure applied to t, fs, and B.
Notice space tucked in there? That means horizontal separation between point samples in Nyquist terminology.
And for the sake of this discussion a temperature map, however derived, is a digital image.
OK. So we are not going to proceed further in our thinking until we create an abstract experiment that will show Nyquist is present everywhere. This is abstract, not real, so please no distractions.
We are tasked with designing an experiment to prove the validity and accuracy of the work being done at a local site. Consider this a external, quality control, review step, to determine how best to spend our money.
There are 3 simple statements we are asked to consider.
1. Moving from tMin and tMax to an hourly sampled instrument will improve quality of the data. Yes or No.
2. Adding in extra instruments at 2m height (say 10 times the number we have now) across the sample area will improve the quality of the data. Yes or No.
3. Adding in extra instruments above and below the plane of the existing one(s) will improve the quality of the data. Yes or No.
Obviously we now see how Nyquist applies.
1. Is a statement of Nyquist in time.
2. Is a statement of Nyquist in the horizontal plane.
3. Is a statement of Nyquist in the vertical plane.
RichardLH:
Direct radiation reaching the surface of Earth, Venus or any such planet with a significant atmosphere is not the primary determinant of the surface temperature. For example, the mean Solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface (less than 170W/m^2 in all the energy diagrams) is like that from an iceberg at about 40 degrees below freezing point, whilst the radiation from the atmosphere is like that from a body with the weighted mean temperature of the atmosphere – probably below freezing point also. You cannot add the two fluxes and use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Two colds don’t make a hot. But the energy diagrams (and the computer models) imply that you can add these fluxes. If it were correct that you could do so, then, if one electric bar radiator could raise an object to 350K you would have to demonstrate that 16 such radiators could raise it to somewhere near 700K. Until you do so, you have no empirical evidence to even start to support the radiative forcing GH conjecture. So I suggest you cease promulgating a hoax for which you have neither empirical evidence or valid physics supporting what you say. (Continued here.)