“Doug” is now a 4-letter word

March 3rd, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

no-kangaroo-sock-puppetsI have to admit, Doug Cotton is tenacious. He even gets multiple blog posts from me devoted to him. He obviously lives rent-free in my head now.

But after more complaints about his sky-dragon-slayer-esque comments (which I have tried to block by banning his ever-lengthening list of user names), I am now forced to block all comments that in any way involve the name “Doug”.

So, if you must comment and refer to Doug by name, maybe you can insert special characters after the “D”…you know…the way we do with other 4-letter words.

I apologize in advance to any other Dougs out there…you will have to pick a different user name.

Oh, and I’m sure Dou& will be back. I hope to have his energy when I reach his age.


85 Responses to ““Doug” is now a 4-letter word”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. N Cook says:

    What do you think about the Nature article admitting the failure of 124 simulations of 24 CMIP-5 scare mongering computer models:

    β€œIt has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

    – John C. Fyfe, et al., Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown, Nature Climate Change journal, v6, March 2016, page 224.

    The difference between models and data sets is due to your water’s negative feedback, avoided in the models.

    I’ve blogged my view here: https://nige.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/nature-peer-reviewed-article-debunking-computer-model-doomsday-climate-change-predictions-is-censored-by-mainstream-media/

  2. Brad says:

    I hope it works to some degree. Thanks Dr. Spencer. I miss reading cogent and insightful posts without malice and insults.

  3. Jay Cornwall says:

    Now if you would only ban mpainter too we might regain some civility and intellectual quality in the discussions.

    Jay

    • mpainter says:

      Jay Cornwall, your first time? I challenge you to refute any science that I have presented on this blog. Or anywhere. If you can show where I have erred, I will correct and thank you. But you won’t because you can’t.

      As far as your remarks concerning civility, my greatest delight is in puncturing the dogma of the AGW advocates. I do this regularly, and I feel amused that for this I am one of the most hated skeptics in blogdom.

      While I am about it, let me list the characteristics and shortcomings of the typical AGW blogger:

      >rigid adherence to theoretical dogma

      >inability to assimilate observations to their dogmatic views.

      >a general lack of founding in other fields of science. For example, if I cite fundamental principles of, say, oceanography, they express disdain and demand cites. For textbook material!

      > a lack of gratitude. I have never been thanked for any instance where I have furthered their understanding.

      > an inability to apprehend any information that does not support the AGW meme.

      > a tendency to publicly revile skeptic scientists who most effectively expose the error of AGW dogma.

      These will do for a start. Others might add to this.

      • Toneb says:

        I won’t painter – I’ll add (have added) to Jay’s post.
        You have the honour of being one of the most nasty and obnoxious climate “sceptics” I have come across in many years of, err, conversing with them.

        Your “science” has zero credibility (as in zero linking to peer-review).

        If it makes you feel better however.
        I believe you – I really do.

        Because, as we all know, (Cotton is a fine example) – merely asserting your argument wins every time.

        PS: remember irony?

        • geran says:

          ToneB says, speaking of Mpainter: “Your science has zero credibility…”

          Well done Mpainter, ’cause if a Warmist says you have “zero” credibility, that means you have the highest credibility!

      • Jay Cornwall says:

        OK, I will refute every instance of science presented by you in this blog.

        Done.

        Jay

        • mpainter says:

          Glib snark defends the faith? Come, come, Cornwall, the world is watching.
          I copy from another thread:

          GeorgeRoberts says:
          March 3, 2016 at 11:35 AM
          In this article sod is trying to make out that back radiation (only penetrating the ocean by a few microns)

          Ocean waves are elliptical paths of water about six times the depths of the wave height. This part of the ocean is very well mixed on a very short time scale.

          back radiation (only penetrating the ocean by a few microns) supposedly raises the temperature of that already-warmer ocean.

          Solar radiation heats the ocean. The ocean loses energy in the infrared. Greenhouse gases reduce the rate of the energy loss, making the ocean cool less than it would without them.

          mpainter says:
          March 3, 2016 at 2:59 PM
          Incorrect, George Roberts. Ocean swells have a very low amplitude relative to wave length. For example, a six foot swell could have a wave length of 120 feet. There is no mixing under such conditions.
          The lack of mixing is reflected in the temperature profile of the sea: invariably the temperature cools with depth, under daytime conditions. However, the upper ten meters overturns diurnally, at night, via convection. This is mixing but is wholly a cooling process.

          The LWIR is caught at or within a few microns of the interface. For example, the 15 micron band ( CO2) is absorbed within the top four microns. This absorbed energy is transient, being returned to the atmosphere as radiation (~30%), or latent energy (~69%), or as sensible heat. This happens immediately as LWIR is received. It should be noted that a water molecule at, say, three microns depth, can radiate to the atmosphere, as determined by the attenuation curve of the radiation. There is no energy transferred downward from this interval at the interface because heat flow is always toward the cooler atmosphere.

          Note that the cooling of the sea surface is never accomplished before the ocean current circulates poleward. Heat is cumulative, and it is due to insolation, not LWIR, as explained above.

          It is one of the most egregious of AGW dogma that the atmosphere determines ocean temperature. It is the other way around.

          #####
          There you go, Jay Cornwall, defend the faith or get lost.

          • Throgmorton. says:

            I don’t respect or like the warmists much as they represent what Imre Lakatos would call a degenerative research paradigm: they prefer credentials to actual ability, and use these to argue from authority; they prefer to smear the arguer than to provide actual counterarguments; and they hide behind obfuscation by using the language and techniques of science purely rhetorically, so that what they say makes little sense to either expert or layman. Despite this, we are expected to extend the principle of charity to them (a charity which they themselves do not practice), and assume they must be making valid points that we are just too stupid to understand.

            I found your arguments informative. I have one query:

            >There is no energy transferred downward from this interval at the interface because heat flow is always toward the cooler atmosphere.

            I would like some clarification of your reasoning on this. Is this a conclusion, or a premise?

          • mpainter says:

            Throgmorton,

            I cite the physics of the ocean surface. The air/water interface is always cooler than the water at one mm depth because of the energy lost at the interface (cooling; primarily via evaporation). Hence the heat flow cannot be against the gradient, but always toward the surface. This involves the uppermost one mm. Another aspect of the sea surface physics is the surface tension, and this imparts a semi-permanent film-like quality to a depth of about two hundred microns, more or less. This film inhibits physical mixing of the interface and the molecules incorporated in that film with the water below. The claim is continually made that DWLWIR incident on the surface is transmitted to depth via some process of mixing through wind or wave, but this is fallacy. In the case of wind, this simply accelerates heat loss via evaporation. The greater the wind velocity, the greater the heat loss.

          • mpainter says:

            Also, additional to the above physics is the transcience of the energy absorbed at the interface and upper few microns. This energy is never cumulative, but always immediately is returned to the atmosphere via latent energy, mostly, but also as radiation and sensible heat.

            The energy absorbed as DWLWIR never gets past the upper few microns. This is the incontrovertible fact of the physics of the sea surface, and this fact is recognized by the denizens of RealClimate, stalwart defenders of the faith though they be. Those who hang around SKS or HotWhopper are a different breed, however, and ignorantly maintain that DWLWIR adds heat to the ocean. Lots of skeptics have swallowed this myth, as well.

          • mpainter says:

            Throgmorton,

            To your specific (and slightly pregnant) question

            “I would like some clarification of your reasoning on this. Is this a conclusion, or a premise?”

            I would have to say that it can be taken as a premise from which it can be inferred that the GHE makes no contribution to SST. That being the case, AGW has no effect on SST and the notion that OHC is rising because of increased atmospheric CO2 is fallacy.

          • David Appell says:

            Painter wrote:
            “There is no energy transferred downward from this interval at the interface because heat flow is always toward the cooler atmosphere.”

            Ha ha.

            Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

            As somebody wrote, we need better skeptics.

          • mpainter says:

            David, no one yet has demonstrated how the GHE contributes to SST or OHC. When you sober up, you might do so, yourself.

          • Throgmorton – “they prefer credentials to actual ability”

            What, publishing lists of “scientists” that support their point of view rather than collating published papers, that kind of thing?

          • mpainter says:

            I suggest that you read it again.

          • I suggest that you do so.

          • mpainter says:

            Some help for you, Bignail:

            “they prefer credentials to actual ability, and use these to argue from authority; they prefer to smear the arguer than to provide actual counterarguments; and they hide behind obfuscation by using the language and techniques of science purely rhetorically, so that what they say makes little sense to either expert or layman. Despite this, we are expected to extend the principle of charity to them (a charity which they themselves do not practice), and assume they must be making valid points that we are just too stupid to understand.”

            He refers, of course, to those who fit the “degenerative research paradigm”. Very well complements my above comment, as I am sure you’ll agree:

            “>rigid adherence to theoretical dogma

            >inability to assimilate observations to their dogmatic views.

            >a general lack of founding in other fields of science. For example, if I cite fundamental principles of, say, oceanography, they express disdain and demand cites. For textbook material!

            > a lack of gratitude. I have never been thanked for any instance where I have furthered their understanding.

            > an inability to apprehend any information that does not support the AGW meme.

            > a tendency to publicly revile skeptic scientists who most effectively expose the error of AGW dogma.

          • mpainter – What, publishing lists of scientists that support their point of view rather than collating published papers, that kind of thing? If you were awake you’d realise that this example illustrates the point that your list of tactics best characterises the denial industry rather than working scientists. To wit, it appeals solely to the “credentials” of non-specialists self-selecting into an ideological party without reference to the physical science: The denial industry only has petitions signed by “credentialled” individuals from irrelevant fields. All the actual science these days is published by what you would call “warmists” or “alarmists”, thus neatly appealing to yet another item on your own list.

            You forget that, since there have in recent years actually been no papers at all published which conflict with the consensus on anthropogenic warming, there can be no consideration of their being “most” or “least” effective, nor any claim that there is an “error”. It is impossible to order a list consisting of zero elements.

          • mpainter says:

            Skeptics have taken the measure of the so-called “consensus” and the foaming AGW crowd. See my comments above. Also comments by Throgmorton, which are particularly apt.

            Also, see comments by others on this post. And previous posts. And on other “sceptic” blogs. There’s about sixty of them. Blogs, I mean. Intelligent people have examined the your “consensus”, and have found only a hodgepodge of pseudoscience. This gets cranked through the propaganda mills and victimizes the gullible and other susceptible types.

          • Strictly speaking that would be a hodgepodge of pseudoscience PLUS every single one of the several thousand real science papers in the last couple of years. As against none whatsoever from your “intelligent” compadres. You might also like to take a look at the recent months’ reading on Dr. Roy’s own UAH series right here on his page, by the way. Dr. Spencer is commonly presented as one of those who are “sceptical” and yet he seems perfectly clear on the fact that warming is actually happening. He disputes the RATE of anthropogenic warming, thus contradicting about 80% of “sceptical” claims in one shot, but not the fact of it.

            It’s no good “getting the measure” of anything if you can’t come up with any science of your own in the process.

          • mpainter says:

            UAH shows a little warming the last several years, yes. Is this natural or is it due to CO2. I think it is due to wind variation. Roy has posted data on that. Do you say CO2? Show data or otherwise support your claim. Do not appeal to the so-called “consensus”. Be scientific.

          • I didn’t make a “claim”, but now you mention it, clearly the increase and the recent sharp peak is consistent with the predictions of the consensus position. The “pause” has now evaporated, exactly as expected. The latest ENSO peak exceeds the 1998 peak, exactly as AW would lead us to predict. The excess heat stored in the ocean since the last super-el Nino is being liberated by the reversal in Pacific circulation, just as AW would lead us to predict. Surface temperatures are now back in line with overall heat content, just as AW would lead us to predict.

            There is no way to establish the cause of a warming trend from the trend alone. That requires at least a second line of evidence, and these are what the thousands of papers comprising the consensus science address. We could go for stratospheric cooling if you want to pick an example. Or the isotopic signature of fossil carbon. Or polar amplification. The point is that if I were to make a claim instead of you making it up for me, it would be that this latest activity in the UAH record fulfils predictions made by the consensus and represents one datum of evidence in a broad picture. There is, by contrast, nothing in the way of falsification with which to comfort yourself.

            If you want to claim that the denial industry represents a kind of trillionaire profiteer Galileo, selflessly pursuing the Platonic ideal of a truth which brings it no benefit save the sales of fuel resources worth more per year than the entire US economy, and the entire scientific community are perpetrating a fraud for the sake of wealth and power in their unpaid work for the IPCC, then you need more than a way to explain away yet another line of evidence – you need a falsifying line of evidence of your own. I’m not going to hold my breath.

            Appealing to the consensus IS scientific. Apart from the fulfilment of predictions there is little that is MORE scientific than a consensus. What do you think a 2-sigma confidence limit does beyond separating the 95% of results making up the consensus from the 5% of outliers? What do you think replications are? Consensus is the very core of scientific as a concept; there is no science without it. The very definition of a crackpot is one who thinks the 5% outliers represent an unrecognised revolution and the 95% consensus a conspiracy – when the conventional p-test should generate 5% out of thin air anyway. And take note, you do not even have 5% of science papers. You don’t have any at all for some years now. So if you want me to stop appealing to the consensus you are going to have to stop appealing to a vacuum. Deal?

            Robinson Crusoe could not have fathered a scientific revolution, pace Popper.

          • mpainter says:

            Typical pausebuster blather based on an el Nino spike.
            To support AGW you need to show that atmospheric water vapor is a positive feedback. You won’t because you can’t, no one ever has. But there is plenty of evidence that shows that it is not. AGW RIP.

          • So you dodged. No surprises there. As I said, you have no science of your own so you have to bluster.

            Of course, one does not require water vapour to be a positive feedback to establish the fact of AW, only the quantity thereof. Even if there were no water vapour in the atmosphere, more CO2 would lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Feedbacks determine the level of amplification; GHGs the amount of forcing.

          • By the way, we already know that water vapour is a positive feedback, as the surface temperature is well above – and stratospheric temperature well below – what can be explained by CO2e alone. The question is whether it will remain a positive feedback as the CO2e forcing increases, the possibility being that its response will prove ferociously non-linear, So far the models come out on average to be right on the money.

          • mpainter says:

            Elliott Bignell, your bald assertions concerning water vapor does not convince. But, you have nothing else to argue with.

          • mpainter – “your bald assertions concerning water vapor does not convince”

            Well, that it does not convince YOU is actually rather reassuring. As long as you cannot show it to be wrong I don’t see a problem.

          • Douqless – “Nope, thats not the reason.”

            Well, virtually all qualified physicists say it is. And I believe them. Furthermore, until you can explain why the stratosphere is currently cooling and the poles warming faster than the globe as a whole I would say that they can support the claim and you cannot.

            “Run some pure argon through a vortex tube and you still get a -g/cp type radial temperature gradient.”

            Which:

            a) Does not prove that the temperature gradient in the atmosphere can be explained without GHGs, let alone explain the rates at which it is changing as GHGs increase in concentration, and

            b) Does not refer to an equilibrium system but one in which gases are being compressed and are subject to friction.

            c) Cannot overcome the violation of thermodynamics which appears to be created by a temperature gradient in a system at equilibrium.

          • mpainter says:

            Bignel says “As long as you cannot show it to be wrong I dont see a problem.”
            ###
            Done already. See my exchange with Miker on previous post: February UAH update.

            I show where increased atmospheric humidity lowers tmax and moderates the diurnal temperature range. Without the positive feedback of atmospheric water vapor, climate sensitivity is slight and AGW is naught. AGW RIP.

          • painter said – “Done already. See my exchange with Miker on previous post: February UAH update.”

            Funny how you people have always refuted someone right in front of you in a completely different thread and in conversation with a completely different person making a completely different set of claims.

            “I show where increased atmospheric humidity lowers tmax and moderates the diurnal temperature range.”

            As MikeR showed in that exchange, your claims on this are incoherent and do not demonstrate what you claim. Lowering tmax or moderating the range does not demonstrate a systematic change either way in the overall temperature average or heat content. It wouldn’t even do it for the whole globe, let alone after cherry-picking two specialised environments.

            “Without the positive feedback of atmospheric water vapor”

            Which is an admission of exactly the claim that you were disputing.

            “climate sensitivity is slight”

            Which is what I said: Water is (currently) a positive feedback. It alters the QUANTITY of CO2e-forced warming, not the fact of it.

            ” and AGW is naught. AGW RIP.”

            In your dreams. Even if you hadn’t just admitted that water is a positive feedback you’d still be confronted with the fact of CO2e forcing and a batch of further feedbacks such as ice-albedo, not to mention the concrete fact of rising temperatures.

          • mpainter says:

            You reveal yourself, Bignail. You obviously did not read the exchange between Miker and myself. Miker admitted the truth of my assertions.

            You are the type who misrepresents the statements of others. You are a stench in my nostrils. Please do not respond to my comments in the future.

          • mpainter – “Miker admitted the truth of my assertions.”

            He did nothing of the sort.

            “You are the type who misrepresents the statements of others.”

            You are a liar.

            “Please do not respond to my comments in the future.”

            I will respond whenever and however I see fit up until such time as you are banned. Or until Doctor Spencer asks that I desist.

            I’ll take this as the most graceful concession of which you are capable that you can no longer evade your admission that water vapour is currently a positive feedback.

        • Jay, actually I think that also covers all the papers conflicting with the overall consensus that have been published in the last few years.

          • I see online that you predicted a couple of years ago that the “pause” would continue, as well. I think we can safely ignore any of your predictions, not least because you are clearly well out of your depth yourself.

            As for entropy, well, if my reasoning is false then it should be possible to show that a violation of the second law should emerge from it. One does not have to “mention” entropy in every theory; any valid theory should lead to behaviour consistent with thermodynamics ipso facto. Correct physics will lead to the laws of thermodynamics statistically, just as the conservation of energy emerges out of the symmetry of interactions when translated in time. As for potential energy, if you are referring to my one-dimensional thought experiment then you are very much mistaken, as it mentions it explicitly.

            You should also bear in mind that real, grown-up physicists mostly seem to believe that it is YOUR model which violates the Second Law. I have already stated why – a static temperature gradient at equilibrium would allow work to be done. So put up or shut up, as it were.

          • Douqless – “Isothermal conditions would have unbalanced energy potentials with more gravitational PE at the top so that work could be done”

            No, no work can be done as the upper layer is not free to descend. One would have to APPLY work to compress the lower layer before it could do so.

          • Douqless – “Of course entropy could still increase in your example Elliott. Your very low KE molecules will inevitably gain energy from the higher KE molecules which will lose equivalent energy.”

            My model does not entail any low-KE molecules. They all begin with zero. If any such differential can emerge it is by the interaction of gravity and elastic exchanges, the onyl factors included. The only factors included partly for this exact reason, in fact.

  4. Toneb says:

    Test – is it just me having problems posting?

  5. Toneb says:

    So at last another “critical mass of Cotton” eh?

    BTW: Thanks for the 1st post here
    But you aren’t welcome anymore.

    As you can see Roy he a wiley old fool.

    Roy – May I suggest that should anyone come across a post of his we mail you to take immediate banning action.

    And/Or you check in regularly and do it yourself.
    No matter what he calls himself his demented posting content/style is obvious – hence my above comment.

    As above, painter is a gnats hair away from an official complaint from me too. You know he was reprimanded by Watts for his “posting style”.
    Maybe that’s why he’s not seen there anymore.
    He’s getting away with it here.

    Some form of moderation would be welcome.

    • Toneb says:

      The first test(?) of a certain person’s name not being allowed through I have discovered.

    • mpainter says:

      πŸ™‚

      • Dou& already posted a few times earlier today under the pseudonym “YouKnowWho”. This can go on endlessly. I banned the whole range of IP addresses he is coming from.

        • skeptikal says:

          I think he is in Australia, and over here we have dynamic IP addressing. All you have to do over here is disconnect from the internet and then reconnect… instant new IP. You risk inadvertently banning other users from Australia by banning a range of IP addresses.

        • bbould says:

          I was waiting for you to try that.

        • coturnix says:

          nowdays as ever, due to the internet architecture, banning people on their ip addresses is nearly futile… one can always use tor or purchase some vpn. Neither is banning usernames. There are only two sure ways:
          1) mandatory registration for people to comment
          or
          2) use some sophisticated filter to match some particular phrases and words that he uses and ban based on that, since i think any person can be ‘fingerprinted’ based on the language they use. But that is way complicated, not even sure if such things exist as wordpress plugins rather than the concept.

    • AndyG55 says:

      What an obnoxious load of slimy self-righteousness you get away with, toneb. !!

    • Richard G says:

      I’ll second banning mpainter. He is more offensive than D.C. for sure and has an equal ego and inability to listen to anyone else.

      Richard

      • mpainter says:

        Ban mpainter because he is a skeptic that skewers the poor lame brain global warmers and all of their cult apparatus? As in fat chance? Why not write a letter to Obama and demand that he do something, like a good little clown.

        Thanks for the chuckles, fellows, and keep it coming, I pray you.

      • AndyG55 says:

        So funny to see the cry-babies whinging because mp keeps handing them their butts.

        Then they go off tantruming, trying to get him shut down.

        So predictably AGW !!!

        • Toneb says:

          55 – you need science to do that my friend.
          painter is science free.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “you need science to do that my friend.”

            then why are you here?

            You have never produced anything accept propaganda pap.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Sorry that you missed out on a basic science education, and are totally unable to keep up with, let alone understand mp’s posts.

            A few years study might fix that.. if you had the capability. OOOPS

  6. jimc says:

    In a candid moment, 97 percent certain of uncertainty. And maybe clouds are hard to model.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-narrow-clouds-hard.html

  7. Ross says:

    Ban mpainter. He is a nasty narcissist. self absorbed.

  8. JackHarris says:

    Dr Roy Spencer

    I have decided to study the papers written by DC and I have to tell you that the physics therein is sound and totally correct. This is brilliant work at the forefront of physics research, and it will change the world once our Physics Department starts promulgating his hypothesis which totally refutes the Greenhouse one.

    Jack Harris PhD

  9. So this blog is now officially Douqless?

  10. Douqless – “Obviously the Venus atmosphere is cooler than 735K”

    Actually, NASA seem to think it is 2K warmer.

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

  11. Douqless has turned out to be more useful than I would have imagined, as his fruitcake obsession has got me thinking about something that’s actually interesting. Either that or he’s infected me with a recipe for fruitcake. My apologies to any real physicists for what I am about to write – it might be better to skip it in favour of a real discussion.

    At any rate, one cannot research the idea of a gravitational temperature gradient online without getting swamped with more of his spam, as every link dealing with the issue seems to have been targetted at some stage. I’m not a physicist, as I mentioned elsewhere, but I AM an engineer and I wrote models of heat transfer 30 years ago at University, so the idea that the question might not be as simple as it appears has piqued my interest. It seems that almost all physicists since Boltzmann agree that a static gas column should be isothermal leaving radiative transfer out of account, as Dr. Roy has allegedly asserted. But there is still some dispute, even now, probably aggravated by the vested interest of the denial industry, but not necessarily invalid for that reason alone.

    The idea that gas particles up in the column would have lower kinetic energy is not obviously counterintuitive. On the other hand, a temperature gradient at equilibrium would seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics, as one could run a copper wire between the top and bottom of the column and use the temperature difference to do work using a thermocouple. One criticism of this idea says that it does not take into account the disturbance to the system created by adding the wire, but I ain’t buying it. The wire could be very thin, and the column comparatively wide. The trivial amount of energy carried along a thin wire could make an infinitesimal difference to the energy budget of the whole column while still generating work. So there seems to be a contradiction generated by my incapacity to reason this through, and there may even be serious physicists who take opposing sides about it.

    My attempt to reason it through centres around a one-dimensional model of an atmosphere as elastic spheres. I can’t work it through in my brain, as it’s getting green and slimy with age, but I might take a shot at building the model in my spare time. What I have come to so far is the following: Postulate an evenly-spaced vertical column of molecules above a hard, elastic floor. The system is unbounded at the top. The molecules begin in a stationary state. Any one molecule, allowed to drop freely, would hit the floor and rebound to the same altitude, ad nauseam. It would at that point again be stationary. So far so good?

    But the route to the floor is not free, except for the lowest particle. The second particle will meet the lowest particle coming back up, and so on. As the particles are elastic, their transfer of momentum will be symmetrical in the y-axis – momentum will be redirected back up the column just as freely as down it. I suspect that a simulation would show the particles tending to cluster lower down, representing a pressure and density gradient. However, the symmetry in transfer of momentum would return the highest particles, Newton’s-cradle-style, back to their original altitudes again and again.

    Again, so far, so good. The interesting bit, which I will need to simulate or it’ll all be in vain, is to consider the velocity of the top particle at the time it falls to the original position of the second-topmost particle. It will have fallen exactly as far as the lowest particle originally fell to the floor. Its velocity, therefore, will be the same as the lowest particle when it first reaches the floor. The lowest particle could conceivably pick up more momentum when it hits the second-lowest on the rebound, as the second will have fallen further than the first had, but this cannot equilibriate into a momentum gradient as the uppermost particle still returns to its original altitude. It therefore possesses the same net energy as it originally had, and a gradient of increasing momentum down the column would require that the lower particles each have progressively GREATER net energy. This would violate the CofE.

    The conclusion seems to be that the topmost particle must preserve its original net energy, and every time that it passes through the original position of the second-topmost it must have the same kinetic energy as the lowest particle at its lowest point: The column must be isothermal.

    What’s wrong with this reasoning? No timewasters, please.

    • I said “no timewasters”.

    • Douqless – “You seem to have completely forgotten about gravitational potential energy which interchanges with kinetic energy.”

      That thought experiment EXPLICITLY deals with it. Go away and let someone give me some input that is based on actual understanding.

    • It’s “km/h”. I thought you were pretending to be a physicist?

    • “But you are not alone so too did James Hansen and all his followers since.”

      Actually, almost every physicist since Boltzmann.

      “This is the Second Law in operation something you totally ignore in your thought experiment.”

      As I explained, it was the reason for conducting it in the first place. If there is a flaw in the model, then a violation of the Second Law should emerge from it. That you cannot show what this violation might be is illuminating: You don’t actually know what you are talking about. You are using “the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been ignored” as a mantra to ward off evil spirits.

      In fact, as I suspected, it is a static temperature gradient that violates the 2nd Law and you don’t have a way around that.

    • Douqless – “Whats wrong is that what you describe would not be a state of maximum entropy, and so the Second Law will operate and change the distribution”

      So how would the Second Law operate to arrive at a different distribution than does the conservation of momentum? What flaw in the model I describe can explain its evolution towards a different distribution than the 2nd Law requires?

      If the model is “correct” then it must necessarily be consistent with BOTH the conservation of momentum and the 2nd Law. If it is not “correct” then it should be possible to say HOW it diverges from one and thus from both. If it is consistent with the conservation of momentum and you cannot name any other specific failing then I would infer that it is your interpretation of the 2nd Law which is false.

    • Thank you, Doctor Spencer.

    • mpainter says:

      Doug Cotton very likely suffers from a type of old age dementia. Best to ignore him.

  12. I’d already seen that “refutation”, and dealt with it above. You just don’t understand it. Who said anything about the walls of a “container”? One could just stick the wire up into the stratosphere and expect the same result. The thermal conductivity of a copper wire is extremely high, so if one breaks the wire to insert a thermocouple virtually the entire “voltage drop” – actually temperature drop – would occur at the point of interruption: You’d get electrical energy out.

    Yes, the different temperature of the wire would produce convection close to the wire. That is ALSO getting work out of a system at thermodynamic equilibrium.

  13. Douqless – “For maximum entropy the sum of mean molecular (PE+KE) must be homogeneous so that there are no unbalanced energy potentials.”

    Potential energy measured by reference to what baseline? Sea level? A mountaintop under the parcel of gas in question? Potential energy is not absolute; all energy represents a symmetry in translation and hence must be considered as a DIFFERENCE and not an abolute value. The molecules at the top of the atmosphere are not free to fall to the surface. They are “resting” on the “surface” represented by lower layers of atmosphere.

    This is just another way of representing the conclusion made in my thought experiment, and it amounts to the same thing: whenever higher molecules fall to the point at which they encounter resistance from lower molecules they have similar kinetic energy.

    “Hence there is a -g/cp temperature gradient as derived in my paper and book.”

    Hence there is none.

    • Douqless – “This is the Second Law in operation something you totally ignore in your thought experiment.”

      As I have already explained to you using simple language, if there is any flaw in the model then a violation of the second law can be shown to follow from that flaw. Otherwise the flaw is in your interpretation thereof.

      ANd I did say “no time-wasters”, did I not?

    • Which is also only another way of conceding that the model is sound. At any slice across the y-axis, the pressures of the lower and upper aggregates must balance. The upper layer has no potential energy with respect to the lower layer as the upper layer cannot fall. Two freely-mixing layers of gas are in principle no different to two separate layers with a light, thin, elastic barrier inserted between them acting as the floor for the upper layer.

  14. Norman says:

    Anon

    Please Read this whole article and work to understand the content within.
    https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/3477107/916453297971576.pdf

  15. Norman says:

    Adiabatic process means NO HEAT in or OUT but the temperature changes because of work. YOU really need to educate yourself, you lack much knowledge on many things.

  16. Norman says:

    test

  17. Douqless – “But they have gained KE in the fall.”

    Yes, as I said: A similar amount. All, in fact, gain the same amount of KE in falling to the point at which they encounter lower layers in my equal-spacing initial state.

    Another way to look at it would be to ignore collisions altogether: Molecules falling from higher have greater KE when they reach the floor, and rebound back to correspondingly greater altitudes. When they have fallen 1m from their initial altitude they all have a velocity of sqrt(19.6) m/s. Once again, the solution comes out with equal momentums for molecules at different altitudes: The atmosphere remains isothermal. This starting assumption is valid because in a static column of gas the net average motion in the y-axis at any altitude IS zero.

    Congratulations: I am now completely convinced that you are wrong, thanks to your efforts. Doctor Spencer must be correct in stating that the atmosphere would be isothermal in the absence of radiative transfer, if indeed that was his claim.

    • gbaikie says:

      –Another way to look at it would be to ignore collisions altogether: Molecules falling from higher have greater KE when they reach the floor, and rebound back to correspondingly greater altitudes. When they have fallen 1m from their initial altitude they all have a velocity of sqrt(19.6) m/s. Once again, the solution comes out with equal momentums for molecules at different altitudes: The atmosphere remains isothermal. This starting assumption is valid because in a static column of gas the net average motion in the y-axis at any altitude IS zero.–

      When the air warms, it becomes less dense per cubic meter. That requires molecules of air near the surface to go higher.
      When the air becomes cooler, the air become more dense. That requires an addition of air molecules from higher elevation to move closer to the surface.

      Also when water evaporates it added gas to the atmosphere which displaces lower air causing it to go a higher elevation. Likewise when H20 gas condenses it’s reducing gas from the atmosphere requiring additional gases to be added from a higher elevation.

      So rather then all energy of the sun radiating back into space, some of that energy can used to raise the PE of gas molecules during daytime. And once air cools and becomes more dense, that PE energy is converted into kinetic energy which can then be radiated back into space.

      So warming air and creating water vapor is means of storing/trapping heat which results in a warmer air temperature.

  18. tonyM says:

    Lets see:

    You are being rather foolish and rude as well as not abiding by your commitments. You had promised only three posts per topic; blitzkrieg was the outcome. I am not referring to responses to other comments directed at you.

    Dr Spencer has been a most generous host and certainly does not need to go chasing your views and taunts. It is his site and to imply earlier that you will sabotage it just because he may not agree with you is childish.

    He can ban you by not allowing any posts from new email addresses (or put into moderation) and block the ones that you have used. Perhaps even closing the comments after a few days.

    It is a pity as you present some good, solid material; most appropriate if on topic.

    Looks like you have killed it for all of us. Why don’t you bombard a true science denial site like Cook’s SkS. Tie up his time. Instead you sacrifice a site which allows multiple views to be explored.