Home/Blog
The frost flower arrangement I made a time lapse video of last night.
Due to El Nino, our warm winter has delayed the frost flower formation by about a month. The first ones showed up two nights ago, when it reached about 26 deg. F. Then last night I set up my camera for time lapse photos, even though the stems were partially shredded and it looked like the temperature might not dip below 30 deg. F, which is barely cold enough for the frost flowers to form.
But this morning there was a rather nice display. The following video compresses 12 hours into 30 seconds, from about 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Be sure to click on the full-screen icon, since this is high-def video, and you can watch the ribbons of ice grow.
So, what does this have to do with global warming, you ask? Well, if not for global warming, the temperature would have been 2 deg. F colder and the flowers would have been 15% bigger, of course.
Another casualty of human-caused climate change.
You can read more about the mechanism of frost flower formation here.
“So, what does this have to do with global warming, you ask? Well, if not for global warming, the temperature would have been 2 deg. F colder and the flowers would have been 15% bigger, of course.”
Who says?
From what date?
On the basis of what evidence?
Is it not almost certainly the case that the US is colder today than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s? prior to the endless adjustments to the thermometer record, this is what the thermometer record use to indicate.
Maybe Dr. Roy just left the sarc tag off.
yup. my bad.
Magical 😉
Great video production! You can’t find this stuff anywhere else.
(All that ground clutter should make for some great Copperhead hunts in summer.)
by coincidence, it is exactly where I stumbled across a timber rattlesnake. Put out traps, but it never appeared again.
You got a bird feeder? Hang it in the back, keep it full. The birds will scatter the seeds on the ground. Then the rodents will hang around. You will see your timber rattler again, I promise.
Oh, I have lots of birds, birdseed, and critters. Only saw one rattler in 12 years living here…kind of surprised.
I would imagine that you don’t miss having them. Some areas are infested with timber rattlers, if the rat population is large enough. I have heard a report on one such area. Rats were prolific, so were timber rattlers. One came into their house one fine spring day when they left the back door open. That is, a rattler, not a rat.
I prefer my rattlers at a further remove.
But, that doesn’t look like Capital Hill…Oh,Sorry, wrong vipers nest.
Roy Spencer says:
“by coincidence, it is exactly where I stumbled across a timber rattlesnake. Put out traps, but it never appeared again.”
Leave the rattlesnakes alone and just walk around them. They have just as much right to live as you do.
So does the spider that wondered into my place the other day, probably looking for some warmth. Unfortunately, I do not tolerate spiders sharing space with me, so I inevitably squashed it.
I hope that doesn’t make you feel too bad David Appell.
Mathius: what so hard about just scooping the spider up and letting him out the door?
David,
I suppose you also catch mosquitoes and flies and help them out the door. Do you also tolerate bacteria, yeast and fungi, or do you sterilize, clean, use the refrigerator, and antiseptics?
I mean really, do you brush your teeth and use deodorant? If so, where is the line of what you allow to live and what not? Do you gather your food from the floor of the forest or do you buy it in a store where they’re busy killing all kinds of critters to keep them at bay.
Further the farmers do the same as do those who make sure the groceries hit the shelves.
Yes, I do try to scoop up bugs, insects and spiders and let them out the door.
It’s rather hard to do this with organisms I can’t see, as you might imagine if you had tried to think about this at all.
David you stated “They have just as much right to live as you do.” No not in the least, dangers animals need to be control, out in the wild yes, leave them alone, where they in ones backyard they can kill you or worst children or domestic animals. Wild dangerous animals do not belong in back yards. Rattle snakes do not belong in someones back yard. Only and idiot would think so, the same for timber wolves, bears, coyotes and Mountain lions. There are also a number of animals you don’t want in your back yard like rats, mice, raccoon and skunks. Rats harbor Buboinic plague, mice hantavirus, Raccoon and skunks harbor rabies I David I don’t know if you have young children of grand children but if you do God help them. The unfortunate part they would be perfect candidates for a Darwin award once or twice remove because of their farther’s or grandfather’s stupidity. The stupid is see on parade of stupidity I see in front of me daily to day in this modern world where idiot get soap boxes to stand makes me want to become a hermit, God I at my age I finding extremely difficult to stand the fools paraded in fount of me every day!
If you really believe what you say fine, if you believe snakes of rat have the same right to life as you, I will put you in a room with two pairs of rats for a year. I will feed you and the rats the same amount of food every day for a year and I will build a side room for the rats to live out of you reach, I know one thing for sure at the end of the year the rats will have consumed you. For a while you would live in hell on earth as the rats multiply and the food need get to short for them. They will slow nibble you to death. They have no morals to them it only survival and your survival, to them it is of no concern. To bad you don’t understand that!
Mark Luhman says:
“David you stated They have just as much right to live as you do. No not in the least, dangers animals need to be control, out in the wild yes, leave them alone, where they in ones backyard they can kill you or worst children or domestic animals.”
I think the rattlesnake has just as much right to live on this Earth as you do. You aren’t special.
If you exert physical violence against the snake, someday someone/something may well do the same to you. That will change your mind real fast, but too late.
Yes he or I or any human are special enough to kill it or trap it or do what we want with it. I certainly respect the right of any property owner to make his property safe for his family and visitors, be it from stings or bites. You apparently don’t.
David is very gentle with our six and eight-legged friends: fleas, ticks, lice, he bids them welcome and makes sure that they are comfortable, David does.
David Again you do not have a clue about anything I said and how real life works, I don’t want a rattle snake in my back yard any more than bear, and yes I had mountain lions in my back yard and it did not belong there thank good no one got hurt on that one. The snake only works on instinct you cannot reason with it, it is in you back yard looking for food the reason it need to be in your back yard it some other rattle snake chased it out of its territory. It is excessive to the population and it survival is marginal anyway to the species it is unimportant. If a Bobcat finds a rattle snake he/she will kill it. They don’t want them in their back yard either. They may or may not eat it. You somehow equate animals on par with humans, you have no understanding about nature and how it operates. Grass eater are food for meat eaters, small animals are food for larger animals, animals in the could careless how you feel about them, they are two busy trying to survive. I you get in their way of their survival they will eliminate you if they can. They will have no remorse about it. I have encountered numerous rattlesnakes in the wild we both mutually survived the encounter and yes I do have photographs of them. If I find one in my yard it is dead, it irrespirable to not do that for it does not belong in our environment and I am certain the bobcat and quail in my back yard would agree with me. I am also not stupid enough to thinking capture it and releasing it back into the wild would accomplish anything, any place you release it, if a rattlesnake can exist there, there will be one there already there and there cannot be two, one has to die. You and so many people now days do not understand that basic fact. In our modern world so many people now days are so stupid they don’t understand why and how thing work here on earth they somehow want to live in story book world and somehow the rest of us must put up with their stupid ideas. David you are certainly one of them. As far as wanton killing, pollution the damaging the land we live yes that as just as stupid as the story book life you think exist. David I have only one regret in life and that not being able to spend more time in truly wild place watching the cycle of life, but I will protect my self and my family from that cycle of life and have no remorse about it. Nature could careless about you, me or a rattlesnake, there are no rights in nature only the survival of the fittest. To bad more people don’t understand that basic fact. So next time David you see a bear walk up to in and get that close-up photo most of the time a bear will not figuratively or literally charge you but if he does I certain you will make a nice meal. After human money has no value to him but human protein does.
Humans have killed far more humans, by orders of magnitudes, than have rattlesnakes.
If you’re really worried about human deaths, that’s where you should start your crusade.
Seriously David? If you suffered bubonic plague bacterial infection would you view the organism as having the same supposed right to exist as yourself? Do you believe your life would be in danger from killing the invading organism in your system? Do you think karma means you can never defend your body against an invasive threat by an attacking organism lest some other organism attacks you? If so, very few people leave this world without having experienced death and many have died as a result of attacking organisms why do you fear prolonging your life?
Hope the best for you and have a great day!
John: Rattlesnakes don’t cause bubonic plague, do they?
David states:
“John: Rattlesnakes dont cause bubonic plague, do they?”
That is probably why I referred to Bubonic Plague BACTERIA in my post as a response. The point being if you accept the power to destroy inconvenient or dangerous bacterial life forms and do not claim the same power over other life forms then you apparently believe some life forms have some kind of right to life and some do not and discriminate. How exactly is that different from people like me who believe humans are a higher form than others?
Have a great day!
Mark Luhman wrote:
“If you really believe what you say fine, if you believe snakes of rat have the same right to life as you, I will put you in a room with two pairs of rats for a year. I will feed you and the rats the same amount of food every day for a year and I will build a side room for the rats to live out of you reach, I know one thing for sure at the end of the year the rats will have consumed you.”
This is a totally artificial, created environment, and it is not relevant to the real world.
I walked right over a rattlesnake once, in New Mexico, and didn’t even notice. But the third guy in line did. We were stupid 15-yr olds and killed that snake with a rock. I regret that still.
20 years later there was a rattlesnake on the trail in Connecticut. We looked at it, marveled at it, took some pictures, then walked wide around it and kept going. No problem at all.
“They have just as much right to live as you do.”
How quaint and condescendingly anthropocentric.
The only time a Rattler gets to exert its ‘right’ is when it sinks its fangs into you.
Otherwise, herpetic ‘rights’ appear little more than anthropocentric eco-marxism rhetoric aimed at achieving the delusion of intellectual egalitarianism across the animal and plant kingdoms.
‘Rights’ Appell are just fine until one runs out of intellect, usually at around the same time those fangs penetrate your quivering rump and deliver their lethal venomous cocktail.
Right, I used to tolerate copperhead, with their attractive dead-leaf patterns. Until one night one of them bit my daughter on the foot.
Humans have killed far, far more humans than have rattlesnakes.
Stuff your eco-marxism label bullshit.
Rattlesnake Statistics
Approximately 8,000 people a year receive venomous snakebites in the U.S., 9-15 victims die. (FDA)
25% of adult rattlesnake bites are dry, with no venom injected. (Brown, 1997)
Rattlesnakes can only strike a distance equal to 1/2 their own length
http://www.desertusa.com/reptiles/rattlesnake-bites-spring.html
I suppose you don’t swat mosquitoes either. Maybe you think the world health organization’s smallpox eradication was a crime against your precious environmental politics. I really don’t know what makes you people on the left tick. Darn sure isn’t common sense.
*”They have just as much right to live as you do.”*
Speak for yourself.
Who is it that granted the rattlesnake the right to live wherever it wants?
Thanks for the video, Dr. Spencer.
These frost flowers look magical in their beauty!
That’s really nice. I’ll send the link to friends that will like this.
Will you, please, list the equipment you use.
We have about 18″ of very white global warming covering everything. No flowers or anything much showing.
Mule Deer are eating Ponderosa Pine needles.
[East of the Cascade Crest in Washington State.]
Canon 6D on a Ravelli APGL4 tripod, Canon AC power cord (to allow 12 hrs of photos), a cheap intervalometer for the camera to trigger the shutter once a minute, Canon 24-70 mm macro lens at 70 mm, f/10.0 for increased depth of field, 0.6 sec exposures, 2 table lamps with LED bulbs (daylight color balance).
I like your work on time lapse of rare events. It looks like your camera is also slowly zooming in on the flowers. Did you have some autodrive on the focusing lens?
The zoom is done during rendering of the video in Adobe After Effects…you can pan and zoom digitally…commonly used technique.
Thanks.
Thanks.
I’ve heard of them and seen pictures of them but I’d never seen a video of one forming.
Dr. Spencer, very cool video, thanks for all the effort.
Does this mean that if I put herbicide on my truck windshield there will not be any frost flowers on it to scrape off before I leave for work each morning up here in New York State ???
I once had snow/ice pellets fill up the cowl vent (outside in front of the windshield) and stall the windshield wipers, had to fetch a pail of warm water to melt them out of the way so I could run the wipers and see out the windshield to get to work.
Kinda of a “freak” occurrence (once in a decade), but I bet it was climate change… (wink, wink).
Cheers, Kevin.
How did you know the flower would grow at that spot? Did you pant a seed? I am thinking of ways to preserve such flowers- perhaps a flash-freezing method.
They “bloomed” the night before, so I picked one I thought would do well the next night. The flowers are too delicate to move…they just fall apart.
Once a perennial plant with an active root system (as Vebesina virginica) has ‘bloomed’, there will be repeat performances thoughout the winter until the stem finally becomes too damaged, the soil no longer provides moisture via the roots, or the root begins to shift into supporting new spring growth (in Central Texas already in late February). A second performance, as shown by Roy, tends to be stronger because the channels of the plants vascular structure have been enlarged by the first freeze.
A very fascinating video. It seems that the water is “extracted” from the plants itself and then extruded out through the stem wall. One wonders about the thermodynamics / mechanics behind the actual movement.
Best Regards
Sven
from a cold Sweden where we experienced the lowest temperature since 1999 last night, -42,8 Centigrade
In Denmark it is called nisseskg. May be translated to elf beard.
Seek on “inverted ice sicles” https://www.google.dk/search?q=inverted+ice+sickles&biw=1280&bih=901&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj22YHWr5jKAhXJFywKHZJoAvwQsAQIHA
And you will get a lot of strange forms made of water and ice.
The ‘frost flowers’ shown by Roy are very different from the inverted ice sicles,’ involving the vascular structure of the plant from root to stem, up vertically and then making a 90 degree turn to the edge of the stem, where the freezing water emerges like tiny spigots aligned along vertical rows determined by the stem anatomy. These create bands of ice.
Roy wrote:
“Another casualty of human-caused climate change.”
It’s funny, Roy, how you never talk about the real casualities of climate change, like the 2,500 dead in last summer’s heat wave in India, or the 2,000 dead in Pakistan.
That’s odd, considering how — being a Christian and all — you like to pretend you care about the poor.
David, you are a sick individual, relishing those deaths for the sake of flinging darts at Dr. Roy.
Thanks Dr.Spencer for an another nice time lapse video.
Just a question (maybe silly because I’m an absolute ignorant in time lapse equipment), I see a little but progressive zoom-in effect as the the time lapses, was that programmed by you or what else?
Have a nice 2016.
@ David Appell,
Being a Christian too, I suppose that I could reply to you in place of Dr. Spencer in this case:
We are Christians not idiots !!!
Massimo
Massimo: Why do you think Spencer didn’t mention the thousands of poor people who died last year from heat waves in southern Asia?
The global warmers have their sights on killing millions. Your program is planned genocide, David Appell.
Notice how you choose to speak crap instead of addressing the question.
Why are you not concerned about cold weather, which brings a higher mortality for all life? You are nothing but a hypocrite alarmist who revels in death for the sake of broadcasting your Cause.
David I won’s crap and will address you question, although I do think you confused about who speaks crap.
They would be so poor or dead if they had cheap and plentiful electric at their disposable. Last I check the humans invented something called air condition to prevent that. Seems to me as a Christian David you should out making sure electric would be available to every human earth since it is the single on item that makes most of us live long and prosper. Instead you as Warmer want to deny them that so in my book David you are responsible for their deaths.
To top that off it is all over a believe in a theory based on a possible recent uptick in temperature. When the reality is the temperature has been decline overall for the last eight thousand years, and when you consider the little ice age was some of the coldest time since the last ice age we should as Christians thank God it is warming up. David I was born and lived most of my life in a place where twenty thousand year earlier there was a mile of ice above it and the environment I knew as natural has only existed for less then fifteen thousand years. Somehow humans and animals and the environment seems to adjust rather well with climate change and any thing we are going through today is a walk in the park during the summer as opposed to the blizzard that is coming, those glaciers will return to North America and there is nothing you or I can do about it, enjoy the warmth why we have it that is why I moved to Arizona.
Oh buy the way I do hike in the heat that way I don’t have to worry about rattlesnakes, The can’t stand to be out above 95 F it will kill them yet in Arizona we have some the most dense population of rattlesnake anywhere, somehow the heat does not kill they which it can and does if they get caught out in it. Lastly the limit on the human population in the desert is not heat it is water, proper hydrated most humans can survive that heat, not true about the cold. 80 F and above humans can survive rather nicely with out covering, shelter and heat, below with covering shelter and heat humans are dead. You not much of a Christian and you don’t know much about humans or nature.
Mark Luhman says:
“They would be so poor or dead if they had cheap and plentiful electric at their disposable.”
Correcting for your bad sentence construction…you are wrong if you think poor Indians and Africans do not have power today because of concerns over global warming.
About two months ago I interviewed the Director of a DC organization. He grew up in India. He told me that many poor, rural Indian villages have high tension electricity lines running near their villages, some within less than a mile. But this electricity never comes to these villages because the powers that be just can’t their act together to wire up the “last mile” — it’s just not their priority.
Homes in India and Africa and other extremely poor nations will get electricity from rooftop solar far before the powers that be manage to wire them in from the outside — just as they now have phone lines from cellular towers instead of lines brought in from the outside. Local power is what will improve their lives the fastest, not building a complete infrastructure that just happens to wire up their homes.
Hi David Appell,
“Local power is what will improve their lives the fastest, not building a complete infrastructure that just happens to wire up their homes.”
Ok, now try to move them out from their misery without making any reliable energy infrastructure.
The only reason they can’t get improvement of their lives from the reliable infrastructure is a political issue, not a technical issue.
How could you don’t understand this?
Have a great day.
Massimo
It doesn’t MATTER if it’s just a political issue. It’s STILL an issue. One no one wants to wait around for to be solved, when installing rooftop solar or community solar is so much easier.
mpainter says:
“Why are you not concerned about cold weather, which brings a higher mortality for all life?”
How many are dying of cold?
Some elderly Britians whom the conservative British government was too cheap to take care of and see that they have a proper furnace?
Such people aren’t dying in Canada. Or Finland. Or Sweden. Or Alaska.
So what is Britian’s problem?
It makes absolutely no sense to warm up the entire planet just so that some mistreated elders in Great Britian don’t die of cold.
Just as it makes no sense to cool down your entire house so the butter left out on the table doesn’t melt.
Far better to invest in a refrigerator, and store the butter there.
David Appell, the greatest benefit of the modern age is inexpensive and abundant energy. All other benefits flow from that, and this means the use of fossil fuels which do not pollute when certain safeguards are employed, crank science notwithstanding.
Cold kills. Fossil fuels keep us warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Our prosperity is based on fossil fuels, for which renewables is no alternative. Wise up.
Ok David Appell,
“It doesnt MATTER if its just a political issue. Its STILL an issue. One no one wants to wait around for to be solved, when installing rooftop solar or community solar is so much easier.”
Really?
Ok, so don’t be hypocrite, if it was as you stated above detach your home electric plant completely from the power grid and try to live the way you are doing today using your “so much easier to install” rooftop solar plant or the community solar plants.
Let me see that you are right and I’m wrong.
I wait for the photos of your home standalone solar plant which demonstrate us that it could make you live the current level of life you are living today.
If it’s a political issue then it must be solved. Especially when those political bureaucrats that don’t want solve the issue are the very same that in the name of saving the world want charge the western country with the bills of their economic improvement (I’m thinking to India of course).
Have a great day.
Massimo
David, your sanctimony is truly disgusting. It is not meant to win hearts and minds, but to shut down opposition. It is the trite modus operandi of an old, boring, leftist who is losing the argument (or has no argument). You come into this blog at the Dr.s forbearance to give your opinion, and even to shamelessly slander his motives in a vain attempt to disguise you own. Your sanctimony IS truly disgusting.
jimc: I asked where is Roy Spencer’s Christianity, which he likes to wear on his sleeve.
It’s a good question, and I couldn’t care less whether you like it or not.
Well David,
In the grand scheme of things 2000 Indians out of 1.23 billion doesn’t even count as a heat wave or a tragedy. 2000 people or more die every single day in India for no reason at all. That is what happens in 3rd world countries. Of course you would like to keep them a third world country by restricting their use of coal to build the infrastructure that helps the whole country out of poverty. I would imagine if you bother to check, that many people die each year here in the US from either heat stroke or cold weather.
David Thompson: 2500 Indians don’t count?
What a horrible, inhuman thing to say.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Appell, you are the exponent of genocide. May we be saved from your type.
Davie, you are always pathetically desperate, but this comment was desperately pathetic.
geran: Spencer recently wrote about “6”-10″ of global warming for Chicago, Detroit”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/6-10-of-global-warming-for-chicago-detroit/
Why do you think he wrote this — disparaging the idea of global warming — while ignoring the thousands of deaths due to excessive heat last summer?
David Appell, are you implying such heat waves would not occur if it weren’t for climate change?
It isn’t unreasonable to suspect that heat waves will increase in intensity as the planet continues to get warmer.
The IPCC says “there is medium confidence that the length or number
of warm spells or heat waves3 has increased.”
– IPCC SREX SPM pg 8 (2012)
So, yes, I am concerned about very poor people dying in heat waves.
” I am concerned about very poor people dying in heat waves.”
And so say all of us, David.
So let’s divert the billions that are being wasted (seeing that we now know for certain that CO2 does not warm the surface) and invest it in a few air conditioners, frigs, fans, ice boxes, umbrellas, insulation for their homes etc. There will be no significant warming till after 2028, and then it will only be about half a degree by 2058 before long term (500 year) cooling sets in.
@David Appell,
You and yours IPCC “scientists” must firstly provide a real proof that any heat wave index as increased because of CO2 (what the heck is a “heat waves” indeed?), correlation is not causation… Bla, bla, bla…
And after that, you (and yours IPCC “scientists”) must provide a real proof that those people really dead for those “heat waves”.
Earth population is growing almost everywhere, this means that the conditions of life is improving these days, and this is also (and mainly) because of the current CO2- poducing-energy-based-economies.
Your “renewable-non-producing-CO2” alternatives, are just a chimera for the moment and if applied to the world economy almost surely will kill more people than CO2 (if one day someone demonstrates that CO2 killed someone indeed).
What it wonders me is that you are the one who replying to someone here (I suppose it was mpainter, but I’m not sure) said that no real scientist exaggerates the effects of CO2.
WOW!! Saying that some 4500 people died in overpopulated place such us India and Packistan died can be related to an increment of few celsius last summer is surely not an exaggeration in your wearmistas mind.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/pakistan-population/
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/
Be serious on this site you are not on real climate 🙂
Have a great day using our dirty CO2 based technology for work, play and live your life.
Massimo
And people die for other reasons, David, such as when Australia specifically diverts $200 million out of humanitarian aid for developing countries – money that could have paid for hospitals, medical training, pharmaceuticals and operations to save eyesight at about $30 a time.
I absolutely agree with you Doug.
Italian politics isn’t so different than Australia politics, I see.
Have a very happy 2016.
Massimo
David Appell states:
“The IPCC says there is medium confidence that the length or number
of warm spells or heat waves3 has increased.
IPCC SREX SPM pg 8 (2012)”
In other words, they think there exists a 50-50 chance that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased which only means they don’t really know! Toss a coin. Heads you have a heat wave, tails you don’t. What’s their confidence that the number of cold spells or below freezing temperature days have increased and/or decreased? Could it go either way? Would it worry you also? Or is it not PC to be concerned about such things? Or should we tell the potential corpsicles suck up the CO2 and enjoy the supposed warmth?
Have a great day!
John, if you keep burrowing your head in the sand, your ass is going to get scorched.
David,
My posterior won’t be scorched even if we should finally leave the ICE AGE which hasn’t happened despite dumping enormous volumes of carbon into the atmosphere for over a century. However, if you apparently continue to accept every carbon paranoid report by the IPCC and perhaps bury your face in Hansen’s posterior the inevitable brown-nosed fate of anti-carbon credulity may fall upon you. Moreover, you face an opposite dilemma. Since you seem up to your neck in Climate model projections of imminent doom and pseudo-science paranoia that .2 w^m2 per decade increase in carbon emitted IR may soon jeopardize your future and that of the planet’s and your exposed head appears lightly protected by reason you run the danger of becoming half-baked if not fully baked. This may happen when you can no longer distinguish between your head and your posterior. Did I just hear the oven timer? Got to go…
Have a great day!
JohnKl says:
“My posterior wont be scorched even if we should finally leave the ICE AGE which hasnt happened despite dumping enormous volumes of carbon into the atmosphere for over a century.”
What an ignorant statement.
We are now warming 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last glacial period.
This isn’t normal, and we have no idea if species, even our own, can tolerate such a change.
—
Data:
Our current rate of warming is about 30 times faster than when the last ice age was ending.
From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.4 C
global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is +0.0 C
so the average temperature change is 3.4 C in 7000 years, or ~ 0.005 C/decade, compared to GISTEMP’s current 30-year trend of 0.16 C/decade
So that’s a factor of 32 now compared to then
David Appell, I’ve never seen such an awful bogus use of statistics before in my life.
“global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.4 C
global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is +0.0 C
so the average temperature change is 3.4 C in 7000 years, or ~ 0.005 C/decade, compared to GISTEMPs current 30-year trend of 0.16 C/decade
So thats a factor of 32 now compared to then”
So I guess the climate changed in a uniform manner over that entire 7,000 year period, correct?
Using my own David Appell logic, if I assume the Earth was about 10C warmer at the time of the Cambrian Explosion than now, then according to my calculations… climate must’ve changed at a rate of 1.84501845e-7 C/Decade! Holy crap, it’s changing at a much faster rate than that today! This is extremely concerning!
David, don’t your hands get really smelly when you throw that much BS around?
David states:
“What an ignorant statement.
We are now warming 30 times faster than when the Earth left its last glacial period.”
Unfortunately for David, you never proved one word of my quoted statement to be false. We’re still in an ICE AGE and we have been dumping enormous quantities of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. The recent rate of climate change proves irrelevant to the observation. Do you always find factual statements to be ignorant?
As to the theoretical claim made by the nature article, based on ice-core proxies, regarding the imagined environment approximately 7000 years ago, who cares? Apparently, we cannot go back in time to empirically verify their claim one way or another so you in effect simply ask us to take the researchers claim as evidence, how un-scientific of you in my opinion.
You go on to state:
“This isnt normal, and we have no idea if species, even our own, can tolerate such a change.”
Mathius dealt with you alarmist panic pretty well I thought.
Have a great day!
All of what the IPCC has said has not resulted in stopping any of the very poor people from dying from anything.
If all the people in the world were to slavishly to follow all IPCC recommendation, not one very poor person be prevented from dying from anything.
Over the last few decades, in which IPCC has provided a working holidays for people who are clueless about climate, trade and economic growth has prevented millions of very poor
people from dying.
Since IPCC opposes economic growth, it’s only their inability
and general incompetency to get people to follow what they recommend which has resulted saving very poor people.
I requires massive stupidity to think IPCC represents the interest of very poor people, obviously IPCC represents the elites of the countries which engage in lavish holidays have been and are keeping the very poor people from having enough wealth.
So, yes, I am concerned about very poor people dying in heat waves.
so cities are up to 16 degrees+ hotter than the surrounding countryside, far hotter than the expected 2 degrees rise by 2100.
mr Appell, could you point out where the poor are dying in heatwaves,
wow things really are getting worse
“CYCLONES, DROUGHTS, FLOODS;
HEATWAVES :
A fortnight’s heat wave opened the
year. It spread over the west and ex
tended to the coast. Brisbane having 10
successive days with the thermometer
over 90 degrees.
A record city temperature of 109.8 de
grees \vns logged, and a record hot night
with the lowest temperature at 82.4 degrees also occurred.
In his summary of 1940 weather which
will be produced shortly, Mr. Richards
touches on the flooded opening of the
year, when in January and February
the north coast and parts of the Car
pentaria were inundated. Then on top
of this came the heat wave which lasted
for a fortnight. It killed stock inland,
and caused a number of deaths in Bris
bane, and. its duration here was the
second greatest on record. . On two suc
cessive days the thermometer here
reached 100 degrees, and on two nights
it failed to record anything lower than
80 degrees.
SEVEN CYCLONES STRIKE NORTH.
Then followed the cyclones seven’ of
I hem one after another.
Two crossing the coast caused inesti
mable, damage about the vicinity of
Townsville, while the remainder, keep
ing out to sea. gave parts of the north
a taste of their intensity in the shape
of properly destruction from ‘ high
winds, and in* the record floods they
caused mainly in the tropical interior,
Placid rivers soon hecame raging tor
rents, railway bridges were carried
away, people were drowned, and thous
ands of pounds worth nf properly was
swept away by the waters which kept
at flood, levels for the best part- of a
month.
WINTER AND A DROUGHT.
Then winter came and with it one
of the longest and most severe droughts
on record in some areas. In July the
eighth cyclone, a most unusual out of
season disturbance, whipped the coast
about Mackay.
As the winter progressed ‘slock losses
in the south from the drought became
as heavy as those in Ihe north’ during
the summer- from the floods. On the
southern border and in the south
eastern quarter there followed one ot the
driest seven – months period on record,
almost as bad as. those. of 1902,’ 1919, and
1936. ?
Districts affected worst were – those
from the far west to the Downs. They
missed the bountiful summer rains – which
gave good conditions over most of the
pastoral sections of the State. The south
eastern divisions which had very good
summer rains gradually deteriorated with
marked effect on the dairying and agri
cultural industries.
oh sorry this was 1940.
richard: Can’t read? I already pointed to India and Pakistan, last summer.
David, I find it hard to believe you do not understand the argument that fossil fuels have enabled humanity to live much longer and more prosperous lives.
Heat waves always have occurred, always will occur, and the best defense against them is prosperity.
Besides, we have no large scale replacements for fossil fuels, anyway (except to massively increase nuclear power). You know this. Current renewable technology is feeble and expensive.
Why do you persist in these demonstrably false claims? You must be smarter than this. I hope.
Roy
I “find it hard to believe you do not understand the argument that” the Sun’s mean radiation of 168W/m^2 reaching Earth’s surface is nowhere near sufficient to explain, let alone raise each morning, the existing surface temperature.
By taking the “Luke” position, Roy, you reinforce general belief in the totally false physics dreamed up by James Hansen regarding back radiation supposedly helping the Sun to raise the surface temperature. It’s not right, Roy, and you work against yourself. I know it’s hard to back down, but the correct physics I have explained will win out in the long run, and the longer you take to acknowledge it’s correct, and “get with it” then the more embarrassed you will be about-facing perhaps years down the track. The slight cooling will continue at least until 2028 so, by then, people will start to realize I have the reason for the (cooler) seasons.
https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
Roy W. Spencer says:
“David, I find it hard to believe you do not understand the argument that fossil fuels have enabled humanity to live much longer and more prosperous lives.”
Roy: you prefer not to distinguish between fossil fuels burned in the US versus those burned elsewhere.
You think that if fossil fuels benefit poor Indians, they benefit you. So you shouldn’t have to pay for clean energy.
That’s completely wrong. Your fossil fuel use, Roy, creates more damage than value:
“Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 164975 (2011).
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.
Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).
Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.
Roy, I’m sure you make a very very nice salary at a UofA professor. So why can’t you afford to pay for clean energy?
Stop using poor Indians as your excuse.
Because Indians benefit from local fossil fuel use does not mean they don’t suffer from global fossil fuel pollution — which the US has created more of than any other country.
“Heat waves always have occurred, always will occur, and the best defense against them is prosperity.”
A convenient answer. When was the last time 2,500 Indians died from a heat wave because they could not reduce their body tempertures to essential levels?
“Besides, we have no large scale replacements for fossil fuels, anyway (except to massively increase nuclear power). You know this. Current renewable technology is feeble and expensive.”
Bull. Simply bullshit. First, I support nuclear power. Second, I know the analysis that says fossil fuels create more damage than value. Where is your concern, Roy, for the babies who dies of neurotoxins from coal, of those who die from lung issues?
You like to write about “10 inches of global warmning in Detroit.” You never write about the really serious issues — you ignore them.
David Appell, the greatest benefit of the modern age is inexpensive and abundant energy. All other benefits flow from that, and this means the use of fossil fuels which do not pollute when certain safeguards are employed, crank science notwithstanding.
@David Appel..”Its funny, Roy, how you never talk about the real casualities of climate change, like the 2,500 dead in last summers heat wave in India, or the 2,000 dead in Pakistan”.
Someone doesn’t understand the difference between climate and weather.
Someone doesn’t understand how a warmer climate influences local extremes.
Someone doesn’t understand the bigger picture.
How many people would’ve died to that heat wave if humans had never interacted with the climate, David? 0? 500? 1,000? 2,000? 4,000? You literally have no idea. No one does.
How about all the people that perhaps survived because due to experiencing a mild winter due to “man made climate change”? (If that even makes any sense…) While not quantifiable, I could just as easily argue people didn’t die due to lack of extreme weather. Your argument is full of holes.
There are so many variables to any weather event it is impossible to narrow it down to one cause.
One thing that you can put numbers on are the deaths due to extreme weather around the world, which have been on the downward trend as a percentage of total population. It likely has nothing to do with the weather itself at all and entirely dependent on technological advances.
Hi David Appell:
“Someone doesnt understand how a warmer climate influences local extremes.”
Yes, I don’t understand.
So try to explain me it using the laws of physics, if you can.
Of course, statistics is no way a law of physics.
Statistics can just allow conjectures about relationships between events, it says nothing about the causality relations between them.
Have a great day.
Massimo
GOOD POINT
Humanity acting in a rational way can change the cruel natural environment for the better.
A good example is the dams that tamed the Yangtze river.
“Chinese authorities estimate that some 300,000 people were killed in the 20th century’s largest Yangtze River floods.
Officials believe that the dam will protect some 15 million people from such deadly waters, as well as 1.5 million acres (607,000 hectares) of farmland.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060609-gorges-dam_2.html
I notice David is very concerned about deaths from heat waves during the Ramadan fast but has nothing to say about the 180 or so British pensioners dieing for the cold each day during the height of the winter.
Besides the fact is that Malaria has and still does kill far more humans than anything else on earth. Over 600,000 last year alone. Think of how many of those lives would have been saved had even 1/4 the money dumped down the AGW and alternative energy black holes had been invested in addressing that great killer.
Davie, AGW is a fantasy. CO2 is not a heat source, it brings no heat into a system. The IPCC nonsense is pseudoscience. Imaginary AGW does not cause deaths. You are clinging to a failed cause, trying to make yourself feel important.
You can afford to live in your fantasyworld. Meanwhile others are already suffering, and many more will, for your refusal to address reality.
Clearly you, and Roy, couldn’t care less.
It’s far far easier to profess concern for the poor and sufferers than to actually live up to that concern.
In other words, denial is also a statement about one’s humanity and morality.
Roy perhaps needs to be careful with his sarcasm about “human-caused climate change” or people like David Appell thread bomb with the false GH conjecture making out that we will all suffer if we don’t act. In fact the reverse is the case. Excuse the repetition, but he’s slow to get it:-
Back radiation cannot be added to solar radiation and the total bunged into Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculations so they get a mean of 390W/m^2 supposedly explaining the 288K mean surface temperature. That 390W/m^2 is a mean of very variable flux, and because of the T^4 relationship in S-B such a variable flux does not produce 288K but rather something close to freezing point. And its wrong anyway to be adding the back radiation. If radiation could be compounded like that, then, if one electric bar radiator warms an object to 350K then calculations would claim that 16 such radiators should raise it to 700K, which doesnt happen. So the GH conjecture is easily proven false, yet the subsidies continue, and $200 million a year is diverted from humanitarian aid to carbon dioxide reduction, thus also affecting agricultural production adversely. Now we know what is the correct hypothesis, as I have spoken about on other threads.
That $200 million is just for Australia. Worldwide make it $200 billion.
“if one electric bar radiator warms an object to 350K then calculations would claim that 16 such radiators should raise it to 700K, which doesnt happen.”
Of course it would happen. How do you think smelters work?
Power in = power out unless you don’t believe in the conservation of energy.
Someone might to spend a year in a good physics course…
Hilarious.
The gravitationally-induced density gradient and temperature gradient are a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for the reasons in my paper linked from my website, so I need write nothing more in response.
DEC – I suggest you call in the Fire Brigade before experimenting with 16 radiators supposedly creating temperatures close to those on the surface of Venus.
1LOT is used to develop ideal -g/Cp temperature gradient Doug not 2LOT.
Both are used, but I wouldn’t expect you, Ball4, to understand that only the Second Law tells us which way to go towards thermodynamic equilibrium.
To honestly write “both are used” show us the evidence in the derivation where 2LOT is used Doug.
Show you the development using Second Law, Ball4 ?!?!?!?!?
So you haven’t read a word of my paper or website, have you?
The development has been there for you to read for about three years now.
Doug – I found much in your book and papers to have been proven wrong by Dr. Spencer experiments, I’ve read the original derivation by Poisson et. al. and supporting evidence where just the 1LOT and hydrostatic atm. were used to determine idealized dry lapse -g/Cp. I suggest you check out the original and compare to your flawed papers to find the truth, which any student that has passed a college course in atm. thermo. 101 can easily find. Your books and papers do not have a single supporting test.
Hi Doug,
Why can’t the power of all radiation impinging the surface be used? I agree that absorption and emission must balance, but you seem to me unclear as to why all radiation impinging the surface that can be absorbed by the surface should not be included? Please explain clearly why one should discriminate in favor of some radiation over others. You apparently don’ t min combining solar emitted IR with solar emitted visible spectrum radiation but CO2 emitted mid range IR spectra for some strange reason apparently should not be included. Why?
Have a great day?
The issue as to how much of the radiated energy (if any) is thermalised (ie its energy converted to kinetic energy rather than electron energy) takes a lot of explanation which you will find in the first five sections of my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” that was published on several websites in March 2012. I suggest you read both my papers linked from the ‘Evidence’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com and note that only radiation from a source that is effectively hotter will raise the temperature of a cooler target. If one or more sources are all effectively colder, then the existing temperature of the target cannot be raised by either or both.
You cannot add the fluxes and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. If you could do so then, if one electric bar radiator raised an object to 350K you could “prove” that 16 such radiators would double the temperature to 700K because 2^4=16. The greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture does just that to “explain” the surface temperature, but even then they don’t get the required 450W/m^2 of variable flux that would be required. It’s all wrong. What I have presented has a probability of less than 1 in a million of being incorrect, proven statistically.
Radiation reaching a planet’s surface is not the primary determinant of the surface temperature if there is a significant atmosphere. The gravito-thermal effect is.
Hi Doug,
Thank you for the response. From what I’ve read Claes Johnson seems correct to distinguish between radiation received above and below cut-off and whether to use Raleigh Jeans or Stephan Boltzman equations. It seems to me that while the Earth surface receives incoming solar radiation it’s emissions frequencies below cut-off will already be filled due to incoming solar direct radiation and thus incoming mid-range IR will not likely be absorbed as thermal radiation but be immediately re-radiated/scattered. When solar direct radiation doesn’t impinge the Earth at night one likely faces a different scenario.
Have a great day!
“The gravito-thermal effect is” What gravito-thermal effect? poppycock
Re gravito-thermal effect see this comment.
Yes John. In fact, only a very small portion of the 168W/m^2 mean solar radiation reaching Earth’s surface is thermalised – mostly just on clear days around the middle of the day in those regions where the Sun passes almost directly overhead on the particular date being considered. So it’s really even worse than the simple questions that stump Lukes and Warmists.
“only a very small portion of the 168W/m^2 mean solar radiation reaching Earths surface is thermalised”
The amount solar reflected from earth is already subtracted from the 168 Doug, ALL of the remainung 168 is absorbed, none transmitted.
Only the charlatan Doug is stumped by the questions as he admittedly has not passed atm. thermo. 101.
Most of the 168W/m^2 is pseudo-scattered, but this 21st century physics is beyond the understanding and comprehension of our friend Ball4 who refuses to read Professor Johnson’s “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” from which I have quoted in previous comments. Nor does he discuss why the IR radiation in his microwave oven does not heat anything without water or oil molecules in it. This is evidence of pseudo-scattering staring Ball4 in his big round face.
Most of the 168W/m^2 is pseudo-scattered..
In Doug’s own words “The honest scientist writes only about an hypothesis that does in fact have supporting evidence..” To keep Doug honest, show us supporting evidence from experiment for Doug writing about pseudo-scattering. Test by Dr. Spencer showed thermometers several inches deep in water detected the added cirrus LW showing pseudo-scattering does not exist.
Davie pontificates: “Its far far easier to profess concern for the poor and sufferers than to actually live up to that concern.”
Hey Davie, you should check Al Gore’s charitable contributions from his released tax return when he was running for Prez. Oh, and you should publish your own also.
Hilarious!
Not as hilarious as claiming that:
“The ocean bottoms are filled with tons and tons of bones from dead animals.”
Hahahahahaha
Soooo, mammals and fish that live in the oceans never die, huh?
Your lack of knowledge of Earth sciences is hilarious.
This gets even more hilarious!
Think about it.
The bones of a dead elephant transferred from land to the ocean would contribute (minutely) to an increase in sea level but, the fish and mammals that live in the ocean are born there and die there.
They contribute zero change in their lifetime.
You poor lost puppy. Do you not even understand cellular chemistry?
For all such lost puppies:
When a fish is born, it must acquire mass. It must grow. The mass comes from carbon. The fish is able to transform vegetation, or other fish, into its own body mass. Think “carbohydrates”.
Many lost puppies never learn this stuff….
The ocean bottoms are filled with tons and tons of bones from dead animals.
I see.
You are trying to explain that statement in terms of the transfer of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. Is that what you mean? After all, the carbon has to come from outside the oceans if they are to increase in volume.
It is true that the oceans act as a sink for CO2. However, that rate of uptake is increasing as the atmospheric concentration is rising so fast. Therefore, by your own “logic”, sea levels will rise as CO2 levels increase. Is that what you would like to say?
Please keep digging.
Anything that increases the sediment on the ocean floors causes SLR. Duh….
Burning coal therefore causes sea level to rise.
We agree!
(whether there are tons and tons of animal bones lying at the bottom of the ocean is another story. Surely we would have dug a few up by now?)
Irreverent it takes 361.8 billion cubic Kilometers of mass to raise the raise level 1 mm.
JDAM,
You may be correct. But that is what Geran apparently believes:
Tons and tons and tons of bones accumulating each year causing sea level rise !
Hilarious
Try pouring sand into a glass full of water and see what happens.
Increasing mass in the oceans causes SLR. This straight forward principle has been known for over 2000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principle
Keep digging.
You are implying that the sea levels have been increasing ever since there has been life in the oceans. Given that this is about 2 billion years ago, the accumulation of bones has been about 2 million meters! 2000 km! Or about one third the Earth’s radius!
That is a helluva amount !
Hilarious!
“That is a helluva amount!”
Probably because your figures are incorrect. You know– “garbage in, garbage out”.
garbage in, garbage out.
Exactly! We agree again!
Your idea in, leads to nonsense out.
It seems you are only agreeing with yourself. That probably happens a lot.
Anyway, you learned about Archimedes Principle, and a little about the natural contributions to SLR. At least thats some progress.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in every real process the sum of the entropies of all participating bodies is increased.”
Hence back radiation from a colder part of the atmosphere cannot transfer thermal energy and raise the temperature of a warmer surface. It jsut doesn’t work that way. The manner in which the surface receives most of the required thermal energy is the “heat creep” process explained here in this 18 page paper published February, 2013.
Read it one day …
CONTENTS
1. Radiation and Heat Transfer
2. The Problems with the Greenhouse Conjecture
3. The Venus Dilemma
4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
5. The State of Greatest Entropy
6. Quantification of the Thermal Gradient
7. Explanation at the Molecular Level
8. The Concept of Heat Creep
9. How Earth’s Surface Temperature is Supported
10. Laboratory Evidence for the Gradient
11. Planetary Evidence for the Gradient.
12. The Pseudo Lapse Rate.
13. Non-Radiative Heat Transfer Processes
14. Rebuttal of Counter Arguments
15. Support for the Mantle and Core Temperatures
16. Conclusions
17. Appendix Study of Temperature / Rainfall Correlation
18. References
Still terrified to publish, huh?
Have done – see book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” on Amazon.
Copy of review …
14 of 24 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Valid physics well supported by empirical evidence. Excellent and ground-breaking
.
By Dr Alex Hamilton on May 1, 2014
Format: Paperback
The fallacies in the greenhouse conjecture are exposed rigorously and backed up by a comprehensive study (in the Appendix) which compares rainfall and temperature data for locations on three continents. The study concludes convincingly that the wetter regions do indeed have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. This supports the hypothesis in the book which shows that so-called “greenhouse gases” (mostly water vapor and a little carbon dioxide) do in fact reduce the lapse rate and thus lower the “supported” temperature at the surface. In other words, water vapor cools and so does carbon dioxide, the latter by only a minuscule amount.
The book discusses how and why surface cooling slows down almost to a halt in the early pre-dawn hours as the supported temperature is approached. This slowing down process is well known, but the concept of the supporting temperature (due to a temperature gradient autonomously induced by gravity) was not understood, even though this “gravito-thermal” effect was originally proposed in the nineteenth century. Modern day physics can now be used to prove the Loschmidt effect is indeed a reality, as this book shows.
As a physicist, I can honestly say that the physics is indeed mainstream and valid in all respects. It discusses the maximum entropy conditions that evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached, and then goes on to develop a real break-through hypothesis of “heat creep” which, when we consider what happens on Earth and other planets with atmospheres, we see must be the process which explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period. Indeed all planetary temperature data, even that below any surface, can be explained by the hypothesis in this book, which is indeed a totally new paradigm that completely demolishes the old greenhouse conjecture that was based on mistaken understanding of the laws of physics.
I would expect “warmists” and “lukes” alike to attack the reviews of this book, but the astute reader will realise that is just their normal mode of approach to all such matters. To them science matters not – just their vocation or other pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo. They would do well to consider the final comment in Chapter 1: “One wonders how many lives may have been saved had such funds been devoted instead to humanitarian aid.”
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you?
Yes
No
Where is the contact information for Dr. Alex Hamilton?
Fail. Do again.
Douglas J Cotton B.Sc (physics) lapsed
I hope it is okay to talk a lil climate science here. Excuse my progressive link but the figures show there are these warm pacific blobs forming at multiple latitudes. For me in a thermal gradient that is well mixed by currents, the release of heat upward suggests a cooling trend at the surface as the deeper watmth of years past equilibrates to the new constant state. Ie that the pacific surface is cooling. Does anyone have a more quantitative or alternative suggestion?
https://www.yahoo.com/travel/move-over-el-nino-theres-a-crazy-new-weather-055428372.html
WHAT HAPPENS IN OCEANS
Even in the theoretical assumed absence of ocean currents, thermal energy feeds into the ocean surface primarily in non-polar regions during the day by the “heat creep” process (mentioned above) and we know this because the solar radiation is way too little and back radiation is pseudo-scattered without entering the ocean surface at all.
Then some thermal energy in the ocean surface returns to the atmosphere (especially at night) but some goes down into the colder thermocline and beyond.
Then, in the depths near the ocean floor, the heat has nowhere to go but along isotherms to the polar regions where the isotherms surface and the energy can escape back to the atmosphere and Space.
Do not postulate “heat” coming up from the colder regions in the tropics and reaching the surface. This cannot happen by natural convection – only by forced convection in very strong upward currents, which tend to be balanced out elsewhere by downward currents. Colder water from the depths would only cool the surface water by mixing with it due to those strong upward currents.
Doug,
So then the blobs represent heat from where? What are they?
Read the paper and you’ll find out.
Summary please
I don’t write summaries that don’t do justice to the hypothesis and get deliberately misunderstood and misquoted. Besides, it needs the “heat creep” diagrams to explain.
The video is 43 minutes and the paper and book each take an hour or so to read.
Yup. Anyone who cannot summarise his claims and findings for executive consumption is usually less than clear on his own work. You are not in that category are you?
By my calculations, UAH for both USA48 and USA49 has 2015 as the warmest in the satellite record.
RSS continental has 2015 in second place.
Can anyone confirm?
As far as I can determine, every major data set has USA 2015 as either warmest or second warmest.
Can anyone confirm ?
Nope, third warmest, see previous post.
Globally, yes, 2015 came in third..
I am talking about USA only data
Look at UAH USA48, USA49, RSS ContUSA, USCRN, and ClimDiv
What is really interesting is the results for UAH NoPol and SoPol (and the closest equivalent in RSS)
I strongly suggest you do the analysis.
Nope.
(Hey, you asked.)
Sorry geran, but on WUWT, Ken Gregory has confirmed I’m correct.
Here is his calcs (quoted)
Here are the top five UAH annual temperatures for USA:
USA48 USA49
2015 0.785 2015 0.759
2012 0.742 2012 0.544
2007 0.568 2007 0.469
1999 0.525 1998 0.439
1998 0.429 2005 0.381
2006 0.392 2003 0.314
2005 0.309 1999 0.290
2000 0.285 2006 0.267
(end quote.)
Have you even bothered doing the calculations?
Lots more simple analysis at this link.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/08/ban-ki-moons-climate-finance-plan-despots-paying-off-third-world-debt-with-more-oppression/#comment-2116452
“Nope” means “no, I haven’t bothered to check”.
Sorry.
chuckle.. ok 😉
Just that I have been having “tired eyes” issues, and have been making errors on some things.. ie choosing the wrong column etc.
Find myself become sceptical of my own calculations because of it.
Was reassured when Ken got the same results as I did 🙂
A local university prof studies Rattlesnakes and Gila Monsters. He brings snakes to public lectures and the youngsters are fascinated. Most Rattlesnake bites in the US involve young men and beer.
The snakes are shy and, like Skunks, can almost always be gently encouraged to move away. I have done so with both.
Much more dangerous than Rattlesnakes are stairs. You can look it up. Then get rid of all stairs.
First of all I don’t have stairs in my house and neither am I going to have rattlesnakes in my house but you statement on stairs is patently false. Answer like yours constantly get me to ask are people really that stupid, the question you allude to is what kills more people in a year stair or snakes the answer to you question quite simply is stairs but you ask the wrong question. One of my axiom in life is if you ask the wrong question you will always get the wrong answer. The proper question is between human interaction between stair and snakes what is more dangerous, The answer is snakes, people interact with stair millions upon millions time in a day people interact with stairs is far more that they do with snakes in a year. It you answer my question snake will kill far more often per interaction than stairs. Proper question proper assessment of risk, proper answer. My interaction with snakes and stairs, snakes in my life time has been a few hundred and poisonous snakes less than a dozen my interaction with stairs is more than a dozen time a day even though I have none in my house. I had a few close calls on stair in my life time, rattlesnakes one real bad one, I stepped with six inches of one, the rattlesnake I almost stepped one was when I was hiking and taking picture along the Salt river, that was far closer to disaster that any stair I been on I was on and to top it off in all the location and coloration it probability is was a Mojave. The coloration also hid it in plain sight it was up against the rock I wanted to sit on. Oh by the way David the snake and I parted company and bother were alive and unharmed! Had he bit me I would not be writing this now and I would have had to have killed him, it best for both of us I did not step on him.
“The proper question is between human interaction between stair and snakes what is more dangerous, The answer is snakes, people interact with stair millions upon millions time in a day people interact with stairs is far more that they do with snakes in a year. It you answer my question snake will kill far more often per interaction than stairs. Proper question proper assessment of risk, proper answer. My interaction with snakes and stairs, snakes in my life time has been a few hundred and poisonous snakes less than a dozen my interaction with stairs is more than a dozen time a day even though I have none in my house.”
Well, it seems you are not a typical human. Or obviously a typical human does not have internet connection. About 1/2 human population live on less than 3 dollars a day- and for these people stairs can easily be less common than snakes.
Or say, a lightbulb or raised floor with foundation can rarer than snake.
I am amused by David’s pretense of concern over those who died from a heat wave. His answer is to stop the burning of coal etc, from which electricity to drive air conditioners, which would help avoid those deaths.
Another of his answers is to give us more cold, which includes ice and snow. By doing this he slows agriculture which will lead to even more deaths, but by starvation, not heat.
In fact, the more I read of him, the more I am convinced the AGW crowd, alarmists, are concerned only with control of the lives of others, nothing more, nothing less.
Davie says: “Leave the rattlesnakes alone and just walk around them. They have just as much right to live as you do.”
Davie wants to decide who gets to live and who has to die.
Hilarious!
The funny part in David argument it as far as mother nature is concerned is none of us have a right to live, we all live o the death of others, but any of living no matter if we a plant, animal or protozoa we live at the expense of some other living creature just by our existence we take the that space that could be freed up for some other. Protozoa take up nutrients that could be use by other sometime simple consume others, plant that nutrients and space that could be use by others, the same for animals, rattlesnake need a territory that it must protect since their food supply is limited and it wholly dependent on the quality of the plants and animals in it, the climate must be appropriate, my native Minnesota has only rattlesnake in the very south east corner of the state it to cold and wet and a general lack of den sites to support them elsewhere. The only real right we have is once we happen to come into existence we have the right to fight for our survival, us human seemed remove from that but the reality we only removed ourselves away from via proxies, we pay farmers for their crops those crops crowded out the animals and plants that once lived there to the most part we don’t kill our food someone else does that for us, same for our shelter some removes the plants and animals that lived long before we show up, yet it does not mean we don’t live on death or the expense of some other living creature. David would rather deny that and live in his story book world where we all have the right to live. In nature and we are still bound by her laws we do not have the right to live, we are granted life and not once you are granted live mother nature makes sure that you will die one way or the other and how quick depends on you and you clans will to survive. Truth is ugly and David does no like truth, so he shuns and denies it and from his comment that carries through in almost all things!
Roy
Please consider answering the question in this comment which others could well read also.
To all:
Don’t get in a knot about what David and other warmists say. David has not been able to explain (with valid radiation calculations) why the Earth’s surface temperature is what it is. Until someone can do that with radiation, we cannot assume radiation is causing it. Hence we cannot assume that any change in radiation from carbon dioxide will change the surface temperature.
In fact it is another (non-radiative) process altogether which determines the surface temperature of Earth, Venus and any planet with a significant atmosphere.
See https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com and feel free to ask any questions.
“…feel free to ask any questions”.
But don’t expect any sane answers wrt the physics of some crackpot “gravitational-thermal” theory trying to explain the temperatures all planets right down to their cores.
Expect a duck.
Well, only other cranks might ask him questions.
In spite of his relentless pathetic efforts to share his “revolutionary 21th century physics based theory” no one still bothers with Dough Cotton’ “entropy maximized” “heat creep” “gravitational-thermal” bullshit.
A pity, in fact.
Sounds so savvy.
In other words, nobody acknowledges that the Second Law of Thermodynamics operates and is relevant.
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature …. if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.“
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
As Dr Hans Jelbring wrote <a href="http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf"here …
“The generally claimed importance of greenhouse gases rests on an unproven hypothesis (ref 1). The hypothesis is based on radiative models of energy fluxes in our atmosphere. These are inadequate, since radiative processes within the atmosphere are poorly described, convective energy fluxes are often inadequately described or omitted, and latent heat fluxes are poorly treated. The whole GE in these models is wrongly claimed being caused by greenhouse gases. The considerations in this paper indicate that effects of the greenhouse gases, other radiative effects, and convection effects all might modulate GE to a minor unknown extent. Hence, the atmospheric mass exposed to a gravity field is the cause of the … substantial part of GW“
Sorry, typo. The link to Dr Hans Jelbring’s peer-reviewed paper in Energy and Environment (Vol 14) is this.
alphagruis
I suggest you read the above paper by Dr Hans Jelbring who wrote about the gravito-thermal effect for his thesis for his PhD in climatology in the late 1990’s and then had this peer-reviewed paper about it published in 2003. He was among the first to write about the effect of the gravito-thermal effect in relation to climate. Feel free to submit a refutation of his paper to whatever journal you wish.
Of course what you can’t do is explain the mean surface temperature of the Earth, let alone Venus, using standard physics. So I throw down the gauntlet to you to produce such a proof in your own words – no links or calls to authority, because James Hansen, Pierrehumbert et al don’t use correct physics.
Who’s next to take me on?
“Who’s next to take me on?”
“So I throw down the gauntlet…”
Yeah, Duggie boy, we’re up to our knee-caps in your gauntlets. Anybody considering taking this crank on, might first enjoy my efforts here with the ubiquitous “Retired Physics Educator”…
http://principia-scientific.org/thermodynamics-is-essential-for-understanding-effect-of-co2-on-temperature/#comments
Aren’t you clever Mack linking to PSI where you know my responses to you were deleted. There is never any discussion by yourself of the physics in my hypothesis anyway, no indication that you know what entropy is, for example, and of course you don’t have any qualifications in physics. Take me on here on neutral ground, but discuss my hypothesis that is developed from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is supported by evidence, experiments and my published study.
I don’t beat dead horses.
Already done decades ago with simple “20th century physics” for instance by R.P. Feynman in his introductory physics course for instance here
A good star for cranks like you.
In “Entropy maximized” i.e. hypothetical thermodynamical equilibrium atmosphere in gravity field temperature would be merely uniform.
As simple as that.
That has been refuted by myself and is not in accord with the laws of physics. There are no unbalanced energy potentials with thermodynamic equilibrium so mean molecular (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) is uniform. You could have read such in my website, or linked papers, videos, blog or book. In my blog there is a section “THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS” so get back with your answers.
Feynman refuted ?
Not even in your dreams.
What’s been readily refuted and ridiculed since long is your so-called “21th century physics”.
You cannot answer the questions, can you?
My refutation of Robert Brown’s pathetic attempt to refute Loschmidt (which you linked) is on the “WUWT Errors” page here.
You should also read BigWaveDave’s final comment on that thread you linked, copied below …
“I have been earning a living as an engineer specializing in cutting edge technology for very large scale thermal energy transfer processes and power systems for close to 40 years. My credentials include BS, JD and PE, and I have four patents.
“As for my qualifications to engage in argument with PhDs, I have many times been part of and have led teams with PhD team mates. I was also married to a PhD for 20 years.
“Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHGs. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhDs, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.”
What the hell is the difference between “molecular” gravitational potential energy and any other gravitational potential energy?
“David has not been able to explain (with valid radiation calculations) why the Earths surface temperature is what it is.”
This was done almost a half century ago:
“Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
I’m really not interested in being fed the climatology garbage papers that I probably know as well as yourself.
No, temperatures in the troposphere would not be uniform in the absence of IR-active gases, because there would be unbalanced energy potentials if they were, with more molecular gravitational potential at the top of a column of the troposphere.
Find me a vortex tube that does not have a radial temperature gradient due to centrifugal force.
In my blog is a section entitled “QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS” so get back with your attempts at answering in your own words and your experiment with a vortex tube that doesn’t create the separate streams of hot and cold air that it is supposed to.
“Gravitational potential energy”
Sorry Duggie boy, Potential energy is just that…potential..or simply that it has potential. It’s energy which you could say has been “stored.”..not realised, or released. The air constantly moves, so that in reality, the air molecules have already released any potential energy, and only have kinetic energy.
So much gravito-thermal bullshit from such a seemingly intelligent person.
Let’s hear no more of this PE + KE crap.
And still Mack can’t answer ‘THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS” on my blog now can you Mack? And he conveniently forgot I was talking about molecular gravitational potential energy – you know, the thing we work out with elementary physics m.g.h as every school boy knows except Mack.
Doug: And I’m not interested in reading your puerile and juvenile claims.
Be a man and submit your work to a real scientific journal.
Or, stay the mouse that you are.
And so, silent readers, we have the predictable “last resort” comment from David Appell wherein no physics is tendered.
The truth is, David, that you cannot explain the surface temperature in your own words, bearing in mind the anticipated responses in “THE QUESTIONS WHICH STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS.”
The “coincidences” argument (in a previous comment) puts the probability of my being wrong at less than one in a million.
No David, there’s no correct calculation of a 288K temperature in that 1967 paper. I’m not interested in “thermal equilibrium” anyway as my hypothesis is all about thermodynamic equilibrium. The paper is full of errors.
Besides, Dr Hans Jelbring (with a PhD in climatology) has already published regarding the gravito-thermal effect. I gave you this link weeks ago. Maybe I need to copy some text from the journal “Energy and Environment” Vol. 14, Nos. 2 & 3, 2003 for you …
“The generally claimed importance of greenhouse gases rests on an unproven hypothesis (ref 1). The hypothesis is based on radiative models of energy fluxes in our atmosphere. These are inadequate, since radiative processes within the atmosphere are poorly described, convective energy fluxes are often inadequately described or omitted, and latent heat fluxes are poorly treated. The whole GE in these models is wrongly claimed being caused by greenhouse gases.
“A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW, accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes causing climate change.
“Hence, the atmospheric mass exposed to a gravity field is the cause …
Doug: Your science is unproven. Your manners appalling. Your writing style is more reminiscent of Propaganda rather than discussion. IMHO
Quite the contrary: mine is proven and the greenhouse conjecture is not. There’s AU $10,000 reward for the first to prove me wrong – see https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
David Appell go to this comment.
Dr. Spencer proved Doug wrong by tests on the actual atmosphere.
RichardLH
It is the greenhouse conjecture which is unproven, which ignores the laws of physics and which is disproven by the real-world evidence that water vapor cools rather than warms.
My hypothesis is developed from the Second Law of Thermodynamics using standard Kinetic Theory. It is supported by copious evidence, including over 850 experiments, by a study showing water vapor cools (as expected by the hypothesis) and every functioning vortex tube in the world.
Doug proved Dr Spencer wrong with correct physics and ample evidence, and also by citing over 850 experiments, not just a few that Dr Spencer did and which were in no way even relevant.
evidence that water vapor cools..
Show us the evidence Doug, a study is not evidence. The test by Dr. Spencer shows water vapor warms.
using standard Kinetic Theory..
The evidence shows Doug misses the p*V term in standard kinetic theory. Conserved quantity of energy in kinetic theory is PE+KE+p*V.
Well apparently Doug can barely explain it to himself, let alone anyone else.
Mark Luhman: Nothing you wrote says rattlesnakes have to be killed.
There is no “truth” saying that rattlesnakes must be killed.
Don’t let your fears get the best of your — rise above them.
You notice that he said “you” and not “we”?
To him only the far left greens have the supreme privilege to “live”.
Everyone else must be “die” and be sacrificed for their own glorification.
Why does David hate Christianity so much? Could it be jealousy?
How dare Christians not worship these self proclaimed saviors of the world.
NOAAs Gridded Climate Divisional Dataset divides the Earth into 5 km2 grids.
The surface area of the earth is 510,072,000 km2.
To cover the entire surface would require 102,014,400 monitoring stations.
Since we know that NOAA does not have 102,014,400 monitoring stations.
So how does NOAA fills in the gaps?
JDAM says:
“NOAAs Gridded Climate Divisional Dataset divides the Earth into 5 km2 grids.”
Says what?
Source? Link?
Mark Luhman says:
January 9, 2016 at 11:59 PM
“We live at the expense of certain other living creatures just by our existence. We take the space that could be freed up for other creatures……….
The only real right we have once we happen to come into existence, is the right to fight for our survival. We humans seem removed from that, but the reality is we are only removed from that situation via proxies. We pay farmers for their crops and the production of those crops has crowded out the animals and plants that once lived there. For the most part we dont kill our food. Someone else does that for us; same for the construction of our shelters.”
———————————————————–
I tend to agree with Mark Luhman’s above comments (forgive me Mark for proof-reading them to make them more clear).
Whoever and whatever has rights to survive and proliferate is no more than a concept or thought in the human mind.
Each species of life, from the most basic microbe to the most sophisticated primate (homo sapiens), is driven by fundamental instincts to reproduce.
That’s what distinguishes living matter from inamimate matter, the ability and drive to reproduce.
Each life-form gives priority to the survival of its own species at the expense of other species. However, because humans tend to have a greater sense of self-awareness, empathy, and intellectual ability than any other species on the planet, some of us are able to feel concern about the welfare of all those other species that comprise our broad family of evolutionary development, and express concern about any unnecessary and avoidable extinction of such species that might be caused by our own activities, except for harmful viruses and bacteria of course.
This concern mostly takes the form of anthropomorphism, ie. attributing lovable human characteristic to certain animals which are viewed as cuddly and cute, like the Koala bear, or one’s pet cat or dog. Even tigers can be cuddly.
We’re not so much concerned about the survival of less prominent species, which constitue the vast majority of all life forms. We don’t even know how many species currently exist. I’ve seen estimates ranging from 80 to 90 million, most of which haven’t yet been catalogued. But that number certainly wouldn’t include microbes and bacteria, and possible not lots of very tiny insects.
During the natural course of evolution on this planet, it is estimated that over 99 percent of all species that have ever existed, amounting to over five billion species, have become extinct.
Furthermore, it is estimated that the total quantity of living matter below the earth’s surface, including plant roots, ants, microbes and worms etc. exceeds the quantity of life above the earth’s surface.
Food for thought!
Vincent, Roy and others:
Vincent’s talking about “below the earth’s surface” reminds me to mention that the “heat creep” hypothesis also explains temperatures and heat transfers that keep the crust, mantle and core at existing temperatures, and will continue to do so whilever the Sun shines at existing levels.
The probability that I’m wrong about this is millions to one against because …
Others have shown that all planetary tropospheres exhibit a temperature gradient closely related to the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. (There is a small reduction due to inter-molecular radiation, such as we see for water vapour.) But the overall level of the temperature plot in all planets is anchored by the weighted mean effect of the key absorbing layers, usually in the stratosphere and upper troposphere, where radiative balance with insolation is achieved. These are often the only regions where the solar radiation is strong enough to raise the existing temperature a little each planetary morning after cooling the night before. For example, on Venus this happens in regions where the temperature is less than about 400K. The direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface cannot raise its temperature not by a long shot. The fact that for all planets the temperature between the core and this mean anchoring altitude follows the calculated temperature gradient and gets down to the expected temperature that is in radiative balance with the Sun would be a huge coincidence if I were wrong in my explanation that shows why the temperature builds up from the anchoring layers towards the core with energy transferred downwards by the heat creep process that is maximizing entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So the probability of my being wrong is statistically infinitesimal. The correct physics is here.
“mean anchoring altitude”, “anchoring layers”…Riiight, sort of blanket-like layers with anchors attached stabilising everything, eh Dougie? Bits of the blanket then weigh-anchor and heat creep their way down to the Earth’s core by forces induced by maximumum entropy.
I think I’m getting the hang of this new paradigm physics.
You’re just making a fool of yourself, Mack. Do tell me how entropy is supposed to induce forces as you claim in your waffle. Do you like seeing your anonymous name in print, or what is it Mack? As the “coincidences” from all planets make the chances of my being wrong millions to one against, I suggest you go and do a degree course in physics before you comment on such again. Meanwhile, I’m waiting for your answers to “THE QUESTIONS WHICH STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS.”
“You’re just making a fool of yourself, Mack”.
Not half as much as a fool you’ve made of yourself. Have you noticed that a lot of people, (here) have indicated to you that you’re a self obsessed crank? One said..”Get over yourself”. But you can’t get over yourself, can you Doug..over time, you’ve turned into a chest beating loon.
“Meanwhile, I’m waiting for your answers..”
Sorry, you’ll be waiting until the cows come home before any answers to your innane questions.
If one is examining an hypothesis (in this case the GHE) then explaining Earth’s surface temperature using that hypothesis is fundamental to confirming that the hypothesis is not incorrect.
In that Mack cannot do that, nor anyone else do so with radiation calculations, means that Mack has no basis for his belief in such. So he fails the “exam” by his own admission, and we need have nothing more to do with him.
There’s more in this comment above.
…..”hypothesis(in this case the GHE)……that Mack has no basis for his belief in such.”
My belief in the GHE !!? this crank Cotton now (after all I’ve said to him), informs me of my “belief” in the GHE.
No Duggie, I’ve already explained the Earth’s surface temperatures using radiation figures WITHOUT the GHE.
Flux….340w/sq.m
Absorptivity/emissivity…0.82
Area…1sq.m.
Using Stephan Boltzmann equation
Temperature….18 or 19deg.C
See, no GHE, none, zilch.
You must be talking to the man in the moon…either that or I am.
Mack
I believe you are using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law incorrectly in your determination of equilibrium temperature for the Earth’s surface. (I should know I did the same thing but corrected my error).
First of all the Earth is 70% ocean which has an emissivity of close to 1 so I am not sure where you get the 0.82 from.
Also emissivity and absorptivity are related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
This means that at a flux of 340 W/m^2 a surface with an emissivity of 0.82 will only absorb 278.8 W/m^2 so to get the equilibrium temperature of such a surface you would have to put 278.8 W/m^2 as your equilibrium flux and then you will see the same temperature as a blackbody (emissivity of 1) in a 340 W/m^2 flux. Regardless of the emissivity of a surface, in a flux of 340 W/m^2 it will only get as hot (equilibrium temperature) as a black-body in such a flux would get.
No Mack – the surface temperatures of Earth, Venus etc are not determined by direct radiation. That, in case you don’t yet know, is what my paper explains. The correct answer is (a) in my comment Jan 15 4:30am.
By the way, if absorptivity is 0.82 then you use only 0.82 of the flux because 0.18 is reflected. Of course your 340 figure is wrong and a mean of variable flux anyway. Because of the T^4 relationship you would need variable flux with a mean of over 450W/m^2 to produce a mean temperature of about 288K. On Venus you would need over 20,000W.m^2 so tell me where you will get that from. At the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus you have no solar radiation and no surface, so work that one out. I repeat, the correct answer is (a) and the probability of (b) is less than one in a million. So that’s the chance that you’re right, Mack – less than one in a million.
Yes Norman, your advice to Mack is almost correct. See the extra point I made (before reading your comment) regarding the T^4 relationship. He would need variable flux with a mean of over 450W/m^2. Of course he is way out with his 340 figure which should be about half that because of absorption by the atmosphere and reflection by clouds, atmosphere and surface.
So Norman, it seems you’re getting closer to realizing that I’ve been right all along with the explanation in my 2013 paper (linked here) which was developed using Kinetic Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I would prefer to keep future discussion related to that paper and am happy to explain anything in it that you don’t understand. We can both ignore young anonymous Mack and leave him with his false understanding acquired from his climatology lecturers. That’s his problem not ours: he obviously has a career at stake.
@ Norman,
“… so I am not sure where you get the 0.82 from.”
I get it from here, Norman….
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/04/radiative-transfer-according-to-agw-a-note-from-neutrino/#comment-480389
I hope that link works and read the next couple of comments underneath (My steam driven computer nearly chokes on this).
Doug: Your science is unproven. Your manners appalling. Your writing style is more reminiscent of Propaganda rather than discussion. IMHO
Doug: Your science is unproven. Your manners appalling. Your writing style is more reminiscent of Propaganda rather than discussion. IMHO
RichardLH go to this comment.
So Roy we have just two possibilities …
(a) My explanation of how temperatures build up from the anchoring layer(s) where there is radiative balance with the solar radiation towards the core with the “heat creep” process that is based on Kinetic Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
or
(b) The climatology explanation that planets are just cooling off from an originally hotter core, and the core temperature at this point in time, is now at just the right level so that we can observe just the right calculated temperature gradient that we expect all the way out to the anchoring layer(s) in the troposphere where the temperature has by then got down to just the right level at just the right altitude – all by a huge coincidence that is repeated in all planets with significant atmospheres – with combined probability that is infinitesimal, and which has no valid physics to support it.
Think water and ducks, Roy
Any plans for a rebuttal on the “Climategate Climateers'” video mention in wuwt?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/15/the-climateers-new-pause-excuse-born-of-desperation-the-satellites-are-lying/
Roy and others
Experimental results (over 850 this century) confirm force fields create temperature gradients. What I write is developed directly from the Second Law using standard Kinetic Theory. Every vortex tube throughout the world also confirms what I say.
The Second Law causes there to be a density gradient and a temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere and even in sub-surface regions down to the core, and I have explained why. As a result, the process described in the Second Law enables heat transfers towards the core provided entropy is increasing.
In a nutshell, all temperatures within a planetary system, right down to the core, are determined by this process. The concept that temperatures are determined by radiative forcing or by hot planetary cores cooling off is wrong, because it would be a huge coincidence if all planets just happened to have just the right core temperature and then cool off with just the right temperature gradient down to just the right altitude where there is then just the right temperature to be in radiative balance with the Sun. The probability of these “coincidences” is millions to one against.
How does the core of a planet “know” how far away is the Sun? It doesn’t. The intensity of the Sun’s radiation is what has determined (and will continue to maintain) the core temperatures of all planets and satellite moons.
Bullshit. The core temperatures of the Earth are partially maintained by themo-nuclear reactions entirely independent of the Sun.
Partially, yes, and the Sun’s energy does the rest – meaning whatever is required to support the core temperature at just the right temperature. I said The Sun’s intensity determines the core temperature and I have proved that and I stick by the statement.
What about the Moon – core temperature 1600-1700K? It could easily have cooled right down.
What about the core of Uranus (5,000K) with no convincing evidence that the planet is cooling off?
Now work out what I’m saying about the coincidences with just the right temperature gradient all the way.
Bullshit. The core temperatures of the Earth are partially maintained by themo-nuclear reactions entirely independent of the Sun.
Neptune’s temperatures are slightly higher than Uranus because of leakage of core temperatures to the surface…despite it being further from the Sun. Each planet has its own unique temperature characteristics.
No, differences in Neptune’s gravity, height of atmosphere and atmospheric composition account for the difference – I’ve done the calculations based on my hypothesis.
No, each planet has its very specific and individual “temperature characteristics”…sometimes influenced by core temperatures, sometimes not. Then, of course, what, exactly, is the definition of “surface temperature”? The “surface” of Venus is said to be covered totally by a “sea” of super-critical CO2. So where is the surface of Venus?…above or below “sea-level”? Apparently this “sea”/”atmosphere” blows round and round the planet at a great rate of knots…thus explaining why there’s not much drop in “surface” temperature on the shady side of the planet. No “greenhouse” effect, and none of your gravito- thermal quack science either, Duggie boy.
The temperature gradient in the troposphere of Venus, Neptune, Uranus, Earth and other planets demonstrates the effect of the stable temperature gradient (-g/cp) (based on the planet’s gravity and atmospheric composition) which is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The proof is in my paper, book and website and those with qualifications in physics usually have no trouble understanding that proof, as this physicist wrote in a review of my book:
The fallacies in the greenhouse conjecture are exposed rigorously and backed up by a comprehensive study (in the Appendix) which compares rainfall and temperature data for locations on three continents. The study concludes convincingly that the wetter regions do indeed have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. This supports the hypothesis in the book which shows that so-called greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor and a little carbon dioxide) do in fact reduce the lapse rate and thus lower the supported temperature at the surface. In other words, water vapor cools and so does carbon dioxide, the latter by only a minuscule amount.
The book discusses how and why surface cooling slows down almost to a halt in the early pre-dawn hours as the supported temperature is approached. This slowing down process is well known, but the concept of the supporting temperature (due to a temperature gradient autonomously induced by gravity) was not understood, even though this gravito-thermal effect was originally proposed in the nineteenth century. Modern day physics can now be used to prove the Loschmidt effect is indeed a reality, as this book shows.
As a physicist, I can honestly say that the physics is indeed mainstream and valid in all respects. It discusses the maximum entropy conditions that evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached, and then goes on to develop a real break-through hypothesis of heat creep which, when we consider what happens on Earth and other planets with atmospheres, we see must be the process which explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period. Indeed all planetary temperature data, even that below any surface, can be explained by the hypothesis in this book, which is indeed a totally new paradigm that completely demolishes the old greenhouse conjecture that was based on mistaken understanding of the laws of physics.
I have also explained in my paper how the Earth’s core temperature is partially maintained by “thermo-nuclear” reactions and radioactive decay etc.
But energy from the Sun adds the required extra amount to maintain the temperature at just the right level so that the temperature plot has just the right gradient all the way to just the right altitude in the troposphere where there is radiative balance with the insolation at just the right temperature.
“…just the right level so that the temperature plot has just the right gradient all the way to just the right altitude in the troposphere where there is radiative balance with the insolation at just the right temperature”
We can call your new paradigm, 21st Century physics, the Goldilocks Paradigm of Physics, Duggie boy.
No Duggie, When I said the Earth’s core temperature was PARTIALLY maintained by thermo-nuclear reactions and radioactive decay….I mean’t the rest was maintained by being enclosed in the Earth’s mantle, and not being allowed to escape to space. It’s not being maintained by your junk “gravito-thermal” hypothesis.
Mack.
The mantle temperatures support the core temperatures, and the crust temperatures support the mantle temperatures. In general heat flows inwards during the day, at least perceptible in the outer crust but very slowly deeper down, and heat flows outwards at night with some heat loss also by volcanoes (which also got perhaps most of their energy from the Sun) just like the geysers on the Saturn moon called Enceladus.
Now explain how the coincidences occur, Mack!
I’m really not interested in your assertive statements, Mack, without a word of refutation regarding the comprehensive explanation of the physics in my paper. I will repeat this comment each time you write your unsubstantiated comments.
Mack,
From a post above you sent me to a link. I read through some of the Neutrino page but I do not know where Nasif Nahle came up with an emissivity of 0.82 for the Earth’s surface.
Since the Earth is emitting in IR bands here is a table of emissivity in IR bands for common materials.
http://www.optotherm.com/emiss-table.htm
Water is between 0.9-0.95
Ice is 0.95-1.0
soil is 0.9-1.0
sand is 0.8-0.9
From these values I cannot see how Nasif comes up with 0.82?
Mack,
Regardless of what value for Earth you use in emissivity that will not change the incorrect use of Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
What the law will tell you is that if you measure an energy flux from an object that emits 340 W/m^2 and it has an emissivity of 0.82 then the surface temperature will be around 19 C. Using the same law a highly polished surface with emissivity of 0.02 will have a surface temperature of 467 C to be emitting 340 W/m^2 flux.
It does not work to use it backward. If an object is in a flux of 340 W/m^2 continuously what will its equilibrium temperature be?
You may know from experience a polished surface does not reach super high temperature in a radiant energy stream.
So for the polished surface in a 340 W/m^2 flux. The surface can only absorb 6.8 W/m^2 from that flux. So at equilibrium the polished surface will absorb 6.8 W/m^2 and be emitting the same.
Plugging 6.8 W/m^2 with an emissivity of 0.02 gives you a surface temp of around 5 C. This is the same surface temp of a blackbody in a flux of 340 W/m^2.
Hope that clears it up.
Hey Norman,
I almost forgot about you and your rambling.
The more you study the actual science, the more you will run from your pseudoscience.
Hint: The S-B Law applies to black bodies.
Keep studying!
Hilarious!
geran,
Why?
geran,
Not that you will want to learn anything but just in case here is a link for you.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
I hope you realize that a “black-body” does not exist in the real world just close approximations. Stefan-Boltzmann would be a useless physics tool if it can not be expanded and used in the real world of grey bodies. Note the addition of the emissivity factor to make this possible so the equation can be used in the real world. For a simpleton like yourself it must be like magic. The awe the splendor that an equation can be used for something more than an isolated case.
Why don’t you go back to playing with your 1st grade friends and quick getting on Mommy’s computer and playing around on climate blogs. You really are a stupid fellow. Hope you do not respond to this post.
Norm, the more you trap yourself in your pseudoscience, the more insults you have to throw out. I remember the last time you expounded–it was hilarious!
IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM.
it eventually leaves our Earth system.
More please.
geran
I was hoping you would not respond to my posts. I guess I am cursed by birth to have to listen to two science illiterate people on this blog. Doug and you. Neither seem to possess a shred of scientific credibility but you still have a strong need to post. Oh well so is the New Age of Internet, the morons need to feel like they contribute something to the science community.
I do not think calling you a “stupid fellow” is insulting. It is an accurate description of your posts. Can I really hope you won’t respond to this post with some more mindless vomit coming from thoughtless brain that seems to think he is funny which after a few thousand posts adding the word hilarious you sound just like your twin Cotton who is addicted to “heat-creep”. Are you sure you don’t have the same parents?
Norm, I can’t help but find you hilarious. You always try to pretend you understand science, but you always get yourself so tangled up. All you can do then is hurl insults.
Last time, you stated, in all caps, referring to heat energy (IR back-radiation): “IT IS NOT LEAVING THE SYSTEM.”
Later, in the same thread, you stated “it eventually leaves our Earth system”.
You always get yourself so “wrapped around the axel”.
Really, there is no one that can compare with your hilarity.
geran,
Too bad you feel compelled to respond to my posts or jump in one of my posts (not directed at you) with your boring repetitive comments. Pseudoscience and hilarious for the 20,000th and counting time.
I choose not to directly respond to you as it is obvious there is nothing you can teach or educate upon. You just post on with the same boring posts regardless of who you choose to target, always the same always as boring nothing new with you.
Regardless if you choose to respond or not this is my last one to you. Enjoy your most boring and repetitive life.
Norm, you are so obsessed, you will never stop spouting your pseudoscience. You might remain silent for awhile, to lick your wounds, but then you return with your rambling attempts to impress yourself.
Hilarious.
Norman,
I see you have a question directed at me about the absorptivity/emissivity of the Earth’s surface. The figure of 0.82 and whether or not I’ve used the Stephan-Boltzmann correctly. Being a layman,Norman,I actually don’t know whether or not I’ve used it correctly…I’ve just got those numbers and inserted them into the S-B equation (on line S-B calculator)and they come up the number of degrees K which equates to 18 or 19 degrees C. That figure is near enough, for me, to be the average global temperature.
As for 0.82…listening as a layman… They say that a surface which is a “black” body radiator with a maximum absorptive surface has an absorptivity/emissivity denoted as 1.
I would then assume that a surface with a minimum absorptive surface would be a mirror ..denoted as 0. Semi reflective surfaces, silver cutlery and the like, move away from 0 towards 1. then probably shiny white..white..through the lighter colours to the darker colours until shiny black, then black. Black body radiator being 1.
So looking at the Earth’s surface and trying to simplify things down…they call this the blue planet…the colour of water being blue, there are also the white clouds and the colours of land, but on the whole, a sky blue or aquamarine colour, would be my best bet for 8.2 absorptivity/emissivity of the Earth surface.
As a layperson, Norman, this really can be my only understanding…and I hope you are satisfied with this.
Sorry that should be 0.82, not 8.2
Trust me…my maths has “room for improvement”.
“Looking at Earth’s surface” its surface temperature is not determined primarily by radiation reaching that surface.
Earth surface median 288K is found not just from radiation but from considering: All physical processes that transport energy and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, radiative warming and cooling rates, vertical convective energy and volatile transport, diffusive energy transport (surface/upper atmosphere), latent heat transport/cloud processes.
Doug would know this had Doug ever passed atm. thermo. 101.
The 288K is not “found” from any valid physics. The surface would require a mean of variable flux well over 500W/m^2 to “explain” 288K with any radiation calculations. There is no input by sensible heat transfer (into the surface) shown in any energy budget diagram, whereas there should be a lot.
The valid physics of 1LOT are used to find median 288K on Earth and median 732K on Venus with measured data; the return of LH and SH is lumped into the all-sky radiation shown in the budgets.
You forgot, Norman and Mack, that Earth’s surface is not a blackbody and that it simultaneously has a lot of non-radiative heat transfers below and above.
Radiation reaching the surface is not the primary determinant of the surface temperature of any planet with a significant atmosphere anywhere in the Universe.
Roy
Joanne Nova asked on her climate blog for this one-sentence summary of my book and paper on core and surface temperatures:
THE HYPOTHESIS TURNS PLANETS AND MOONS INSIDE OUT, PROVING THAT THEY ARE NOT COOLING FROM THE CORE OUTWARDS, BUT WARMING FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE INWARDS, SO THAT WE FIND THAT THE SUN IS IN FACT MAINTAINING ALL TEMPERATURES FROM THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE TO THE CORE.
There is more detail in this comment and in comments starting here on the previous Weekend Unthreaded.
Doug 4:11pm – I observe you are continuing to humiliate yourself here with silly assertions. Many Jo’s blog red thumbers agree.
Maybe Doug can explain, in one sentence for non-charlatans, the reason two objects in the same sun orbit exhibit very different internal temperatures despite same surface material, one harboring liquid water and the other only water ice – Enceladus and Mimas.
In my book and paper on core and surface temperatures is the correct physics that can be used to explain temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons, based on parameters such as the planet’s gravity, distance from the Sun, height of the troposphere and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. Start with my website http://climate-change-theory.com if you want to learn the relevant physics developed from Kinetic Theory of Gases and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Planetary temperatures are maintained by “heat creep” from the absorbing “anchor” layers in the upper troposphere and/or stratosphere right down to the core. Hence it is solar radiation which determines all such temperatures, not any core cooling or radiation reaching the surface.
Mimas and Enceladus have same surface temperature Doug, around -330F or ~72K. Mimas g ~0.064 m/s^^2, Enceladus 0.113 m/s^^2. Same height of troposphere, same distance from sun, differ a bit in weighted specific heat Doug, yet Mimas is frozen solid water ice and Enceladus exhibits subsurface liquid water ocean. Observations that Doug’s faulty, embarrassingly wrong physics site (proven by experiment) cannot explain even by silly “heat creep” assertions. Picture yet another red thumb Doug.
I’ve just been over to Jo Nova’s, Ball4, and she’s suffering from a huge infestation of the Cotton blight.
Douggie boy makes Bowl Weavils seem positively innocuous.
Ball4:
Enceladus (diameter 500Km) is larger than Mimas (diameter 396Km) thus having over twice the volume and so over twice the gravitational force, which thus makes the sub-surface temperature gradient (-g/cp) about twice as steep. The lower specific heat (cp) of water (in the denominator) also increases the temperature gradient. Based on this, I figure that the temperature of the core of Enceladus should be about 175K to 190K.
Why then is the water in liquid form? Because the gravity of Saturn keeps the central liquid water moving with tidal mechanisms which prevent it from freezing.
That was…Boll Weevil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5H6iwQGWl4
Correction: Actually the specific heat of water is of course higher than ice; it is the density which is greater (by over 8%) thus increasing the force of gravity and the gradient. The effect of gravity is somewhat greater in the outer regions, because there is a compensating effect closer to the core due to the mass above. In the outer 50Km Enceladus would have its steepest temperature gradient, whilst Mimas does not physically have these extra 50Km, being over 100Km less in diameter. We see the same with Earth – gradients around 25 degrees per Km in the outer 10Km of the crust, but only about 1 degree per Km in the far hotter mantle, partly due to less gravity and also to far greater specific heat at those temperatures.
….”keeps the central liquid water moving with tidal mechanisms which prevent it from freezing.”
Bollocks, Duggie, Even the Niagara Falls freeze up..and they are certainly moving.
The evidence of water in the core of Enceladus comes from geysers that extend up to about 700Km above the surface just near the South Pole. It is also likely that the water comes through underground passages all the way from the central core, so there may be only a relatively small ocean of liquid water in the central region with the majority still being ice elsewhere with the same specific heat as the ice in Mimas.
“A possible explanation of the high heat flow observed is that Enceladus orbital relationship to Saturn and Dione changes with time, allowing periods of more intensive tidal heating, separated by more quiescent periods. This means Cassini might be lucky enough to be seeing Enceladus when its unusually active.
“Along one fissure, called Baghdad Sulcus, temperatures exceed 180 Kelvin ( 92 C, -135 F), and may be higher than 200 Kelvin (- 73 C, -100 F)… “
[source]
“..the gravity of Saturn keeps the central liquid water moving with tidal mechanisms which prevent it from freezing.”
Red thumb for Doug.
Mimas’ orbit is closer to Saturn and even more eccentric than that of Enceladus so Mimas’ tidal mechanisms are stronger – yet Mimas remains water ice. And you assert no reason for the sign of -g/Cp to change to strongly positive as observed for Enceladus. It isn’t the sun as you humiliatingly silly assert Doug: “Hence it is solar radiation which determines all such temperatures…”
But the Mimas core temperature would only get up to about 100K because the planet has less than half the volume and thus half the gravity of Enceladus, as I have already pointed out.
I find no trouble in deducing that 100K is too cold for tidal forces to melt ice, whereas temperatures perhaps nearly double that may not be.
Just wondering if you ever think these things out for yourself, Ball4. I’m never wrong about such matters, so don’t waste my time.
Anyway, is there any reason why I should respond to your red herrings when you are unable to answer THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS?
Note also: “The significantly higher density of Enceladus relative to Mimas (1.61 vs. 1.15 g/cm3), implying a larger content of rock and more radiogenic heating in its early history, has also been cited as an important factor in resolving the paradox.[111]” [source]
This rock content in Enceladus makes the temperature gradient steeper also because of lower specific heat. If there is enough, the core could be above 273K anyway. You misled me saying it was all ice.
See my note in the Wikipedia talk page
=== Probably the real reason for the Enceladus water ===
We need to understand that there is a gravitationally induced temperature gradient that forms at the molecular level and is based on the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the solids, liquids or gases involved. We see this in all planets and satellite moons. We can indeed explain the small temperature increase of about 30 degrees between the surface and core in Mimas using the specific heat of ice. But Enceladus (diameter 500Km) has just over twice the volume of Mimas (diameter 390Km) and greater density due to the rock. This means that the force of gravity may well be three or four times as great. Also, because of the lower specific heat of most rocks, that also makes the temperature gradient steeper. It is not out of the question that the temperature of the core might get above 273K (not the estimated 180K to 200K) because of these factors and the fact that there is a greater distance between surface and core, thus not even requiring the supposed heating by tidal forces.
Another first in the world based on my hypothesis:
From this Wiki paragraph it is apparent that there is no accepted reason for the water in the core of Enceladus …
“Several explanations for the observed elevated temperatures and the resulting plumes have been proposed, including venting from a subsurface reservoir of liquid water, sublimation of ice,[90] decompression and dissociation of clathrates, and shear heating,[91] but identification of all the internal heat sources causing the observed thermal power output of Enceladus are not yet determined.
“Heating in Enceladus has occurred through various mechanisms ever since its formation. Radioactive decay in its core may have initially heated it,[92] giving it a warm core and a subsurface ocean, which is now kept above freezing through an unknown mechanism. Geophysical models indicate that tidal heating is one of the main heat sources, perhaps aided by radioactive decay and some heat-producing chemical reactions.[93][94][95][96] A 2007 study predicted the internal heat of Enceladus, if generated by tidal forces, could be no greater than 1.1 gigawatts,[97] but data from Cassini’s infrared spectrometer of the south polar terrain over 16 months, indicate that the internal heat generated power is about 4.7 gigawatts,[97] and suggest that it is in thermal equilibrium.[8][52][98]
“The observed power output of 4.7 gigawatts is challenging to explain from tidal heating alone, so the main source of heat remains a mystery.[4][93] Most scientists think the observed heat flux of Enceladus is not enough to maintain the subsurface ocean, and therefore any subsurface ocean must be a remnant of a period of higher eccentricity and tidal heating, or the heat is produced through another mechanism.[99][100]”
But I have just given you a valid reason for it based on my hypothesis. The gravitationally induced temperature gradient results directly from the maximum entropy production as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Maximum entropy is attained when all unbalanced energy potentials have dissipated. Since changes in molecular gravitational potential energy obviously affect entropy, there must be a homogeneous sum of gravitational potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE). Since PE varies with height, so too does KE vary equally. We equate PE gain and KE loss to compute the temperature gradient from Kinetic Theory. This information has been available since the 19th century.
This time Doug asserts himself wrong: Hence it is solar radiation which determines all such temperatures
with: “Probably the real reason..greater density..”
Another big red thumb for Doug, can’t keep his stories straight. Enceladus core temperature at 273K (~32F), Doug, does not explain the liquid water ocean far, far above the core on the way down to frozen 70K. You will have to bend your story some more. And why not show/calculate -g/Cp for Mimas and Enceladus for us Doug? Like a real scientist.
“..any reason why I should respond to your red herrings..”
Actually you shouldn’t Doug, as always you just humiliate yourself further with even more silly assertions – like Doug, stumped, not knowing how to do a simple 1LOT energy balance at Earth surface showing the 288K annual median (with all measured data) which can be learned to pass atm. thermo. 101 (a course Doug admits he hasn’t passed & is therefore a charlatan)- as experimentally proven by Dr. Spencer time and again for Doug.
…there must be a homogeneous sum of gravitational potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE).
No Doug. Responding with another humiliating silly assertion just fits your M.O. as a charlatan, admittedly not having passed the basic course in atm. thermo. 101. The 1LOT homogenous sum conserved for an atmosphere (and planet/moon core) in that course is found by experiment to be: PE+KE+p*V.
Ball4
Firstly, I’m waiting on an apology for your false assumption that my hypothesis could not explain the Enceladus paradox. In fact only my hypothesis explains it – for the first time in world literature – now in Wiki talk.
Secondly, I’m waiting for your answers to THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS on my blog.
I am talking about individual molecules, Ball4, if you would but read the paper. There is no pressure involved. They are just like a ball thrown into the air wherein (PE+KE)=constant.
I can understand your confusion, but that is typical of students who use equations of physics without understanding the context or prerequisites for them to apply.
You would do well to remember that what I say is supported by hundreds of experiments, planetary data and every vortex tube in the world. You would thus be best not to assume I’m wrong, because I will always have the correct answer, because I understand what’s happening and can see you don’t.
Go read the assumptions of Kinetic Theory on Wiki and see that the molecules are affected by gravity and that Newtonian laws of motion can be applied to each molecule, as I have done, Ball4. I don’t make silly mistakes.
So bounce away Ball4 and measure your own (PE+KE) as you do so.
Ball4, you have no idea about what my hypothesis says, and you, like Mack, continue to put your foot in it.
Density plays a part in determining the gravitational force, and that’s all a part of my hypothesis. It is the Sun Stupid, and if you switched off the radiation from the Sun then Saturn and all its moons would cool right down, perhaps in just a few thousand years. Same goes for the rest of the planets and moons in the solar system. None of them generates enough internal energy to maintain their current temperatures in their tropospheres, cores and any mantle, crust or solid surface in between.
Give up Ball4 and Mack because you will never prove me wrong on any significant point that would refute my hypothesis.
Answer THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS.
“There is no pressure involved. They are just like a ball thrown into the air wherein (PE+KE)=constant.”
Wrong Doug, experimental evidence disagrees with your assertion. The pressure changes over the volume of the ball when thrown in the air, individual molecules experience the p*V energy change (in addition to PE+KE change) as found from experiment which shows conserved 1LOT energy must be accounted or your results will be wrong as they are, the conserved energy really is: PE+KE+p*V
Doug’s confusion is understandable as charlatans such as Doug are known not to have passed the pre-req.s to enter and pass a course in atm. thermo. 101.
“..that what I say is supported..”
What do you say Doug for Enceladus? “Hence it is solar radiation which determines all such temperatures” OR Probably the real reason..greater density..
The answer to the questions that stump charlatan Doug are readily found from a simple steady state energy balance at Earth surface from which students passing atm. thermo. 101 use existing test data to result in 288K median annual T. This can be found from experiments and read in the existing literature.
“Newtonian laws of motion can be applied to each molecule”
The Newtonian sum of forces on each molecule includes a term for p*V found by experiment and is acting in all vortex tubes, balls thrown in the air, individual molecules & planetary data. Doug misses the p*V term because he is a charlatan.
I work within the framework and assumptions of Kinetic Theory, as was successfully used by Einstein and many others. Go and edit the article in Wikipedia and see if your edit sticks. Get back when you have succeeded in changing established theory – then try your hand at changing the Second Law, coz that’s the other thing I used.
What do you use to explain Earth and Venus temperatures – similar sized planets, Ball4? Twice the solar intensity does not explain any more than a 19% increase in temperature.
7:19pm “What do you use to explain Earth and Venus temperatures similar sized planets, Ball4?”
All physical processes that transport energy and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, Radiative warming and cooling rates, Vertical convective energy and volatile transport, Diffusive energy transport (surface/upper atmosphere), Latent heat transport/cloud processes..Equilibrium climate derived by solving the vertical energyvolatile transport equation as an initial value problem, starting from an assumed state and iterating until in equilibrium steady state. Then check that results agree with test.
Sorry Duggie, radiation from the Sun on the Earth doesn’t “creep” in…it’s more like water off a duck’s back.
I never said radiation did. Next time read what is in my paper before you put your foot in it yet again.
Ball4 – bounce away to this comment.
Ok let’s add another test needed to Doug’s yet to be accomplished testing list since the onus is on Doug to provide tests for at least:
1) resonant scattering (AKA pseudo-scattering)
2) Max. entropy production using perfect insulation
3) Icy moons complying with -g/Cp
4) Heat creep especially the time required for its transfer of energy
5) -g/Cp test confirming T gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy
6) Proof Dr Alex Hamilton actually exists (separate from Doug) with contact information
Since the same is true for Doug 5:24pm: “..the onus is upon lukes and warmists to support their false science with experiments.”
….”keeps the central liquid water moving with tidal mechanisms which prevent it from freezing.”
Bollocks, Duggie, Even the Niagara Falls freeze up..and they are certainly moving. You really are grasping for straws. Tidal effect and movement of the sea does not prevent it from freezing up.
Just how much more humiliation from a layman can you take Duggie boy?
I don’t know how much humiliation you can take, layman Mack, but it would have been a good idea to do some research before putting your foot in it even for yet another time.
I wrote my first comment from memory, but had no trouble just now finding a couple of references to the tidal heating of the core of Enceladus as linked in this comment.
Ever heard of Google, young Mack? You have so much physics to learn.
Oh, who would have thought it…it was geothermal heating.
Nothing to do with the Sun, Duggie boy.
Mack
It seems I temporarily misled you, but I clarified the situation in this comment written two hours before yours. You really should read all my comments on the subject before writing your comments, because every time you think you can prove me wrong, you fail. That’s because I’m right, and that’s because I understand this physics.
The Enceladus core temperature has everything to do with the Sun, and my hypothesis explains it. My first reference to tidal forces was from some websites, but you will see on Wiki that the tidal “explanation” has been debunked as it would not generate the required temperature. I had not read about that refutation until today. So that leaves my hypothesis as the only one standing – as usual.
I explained the process which melts the ice on Enceladus yesterday. What’s wrong with you, Ball4? Don’t you recognize 273K as the melting point? Stop wasting my time. My correct physics has explained EVERYTHING you have ever thrown at me. Your problem is that you just have not read it.
PS There’s only a small amount of water in the Enceladus core with passages from there to the South Pole surface where the geysers operate. There’s plenty of rock, my friend.
“Dont you recognize 273K as the melting point?”
Well, for reasonably pure and 1bar water, sure.
“Theres only a small amount of water in the Enceladus core”
And Doug’s proof is?
And Doug’s proof is based on measurements of mean density made by passing spacecraft measuring its gravitational force.
The spacecraft measured water under Enceladus surface ice crust Doug and rock at the core (not core liquid water or water ice).
Regarding the moon of Saturn called Enceladus, whilst there is a lot of discussion about tidal forces maintaining liquid water in the core, I have today come to realize (with a few calculations) that my hypothesis explains it after all, because the gravity is higher than I first thought (due to rocks) and the rocks also make the specific heat lower and thus the temperature gradient higher. Hence temperatures could indeed get above 273K in the core just entirely due to the “heat creep” process and the gravito-thermal effect. There’s more in this comment above.
Wrong again Doug, big red thumb, water ice Tethys is much larger than liquid water Enceladus. I recommend a course in atm. thermo. 101 to reduce Doug’s inanity. A process besides Doug’s sun or density assertion is warming Enceladus to melt its ice.
Ball4
A+ for patience with Doug. You are bringing up things I have not been aware of to show how ludicrous and unsupported the conjecture he endlessly repeats is. Thanks!
Norman and Ball4:
Go and read this comment (in full) both of you.
I have no problem explaining temperatures in Enceladus and did so yesterday (showing why central temperatures are above 273K) once I found out that Ball4 lied about the composition of the planet, not even mentioning the rocks and implying it was nearly all water, whereas in fact there could be just a small central core of water. He even implied the two moons were about the same size, when in fact Enceladus has over double the volume.
When he produces links to correct information about the diameter and composition of Tethys and its force of gravity, I will be able to apply my hypothesis and get pretty close to the estimated temperatures.
Bounce away Ball4 and measure your (PE+KE) because that’s another mistake you made thinking that individual molecules have a pressure. Dear me!
“..Ball4 lied…” Haha, I must have made a mark, this is the classic trademark tactic of a defeated charlatan. Attack the commenter not the science, then run off to a different subthread. Here’s what I wrote 8:18: “differ a bit in weighted specific heat Doug”.
Any competent scientist would then be alerted but Doug is not competent, not alert enough, comes up with a completely unfounded: “in fact there could be just a small central core of water..”. In this case Doug misses that rocks sink to the Enceladus core below the liquid water. In fact, the liquid ocean is just under the 70K crust. Enceladus demolishes Doug’s hypothesis completely & irrecoverably. Just as Dr. Spencer did with actual data from atm. experiments. Tethys and Mimas data et. al. are readily available to competent research Doug.
Oh, and individual molecules energy, by simple Newtonian physics, is affected by changes in pressure and volume (p*V energy) Doug, this was proven experimentally in late 1800s, can’t be neglected. Well, except by charlatans who get answers not in agreement with nature like Doug who hasn’t studied the subject.
Pass a course in atm. thermo. 101 Doug, it takes hard work & experiment to become competent. I predict, though, Doug will remain a charlatan; certainly more entertaining to watch Doug humiliate himself with silly unfounded assertions. AND…and Doug would learn the answer to his being stumped about Earth simple surface steady state 1LOT energy balance easily resulting in 288K annual median using measured input data. Dougs answers are in the literature for competent researchers.
I have proved the content of “atm. thermo. 101” to be false.
You have no proof Ball4 – it’s all conjecture. You don’t even link your articles, which are all full of conjecture anyway. Nobody has drilled boreholes. They can however determine the density of these moons, and that is a start.
“Mass estimates from the Voyager program missions suggested that Enceladus was composed almost entirely of water ice.[41] However, based on the effects of Enceladus’s gravity on Cassini, its mass was determined to be much higher than previously thought, yielding a density of 1.61 g/cm3.[4] This density is higher than Saturn’s other mid-sized icy satellites, indicating that Enceladus contains a greater percentage of silicates and iron.” [source]
Density of ice is 0.92. Volume of Enceladus is about twice Mimas. Hence mass (and so gravity) is about 2.01 x 1.61/0.92 = 3.52 times. Specific heat of iron and silicates is about half that of ice, so temperature gradient could be perhaps 6 times that on Mimas. Also the distance is greater, giving an expected temperature rise of about times as much as for Mimas where it is about 30 degrees. So we get about 72+180*500/396 = 299K which is quite warm enough for a significant amount of water which must be in the central regions. Researchers have realized this water is deep down, partly because of the pressure in the geysers which spray up to 700Km above the surface.
To prove atm. thermos. 101 content wrong Doug, you first need to state the content, then provide an opposing experiment. You have done neither, as you are incompetent.
The liquid water on Enceladus is just under the crust Doug, your computations are for the core. Incompetent. Tethys core being mostly water ice proves your hypothesis is wrong. Dr. Spencer’s experimental data further prove your hypothesis wrong.
I’ve proved Pierrehumbert and Hansen to be wrong on so many points that their whole paradigm of radiative forcing is wrong, as is proved by the coincidences issue beyond reasonable doubt. The course is based on their work, not mine, so it must be wrong.
“We learned that just like Jupiters larger moon Europa, there is a global liquid water ocean under Enceladus icy crust, and we also discovered evidence that there is hydrothermal activity, reactions between hot rock and liquid water, occurring inside Enceladus at the bottom of that ocean, said Curt Niebur, “ [source]
See the reference to hot rock at the base of the underground ocean, Ball4?
OK – so the temperature gradient rises and makes the rock hotter near the central region of the core. My hypothesis still explains it.
Doug – Again, state a Hansen or Pierrehumbert contention, then prove it wrong with experiment. Only incompetent charlatans such as Doug use simple assertion.
Niebur states it fairly Doug, which disagrees with your hypothesis which can’t get the temperature just below the crust high enough to melt water, Doug’s own (incompetent) calculations showed the Enceladus rocky core at highest 273K just barely warm enough. Try again Doug.
Another assertive statement from Ball4.
There are huge errors in the calculation of that 288K as I have exposed. Read and answer the QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS and you will learn about those errors when you fail to get the right answers, or you incorrectly add backradiation into S-B calculations.
For one planet (Earth) you want to work out the surface temperature from radiative balance.
Then you link me to a cartoon-type website which says Venus temperatures are also worked out by radiative balance.
At least you agree with me that the latter is false. You’ve dreamed about downward winds doing the trick there.
What is your latest dream-world conjecture about how the Earth’s surface temperature is really calculated, because your 101 course is wrong, wrong, wrong and I have shown why in the STUMPED questions. Read them before you write another word and you’ll be able to correct the lecturers who bluffed you.
Ball4 claims I said: “rocky core at highest 273K”
What I actually said was “temperatures could indeed get above 273K in the core”
Now knowing that it is SOLID rock down there, then the final temperature gradient would be steeper still in that region, especially if it is iron. Conduits through the rock could easily convey hotter temperatures from the center through the water which would fill them. The geysers are ice geysers anyway, so the original water need not have been very much above 273K.
“There are huge errors in the calculation of that 288K as I have exposed”
The 288K calculation (and the one for Venus) is based on 1LOT with measured input & experimental evidence. No assertions at ALL, all tested. If errors exist, expose them here Doug, by experiment. No one who has passed atm. thermo. 101 is stumped Doug, only you as a charlatan are stumped.
“For one planet (Earth) you want to work out the surface temperature from radiative balance.”
Wrong Doug, not just radiation as you admitted not reading the Venus link, from: “all physical processes that transport heat and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, Radiative heating and cooling rates, Vertical convective heat and volatile transport, Diffusive heat transport (surface/upper atmosphere), Latent heat transport/cloud processes”. The results agree with experiment.
“101 course is wrong, wrong, wrong..”
State a contention that is wrong, support your claim by experiment. This is what non-charlatans do Doug. Start working out of your charlatan status.
Doug – Enceladus icy crust is 30-40Km thick from observations, your -g/Cp hypothesis cannot explain the temperature going from 70K to +273K or more in that distance falsifying your contention by experiment – especially while at the same time having Mimas and Tethys et. al. remain water ice all the way to their core.
My hypothesis has been proven with experiments with centrifuge machines (where heat creep from the central regions leaves them close to 1K in the center) and vortex tubes, and over 850 experiments with cylinders that developed a gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, and with the coincidences issue you have not even thought about, and with my study showing that real world temperature and precipitation data confirms what my hypothesis predicts, namely that the most prolific GH gas, water vapor, cools the surface. The Earth’s surface would be over 300K on average without water vapor (which lowers the temperature gradient) and the clouds which increase albedo, thus lowering the whole plot of temperature v. altitude in the troposphere. Any more suggestions?
What evidence do you have, Ball4, regarding the compounding of solar and back radiation to “explain” the surface temperature for a flat earth receiving uniform flux 24 hours each day and day? Do 16 radiators make an object 700K if one makes it 350K? Where’s your experiment? Where’s your study showing water vapor making rain forests 50 degrees hotter as per IPCC implications? What about taking your umbrella to shade you at night from the back radiation which is supposedly as strong as the solar radiation, but operates twice as long each 24 hours delivering far more energy out of the atmosphere than entered at the top thereof? Surely you could feel the difference with or without the umbrella, just as you can in sunlight.
Don’t get me going!
What, Ball4, don’t you think ice can get below 273K? I have already explained the temperature gradient anyway.
Besides, why do you say it is whatever temperature it is? Why is it even hotter than the surface where there is at least some solar radiation? You don’t think much do you? If you suggest a reason relating to atomic or nuclear reactions I will go along with that, especially as it is such a small moon, those reactions would have an over-riding effect.
So, if any such reactions make the core temperature hotter than, say, 300K, then it is obvious they would over-ride the gravity effect. So what? It does not prove that no gravity effect would be apparent without the reactions. Nothing proves my hypothesis wrong. And if there are no such reactions, then you cannot even explain water at even 274K. Nor can you explain 5,000K temperatures in the small solid core of Uranus.
Doug there are way more than 850 experiments proving ideal lapse g/Cp w/o condensation is a good approximation for dry hydrostatic atm.s. Centrifuges, cylinders and vortex generators and literally many thousands of radiosondes are indeed reasonably confirmatory. Where your hypothesis fails is for wet condensing atm.s, missing the p*V term for energy conservation and the icy moons of various planets. I may have left out a few other humiliating failures.
..namely that the most prolific GH gas, water vapor, cools the surface.
Atm. test by Dr. Spencer proved your hypothesis wrong Doug. I showed previously where Dougs model of precipitable water over the rain forests is calculated wrong.
The Earths surface would be over 300K on average without water vapor.
Atm. test by Dr. Spencer proved your hypothesis wrong Doug.
What evidence do you have, Ball4, regarding the compounding of solar and back radiation to explain the surface temperature for a flat earth receiving uniform flux 24 hours each day and day?
The median thermometer data on Earth along with satellite data and the very sparse surface temperature measurements on Venus, agreeing with the Venus atm. lapse found from radio occultation experiments & analysis. It is not hard to find experimental confirmation Doug.
Do 16 radiators make an object 700K if one makes it 350K?
If proper 1LOT analysis says so, then tests will confirm. You dont give enough (energy in energy out) info. here to know however.
Wheres your experiment?
Planck ref.s them, S-B paper ref.s them, look them up. Surface thermometer data, satellite data, radio occultation data, planetary data, solar system moon data, 1LOT experiments, even many 1LOT experiments Ive run myself, IR thermometer data, night IR vision, lasers, so much more Doug.
No need for an umbrella at night Doug without rain, the tropical net is comfortable, but observations of cars in/out of carports in dew/frost conditions & careful reading of downwelling LW test by Dr. Spencer will help Doug understand. I can rec. a few books for Doug too but I prefer Doug as more fun playing the charlatan. Make my prediction come true Doug, never improve.
What, Ball4, dont you think ice can get below 273K?
I dont. Observations prove ice turns to water above about 32F (~273K) though.
Besides, why do you say it is whatever temperature it is?
I rely on the 1LOT consistent with 2LOT and Planck law, so good so far.
Nothing proves my hypothesis wrong.
Enceladus, Mimas, and Tethys observations all prove Dougs hypothesis wrong, all icy moons do. You might also want to look into Jupiters Europa proving Dougs hypothesis wrong. Dr Spencer has even proven Dougs hypothesis wrong by experiment.
“Enceladus demolishes Dougs hypothesis”
Yeah – sure – all based on your unknown temperature data in the core. Who’s measured temperatures there in order to prove me wrong? Go on Ball4, link us all to some temperature data published in peer-reviewed papers, or, if you can’t, then bounce away, as we are bored with your assertive statements and lack of understanding of thermodynamics because of a lack of sufficient education and post-graduate study in such.
The greenhouse effect is so easily refuted with any amount of data, that this whole discussion is laughable in comparison.
The liquid water exists under the icy crust Doug not at the core, it is unnecceassry to know the temperature at the core. We are bored with your already refuted (by test from Dr. Spencer) simpleton assertive statements Doug, please provide a cite to tests showing you understand all you write about:
1) resonant scattering (AKA pseudo-scattering)
2) Max. entropy production using perfect insulation
3) Icy moons complying with -g/Cp
4) Heat creep especially the time required for its transfer of energy
5) -g/Cp test confirming T gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy
6) Proof Dr Alex Hamilton actually exists (separate from Doug) with contact information
Since the same is true for Doug writing 5:24pm: ..the onus is upon lukes and warmists to support their false science with experiments.
Tethys has about 20 times the volume of Mimas, and so the gravity is about 20x and so is the temperature gradient. That gradient extends over the 530Km radius, compared with about 183Km for Mimas. Hence the temperature of the core of Tethys would be well over 1,000K by my hypothesis. Its mean density is 0.98 and, since the density of ice is about 0.92, we can deduce that it is about three-quarters water and one-quarter ice forming a crust.
Stop wasting my time, Ball4. Do the calculations yourself first (using my hypothesis) and then tell me about it. Physics is universal – that’s why the hypothesis always gives the right answers. Give up! You can’t even explain Earth or Venus surface temperatures in any other way.
Wrong Doug, no 1,000K Tethys liquid water core, Dougs hypothesis miserably fails yet again, long known: ..the mean density of Enceladus is…little more than that of water-ice and we conclude that this satellite is markedly deficient in rock…the satellite has a deep mantle of water-ice of density 0.93 g/cu cm.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19950043338
No mention of any temperature estimate in your linked webpage, Ball4. Stop wasting my time. Get real quotes that are relevant – paste them here with source links as I do. Find me any estimate of the core temperature of Tethys. For our own Moon it is about 1600 to 1700K. Explain that, Ball4, when the cold side of the Moon gets nearly as cold as those Saturn moons.
Tethys water ice core necessarily means an upper temperature limit Doug, way less than your humiliatingly silly 1,000K hypothesis. Earth moon mean density far above water ice Doug, no bearing on Saturn’s icy moons. As a practicing charlatan, Doug simply runs to another subject when obviously defeated.
No problem Ball4. If it’s all water, the specific heat of water is high and the gravity near the core is very low because of the opposing mass above. Hence the temperature gradient is very close to zero and so we can revise the maximum temperature to perhaps just under 370K. The original estimate was done hurriedly, so I withdraw it.
370K is 206F Doug so Tethys would have a lot of liquid water under an icy crust yet Tethys density shows all its water is ice – yet again proving Doug’s theory is wrong.
370K is 206F Doug so Tethys would have a lot of liquid water under an icy crust yet Tethys density shows all the water is ice – yet again proving Doug’s theory is wrong.
All of you go back to this comment and explain the coincidences. Don’t assume I’m wrong as it will get you nowhere. You have a lot to learn and you won’t learn until you change you whole attitude and realize I’m here to teach you. You’ve already seen that all other guesses about Enceladus have been debunked and Wikipedia authors are left without an explanation. Maybe mine will remain in the Talk page until someone who understands entropy understands it, owns it and publishes it.
Meanwhile I have so much evidence supporting the hypothesis that, statistically, the probability of my being wrong is millions to one against, as you will understand when you see what I’m getting at about the coincidences. Planets are warmed from the upper atmosphere downwards all the way to the core with “heat creep” replacing (most of) the energy on the sunlit side which was lost by cooling the night before.
“explain the coincidences”
No need since coincidence is not cause. Mimas, Tethys, and Enceladus, all icy moons, are proof Doug’s hypothesis is wrong.
You comment is akin to saying statistics is not the cause. Laughable really, as you completely miss the point. All empirical data supposedly supporting an hypothesis should be subjected to statistical analysis. Improbable (but apparent coincidences) have a very low probability of being correct. Hence we can deduce that the greenhouse hypothesis has a very low probability of being correct.
Apparent coincidences are not a test Doug. The 33K is from test.
DougCotton,
Do you have the slightest calculations to verify your bold proclamation that Saturn and the moons would cool down rapidly without the sun?
I think your post above has to be the most scientifically illiterate claim I have read from you.
You: “It is the Sun Stupid, and if you switched off the radiation from the Sun then Saturn and all its moons would cool right down, perhaps in just a few thousand years. Same goes for the rest of the planets and moons in the solar system. None of them generates enough internal energy to maintain their current temperatures in their tropospheres, cores and any mantle, crust or solid surface in between.”
You must have very little knowledge of heat flow process and how slow it can be in some materials. I did a calculation for you in the summer about Uranus core and if you use heat flow in gases it is very slow when you talk about several miles of insulating properties. I think you need to quit posting. Ball4 is right, the more you post the worse you sound. Why not try at least a little physics and do a heat flow calculation from a hot core (created by planetary formation) to thousands of miles of insulating gas between core and outer space and come back and post after you have at least done one calculation.
Whilst the Sun’s radiation is not declining, Norman, net heat flow out of a planet does not happen unless the planet is shrinking or generating internal energy with some atomic or nuclear process. There is absolutely no long term cooling off for any planet that is not shrinking unless the Sun’s radiation is reduced perhaps billions of years down the track. Uranus has a near “ideal” atmosphere to consider.
You only have to consider how cold the dark side of the Moon gets in a couple of weeks, Norman. I don’t care if the time frame is a few thousand years or a few billion: my point holds that it is the Sun’s radiation which supports all temperatures down to the core.
I asked you Norman (and Roy and Ball4) to think carefully about the “coincidences” issue which proves all hypotheses other than mine to be incorrect with an exceptionally high probability.
Do you want to learn or not Norman? I’ve already had to correct your physics regarding the use of eccentricity. You must surely realize that you can’t explain the Venus surface temperature as being due to direct solar radiation, as it would need about 20,000W/m^2 of variable flux to account for such. It actually gets about 0.01% of that required amount.
I have been right all along Norman, because I understand the relevant physics and statistical probabilities in the case of the coincidences.
You should also address the QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS because you will then understand why the radiative forcing GH conjecture is wrong.
In no way whatsoever have any of you even addressed the physics pertaining to entropy, which is what my hypothesis is all about. So how do you imagine you can refute the hypothesis if you don’t even discuss entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics from which it is derived?
I am not wasting more time unless you show a genuine interest in asking questions about the physics in my hypothesis, rather than just attempting to prove it wrong with temperature data. Ball4, for example, did not advise me about the rock content in Enceladus which of course increases the temperature gradient very significantly as it increases the numerator and decreases the denominator. Hence my hypothesis does in fact explain the water in the core, and once again I have been first in the world to do so, just as I was first to explain the radial temperature gradient in a vortex tube, correctly quantifying it and noting that it was in agreement with what my hypothesis indicated it would be. Heat creep happens even in a simple vortex tube – every such tube in the world, Norman.
As per standard physics there is no transfer of thermal energy across any boundary in the state of maximum entropy which, in a gravitational field, has an associated density gradient and an associated temperature gradient. For planets there is a flow outwards at night and a balancing flow inwards during the day, and that flow extends beyond any solid surface.
How else do you suppose that boreholes exhibit a temperature gradient such that, at 9Km depth in one in Germany the temperature is 270C – far hotter than they expected with their incorrect science based on conduction rates.
Standard conduction rates are inapplicable in a gravitational field, and a temperature gradient in such boreholes does not indicate a net outflow of energy each 24 hours.
You really need to come to grips with what my hypothesis explains, Norman, remembering that it is supported by data throughout the Solar System, by over 850 experiments with sealed insulated cylinders that became cooler at the top, and by every vortex tube in the world. Consider the coincidences, Norman.
“As per standard physics there is no transfer of thermal energy across any boundary in the state of maximum entropy which, in a gravitational field, has an associated density gradient and an associated temperature gradient.”
Standard phyics (a major mystery to charlatan Doug) proves a state of maximum entropy requires perfect insulation (isolation from this universe). Doug – please let me know your source of perfect insulation, my house could use some (winter AND summer). Perfection is not of this world.
So you can’t prove the density gradient in the troposphere keeps approaching thermodynamic equilibrium then can you Ball4 – because the insulation is not perfect and so entropy does not have to increase and molecules can thus keep falling downwards ad infinitum?
When some fall on your silly little head, remember that the skies are indeed falling and maybe bouncing a bit too, Ball4.
Universe entropy does increase Doug for all atm. processes and the mean free path of the molecules at sea level is on the order of 0.1 micron so they free fall a very small amount.
VENUS DATA PROVES THE RADIATIVE GH CONJECTURE WRONG
The Sun delivers to Venus (through the cross-sectional circle) about 2600 joules of energy per second per square meter of that circle. That energy has to be spread over four times the area. So it is on average about 650 joules of energy per in each second that would be delivered to each square meter of the surface if there were no reflection or absorption. But, to explain the surface temperature of about 735K with radiation calculations, you would need over 16,000 joules each second for each square meter of the surface. (In fact, variable flux would have to be over 20,000W/m^2.)
Energy cannot be created with the atmosphere delivering more out of its base each second than it received at its top. So the temperature of the Venus surface is not determined by radiation reaching it and so the Greenhouse conjecture is wrong.
..the temperature of the Venus surface is not determined by radiation..
For once – even a charlatan can make a reasonable guess, I agree with this as competent science starts with an isothermal guess and iterates to the measured solution using more than radiation (as in Earths surface balance), see slide 10 uses: all physical processes that transport heat and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, Radiative heating and cooling rates, Vertical convective heat and volatile transport, Diffusive heat transport (surface/upper atmosphere), Latent heat transport/cloud processes..Equilibrium (Venus) climate derived by solving the vertical heat/volatile transport equation as an initial value problem, starting from an assumed state.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/nov_2007/presentations/crisp.pdf
Good luck understanding all that Doug, you arent competent enough.
Your cartoon pages refer to “radiative heating rates associated with the Near-IR cloud” which is where I stopped. All radiation up and down between the surface of Venus and its less-hot atmosphere does is to transfer thermal energy out of the surface, day and night, never into the surface, never heating the surface. So it is not “heating” Ball4. Don’t waste my time.
Doug – Thermal energy is kinetic energy, transfers one way. But there ARE downdrafts & winds, there is LH transport. Radiation energy operates with photons which aren’t kinetic energy so you aren’t competent enough to read any further, told ya’, don’t even try.
Now you are really clutching at straws, Ball4, especially trying to find downward winds blowing down thousands of kilometers towards the core of Uranus. What goes down must come up anyway, having the reverse effect. When winds blow into a region the temperature of the hotter or colder wind tends towards that of the region it blows into. There’s no reason whatsoever for such winds (forced convection, not natural convection) to create a temperature gradient. They just don’t. They level out the temperatures.
Don’t you even know that I wrote a comprehensive paper on “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” which was published on several websites in March 2012 and is linked here?
Yes, important (and elementary) point: radiation does not have kinetic energy. Its electromagnetic energy has to be thermalized in a target (that is, converted back to kinetic energy) if there is to be any heat transfer.
My paper tells you when that happens and you can work out how much is thermalized (having its energy converted to kinetic energy in the target) based on the radiation represented by the area between the Planck functions for a warmer source and cooler target.
None is thermalized for radiation going from cold to hot which is just pseudo-scatterd – that’s the law – the Second one. Modern day physicists will tell you all about it, or you can read my review-type paper and the citations.
Doug: None is thermalized for radiation going from cold to hot which is just pseudo-scatterd
Do you have a test for this? I think not. This is wrong as the Venus link shows. In Plancks paper photon tests ref.d show, when incident on an object, photons are scattered (reflected if back to source), transmitted (if not opaque) and absorbed by the room temperature object from dry ice T to steam T.
According to Dougs untested hypothesis, my warmer eyes around 98F would not be able to absorb cooler radiation from the objects in my room at 72F. Since I can see these objects, there is a counter experiment to Dougs stated contention. My warmer eyes absorb the cooler radiation proving that radiation is not pseudo-scatterd by a warmer object. This is true of night vision IR devices too Doug.
In case you don’t even know the basics of optics, Ball4, visible light is high frequency light, obviously originating from a hot light source and merely reflected by the object you see. It is ludicrous that you could not work that out for yourself. Now you have really downgraded my impression of your understanding of physics to the lowest level yet.
Fancy you, Ball4, thinking that the temperature of the object you were looking somehow controls the frequency of the light which is REFLECTED by it, not spontaneously emitted. I just can’t get over laughing as such a basic error on your part Ball4.
Read some 21st century physics, my friend, as Planck did not understand the process of pseudo-scattering back then. I called it “resonant scattering” in my paper Radiated Energy and The Second Law of Thermodynamics and in the cited references, including one by a brilliant professor of applied mathematics, so argue with him regarding his computations if you’re up to it. See my final comment at the end of the thread.
and Ball4 …
When a night vision IR device (or an IR thermometer) is pointed at a cooler object it does NOT convert the energy in the radiation to thermal energy and it does NOT have its sensor warmed by radiation from that colder source. What it does do is explained in the Appendix of my paper on radiated energy that was published on several websites way back in March 2012.
“..visible light is high frequency light, obviously originating from a hot light source and merely reflected by the object you see.”
Not reflected Doug, that light goes straight back to the source, the light I see with my eyes is scattered from, and emitted by, objects on which it is incident. The light is around 90% emitted and 10% scattered by those non-metal opaque objects like, say, a cabbage. About 10% emitted and 90% scattered from shiny metal opaque objects.
“Planck did not understand the process of pseudo-scattering back then..I called it resonant scattering..”
Planck did not find any “resonant scattering” in the testing. Doug will need a test to show “resonant scattering” because my eyes are proof “resonant scattering” isn’t a physical process only a figment of imagination of Doug, a charlatan. It is ok to cite a relevant test conducted by “a brilliant professor” Doug.
“..does NOT convert the energy in the radiation to thermal energy..does NOT have its sensor warmed by radiation from that colder source..”
However tests show the LW IR sensor WILL be measured by thermometer warmer than a control IR sensor not viewing the LW IR, as Dr. Spencer proved for Doug by experiment.
Read about diffuse reflection, Ball4 – even Wiki could help you learn that it is still a type of reflection and has nothing to do with radiative emission.
Yes Ball4 of course the sensor’s rate of cooling can be used to compute the temperature of a cooler body, assuming the emissivity of that body (like a cloud) can also be estimated well. As I said, this was explained in the Appendix of my 2012 paper.
See this article on IR thermometers and note the point that there must be ambient temperature compensation.
That article proves you are wrong about resonant scattering Doug.
It does no such thing. You Ball4 don’t know what it is. Every microwave oven demonstrates it. Those plastic bowls are NOT transparent because we know solar radiation can warm them, but not low frequency radiation that has enough energy to boil water (by another process that physically imparts KE directly with each passing wave in synch with natural physical vibrations) but cannot even warm the bowls that don’t have water molecules.
“Those plastic bowls are NOT transparent because we know solar radiation can warm them..”
The bowls are not as transparent to solar SW (nm) Doug as they are to microwave LW (cm) which is so long the holes in the oven door block the waves Doug. Water is absorbing in the mw spectrum.
In Doug’s own words “The honest scientist writes only about an hypothesis that does in fact have supporting evidence..” To keep Doug honest, show us supporting evidence from experiment for Doug writing about resonant scattering. Test by Dr. Spencer showed thermometers several inches deep in water detected the added cirrus LW showing resonant scattering does not exist. The article linked by Doug on IR thermometers also disproves resonant scattering.
So, how are you now going to answer THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS Ball4? Perhaps you think the Earth is warmed with those downward winds. Trouble is, the downward winds above the South Pole make the surface about as cold as the low tropopause from whence they blew down – temperature leveling, Ball4 – nothing to do with warming the lower troposphere.
Oh, and how did you say you thought the required thermal energy gets down to the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus. It’s hotter than Earth there, Ball4, and the solar radiation at TOA is a little over 0.1% of what Earth receives.
Don’t forget to explain the coincidences issue, either Ball4.
There is no coincidences issue Doug. You make that stuff right up, assert with no data. The questions that stump Doug are answered in atm. thermo. 101 freely available at a good college Doug. There are atm. downdrafts and updrafts Doug, free convection, and LH transfer, they can be, and are, accounted for in the energy balance at Earth surface showing median annual T=288K, there is nothing hard about it Doug.
Uranus thermal energy (kinetic energy) is explained in many Uranus published papers Doug, look them up, let us know. I’m curious, I have read a few. They are based on limited experiment to date.
Regarding the coincidences issue, there is extensive research been done by others – read Nikolov and Zeller at …
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/unified_theory_of_climate.pdf … all showing the -g/cp gradient being observed (with small reductions due to inter-molecular radiation) in various planets. I have done calculations to confirm this also, and so could you from readily available data on insolation, gravity of planets, composition of their atmospheres and specific heat values.
And, no, there is no input of thermal energy to the surface in energy diagrams due to downdrafts* (which are NOT free convection and do NOT form the -g/cp gradient) and it is obvious I remember the figures on those energy diagrams better than yourself. The 288K comes from radiative balance with only outward non-radiative processes, and the 390W/m^2 net that they show is variable and would not explain 288K – rather something more like 276K as I mentioned in those QUESTIONS THAT STUMP … that you obviously have not read, let alone tried to answer. In any event, they wrongly add back radiation which does not transfer thermal (kinetic) energy to the warmer surface, so go back to Go.
Do you seriously think downward drafts take thermal energy from the 60K methane layer near TOA on Uranus all the way down to the 5,000K core thousands of kilometers further down, warming all the way? Only “heat creep” can be shown to be able to do that in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
* If it is a “draft” then it is a form of wind and is thus NOT natural (free) convection. If it were it would be my “heat creep” anyway. Only natural convective heat transfers (which in physics include thermal diffusion and which involve ONLY molecular collisions, not forced convection as in wind) can form the temperature gradient. In general, yes there are downward winds in Hadley Cells for example, but such winds are not everywhere and do NOT create the -g/cp temperature gradient – in fact they flatten out the gradient to some extent.
“And, no, there is no input of thermal energy to the surface in energy diagrams due to downdrafts..”
Wrong Doug. This is obvious proof Doug could improve by passing atm. thermo. 101. This thermal energy comes from warm breezes which can be sensed thus called sensible heat (SH) & called “thermals” by glider pilots Doug. Over land about 27 w/m^2, over ocean about 12 W/m^2.
“The 288K comes from radiative balance with only outward non-radiative processes..”
Wrong Doug, the median surface 288K for Earth and about 732K for Venus is found from considering: All physical processes that transport energy and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, Radiative warming and cooling rates, Vertical convective energy and volatile transport, Diffusive energy transport (surface/upper atmosphere), Latent heat transport/cloud processes.
Doug would know this had Doug ever passed atm. thermo. 101.
Energy diagrams only show “thermals” removing energy from the surface, Ball4. Silent readers can check what I say here.
If Ball4 had passed three years of university physics he would recognize the error in the energy diagrams wherein they imply that back radiation and solar radiation can be added and the sum used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. There’s no physics which says that can be done. Big mistake, James Hansen and disciples.
“Theres no physics which says that can be done.”
Dr. Spencer showed by atm. test it can be done Doug. 1LOT demands all energy be accounted Doug, it is the law.
“Vertical convective energy”
Mmmmm – sounds like heat creep transferring thermal energy from cold to hot. Let’s see your link to such an explanation.
Vertical convective energy IS “heat creep”, Doug, transferring warmer surface air upwards as experienced by glider pilots using thermals.
Doug 4:54am: Energy diagrams only show thermals removing energy from the surface..
See the 324 Doug? Thats all-sky radiation towards surface returning SH 24 + LH 78 + Solar Absorbed 67 + Sky 155 = 324.
Ball4 wrote: “as competent science starts with an isothermal guess”
Yes, well that’s not very competent. I have done better with an educated deduction from a correct understanding of entropy and the Second Law that such an isothermal state is not a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. A system not in thermodynamic equilibrium will move towards such a state, and that state has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient in a force field, as is seen in every vortex cooling tube in the world.
That’s the law – the Second one.
Doug 2:07am – “A system not in thermodynamic equilibrium will move towards such a state..”
Yes Doug. So, when their initial isothermal Veunus profile guess is found not to be in equilibrium, the computations then move the system a step closer to equilibrium, they check for equilibrium again and step closer once more. This iteration process eventually makes enough steps to converge on the equilibrium Venus T(z) solution which, when compared to the actual measured natural Venus temperature data, T(z) is found reasonably close. Someone with a B.Sc would know this Doug and have been instructed in the process.
Hi Ball4,
I really want to have a private conversation with you about http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html.
You directed my attention to this site sometime ago and then disappeared. I had previously thanked for this. But that was before I began to search for you and discovered you had made an concerted effort to convince others of the value of the surfrad observations. without any obvious success. I somehow missed these efforts.
You can contact me at my basically inactive blogsite:
http://semivision.blogspot.com/
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry – If you stay on topic of frost flowers, you know like everyone else here, then discuss away, its a blog. I don’t frequent many others.
Hi Ball4,
Are you merely here to play games? I did not think so and that is why I made my request. On my site I made 4 posts in 2013 and nothing since. So you can at least read what I am about.
Have a good day, Jerry
Yep, been there, read about their iteration process and found it all to be garbage science, because the end result is that it violates the First Law and produces an atmosphere with many times as much energy coming out of its base than enters its top. Garbage in; garbage out.
A temperature of 735K requires variable flux with a mean of over 20,000W/m^2 and the solar radiation reaching Venus TOA ain’t got that in it.
Earth 235 in from top 235 out from base = steady state equilibrium Doug. Same principle but different numbers for other planets Doug.
As I said above in this comment the mean density for Enceladus is 1.61 and so, with a lower density in the outer crust there must be a fairly extensive rock core which could have radioactive decay processes or reactions raising it above the 300K that the gravity effect can explain. That rock, at least near the South Pole, extends to the bottom of the ocean which is itself below the surface crust of ice. Conduit fissures in the rock could easily take in water which would circulate and return thermal energy to the ocean. Maybe reactions make the rock more like 373K – I don’t know and you don’t know. But nothing proves my hypothesis wrong in all this – it just gets over-ridden as also happens in oceans and the stratosphere of Earth – so what? Thermal diffusion via molecular collisions is a slow process, but it has established the temperature gradient over the life of the planet, just being disturbed temporarily by weather conditions. That is what correct physics tells us.
Now start discussing the physics, Ball4, including entropy maximization which is at the heart of the hypothesis and just what the Second Law ordered.
As for the coincidences, they have been explained in a comment way back, so if you want to discuss such, then at least demonstrate that you have read that comment and know what I was talking about. Try searching “coincidence” on the last two threads as I don’t have time now – this is my busy period each day earning a crust in semi-retirement to support my wife and kids aged from nine up – see photos at http://slower-aging.com if interested. You’ll enjoy the videos of my son, then 8, playing in the South Pacific lawn bowls championships last year, as linked from that website. It might let you relax for a few minutes and really think about the physics I have explained – when you read it, that is. It’s all correct, and you can’t prove the physics wrong my friend. As I’ve told you many times, it is derived directly from the Second Law.
“..which could have radioactive decay processes or reactions raising it above the 300K…”
Just like Earth core et. al. Ok, so Doug has made a little progress away from pure charlatanism through some research. The planetary and moon core temperatures are now in part from c) radioactive decay processes not:
a) solar radiation which determines all such temperatures OR
b) Probably the real reason..greater density..
——
“But nothing proves my hypothesis wrong in all this it just gets over-ridden..”
Yes. Over-ridden. Actually I would say demolished, debunked, proven wrong by observation, so forth. I’ll agree with over-ridden (Merriam defn. 1).
——
“..you cant prove the physics wrong my friend.”
Dr. Spencer did. With experimental data.
DougCotton,
Since you are unwilling or unable to do any math but the simplest of algebra I have taken the task to show you how your theory of planetary temperatures is total bogus and not even worth consideration. Since I will demonstrate this to you with math and logic, will you agree to haunt Roy’s sight no more so actual climate science can then be rationally discussed by knowledgeable readers?
Thanks in advance. Before rejecting the math try to understand it as it will show you do not know what you are talking about. Ball4 has done a great job of showing how poor your physics really is and now I would also like to contribute.
Your claim is that Saturn would cool rapidly without a sun and I completely disagree with this. You further state that Saturn’s internal temperature is a product of the Sun’s input (most planetary scientist believe its internal heat is the result of planetary formation and the heat derived from gravitational collapse of the dust cloud that formed the planet).
First some data:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturnfact.html
Using data from this page.
Saturn surface area is 4.56 x 10^16 m^2 (if you use largest radius) (Area of sphere = (4)(pi)(r^2).
Now the bulk of Saturn is Hydrogen gas at 96.3%
The mass of Saturn is 568 X 10^24 kg so the mass of hydrogen is 545 x 10^24 kg.
Heat capacity for cold hydrogen is 13120 Joules/kg-K
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hydrogen-d_976.html
So the energy content of Saturn for hydrogen would be 7.154 x 10^30 joules/K. (Every K requires either a loss or gain og 7.154 x 10^30 joules).
Saturn has a black-body radiation temp of 81.1 K so it will radiate away energy at the rate of 2.4528 W/m^2
Surface area being 4.56 x 10^16 m^2 your rate of radiation IR loss from the entire surface of Saturn is 1.118 x 10^17 Watts (or joules/second).
The energy stored per K in hydrogen gas is 7.154 x 10^30 joules
Take the Energy/K divide by the total Watts out and you end with 6.3989 x 10^13 seconds. There are 3.16224 x 10^7 seconds in one year. So if the Sun was gone today Saturn would take 2 million years to cool 1 K. Saturn is around 130 K at 1 bar (hotter as you move toward the core) so it would take some time to cool off with no Sun around which is considerably longer than a few thousand years as you had stated.
But your situation gets so much worse as one actually starts to calculate things (which you will not do on your own).
The amount of energy Saturn receives from the Sun is less than it radiates away (ever so slightly) but if you look at things. Saturn is radiating away 2.4528 W/m^2 and the solar radiation hitting the planet is 14.9 W/m^2. Since every meter radiates away we have to see how much every meter is receiving. 14.9/4 to convert flat disk to sphere which is 3.725 W/m^2. But of this incoming solar radiation only 65.8% is absorbed (rest is just reflected). So multiply 3.725 by 0.658 and you get 2.541 W/m^2. Just a bit less than is being radiated out. If there are some errors and Saturn is actually gaining some energy from the Sun (which it would have to according to Cotton theory) it would be a very small amount per m^2 like around 0.001 W/m^2 difference.
At this rate with its total surface area, Saturn would be able to gain a total of 4.56 x 10^13 Watts. Earlier I calculated how much energy Saturn would have to gain or lose to rise 1 K which is 7.154 x 10^30 joules (more actually but I am only calculating for the hydrogen). At this rate of added energy it would take 4.96 billion years for Saturn to raise just one K and it is over 130 K so there is not even close enough time for the sun to have warmed up Saturn via any type of phony unscientific “heat-creep” mechanism.
DJC I would say you are busted. The farce is over. Quit posting and start reading some physics again. End the garbage today. You can do it, you have the strength. Help Roy and stop posting the garbage and start posting some good solid physics that is supported by evidence. Thanks! You will feel better when you end your own inner delusion and false sense of grandeur!
“Saturn would take 2 million years to cool 1 K”
So it would cool 500K in a billion years, and then the temperature gradient would no longer be -g/cp now would it because the tropopause cannot cool below 0K.
So it’s just a coincidence is it that we are in the right billion years of the universe to be able to observe the calculated temperature gradient actually being there.
At any other time, like in a billion years, apparently Norman would expect the laws of physics to change.
QED
Turn the Sun back on again, and in another billion years Saturn would be back where it is now, with similar temperatures all the way to the core.
… if we ignore the compression process – that’s why Uranus is a better, more useful example that avoids complications. It does not cool at present, for the reasons I have explained.
For Uranus the methane layer is held at about 60K due to radiative balance with the Sun. Then the temperature gradient in the troposphere is as we expect, heat creep transferring some of the Solar energy downwards by day to compensate for the losses at night – just like Venus – just like Earth.
And, Norman, you talk about Saturn rising in temperature, but you can only explain that with my hypothesis. Your 2.541 W/m^2 input of solar radiation only supports a blackbody temperature of 81K and so, Norman, on average nothing on Saturn that is above a temperature of 81K can have its temperature raised by direct solar radiation.
We have a “dam wall” at 81K and only the “heat creep” mechanism can (in accord with the laws of physics) supply the required thermal energy to raise the temperature of all regions that are warmer than 81K on Saturn.
On Uranus we have a temperature of about 60K being supported. In fact, because it is variable flux, it does not achieve even 81K but rather about 72K as we see on those moons of Saturn which don’t have atmospheres to complicate determination of their surface temperature.
DougCotton
NO! “Turn the Sun back on again, and in another billion years Saturn would be back where it is now, with similar temperatures all the way to the core.”
You are completely wrong here! I actually did the calculation for you but either you can’t understand it or did not even slightly attempt to follow it! Sad to respond to you in any way as your brain is totally closed off! The amount of radiation difference that Saturn receives compared to what is radiated away is so small it can’t warm the planet in billions of years.
If you started with a cold Saturn the sun would warm the surface very fast relative to any deeper layers and these surface layers would reach an equilibrium temperature with the sun fairly quickly compared to warming the entire planet and core and there would be no energy left to continue warming the rest of the massive planet (which takes lots and lots of energy!) You are not a very bright person and you have been found out to be a complete phony! You can’t follow simple logic at all or mathematical calculations. Sad you call yourself a physics major since you are not close to being one!
DougCotton
You say you have some sort of physics degree from some prestigious University in Sydney but you ignore a glaring inability for you to understand size differences in numbers.
First you claimed Saturn and its moons would cool down in a few thousand years without the sun (stating without the slightest bit of calculations which a trained physics person would do before posting) then when I calculate the number and post it all you do is is say
“So it would cool 500K in a billion years, and then the temperature gradient would no longer be -g/cp now would it because the tropopause cannot cool below 0K.”
Not even commenting on the fact you missed the correct value by a huge amount (difference between thousands of years and hundreds of millions)
Let it go! You have no clue what you are talking about and contribute nothing to the body of science. Your hypothesis is a failure on many levels.
And yes, Norman, I know about collapsing planets which of course emit more radiation partly because there is a net conversion of molecular gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy.
This makes it unnecessarily complex, and that’s why I work with data for the near “ideal” planet Uranus which is not collapsing and not cooling off because there is no convincing evidence of significant net loss at TOA, and, even if you think there is, it could be just due to a 1,000 year natural climate cycle like we have on Earth. So you have no evidence to support your conjecture.
Norman makes a REALLY HUGE MISTAKE …
He compares a current state of radiative equilibrium wherein a planet like Uranus (to keep it simple) has reached a point where radiation out equals radiation in with just minor differences that depend on such things as weather conditions. (We will temporarily ignore the extra energy radiated due to compression of some gaseous planets, notably Jupiter.) But he then claims that during an imaginary initial warming period before equilibrium is attained that there would still be only the very minor differences, like those, if any, in a state of radiative balance.
THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG NORMAN because if radiative balance has not been attained, the outward radiation is based on the temperature attained, whereas the absorbed inward radiation can be anything up to that which will eventually achieve radiative balance.
Hence, if the Sun is warming something from close to 0K, the rate of warming will initially be quite fast, gradually slowing down as the area between the Planck curves decreases until it is nothing in the equilibrium state. Every engineer working in the field knows this Norman.
Hence Norman has made a HUGE MISTAKE (and tried to use it against me) when, by using his false understanding of how radiation warms an object, his claim that it would take 4.96 billion years for Saturn to rise 1 degree is ludicrous. Earth has warmed more than that just since the Little Ice Age.
I’m reminded of how I had to teach Norman some time back about how to treat emissivity when doing Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. He admitted his error, but even to this day, he has not produced a correct explanation of Earth’s surface temperature, despite all his time spent doing incorrect calculations regarding Saturn.
I never claimed there was any such initial warming period anyway, Norman. No doubt planets were pretty hot when they formed into spheres – they would have to have been. Some may have been hotter than at present, and maybe some were a little less hot. Either way, the level of the Sun’s radiation has by now brought their temperatures (at all altitudes and in the core) into a state of equilibrium that will only in future vary with variations in the effective solar radiation and minor things such as changes in cloud cover.
Footnote: Norman has accepted that radiation cannot be compounded and so 16 radiators do not make an object that was warmed to 350K by one radiator (at some given distance) then warm to 700K. So Norman implicitly agrees that we cannot add solar radiation and backradiation to explain Earth’s surface temperature. Hence he is out on a limb, trumped without the greenhouse conjecture or my hypothesis to explain anything.
DougCotton,
All I can say is WHAT?!
You: “Hence Norman has made a HUGE MISTAKE (and tried to use it against me) when, by using his false understanding of how radiation warms an object, his claim that it would take 4.96 billion years for Saturn to rise 1 degree is ludicrous. Earth has warmed more than that just since the Little Ice Age.”
The Earth or the Earth’s surface has warmed? Huge gigantic difference. My calculation is only based upon a possible difference between energy into Saturn vs energy out of Saturn and they look close so you do not have a lot of excess energy to warm a body. Like taking a very cold body the size of Saturn (mostly hydrogen gas) and warming it up.
With a small trickle of excess energy available it would take billions of years to warm the entire planet of Saturn by 1 Kelvin.
Norman also makes a math mistake: “Saturn is radiating away 2.4528 W/m^2. But of [the] incoming solar radiation 2.541 W/m^2 [is absorbed]. Just a bit less than is being radiated out.
So 2.541 < 2.4528 is it Norman?
Then Norman writes: “If … Saturn is actually gaining some energy from the Sun (which it would have to according to Cotton theory) … “
No it would not, Norman – like all planets, it is in approximate long-term radiative equilibrium with the Sun because all planet+atmosphere systems (that are not contracting) are very good approximations for true blackbodies. There are slight gains on the sunlit side being compensated for with roughly equal losses on the dark side.
Where do you get such strange ideas about my hypothesis?
And Norman, this says ..
“The planet’s core temperature is believed to be as high as 11,700 degrees Celsius (21,000 degrees Fahrenheit), and this icy planet actually radiates twice as much heat into space as it receives from the sun.“
Yes, Norman, “TWICE” as much out as in – not quite in accord with your figures of a difference of about 0.09W.m^2 (out) when I correct your calculations. The doubling is because, like Jupiter, it is a gaseous planet that is contracting. When that happens, there is a net loss of molecular gravitational potential energy which has to be converted to kinetic energy, thus heating the planet more than the Sun’s radiation can do and hence causing extra radiation out.
Mmmmm … Saturn is about 12,000K in the core. Compare that with core temperatures in its moons. Do you ever wonder why larger planets (including their atmospheres) have hotter cores, almost irrespective of their distance from the Sun, Norman? My hypothesis will help you understand why.
“Do you ever wonder why larger planets (including their atmospheres) have hotter cores, almost irrespective of their distance from the Sun, Norman?”
Not after I learned 1LOT. The kinetic energy of all the infalling material forming the planet is conserved Doug, preserved in the core, added to by fission et. al., manifested now by temperature.
DougCotton,
I wrote the number down wrong (it was right on the calculator).
To right the correct numbers (not switching important digits) and thanks for pointing out the errors. I do make them from time to time.
14.9 (solar energy to Saturn). 14.9/4 = 3.725 x 0.658 = 2.45105 Watts/m^2
So energy in 2.45105 W/m^2 is less than outgoing energy of 2.4528 W/m^2 and the difference is 0.00175 W/m^2 which is all the energy you have to either heat or cool the entire planet of Saturn which would take billions of years either way (to heat or cool).
Thanks again for the correction, sometimes I type faster than I think.
Ball4 & Norman:
You are both very confused and saying different things, not even understanding the fact that you are making opposing statements as to whether surface temperatures are or are not based on radiative balance.
I suggest you each make up your mind and then write out your personal hypothesis as to how you think the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus are determined, how they get the required thermal energy and how you quantify the temperature from your hypothesis. I don’t want links to standard AGW literature – just your own words, without reading what the other says. Then provide some empirical evidence.
Obviously my hypothesis is comprehensively documented with reference to supporting experiments, evidence from planets and a study showing the greenhouse gas water vapor cools. Above all, it is developed directly from standard Kinetic Theory (as used by Einstein and others) and from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Then use your hypothesis to answer the QUESTIONS WHICH STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS after reading those questions carefully, together with the related discussion.
Finally explain how your hypothesis accounts for the fact that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is close to the g/Cp value, as in Nikolov and Zeller’s “Unified Theory of Climate” which comes some of the way towards what I have done, extending their work and that of Dr Hans Jelbring.
“..write out your personal hypothesis as to how you think the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus are determined..dont want links..”
A simple steady state 1LOT energy balance at Earth near surface from which students passing atm. thermo. 101 use existing test data to calculate 288K median annual T. Using all physical processes that transport energy and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, radiative warming and cooling rates, vertical convective energy and volatile transport, diffusive energy transport (surface/upper atmosphere), latent heat transport/cloud processes. The 1LOT results reasonably agree with experiment for Earth, Mars, Venus et. al.
..my hypothesis is comprehensively documented with reference to supporting experiments..”
Show us a supporting experiment for “resonant scattering” Doug. There is none. The icy moons show your -g/Cp core temperature hypothesis wrong for all planets and moons.
..”my study showing the greenhouse gas water vapor cools.”
A study is not an experiment; Doug’s study calculated precipitable water in an atm. column incorrectly. Dr. Spencer conducted an experiment proving Doug’s wv cools hypothesis is wrong.
“explain how your hypothesis accounts for the fact that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is close to the g/Cp value”
The ideal theory shows this when the dry atm. is close to hydrostatic Doug, which is often found from experiment. No volatiles.
Norman and Ball4
Despite the time that I have put into trying to help you guys understand entropy maximization and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you obviously have no desire to learn from what I have explained, and that is your loss, not mine.
In any event, you have the paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures you could perhaps follow if you first learnt more about this basic thermodynamics which you don’t ever discuss, probably because it is out of your depth. That’s understandable, because a lot of people get confused over just what entropy is, and you need to understand that it is a measure of progression towards total dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials in a system.
That said, you are probably still wondering what it has to do with climate, so you need to find out from the heat creep diagrams and explanation that is available to read free on-line so that you don’t need to buy my book now.
I won’t try to help you more unless I detect a change in attitude and a willingness to learn, as you certainly could, because you obviously don’t even have a valid alternative hypothesis, nor can you explain the radial temperature gradient in a vortex tube, or how our planet’s surface warms each morning, even under thick cloud cover. Of course such warming is proof of the “heat creep” process, which is downward convective heat transfer including thermal diffusion which acts only at the molecular level and is increasing entropy. Radiation simply cannot do what heat creep does.
“Radiation simply cannot do what heat creep does”
That’s simply because you and Hans Jelburg haven’t got enough radiation, Duggie boy, and require some more crackpot heat creep.
Too much crack and pot, Duggie boy, it’s giving you the heat creeps.
Mack,
Agree completely. There just is not enough energy in solar radiation to warm up the planet cores. All planet core temperatures have been explained (including our own moon). Earth is sustained by slow radioactive decay and great insulation properties of a thick mantle. The gas giants heat came from gravitational energy in their formation and some additional energy from continuous slow collapse. Gravity is a one shot energy source.
Not enough energy in the Solar flux even if absorbed by the atmosphere.
Solar energy at TOA for Earth is around 340 W/m^2. It is not enough to sustain a surface that emits at the rate of 390 W/m^2. The energy is not there. But Doug goes much further. Not only does “heat creep” fail at maintaining the Earth’s surface temp, he then believes just a fairy dust miracle that not enough energy to heat a surface can now heat an entire planet and core to really high temps. Weird and wacky!
“Solar energy at TOA for Earth is around 340w/sq.m.”
No Norman, it’s around 1360w/sq.m.at the TOA. It’s around 340w/sq.m. at the Earth’s surface.
You may have missed this…me argueing with the duck…about 1/2 way down the comments…
http://principia-scientific.org/is-no-greenhouse-effect-possible-from-the-way-that-ipcc-define-it.html/
Mack,
I think sometimes I do not clarify. Parts of the TOA do indeed receive 1360 W/m^2. This would take place in the regions with the sun directly overhead. The 340 comes by taking the amount of energy that that hits a disk in space the radius of the Earth. Every place on the disk receives 1360 W/m^2. But a sphere has 4 times the area of a disk. A disk is (pi)(r^2). A sphere of the same radius is (4)(pi)(r^2). The amount of energy (unless you have mirrors) that can reach the Earth’s surface is the same that can reach the disk. The 340 is just taking the totality of energy that can hit the Earth and averaging it out over the entire surface of a sphere. The TOA will receive more than the surface because none is reflected. But the totality of the TOA will not be 1360. Some parts will receive this but none on the night side.
No Norman,
You need to stop reading here and go away and follow and read all I’ve got to say in all the links.
You’ve fallen into the same geometric trap as every science institute on the planet. I’m not going to get into a scientific arguement with you here.
Go away and get enlightened Norman…this said not unkindly, but with best wishes.
Mack
“nor can you explain the radial temperature gradient in a vortex tube”
Energy is conserved Doug. 1LOT. Like a figure skater pulling in her arms and spinning faster. In a vortex tube (or atm.) the conserved energy is: PE+KE+p*V. As p increases, T must increase.
Our planet’s surface warms each morning because the sun comes up.
Show us an experiment for “heat creep” in addition to one for “resonant scattering”. The world does not operate on assertion nor does science.
I’ve already established that you are not qualified in physics, Ball4, so any discussion of entropy and the Second Law is out of your depth.
You could try to understand today’s comment (being posted on about a hundred climate blogs and social media threads) which you can read below.
The “coincidences” issue (previously discussed) proves I’m right with a probability of at least 0.9999999.
There have been over 850 experiments demonstrating the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect on which my hypothesis depends.
There have been over 850 experiments demonstrating the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect on which my hypothesis depends.
As Ive noted for Doug before, there are way more than 850 experiments proving Dougs Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect, literally there are many tens of thousands. Doug misapplies the experiments.
The coincidences issue (previously discussed) proves Im right
Coincidences are not proof Doug. US postal rates have gone up coincidentally to global median temperature. If we get the US Post Office under better expense control & some innovation, global median temperature issues would subside.
You could try to understand todays comment..
That 5:16pm has entertainment value only Doug, it has zero science value as it contains no experimental evidence. Customarily accomplished scientists spend a lot of time in the lab and in the field Doug, just ask M. Faraday.
Norman, Roy and the many silent readers will understand BALL4’s HUGE MISTAKE explained in this comment above.
He does not even know basic school-boy physics, namely that reflected light retains its frequency. In other words, he does not know the difference between spontaneously emitted radiation and reflected radiation.
Doug, you and your friend geran make a good double act.
Hilarious!
Sheesh, you probably dream about me at night!
Not quite, but I would pay to see you both live on stage.
You want to be such a “groupie”, but you need to find another “idol”.
Sorry, I’m taken.
That’s OK – you can come to my next talk to a climate group or larger audience.
Like DEC, I would pay to go to one of your climate groups Doug. Ohhhh….the entertainment.
A double act because we are the only ones understanding the basic physics that objects at room temperature do not spontaneously emit visible light so that we can see them. We normally have to flick a light switch when it’s dark.
“…objects at room temperature do not spontaneously emit visible light…”
That would also be big news Doug. Actually all that objects need to emit visible light is temperature so they emit all the time, just your eyesight is so very poor. Here’s a test for you:
1) Obtain an electric range.
2) Darken the room around the range.
3) Allow one of the coils to glow red hot. See it? Turn it off. Wait for it to cool until you can no longer see it. Snap a picture of the coil then with your smartphone. Tell me what you see in the picture.
4) You can find examples of this with fast film from long ago already in the literature.
..visible light is high frequency light, obviously originating from a hot light source and merely reflected by the object you see.
Not reflected Doug, reflected light goes straight back to the source, the light I see with my eyes is scattered from, and emitted by, objects on which it is incident. The light is around 90% emitted and 10% scattered by those non-metal opaque objects like, say, a cabbage. About 10% emitted and 90% scattered from shiny metal opaque objects.
Yes, science can differentiate incident, reflected vs. emitted light from frequency analysis.
Planck did not understand the process of pseudo-scattering back then..I called it resonant scattering..
Planck did not find any resonant scattering in the testing. Doug will need a test to show resonant scattering because my eyes are proof resonant scattering isnt a physical process only a figment of imagination of Doug, a charlatan. It is ok to cite a relevant test conducted by a brilliant professor Doug.
..does NOT convert the energy in the radiation to thermal energy..does NOT have its sensor warmed by radiation from that colder source..
However tests show the LW IR sensor WILL be measured by thermometer warmer than a control IR sensor not viewing the LW IR, as Dr. Spencer proved for Doug by experiment.
Hi Ball 4,
You state:
“However tests show the LW IR sensor WILL be measured by thermometer warmer than a control IR sensor not viewing the LW IR, as Dr. Spencer proved for Doug by experiment.”
Please explain what you mean. Do you refer to the tub water experiment referred to in previous threads? Do we have evidence that the IR sensor temperature is warmer or cooler than the emitting IR source? Thank you for any clarification you can provide.
Have a great day!
JohnKL – The experiment for night time added cirrus cloud IR detection with a thermometer by Dr. Spencer proving Doug wrong is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
The water is liquid at supply upwards to ambient temperature, the test shows a starting water temperature around 80.5F same as ambient air. Cirrus are typically up around 6km composed of water ice in part. This means the cirrus IR source temperature is reasonably much colder than the warmer target liquid water container LW IR detectors.
NB: Different instrumentation – NOAA radiometers looking up – can also routinely detect the LW IR increase then decrease from various passing clouds.
The experiments have nothing whatsoever to do with maximum entropy production upon which my hypothesis is based, thank you.
Where is your perfect insulation allowing max. entropy production Doug? Still waiting…
Hi Ball4,
The cirrus IR source temperature should often be reasonably warmer than the target liquid water container LW IR detectors. Why? In addition to absorbing and emitting IR clouds also REFLECT IR bands ( thermal energy ) as well, including surface emitted thermal energy. Just ask San Jose State University:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/Watkins/cloudiness.html
Have a great day!
Correction the web link shoul read:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/Watkins/cloudiness.htm
JohnKL – The interesting data to acquire is the amount of the Dr. Spencer 0.1F (0.4-0.3F) higher temperature over the control water due the added high cirrus was from emission and the amount from night terrestrial (LW) reflection (albedo). Your source asserts: “The albedo of high thin clouds such as cirrus may be as low as 10 percent.”
That would suggest a very small amount due reflection (~0.01F). Reflection of LW IR from clouds is not zero but is usually considered negligible especially for high thin cirrus as suggested therein. Our eyes deceive us: We cannot see IR. Merely because cirrus clouds (or anything else) highly reflect radiation we can see does not mean that they necessarily highly reflect radiation we cannot see.
All else being equal, less radiation is emitted from a clear than from a cloudy sky, not (as has been stated hundreds of times until it has become an immutable truth) because clouds reflect ground radiation but because emission by clouds is greater than that by air at the same temperature.
Hi Ball4,
You state:
“Your source asserts: The albedo of high thin clouds such as cirrus may be as low as 10 percent.”
Yes, they refer to visible spectrum radiation, hence the term “albedo.” LW IR may be higher. low and mid-range IR, the kind that CO2 generally emits, would more likely be absorbed but higher frequency IR or near IR (nearer the visible spectrum) would more likely be pass through or be reflected. Moreover, surface radiation capable of reaching the cloud layers has made it through the first few meters above the ground, avoiding CO2 absorption and H2O absorption, and would probably have made it to space had it not been for high altitude cloud layers bouncing them back. Very possibly REFLECTION involved and not just absorption, don’t you think?
Have a great day!
That site: “The proportion of incident radiation reflected by a substance is called its albedo.” Usually means total spectrum not just visible. Albedo is more or less synonymous with reflectivity, although albedo is usually applied to radiation reflected in a hemisphere of directions whereas reflectivity may apply to radiation reflected in a particular direction OR in a hemisphere of directions.
The site’s guess of 10% reflected from cirrus in the experiment by Dr. Spencer seems reasonable (maybe even high) but unknowable without more data. Something like .15 W/m^2 incident reflected from cirrus out of 1.5 total radiance W/m^2 (from the est. of 6 all-sky) added back from just the cirrus incident in total – increasing thermometer measured water temperature 0.1F over the control. Results that charlatan Doug wrongly asserts should have decreased the water temperature or not even happened.
John, don’t waste your time with Ball4. There’s hardly a thing that he understands about physics. See my comment about his glaring mistake thinking that objects at room temperature emit visible light.
Objects at room temperature emit at all frequencies all the time Doug, even cabbage. In fact, this happens at all other temperatures too.
Radiation from the sun has just as much right to be called thermal radiation as does radiation emitted by snow, soils, rocks, and cabbages.
Ball4 states: “Not reflected Doug, reflected light goes straight back to the source, the light I see with my eyes is scattered from, and emitted by, objects on which it is incident. The light is around 90% emitted and 10% scattered by those non-metal opaque objects like, say, a cabbage. About 10% emitted and 90% scattered from shiny metal opaque objects.”
Ball4 is saying that cabbage “emits” visible light!
(I’ll let someone else have the fun.)
No Ball4 the scattering process in this case is still a form of relection called diffuse reflection. Look it up. Things have colors because they reflect selectively. The light is not emitted by electrons dropping through quantum energy states and thus creating new photons with particular frequencies in the visible spectrum. The source would have to be as hot as light bulbs to do so.
You have now proven to me, beyond doubt Ball4, that you have no qualifications in physics and can’t even understand what is readily available on-line information about optics and thermodynamics.
Doug – You do get this almost right, actually wave reflection is a subset of wave scattering. Snow and clouds are diffuse reflectors. The scattered waves off snow (clouds) superpose so that the total scattered wave that is produced interferes with the incident wave. When the illuminated medium is optically smooth (and homogeneous) the net result of this superposition is a reflected wave (also called albedo) and a refracted wave with wavenumber different from that of the incident wave. With a small amount of light also scattered.
Diffuse reflection means even with the sun directly overhead illuminating clean, fine-grained, highly reflecting snow, its radiance is almost 10^5 times smaller than the suns radiance, which is high only in a small set of directions.
Want to do some diffuse reflection & refraction testing? Get an ordinary white plastic spoon for the diffuser. Black pan and white pan filled with some water. Partially submerse the spoon in the water convex surface up; there will be a distinct brightness change at the interface between the part of the diffuser in air and the part in water, below surface a little darker white spoon is seen. Interesting huh? Now, even more interesting, turn the spoon over so the concave surface is up. Wow. Lot less diffuse reflection.
Try this in the white pan. Tell me what happens. If you dig into this testing more, given a good assumption that at visible wavelengths the ratio of reflected to (isotropic) incident irradiance is about 6%, your result will be to find irradiance is conserved in going from air to water whereas radiance is not. Really cool Doug.
Now how about a test for “resonant scattering”. I’m still waiting.
Increasing pressure does not necessarily increase temperature, Ball4. No law in physics says it should. The increased pressure can be entirely due to increased density.
In a vortex tube, heat creep occurs and transfers thermal energy from the central regions to the outer regions, thus cooling the center and warming the outside regions, just as happens when the Sun heats the upper troposphere, tops of clouds etc each morning and heat creep transfers the new energy down through the clouds to the surface. It’s just gravity in lieu of centrifugal force in the vortex tube.
So, do the experiment yourself the next morning you have thick cloud cover in calm conditions, and see if surface temperatures still rise in the lack of direct solar radiation.
Increasing pressure does not necessarily increase temperature, Ball4.
That would be big news Doug, please define a test w/control volume defined where you find this to be true.
..do the experiment yourself the next morning you have thick cloud cover in calm conditions, and see if surface temperatures still rise in the lack of direct solar radiation.
What if a cold front is calmly moving thru? A warm front? Humidity increasing/decreasing? I can get different answers depending on the meteorology. Generally though Doug, I find the daily temperature increasing as the sun comes up in the morning whether overcast or sunny.
“Generally though Doug, I find the daily temperature increasing as the sun comes up in the morning whether overcast or sunny.”
Good – you have observed heat creep then on those overcast mornings. What else could it be?
The Ideal Gas Law says:
Pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
So, keep temperature constant and pressure is proportional to density.
Go and learn basic Kinetic Theory of Gases – as used by Einstein et al.
“What if a cold front is calmly moving thru?”
Read what I wrote “in calm conditions”
What else could it be?
Radiation. Heat creep diffusion is shown by testing to take several months for the suns energy to diffuse to Earth surface. Radiation works that morning.
So, keep temperature constant and pressure is proportional to density.
Show me a test increasing density across the control volume that does not also increase pressure Doug. Both will increase and so will temperature. Your task is to increase pressure in the control volume without necessarily increasing temperature Doug. And prove it by testing not asserting.
learn basic Kinetic Theory of Gases – as used by Einstein et al.
Doug says PE+KE is conserved, Kinetic theory and Einstein correctly use energy conservation thru: PE+KE+p*V.
Read what I wrote in calm conditions
Read what I wrote: calmly moving thru. And what is it exactly that I miss in Planck and Wien’s ref.d testing?
Ball4, why waste money on light bulbs? Just hang cabbage heads around to light up your room at night.
(I couldn’t resist.)
geran – Can I plug in the cabbage heads? Say with 240? (I couldnt resist.)
Actually Geran – tests show cabbage heads emit at all temperatures at all frequencies all the time. Whether plugged in or not.
Ball4 doesn’t even know about Planck functions, let alone Wien’s Displacement Law.
And that means what exactly?
Ball4, seriously, no one can be that dense. Cabbages do NOT emit visible light.
When you have a cabbage head that glows in the dark, please obtain an immediate patent.
(Pseudoscience gone amok.)
geran – are you seriously trying to advocate cabbages don’t absorb visible light? Try growing a plant in the dark. THAT would be patentable if you succeed. I am assuming you are conversant with G. Kirchhoff’s spectroscopy work.
Cabbages reflect visible light also; their visible reflectance spectrum is useful to determine crop health by remote sensing.
Finally, Ball4 realizes his pseudoscience is blatantly wrong.
Now he’s trying to twist his own words around. Now, cabbages don’t “emit”, they “reflect”. Looks like he was able to get the correct answer on wikipedia.
Sorry Ball4, it’s Strike3 for you. Your words are published here for all to see.
Hilarious!
geran – Ok, I see you aren’t conversant with G. Kirchhoff’s spectroscopy work: absorptivity wavelength = emissivity wavelength. Cabbages absorb/emit at same frequency, reflect, and transmit. Since cabbages absorb visible light (as demonstrated by growing), they emit visible light per Kirchhoff’s Law.
Cabbages are not black bodies. The Ocean does not shine as bright as the Sun. That portion of radiation which falls outside the Planck function for the target is thermalized and the kinetic energy thus generated can lead to future heat transfers in any form, including radiation in accord with the temperature of the emitter.
Ball4,
In an extreme case you seem to be correct that a cabbage may emit a tiny bit of energy in the visible spectrum. But it is very small and you would not be able to detect it with your eyes. Doug is correct. You are seeing light that is not absorbed by the cabbage but reflected into your eyes from a source of illumination. If you turn off the source of illumination you will no longer be able to see the cabbage.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89477/all-objects-radiate-energy-but-we-cannot-see-all-objects-in-the-dark-why
I am not sure you are using a good point to demonstrate a GHE because you can detect reflected light off objects. I would drop this line of thought as it is not making any good points. But you are quite free to do as you wish.
Hi Ball4,
Just curious, how much high frequency, high amplitude gamma radiation does a cabbage head in an operating sub-zero freezer emit do you think?
Have a great day!
Hi Geran,
Maybe you should re- think your position about LEC ( Light Emitting Cabbage ) bulbs. With some investment of time and ingenuity we may one day see them next to the CREE bin at Home Depot. If I remember correctly Edison tried many different filaments. We can just wait for Ball 4 to create a 5000K, 100 watt equivalent cabbage replacement bulb…or not. Do you think they’ll get an energy star rating? They’ll never be used to back-light LCD’s though, it would make the flat screens to bulky!
Have a great day!
Norman. Most all of natural unworked opaque material is going to have an emissivity around 0.9 – 0.95 and thus reflectivity of about 0.05 – 0.1. Do the research. This is the way natural objects are found just laying around.
I am willing to stick my neck out a little and say anyone out there with a cabbage and a Ryobi IR002 laser guided IR thermometer can find the (dry) cabbage brightness temperature reasonably close to its thermometer reading. Meaning the cabbage will be reasonably close the 0.95 emissivity setting of the Ryobi.
(I reduced my risk with an orange from my refrig. with brightness temperature 36F confirmed by thermometer at 37F.)
So about 95% of the incident visible light in the range read by your eyes from the cabbage will be emitted (it is what carries the color) and 5% reflected. To get emissivities down to 5%, reflectivity 95% for metals they must be made shiny i.e. worked by human processes.
“If you turn off the source of illumination you will no longer be able to see the cabbage.”
Not if I drop my night goggles down off my helmet. I can take that cabbage out at 50 paces with my TL8 “Streetsweeper” MkII Automatic 12 gauge Combat Shotgun with the Ryobi strapped on for guidance. No problem.
—–
JohnKL 10:30pm – No idea. Tiny? Fill me in.
Like your idea for a cabbage bulb though. Don’t like these new jobs at all.
JohnK1–funny, but I don’t think Ball4 (Strike3) understands your sarcasm.
We are treated to a sensational example of pseudoscience here. Strike3 and Norm join forces to completely misrepresent actual science. Strike3 believes cabbages can light up a room at night.
Norm jumps in to confirm once more he has no understanding of quantum physics: “In an extreme case you [speaking of Strike3] seem to be correct that a cabbage may emit a tiny bit of energy in the visible spectrum. But it is very small and you would not be able to detect it with your eyes.”
Notice Norm goes in two different directions again:
“…a cabbage may emit a tiny bit of energy in the visible spectrum.”
“But…you would not be able to detect it with your eyes.”
Hilarious!
And, Strike3 mentions Kirchhoff’s Law, but clearly does not understand how to apply it. That’s the trouble with trying to learn physics from wikipedia…
[For those that do not understand photon emission/absorption, but want to learn: A cabbage does NOT emit photons in the visible wavelengths–no way, no how! Photon emission is governed by Planck’s Law, which involves “temperature”. A cabbage would have to be ablaze to be emitting photons. Hilarious!]
Ball4,
Your understanding is just plain wrong. It is incorrect and you should rethink your position on why you see objects.
https://quizlet.com/5740332/physical-science-chapter-4-lesson-2-what-happens-when-light-hits-an-object-flash-cards/
Read through this link please. I like a lot you say but you are so far off with your current posts you will lose all credibility with everyone if you continue on the line of reasoning you are on. Derail the train it is on the wrong track heading for a cliff!
White light is made up of all color frequencies. The object you see has a particular color NOT because it is emitting this energy but because it is NOT emitting this energy. The object absorbs all color frequencies from the white light but the one you see which is reflected!
For an object to emit enough visible light to see it has to be very hot!!! Think flame temperatures when you see blue light emitted, it is the hottest part of a flame. Red and yellow are cooler. Please just stop!!
Norman. Stay with me on this. Your eyes are not spectrometers. Because of that we are incapable of looking at a source of visible light and assessing how much red light, green light, and so on of which it is composed. That site is depriving its readers of something truly marvelous. Colors are produced in our brains. We may dream in color despite the absence of light on our retinas. You get hit on the head hard enough, you may see some great colors.
Even when light is the stimulus that produces color, there is not a one to one correspondence between a perceived color and the spectrum of the light that produces it. Read what that site says about opaque objects: a red chili pepper. “When light hits the chili pepper, the pepper absorbs or takes in all the colors in the light EXCEPT red. The pepper looks red because it reflects or bounces back the red light.” This is not a carefully chosen exotic blooper but rather common currency.
Consider that assertion about a red chili pepper in light of a measured visible spectrum of red chili peppers. Unfortunately I couldn’t find one on line maybe you can – to see if data supports what the site says. I did find one for green grass in daylight. The radiance (W/m^2) measured .0005 in violet, .0015 blue, .0048 green, .0035 yellow, so on, what the spectrometer saw was continuous. It wasn’t just green. Much of what passes for knowledge about color even among casual internet sites is demonstrably wrong (you know, like the charlatan Doug – who doesnt test stuff).
An apple is not red because, as we have heard many times, it reflects only red light. Red is merely the perceptually dominant color. You might protest, the spectrum of grass peaks in the green. So it does, which is largely irrelevant, as evidenced in a measured spectrum of a clear, blue zenith sky (look one up). Although we give the color name blue to the sky, its spectrum peaks in the violet and, as with the spectrum of green grass, apples & red chili peppers, contains light of all wavelengths. Indeed, there is more light that is not blue in skylight than light in the band labeled blue.
What about that king of yellowness, the banana? Surely it must be a source of only yellow light. Measurements show otherwise. The spectrum of a banana contains as much green and orange and red as yellow, if by these colors is meant light confined to certain bands of wavelengths.
I will quit here, and repeat what I wrote above: “That site is depriving its readers of something truly marvelous. ”
——
geran – “A cabbage does NOT emit photons in the visible wavelengthsno way, no how! Photon emission is governed by Plancks Law, which involves temperature.”
You can find Planck’s Law right here in his own words, see eqn. 274 for specific intensity of a ray of light. I plugged in cabbage green (540nm & room temperature 72F (295K) and found an ideal intensity (radiance) of 2.74*10^-5 and using standard emissivity setting in my Ryobi, 0.95 find real intensity per m^2 of cabbage at 72F and 540nm to be 2.607*10^-5 W/m^2/sr/nm
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030?msg=welcome_stranger
As I just wrote for Norman, go ahead and do this at all the wavelengths the cabbage is emitting to find what a spectrometer test would show. The exercise will be instructive.
Planck: The cabbage emits at all frequencies at all temperatures all the time.
geran: A cabbage does NOT emit photons in the visible wavelengths.
Who ya’ gonna believe, geran’s lying eyes or Planck’s testing?
Ball4,
geran is wrong (he has studied very little science and is too arrogant to understand he knows very little). But you are also wrong. The cabbage may emit a tiny amount of visible light at room temperature but you won’t see it.
Read this.
https://books.google.com/books?id=eN3Oyg9Hb2oC&pg=PT333&lpg=PT333&dq=any+detectable+visible+light+at+room+temperatures?&source=bl&ots=YQ4UlFiKFr&sig=ux7fmRbfBIXiUflflBxm2ZrBVZM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_sIOm1LbKAhVik4MKHW-KC0sQ6AEINzAF#v=onepage&q=any%20detectable%20visible%20light%20at%20room%20temperatures%3F&f=false
Even your example gives a tiny fraction of energy being emitted in the visible spectrum so what you are seeing when you look at an object at room temperature is reflected light!
You have the perfect pseudoscience, Ball4. Just like Norm, when caught, you twist and spin, and link to sites trying to cover your confusion.
You are clearly confused, and you think, like Norm, that you can ramble endlessly trying to somehow change the science.
Go back to your statement that started this nonsense.
The light is around 90% emitted and 10% scattered by those non-metal opaque objects like, say, a cabbage.
When you wrote that, you clearly believed cabbage emitted visible light. You are wrong. You are trapped in your own pseudoscience. And, the really funny thing is all you have to do is take a cabbage into a dark closet and observe it does not glow!
Hilarious.
geran – take a spectrometer in the closet, point it at the cabbage, watch it light up with all the colors in the cabbage spectrum. Then look at the cabbage yourself, you will not even see it. Marvelous instrument, spectrometers open up all sorts of knowledge.
Norman. The physics of the light entering your pupil is the exact same as entering the spectrometer. Your brain produces the color, the spectrometer measures the spectra. None of these measured spectra are contrived even though they handily refute Doug-like assertions that have been made many times about color, much of the confusion about which stems from a failure to distinguish between wavelength, color, and color names.
Why are there seven colors anyway? Newton* matched a magic number from his days when identifying them: seven pillars of wisdom, days of the week, deadly sins, wonders of the world, intervals of the diatonic scale, and so on. The spectrometer tells us color is continuous, you know – more like when you go to a paint shop with all the exotic names. Read up on color-imetry next, the measurement of color.
*In his Opticks, Prop. II, Theor. II, Newton notes that the Spectrum…did…appear tinged with this Series of Colors, violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, red, together with all their intermediate Degrees in a continual Succession perpetually varying. So that there appeared as many Degrees of Colours, as there were sorts of Rays differing in Refrangibility.”
geran won’t see the cabbage in the closet but the spectrometer will, that’s why we have such marvelous spectrometers revealing the fascinating truth our lying eyes cannot detect.
No, Ball4, what you believe you see with a spectrometer may be what is confusing you. The photons emitted by a room-temperature cabbage in a dark room would be of greater wavelengths than visible light. You must remember that a spectrometer, like any instrument, is a “tool”. You must know how to use it correctly. If the spectrometer is indicating visible wavelengths, but those same wavelengths are not visible to heathy eyes, then your spectrometer likely needs calibration. (Remember, as infrared wavelengths get shorter, they move into the visible “red”. And, if your spectrometer has “drift”, possibly it is drifting into the “red”.)
You do not understand the science, and what you believe you have observed with a spectrometer has confused you.
I’ve pointed out several mistakes of yours, here’s just one more. You stated:
“Since cabbages absorb visible light (as demonstrated by growing), they emit visible light per Kirchhoffs Law.”
That one sentence tells us you do not understand Kirchhoff’s Law. If cabbages are using up visible light energy “by growing”, how can they be emitting the same light? See how confused you are?
Here is what is happening, in simple terms. When visible light strikes a plant leaf, certain wavelengths are absorbed, depending on the type of leaf. The visible light energy that is absorbed ends up being converted to chemical and electrical energy that the plant uses to make it’s “food” from CO2 and H20. (Yes, that is called “photosynthesis”.) The visible light that the plant leaf does not absorb is “reflected”. It is NOT reflected back to it’s source only. It is reflected in multiple directions.
Again, I suggest you study photon absorption and emission. It’s a little more complicated than you believe.
“If the spectrometer is indicating visible wavelengths, but those same wavelengths are not visible to heathy eyes, then your spectrometer likely needs calibration.”
geran – having already considered the sensitivity of the human eye to various color light levels vs. the sensitivity of such for a spectrometer fill me in on tests run for that subject.
“The photons emitted by a room-temperature cabbage in a dark room would be of greater wavelengths than visible light.”
Why?
“If cabbages are using up visible light energy by growing, how can they be emitting the same light?”
The cabbage at hand has already left the world of the growing. As I mentioned, there are means to measure reflected plant light while the cabbage patch is producing in order to judge its health.
Hi Ball4,
While Newton and Thomas Young recognized a 7 color spectrum much work has been done since then. In the 1920’s John Guild, W.D. Right and others recognized 3 primary colours that when combined make up what we call white light. Red (700nm), Green/Yellow (546.1nm) and Blue (435.8nm) represent the colours and frequencies. You may read a little here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/colspa.html#c2
Any of the other many perceived colors of the spectrum will likely be combinations of the above.
Have a great day!
>>>”…fill me in on tests run for that subject.”
Once again, you are confusing spectrometer results with “real-world” phenomena.
>>>”Why?”
See Wien’s Law
>>>”The cabbage at hand has already left the world of the growing.”
That’s not how you presented it. You are denying your own words again.—“Since cabbages absorb visible light (as demonstrated by growing), they emit visible light per Kirchhoffs Law.”
See, Ball4, pseudoscience is ALWAYS wrong. If you practice pseudoscience, you will always have to be trying to cover your tracks. Just ask Norm.
Ok, were growing. Why Wien’s law?
>>>”Why Wiens law?”
Because Wien’s Law relates the wavelength, of the maximum spectral power emitted, to temperature. Using the simple equation gives you a good value for the principle wavelength for a head of cabbage at room temperature, in a dark room. A 74F cabbage would emit a max wavelength of about 9.8 . Visible light starts at about 0.6 .
Only a specialized piece of equipment, like a spectrometer, could “see” the emissions from the cabbage. But, it is “seeing” infrared, not visible light.
For some reason, symbols are getting “eaten”.
74F should be 74 degrees F
9.8 should be 9.8 microns
0.6 should be 0.6 microns
geran – When you walked from the room temperature lit room, into the room temperature dark closet, the cabbage is the same temperature: room. Wien: No cabbage temperature change, no cabbage emission wavelength change. The cabbage peak Planck Law emission (radiance) is still at the same frequency. The cabbage emits on the same exact ideal Planck curve less its spectral emissivity. Visible, IR, UV the whole wavelength shebang.
The cabbage is no longer reflecting light bulb room visible light of course, which didn’t affect its temperature to begin with. If you could see in the IR in a closet, like a spectrometer, you would observe the IR glow of the cabbage.
Hi Ball4,
You asked about my comment on January 18 at 10:30 pm. Seems to me extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you claim that any object emits in all frequencies at all times, please provide evidence that an ordinary cabbage emits significantly in the gamma frequencies. btw, you swallowed my bait because I threw in HIGH AMPLITUDE which is found usually at the source of said gamma emissions. You mentioned little with a question mark (?). Unless the cabbage undergoes extraordinary fissile action or fusion action as found in the sun, or has had intimate contact with matter experiencing such processes, I confess to be at a loss as to how a cabbage can emit high frequency, high amplitude gamma radiation. If you can provide evidence we’d all love to see it!
Have a great day!
geran,
Under most conditions I would not want to respond to one of your posts but I wanted to let you know I liked the science you presented in your last post. Very refreshing and much more pleasant than endless pseudo-science/hilarious. Thanks.
I would still ask you to reconsider your opinion that a cabbage at room temperature would radiate zero EM at visible wavelengths. A gas at a given temperature has the bulk of molecules moving a a given velocity but some are moving much more slowly than this bulk velocity and some are moving much faster. In a surface composed of trillions and trillions of atoms at a certain temperature, the bulk of the atoms will have a certain kinetic energy associated with this temperature but some will have much less kinetic energy and some will possess much more kinetic energy. The few atoms in the higher energy bracket could emit visible light and one may be able to detect this energy with a photo-multiplier instrument.
“..please provide evidence that an ordinary cabbage emits significantly in the gamma frequencies.”
JohnKL adds the word significantly, not me. I wrote any object emits at all frequencies at all times. Planck’s ref.d testing provided the evidence. Look it up.
Wavelength of gamma is shorter than visible, let’s say instead of visible green 540nm long (as I calculated Planck’s Law straight from Planck’s original writing for geran 1:03pm) use a wavelength in picometers 540pm. Simple for my spreadsheet. I get a nonzero tiny result as expected for the ideal Planck intensity. 1.546*10^-30 W/m^2/sr/pm.
Say John’s subzero has a cabbage that has come to equilibrium at 0F (255K a rather famous number on its own), the ideal Planck intensity result: 1.087*10^-36, which is tiny but still not 0.00 JohnKL.
QED, any object emits in all frequencies at all times at all temperatures: eqn. 274 which was 1st found from experiment and later proven with theory.
Hi Ball4,
A theory is either proved or disproved by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is not proven by theory as your last sentence suggests. When did Planck claim common objects emit in all frequencies at all times? Perhaps I missed it. I never denied that cabbage at sub zero tamperatures emit energy, but you have yet to prove they emit in gamma range frequencies. Btw, are you speaking about idealiEd black bodies or actual observed phenomenon? Btw, by the term “significant” I mean measurable. Please provide observed measurements of frozen cabbage emitting gamma frequency radiation. Honestly, show us the Geiger counter readings. Again we’d all love to see it. Muttered claims about Planck don’t count. Show us a replicable experiment all can do measuring gamma frequency radiation from every day frozen cabbage. Thanks, and…
Have a great day!
JohnKL – To prove an understanding of the empirical results, supporting theory is necessary. Planck provides ref.s in his paper (p. 199) to the experiments that developed eqn.s 274 & 276 – then his paper adds the supporting theory to generalize the results. It has stood the test of time. That’s why they call it a law.
“When did Planck claim common objects emit in all frequencies at all times?”
His paper I ref.d is dated 1913. This translation 2/1914. Common objects are limited only to those with positive radii so that the object surfaces do not radiate to themselves.
“You have yet to prove they emit in gamma range frequencies.”
Planck’s et. al. ref.d testing has already shown that, fully replicable. There is much more testing to date as Planck writes: “Experimental tests have so far confirmed equation (276).”
“Btw, by the term significant I mean measurable.”
Oh, I see. Testing proves all matter gaseous, liquid, or solid at all temperatures emits radiation of all frequencies at all times, although in varying amounts, possibly so small at some frequencies, for some materials, and at some temperatures as to be undetectable with todays instruments (tomorrows, who knows?). Note that there is no hedging here: all means all.
“Show us a replicable experiment all can do measuring gamma frequency radiation from every day frozen cabbage.”
See Planck’s ref.d experiments p. 199 for the experimental set-up. Have at it, they are pretty simple to set up, room temperature & 1bar. Today’s equipment is much better.
Ball4 says: “If you could see in the IR in a closet, like a spectrometer, you would observe the IR glow of the cabbage.”
Ball4, you seem to now understand that the spectrometer is “seeing” IR, not visible.
Norman says: “The few atoms in the higher energy bracket could emit visible light and one may be able to detect this energy with a photo-multiplier instrument.”
Norm, that is what is called “clinging” to an incorrect idea. A room-temperature cabbage does NOT emit visible light. You have a propensity for pseudoscience. Learn to avoid “clinging” to “theories” that clearly violate years and years (now over a century in the case of Wien’s Law) of verifiable observations.
(Norm, you did not include any insults in that comment? Are you not feeling well?)
geran,
You are making a declarative absolute statement that room temperature cabbage emits NO visible light photons. Do you have any empirical or support for this certainty. Scientists working in the field do disagree with your position. If you do not provide evidence for your claims then you are just like Cotton. He asserts but never experiments. Since you make an absolute statement and call me wrong, can you back up your claim. I can show you scientists believe you are wrong.
https://books.google.com/books?id=eN3Oyg9Hb2oC&pg=PT333&lpg=PT333&dq=any+detectable+visible+light+at+room+temperatures?&source=bl&ots=YQ4UlFiKFr&sig=ux7fmRbfBIXiUflflBxm2ZrBVZM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_sIOm1LbKAhVik4MKHW-KC0sQ6AEINzAF#v=onepage&q=any%20detectable%20visible%20light%20at%20room%20temperatures%3F&f=false
Since you do not like looking at links here is what the author of this books states: “Objects cooler than 700 K emit mostly in IR with smaller amounts in microwaves, radio waves and VISIBLE LIGHT.” (visible light is my emphasis but their words).
Your position stands incorrect according to the actual scientists. Be scientific and prove your claims or just give your opinion.
Norm, your naive pseudoscience is always hilarious!
>>>”Be scientific and prove your claims…”
Norm, you can prove it yourself. Take a cabbage into a dark room, let your eyes adjust. Do you see the cabbage?
As always, you are seriously confused.
(Let the insults begin.)
geran,
No need to insult you. You are using what you believe “common sense” to prove your point. “Just take the cabbage in a closet and see if you can see it”.
That would not at all prove you point that it emits NO visible radiation. The burden of proof is on you. I do not have a photomultiplier or proper light filters to set up the test but I am not making the claim. What is your proof that it emits NO visible light at room temperature?
JohnKl
I do agree with you that kinetic energy of atoms at room temperature could not emit gamma rays as they require a shift in the nucleus of an atom and the surface jostling of atoms really don’t matter plus the energy of gamma rays is in the order of million times more energetic than visible light.
Stating all that, however it is possible a room temperature cabbage is giving off gamma rays (not from temperature) but because it would most likely have some radioactive material in its composition (Carbon-14 for instance). The breakdown of these radioactive elements would produce a slight and measurable level of gamma ray activity.
No, Norm, the burden of proof is on the ones that love pseudoscience. A century of quantum physics indicates a room-temperature cabbage does not emit visible light. Thousands of years of observations indicate the same. So, you must prove otherwise.
Just like you must prove that “energy does not leave the system”, yet “energy leaves the system”.
Or, that you can bake a turkey with ice cubes!
You seem to be somewhat behind on the necessary proofs….
Hilarious!
Norm states: “Stating all that, however it is possible a room temperature cabbage is giving off gamma rays (not from temperature) but because it would most likely have some radioactive material in its composition (Carbon-14 for instance).
Nope. Carbon 14 undergoes beta decay. No gamma rays are emitted.
Perhaps geran has a valid but limited point in that light wavelengths in the range about 400-700nm termed “visible” range is a bit misleading as at times (dark closets) the known light intensity emitted from an object (a cabbage) is so low as to actually be invisible to the unaided eye. This being a philo. question like a tree falling in the forest – did it affect light/sound if not seen/heard by any human – I will leave that to the philosophers. And maybe astronomers.
geran could float a less misleading name he’d agree with for this range of light wavelengths such that the name is good no matter the location. Possibly “capable of being seen” range or “situated in the region of the electromagnetic spectrum perceptible to human vision” as suggested by Merriam.
Henceforth when geran joins the discussion I recommend use an object emits “light wavelengths in the range about 400-700nm” which can’t incite useless attack. So although I didn’t originally write cabbages emit visible light, if I ever do with geran, I will write cabbages emit light in the range 400-700nm. This is true whether in lit rooms or in geran’s dark closets.
geran one cannot bake a turkey with ice cubes. No matter the amount of ice cubes, it wont cook. Temperatures dont add. Invoke Wiens law NOW. This is why fire emitting light wavelengths in the range about 400-700nm et. al. was found useful long ago.
>>>”geran one cannot bake a turkey with ice cubes. No matter the amount of ice cubes, it wont cook. Temperatures dont add.”
Just try to explain that to Norm, and the rest of the “Gassers”!
geran
Are you completely sure of your statement that decay of Carbon-14 won’t produce any gamma radiation? Beta decay can produce secondary gamma radiation if the high energy beta particle strikes a nucleus.
This may prove your certainty may be ill-founded and perhaps a more humble approach to science may be a better option.
“Gamma decay is also a mode of relaxation of many excited states of atomic nuclei following other types of radioactive decay, such as beta decay, so long as these states possess the necessary component of nuclear spin. When high-energy gamma rays, electrons, or protons bombard materials, the excited atoms emit characteristic “secondary” gamma rays, which are products of the creation of excited nuclear states in the bombarded atoms. Such transitions, a form of nuclear gamma fluorescence, form a topic in nuclear physics called gamma spectroscopy). Formation of fluorescent gamma rays are a rapid subtype of radioactive gamma decay.”
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
Hi Norman and Ball4,
Please note I don’t categorically deny that a room temperature object can emit in the gamma range. In fact, given the events at Fukushima, California and West Coast produce may soon glow in the dark (ha! ha!). Of course, one must include cabbage in this regard. I simply ask for evidence of this as a common phenomenon. While I do have my doubts that all atoms emit gamma frequencies, at all times and all temperatures I remain open to evidence and don’t at all deny it. Actually, I find Ball4’s claim interesting especially since he doesn’t insist on ALL amplitudes just frequency which to me places it within the realm of possibility.
Thanks Ball4 for the reply and further explanation.
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
You also mentioned:
“I do agree with you that kinetic energy of atoms at room temperature could not emit gamma rays as they require a shift in the nucleus of an atom and the surface jostling of atoms really dont matter plus the energy of gamma rays is in the order of million times more energetic than visible light.”
Agreed, but remember Planck is interpreted statistically and there remains some possibility, however small, that given the cavity model some high frequency gamma radiation can be emitted in some period of time that coincides with someone’s lifetime. Moreover, Ball4 claims to have observational evidence. Personally, I lean toward a Schroedinger radiation interpretation but Ball4’s claim may have empirical support. He claims it does. Thanks again and…
Have a great day!
Norm babbles: “Beta decay can produce secondary gamma radiation if the high energy beta particle strikes a nucleus.”
Norm, is there any part of science you understand? Beta “particles” are NOT high energy!
You operate on the theory that if you make enough “wrongs”, you will someday make a “right”.
Fail.
(Hilarious.)
Mack,
In a post above you explained how you got the 0.82 for Earth’s emissivity and how you used the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator to arrive at the surface temp. The emission from the surface would not matter about clouds or blue color. The Earth reflects some 30% of the incoming solar energy (albedo). But the surface emissivity would have to do with what material it is made up of and what wavelength of electromagnetic energy the surface emits. Since at 18C it is far too cold to emit visible light so the energy is emitted in the IR range. In this band the emissivity of the surface is fairly high but no sure what the correct number is. The actual measured emissivity of ocean water comes out to 0.984 according to this source.
This is very close to 1
https://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/5001/50010017.pdf
I hope you’ve noticed, Norman, what glaring mistakes in physics your friend Ball4 has been making – see geran’s an my comments about the diffuse reflection that he thinks is photon emission.
Mack did not use variable emission, which produces temperatures about 20 degrees colder than homogeneous emission with the same mean. And he also counted the solar radiation that had been reflected back to Space by clouds etc, and the atmospheric absorption. And he forgot about the simultaneous energy losses due to non-radiative heat loss from the surface. Bit of a joke, really!
Norman,
There may be a bit of confusion as to the role of clouds because they are not right down on the “surface” ie down where we take measurements with the Stevenson screens, and they may have absolutely no effect on the absorptivity/emissivity number for the Earth’s “surface”.
However according to Nasif Nahle you have to take into account the TOTAL absorptivity/emissivity. He has done this by averaging the biosphere,atmosphere,lithosphere and cryosphere in his lengthy equation from which he derives 0.82. He says this is a measured amount, applying to this real world, and on the strength of that, I believe he’s right.
Norman,
Also go back up to your comment to me…Jan 18..11.48AM.
WHY EVERYONE SHOULD BE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE CO2 GREENHOUSE
It is obvious to any physicist that the greenhouse conjecture is false, because the direct solar radiation reaching the surface is less than a third of what would be required to explain observed surface temperatures.
James Hansen noted this apparent discrepancy and, not realizing that the rest of the required thermal energy is in fact supplied during the day by non-radiative processes, he wrongly assumed that radiation from the cold atmosphere could be added to solar radiation and the total used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. But even the net of 390W/m^2 which included the back radiation would not be enough because it is variable flux and can thus only achieve a mean temperature much closer to freezing point. He really needed over 450W/m^2 but glossed over that fact and “taught” the world of climatology the totally incorrect physics based on compounding the radiation from two effectively sub-zero sources and assuming that the sum “explained” observations.
Now, most of the atmospheric radiation comes from the most prolific “greenhouse” gas, water vapor which is claimed to cause warming, though evidence suggests the opposite. So where did it all go so wrong? Hansen incorrectly assumed that, without IR-active greenhouse gases, the temperatures in the troposphere would be isothermal. That is not what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us, because it says entropy will be a maximum, not temperatures equal. Every vortex cooling tube in the world demonstrates how a force field (like gravity or centrifugal force) sets up a radial temperature gradient as that force acts on molecules in flight between collisions. The “lapse rate” (climatology speak for temperature gradient) is not due to imaginary “parcels” of air rising, expanding and cooling, because there is nothing to hold any such parcels together as the molecules move randomly between collisions at speeds of about 1,800 Km/hour.
This temperature gradient evolves at the molecular level in accord with the process of maximum entropy production, and that state of maximum entropy is reached when there are no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. That means that the sum of mean molecular gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy is homogeneous, and so there is a temperature gradient.
Once we understand that the temperature gradient is what physicists call the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, then everything falls into place. We can deduce quite simply that new solar energy absorbed in the stratosphere and upper atmosphere each morning will disturb the equilibrium and it can only be restored by downward non-radiative heat transfers, these being the real source of the missing energy Hansen tried to explain with back radiation.
So, in fact, temperatures in a planetary system build up from anchoring layers in the upper troposphere and above, all the way to the core, because the temperature gradient, forming at the molecular level, can be calculated and shown to occur in solids, liquids and gases. It forms by a slow process which can be over-ridden, and is, in the oceans and the stratosphere, but, in general, it dominates. It is observed in all planetary tropospheres, and so the probability of this “heat creep” hypothesis being wrong is millions to one against.
http://climate-change-theory.com
Doug, you, geran and johnkl would make a good triple act.
Maybe funnier than the 3 stooges but definitely of less intelligence.
“DEC”, you don’t even offer any pseudoscience. All you have is your grade-school insults.
Take some lessons. You’re a long way from begin hilarious.
Your competition is far ahead of you.
Here are the three stooges right now. Each of them trying to claim that satellite temperature data is corrupted or not as accurate as surface temp data for measuring global average temperatures. Despite the fact that all the radiosonde data sets correspond much more closely to the satellite data than the surface temps they insist are the most accurate.
https://i1.wp.com/oi63.tinypic.com/2b7b80.jpg
Hi RAH,
Good photo-shop from Steve Case. However, I understand these three stooges have a big fan base at JAMA and NASA.
Have a great day!
If in doubt check out and compare:
https://yt3.ggpht.com/-i8-1tlcKc2E/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/LwzVvpYYu8o/s88-c-k-no/photo.jpg
with
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qV4H8b8gz_E/maxresdefault.jpg
Now tell me Doug isn’t a dead ringer for Moe (the one in the middle).
Naaaaa – now that I’m 70 I don’t have a huge fringe in front – check out my latest photo at http://slower-aging.com where you might add some years to your life if you deign to learn anything from me. Don’t forget to watch my son bowling when he was still 8 years old this time last year – over 2,770 have watched the final bowl in the series of 14.
I agree – the fringe had to go.
Your son looks like a real talent.
Hi Doug,
Your son appears to do a great job bowling. Has he defeated you often? Hoe popular is the sport in Australia?
Have a great day!
Larry (the one on the left) has got to be geran (“sea level rise is caused by the accumulation of elephant bones”)
And therefore Curly must be johnkl (“What? Me worry? We are still in an ice age”)
Hi (DEC, Dr. No, DouglasECotton, Alfred E Newman, etc. (personally, for what it’s worth I think DEC may stand for Dangerous Encephalitis Condition – you do seem to have a swell head!))
You mock my previous claim that we’re still in an ice age stating:
“And therefore Curly must be johnkl (What? Me worry? We are still in an ice age)”
Yes, we still face ICE AGE conditions. If you don’t believe just ask Wikipedia:
“There have been five known ice ages in the Earth’s history, with the Earth experiencing the Quaternary Ice Age during the present time. Within ice ages, there exist periods of more severe glacial conditions and more temperate referred to as glacial periods and interglacial periods, respectively. The Earth is currently in such an interglacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age, with the last glacial period of the Quaternary having ended approximately 11,700 years ago with the start of the Holocene epoch.[1] Based on climate proxies, paleoclimatologists study the different climate states originating from glaciation.”
Your buddy in self-delusion David Appell had trouble explaining the current “interglacial period.”
Btw, you may wish to look up the term “perma-frost.” You see millions of Mastadon’s, Mammoth’s, Saber Tooth cats, Dyre Wolves, tropical flora etc. remain entombed in ice in the Russian Arctic, Alaska and other locations. They’re entombed there because at one point in time the land was much warmer than currently, because we’re in an ice age! The remains are carbon datable and therefore must be something less than 30-40k years old. If I remember correctly, DNA analysis has placed them at 5-7k years old. In any case, you have a problem.
Have a great day ( I really think you need one at this point )!
Hi Curly,
The mammoths etc. are thought to have become extinct due to rapid climate warming.
I expect the current rapid warming to rid the planet of unwanted species such as denialists.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Hi DEC ( hopefully not Declining Encephalic Condition ),
Interesting conjecture you have that animals entombed in ice died of apparent heat stroke. Of us three PEP boys at least two Doug and I enjoy warm weather so should we ever exit the ICE AGE we’ can throw a pool party in your honor!
Have a great day!
You mean they died of cold? Only 5k to 7k years ago?
Thats’s an especially unique explanation.
Actually, I provided different possible time periods relative to different claims, but the ICE AGE is not a new explanation.
Have a great day!
So, how did they die/become extinct?
Was it climate change ? -either too warm or too cool.
or something else?
They all caught a bug?
They all drowned in the Great Flood because Noah missed them?
Keep guessing. Rapid freezing in ice has been known to kill creatures. Not long ago photos appeared on the web of moose and other creatures frozen dead, when lake ice quickly froze. Keep reaching apprently for you it’s evidence of heat stroke. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
Have a great day!
Let me guess.
Entire species were killed by standing or swimming in water that quickly froze over and entombed them.
They must have all been terribly slow-witted to be all standing or swimming in water all at the same time.
I must remember not to swim in the lake.
You mean that all those species happened to be wandering about in lakes at the same time but were snap frozen and made extinct at the same time?
Talk about stupid ! (the animals, not youhowever, on second thoughts)
“DEC” has so much to learn about science. He’s not even up to the level of pseudoscience yet. Animals are frozen standing up quite often.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/coyote-found-frozen-in-its-tracks
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/frozen-deer/
Hey – that must be true !
Photos don’t lie. And nobody could be so cruel as to stick those animals there for fun.
Hilarious !
In your naivet, your denial of the facts is, indeed, hilarious.
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/29/preserved-woolly-mammoth-with-flowing-blood-found-for-first-time-russian-scientists-claim-3814676/
(The accented “e” got eaten–should be naivete, with last “e” accented. Site is eating symbols. That is new.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545364/Glacier-fox-Animal-latest-freeze-solid-Scandinavias-lakes-following-fish-moose.html
Too many links to deny.
Hi DEC,
Keep guessing. I never claimed they froze in a lake. You sure get a lot of exercise leaping to conclusions.
Have a great day!
BTW thanks to Steve Case for the above photo shop.
RAH makes it a quartet.
Maybe the Marx brothers is more appropriate than the 3 stooges.
Hilarious !
Hi DEC,
You state:
“Maybe the Marx brothers is more appropriate than the 3 stooges.”
Actually, the Marx brothers were great! You should be so intelligent as Harpo! Although I must admit like him you seem often to have little important to say.
Have a great day!
Hi Curly,
I say little because I believe in quality over quantity.
Hi DEC – ( hopefully not Declining Encephalic Condition ),
Oh! You must mean the quality of error, in which case brevity can help!
Have a great day!
Hi DEC aka Dr. No,
Btw, you may not want to use that line with Ursula. What with Odd Job an all…
Have a great day!
According to Wkipedia:
“Men in Black is the third short subject starring American slapstick comedy team the Three Stooges.The trio play medical school graduates whose only credentials are that they had the highest temperatures in their class. They are hired as doctors at the “Los Arms Hospital” only because they have been in their senior class for too many years. The new graduates at the hospital are warned by the superintendent that all three of them (the Stooges) are “not overly bright,” ..
Sounds exactly like you, Doug and geran !!
Also:
“Yogi Bear and the Three Stooges Meet the Mad, Mad, Mad Dr. No-No is a 1966 comedy album produced and released by Hanna-Barbera Records. The album presents the Three Stooges as inept park rangers who are called upon to rescue Yogi Bear after he is kidnapped by Dr. No-No, a nefarious scientist who invented a machine that turns people into animals.”
Hi Dr. No,
Don’t step in front of your machine you might look even more like a Proboscis Monkey, Nasalis Iarvatus, than you already do!
Have a great day!
Sorry to nit-pick but, to be precise, that should be:
Nasalis Larvatus
Norman
I replied to your comments on the other thread starting here but you don’t seem to have read to the end of that thread.
What I write is correct physics Norman, and the resonating process has become well accepted by physicists in the last few years, thus resolving the puzzle as to how radiation obeys the Second Law. Several others have written about it in climate blog comments.
It’s funny how some warmists come up with a last resort comment saying “it’s not physics if it doesn’t have lots of computations” and then you think the work of the brilliant professor, which is full of computations, is not physics because it is just a lot of computations.
Until you really understand entropy and thermodynamics Norman you will get nowhere in seeking the truth. I sought and I found, all based on the laws of physics.
To prove me wrong Norman you must prove the Second Law wrong – there’s no alternative, because the gravito-thermal effect is a direct corollary of the Second Law. You can’t have one without the other.
When you at last realize that the density gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy, and so there must also be a temperature gradient (as we also see in vortex tubes anyway) then the penny will drop and it will be one giant step forward for you, Norman, as it has been for many I know personally through the climate group I addressed for three hours, explaining my hypothesis which the physicists among them easily understood and agreed with. Ponder that, Norman, and don’t write any more comments based on your preconceived assumption that I must be wrong.
DougCotton,
You do have one super ability. You can always pull a thread completely off target. The thread was about Roy’s interesting frost flower video. You have hijacked it with your pet theory and pulled along a bunch of posters.
I know you love using the vortex tube as proof of your hypothesis (if it is even to that level). I will link to another article that explains the vortex tube and it is not “heat-creep”. The article writers do what you hate doing. They had a model and then they actually tested the model to see if it had predictability (was useful). It certainly did. The cause of the vortex tube temperature difference is caused by pressure differences (and they measured actual pressures). The cold air is caused by expansion of the gas, the hot gas is caused by compression of the gas. They point out if you make the tube too long normal heat exchange process will eliminated the effect so that alone completely negates your idea. Why? If heat creep was a valid explanation it would not matter how long the tube was as long as a the gases moving rapidly in circular motion as this would set up your gradient similar to gravity. Since length of tube matters it means another mechanism is at play and they have discovered the cause. Hope you read the link, it is most useful for you.
http://mtp.phys.tue.nl/publications/2012/LZKM12/PublicationPRL.pdf
Ball4 may not know all he believes he does but he is correct with his point that you need to experiment. The burden of proof is with you and no one else. You claim pseudo scattering of EM energy, you need to come up with a real experiment to prove it.
Doug says:
“What I write is correct physics Norman, and the resonating process has become well accepted by physicists … ”
“The proof is in my paper, book and website and those with qualifications in physics usually have no trouble understanding that proof … “
I am a physicist and I don’t accept your key points. Robert Brown is a respected physicist at Duke University, and he doesn’t accept them. None of the physicist I have talked with accept your key points.
Could you provide a list of the names and affiliations of any living physicists (either a physics prof or someone in industry with the title of “Physicist”) who accept your key points of “heat creep” or “the resonating process” or thermal equilibrium that is not isothermal? It’s your claim; can you substantiate it?
The simple fact is that your key claims fly in the face of “textbook physics”, so all those subscribing to “textbook physics” (ie the vast majority of physicists) might find your claims mildly thought-provoking, but ultimately incorrect.
“Heat creep” does NOT agree with “textbook thermodynamics”. Despite your urgent wishes, proving you wrong does NOT require overturning the second law. Indeed, it is easy to give a “textbook” example of why the adiabatic lapse rate is NOT the thermodynamic equilibrium condition (two columns of gas with different heat capacities and different lapse rates).
I know you don’t accept this conclusion, so let’s put it to those numerous physicists you think must agree with you. Pick any respected PhD physicist you like at any university you like — you make your case and I’ll be happy to make mine. In the end, let’s see which conclusion he/she comes to.
Robert Brown got it wrong, as BigWaveDave told you years ago TF.
Others can read why here but Tim is out of his depth.
If you depend on “calls to authority” good luck: Josef Loschmidt was a truly brilliant 19th century physicists who taught Maxwell, was first to realistically estimate the size of air molecules and to explain the gravito-thermal effect based on the laws of physics.
Sadly Robert Brown does not understand entropy maximization, which is the key mechanism controlling all natural processes.
I have read no further than your call to authority, TF.
“… as BigWaveDave told you ”
Brilliant! An appeal to authority (if you can call a random, anonymous person on the internet an “authority”) as a rebuttal to an appeal to authority!
At least the “authorities” I appeal to are physics professors and physics textbooks.
………………
You still miss the main point. *YOU* were making an appeal to authority by saying that physicists understand and accept your ideas, so we should accept them, too. But when questioned about it, you cannot produce even a single competent living person who will stand up for your ideas.
TIM FOLKERTS and his climatology texts have been proven WRONG with standard published physics.
See this comment.
TIM FOLKERTS and his climatology texts have been proven WRONG using standard published physics.
See this comment and others above it.
Doug, you say: “that state of maximum entropy is reached when there are no remaining unbalanced energy potentials.”
So, is it your claim that the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy increases entropy?
Ed,
Please, I beg you, please do not feed the animal !
I agree. I threw it enough red meat for now, let it snooze.
Silent readers: I do not communicate with Ball4 because he has demonstrated a lack of any qualifications in physics and a serious lack of understanding of Kinetic Theory, entropy, radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics in general. See previous comments of his wherein others and myself had to waste time explaining his obvious errors.
Well, they woke it up anyway, just for entertainment.
Actually Doug shouldnt ever reply as noted above 1/17 2:49am. Thx for taking my advice Doug, as always you just humiliate yourself further with ever more silly assertions like Doug, stumped, not knowing how to do a simple 1LOT energy balance at Earth surface showing the 288K annual median (with all measured input data) which can be learned to pass atm. thermo. 101 (a course Doug admits he hasnt passed & is therefore a charlatan) – as experimentally proven by Dr. Spencer time and again for Doug.
Im still waiting for Dougs replicable test showing pseudo-scattering results and his perfect insulation that allows max. entropy to be attained. No evidence of these so far from Doug.
Have fun & some entertainment trying to obtain them guys, there is no science value w/o experiment.
Solar radiation of about 20W/m^2 reaching the Venus surface does not explain how it gets the necessary thermal energy to rise by 5 degrees from 732K to 737K during 4 months of this very weak sunshine.
Wrong Doug, no basis for the assertion, 732K to about 737K which is not even mentioned in Jelbring 2003.
Ed Bo
No, if there is already a state of maximum entropy.
Yes if there is not a state of maximum entropy, that may happen, or the conversion of KE to PE may be what is a possible cause.
Do you understand to this point? If not I suggest you read what I “claim” in my hypothesis.
Correct physics obeys the laws and is supported by evidence, and never refuted by any. You know where to find such, and it will blow your mind.
Doug: You say “Yes if there is not a state of maximum entropy, that may happen, or the conversion of KE to PE may be what is a possible cause.”
Huh? That’s not an answer! Since you are unable to answer a simple question, I’ll have to make it more specific.
You have some mass that has the possibility of falling in a gravitational field, but it is initially restrained from doing so. Then the restraint is removed, allowing it to fall, converting gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy. Is it your assertion that this conversion increases entropy?
Of course, because when you removed the restraint you altered the system to one which then had greater maximum entropy. Why do you ask such a basic question? There’s a similar example in my paper and book, so please get your answers from there.
What happens regarding entropy maximization at the molecular level is explained at http://climate-change-theory.com and in my linked papers, videos and book. I am not going to reproduce several pages here with the necessary “heat creep” diagrams.
Footnote:
At the molecular level you can indeed discuss conversion of PE to KE and vice versa, but you cannot quantify a change in entropy based on what happens to one molecule, because entropy is only determined at the macro level, just like temperature.
I ask you because your writings are horribly unclear. You do not cover these very basic issues.
To make it even more specific, I have a ball on the very edge of a high platform. The tiniest nudge would cause it to fall off.
Q1: Does that tiny nudge increase the entropy of the system?
Q2: Does the ball falling after the nudge increase the entropy of the system?
Simple questions. They should have simple answers from someone as smart as you.
Nudges do not happen in the isolated systems we are discussing.
If the ball had been on a slightly sloping platform and then rolled over the edge, then it reaches maximum entropy when it bounces to a stop at the next level down, where we will assume there is an effective constraint like a level floor.
Sorry, I don’t have time now to teach you about entropy. Try http://entropylaw.com and read his pages about the Second Law also.
PS: There is a lot of false information on the web about entropy and the Second Law that has been written by climatologists or lukes or warmists.
Ed Bo
See the graphic of a ball rolling down a slope in Figure 4 at http://entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
That should serve as a similar example of entropy increasing as PE converts to KE. Do you have any reason to disagree with that author and, if so, why?
I quote from the above page referring to his Fig.4 which has three graphics, on of them a ball rolling down a slope.
As soon as the constraint is removed the potential produces a flow from the falling weight through the moving paddle through the thermometer. This is precisely the one-way action of the second law and the experiment depends upon it entirely. The measurement of energy only takes place through the lawful flow or time-asymmetry of the second law, and the point to underscore is that the same is true of every measurement process. In addition, every measurement process also a demonstrates the first law as well since the nomological relations that hold require something that remains invariant over those relations (or else one could not get invariant or nomological results). The first and second laws are thus automatically given in every measurement process for the simple fact, in accordance with the discussion above, that they are entailed in every epistemic act (Swenson, in press a, b; see also Matsuno, 1989, in press on generalized measurement).”
Go to this comment if you still don’t understand why the answer is “YES” if you are talking about an object rather than a molecule.
Why you couldn’t answer the question yourself indicates to me that your understanding of entropy is seriously deficient.
You see Ed, when you referred to a change in PE to KE you did not specify whether you were talking about a solid object, an ensemble of gas molecules, a single molecule or whatever. So I gave a general and carefully worded correct answer.
Now you were getting close, recognizing that radiation reaching the Venus surface is not sufficient to explain why its temperature (at, say, a particular location on its equator) increases from about 732K to about 737K over the course of 4 months of sunlight, and also cools by 5 degrees during the Venus night.
What you now need to learn about, Ed is the process that I was first in the world to explain does happen, that process being a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As no one else has “hit on it” in the history of human science, don’t expect to guess the answer. You’ll find out faster by reading here.
Doug:
You are doing everything possible to avoid answering a simple and direct question. I think it’s because you can’t. Prove me wrong!
To repeat, does the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy of a falling object increase the entropy of the system?
Ed – Doug is not accomplished enough to understand the deeper implications of your question. You won’t ever get an answer where Doug doesn’t humiliate himself further.
I am “doing everything possible” to teach you this physics which you apparently don’t understand and thus ask very elementary questions. But I normally get paid for helping undergraduates, so here endeth the lesson.
Everything possible except the required lab work, no citing existing experiments and no running Doug’s own experiments.
For example, where is the data supporting your claim Venus surface “increases from about 732K to about 737K over the course of 4 months of sunlight, and also cools by 5 degrees during the Venus night.”?
Over 850 experiments in the lab have been done this century confirming the gravito-thermal effect – see my paper for citation.
Venus data was in a peer-reviewed paper published in a journal and cited in my paper.
“732K to about 737K” is not even mentioned in Jelbring 2003. Search on 732&735: no results. The Venus surface temperature “732K to about 737K” is NOT data from Venus surface experiment Doug. You misquote the paper. You have no supporting evidence from experiment.
The 850 lab experiments in your paper cite merely confirm what tests on the atm. had already determined. You never ran a one. Cite a test evidence for:
1) resonant scattering (AKA pseudo-scattering)
2) Max. entropy production using perfect insulation
3) Icy moons complying with -g/Cp
4) “Heat creep” – especially the time required for its transfer of energy
5) -g/Cp test confirming “gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy”
You won’t be able to do so. Remember Doug, showing us this evidence is required support for your political views as in your own 11:59pm words: “Correct physics obeys the laws and is supported by evidence.”
Ed Bo wrote “I ask you because your writings are horribly unclear.”
What is unclear to you about Section 5 on entropy ….
Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures
February 15, 2013
CONTENTS
1. Radiation and Heat Transfer
2. The Problems with the Greenhouse Conjecture
3. The Venus Dilemma
4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
5. The State of Greatest Entropy
6. Quantification of the Thermal Gradient
7. Explanation at the Molecular Level
8. The Concept of Heat Creep
9. How Earth’s Surface Temperature is Supported
10. Laboratory Evidence for the Gradient
11. Planetary Evidence for the Gradient.
12. The Pseudo Lapse Rate.
13. Non-Radiative Heat Transfer Processes
14. Rebuttal of Counter Arguments
15. Support for the Mantle and Core Temperatures
16. Conclusions
17. Appendix Study of Temperature / Rainfall Correlation
18. References
I haven’t a clue why you could not answer YES yourself Ed Bo if you were thinking about a ball falling or rolling off an edge or down a slope. Of course entropy increases in such processes – the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us so. Don’t you know this very basic physics taught at least by Second Year university physics.
I have clearly answered YES in the quote below, because only a YES answer will get to a maximum, now won’t it?
In future I am not going to answer questions here that are already answered in my 2013 paper from which I quote …
“For example, if an isolated system is a room on the tenth floor, then a ball will only drop as far as the floor in that room. Being on the floor is one of the states accessible to the system and, when the ball comes to rest on the floor, it has acquired the greatest entropy available to it within the restrictions of the system. Throw the ball out the window and it enters another system where it will acquire a state of somewhat greater entropy.”
and from Section 4 (before the above) I quote …
An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.
Radiation from two or more sources cannot be added together in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, as is done incorrectly by climatologists (unqualified in physics) with their quaint ideas about photons being like little hand grenades delivering thermal energy into everything they strike. Physicists have known that is not the case for years now.
Sixteen radiators do not make an object twice as hot as one.
This is what is happening with temperatures …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2015_v6-1.png
This is what explains it …
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf
Guys….
He’s basically talking to himself.
So why bother?
I’ve been there – and got the T-shirt.
Not a flicker of recognition.
It’s rather repetitive and futile.
115 posts out of a total of 444 are by him.
Saying the same daft and unsubstantiated bollocks.
Look, as he has to get the last word, even when competing with himself …. just don’t.
You’ll never, ever get anywhere.
It’s the nature of the psychosis.
Typical “Last restort” comment from a luke or warmist.
So Doug has finally answered YES as clearly as he will ever do to my question of whether the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy increases the entropy of the system, with a falling ball as a specific example.
Let’s test this idea with an actual experiment. I drop a ball from my outstretched hand and observe what happens.
1. It falls toward the floor, converting PE into KE. No conclusions so far.
2. It bounces off the floor and rises toward my hand, converting KE back into PE.
But wait! The process in the 2nd part is the thermodynamic reversal of the 1st part. If the conversion in the first part were entropy increasing, as Doug claims, this would not be possible!
Next, I release a ball to roll down a concave-up parabolic ramp. The ball accelerates as it gets lower, but then it passes the bottom and starts to rise again, converting PE into KE, reversing the initial conversion!
The reversibility (and therefore non-entropy-creating) conversions between gravitational PE and KE is the classic first example given to high school students in their first physics class. Mediocre students grasp this quickly, but Doug cannot!
Doug – You are not the “first in the world to explain does happen” – you have simply gotten one of the most basic points in physics completely wrong!
It’s time for you to slink away and not come back until you can explain the physics of a bouncing ball.
“The process in the 2nd part is the thermodynamic reversal of the 1st part.”
Not in the real irreversible world Ed. Since you describe a real test here, there was an actually dropped ball in the real world. Universe entropy does increase on the way down, universe entropy also increases on the bounce up. The real process is not reversible.
Note Doug always describes imaginary processes so he can arrive at any answer that supports his politics. Doug never runs a test so he is not bound by irreversibility. Dr. Spencer has run tests that prove Doug is completely wrong in many assertions.
Ball4 – I’m afraid you’re in danger of falling into the same trap in your thinking that Doug has been wallowing in for years.
I very specifically asked if the conversion from gravitational PE to KE was entropy-increasing. I finally pinned him down to a YES answer. But the real answer is unequivocably NO.
The entropy-increasing irreversibilities in the real-world example of a bouncing ball come from the air resistance and any inelasticity in the actual bounce contact. They do NOT come from the conversions between PE and KE.
The distinction is important, because all of Doug’s theories are built on the foundational idea that the conversion of gravitational PE to KE itself is entropy-increasing and therefore irreversible. Kick out that foundation, and he has nothing.
Note I commented on your real world experiment Ed.
Doug completely misses the quantity of energy conserved in atm. processes PE+KE+p*V making many wrong conclusions in order to further his political purposes.
Individual molecules do not have a pressure, as I previously explained in reply to your incorrect understanding of my hypothesis, that misunderstanding due to your lack of reading such.
The individual molecules store/release the p*V energy between each other Doug, so must be considered, no one writes each molecule has a pressure to itself, this is a sophomoric misdirection which works in hockey, not in science.
“I very specifically asked if the conversion from gravitational PE to KE was entropy-increasing.”
And I very clearly answered in my very first response that there is no general answer to that question.
If you want to know if entropy will increase you need to spell out the initial state of your system and the constraints of the system.
Read the Second Law of Thermodynamics as quoted in my paper and copied in another comment here.
Doug sometimes gets it right, I try to award him some merit points when that happens (in lieu of $75 speaker fee), I would only add make sure a control volume is in place: “If you want to know if entropy will increase you need to spell out the initial state of your system and the constraints of the system.”
Then Doug exhibits his usual self ignoring even what HE just wrote: “I ALSO SAID IN A LATER COMMENT THAT ENTROPY KEEPS ON INCREASING AS THE BALL BOUNCES UP AND DOWN”
What kind of ball – elastic or inelastic?
In atm. or space-like vacuum?
Is ball spinning?
Initial conditions? Site: On earth? An icy moon?
Surface composition? (water would be a problem)
Is ball smooth, round, US football shaped, tennis, bowling….etc?
All other constraints of the system.
If you were right there would be no nearly-stable density gradient in the troposphere, that is, the atmosphere would collapse or shoot off to Space.
Entropy is still increasing when the ball is going back upwards, you clot, because there were unbalanced energy potentials as it started to move upwards, with more KE causing such.
I EXPLAINED IN MY VERY FIRST ANSWER THAT ENTROPY COULD ALSO INCREASE WHEN KINETIC ENERGY IS BEING CONVERTED TO POTENTIAL ENERGY. I ALSO SAID IN A LATER COMMENT THAT ENTROPY KEEPS ON INCREASING AS THE BALL BOUNCES UP AND DOWN UNTIL IT COMES TO REST ON, FOR EXAMPLE, A LEVEL FLOOR.
Please send $75 via PayPal being minimum charge for the next 40 minutes of my time teaching you physics. It’s only AU dollars – so pretty cheap.
I have previously referred you to this guy’s site http://entropylaw.com and his pages on the Second Law from which I quote …
“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.”
Putting it another way …
Entropy is a measure of the progression towards thermodynamic equilibrium.
The ball bouncing does not reach thermodynamic equilibrium until it stops. While it is bouncing, both up and down, it is progressing towards thermodynamic equilibrium and so entropy is increasing ALL the time – UP and down.
Looking at it mathematically, there was initially more PE than there was going to be when the bouncing ball came to rest.
The sum of (PE+KE) is decreasing with each bounce (because some of the energy is dissipated as sound and heat) and also due to friction whilst in flight.
At no stage does the sum of (PE+KE) increase and so entropy does not increase either.
Correction: (I’m getting angry)
At no stage does the sum of (PE+KE) increase and so entropy does not decrease.
Doug: The sum of (PE+KE) is decreasing..”
Doug 5:32am: “a ball thrown into the air wherein (PE+KE)=constant.”
Which is it Doug? PE+KE constant (conserved) or decreasing (unconserved)?
Another jaw dropper from Doug! None of us has claimed that the entropy decreases in these conversions!
You’re starting to get close, Doug! You recognize that the irreversible processes here are air resistance and inelasticity in the bouncing collision.
But you don’t understand the implications. Neither of these effects is present in a static column of gas in a gravitational field. Yet you still consider the conversion of gravitational PE to KE in this situation to be entropy increasing. It simply is not, as that conversion is fully reversible.
This destroys the entire edifice of your theories, Doug. You need to start over.
By the way, the bouncing ball experiment meets the criteria you laid out for disproof of your theories. Please make a $10,000 donation in my name to the Smile Train charity to uphold your promise.
Doug – Much of the fun of doing this is probing the breadth and depth of your confusion. You never disappoint!
You say: “If you were right there would be no nearly-stable density gradient in the troposphere, that is, the atmosphere would collapse or shoot off to Space.”
Hogwash! You completely confuse the density gradient that is an automatic consequence of the gravitational field, with a temperature gradient, which is not.
The pressure of the gas at any height is simply equivalent to the weight of the column of gas above it.
Top physicists Maxwell and Feynman both have excellent explanations for why there is not a temperature gradient just as a result of a gravitational field.
One of the funniest comments you have ever made was when you claimed Maxwell was “not too bright”. Comedy gold!!!
geran,
Here is a link for you to help your science.
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/section_15/711798c8721e71c03bab2a9e8f2b74a3.jpg
This should link you to the energy distribution of a liquid at a certain temperature. If you understand this you will see some molecules have lots more energy than the average and can escape the liquid.
Here is the entire article the graph came from.
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/s15-liquids.html
In a surface liquid or gas the molecules have a distribution of kinetic energy at a given temperature (basic science) and at the high end of the distribution prove that these molecules cannot have enough energy to emit visible light.
So, Norm, in your confused pseudoscience, a cabbage is a gas, and gas molecules are visible light????
You must be trying for the Nobel Prize of climate comedy!
Hilarious.
geran,
Where did I ever state a cabbage was a gas?? Or that gas molecules are visible light?
Okay here is another one for you since you do not understand the concept of energy distribution among many molecules. It is pointless to explain it to you so I will try another approach. Maybe you will see the “light”
http://www.ti.com/ods/images/SBOS518E/C019_SBOS685.png
This is an image of spectra at certain temperatures. Why do you think it is not all uniform at one wavelength? It is because the emitting surface has various distributions of kinetic energy among the many molecules. Also I am not claiming a room temperature cabbage does emit any visible light. (other scientists claim it does). I am asking you to prove your position that it does NOT emit any at all. You have failed to do this so far. You use the derogatory word of pseudo science to discredit my posts but do not offer proof of your position. Why is this that you will not support your claims and attack someone on things they are not even saying?
http://www.ti.com/product/TMP006/datasheet/detailed_description
Norm, your own wording:
>>>”If you understand this you will see some molecules have lots more energy than the average and can escape the liquid.”
You have lost the argument. Cabbages do not emit visible light. So, now you are trying to obscure your loss by talking about gas molecules escaping a liquid.
Hilarious!
>>>”I am asking you to prove your position that it does NOT emit any at all.”
I will repeat:
No, Norm, the burden of proof is on the ones that love pseudoscience. A century of quantum physics indicates a room-temperature cabbage does not emit visible light. Thousands of years of observations indicate the same. So, you must prove otherwise.
Just like you must prove that energy does not leave the system, yet energy leaves the system.
Or, that you can bake a turkey with ice cubes!
You seem to be somewhat behind on the necessary proofs.
Hilarious!
geran,
You are incorrect with your point:
“No, Norm, the burden of proof is on the ones that love pseudoscience. A century of quantum physics indicates a room-temperature cabbage does not emit visible light. Thousands of years of observations indicate the same. So, you must prove otherwise.”
What is your evidence that quantum physics no visible light emission for a room-temperature cabbage?
What are the thousands of years of observations that this is correct?
You can’t see the IR energy coming off the cabbage so how do you know it exists? You have to measure it with an instrument.
The burden of proof is not with me. I am not making an absolute statement. I am not saying the cabbage will or will not. I am challenging your view that it will NOT. Big difference in argument. I want evidence and you provide none. Why is this? Why do you wish to post science points but do not put any effort into supporting them or proving them? What is this condition of certainty you suffer? Are you right-wing religious? That may explain why you think what you say is 100% true with no need to support any of your statements.
Norman, your addiction to pseudoscience has destroyed your ability to think logically.
You are the one that supports the nonsense about a cabbage emitting visible light. The burden of proof is on you. I’m just stating that you are wrong, as you’ve been wrong so often. If you want to believe in your nonsense, like a cabbage emits visible light, or ice cubes can bake a turkey, or CO2 “slows the cooling”, you can. You get to believe any nonsense you want to believe.
So, let me repeat: “…the burden of proof is on the ones that love pseudoscience. A century of quantum physics indicates a room-temperature cabbage does not emit visible light. Thousands of years of observations indicate the same. So, you must prove otherwise.”
(But, I love the humor, so please don’t stop.)
geran,
You are wrong. I never did claim that cabbages emit visible light. The nature of your operation is obvious to anyone who has dealt with you. Misrepresent, distort, twist and then misrepresent a position as many times as you can. When did I claim cabbages at room temperature emit visible light? How can one lose an argument that they did not make.
My argument is not trying to convince you of anything. My argument is for you to prove that a cabbage does not emit any visible radiation and since you are very deceptive and dishonest and misleading I am done posting to you at this time. I may post again but no longer on a point that you are dishonest about. If you learn integrity, honesty and humility it might be worth responding. At this time you distort, misdirect and mislead and if any follows you then too bad for them as they will learn nothing of science. I really do not care if you wish to present me as a fool or idiot. Bye and have a nice day!
Norm states>>>”You are wrong. I never did claim that cabbages emit visible light.”
But, upthread (January 19, 2016 at 2:08 PM) Norm states>>>”The cabbage may emit a tiny amount of visible light at room temperature but you wont see it.”
So, Norm, it appears you are the one who must “Misrepresent, distort, twist and then misrepresent a position as many times as you can.”
Then, he ends his rambling tirade with >>>”I really do not care if you wish to present me as a fool or idiot.”
Norm, I do not have to present you as a fool or idiot, you do that well enough all by yourself!
Hilarious!!!
Norman
Before a light globe was invented, hundreds of experiments (yes,Norman, experiments such as you love) were done with various chemical elements (or combinations of such) heated to various temperatures to determine which had the required quantum energy levels that, when heated to some required temperature would produce photons which had frequencies within the required visible light spectrum. If a cabbage contains the required chemical elements which can be heated to temperatures like that of a light bulb, then you could indeed carry out such an experiment Norman in an attempt to prove your conjecture.
Human beings have remarkable scientific measuring devices which can determine if radiation is in the visible spectrum, Norman. They are called eyes.
As geran points out for Doug, not in a dark closet. Your eyes will not detect the too feeble visible radiation from the cabbage in there Doug. I mean when even geran points out a Doug fundamental error, makes my day.
For geran: As geran points out for Doug, not in a dark closet. Your eyes will not detect the too feeble 400-700nm radiation from the cabbage in there Doug. I mean when even geran points out a Doug fundamental error, makes my day.
Cabbages do not contain all the chemical elements, so you have no grounds for assuming they will emit a single photon in the visible range. Determine all the elements they contain (carbon etc) and study quantum physics pertaining to those elements and all their possible quantum energy states.
None of this has anything to do with my hypothesis anyway.
Maybe I’ll see if my new 50.6MP Canon 5DS R can “see” any visible light emitted from a cabbage next time I’m in a cave inspection and they turn the lights out. But I’ll be busy with the camera at my son’s wedding tomorrow.
Or my wife will with hers – she’d not bad at photography – see her website http://yocotton.com
“..you have no grounds for assuming they will emit a single photon in the visible range.”
Human’s see the cabbages in a supermarket – is that not grounds? It is. Planck’s et. al testing in the link I supplied above is my formal grounds Doug, as a cabbage meets all his req.s:
1) the cabbage has a temperature: room
2) the cabbage has sufficient positive radii as measured
3) the cabbage has dimensions far above the dimensions of the wavelength of light considered (~400-700nm) as measured so negligible diffraction – can be ignored.
Planck’s eqn. 274, 276 therefore applies and I can rely on his ref.d experiments that photons are being emitted from the object (a cabbage), illuminated by my incandescent lamp bulb. Photons are also being reflected by the cabbage per S-B testing. Somewhere above I seem to recall calculating the actual intensity per m^2/sr/nm of the green cabbage photon emission but ask nicely and I’ll run it again.
All this confirmed by test thru a spectrometer. Well, I used an orange and a Ryobi for the experiment.
Doug – In your dark cave experiment, this still applies:
Plancks et. al testing in the link I supplied above is my formal grounds Doug, as a cabbage meets all his req.s at equilibrium:
1) the cabbage has an equilibrium temperature: cave
2) the cabbage has sufficient positive radii as measured
3) the cabbage has dimensions far above the dimensions of the wavelength of light considered (~400-700nm) as measured so negligible diffraction which can be ignored.
Plancks eqn. 274, 276 therefore applies and I can rely on his ref.d experiments that photons are being emitted from the object (a cabbage) in the range ~400nm-700nm. Whether your 50.6MP Canon 5DS R film is fast enough (get the fastest) to capture the photons at the calculated intensity and wavelength is open until you conduct the experiment.
540nm in the green band, cave temp 55F (286K) cabbage emission intensity: 2.5238*10^-05 W/m^2/sr/nm. Hauling a spectrometer along seems unwieldy but a Ryobi 002 is handheld US$30 and will see the cabbage glow in the dark thru the IR & measure its brightness temperature reasonably close to thermometer at equilibrium.
geran,
I really do not like to respond to your posts but your lies are just too much to ignore. Your dishonesty is full blown so let me set the record straight (won’t matter to you but maybe to others if they read this).
You copied some posts from earlier in the thread:
“Norm states>>>You are wrong. I never did claim that cabbages emit visible light.
But, upthread (January 19, 2016 at 2:08 PM) Norm states>>>The cabbage may emit a tiny amount of visible light at room temperature but you wont see it.
Do you know English language? What does the word “may” mean to you?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/may
Since you do not look at posts.
“c used to indicate possibility or probability ; sometimes used interchangeably with can ; sometimes used where might would be expected ”
Dishonest as can be. If you can live being a dishonest person I guess that is a great accomplishment.
Norm the more you get twisted in your own words, the funnier you get! You have to deny your own statements!
Hilarious!
Want more of your own words to deny?
“In an extreme case you seem to be correct that a cabbage may emit a tiny bit of energy in the visible spectrum. But it is very small and you would not be able to detect it with your eyes.”
Oh, and your insults have returned. That just indicates you know you have lost another one.
More please.
geran,
You still lack ability to comprehend the meaning of words. In the post you linked to I stated the word “may” and since I already gave you a definition it would be redundant to do it again.
I do not know if room temperature objects can or cannot emit some small quantity of visible light photons nor have I been able to find and evidence either way. That is why I use words like “may” since it is a possibility but I can’t determine the validity of it.
You are a loser in this debate because you do not know how to read posts and comprehend the language used. I have asked you for proof of your assertion that NO, meaning absolutely not one photon of EM energy in the visible spectrum is emitted by any objects at room temperature. You could be right but you fail as providing any evidence for it.
Spin your way out of this, Norma
“But it is very small and you would not be able to detect it with your eyes.
Hilarious!
Much more, please.
Norman – The deal with geran is not to discuss “visible light” for ~400-700nm light bands which are invisible in a dark closet.
c/visible/400-700nm/all
geran,
Clever girl you are. You figured out how to snip a sentence and leave off a key word “may” that indicates a possibility but not a certainty. At this time I can not find empirical evidence to prove either way if any visible photons are emitted by a room temperature object so I will remain in limbo on this and stick with “may” or if you prefer “possibility”. Unless you provide empirical evidence that no visible light can be emitted I will have to remain with my current view in all humility of not being an “All-Knowing” being that can declare “Let there be Light” and there was light, if I don’t know the answer to something I will not declare it a fact either way. I am glad you have the confidence to do this, it is something I lack.
Guys….
He’s basically talking to himself.
So why bother?
I’ve been there – and got the T-shirt.
Not a flicker of recognition.
It’s rather repetitive and futile.
115 posts out of a total of 444 (thus far) are thread hijacked by him.
Saying the same daft and unsubstantiated bollocks.
Look, as he has to get the last word, even when competing with himself …. just don’t.
You’ll never, ever get anywhere.
It’s the nature of the psychosis.
He even has to repeat his “last resort” comment (without a word of physics) to which I responded here.
Oh well, there is still not a person in the world who, having read and understood my hypothesis, has been able to fault the physics …. in general they agree it is correct physics …
“The fallacies in the greenhouse conjecture are exposed rigorously and backed up by a comprehensive study (in the Appendix) which compares rainfall and temperature data for locations on three continents. The study concludes convincingly that the wetter regions do indeed have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. This supports the hypothesis in the book which shows that so-called “greenhouse gases” (mostly water vapor and a little carbon dioxide) do in fact reduce the lapse rate and thus lower the “supported” temperature at the surface. In other words, water vapor cools and so does carbon dioxide, the latter by only a minuscule amount.
“The book discusses how and why surface cooling slows down almost to a halt in the early pre-dawn hours as the supported temperature is approached. This slowing down process is well known, but the concept of the supporting temperature (due to a temperature gradient autonomously induced by gravity) was not understood, even though this “gravito-thermal” effect was originally proposed in the nineteenth century. Modern day physics can now be used to prove the Loschmidt effect is indeed a reality, as this book shows.
“As a physicist, I can honestly say that the physics is indeed mainstream and valid in all respects. It discusses the maximum entropy conditions that evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached, and then goes on to develop a real break-through hypothesis of “heat creep” which, when we consider what happens on Earth and other planets with atmospheres, we see must be the process which explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period. Indeed all planetary temperature data, even that below any surface, can be explained by the hypothesis in this book, which is indeed a totally new paradigm that completely demolishes the old greenhouse conjecture that was based on mistaken understanding of the laws of physics.
“DougCotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.
John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
“Oh well, there is still not a person in the world who, having read and understood my hypothesis, has been able to fault the physics..”
Dr. Spencer did. He proved physics assertions by Doug completely wrong by atm. test thru experimental data plots.
I have done the equivalent of a PhD in thermodynamics. Those arrogant smarties who attempt to “take me on” will inevitably end up red-faced. Nobody has proved correct physics to be wrong. Give up!
And as for Norman, well he never did answer the question about coincidences, as all can see here.
Dr. Spencer did. He proved physics assertions by Doug completely wrong by atm. test thru experimental data plots.
No he didn’t. He proved correct what was in my 2012 paper on radiation. My “heat creep” hypothesis is not about radiation.
Dr. Spencer testing showed Doug was wrong in 2012 asserting: wv cools.
Oh and cite a test as evidence for:
1) resonant scattering (AKA pseudo-scattering)
2) Max. entropy production using perfect insulation
3) Icy moons complying with -g/Cp
4) Heat creep especially the time required for its transfer of energy
5) -g/Cp test confirming gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy
You wont be able to do so. Remember Doug, since Dr. Spencer proved your assertions wrong by test, showing us this evidence is required support for your political views as in your own 11:59pm words: Correct physics obeys the laws and is supported by evidence.
Yes I have done so for (1) to (5) in one paper or the other.
Footnote: If we consider our Moon “icy” I have done so, explaining its 1600 to 1700K core temperature, not in a paper but in other work.
Doug: “I have done so..The study concludes..”
Doug has not done so. Just another assertion. A study is not a test.
——
Doug assertion: “greenhouse gases…lower the supported temperature at the surface..”
Dr. Spencer test data: The water temperature was increased over control water by the added cirrus cloud.
——
Doug: “The book discusses..surface cooling…discusses the maximum entropy conditions..”
A discussion is not a test. Dr. Spencer test showed this is wrong.
——
Doug: “..hypothesis of heat creep…concept of heat creep
Neither a hypothesis nor a concept is a test.
——
Doug: “…explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period.”
Doug’s citation is to Jelbring 2003 which has no such tested data.
——
Doug: “Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool…”
A miscalculated study is not a test. Dr. Spencer test data: greenhouse gases warm. The water temperature was increased over control water by the added cirrus cloud.
Show us your testing Doug, not your experimentally failed assertions.
Earth “moon” is not composed of water ice Doug, as are the “icy” moons of Saturn, Jupiter.
DougCotton,
I think Ball4 asks some really good questions here. If you want your hypothesis to become established science you will have to do some work an start to experiment to prove your claims.
I didn’t consider icy moons of Saturn as being particularly relevant to Earth’s climate at the time of writing my paper in 2013. So what?
The icy moons prove your 2012 paper wrong Doug.
And if you want the greenhouse garbage confirmed you also need some experiments, Norman. Like experiments showing radiation can be compounded so that 16 radiators achieve twice the temperature that one does. Like studies showing the greenhouse gas water vapor warms by about 20 degrees for each 1%.
And, Norman you need to respond regarding the “coincidences” issue which proves the greenhouse hypothesis has a probability of being right which is less than one in a million.
There are over 850 experiments done by others confirming the gravito-thermal effect. That is enough to prove the GH conjecture wrong.
Those 850 tests all confirm what is observed in earth atmosphere.
Dr Spencer did nothing but prove back radiation slows radiative cooling, you clot. I explained how and why that happens in my 2012 paper. I am in total agreement with him on that issue, but it has absolutely no relevance to the “heat creep” hypothesis which is not about radiation.
“Heat creep” is far too slow to affect morning temperatures even on Venus. The surface warms by radiation at dawn because the sun comes up.
You’re a joke Ball4.
The solar radiation that gets through the Venus atmosphere is about 10% of what Earth’s surface receives.
To warm 732K your need over 16,000W/m^2.
And 16000 is just what was measured on Venus by experiment.
And Ball4, molecules in Earth’s troposphere move at speeds between about 1,200 and 1,800 Km/hr so you have no idea as to what the speed of heat creep is.
The speed of “heat creep” is well known has been extensively tested by Fourier and Fick Doug where you have not done one test of your own. The mean free path of a molecule is well known in Earth’s atm. ruling out any effect they mighr have on surface temperatures at dawn on Earth or Venus et.al.
They measured no such thing. But if you think they did, then you are admitting they found evidence that it exists.
They found data showed the effects would take months to be felt at the surface Doug.
The speed of heat creep increases with the difference in energy potentials. The range of speeds for upward natural convective heat transfer is similar to that for downward.
Show us your test data
Oh – and by the way – only natural convective heat transfers (up or down) establish the -g/cp temperature gradients. Forced convection (like wind) does not do so.
I don’t discuss experiments to which you provide no link, Ball4.
What were they physically measuring? The speed of air movement, up or down? What Ball4? Link us to the particular experiment.
YOU CANNOT DEFINE THE SPEED OF “HEAT CREEP” BECAUSE THERE IS NO FIXED SPEED AND NO LINEAR FRONT OF WARM AIR MOVING AT A FIXED SPEED. HENCE THEY DID NOT MEASURE THE SPEED OF HEAT CREEP.
Did they measure the speed of natural upward convective heat transfer? If so, what did they get?
“Did they measure the speed of natural upward convective heat transfer? If so, what did they get?”
The speed shown on the glider pilot’s rate of climb meter.
“I dont discuss experiments ..”
Good point Doug. To get your point across correctly, you will need to show/discuss by experiment the speed of your “heat creep” diffusion as did Fick & Fourier. Your google fu is strong, find the experiments to support your contention and cite them; don’t do wiki.
For convection part of “heat creep” you can start with Ben Thompson’s tests around 1797.
As I said, I have experiments and/or empirical evidence (plus correct physics) proving (1) (2) (4) and (5) and I consider (3) irrelevant and that we don’t have enough evidence of sub-surface temperatures for the moons of Saturn anyway. These moons don’t have atmospheres and so do not have any link with carbon dioxide in ours.
As you”said”, actually you have not experimented at all, not once, no data at all. Doug simply asserts.
Applying your theory to the icy moons would make them watery moons Doug. Your theory fails to match observation.
Yes, some do have sub-surface water. What’s your problem?
The 850 experiments cited in my paper were carried out meticulously over several years.
“Yes, some do have sub-surface water. Whats your problem?”
According to charlatan Doug’s theory, ALL icy moons will have sub-surface liquid water. Observations show many are all water ice and a little rock disproving Doug’s theory.
The “coincidences” issue proves beyond reasonably doubt that greenhouse concepts are false. See this comment.
Coincidences are not cause Doug. US postage rates have also increased coincident with surface temperatures.
You miss the point as usual. In science we apply probability theory to empirical results to confirm whether of not they support the hypothesis. All above your head I can see.
Bounce away Ball4 and note that your entropy will keep increasing whether you’re bouncing up or down, until you end up motionless on the ground.
Probability theory is not cause Doug. The probability of postage stamp increases causing your results is greater than any of your assertions. Doug has still not cited any test, not one supporting heat creep.
Show me a test confirming natural convective heat transfer and you will show yourself one confirming heat creep.
The odds are a million to one against the greenhouse conjecture being right, because, if it were, the gravito-thermal effect would have to be non-existent.
Experiments show that the gravito-thermal effect generates a radial temperature gradient -g/cp in a moving reference frame in a vortex tube, so take your pick which is right.
It’s a matter of personal choice, Norman, Ball4.
Why should I care what you two choose to believe?
The people who become convinced that what I have explained is correct physics are those who spend the time visiting my websites and blog, watching my video or reading my book and, more importantly, thinking about the physics.
Some statistics …
1st website: 50,430 since June 2011
2nd website: 15,290 since January 2015
1st video: 3,200 since December 2012
2nd video: 1,005 since August 2015
latest blog: 1,705 since December 2015
The greenhouse conjecture is wrong because it uses false physics which assumes solar radiation and back radiation combine to warm more than either could on its own. But 16 radiators do not make an object twice as hot as one such radiator at the same distance. That simple experiment proves the greenhouse conjecture wrong because it only takes one to do so. The greenhouse conjecture must also be wrong if the gravito-thermal effect is a reality.
Absolutely no experiment has ever proved the gravito-thermal effect wrong in all the time since it was first explained by the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt (Maxwell’s teacher) who was first to realistically determine the size of air molecules. He knew how those molecules would respond to gravity and thus form a temperature gradient.
“Show me a test confirming natural convective heat transfer and you will show yourself one confirming heat creep.”
Very good Doug. One merit point. This test confirms the speed of “heat creep” is not fast enough to warm the surface immediately as at dawn and defeats that Doug contention. Here: “The glider pilot can locate a pocket of air that is rising faster than the glider is descending, the glider can actually gain altitude, increasing its potential energy…”
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/glider.html
On still, clear sky days the glider pilots will not catch this wind as well and the surface will not warm as fast if at all by “heat creep”, observed warming will need the sun’s radiation at dawn Doug. On Venus, tests have shown there is very little convection at the surface, radiation is required for any warming when the sun also comes up on Venus.
“The odds are a million to one against the greenhouse conjecture being right, because, if it were, the gravito-thermal effect would have to be non-existent.”
The atm. test data by Dr. Spencer show this to be wrong, -g/Cp and water temperature increase from added cirrus clouds over control water can coexist Doug. They are in no way mutually exclusive, the gravito-thermal effect co-exists found from experiment on the actual atm.
Why should I care what you two choose to believe?”
Doug shouldn’t. Why does Doug respond? Because Doug needs to perform, cite & believe the results of tests to make his case. So far his case is an abject, humiliating failure as Doug has performed and cited no supporting tests for at least:
1) resonant scattering (AKA pseudo-scattering)
2) Max. entropy production using perfect insulation
3) Icy moons complying with -g/Cp
4) Heat creep especially the time required for its transfer of energy
5) -g/Cp test confirming T gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy
The people who become convinced that what I have explained is correct physics are those who spend the time visiting my websites and blog, watching my video or reading my book and, more importantly, thinking about the physics.
To support Dougs explanations, those people should be citing and performing proper, relevant tests. The people who do, as Dr. Spencer does, easily prove by cite and experiment that many of Dougs key explanations are false.
The greenhouse conjecture is wrong because it uses false physics..
Identify the false physics in detail and a test to support charlatan Dougs contention.
assumes solar radiation and back radiation combine to warm more than either could on its own.
This is no assumption, the experiment by Dr. Spencer, and those of many others, some cited by Planck, are sufficient evidence. The 1LOT requires all energy in an arbitrary control volume be accounted.
But 16 radiators do not make an object twice as hot as one such radiator at the same distance.
Please cite the experiment Doug, this is charlatan assertion. Incomplete assertion at that.
That simple experiment proves the greenhouse conjecture wrong..
Assertion only. Cite the experiment.
The greenhouse conjecture must also be wrong if the gravito-thermal effect is a reality.
Test by Dr. Spencer prove these processes can coexist in Earths atm.
Absolutely no experiment has ever proved the gravito-thermal effect wrong..
I have never encountered one either Doug. Ideal g/Cp atm. gradient really is a reasonable close approximation for the Earth mostly hydrostatic noncondensing atm. & has widespread test support.
“Pockets” of air rising are not natural convective heat transfer for which there is no front of warm air molecules all moving together in a line. Besides, molecules move at about 1,800 Km/hour between collisions.
Pockets of air rising are not natural convective heat transfer..”
What is a “pocket” of air Doug? In 1834, William Prout came up with “convection” term for the Count of Rumsford (a truly strange character, even more stranger than Doug) Ben Thompson’s thermally driven mass motion in fluids (~1797) and its role in transferring energy. Convection comes from “convectio”, a carrying or conveying. So that’s all you need Doug, for natural or forced (e.g. fan driven) convection. Don’t need a “pocket” Doug, whatever Doug thinks one of those is all about.
I have referred you all to the experiments by Nikolov and Zeller (and their discussion of same) regarding evidence for the gravito-thermal effect in planetary tropospheres. See:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/
I have referred you to the 850 experiments cited in my paper proving the existence of the gravito-thermal effect in sealed, insulated cylinders.
I have referred you to vortex tube experiments and the one with a centrifuge machine here http://climate-change-theory.com and I have summarized on the ‘Evidence’ page for that website.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to deduce that a lake will tend towards being level because (PE+KE) tends towards being homogeneous. Lakes throughout the Solar system confirm.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to deduce that a troposphere will tend towards having a stable density gradient because (PE+KE) tends towards being homogeneous. Tropospheres throughout the Solar system confirm.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to deduce that a troposphere will tend towards having a stable temperature gradient because (PE+KE) tends towards being homogeneous. Tropospheres throughout the Solar system confirm.
DougCotton,
Please take the time to read this article on vortex tubes.
http://mtp.phys.tue.nl/publications/2012/LZKM12/PublicationPRL.pdf
“I have referred you all to the experiments by Nikolov and Zeller..”
There are no physical experiments by Nikolov and Zeller found in either of those ref.s Doug.
“I have referred you to the 850 experiments cited in my paper”..
Which all 850 support the commonly found -g/Cp DALR is good approximation to data found by actual test in Earth’s hydrostatic dry (noncondensing) atm.
“I have referred you to vortex tube experiments and the one with a centrifuge machine..”
Which all support the commonly found -g/Cp DALR is good approximation to data found by actual test in Earth’s hydrostatic dry atm.
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to deduce that a lake will tend towards being level because (PE+KE) tends towards being homogeneous.”
Gravity levels lakes.
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to deduce that a troposphere will tend towards having a stable density gradient because (PE+KE) tends towards being homogeneous.”
Wrong, PE+KE+p*V is the correct conserved energy found from testing processes in Earth atmosphere of which charlatan Doug (admittedly not passed a basic course on the subject) has not cited or performed any test thus misapplying 1LOT.
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to deduce that a troposphere will tend towards having a stable temperature gradient..”
Wrong, maximum entropy stable T gradient will only be achieved if there were perfect insulation to be found, Doug has still not shown where such can be obtained. Charlatan Doug thus misapplies 2LOT also having not passed a course in its correct application, not in accord with any test for which Doug has given no test citations to support this last contention.
And because the observed -0.7g/cp temperature gradient is found in Earth’s troposphere, it props up the surface temperature, and so back radiation has no more propping to do. Hence the GH conjecture is false. QED
-g/Cp does not “prop up the surface temperature” Doug, it is a T gradient not a prop.
geran,
From a post way way up there you responded to my comment with this post:
You: “Norm babbles: Beta decay can produce secondary gamma radiation if the high energy beta particle strikes a nucleus.
Norm, is there any part of science you understand? Beta particles are NOT high energy!
You operate on the theory that if you make enough wrongs, you will someday make a right.
Fail.
(Hilarious.)”
You must live on “Easy Street” and ride the “Gravy Train”.
In the vast majority of posts you never do any research or prove any of your assertions. It is the “Life of Riley” no work or effort required. You do not investigate or research what you state. Just make claims with no supporting evidence. It makes life easy and fun but I am glad the bulk of the science community does not feel the same. Assert things without doing any research or experiments.
Anyway on the Beta particles NOT high energy is relative to the frame of reference you are using.
Average Beta decay of Carbon-14 is 49000 eV. Low for nuclear reactions but very high energy at chemical reactions.
Look at the upper end of Beta Decay. Over 150000 eV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
Now consider Gamma Rays.
Typically above 100000 eV but can be lower. But the beta decay of Carbon-15 can get up to that level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
So how do you convince your self with certainty that Carbon-14 beta decay could not result in detectable gamma rays??
Norm, another hilarious, rambling comment full of wiki links and pseudoscience. You amazingly wallow in your own ignorance.
You are the one seeking “easy street”. You want me to teach you science. You’re not willing to put in the years it would require for you to learn. All you want is a quick link so you can try to fake it.
You’re hilarious.
First, it would take years just to teach you maturity. You do not even understand that insulting me just makes you look like a child.
Second, it would take more years to “unlearn” all the pseudoscience you have memorized, such as cabbages emit visible light, or that “heat energy does NOT leave the system, but it does leave the system”, or that decay of carbon-14 produces gamma rays.
Third, I enjoy your comedy too much, for example: “But the beta decay of Carbon-15 can get up to that level.” Hilarious!
More please.
geran
On the next thread you put in an incorrect comment and blamed it on lack of coffee. So obvious you do make mistakes or typos but when you do it blame it on coffee.
I think you are DougCotton’s bulldog for his cult. Again you mindlessly attack my credibility and I know why. You harp on typos and act like it is the greatest of sins.
You are scared of what I represent and need to crush it with mindless attacks on my posts.
I notice also you still have not provided the slightest bit of evidence to prove that cabbages will not emit EM in the frequency of visible light (which of course you never will).
You and Cotton are building a Cult and real science (empirical, experimental, researched) is your sworn enemy.
Neither you nor your good pal DougCotton prove any assertions with valid research or experiment because a cult is formed by the unquestioning. You are that person.
You will, however, attack any person on this blog that presents a scientific view or works to challenge one’s beliefs. Real science is your great enemy. What you use science for is a religious blanket. You make a claim and it is truth. You don’t have to prove it and you won’t prove it. Cults do not need evidence from the faithful, they just need belief.
You and Cotton just want everyone to just believe what you state based upon your inspired thought process.
I really hope you are not real with your posts and are just some type of jerk that gets off on posting mindless yet derogatory comments.
If you really are serious with your views and positions on science….Holy Crap!!
Hilarious!
Your eighth-grade writing skills always make me smile. And your adolescent obsession with Cotton only makes your rambling rants that much funnier.
More please.
geran,
Oh, Oh! You are busted! Cabbage does emit gamma rays. No big deal to you, you will go on with your behavior. Nothing to see here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21384365
geran,
Certainly you are most insulting!! “Eighth-grade writing skills” I thought for sure mine were at least Freshman level. Boy you really know how to hurt a fellow! Ouch, I think I need to go cry!!
Hilarious!
Every time I think you can’t sink any lower, you drop another 40 fathoms!
The “cabbage link” you found, not knowing WTF you were searching for, is about cabbage that absorbs radioactive elements from the soil. So, you are WAY off, again.
But, it gets even funnier. Gamma rays are not “visible light”. So you don’t even have a clue what wavelengths constitute visible light.
Your pseudoscience is amazingly hilarious.
More, please.
Norman and Ball4 would do well to note that Tim Folkerts and his climatology texts have been proven wrong with standard published physics – see this comment and several above it.
Norman has not produced an experiment (as suggested with up to 16 radiators) that demonstrates that the adding of radiative fluxes gets higher temperatures, so he has no evidence that backradiation can be added to solar radiation, as the IPCC implicitly claim can be done.
Hence the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture lacks any evidence that Norman can produce. Norman of all people! He who insists on doing experiments. In that it also violates the laws of physics, the onus is upon lukes and warmists to support their false science with experiments.
The onus is on Doug to provide tests for at least:
1) resonant scattering (AKA pseudo-scattering)
2) Max. entropy production using perfect insulation
3) Icy moons complying with -g/Cp
4) Heat creep especially the time required for its transfer of energy
5) -g/Cp test confirming T gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy
(1) Resonant scattering is not relevant to the “heat creep” hypothesis.
(2) Perfect insulation is not necessary
(3) There is insufficient data about icy moons
(4) Heat creep has been demonstrated and is quite fast enough with molecules moving at 1,800Km/hr between collisions
(5) The state of maximum entropy also has a density gradient and so the temperature gradient is just as stable as the density gradient, being what the system tends towards
Go to <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/on-that-2015-record-warmest-claim/#comment-207289"this comment.
My final comment for January is here.
“(4) Heat creep has been demonstrated and is quite fast enough with molecules moving at 1,800Km/hr between collisions”
Diffusion, conduction and convection (AKA “heat creep) were honestly demonstrated in the 1800s Doug, by Fick’s Law and Fourier’s Law & the Count. The mean free path of a molecule is so short, its direction so often changed, the speed of diffusion is extremely slow.
Honestly, perfect insulation is needed for state of maximum entropy.
If resonant scattering is irrelevant, an honest commenter would drop it Doug.
Ball4,
Keep up with demanding tests of DougCotton. If someone wants to overturn or change accepted physics it will need to be done with actual experiments and empirical data not just claims and assertions.
I do not think DJC will take your advice but I am glad you have the energy to continue with your posts and demanding it!
A true scientific approach. His current approach is religion. He wants people to just accept what he says as if he is a great prophet with direct revelations from God Almighty.
Bounce back, Ball4 and help Norman here.
Norman can help himself just fine Doug. It is Doug that needs help.
You haven’t answered my questions Norman or Ball4, let alone produced empirical evidence for what you believe in.
My final word on the matter (for this month anyway) is here.
Draw the “heat creep” diagrams from memory to see if you understand my hypothesis, because an honest scientist must reject the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture on several grounds, and that leaves you with nothing.
Doug – All the questions are answered Doug, except by you since you are stumped by them. Yes, the honest scientist agrees with proper test. Only you disagree with the proper test of Dr. Spencer where the data shows wv can increase T over control proving there is no:
1) resonant scattering (AKA pseudo-scattering)
2) Max. entropy production using perfect insulation
3) Icy moon complying with -g/Cp
4) Heat creep especially the long time required for its transfer of energy
5) -g/Cp test confirming T gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy
6) Contact information for Dr. Alex Hamilton or John Turner.
geran,
I am getting close but have not found evidence yet. Here is an example so far of foods that are radioactive and with Radon-226 (did I put in the correct isotope?) it does emit gamma rays directly.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/foodcookingchemistry/tp/10-Common-Naturally-Radioactive-Foods.htm
Maybe you will have to chew down your certainty. I doubt it though. Water off a duck for you.
Norm, my poor lost puppy. The discussion was about “visible light”, not “gamma rays”.
At some point, your pseudoscience has degenerated into playing in the sandbox.
(Hope the cat hasn’t been there recently.)
Hilarious.
“If someone wants to overturn or change accepted physics” they can take a lesson from James Hansen.
When you guys produce an experiment supporting Hansen’s conjecture that radiation can be compounded, tell me about the temperatures you attained with 16 radiators.
When you complete a study showing more moist regions to be 50 degrees hotter than dry regions do please publish it.
When you out-do Roderich Graeff with his 850 lab experiments showing temperature gradients in insulated cylinders, also publish you results.
Doug, If I could convince you that you are wrong about something simple like your “16 radiators”, would you admit that maybe, just maybe, you are not the expert about more advanced physics that you think you are?
And just to be clear, the example is about heating a central blackbody object in vacuum due to some combination of hot rods something like this (http://www.driir.com/series-fh-infrared-heaters.html).
The question is “If one radiator is positioned so that it heats the central object to 350K, what temperature would you get from 16 such radiators at a similar distance.”
I claim the temperature would indeed be 350K * 16^(0.25) = 700 K. IF I understand you, you claim the temperature would be more than 350K, but well below 700 K.
You’re a joke Tim. “I claim the temperature would indeed be 350K.” Yes, which proves radiation cannot be compounded, so back radiation cannot be added to solar radiation (as is shown in all those energy diagrams) and so there is no GH effect.
Do you REALLY think I said the temperature would be 350K??? Did you simply stop reading at “350K” and missing “* 16^(0.25) = 700 K”? Maybe it was wishful thinking?
As I very clearly said — and will say again — if 1 radiator like the one under discussion would produce a temperature of 350 K, then 16 such radiators would produce a temperature of 700K. I claim that radiation WOULD be “compounded” here. Any sort of radiation can be added to any other sort of radiation (limited only by the geometry of enough area to place the radiators).
Go to this comment.
More big red thumbs for Doug.
“produce an experiment supporting Hansens conjecture that radiation can be compounded”
My well water pump is outdoors in an insulated cabinet with a light bulb maintaining 20F over ambient, when I turn on a 2nd bulb the T goes to around 40F over ambient. If I turned on 16 bulbs I will let Doug calculate the increased T as an exercise since he purports to have a B.Sc. Physics.
“When you complete a study showing more moist regions to be 50 degrees hotter than dry regions do please publish it.”
They aren’t. The correct column wv study already published in 1998. In past discussions, I’ve provided Doug the citation. I showed Doug the precise step he miscalculated the precipitable water in the column. I’ve provided satellite data for column water that shows the published calculations compare reasonably well to observation. I will let others speculate on Doug’s political motives for ignoring the correct science and the confirming tests.
“When you out-do Roderich Graeff with his 850 lab experiments showing temperature gradients in insulated cylinders, also publish you results.”
There is no need, the 850 tests simply confirm what is already known in science and atm. test confirming ideal dry -g/Cp good approximation in Earth mostly hydrostatic atm.
The 850 experiments (all in perfectly sealed and insulated cylinders) prove temperature gradients form at the molecular level and that there is thus no need, Ball4 for your “rising pockets of hot air” to form the gradient. Only wind could hold some molecules in a pocket, but wind cannot form a g/cp temperature gradient. If it did, your glider pilot would not rise because the air would cool to that of its surrounds.
Float on clouds (or pockets of air) in your dreamworld, Ball4.
The temperature gradient (just like the density gradient) happens because the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be obeyed.
So bounce away, Ball4, as you only continue to display your lack of understanding of the physics (second only to that of Tim Folkerts) with every word you write.
Doug: “..perfectly….insulated cylinders..”
Perfection is not of this world Doug, no perfect insulation surrounded the test cylinders. Furthermore, the cylinders would have been far, far smaller to test at the molecular level. The assumptions in the derivation of -g/Cp hold just as well at the size of these test cylinder (ref. your beloved wiki) as in any air column.
The glider pilot seeks out & uses rising thermals Doug, convected (and conducted) at a speed too slow for higher atm. to quickly affect the surface temperature at dawn which takes the speed of radiation. Your trademark “heat creep” diffusion speed is much too slow for that purpose. Norman sees these points Doug, you just can’t fool everyone.
The outside cylinders were affected by the ambient temperature which, being in a room that was partly underground, was warmer at the top in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium. So the outer cylinder was warmer at the top. That really nailed it, because, several cylinders further in, the central cylinder was measured to be warmer at the base. The results were the same in nearly all 850 experiments spread over several years. Next time read first what you plan to talk about. If you knew what my hypothesis is about then you should be able to draw the “heat creep” diagrams from memory, correctly labelling the axes.
Go to this comment everyone – over and out for this month.
These tests worked several days to weeks for heat creep to act, following exactly Ficks Law and Fouriers Law.
Ball4
You make a good point. If there is a lapse rate in the atmosphere (because work done when a gas expands against other molecules) why wouldn’t the same occur in the 850 tests. Really his 850 tests may not validate anything except that density changes in a gravity field and as the air in the upper part of the column thins and expands it cools. Maybe. I have to think on it some more but I think that is your point.
As I have said many times, the process of entropy maximization simultaneously forms both a density gradient and a temperature gradient, because there can only be one state of maximum entropy. The resulting pressure gradient is a corollary.
DougCotton,
So you say in thousands of posts on multiple blogs but not one shred of proof from you. Easy science and very lazy science.
Tim, if you were wrong would you want to know? I doubt it, but if so, start your study here and then help Norman with his 16 radiators experiment that needs to work for you too.
DougCotton
Do you have actual experimental data on the 16 vs 1 radiator effect of temperature on a surface. Your link is broken so I was wondering if you could provide some valid experimental data.
It’s you who needs to provide experimental evidence in support of the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture which you have been gullible enough to believe because of your lack of understanding of thermodynamics and entropy, Norman. That’s not my conjecture, so I don’t have to prove it correct. I have mentioned that radiation in your microwave oven does not heat those plastic MW bowls or anything without water molecules or some oil ones. So that supports what I say.
For the object being heated by your 16 radiators I suggest Norman that you use a filament from a broken light globe. It should glow with white light when temperatures get up to about 600K. If you can boil some water with one if the water is close enough, you should be able to get 600K with a few less than 16 radiators – you work it out.
DougCotton.
You still do not have a grasp of science. If you make a claim it is not my responsibility to come up with experimental evidence to refute your claim. You are the one who needs to supply the burden of proof. You and geran are twins. Both assert, say textbook science is wrong, and never think you are under a burden of proof.
Again for the numerous times here is the proof of greenhouse theory (much more than conjecture)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
If you can (you have not in the past) click the box “downwelling infrared” and tell me what the graph plot shows. There is empirical measured values for downwelling radiation. That is real proof in the science world.
1) At 700 K, the filament won’t even glow enough to see! A typical filament is over 2000 K.
2) a broken light bulb will burn out almost immediately, due to oxidation of the filament.
3) Your whole discussion suggests that convection & conduction are important in your scenario (not to mention radiation from the walls of the kitchen where you seem to be experimenting), muddling up any conclusions that might be made. IF you want to study how RADIATION adds, you should consider an experiment where ONLY radiation is involved.
Your whole thought experiment is completely useless to explore the ideas you want to study.
To answer your earlier question, yes, I would want to find out if I was wrong about something in science. But every time I try to give you that same opportunity, you flee off to some other issue.
So, if you dare to actually discuss the basic science of the core issues … the example at hand is about heating a central blackbody object in vacuum due to some combination of hot rods something like this (http://www.driir.com/series-fh-infrared-heaters.html). If you can’t deal with this extremely simplified case, why should anyone listen to what you try to say about more complicated.
To Roy, Norman and all Lukes and Warmists:
Don’t forget, the IPCC claims that greenhouse gases do “33 degrees” of warming, so that water vapor must do at least 25 of those degrees. Say the average percentage of water vapor is 1.25%, we thus deduce that …
1% water vapor raises temperature 20 degrees (desert)
2% water vapor raises temperature 40 degrees
3% water vapor raises temperature 60 degrees
4% water vapor raises temperature 80 degrees (rain forest)
Show me a study confirming such with methodology similar to mine in the Appendix here.
The onus is on you Norman to provide such empirical evidence if you think you have a hope of persuading me to believe in what the IPCC says about radiative forcing and greenhouses.
Nobody gets the AU$10,000 reward without also doing such a study.
“..the IPCC claims that greenhouse gases do 33 degrees of warming”
Not a claim Doug, approx. 33K results from experiment, aka a test:
Earth near surface annual median temperature from thermometer: 288K
Satellites looking down annual median temperature: 255K
Only the atmosphere is in between Doug making the difference 33K.
“water vapor must do at least 25 of those degrees”
“1% water vapor raises temperature 20 degrees (desert)
Where is your test cite for these assertions et. al. Doug? A study is not a test.
Hi Ball4,
“Earth near surface annual median temperature from thermometer: 288K
Satellites looking down annual median temperature: 255K
Only the atmosphere is in between Doug making the difference 33K.”
Ball4, Can we, you and I, ignore the simple fact that 50% of the atmosphere, on the average, contains clouds? Which in your rush to explain the 33K difference is due to water vapor and not to the condensed water vapor which forms liquid or solid cloud particles.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry – the liquid water (cloud) is suspended in the atmosphere between the spacecraft instruments and the surface.
The “heat creep” process explains how the required thermal energy gets to the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus and raises the temperature by whatever is observed. Back radiation cannot raise surface temperatures during sunlit hours or support temperatures at night. Core energy does not either, and would not “know” whether it’s day or night outside.
Now go to this comment.
Dr. Spencer testing on the atm. showed there wasn’t time for “heat creep” process, that added back radiation can increase T of water over control at night. Doug is proving out his own definition: “The honest scientist writes only about an hypothesis that does in fact have supporting evidence..”
There is no supporting empirical proper test data evidence for:
1) resonant scattering (AKA pseudo-scattering)
2) Max. entropy production using perfect insulation
3) Icy moon complying with -g/Cp
4) Heat creep especially the long time required for its transfer of energy
5) -g/Cp test confirming T gradient is stable because it is the state of maximum entropy
6) Contact information for Dr. Alex Hamilton or John Turner.
An honest scientist, by Doug’s own definition, would stop writing comments containing any of these 6. Any further comment by Doug, anywhere, containing one of them provides an assessment of Dougs honesty.
Hi Ball4,
“Jerry the liquid water (cloud) is suspended in the atmosphere between the spacecraft instruments and the surface.”
Do you believe I am unaware of this fact?
Ponder what is written in this link: http://www.columbia.edu?cu/pr/00/01/pleiades.html
Have a good day, Jerry
Yet another example of Doug being in over his head. It doesn’t even occur to him that something in nature could be non-linear.
Hi Ball4,
Should have also drawn your attention to what R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, wrote in his 1966 book, Weather and Climate. Have quoted this in the past, I am sure. But will do so again.
“Long-wave radiation from the earth, the invisible heat rays, is by contrast totally absorbed by quite a thin layer of clouds and, by the same token, the clouds themselves emit heat as though they were black bodies.”
While I do not agree that clouds absorb radiation, instead that they scatter according to a scattering theory taught by Richard Feynman, I do believe that they do emit radiation as if they were black bodies. That has long been observed to be the case. Just it has long been observed that a thin layer of clouds inhibits the transmission of long wavelength IR through such thin clouds. I only question the mechanism by which the transmission is inhibited.
Have a good day, Jerry
DougCotton
Please take the time to read this article. Thanks.
http://mtp.phys.tue.nl/publications/2012/LZKM12/PublicationPRL.pdf
Yes I’ve read it and similar arguments about pressure causing high temperatures and imaginary “parcels” of gas which simply cannot exist as such. See my item refuting Stephen Wilde’s parcels of air conjecture on my blog.
You waste so much of my time Norman because you don’t understand entropy maximization and how it produces a density gradient and a temperature gradient when there is a force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions. The pressure gradient is a result, not the cause. Go learn and think about Kinetic Theory – Wiki will help you.
The refutation of Stephen Wilde is actually in the comment thread, not the main post.
DougCotton
Air parcels are not imaginary and I have demonstrated this to you in the past by showing you numerous nuclear explosions where molecules are heated to millions of degrees but because of surrounding air the fire ball only expands so far and then rises since it is ligher than surrounding air and as it rises it cools. You are wrong here and should study the issue before making up something that you really lack knowledge of.
Study Kinetic Theory, Norman. Air molecules move in random directions at about 1,800 Km/hr between collisions. What could hold any particular group together? I am talking about adiabatic natural processes, in case you don’t realize such a basic point, Norman – not explosions.
There are no adiabatic natural processes Doug, you would know that passing a course in atm. thermos. 101.
DougCotton,
What holds a parcel together is the large numbers of particles all around. It is like a super crowded area of people. You can only move around slowly to your destination because you keep bumping into people. The distance an air molecule can move before hitting another at where we live is about 90 nanometers. At that collision this molecule will change direction and change again in another short distance. That is why cold air and warmer air DO NOT MIX and you have weather. Cold air moves under warm air and pushes it up. It couldn’t do this if your mixing took place. You seem to know very little about molecules and the way they interact. Go study some more. It is sad to read your posts. Like reading comments by geran. Two scientifically illiterates that bask in their own glory.
The concept of a parcel of atm. air is useful in deriving -g/Cp Doug’s favorite ideal lapse* expression. The finite lifetime of the parcel is actually of no concern.
The derivation, the foundation laid long ago by Poisson (1821 or so), was based on the instantaneous rate of change of a parcel’s temperature. Thus the parcel need live only for a brief moment, say one mean free path if you want a finite number. Once its mathematical task has been completed, the parcel is no longer of interest and may dissipate without doing damage to the derivation.
Doug would learn that passing a course in atm. thermo. 101.
*A lapse is a decline of something, a gradient, a slope.
Useful concepts are garbage if they cannot exist. In this case the “concept” leads to totally incorrect understanding as to what is happening – actually at the molecular level. Do your parcels also go downwards? If so, when and why?
Just read my two line derivation of -g/cp compared with the complex one on Wikipedia (Lapse rate) which introduces pressure, and then finds it cancels out.
You will never understand heat creep if you think in terms of parcels of molecules darting about at 1,800 Km/hr but supposedly restrained so they the same ones stay within defined boundaries that also prevent others gate crashing.
Yes, and my hypothesis is the opposite of a lapse. Go find out why.
Norman – try reading what I recommend next time before sprouting your accusations about what I seem to know little about …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases#Assumptions
In fact, about three years ago, I helped with the wording of that Wikipedia article – “know little about” indeed (LOL)
DougCotton
From the article you linked to.
“The rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with the walls of the container.”
You have a hard time with this concept I think. You have a different visions of molecules than myself. They move rapidly but can’t get anywhere because of other molecules in the way. Cold air masses hold together and so do warm blobs. You can see a warm blob holding together when it rises high enough to form a cloud.
You are way off in your grasp of molecules and how they move in a dense environment. Reality is not a few molecules zooming about great distance.
You can argue but you are wrong and will always be wrong on this point. By the way have you bought a can of computer duster? Compressed gas that cools as it expands. It is empirical proof of what I write and will prove you wrong.
“Do your parcels also go downwards? If so, when and why?”
If Doug had ever passed a course in atm. thermo. 101, he would have had to understand the buoyancy (or buoyant force) on any instantaneous volume of atm. air. If its instantaneous density is less than surroundings, it turns out from physics that its buoyant force is upwards. If its density is more than surroundings its buoyant force is downwards.
Doug – All you did was trivially multiply both sides by m then canceled m on both sides of that eqn. This is known as being a charlatan. The derivation on wiki is not the original, look up the original starting with Poisson’s relations in about 1821 then how it was developed by others to refine -g/Cp; you are missing some truly marvelous physics learned from observing nature.
“You will never understand heat creep..”
You will never understand heat creep until you do some experiments, study those of Fourier, Fick and the Count who developed them into Laws. You could do all that by passing a course in atm. thermo. 101. The speed of heat creep is far slower than radiation thus heat creep (diffusion, conduction, convection) cannot effect the surface T in the space of a few hours at dawn. Glider pilots do not move at the speed of light.
There is no defined and measurable “speed” of heat creep, although the upper limit at the outer fringe would be close to the speed of molecules, that being about 1,800Km/hour.
There’s plenty of time over the course of 4 months on the sunlit side of Venus, my friend. And the proof is that the reverse process operates at the same mean speed achieving the same temperature difference in the same four-month period. Likewise on Earth each 12 hours instead of each 4 months, and with less than 20% of the distance to cover.
So much for that argument, my friend.
“All you did was trivially multiply both sides by m ”
Not trivially. The m is there from the standard expression for gravitational potential energy, and it is on the other side in the standard expression for the energy required to raise the temperature of mass m by a temperature difference dT using the specific heat cp.
So m.g.dH = -m.cp.dT
and dT/dH = -g/cp
Quite different reasons, my friend. You just demonstrate that you didn’t even think about what is clearly explained there in black and white.
“There is no defined and measurable speed of heat creep..”
Actually there is Doug. You would have known that passing a college course in atm. thermo. 101. Fick’s Law has the details for how long diffusion will take over a set distance. Conduction (Fourier) and thermals (the Count) likewise.
Since you write The honest scientist writes only about an hypothesis that does in fact have supporting evidence.. show us your supporting evidence test data for Venus four month and earth 12 hour “heat creep” rates. That is IF you want to be considered honest.
And finally (for today anyway) we have Norman’s classic: “You have a different visions of molecules than myself. They move rapidly but cant get anywhere because of other molecules in the way. “
How about agreeing on the assumptions of Kinetic Theory …
“The theory for ideal gases makes the following assumptions:
The gas consists of very small particles known as molecules. This smallness of their size is such that the total volume of the individual gas molecules added up is negligible compared to the volume of the smallest open ball containing all the molecules. This is equivalent to stating that the average distance separating the gas particles is large compared to their size.
These particles have the same mass.
The number of molecules is so large that statistical treatment can be applied.
These molecules are in constant, random, and rapid motion.
The rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly elastic. This means, the molecules are considered to be perfectly spherical in shape, and elastic in nature.
Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. (That is, they exert no forces on one another.)
This implies:
1. Relativistic effects are negligible.
2. Quantum-mechanical effects are negligible. This means that the inter-particle distance is much larger than the thermal de Broglie wavelength and the molecules are treated as classical objects.
3. Because of the above two, their dynamics can be treated classically. This means, the equations of motion of the molecules are time-reversible.
The average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the absolute temperature of the system. The kinetic theory has its own definition of temperature, not identical with the thermodynamic definition.
The time during collision of molecule with the container’s wall is negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions.
Because they have mass, the gas molecules will be affected by gravity.“
Ok Doug 10:26pm, and just where did you get g.dH and cp.dT from? Why the work of Poisson published around 1821. And of coure Poisson had test data for that work, where is your experimental supporting evidence Doug? Nowhere.
What makes you think the molecules have to “get anywhere” anyway Norman? I have no idea as to why you think your comment is relevant to the “heat creep” hypothesis which is not about molecules moving anywhere – just heat transfers.
Note that the assumptions also tell us that the temperature of a small (but macro) ensemble of molecules is proportional to the mean kinetic energy, and nothing else comes into the equation – especially not pressure. So, if you want to explain why a planet’s surface temperature rises then you have to explain how the mean kinetic energy per surface molecule rises in proportion.
Once again Doug 10:32pm misses the p*V term in kinetic theory when considering temperature as in eqn.s 3,4 of his own link. The conserved energy in kinetic theory being PE+KE+p*V. Doug would not have missed this term if he had passed a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
Go to this comment.
Dr. Spencer testing proving water vapor increases T over control shows Doug is dishonest when continuing to assert: water vapor cools.
Fifteen locations (01 to 15) from three continents arranged in order of precipitation (greatest first) and treated as three groups of 5 each … what do the results say to you? Where is your counter study?
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8C 20.1C
Medium (06-10): 33.0C 21.2C
Dry (11-15): 35.7C 21.9C
DougCotton
In direct dispute of your study look at this reality of energy available to reach and warm a surface. Your study is flawed and a waste of time. You are wrong about this one as well now do some REAL research and take into account amount of solar energy that reaches the surface in all your cases. Then redo it with proper analysis.
http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/sydney-au.html
You won’t do it but I think I will post the vortex tube link and this one for every post you put up with these discredited notions.
Time for you to SHUT UP and experiment. I still want some actual evidence of your 1 bar vs 16 bar radiator comment. I guess it will never be given!
No they are wrong. Radiation only ever takes thermal energy out of a warmer surface and into a cooler atmosphere or direct to Space. That only leaves solar energy possibly transferring some thermal energy into the surface on clear summer days around noon in non-polar regions.
Both all-sky atm. and sun radiate toward the surface Doug, as proven by Dr. Spencer experiments of which Doug has none.
Doug 2:04am As a practicing charlatan, you miscalculated the precipitable water in the atm. column and miss-assigned dry, medium, wet to suit your political views. You would know that had you looked up experiments: satellites show more precipitable water over N. Australia than over the rain forests reasonably agreeing with proper precipitable water calculations.
Doug 2:04am Remember in Dougs own words The honest scientist writes only about an hypothesis that does in fact have supporting evidence.., a study is not evidence as are the satellite and in situ precipitable atm. column water measurements. Look them up for supporting evidence, become at least an honest charlatan.
Bad luck, Ball4. The fact that the temperature gradient is reduced is well known, and it depends on radiation which happens between all forms of H2O – water droplets in clouds, steam (invisible water vapour) and even rain drops, hail and snow.
“it depends on radiation..”
Yes Doug, from LH, not “heat creep.”
Remember Norman to argue with your doctor next time you are prescribed a drug or two: tell him he has no evidence it will work because all he has to go on are studies.
Oh, sorry, that applies to bouncing Ball4. Norman just needs to produce his own study without flaws refuting mine. Then he’s half way towards the AU $10,000 reward, but the other half will be harder still because he has so much to learn about entropy, not even able to describe what it is at this stage in his learning process, let alone having any idea as to why it is so relevant to climate and the gravitationally induced temperature gradient which nullifies any need for “greenhouse” warming.
And actual patient test data Doug, some using the medicine and some a control placebo.
You don’t say anonymous Ball4. I have studied “Natural Medicine” at post-graduate level through Swinburne University in Melbourne and first wrote my site http://slower-aging.com over 10 years ago. I also got a High Distinction in a one-year Nutrition course. So do you think I’ve never heard the word “placebo” and so what anyway? You could make a “placebo” vortex tube with still air in it if you like. What they have done is use different gases and got the different temperatures that my hypothesis predicts.
Sure, -g/Cp ideal gradient acts to a good approximation in that test or any test where there are “g” forces compressing a gas Doug.
It has nothing to do with compressing (increasing pressure) because you do not create kinetic energy that way. You just continue to prove that you have not read, let alone understood, my hypothesis, Ball4, so in future, unless and until you indicate that you have understood it, you may take it that no reply from me is an implied “irrelevant” comment.
Increasing pressure transforms PE into KE Doug, conserving energy PE+KE+p*V, just as the link you supplied on kinetic theory shows. Please do not reply to this, you will only humiliate yourself further.
Increasing pressure does no such thing: it may simply just be increasing the density whilst maintaining the same temperature.
If the mean altitude of all the molecules remains the same then there is no change in the mean molecular gravitational potential energy either. You really don’t even understand basic Kinetic Theory, let alone entropy maximization.
In short, you are not qualified in physics, have not even got as far as Second year university physics, and it shows in what you write, Ball4.
Now go to this comment and tell us all how the core of a planet “knows” what temperature it should be.
I observe Doug chose to humilate himself further. Energy PE+KE+p*V is conserved Doug. If at equilibrium, pressure in a constant control volume is increased, either n went up across the control volume, PE was added across the control volume or the ambient T was increased for a new equilibrium. Proven by proper test as the kinetic theory was developed and shown in the link ref.s Doug provided.
Doug would know all this had he passed a course in atm. thermo. 101.
Doug 11:20pm: Already did Doug, again, you would wouldn’t have to ask that question if you had passed college atm. thermo. 101.
You might have missed this comment, Norman, and the other new one a little further down.
As I have said, Norman, Ball4 (and Roy) it is obvious that you cannot explain in your own words (thus indicating genuine understanding) the answers to THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS.
And so you have not convinced me of any validity what-so-ever in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture. While you just cite other papers you do nothing more than confirm in my mind that you don’t stop to really think about what you read. In short, that means you are gullible and have been completely fooled by the invalid physics in the GH conjecture documentation.
Those questions only stump Doug, they are all easily answered (supported by measurements & lab data) by any student passing a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
But you can’t answer them yourself. Your references use flawed physics so I don’t accept them. They do not refute the refutations already contained in the my text which lists the questions, so I reject your cited references.
I can answer them all Doug, consistent with lab test and observation, it is Doug that is stumped and can’t answer them by providing any tested supporting evidence whatsoever, a study is not a test.
Then do so.
I already have, the answers are easy Doug, already provided with supporting evidence from test. Doug provides no supporting evidence.
So, Ball4, Norman, Roy or anyone explain why the temperature gradient in all planets (from the core to the upper troposphere) is close to -g/cp all the way and it just happens that the temperature gets down to just the right level and just the right altitude so as to be in radiative balance with the Sun.
How does the core of a planet “know” what temperature it has to be for the temperature gradient to be just right for thousands of kilometers all the way to the anchoring layer(s) usually in the upper troposphere ??????????
The core temperature is determined by 1LOT energy balance Doug, consistent with 2LOT.
If in radiative balance with the sun, the planet is in steady state. If not, the planet is not in steady state. This would be simple for a student that has passed a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
The radiative balance happens near top of troposphere. You completely miss the point. From that anchor point the temperature builds up going downwards following the -g/cp gradient. So the core temperature is determined by the solar radiation being absorbed (and setting the temperature) way out in the upper troposphere – like at about 60K in the methane layer on Uranus.
How does the required thermal energy then get from the cold upper troposphere to the far hotter core? There is no new compression of any significance each planetary morning.
It does not get there by radiation (as the lukes and warmists suppose – they thinking radiation determines surface temperature) but by maximizing entropy in non-radiative processes – which is what I was first to explain over three years ago.
I see no supporting evidence Doug, what does that make your comment by your own writing?
“The radiative balance happens near top of troposphere.”
Whether the planet is in radiative steady state or not, Doug, is determined by observation from space not the tropopause.
“..the temperature builds up going downwards following the -g/cp gradient.”
No Doug, -g/cp is ideal, no planet follows -g/Cp although it is a good approximation measured to be off only about 20% for dry hydrostatic Earth. See a good book for the supporting evidence and pass a college course in atm. thermo. 101 to learn about it from lab work.
“How does the required thermal energy then get from the cold upper troposphere to the far hotter core?”
Infalling material at planet formation.
“by maximizing entropy”
No maximum entropy by test, ever, unless Doug can find perfect insulation; Clausius: Universe entropy always increases.
Ball4
FYI. Doug is misunderstanding “maximum entropy production”. The site he occasionally links to (http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com/) is not about maximum *entropy* but rather about maximum *production*. Everyone agrees entropy increases, eventually becoming some maximum value for a closed system. The idea he is trying to latch onto is about entropy increasing in the fastest possible way en route to that maximum entropy. As such, this has nothing to do with the final state, ie whether the equilibrium state is constant temperature vs constant lapse rate.
Doug said: “How does the required thermal energy then get from the cold upper troposphere to the far hotter core? ”
Ball4, here is another way to see that Doug is way off base.
Consider a large Dyson sphere in radiation balance with some star. The temperature of this shell wiil depend on the luminosity, distance & emissivity. Let’s suppose it is 200K.
Fill the hollow shell with N2. The top of the N2 will be the same temperature as the shell (ie it is the “cold upper troposphere”). If Doug is correct, there would be a temperature gradient in the N2, getting warmer all the way to the center of the shell. Suppose that value came out to a “far hotter” 1000 K.
Now put a solid object in the center. It will, of course, be warmed by the gas to about 1000 K until is it in euilibrium with the gas at the center.
To be overly clear:
* The cold gas at the top is in equilibrium with the shell
* The “far hotter” gas (according to Doug) at the center is in equilibrium with the cold gas at the top.
* The solid object at the center is in equilibrium with the hot gas at the center.
* Everything is in equilibrium with everything else.
And yet … there will be a continuous stream of IR radiation from the hot center object to the cool outer shell. A continuous energy flow cannot exist in equilibrium
Tim – Since Doug is a charlatan (meaning admittedly not even having passed college atm. thermo. 101), he isn’t accomplished enough to understand even the physics of a simple atm. 1LOT energy balance near Earth or near any planet surface. A Dyson sphere thought experiment is going to be far beyond his ability to comprehend. Doug writes the -g/Cp gradient exists down from troposphere to the core of a solar system object: “..it is the Suns radiation which supports all temperatures down to the core.”
Better to prove Doug is wrong thru real world observations like Dr. Spencer proving Doug wrong by experiment on Earth night time atm.; like Tethys & Mimas proving Doug wrong about the Sun’s radiation supporting all temperatures down to the core.
Doug’s not talking about radiation, Tim Folkerts, and not assuming that any such radiation raises the surface temperature of planets like Earth and Venus each morning, reversing the inevitable cooling the previous planetary night – as is observed. So your comment is irrelevant.
Doug would see Tim’s comment entirely relevant had Doug accomplished the pre-req.s for a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
TIM FOLKERTS has been proven WRONG in that the thought experiment he copied from all his climatology texts assumed totally incorrectly that the energy distribution for molecules was (inverse) exponential. In contrast, physics texts and even Wikipedia would have confirmed that it is a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with three degrees of freedom – a distribution much more like a normal distribution that approaches the origin. This fact completely negates his attempt to refute the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient which is clearly the state of maximum entropy because it has no unbalanced energy potentials when (PE+KE)=constant.
TIM FOLKERTS and all his climatology texts have been proven WRONG with standard published physics.
See this comment.
Doug – Tim is not proven wrong by assertive statements – where is your test showing so? Nowhwere. It is Doug that is wrong yet again.
It is clear from your 2/2 comments that Doug does not understand the concept of initial conditions needed to set a system in motion (real or simulated). Folks that have earned a B.Sc.Physics should have learned any set of initial conditions will work whether balanced or not, Tim’s or yours, the laws governing the motion of the molecules can then be iterated to a consistent, balanced condition.
As an example, that might possibly be understood on your low level of accomplishment Doug, is the intial conditions of a set of billiard balls on a pool table. Start them as you like in real life (e.g. chi , M-B, exponential) or a computer programmed with the laws of nature, they will quickly iterate to balance if stable, achieve the natural solution governed by the input laws. Done this countless times in all sorts of simulations. Your best bet is to learn about initial conditions in differential equations. Maybe think about an autopilot.
——
“TIM FOLKERTS and all his climatology texts have been proven WRONG..”
Where is Doug’s test or cite to one proving Tim wrong? Nowhere. A study is not a test. Where is a specific example in a “climatology” text that Doug has proven wrong by test? Nowhere. A study is not a test.
It is Doug that has been thoroughly proven wrong by test of Dr. Spencer and those of many others easily cited (like tests of Dr. Craig Bohren), easily found already performed.
So, Ball4 and Norman, what is your explanation as to why planetary surfaces rise in temperature by day (reversing the cooling of the night) and how they get the required thermal energy so to do? Support what you say with cited experiments.
No matter how much back radiation there is from a colder atmosphere it will not cause the surface temperature to increase, Norman. There’s a law against it – the second one. Where’s your experiment with radiation from, say, a block of ice raising the temperature of something that is already 15C?
Planetary surfaces rise in temperature by day because the sun comes up; they cool at night because the sun sets.
“Wheres your experiment with radiation from, say, a block of ice raising the temperature of something that is already 15C?”
The test by Dr. Spencer showed added radiation from cirrus ice raised the temperature of the warmer water higher thsn that of the control water sample.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
DougCotton,
You are a super hero. A super phony physics one.
I have sent you more than one link supporting how the temperature is sustained you just ignore it so why do you ask? I sent you links of actual measured downwelling IR and you just ignore it. So don’t ask for what you are not interested in. The only thing in your world that really interests you it to hear yourself talk. You are not interested in debate, discussion, learning. I get tired of your questions that people answer very well and then you ignore it and ask the same question two thousand times on other threads and claim no one has answered your questions. Phony is what you are. A con artist who is trying to build a group of gullible people he can con. Your con may work on nonscientist but people with a science background are not so easily deceived by your dishonest endless posts that repeat over and over and over.
My hypothesis is not about radiation, Norman, so experiments regarding such have no bearing upon whether or not the brilliant 19th century physicist, Josef Loschmidt was right or not about force fields creating temperature gradients. I’m really not interested if you wish to claim you know more about such physics than Loschmidt (Maxwell’s teacher) who was first to realistically estimate the size of air molecules (not a bad feat in those days) and thus lay the foundation for the Kinetic Theory of Gases used by Einstein (and myself) successfully.
“..the Kinetic Theory of Gases used by Einstein (and myself) successfully.”
Einstein et. al. used the correct form of kinetic theory energy conservation PE+KE+p*V.
Doug, a charlatan, is wrong & incorrectly uses only PE+KE missing the p*V term evident even in the wiki link he provided. Doug wouldn’t make this mistake with proper accomplished education in passing a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
Measuring the flux of electro-magnetic energy in downwelling radiation is not measuring whether or not it is raising the surface temperature.
Nor is it telling you how much, if any, of the electro-magnetic energy will be thermalized into molecular kinetic energy.
Even if the surface temperature did rise, how would you know if it were radiation doing it or conduction or convective heat transfer or radiation from the Sun?
“..how would you know if it were radiation doing it or conduction or convective heat transfer or radiation from the Sun?”
The water increased in temperature concurrent with the cirrus showing up by radiative transfer since there wasn’t time for much slower atm. conduction or convection to operate.
Radiation from a colder source never ever raises the temperature of a warmer target. It’s against the law – the second one.
I never wrote radiation from a colder source raises the temperature of a warmer target Doug. That is a strawman you put up (incorrectly) then proceed to stab. Waste of time.
Fine, Ball4, so you have only the Sun’s 168W/m^2 raising the temperature to less than -40C and back radiation not able to add any further energy to the surface. In that it takes new thermal energy being added to raise the surface temperature each morning (even when cloudy) you’re stumped and thus cannot answer THE QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS towards the end of the linked blog. Nor have you submitted a refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics entropy maximization process discussed.
Silent readers will observe no reference to the questions in any reply, past or future. Ball4 will duck and dive, but in no way will he read the questions and respond to every point therein.
The test of Dr. Spencer answered all your questions Doug & I have answered them too, only once is needed. Do you really feel like a 168 watt light bulb and the sun feel like an iceberg?
Let’s keep the experiment cheap and safe for you Norman. If one electric bar radiator is placed at the required distance to make an object 40C, then, according to Stefan-Boltzmann calculations as used (incorrectly) by the IPCC for the sum of radiative flux, four such radiators each at the same distance should raise it to 170C. So Norman, you have no excuse for not doing that one.
Please fully describe with data or link the experiment Doug.
My hypothesis is not about radiation, so any such experiments would be irrelevant.
On the other hand, if you want to “prove” your radiative forcing greenhouse effect is correct, then you need to cook your own steak with four small radiators at the suggested distance where you just start to detect warming above body temperature.
In any event, Norman has kindly linked us to an experiment which proves that if one spotlight raises a thermometer to 30C then adding a second (even brighter) one does not raise it to the 90C temperature that you would deduce by adding the fluxes. You get only 46C and the second spot light could do 36C of that on its own.
So adding solar flux and back radiation cannot achieve anything like the theoretical 15C obtained with S-B calculations using the sum of the fluxes.
“…if you want to prove your radiative forcing greenhouse effect is correct..”
The test by Dr. Spencer linked above already did that Doug, your unlinked experiment purported to be with spotlights is not a test on the actual atm. which was the test bed used by Dr. Spencer. Two equiv. spotlights will keep my steak warmer than one spotlight Doug, by 1LOT.
Of course, he can’t provide such a description, Ball4. The experiment he wants is neither cheap nor simple nor safe.
Doug suggests “If one electric bar radiator is placed at the required distance to make an object 40C … “. But if it is truly that radiator — and that radiator alone — that “makes” the object 40C, then there can be …
* no air to conduct and/or convect thermal energy to/from the object
* no other radiators (eg the walls of the room) to provide photons to the object.
The experiment would have to be done somewhere like a high-earth orbit in the earth’s shadow or a vacuum chamber with frigid walls.
(Following Doug’s logic, if 1 heater makes the object 40C (313K) and 4 make it 170C (443K), then no heaters would make it -273C (0K). Until he acknowledges other potential “heaters” present, his experiment and his conclusions are worthless.)
**********************************************
This whole realm is fraught with difficulty, making it fertile ground for those who don’t *quite* understand to make subtle but important errors.
* Experimentally, Doug’s call for a “simple” experiment sounds plausible, but it would actually require significant experimental expertise to show the results clearly
* Theoretically, Doug’s suggestion that “total KE+PE must be constant, so molecules higher up are cooler” sounds plausible, but it requires significant theoretical expertise to expose the flaws.
And of course, none of this is likely to be solved in a forum like this. But it does make for an amusing and bemusing discussion.
Tim – total KE+PE must be constant, so molecules higher up are cooler sounds plausible”
KE+PE is not the conserved quantity of energy, the correct conserved quantity in an arbitrary control volume for atm. processes is PE+KE+p*V.
Doug was writing like an experiment existed somewhere, so according to this apparently not. Yet another error by Doug.
Doug wasn’t writing about a “control volume” – just individual molecules.
Only (PE+KE)=constant gives the dry gradient -g/cp. You can’t have a term p*V in there – no calculations anywhere include such in the “lapse rate.”
Writing about individual molecules is a mistake for an atm. process Doug, a basic error that a charlatan often makes, wrong as it misses the energy in the p*V term existing between the molecules which must be accounted for and conserved in any atm. process. Doug would have learned about the p*V energy term, completely missed in his book and papers, had Doug actually run such experiments and passed a course in atm. thermo. 101.
Good luck to you Ball4. Empirical evidence proves you wrong. Nobody has proved there is a p*V term in the lapse rate.
“Only (PE+KE)=constant gives the dry gradient -g/cp.”
Wrong again Doug, the original derivation of -g/Cp in the 1800s starts from the relation Poisson had found by about 1821 for an ideal gas, p*(V^Cp/Cv) = constant. Doug completely misses that because he has not passed a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
The next step is differentiate that Poisson relation wrt to height z and invoke hydrostatic equilibrium. PE is not even used in the original derivation.
“Nobody has proved there is a p*V term in the lapse rate.”
There is p*V term for conservation of energy in an atm. process Doug, Maxwell confirmed p*V from tests in the 1860s. Doug would learn this passing a course in atm. thermo. 101 as well as -g/Cp derivation starts from Poisson relations.
“Doug wasnt writing about a control volume
Physics requires a control volume Doug, to account for energy being conserved, those actually passing atm. thermo. 101 know that to be true.
No it’s not that hard. We develop it directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and what we know happens with unbalanced energy potentials dissipating as the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) is approached. Obviously the potentials have dissipated when molecular (GPE+KE)=constant.
There have been over 850 experiments with sealed cylinders confirming the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient exists. Every vortex tube in the world demonstrates it. Experiments with centrifuge machines do also. Every planetary troposphere and the measured temperatures in the outer 9Km of Earth’s crust confirm it.
Most importantly, it is a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the “heat creep” process follows from that, as I have been first in the world to show.
“..the heat creep process follows from that, as I have been first in the world to show.
Doug missed the chance to study that Fick & Fourier in the 1800s and the Count in 1797 did so before Doug, which Doug would have learned in a 1st course in atm. thermo. passed in college.
The 850 experiments took days to weeks to run, way, WAY slower than radiation raising surface temperature at dawn and decreasing surface temperature after the sun sets.
Doug,
*IF* Graef’s experiments are right, then they would indeed support you. However, this is a VERY difficult experiment, requiring accurate measurements of a few mK temperature differences. Energy “leaks” on he order of a mW could completely disrupt the results. Variations in the room temperature do to heating vents could also gradients within his experiments. It seems he was rather careful, but I would need to see more details (and independent confirmation) before pronouncing the results as strong support.
On the other hand, the centrifuge and the vortex tube do NOTHING to support your claim. Since they have continuous inputs of energy and/or gas, they are about as far from thermodynamic equilibrium as possible. No one doubts that a NON-equilibrium system can develop temperature gradients.
*********************************************
Also, you keep using words like “obviously” and “direct corollary”. If your results we “obvious”, then everyone (with as much/more physics background than you) should understand. But alas, no one else does.
Yes, but Graeff consistently found warmer temperatures at the top in outer cylinders and cooler temperatures at the top in the inner cylinders, clearly indicating the effect of gravity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. With virtually all of the 850 experiments showing such, the probability of the Second Law of Thermodynamics being wrong and there thus being no temperature gradient is more than billions to one against.
Dozens, maybe hundreds do understand – they are the ones who have read and studied what I have explained, or listened to a three hour talk I gave to a climate group that included physicists.
Submit your refutation to my blog and be the first in three years to prove me wrong. As Einstein said, it would only take one to do so.
There’s a catch though: you have to discuss the physics as explained in my paper, not some red herring relating to radiation, for example.
“DougCotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.”
John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
“..be the first in three years to prove me wrong. As Einstein said, it would only take one to do so.”
The test on the atm. last summer by Dr. Spencer linked several times above is the one that does prove Doug wrong, specifically proves Doug is:
1) wrong about “heat creep” affecting the water temperature as the 850 experiments took days to run and the test Dr. Spencer showed the water temperature immediately affected concurrent with the added cirrus cloud,
2) wrong that water vapor cools as the experiment showed the water increased in temperature over the control water by the added radition of the cirrus cloud water,
3) wrong that resonant scattering (aka pseudo-scattering) would not allow the IR from the cirrus cloud to be detected several inches deep in the water containers.
Doug is proven wrong that -g/Cp is the state of maximum entropy as there is no perfect insulation in real world processes.
Doug is proven wrong about planetary core temperatures by observations of icy moons Mimas and Tethys with no liquid water detected.
Book and papers by Doug are substantially proven wrong by Doug conserving KE+PE in atm. processes when the actual energy conserved found from experiment in the 1860s is PE+KE+p*V as is used in the derivation of ideal -g/Cp.
Doug is right that there is no test ever found going against 2LOT (or 1LOT), Doug simply applies 2LOT incorrectly since he has admittedly never passed a college level course in atm. thermo. 101. Also, there is no contact information for John Turner to provide independent corroboration that he even exists.
The atm. test that proved Doug wrong last summer is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
A lot of irrelevant claims about radiation do not refute my hypothesis which is not about radiation at all. When you can produce evidence of water vapor warming by about 20 degrees for each 1% get back to me so that you might have some reason to think greenhouse gases cause “33 degrees” of warming – warming that in fact has already been achieved by gravity over the life of the planet, trapping solar energy under the sloping thermal plot found in every planetary troposphere – formed by gravity as Josef Loschmidt said in the 19th century, as Dr Hans Jelbring said in his peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal in 2003 and as many physicists and I now know to be a direct corollary of the entropy maximization process in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law, by the way, also shows us why there is a stable density gradient, and just as well there is.
“get back to me so that you might have some reason to think greenhouse gases cause 33 degrees of warming”
Earth surface thermometers 288K, satellite 255K. Only the atm. is in between Doug. Optical depth of that atm. is important driver for the 288K.
Claims about slow “heat creep” as in the 850 experiments are the only irrelevancy Doug. Radiative, conductive, convective energy transfer are all relevant to surface energy balance.
DougCotton
I already linked you to an actual test with two spotlights with a greater measured temperature than with just one. I need no further tests to prove your assertion that IR energy does not add at a target. You have been busted. Your physics is unsupported. You suggest an experiment to me but you won’t do it yourself? Why?
Ball4 is correct. Experiment! Do some elbow work or are you above that sort of thing, some pure mind that can’t get dirty with actual experiments?
You know Einstein was not accepted (brilliant as his theories were) until after experimental evidence showed they were correct. Coming up with new ideas is great but they will only be ideas until experiments are run to prove them. That is the world of science. You can post hundreds of times and it has done nothing to the body of science. Science will change if experimental proof shows a new way otherwise the same highway as always.
Nope, the two spotlights “should” have achieved about 90C, not a mere 46C, thus proving me right.
Doug would have learned in college atm. thermo. 101 adding temperatures is not permitted in physics, adding energy is conserved by 1LOT.
I don’t expect to change the world of science through blog posts. That may happen if I succeed in 2017 in arranging a class action against the government by major companies incurring costs because of the hoax, and the court makes orders which the government would have to obey – hopefully getting on world news.
The court will ask for your supporting evidence Doug – of which you have none.
It’s you, Ball4, who has no evidence of any isothermal troposphere or any vortex tube that doesn’t redistribute kinetic energy and form a radial temperature gradient, just as does gravity. Once again, you don’t know what you are talking about, or what my hypothesis is all about.
An isothermal gas would only happen in absence of gravity Doug. Thus has no relevance to a gas compressed by gravity around a planet. Vortex tubes are not relevant as the gas is continually worked unlike an atm.
Doug has been proven wrong in many ways:
The test on the atm. last summer by Dr. Spencer linked several times above is the one that does prove Doug wrong, specifically proves Doug is:
1) wrong about heat creep affecting the water temperature as the 850 experiments took days to run and the test Dr. Spencer showed the water temperature immediately affected concurrent with the added cirrus cloud,
2) wrong that water vapor cools as the experiment showed the water increased in temperature over the control water by the added radiation of the cirrus cloud water,
3) wrong that resonant scattering (aka pseudo-scattering) would not allow the IR from the cirrus cloud to be detected several inches deep in the water containers.
Doug is proven wrong that -g/Cp is the state of maximum entropy as there is no perfect insulation in real world processes.
Doug is proven wrong about planetary core temperatures by observations of icy moons Mimas and Tethys with no liquid water detected.
Book and papers by Doug are substantially proven wrong by Doug conserving KE+PE in atm. processes when the actual energy conserved found from experiment in the 1860s is PE+KE+p*V as is used in the derivation of ideal -g/Cp.
Doug is right that there is no test ever found going against 2LOT (or 1LOT), Doug simply applies 2LOT incorrectly since he has admittedly never passed a college level course in atm. thermo. 101. Also, there is no contact information for John Turner to provide independent corroboration that he even exists.
The atm. test that proved Doug wrong last summer is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
This discussion of radiation has nothing to do with the “heat creep” hypothesis. Temperatures in the tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores are determined primarily by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I have explained here.
Doug wrote “The honest scientist writes only about an hypothesis that does in fact have supporting evidence..”
Doug provides no supporting evidence “heat creep” is fast enough process to raise planetary surface temperatures at dawn, no supporting evidence for resonant scattering and no supporting evidence that Mimas and Tethys have subsurface or core liquid water per his “core” temperature hypothesis.
Charlatan Doug is basically a failure proven by test when discussing even the most basic atm. science having admittedly never passed a college level course in atm. thermo. 101.
Molecules travel at about 1,800Km/hr between collisions, which is thus the maximum speed of heat creep. On Venus it has 4 months to transfer heat (not move gas) about 40Km to 50Km from where the Sun’s energy is absorbed down to the surface. Upward natural convection is not necessarily faster than downward natural convection. Why should it be?
The speed goes 0.1micron before going in a different direction, that speed made no difference in the 850 experiments that took days to run in lab cylinders Doug. Heat creep would take more than 4 months to happen over km.s in the atm.
As I said several times, Ball4, the molecules dart about at 1,800 Km/hr passing on kinetic energy in collisions.
So look, Ball4, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The Venus surface cools (by upward convection and then radiation to space) by about 5 degrees during 4 months of darkness: that should not be too hard to comprehend why. Exactly the reverse process (absorption of solar radiation and then downward convection) warms it back by 5 degrees in 4 months of sunshine. Whatever the speed of upward convection and radiation to Space, so too is the speed of absorption of solar radiation and downward convection on the sunlit side. Nothing is surprising Ball4 for those who understand the physics involved.
“As I said several times, Ball4, the molecules dart about at 1,800 Km/hr passing on kinetic energy in collisions.”
And get turned around after traveling 0.1micron, making heat creep diffusion of 60ft take days if not months in still air.
“The Venus surface cools (by upward convection and then radiation to space) by about 5 degrees during 4 months of darkness:”
There is no data, no evidence for that Doug, you simply make it up.
“Nothing is surprising Ball4 for those who understand the physics involved.”
Nothing is impossible for those that do not test and experiment Doug, like yourself with no credentials having admittedly never passed a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
Nope. I’m just angry about the countless lives being lost and the measureless poverty being caused all because stupid James Hansen (rather like Henny Penny) thought that all the back radiation falling out of the sky was what was causing the surface temperature to rise to where the force of gravity had already positioned it.
If the base of the 350Km nominal troposphere of Uranus can be at least as hot as Earth’s surface (due to heat creep) despite being 30 times further from the Sun, all without direct solar radiation reaching down there, let alone back radiation, then why can’t Earth’s surface be whatever temperature it is without direct solar radiation?
Of course it can be, because the direct solar radiation with a mean of 168W/m^2 is like that from an ice berg at about -40C (233K) and the back radiation is also like that from an iceberg perhaps not quite as cold. Two colds don’t make a hot.
Most of us step out of the sun into the shade when we get uncomfortably warm Doug, the iceberg is no comfort.
Those of us who know about Stefan-Boltzmann calculations know that the blackbody temperature for 168W/m^2 is 233K and, in case you don’t even know what that is, it’s about -40C.
And in case you don’t know how the solar radiation reaching the surface is shown to have a mean of 168W/m^2 then read a bit of climatology stuff – at least they got that right.
Silent readers: Ball4 has just exposed his complete lack of knowledge of even first year physics such as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Doug – You continually miss the solar SW absorbed by the atm., and no, the direct sun rays do not feel like an iceberg.
Garbage Ball4 – I don’t “miss” it. It is the solar SW absorbed by the atmosphere (mostly in the stratosphere and upper troposphere) that I wrote about and which is converted to thermal (kinetic) energy up there and then transferred by heat creep downwards and into the surface to raise its temperature each morning, whether or not the solar radiation is blocked by low clouds and whether or not any solar radiation reaching the surface is strong enough – like about 500W/m^2 as it can be in the tropics, but hardly likely to be in polar regions. The mean solar radiation globally is about 168W/m^2 as I hope you learnt how to calculate.
Maybe Ball4 you should bounce around outside a spacecraft in orbit but in the shadow of the Earth. Then Ball4 you might realize that for more than half the Earth’s surface at any one time the solar radiation reaching the surface is zero, or close to that under cloud cover, and your hand-waving palm would be somewhat cold when you take it out of your space suit. And when the Solar radiation is inclined at an acute angle to the surface, that surface gets somewhat less radiation per square meter than does your hand-waving palm facing said Sun. The S-B temperature for zero radiation is about -273C in case you don’t know, Ball4, so throw that into your average solar effect for, say 60% of the globe.
“I dont miss it….The mean solar radiation globally is about 168W/m^2.”
The mean annually absorbed solar SW is around 240W/m^2 by test Doug, you continually miss 72W/m^2.
“:..transferred by heat creep downwards and into the surface to raise its temperature each morning”
850 tests show heat creep takes days and weeks in a lab cylinder, test by Dr. Spencer on tha atm. show only radiation has the speed to immediately affect surface temperature at dawn or dusk.
“..half the Earths surface at any one time the solar radiation reaching the surface is zero..when the Solar radiation is inclined at an acute angle to the surface, that surface gets somewhat less radiation per square meter..”
The ~240W/m^2 mean annual solar SW absorbed takes these into account by test Doug.
That 240W/m^2 has a blackbody temperature of 255.07K Ball4 (LOL)
In any event, it is not the figure reaching the surface, Ball4 – it’s the figure reaching only about half way through the troposphere. The radiation reaching the surface (after 6% reflection by the surface) is shown as 168W/m^2 as here.
“That 240W/m^2 has a blackbody temperature of 255.07K Ball4 (LOL)”
Correct Doug, that 255K is known as Earth annualized brightness temperature observed/measured from space at the orbit of CERES. The optical depth of Earth atm. ensures the median surface thermometer temperature is 33K higher, which is the corresponding brightness temperature of the approx. 390 W/m^2 annual (over the CERES observing years) mean measured at Earth surface. Doug would have learned this by passing a course in atm. thermo. 101.
“The radiation reaching the surface (after 6% reflection by the surface) is shown as 168W/m^2”
In part, the 72 rest of the solar in 240 needed for system balance reaches the surface as shown there too Doug. You aren’t accomplished enough to even read the cartoon correctly, let alone the paper backing it.
“Of course it can be, because the direct solar radiation with a mean of 168W/m^2 is like that from an ice berg at about -40C (233K) and the back radiation is also like that from an iceberg perhaps not quite as cold. Two colds dont make a hot.”
This is one of the clear indications that Doug still doesn’t really “get it”.
Solar radiation “is like” iceberg radiation only in a VERY limited sense. It’s like saying a 10 liter/min flow of water from a small, high pressure hose “is like” a 10 liter/min flow from a large, low pressure hose. Or that 1 wire carrying 1A A @ 1000 V “is like” 1000 wires carrying 1 A @ 1 V. Or that a 1 kg piece of metal @ 100K “is like” a 0.1 kg piece @ 1000K because both have the same total thermal energy.
In each case, there is indeed one way that the two ideas are “like” each other. But there are very real, very important ways that they are “unlike”. Doug grasps the way solar radiation and “iceberg radiation” are alike, but ignores key ways they are different.
Max Planck would turn in his grave – in laughter. There’s only one flux input in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, Timmy Boy. No distinction made – just assumed that appropriate attenuation is applied for distance and that it comes from a blackbody with a Planck distribution.
By the time the flux comes all the way from the Sun (and gets about half absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere and surface) it does have a mean of only 168W/m^2, TF, and that is what a perfect blackbody would emit (without a few absorption notches) if that blackbody were at about 233K. It will not warm the surface above 233K because nothing gets hotter than a blackbody.
Dr. Spencer produced the evidence Doug, I just provided the link.
Dr Spencer has not even discussed the “heat creep” hypothesis which has nothing to do with radiation reaching the surface.
And Dr Spencer “forgot” that the Sun’s radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is far too little to explain the mean temperature, so who cares how fast or slow it cools off from -40C? It’s hotter than Earth at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, even without any direct solar radiation at all. You are in the wrong ball park, Ball4.
Dr. Spencer did the experiment in the evening and throughout the night Doug. He did not “forget” the sun. No icebergs were evident either.
So what Ball4? It wasn’t the Sun’s direct radiation keeping things not-too-cold at night – it was all the thermal energy mostly in nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules that hold over 98% of all the thermal energy in the atmosphere that acted like a blanket. Greenhouse gases are like holes in the blanket, because they are the only ones that gather energy from nitrogen and oxygen (by thermal diffusion) and radiate the energy out of the atmosphere. Rain forests are not 50 degrees hotter than dry deserts – they are cooler because there’s more cooling radiation going on by the most prolific greenhouse gas, water vapor.
You have no idea what you’re talking about Ball4. What I say is based on correct physics, and the sooner you realize and bounce away, the less you will have exposed your lack of knowledge of thermodynamics, which is what this is all about, and a field in which I have done extensive post graduate study.
“It wasnt the Suns direct radiation keeping things not-too-cold at night”
So now Doug is willing to admit the atm. does radiate towards Earth as the test by Dr. Spencer proves.
“Rain forests are not 50 degrees hotter than dry deserts they are cooler because theres more cooling radiation going on by the most prolific greenhouse gas, water vapor.”
The test by Dr. Spencer proved Doug wrong about this, added atm. water increased temperature over control. Satellite tests show there is more water vapor in the column over N. Australia than over rain forests. Doug miscalculated wv in the column for his wet, medium, dry assertions.
Ball4
I am not sure about your statement: “Satellite tests show there is more water vapor in the column over N. Australia than over rain forests. Doug miscalculated wv in the column for his wet, medium, dry assertions.”
From these satellite images it looks like (except for a limited time) a rain forest (Amazon) has a lot more water vapor.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV
Norman – Look up satellite observations of precipitable water in the column. There are also observation towers in the rain forests measuring column precipitable water.
BTW they call it a rain forest because the precipitable water has precipitated out, so the data from the observation towers show a big cycle, before and after it rains.
“The test by Dr. Spencer proved” Ball4 that what happens in Dr Spencer’s backyard regarding a gravitationally induced temperature gradient is imperceptible compared with the temperature difference between the base and the top of the troposphere.
The test by Dr. Spencer proved Doug is wrong writing water vapor cools as the water temperature increased over the control water by natural 1LOT due the added radiation from the cirrus.
Heat creep is slow Doug as shown by 850 experiments & doesn’t have time to affect the surface compared to light speed radiation as shown in the experiment by Dr. Spencer.
The speed of heat creep is far faster when there is a new energy source such as the Sun each morning compared with sealed cylinders with no new energy source. You have no idea what you are talking about Ball4. Nor do you have any valid explanation of surface temperatures because solar radiation and atmospheric radiation cannot be added in S-B calculations.
The planet’s surface warms at dawn because of the sun’s SW radiation Doug, and cools at night by surface LW radiation. Those 850 lab cylinders will also warm immediately if a 240W bulb is turned on inside. The 850 experiments also show heat creep is far too slow to be the termperature driver during day or night. As confirmed by the overnight test done by Dr. Spencer.
Nope, the SW solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface at an acute angle in the early morning is very rarely sufficient to raise the existing surface temperature. Go learn the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
“cools at night by surface LW radiation” Yep, that radiation accounts for about a third of the surface cooling. It also happens by day, making it harder for the Sun to warm the surface.
Calculations, Ball4, show me your calculations!
Take an average location at 45 degrees latitude (N or S) at 9:00am on March 22nd when the Sun traverses the equator.
Solar radiative flux = ?????? W/m^2 Ball4?
Blackbody temperature = ?????? K Ball4?
That 240W/m^2 you mentioned, Ball4, has a blackbody temperature of 255.07K Ball4 and it is not the figure reaching the surface, which is shown as 168W/m^2 as here. Don’t forget to deduct the 102W/m^2 shown in that linked energy budget diagram as surface cooling by non-radiative processes. So that leaves you with 138W/m^2 with a blackbody temperature of 222.11K even using your overstated 240W/m^2. Pardon the chuckle!
“Nope, the SW solar radiation reaching the Earths surface at an acute angle in the early morning is very rarely sufficient to raise the existing surface temperature.”
In the morning sun, my outdoor thermometer goes up immediately upon incident acute angle sunlight Doug, the one in the shade too, the Stepheneson screens go up immediately in temperature Doug, even on cloudy days. The surface warms as the sun rises, cools as the sun sets by radiation Doug, the 1LOT accounting you overlook. Diffusion as in the 850 lab cylinders takes days if not weeks or longer to move the temperature.
“Take an average location at 45 degrees latitude (N or S) at 9:00am on March 22nd”
That is weather Doug, not climate. You can look those up by NOAA observation. Climate needs CERES multiyear data. I’ve already shown you all the correct basic 1LOT calculations from measured data, pinpointed where yours are wrong, and answered all your questions Doug.
“..it is not the figure reaching the surface, which is shown as 168W/m^2..”
Again Doug wrongly overlooks the 1LOT and misses the solar SW absorbed of around 72 which means Doug’s 168 is 1LOT unbalanced, earth system would be majorly cooling in Doug’s wrong 1LOT accounting giving up 240 and only receiving 168. This is obviously wrong.
“Dont forget to deduct the 102W/m^2 shown in that linked energy budget diagram as surface cooling by non-radiative processes.”
Don’t wrongly forget it Doug, 102 is dumped in the atm., balanced by 1LOT in the all-sky radiation coming back to surface. Which Doug wrongly misses.
“..using your overstated 240W/m^2.”
The sum of 168+72 solar in balances the 240 going out Doug, for earth steady state equilibrium, you know like a vortex tube. Your 168 alone doesn’t cut it Doug. Pass a course in atm. thermo. 101 to find the right stuff Doug.
Doug is hopelessly wrong until passing that course achieving enlightenment.
Go to this comment on a later thread.
“Back radiation isnt even full spectrum its just several spectral lines.”
Spectrometer tests show radiation from the atmosphere contains light of every wavelength Doug, so you are wrong in this assertion. 1LOT requires accounting for all the energy incident on an object Doug, LW + SW, the whole spectrum.
Of course – all the energy is accounted for. Furthermore, the Second Law is also obeyed, not just the First. Whatever makes you think that someone with my experience in physics would somehow overlook the First Law? You are pathetic, Ball4.
Go teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.
“Whatever makes you think that someone with my experience in physics would somehow overlook the First Law?”
Doug: “The mean solar radiation globally is about 168W/m^2.
The 1LOT says all solar SW incidient on the system be accounted, Doug overlooked the 1LOT in ignoring the mean global solar SW about 72 W/m^2 incident on the system. Doug’s imaginary system does not balance by 1LOT with only 168 accounted.
Yes it does balance. It’s your lack of understanding of resonant (pseudo) scattering which misleads you. Energy-wise the process is the same as reflection. Is energy lost in reflection?
Write out your balance then Doug, like to see it. Show your work & testing source of data confirming pseudo-scattering too while you are at it.
It is well known that CO2 radiates in only a few spectral lines, mostly at temperatures found only in the mesosphere. It’s CO2 you’re unnecessarily worried about isn’t it? Relax. It cools by less than 0.1 degree and cannot warm. That’s physics.
“It is well known that CO2 radiates in only a few spectral lines..”
CO2 is matter Doug, plug a CO2 temperature and any frequency into Planck’s distribution, find a non-zero spectral radiance. It is the law Doug. Add in CO2 emissivity and find the radiant emittance in W/m^2 at that temperature Doug. It is also the law.
..cools by less than 0.1 degree and cannot warm. Thats physics.”
Wrong Doug. That is imagination by Doug, not test, and incorrect column precipitable water calculations by Doug for wet, medium, dry. Not physics Doug. Physics agrees with the test on the night atm. by Dr. Spencer which proved Doug physics wrong when the water was found increased in temperature over the control water by the added cirrus radiation. Per 1LOT Doug, which you overlook.
Ball4 kindly informs us that “radiation from the atmosphere contains light of every wavelength” Yep, mostly getting through from the Sun, with a few notches for absorption by IR-active (GH) gases. You’ll see a plot of this in my 2102 paper page 6.
“Yep, mostly getting through from the Sun”
There is no sun incident at night Doug. Yet all frequencies of light are measured being emitted from the atm. at night Doug. You would have learned this by passing a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
Ball4
I find your posts interesting but I wish you would provide links to go with your assertions. I can’t find the images of the spectra you are talking about. A nighttime spectrum of Earth’s atmosphere, do you have a link to this? Thanks. When I read things I like to verify the information.
Good question Norman, verify away below. I used to cite stuff but stopped, became tedious. My local library can obtain anything in a State library within about 5 days, and I live about 2 miles from a good college library. I rarely rely on the internet, mostly just to link original works.
——
A tried and true way to prove Doug wrong about being first is the Infinite Chain of Priority: Somebody Else Always Did It First (Tony Rothman, 2003: Everythings Relative and Other Fables from Science and Technology, John Wiley & Sons, p. xiii.).
To find out what Newton really wrote about colors (or anything) I suggest the radical step of reading his own words. Newtons Optiks is readily available as a Dover edition published in 1952.
For a brief history of Thermodynamics origins see Cliff Truesdell “The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, 1822-1854”, very readable book.
The only treatise written by a committee worth reading is the US Standard Atm. 1976.
For a simple experimental demonstration for geran that un-illuminated bodies we cannot see emit enough light 400 to 700nm to be detected, see Craig F. Bohren, 1987: “Clouds in a Glass of Beer”, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 745. Bohren also wrote “What Light Thru Yonder Window Breaks.” These two books are filled with experiments proving Doug is wrong across the whole spectrum. Anything by Dr. Craig Bohren is good.
For what geran did and did not see in the closet: Heinz G. Pfeiffer and Herman A. Liebhafsky, 1951: The origins of Beers law. Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 28, pp. 1235 and Minimum temperatures for a blackbody to be visible are given by Leo Levi, 1974: Blackbody temperature for threshold visibility. Applied Optics, Vol. 13, p. 221.
My past assertions that radiant heat is a meaningless term is from Yves Le Grand, 1957: Light, Colour, and Vision, John Wiley & Sons, p. 4.
Proving Doug wrong about backradiation is easy, as in the Dr. Spencer test, by simple experiments to demonstrate, say, that emission by aluminum foil is quite different from that of bodies painted white or black, and that despite appearances to the contrary, some (visibly) black and white bodies are nearly identical at infrared wavelengths, see Craig F. Bohren, 1991: What Light Through Yonder Window Breaks?, John Wiley & Sons, Ch. 7. See also Richard A. Bartels, 1990: Do darker objects really cool faster? American Journal of Physics, Vol. 58, pp. 2448.
Plausible arguments (not a rigorous derivation) for the distribution of molecular speeds about which Doug writes incessantly and wrongly (from which follows that for energies) is given by Craig F. Bohren and Bruce A. Albrecht, 1998: Atmospheric Thermodynamics, Oxford University Press, pp. 614. There are also calculations in there proving Doug wrong about precipitable water.
The Planck distribution is not easy to derive. If it were, Planck would not be almost a household name. One of the best derivations is by David Bohm, 1989: Quantum Theory, Dover, Ch. 1. To follow this derivation requires a good grounding in electromagnetic theory, statistical mechanics, and classical mechanics all of which Doug has not accomplished.
Nowadays commenters on the Planck distribution are long forgetting that the theoretical and experimental path to it was long and arduous. Imagine how difficult it was to make absolute spectral measurements more than 100 years ago. I recommend a book I read last year on the history of the Planck distribution being recounted in Hans Kangro’s, 1976: Early History of Plancks Radiation Law, Taylor & Francis.
For a brief biography of Gustav Robert Kirchhoff and the significance of his work see the entry by L. Rosenfeld in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. VII, pp. 37983. Other than original papers, the DSB is the first place to look if you want to know what our illustrious predecessors really did and said. The last place to look is on the internet like Doug does. Relevant journal papers and selected text books are next best after DSB. Careful with texts, need be experimental based & quote the history from the works of the original authors verbatim.
A discussion of the principle of detailed balance in the context of proving Kirchhoffs law is given by F. Reif, 1965: Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, McGraw-Hill, pp. 3824.
For a history of the role that blackbody radiation played in the evolution of quantum mechanics see Thomas S. Kuhn, 1978: Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity 18941912, Oxford University Press.
Some of the atm. temperature and pressure profiles I’ve seen are from R. A. McClatchey, R. W. Fenn, J. E. A. Selby, F. E. Volz, and J. S. Garing, 1972: Optical Properties of the Atmosphere, 3rd ed. AFCRL-72-0479, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories.
The treatise by Richard M. Goody and Yuk L. Yung, 1989: Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis. Oxford University Press is invaluable. Textbooks can serve up nonsense when their authors leave their areas of expertise and carelessly discuss subjects with which they are not familiar such as Doug. But they can also serve up gems when their authors concentrate on clear exposition of subjects with which they are familiar from lotsa’ testing. Goody and Yungs discussions of absorption by atmospheric molecules falls into the latter category. Their sections on thermal emission, vibration-rotational spectra, and line shapes served as roadmaps on absorption, induced emission and spontaneous emission.
To prove Doug wrong about his dry, medium, wet precipitable water, a discussion of retrieving water vapor profiles in the mesosphere see Richard M. Bevilacqua, 1982: An Observational Study of Water Vapor in the Mid-Latitude Mesosphere. Doctoral Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University. Parts of this thesis are more readily available in Richard M. Bevilacqua, John J. Olivero, Philip R. Schwartz, Christopher J. Gibbins, Joseph M. Bologna, and Dorsey J. Thacker, 1983: An observational study of water vapor in the mid-latitude mesosphere using ground-based microwave techniques. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 88, pp. 852334.
For more on daylight spectrum, especially the history of daylight spectroscopy, see S. T. Henderson, 1977: Daylight and its Spectrum, 2nd ed. JohnWiley & Sons.
For a detailed treatment of the twilight sky see Georgii Vladimirovich Rozenberg, 1965: Twilight: A Study in Atmospheric Optics. Plenum.
The standard work on atmospheric visibility is by William Edgar Knowles Middleton, 1952: Vision Through the Atmosphere. University of Toronto Press.
——
Enough? Typos are my own. That should keep you busy verifying. Proving Doug wrong is easy, good & healthy sport.
Actually I see typo’s are not all my own as the site randomly eats the minus sign: Atmospheric Thermodynamics, Oxford University Press, pp. 61 to 64. There may be other minus sign issues, the context should sort out for you.
Thanks for the list Ball4 you have provided much more than geran (who provides absolute zero for his supporting evidence, I guess we are just supposed to blindly believe all he says). Doug has a couple of the same ones he posts over and over and uses them as if they came straight from God’s mouth. Like the Uranus temperature or the pseudo light scattering paper. No facts, no measurements but he keeps using them as if they were established unquestioned truth.
Ball4 and others:
“To prove Doug wrong about his dry, medium, wet precipitable water,” you need to produce a similar counter study of at least 30 years of temperature and precipitation for at least 15 random inland tropical locations, using similar methodology but showing opposite results to that in the Appendix here. It’s about a day’s work. Then you have met the first requirement for the AU $10,000 reward offered here.
All I have to prove is Doug’s calculations are wrong at each site at each time which I have already done. Doug has to prove his results are consistent with satellite observations and I have shown they are not.
Results of the study were …
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8C 20.1C
Medium (06-10): 33.0C 21.2C
Dry (11-15): 35.7C 21.9C
Column precipitable water was calculated wrong Doug for each wet, medium, dry, you show results consistent with your politics, results are not consistent with satellite observation as I’ve shown.
Ball4 is so far off track that he quotes a study of water vapor up in the middle of the mesosphere and thinks it proves me wrong. I wonder if he even knows how far up the mesosphere is and how temperatures get down to less than -90C.
The calculation is the same Doug, applied to troposphere observed data.
Enough? writes Ball4.
Well there’s nothing at all in there that discusses entropy, the Second Law or thermal diffusion processes, let alone the effect of gravity: not a word that is remotely relevant to the heat creep hypothesis, and not even a word of explanation as to how or why Ball4 thinks the cited paper about the mesosphere supposedly proves me wrong.
Ball4, as always, just makes his assertive statements that some paper, book or article proves me wrong, despite the fact that such literature usually pre-dates my 2013 paper and so could not possibly be discussing the heat creep hypothesis which was unknown until I was first in the world to develop it directly from the Second Law. Waffle, waffle, waffle, Ball4, and not a word of any original thoughts, let alone physics coming from yourself.
Heat creep predates Doug’s paper as it is nothing more than diffusion, convection and conduction all well known since the 1800s. Just a new name for an old horse.
See this comment.
“How do they cool? By transferring thermal energy by thermal diffusion..”
N2, O2, Argon et. al. cool by radiative, conductive and convective energy transfer Doug. Which one proven by test do you miss? All the time: Radiative transfer aka light rays as explained by Max Planck.
So Ball4 thinks argon at tropospheric temperatures cools by radiating visible light. Who needs light bulbs?
An unplugged light bulb cannot be detected in geran’s dark closet with your eyes Doug, although it can be detected with a spectrometer in there. Unplugged argon matter cools (sheds energy) by emitting at all light ray wavelengths at any temperature in the troposphere (spectrometers and Planck distribution tell us so).
Plug in that light bulb Doug, magically even 168W/m^2 one gets plenty hot.
Well, nitrogen, oxygen and nitrogen are also greenhouse gases, are they Ball4, seeing that they radiate energy out of the atmosphere according to you? That makes CO2 a small player with only 1 molecule in every 2,500 helping the other 2,499 molecules that are all radiating. Was it more or less radiation from argon or CO2, Ball4? Bear in mind that CO2 radiates best at around -80 to -90C, such temperatures only being found in the mesosphere. What temperature did you say argon had to be to radiate visible light? /sarc
Argon radiates in the 400-700 bands at all temperatures in earth Atm. Doug as do N2 and O2. The extinction coefficient in the IR bands for H2O and CO2 is much higher than the other constituents Doug. You would know this if you had passed atm. thermo. 101.
In physics, by definition, natural convective heat transfer is only by molecular collision and it includes thermal diffusion.
Doug (actually Norman, Doug will ignore this and remain like an unplugged bulb in the dark) – For a good article on the discovery of convection, see Sanborn C. Brown, 1947: The discovery of convection currents by Benjamin Thompson, Count of Rumsford. Am. Jnl. Physics. Vol. 15, pp. 273-74 which shows what Doug just wrote 4:25pm, is of course – proven wrong. Convection really is thermally driven mass motion in fluids in a gravity field warmed from below.
There is little convection right above any planetary tropopause because the air becomes warmed from above.
Ball4,
In past threads I have linked DJC to different explanations of convection. Convection is a mass flow and it does not go backwards from warm to cold. It works because hotter gas or liquid have less density in a gravity field (molecules move faster and push each other outward against the opposing gas or liquid at the same high temp so is denser).
As the gas rises it continues to expand as long as it remains lighter than the surrounding gas. When it expands it has to do work against the surrounding gas (push it away to make room for itself) and in so doing cools off. When the gas is pushed down it compresses and the surrounding air does work on it warming it up.
You are so right about heat creep. If such is an exchange of energy by molecular collision it would not work any faster than heat conduction in a gas.
This link proves Doug wrong.
http://physics.info/conduction/
Norman – convection does indeed go from warm to cold what where you thinking? Mass motion also goes cold to warm when unstable being too cold, too dense.
“Cold to warm” – Yes and no. Only in certain circumstances, and it has to be “thermally driven” as per your quote in another comment. I’m talking about natural convection that forms a temperature gradient, not forced convection (like wind of any kind) which only destroys the temperature gradient.
Turn on a desk lamp Doug 7:58pm, this is a good test of a fluid in a gravity field being warmed from below i.e. convection. Feel the warmth freely convect upward into colder air? That’s a convection test.
Now open your refrigerator with bare feet, do you feel the cold air flow up into your face (freely convect) or down around your feet – a down draft? Let us know.
Btw Norman there is no testing demonstrated in that link, cannot be used to prove Doug wrong, you will need a library full of old books to get to the original test data proving Doug wrong. Not that hard as i tried to demonstrate.
Ball4
Thanks for the correction. My mistake. Yes convection works warm to cold. DJC says it works from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. I typed wrong.
The direction in which natural convective heat transfer takes place depends upon various factors as explained here.
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf
You have absolutely no proof that it always goes from warm to cold. If that were the case you would have frozen to death on this planet long ago because the Sun’s radiation is nowhere near strong enough to keep mean temperatures above freezing point. The reason is here.
Doug – Turn on a desk lamp. Ever see the warmed air fall? Ever? No, natural unforced convection is from warm to cool. This is a test you can do yourself to start learning about nature. The next test can teach you about downdrafts.
You will not find what I have explained in “old text books” or anywhere else in world literature. Nor will you find in world literature any other correct explanation for Earth’s surface temperature. That’s why you need to study, carefully digest and think a long time about the QUESTIONS THAT STUMP LUKES AND WARMISTS. It would save you a lot of thinking if you spent 43 minutes watching my videos recorded August 2015. But your knowledge or lack thereof is of no concern to me.
That’s because your stuff comes from imagination, not test. The correct science found in “old” pub.s was learned from tests Doug. You ought to try it out yourself.
If you think you can prove me wrong then you will need to start by proving the Second Law wrong.
The test by Dr. Spencer proved Doug wrong. It is Doug’s imagination that is not complying with Prof. Clausius defn. of 2LOT.
No it doesn’t. The reason is explained in this comment.
“It is Dougs imagination that is not complying with Prof. Clausius defn. of 2LOT.”
Assertive statements are not proof of anything. You haven’t even read here how the hypothesis is developed from the Second Law.
“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 …” [source] [references]
“Boltzmann recognized this state, in which the macroscopic uniformity and microscopic disorder corresponds to the minimization of all field potentials, as the state of maximum entropy …” [source]
“Clausius coined the term entropy to refer to the dissipated potential..”
Wrong Doug, not so once again, wiki easily confuses the unlearned such as Doug; just look up Clausius own words written in 1850 in his memoirs: “I propose to name the magnitude S the entropy of the body from the Greek word meaning ‘a transformation’. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy…quantities related…seemed to me advantageous.”
Doug’s 7:35pm source wrote that for “an adiabatically sealed (closed to the flow of heat) chamber.” There is only one of these in real existence Doug: the universe. That’s why Clausius wrote p. 365: “2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.” The atmosphere is not the universe Doug.
“Convection really is thermally driven mass motion in fluids in a gravity field warmed from below.”
Just as I said. That’s upward convection, and downward convection is “thermally driven mass motion in fluids in a gravity field warmed from” above, such as by new solar radiation absorbed in the stratosphere and upper troposphere, tops of clouds etc. It doesn’t actually need a gravity field. Why should it? It’s “thermally driven.”
In physics the term “natural convective heat transfer” also includes thermal diffusion which is the same process of kinetic energy transfers in molecular collisions, but slower so that net motion cannot be physically measured.
As I said, you won’t learn about what I have explained regarding downward convection in any other world literature because I have been first to do so.
It’s all here written in 2013.
“There is little convection right above any planetary tropopause because the air becomes warmed from above.”
Assertive statements prove nothing. You don’t know this Ball4.
In fact, the laws of physics tell us there will indeed be convective heat transfers from the warmest regions of the stratosphere in both directions to the cooler regions above that maximum “ridge” and downwards to other cooler regions in the lower troposphere and tropopause region – just like rain water flowing down both sides of a mountain ridge into level plains below which may get flooded.
As in your cited quote: convection is thermally driven. Do you know what that means Ball4? It spreads out in all accessible directions away from a new source of thermal energy, just like new rain water that feel only in the middle of a lake will then spread out in all directions. You could have learnt this from my paper.
And Ball4, don’t bother making assertive replies that I’m wrong, because that is not the case, and you would have frozen to death on this planet if I were wrong about the downward convective heat transfers that warm the surface each morning and even pass right through thick clouds.
In a well insulated room place a column oil heater on top of a book shelf so it is near the top of the middle of one wall. Use white cardboard near the heater to block all radiation to the floor and the opposite wall. Will the floor and lower half of the opposite wall (and the nearby air) warm at all, and if so, by what heat transfer mechanism?
“if I were wrong about the downward convective heat transfers..”
You are wrong Doug, the test of the desk lamp and the refrigerator should have taught you convection occurs in a fluid in a gravity field warmed from below, downdrafts occur when air is cooler, more dense than surroundings.
There is no such thing as “downward convective heat transfers”, these are called downdrafts & they transfer energy not heat.
“In a well insulated room place a column oil heater..
Do this experiment Doug and let us know the results with test data that you have recorded.
“Assertive statements prove nothing. You dont know this Ball4.”
I do know that Doug, it is telling you do not. Check the US Standard Atmosphere Doug, found on avg. midlatitude isothermal from test, from 11km to 20km at 216.65K
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770009539.pdf
There is a comprehensive explanation in this comment.
For which Doug has, of course, been proven thoroughly wrong by the experiment of Dr. Spencer and many illustrious others, some of which I have listed above for Norman. Pass a course in atm. thermo. 101, Doug, to discover how to reword your epistle so it is physically meaningful and consistent with test. A study is not a test.
Roy’s test is proven irrelevant here.
Doug: water vapor cools. Dr. Spencer test:water vapor warms. Doug: Resonant scattering exists. Dr. Spencer test: no sign of resonant scattering existing. Hardly irrelevant Doug.
Dr Spencer’s back yard is not as high as the troposphere, so the effect of gravity on his test could not be detected.
??. Dr. Spencer’s backyard is in the troposphere Doug.
Ball4
You have a lot of old books on physics. Are you a scientific historian?
Norman – principles, laws, do not change, that’s why they are called such. I prefer going to the original test work, prevents charlartanism from creeping in behind like on wiki. Irritating to rediscover stuff long already known. Note my libraries are public not private.
Yep – tell the climatologists who ignore the Second Law.
“Irritating to rediscover stuff long already known.” Yep, as BigWaveDave said here …
“Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHGs. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhDs, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.”
Dr. Spencer test proves BigWaveDave was wrong too. Amazing what can be learned from a simple test Doug, you should try it.
Dr Spencer’s test has nothing to do with the gravito-thermal effect explained by Josef Loschmidt in the 19th century and “forgotten or never learned” by PhD’s like Dr Spencer.
As for trying it, the test appears in standard physics texts and I wrote about it in my peer-reviewed paper in 2012. Of course what Dr Spencer showed is correct, and I never said it wasn’t. I repeat, I wrote about exactly the same slowing of radiative cooling by back radiation four years ago.
Dr. Spencer’s test is not about ideal -g/Cp gravito-thermal effect Doug, it is a real test proving BigWaveDave and you are wrong writing/concluding water vapor would cool the water in his containers.
Doug: “Of course what Dr Spencer showed is correct, and I never said it wasnt.”
Not so Doug:
Doug: “Roy Spencers test is proven wrong..”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/#comment-208656
Roy’s test correctly shows that radiation from a cooler source slows radiative cooling of a warmer surface.
But the Sun’s radiation is not able to explain how the surface got warmed in the first place, because a totally different non-radiative process is controlling the supporting (minimum) surface temperature and, on most days, the maximum temperature as well. It doesn’t matter if radiation from -90C carbon dioxide mostly from up in the mesosphere – about 8 times further up than the tropopause) causes the surface to take 5 seconds longer into the night to get down to the supporting temperature.
Roy is wrong in assuming that the slowing of radiative cooling (not of non-radiative cooling by the way) actually helps the Solar radiation to achieve a higher daily maximum, or prevents the surface from getting down to the supporting temperature at night. If you don’t understand what I mean, then read my paper.
It is easy to see that the GH conjecture is wrong for the reasons explained in this comment.
This will be my last comment on this old thread so don’t bother to reply here as I won’t read it. I’m too busy writing (necessarily under other names) on several other climate blogs and social media threads.
But the Suns radiation is not able to explain how the surface got warmed in the first place..”
Yes it does Doug (on Venus too!) and you would be able to explain how it does using 1LOT if you had ever passed a college course in atm. thermo. 101.
Garbage. It would require over 16,000W/m^2 to raise the Venus surface temperature – a simple application of standard physics Ball4. The Sun does not deliver that much at TOA, and only 20W/m^2 of solar radiation gets to the Venus surface. Now try Uranus, where there’s no solar radiation at the base of its troposphere, but it’s hotter than Earth. You’re stumped Ball4. I can explain these things: you can’t.
Doug – The 16,000 is already there accumulated over eons – your 20 at a time – now in steady state equilibrium; you haven’t explained gas absorption by weak absorption lines, the far wings of strong lines, and pressure-induced absorption which are essential components of the Venus atm. The 20 you mention gets in easily but it can’t easily get out & solar energy built up over eons each sec. each m^2 since there are no true Venus atmospheric windows at IR wavelengths greater than 3 m.
I have already explained to your deaf ears the Venus surface median ~732K climate is well understood, found not just from the solar radiation but from iterating to equilibrium considering: All physical processes that transport energy and volatiles throughout the atmospheric column, radiative warming and cooling rates, vertical convective energy and volatile transport, diffusive energy transport (surface/upper atmosphere), latent heat transport/cloud processes.
Doug would have learned this had Doug ever passed atm. thermo. 101.
On a later thread Ball4 says the emissivity of the atmosphere is 0.8 and the measured backradiation is 324W/m^2. The atmosphere would have to have a temperature of 17.5C to emit that 324W/m^2 with an emissivity of 0.8. Ball4 admits the mean temperature is not 17.5C and so the back radiation figure must be incorrect, as is the “science” taught in “atmos. thermo. 101.”
Ball4 admits Doug (a practicing politician not physicist) is wrong as there is no such thing in physics as a mean temperature of 17.5C in the atm. or anywhere else as temperature is an intensive property of matter.
How are your political aims coming along Doug?
Ball4 writes “The 16,000 is already there accumulated over eons your 20 at a time “
What a pathetic display of a complete lack of understanding of Planck functions, Stefan Boltzmann calculations and the process whereby incident radiation raises the temperature of a blackbody to an equilibrium level where that temperature is proportional to the fourth root of the flux. Nothing accumulates in the extraordinary way in which Ball4 thinks that bursts of 20W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching the Venus surface each day somehow end up having the effect of the 16547.5W/m^2 that would be required continuously to raise a blackbody to 735K as found in the Venus surface.
That’s a political statement Doug, not a physical test. Show us your test data backing your statement.