Home/Blog
Yesterday, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter to DOE Secretary Rick Perry, scolding him for the following opinion he uttered in a CNBC interview on June 19.
Quoting from a Washington Post article:
Asked in an interview on CNBCs “Squawk Box” whether he believed that carbon dioxide was “the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate”, Perry said that “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.” Perry added that “the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?”
(Most of the headlines I’ve seen on the CNBC interview, including the WaPo piece, refer to Perry with the usual “denier” terms.)
Basically, Perry is saying he believes that nature has a larger role than humans in recent warming. I, too, believe that the oceans might well be a primary driver of climate change, but whether the human/nature ratio is 50/50, or less, or more than that is up for debate. We simply don’t know.
So, while Sec. Perry goes against the supposed consensus of scientists, it was not outlandish, it wasn’t a denial of a known fact.
It was a valid opinion on an uncertain area of science.
AMS, me thinks thou doth protest too much
In response to Sec. Perry’s comments, the Executive Director of the AMS, Keith Seitter, said this in his letter to Perry (emphasis added):
While you acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are having an impact on it, it is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause. This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion. These indisputable findings have shaped our current AMS Statement on Climate Change, which states: “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.”
Indisputable findings? Really? In my opinion, the AMS view (which draws upon the U.N. IPCC view) is much more definitively stated than the evidence warrants.
Sure, all of the scientific institutions are going to jump on the bandwagon, with politically savvy committees agreeing with each other; they are in effect being paid by the government to agree with the consensus through billions of dollars in grants and contracts.
If there is no global warming crisis, there would be little congressional funding to study it, and thousands of climate-dependent careers (including mine) simply wouldn’t exist.
That money also trickles down to the AMS, which is paid to hold scientific conferences, workshops, and publish the resulting research studies in scientific journals. They have a vested interest in the gravy train continuing.
So, maybe I can ask the AMS: Just what percentage of recent warming was natural in origin? None? 10%? 40%? How do you know? Why was the pre-1940 warming rate — caused by Mother Nature — almost as strong as recent warming?
The truth is, no one knows just how much of recent warming was human-caused, including those thousands of “independent” scientists. They pin the blame on CO2 partly because that’s all they can think of, and we still don’t understand natural sources of climate change.
Besides, in the climate business, there are no thousands of independent scientists, anyway. They live and work in an echo chamber, and very few of them have the breadth and depth of knowledge to make an informed judgement on the issue. The vast majority are specialists in some narrow field of research. They go along to get along… and to continue to get funding.
Young climate researchers today cannot voice any doubts about anthropogenic global warming, or they might not have a career. They can’t go to Big Energy for research funding because, as far as I know, such funding does not exist. Big Energy knows they don’t have to pay people to prop up petroleum, natural gas, and coal, because the world runs on the stuff, and for the foreseeable future there are no large-scale, cost-effective, reliable, and readily dispatchable alternatives.
What we DO know with considerable confidence is that increasing CO2 should cause some warming. I’ll admit that my opinion here is mostly based upon a theoretical extrapolation from laboratory measurements of how CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy. But we really don’t know how much warming. We certainly do not have enough confidence to claim it is indisputable that our greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause, as the AMS letter claims.
I am ashamed that the climate research community allows such pronouncements to be made. The AMS became a global warming advocacy group many years ago, and as a result it lost a lot of established members, including myself.
I see the AMS Inquisition is very quick to respond to attacks on the Climate Change orthodoxy. Secretary Perry should be cautious, lest he be declared a heretic.
Thanks, Dr. Spencer, for speaking out in calm, balanced way. I wish more meteorologists and climatologists were as honest and forthcoming.
Agreed. Why is it so hard for some other climate scientists to take such a rational view? Presumably the ‘fear factor’ plays a part as suggested in the post.
Meanwhile the ‘uncertainty monster’ is not going to go away.
Those that dare to doubt the validity of Climate Change and branded as deniers. May I suggest that we start using a suitably descriptive name for those with the branding irons? Doesn’t Climate Inquisitors seem to fit?
They, the Inquisitors, are themselves deniers in that they fail to acknowledge the limits that nature imposes on our puny ability to predict future states of chaotic systems.
When, in your opinion, was the last time “chaos” put the climate into an unexpected state?
And does the possibility of chaotic changes increase as more energy gets into the climate system?
All geologically recent supervolcano eruptions and meteor impacts can be regarded as large scale chaotic changes. They are events that reset the initial conditions and change the feedbacks in Earth’s overall thermodynamic system, which always is chaotic but not usually system-wide.
Yes, but volcanoes aren’t what’s meant here.
No. It’s not energy, per se, that drives things. It is differentials. When energy becomes more uniformly distributed, the system becomes more stable, not less.
Why would energy become more uniformly distributed?
The temperature fluctuations of an ideal gas rise with the energy in the system.
Very basic stuff. The GHE reduces temperature gradients. From sunlight to darkness, from pole to equator. And, you are just flinging out desperate assertions.
“The GHE reduces temperature gradients.”
Pole-to-equator temperature gradients are *increasing* with AGW.
temperature fluctuations in an ideal gas:
sigma(E) = Ebar/sqrt(3N/2)
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~franzen/public_html/CH795N/lecture/XI/XI.html
That is, as I wrote, temperature fluctuations increase as the average energy (temperature) of a system increases.
Either wrong again or quite irrelevant and utter nonsense , David Appel.
(A)GW, as rightly pointed out by Bart, of course results in a decrease of the pole to equator temperature gradients.
And relative temperature fluctuations are of order 10^-12, according to the very formula you point to, definitively and completely negligible in present context. They correspond to a macroscopic system at thermodynamic equilibrium where T is thus typically uniform to 1 part in 10^12 and have of course absolutely nothing to do with the temperature variability or “fluctuations” in the climatic system, a system that is definitely far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Ever heard anything about non equilibrium thermodynamics ?
The situation of earth with energy input, is anlogous to a pot on a low simmer. Now turn up the heat or put a lid on. What happens? More turbulent fluid motion.
It doesn’t matter what the number is specifically — it shows that energy fluctuations increase as the energy in a system increases.
This is completely intuitive.
In which system do you expect higher energy fluctuations? A low-temperature system at 3 K, or a hot gas at 1000 K?
“The situation of earth with energy input, is anlogous to a pot on a low simmer.”
It is nothing like that. The atmosphere is not water, and it does not boil. Weather is driven primarily by horizontal temperature gradients.
“This is completely intuitive.”
The scientific method was developed specifically because intuition so often fails.
‘It is nothing like that. The atmosphere is not water, and it does not boil. Weather is driven primarily by horizontal temperature gradients’
When Bart asserts with such confidence, thats a good indicator of a falsehood.
‘The atmosphere not water’. Really? Thats why it is an analogy, dufus.
‘Primarily by horizontal gradients’. So surface heating and resultant convection and evaporation are not a constant themes in weather?
Bart says:
“The atmosphere is not water, and it does not boil.”
{Chuckle, chuckle.
Chuckle chuckle.}
Bart says:
“Weather is driven primarily by horizontal temperature gradients.”
This is about climate, not weather.
{Chuckle}
It doesnt matter what the number is specifically..
In which system do you expect higher energy fluctuations? A low-temperature system at 3 K, or a hot gas at 1000 K?
Bullshit !!!
Of course it does matter !
In a macroscopic system N is of order of the Avogadro number and thus even at 1000 K these equilibrium statistical mechanics fluctuations in temperature or energy are just a tiny 10^-12 times 1000 K = 10^-9 K or 0.000000001 K !!!!!!!
Again this fluctuations at equilibrium have absolutely nothing to do with the “temperature fluctuations or variability” in chaotic far from thermodynamic equilibrium climatic systems one talks about in present context.
You definitely do not understand what you talk about.
Nate “reasons”: The situation of earth with energy input, is anlogous to a pot on a low simmer. Now turn up the heat or put a lid on.
Hey Nate, how do you plan to “turn up the heat or put a lid on” the Earth?
Surely, you not suggesting a little CO2 could do that?
Surely, you wouldn’t be that silly.
Ger*. Dont bother trying to understand what analogy means..you are not capable.
David Appell @ June 25, 2017 at 10:09 PM
This is about climate, not weather.
No, Old Yellowstain, this is about weather. The question of whether AGW would lead to more or less extreme weather is about weather.
Nate @ June 27, 2017 at 10:11 AM
Thats why it is an analogy, dufus.
Its a stupid analogy. It has no relevance.
So surface heating and resultant convection and evaporation are not a constant themes in weather?
Again, horizontal gradients drive weather fronts. This is textbook. Horizontal gradients are established by pole to equator, and day to nighttime differences in insolation. They are diminished by the GHE. Again, textbook.
‘Its a stupid analogy’
Look up origins of Lorenz attractor. Lorenz was modeling convection in a thin fluid layer heated from the bottom. This was used to understand, of all things, weather and its prediction.
He found intrinsic unpredictability and chaos in this model. He connected that to chaos in weather. This was the origins of chaos theory. Many important results came from this.
Stupid? No not at all.
‘It has no relevance’ . Well, see my comment above. Again Bart’s pronouncement is…wrong. What a shocker.
We should not accept global warming just because it is natural. If it is damaging to eco systems or us we should still try to mitigate, for example by bringing CO2 below pre industrial levels, just like we should try to avert asteroid impacts.
That’s an interesting opinion…a new take on man vs. nature.
And I think the solution is very straight forward.
It has been proved mathematically that free markets will achieve Pareto optimum, but only if there are no externalities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
You may be concerned about poverty in Africa, but it is not optimal to solve poverty with CO2. These two problems are best treated separately.
To be optimal, everyone must pay for damages to third parties.
If you don’t like the result you need income redistribution.
It is just not optimal to have a $2 property loss in Miami for a $1 gain in Africa.
It is better to pay compensation directly and let everyone’s choice be based on reality.
In the previous post, you do not need to do 4) and 5).
You only need to estimate costs and benefits and then put this (positive or negative) price on CO2.
Markets can then bring their full arsenal to bear, including R&D.
If ecosystems collapse anyway we can tell our children that in our estimation they were not worth saving.
Svante – sounds like you’re a proponent of “social cost of carbon” cost-benefit analysis. This possibly could be a good idea but I have yet to read a description that I can understand.
It’s a recipe for extending arbitrary power to those who determine the “cost”. The odds of that power not being abused are vanishingly small.
People like you wouldn’t have even tried to clean up US air and water, since you’d come up with some absurd theory or other about why it wasn’t happening.
You’re simply anti-science.
CO2 is an odorless, transparent gas necessary for life on this planet. It is not a pollutant.
I’m all for cleaning up the air and water. That’s why I’m against wasting resources on non-problems.
CO2 meets the definition of a pollutant — an unwanted substance with deleterious effects — and the Supreme Court ruled it so in Mass v EPA 2007.
Wrong again. The Supreme Court has neither the power nor the expertise to declare a substance a pollutant. The SCOTUS rules on questions of law. And, it ruled that under the law, the EPA had the power to regulate what it deemed to be a pollutant.
In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the Supreme Court held that manmade GHGs are air pollutants for regulatory purposes, under the Clean Air Act and its amendments passed by Congress:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
Still digging.
Again, the SCOTUS is not a scientific body, and has no standing or authority to judge questions of science. If they were to err and make a scientific proclamation, it has no greater sway than a group of scientists opining on the law.
In the case to which you refer, the Court found only that the petitioners had standing, and the EPA did have the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions under the exceedingly broad wording of the Clean Air Act, which basically says any substance emitted into the air can be regulated.
That is the only power the Court has – interpreting the laws, and determining their scope and limitations under the Constitution. It decides questions of law, not of science.
THat’s what the Supreme Court ruled, whether you like it or not.
Talk about denying reality…..
Spalding Craft, you seem to be right!
Handling externalities with rules, regulations and law suits is not optimal. There are millions of goods, to satisfy millions of personal preferences depending on cost. It is virtually impossible calculate external effects through the supply chains afterwards, so it needs to be done near the source.
Once the true cost is there markets can adapt optimally. In some cases there is no cost efficient alternative, but in other cases it is easy to change. Some can improve their energy efficiency at a small cost, some can switch from coal to petroleum, some from petroleum to natural gas, or to renewable or nuclear power. Once the true costs there there is a better business case for research and development, so avoid static thinking.
Social costs analysis are subjective in nature, reflecting the opinions of those who do them. To try to apply those imagined costs to consumers is no different than instituting a tax on some behavior the legislators find reprehensible.
That’s true, so make a conservative estimate on those subjective costs, or skip them completely.
Some approximation is better than none.
In the end it has to be settled by a popular vote.
I guess the US just did that.
Hillary won the popular vote, not Trump.
No, Hillary received a plurality of votes cast. That is a very different animal. Were the election held under the rule that the person with the most votes wins, the tally would have been different, and nobody can say for certain what the outcome would have been.
Hillary won the popular vote.
As I said.
No, Hillary received a plurality of votes cast. There was no contest for popular votes, therefore nobody can be said to have won it.
Hillary won the popular vote, by 3M. Trump only attained office because of our backward electoral system which values acres more than people.
Hillary One. I am with Her
dowdy:
“Its shocking that Hillary couldnt be bothered to come up with an economic message or any rationale other than Its My Turn. Hillary never got a real message out, Michael Bloomberg, who eviscerated Trump at Hillarys convention,”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-jon-ossoff-democrats.html
Heh:
“The Democrats just got skunked four to nothing in races they excitedly thought they could win because everyone they hang with hates Trump.
If Trump is the Antichrist, as they believe, then Georgia was going to be a cakewalk, and Nancy Pelosi was going to be installed as speaker before the midterms by acclamation. But it turned into another soul-sucking disappointment.”
Don’t they listen to Glenn Reynolds?
Trump is the Destructor.
Haven’t they watched the real Ghostbusters?
Stay Puff
http://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/donald-trump-gop-has-chosen-the-form-of-its-destructor-59760/
Obama was the Antichrist.
So, clueless.
“Obama was the antichrist.”
And you want to be taken seriously here?
Whoosh!
Whoosh means d(co2)/dt not explaining dT — but instead, following it.
Bart can’t even do the most basic statistical analysis to analyze the situation.
solution… isn’t it african population?
world fertility per woman:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg/350px-Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg.png
population projection:
https://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/20141024-g1b1.jpg
ipcc rcp8.5 maybe (i haven’t checked myself) based on such population projection. see more at:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/
The main problem I have with the idea of artificial control is that we don’t know how much CO2 is good or how little is bad. Despite the hype, we were at extreme lows for the planet. I’ve read that we were almost at a point where plants can’t survive. If we were to try and artificially control it for the benefit of the planet, then real research without political agenda has to be done.
I agree, first our best estimate, improved over time by real research (global greening would be on the positive side).
“Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009), http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf
Davie has a long list of links to support his pseudoscience.
I don’t think the linked paper actually contains your quote.
It came from the pre-release material given to the press.
‘we were almost at a point where plants cant survive’
Seems strange that we had agriculture and lots of forests all this time, without the assistance of extra co2…
Now we have lots more agriculture, thanks to CO2.
Fertilizer, pesticides, mechanization have anything to do with it?
Milankovitch cycles in ice cores suggest that the planet gets down to around 200ppm pretty regularly. Before the recent anthropogenic increases to 400ppm we were near the peak of a Milankovitch cycle (more like 270ppm) so we weren’t near extreme lows.
Why not simply control temperature directly.
Other than looking to to find asteroids which might impact
Earth, we are not doing much to try to avert them.
Or we are not doing much to find such impactors and doing little to avert them. Or one could say that missile defense is doing more about it, then any other governmental activity [and it’s not the purpose of missile defense- it’s a secondary effect from it].
If you want to control the temperature of Earth, do it from orbit.
Increasing our ability to go to orbit [cheaply] is a path towards averting impactor and controlling Planet Earth temperature.
The private sector is doing the most to lower costs of going into orbit. And this related to the +200 billion dollar per year satellite global market.
NASA has spent [unknowable amounts of money- let’s say about 20 billion dollar] developing a large rocket call SLS. This has been a waste of time and money.
One could say that this waste of time and money is due to the lack of governmental leadership regarding space exploration. Bush at least got Congress to approve a plan of exploration which made some sense, but Congress and Bush and NASA lacked the ability to pursue it. Or it was a political failure with many parties to blame.
The primary failure rests in shoulders of NASA, as it’s primary function is to inform Congress regarding aspects related to space exploration. NASA is clueless about this topic- one could say NASA isn’t even attempting to do this, because it’s distracted by stupid things. One stupid thing is idea that NASA needs to build rockets.
I would say NASA has not explored space, but what NASA thinks is exploring space, has primarily been done by rockets built by the private sector.
What is needed to be done, in order to explore space, is the development of rocket fuel depots in space.
One can say the private sector has failed in this regard, and unlikely to be successful doing this. Though recently Elon Musk is coming around to idea that he needs depots in space in order to have settlements on Mars. And Musk has managed significant advancement towards to making an actually reusable first stage launch system- something NASA wasn’t able to do.
Anyways, I would say if ever got to point of settlements on Mars, we would close to ability to control the temperature
of Earth from earth orbit, or would be a secondary effect of Mars settlements.
I am not a Mars fan. I think Lunar exploration should done first, but after the lunar poles have been explored, then it would up to private investment to actually mine lunar water,
so I think NASA should explore moon, then explore somewhere else, and there is a lot people who like idea of Mars settlements. So, NASA could explore Mars in terms determine if and how Mars settlements could a viable thing. I would happy if instead NASA explored Mercury’s polar region, but the politics doesn’t favor such a direction.
“I am not a Mars fan. I think Lunar exploration should done first, but after the lunar poles have been explored, then it would up to private investment to actually mine lunar water.”
The human race needs to get off this planet. We must learn how to live on the moon, on Mars and on asteroids as a prelude to a scaled up “Orion” project.
It is possible to reach planets that appear to be in the “Goldilocks Zone” within a human lifetime. For example Kepler 62 is 1,200 light years away yet you can perform a “fly-by” in 7.6 years and a landing in 13.8 years.
Impossible you say! Nothing can travel faster than light.
Having spent many years working with relativistic electrons I agree with you but according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity “Ship Time” can be much less than “Earth Time”.
If you have a space ship that can accelerate at one “g” indefinitely you can reach Kepler 62 as specified above. To reach the galactic core would take 10.6 years (ship time) or 27,003 years (Earth time):
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/bussard-revisited/
The “Relativistic Rocket” link in the above post no longer works so try this instead:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html
“The human race needs to get off this planet. We must learn how to live on the moon, on Mars and on asteroids as a prelude to a scaled up Orion project.”
Mmm, donuts. Nuclear Orions
I think we have the right to leave this planet.
And “open borders” is the selfish, perverted, yuppie compromise of this inalienable right.
It’s not that I personally want to leave Earth, but I do want that option.
Or the recognized right to leave could or will probably be the greatest stride in human rights of 21 century.
Though if Cubans or North Koreans could get their right to leave their undeniable hellholes, recognized, that would be a step in the right direction.
One thing about having the option to leave, is that everyone obviously gets more political leverage.
I sometimes imagine that this thought lurks somewhere deep in the thick dull skull of politicians.
But then again, they are probably just stupid. Space could have a great need of talented politicians- they could be famous and do all kinds of weird stuff. And, having the star ports named after you, etc.
But it could be like the saying about advancement science, the old one need to die off.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. …” – Plank
Which is a heck of argument against immortality.
But there are exceptions,
I want Al Gore to live forever.
He is so useful.
gallopingcamel says:
“If you have a space ship that can accelerate at one g indefinitely you can reach Kepler 62 as specified above.”
OMG. No.
You can accelerate the ship all you want, but the ship will only asymptotically reach the speed of light. It cannot traverse 1200 light-years in less than 1200 ship-years. Period.
To clarify, the above is in *EARTH* time. (Or wherever the ship launches from.) But there’s no way the rocket could carry enough fuel to continually acceleration — accelerating for just a short period of time is difficult enough. And then you have to decelerate at the halfway point, taking the same amount of energy expended in the first half of the journey.
OK so, you appear to have realized, without admitting it, that you were mistaken in the first post above. Accelerating at one g for half the time, and decelerating for the other half, it should take 13.8 years of proper time to travel 1200 lyr.
The problem, as you say, is accelerating at 1 g for 6.9 years, and then at -1 g for 6.9 more. You sure can’t do it with chemical rockets. But, it might be possible with other tech.
I didn’t say proper time, and I didn’t mean proper time.
And it’s not practicable in any way.
I doubt you even know what proper time is.
Bart, you doubt David, obviously trained in physics, knows what proper time is?!
This utter stupidity clearly casts doubt on your many other ‘opinions’.
I’m sure I know 10x more about relativity that you can even conceive.
” Bart says:
June 24, 2017 at 1:29 PM
OK so, you appear to have realized, without admitting it, that you were mistaken in the first post above. Accelerating at one g for half the time, and decelerating for the other half, it should take 13.8 years of proper time to travel 1200 lyr.”
It seems the only advantage of constant 1 gee acceleration is
creating artificial gravity of 1 gee. And you could spin the craft to get whatever artificial gravity you wanted.
Any rocket to leave earth will create about 3 gees of acceleration, it has to, so as not to have too much gravity loss. Whereas a rocket doesn’t need such acceleration to leave the Moon- for instance the Apollo LEM had max acceleration of about 1/2 gee. And with leaving Mars one needs about 1 gee acceleration so as to not have a significant amount of gravity loss [or far loss gravity loss as rockets into to orbit from Earth- they have have about 1 to 2 km/sec of gravity loss, and other than some air drag and steering losses, the rocket’s calculated delta-v is the final velocity].
Anyways accelerated at 2 gees, spinning and decelerating at 2 gees uses same delta-v and gets you there faster.
Or with Nuclear Orion one uses the same amount of nuclear bombs for the delta-v. Though one needs a stronger structure and people will experience higher gravity. But should noted it requires less structural strength than a Orion launched from Earth. Or almost going anywhere, requires less structural strength of the spacecraft as one needs to leave Earth.
gb: Spinning the craft to get 1 g onboard is very different from accelerating the craft at 1 g in its direction of motion.
@David Appell,
If you had read the “Bussard Revisited” post you would know that the Bussard ram jet collects its fuel from interstellar gas so you only need enough fuel to reach a speed at which gas is collected faster than it is used.
The idea of “Light Speed by Christmas” has been discussed elsewhere as for example:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/12/24/ask-ethan-could-we-reach-the-speed-of-light-by-christmas-synopsis/
Note the little spat between this camel and Michael Kelsey a scientist at SLAC.
In a Newtonian universe an acceleration of one “g’ gets you to the speed of light in 354 days. If you start on January 1 you will reach light speed on December 21st
In a “General Relativistic” universe you can never reach the speed of light but time slows down on the space ship so ship time can be much less than Earth time.
“In a Newtonian universe an acceleration of one g gets you to the speed of light in 354 days.”
The universe isn’t Newtonian.
gallopingcamel says:
“If you had read the Bussard Revisited post you would know that the Bussard ram jet collects its fuel from interstellar gas so you only need enough fuel to reach a speed at which gas is collected faster than it is used.”
What speed is that? The density of interstellar space is about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, IIRC.
–David Appell says:
June 24, 2017 at 7:43 PM
gb: Spinning the craft to get 1 g onboard is very different from accelerating the craft at 1 g in its direction of motion.”
If radius of spin is large enough, there isn’t much difference.
Or Earth radius is huge, and very difficult to notice it’s effects [which are small] upon gravity. But related to rockets launching this spin reduces the delta-v needed [by significant amount] to reach orbit.
One probably should assume a star ship will be rather large- not the puny Enterprise [unless you have it’s energy generation and it’s propulsion of warp drive]. [One also needs something like the reflector shields- it’s pretty difficult, let’s explore the Moon, first.]
–Note the little spat between this camel and Michael Kelsey a scientist at SLAC.
In a Newtonian universe an acceleration of one g gets you to the speed of light in 354 days. If you start on January 1 you will reach light speed on December 21st
In a General Relativistic universe you can never reach the speed of light but time slows down on the space ship so ship time can be much less than Earth time.–
It might be silly question, but you guys are allowing for
oberth effect?
David Appell @ June 24, 2017 at 5:45 PM
“Im sure I know 10x more about relativity that you can even conceive.”
You should have just said, “Oops, I jumped to a conclusion without thinking things through.” Nobody would have given it a second thought. Instead, you had to do a Captain Queeg routine, and try to bluster your way through it.
It provides a compelling insight into your personality. You cannot be relied upon to debate in good faith. Your words cannot be trusted.
And, BTW, with regard to the above, not a chance.
gbaikie says:
“If radius of spin is large enough, there isnt much difference.”
gbalkie: I understand, from your posts here, that you are a space aficionado. More power to you.
But here you’re missing the point.
The point isn’t to supply a tolerant 1 g environment to the spaceship’s passenger’s, it’s to get from Earth to some star at 1 g linear acceleration.
@gb,
The Oberth effect was not included in my calculations.
Irrelevant for long-distance interstellar travel.
You have yet to show how any spaceship could could come anywhere close to a 1g acceleration.
gallopingcamel says:
June 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM
@gb,
The Oberth effect was not included in my calculations.
Rats, I had another question about Oberth effect.
Anyways Oberth effect might be important in terms
the argument. Or Oberth effect is the faster you go more
rocket power you get and with argument of, as approach light speed it’s supposed to be opposite. Maybe as simple as they are the same thing- or it might seem that way because no one is actually using a rocket at such velocities
Well, I will ask the question anyhow.
This question related to getting to Mars orbit from
Earth in less than 3 months and by using chemical rocket
starting from high Earth orbit.
High orbit is higher than GEO, I mean something like Earth/Moon L-1 [or any L-points or some high lunar orbit].
Anyhow from EML-1 you have staging area for manned Mars [it’s better than LEO- for number of reasons].
And you start toward Mars by returning to Earth in highly elliptical orbit- basically similar to Apollo Earth return trajectory, and one reason to do this is to get the Oberth effect. Which loosely speaking is if you power near gravity well at higher velocity, one increases the velocity of exhaust velocity- make them more efficient.
But another reason regarding this is wanted to change the vector of Earth’s orbital velocity around the sun- or not to use hohmann transfer [which adding velocity in same vector as earth’s orbital velocity].
But roughly I figured, it takes about 9 km/sec added to velocity of around 10 km/sec that it’s going be at low earth orbit distance [say 150 to 200 km above earth surface].
But it also does not include Oberth effect
So my question would have been, how much less would the rocket delta-v need to be if included the Oberth effect?
–But here youre missing the point.
The point isnt to supply a tolerant 1 g environment to the spaceships passengers, its to get from Earth to some star at 1 g linear acceleration.–
Well I like to think of myself as futurist, but I would
like to be futurist with rules.
In terms entertainment, I like thinking using blackhole
as gateways to other galaxies [not to go in the damn
thing, but to use it’s gravity well]. But in terms arguing
about things [other than say, Hitchhiker’s guide to galaxy- something else as important] I make effort to keep it
within a 1/2 century or so. And would happy if had SPS [Solar Power Satellites] within 50 year. It probably not going to happen, but I would be quite happy to be wrong. I think it’s possible to have serious discussion of SPS, maybe, within 2 decades. But had same opinion 2 decades ago, nothing has changed enough, to think it’s any more possible now as it was 2 decades. Which doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate what has been done, such Falcon-9 and the New Shepard, and etc. But I had thought it might go faster and bigger, though it might do so yet.
There a lot bad things happening, or example nothing seems to be happening with general future direction of ISS- the idiots are probably going to crash it into Earth atmosphere- as careful plan or the only option which is left {same thing only more stupid- though could argue that careful planning of doing this, is more insane- or a smaller denser group effort of stupid}.
But oh yeah, the point. One could build a starship which accelerated at constant 1 gee. I say incredibly stupid to attempt to start on it, now.
But weighing this stupid against other stupid, might make it a brilliant. But s question would be who, going to do it?
NASA has been building SLS since the Bush era [and managed to change it’s name]. So it’s beyond hysterical to imagine NASA doing this. US’s Military Space, nope, that would be court martial offense. So, who?
Bart says:
“It provides a compelling insight into your personality. You cannot be relied upon to debate in good faith.”
Still sore about me disproving your d(CO2)/dt argument, huh?
With geometric logic, no doubt. Get some pills, Captain. Hallucinations can be controlled with modern antipsychotics.
I’ll take that as a “yes” — your claim about d(CO2)/dt is obviously full of crap.
You’re an idiot.
Svante…”We should not accept global warming just because it is natural. If it is damaging to eco systems or us we should still try to mitigate…”.
If human beings get involved in trying to control natural global warming I predict disaster. We have not a clue what we are doing when it comes to interfering with the complex systems that make up our atmosphere and oceans and we should butt out.
All we can sanely do is adapt to the increased warming, not try to control it through pseudo-science.
I am seriously concerned about eco-alarmists who would play God and expose the human race to danger and economic strife.
GW
“We have not a clue what we are doing when it comes to interfering with the complex systems that make up our atmosphere and oceans and we should butt out.”
We *are* interfering with nature. We’re adding a tremendous amount of carbon to the atmosphere and oceans that would otherwise be buried deeply underground.
Exactly, and if most of the warming is due to some natural cosmic effect it might not be so clever to stoke more coke on the fire.
Tis called the sun and it has been doing it for quite some time.
Tony: What evidence shows the sun is responsible for modern warming?
Perhaps he means this evidence David:
https://tinyurl.com/yaseqqov
https://tinyurl.com/yd5td4zd
Svante: Both of those graphs show solar irradiance at Earth decreasing over recent decades — the Sun is delivering less energy to Earth.
So how does that cause global warming?
You have to look at them through a mirror.
I really don’t know.
“…that would otherwise be buried deeply underground.”
What do you think, forever?
http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-oldest-underground-fire-has-been-burning-fo-1539049759
Best quote:
“That sounds like my type of honeymoon. (Seriously.)”
No, not forever, only until the sediments reach the magma and come back out through volcanoes etc.
Perhaps something like a billion years on average?
Trivial CO2 emissions compared to the world total from burning fossil fuels.
“Were adding a tremendous amount of carbon to the atmosphere and oceans that would otherwise be buried deeply underground.”
Alarmist pseudoscience!
snake, what is the % atmospheric CO2 SUPPOSED to be?
g*r*n*
Me: “I think it would be unwise to add a tremendous amount of salt to the oceans”.
You: “Alarmist pseudoscience! What percentage of salt is SUPPOSED to be in the oceans?”
snake, I’ve already explained “misrepresenting” to you.
Are you a slow learner?
–Snape says:
June 23, 2017 at 8:21 AM
g*r*n*
Me: I think it would be unwise to add a tremendous amount of salt to the oceans.
You: Alarmist pseudoscience! What percentage of salt is SUPPOSED to be in the oceans?–
So now you want to control how much salt goes into the ocean?
What want be really unwise is to allow a government to control every aspect of our lives.
Giving or allowing so much control to governments has been proven to result in endless amounts of misery and death.
Is there any reason to imagine governments are inherently benign and useful.
Governments are necessary evil- and the worst governments have been those which are the most totalitarian.
Or another way to look at it, is having government control how much salt enters the ocean, a high priority.
Or just because the governments do a poor job of doing what they suppose to do, doesn’t mean one should give them more things to do.
How is the war on drugs, going?
How about the war against poverty?
Is crime no longer a problem?
Is everything going so great, that we now have the luxury of controlling the amount of salt going into the ocean?
[It’s too exciting, I can’t let it go]
“Me: I think it would be unwise to add a tremendous amount of salt to the oceans.”
Is a perfect summary of the global warming alarmism.
Snape can’t have any idea of how much salt the ocean has, or “should have’.
Someone could argue that rather than having too much salt, the oceans lack salt.
Oh, then that means, quick, we need a government program that adds salt to the ocean.
Those who strongly agree it’s unwise to add salt to the ocean, could also be uneducated, and specifically uneducated in regards to the ocean.
But they can prove how educated and wise they are by “doing something important about it”.
It’s also tremendous self confident in knowledge- has anyone even mentioned this huge problem of too much salt in the ocean?
So, that means many people have failed to realized the very pressing need to do something about the amount of salt in the ocean.
And acute wisdom is demonstrated with coming up with this new problem to add to the list of social problems to address.
Therefore Snape is a noble hero of the world, by increasing our awareness of the problem of too much salt in the ocean.
We will need to spend trillions of dollars and millions and million of lives [in terms of man hours of work] related doing this important work. But, and of course, it would also solve another problem of the lack of having well paying jobs.
Snape the father of the global salty theory.
And oh lest we forget an important detail, let’s also imprison those who are the deniers of the global salting.
gbaikie
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
gbaikie says: “Snape the father of the global salty theory.”
Funny!
“We *are* interfering with nature.”
We interfere with nature all the time. And, it’s a good thing we do.
Nature is not good. Nature has no conscience. Nature’s function is to kill us if it can. That is the foundation of the evolutionary struggle.
“Were adding a tremendous amount of carbon to the atmosphere and oceans that would otherwise be buried deeply underground.”
Carbon that was in the atmosphere and oceans to begin with.
It’s carbon that nature now intended to be deep underground, not due to be emitted into the atmosphere for 10s of millions of years.
This is pretty loopy. Nature is not a conscious entity. It never “intended” anything.
You know exactly what I meant.
Mother Nature is an entity (IMHO) given how she makes fools of Al Gore, Bill Nye and a bunch of corrupt (we are in it for the money) alarmists.
Al Gore and Bill Nye have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific case for AGW.
But it’s funny to watch how so many deniers think they do.
GC: Did you find that missing 150 W/m2 yet?
–David Appell says:
June 24, 2017 at 9:00 PM
Al Gore and Bill Nye have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific case for AGW.
But its funny to watch how so many deniers think they do.–
It’s strange schools required children to watch Al Gore.
If they said, “Now, children this example of corrupt pol.”
Then I think they should watch Al Gore’s show.
I think teachers should help children with clues of
what to look for.
David Appell June 24, 2017 at 5:44 PM
“You know exactly what I meant.”
I have no idea what you meant. It seems to be some pseudo-religious idea that if something happens naturally, it was meant to happen and we shouldn’t mess with it. So, I guess antibiotics are off the table, and we should retreat to the caves.
If you want to anthropomorphize Nature, then it would be proper to say that Nature is running the experiment on us. Even if we refuse to engage in changing the parameters of that experiment, we are still part of it. As Geddy Lee said, if you choose not to choose, you still have made a choice.
Bart says:
“I have no idea what you meant. It seems to be some pseudo-religious idea that if something happens naturally, it was meant to happen and we shouldnt mess with it.”
Yes, because life on Earth has adapted to 4 billion years of evolution under natural forces.
That can’t be changed in 100 years.
I’d say we’re doing a pretty good job of it.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
Do you have anything to offer other than fear and tales of monsters under the bed?
That’s just one species, out of how many millions of species?
Or do you not care about anyone but yourself?
I care enough not to want to chop them up in windmills, or blanket their habitats with solar panels, or poison their environment with the mining and materials processing needed to do either, for a worthless pittance of power no less.
…bringing CO2 below pre industrial levels
So no more global warming ?
Maybe.
Nor much photosynthesis and food.
Certainly.
Funny.
OK, I went a bit crazy in that theoretical example!
This presumes that CO2 is causing harm to ecosystems. I do not accept that premise. The burden of proof should be on those who claim otherwise, and they have not offered any. We cannot mitigate natural climate change in any event, as nature overwhelms anything we might try to do to stop it.
Or should the burden of proof be on those that change the natural balance?
If there is uncertainty we should translate it to cost like any insurance company.
Your last sentence is not necessarily true, if it is the sun we can attempt to block it for example.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Since the optimal temperature of the earth would be about 2 deg warmer than it is now {Yes, there would be big losers as well as winners, but there would be more food, less deaths from cold, etc.] are you proposing that we should subsidize emitters of CO2 so that more is produced?
I’m not sure the Greenies would like it if we were to send money to the coal and oil companies to get the world’s temperature to the optimum level, even if it would be the best option for all the people of the world.
If we (somehow) reduced CO2 to below pre-industrial levels, the reduced crop yields would cause mass starvation. Is that your goal?
No, just add up costs and benefits and find the optimum.
For example, those crop yields might have to pay for lost fishing around coral reefs.
I’m glad you mentioned coral reefs. Very few folks are aware, as you are, of how destructive to the environment they are. It’s not just the destruction of fishing, and the heating of the oceans, but the more the reefs grow, the higher sea levels rise.
It’s a very dangerous situation.
The question is: who is going to do the adding up and redistributing?
Best to leave these things to the invisible hand instead of choosing leviathan.
You can skip the redistribution, the main thing is to get the true price into the free markets, so the invisible hand can work it out right.
You can flush the extra income down the toilet if you like.
According to the Paris agreement each country could add it up themselves, am I right?
Climate change “is the greatest market failure the world
has ever seen.”
– Nicholas Stern
Kinda like Solyndra, huh?
“U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra,” Bloomberg News, 11/12/14
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/u-s-expects-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra
Davie, if you can swallow that story, you can swallow anything.
No facts, as usual. No analysis, no counterarguments, nothing.
Just pure, thoughtless denialism.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
Ed…”If we (somehow) reduced CO2 to below pre-industrial levels, the reduced crop yields would cause mass starvation. Is that your goal?”
The problem here is that we don’t know what the pre-Industrial level of CO2 was for sure. The methodology based on proxy studies involving CO2 bubbles trapped in ice is highly controversial. According to Jaworowski, an expert in ice core sampling, the pre-Industrial level could be 30 to 50% higher than the IPCC claims.
To make matters worse, the pre-Industrial era was in the middle of phase 2 of the Little Ice Age where global temps were 1C to 2C lower than today. It is known that colder oceans absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere and even of the 270 ppmv level of CO2 claimed is correct, it could be the result of the LIA cooling.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The methodology based on proxy studies involving CO2 bubbles trapped in ice is highly controversial.”
In what way, specifically?
Ed
Let’s say you’re right, and 1C has been mostly beneficial. That doesn’t mean 2 C won’t be a catastrophe.
You could say that about anything. We can’t live our lives in fear of what might happen without any evidence that it will. That is the very definition of neurosis.
Paleoclimatological studies show climate sensitivity is in line with the results from models.
There’s nothing theoretical about global warming from aGHGs — it’s been happening now for many decades.
True, it is not a theory. At this time, AGW is merely an hypothesis. And, not doing very well.
Sorry, every scientific society in the world has agreed.
But the afraid-to-comment-under-his-real-name “Bart” knows better than all of these experts! Even if he can’t defend his claims or analyze data.
“…every scientific society in the world has agreed to accept funding to produce pseudoscience.”
Fixed it, Davie.
All better now.
g*: why did you lie about
what Pierrehumbert wrote?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
Stratospheric ozone is one of the most delicate aspects of habitability on the planet. Removal of stratospheric ozone over the polar regions in winter/spring has established the vulnerability of ozone to halogen catalytic cycles. Elevated ClO concentrations engendered, in part, by heterogeneous catalytic conversion of inorganic chlorine to free radical form on ubiquitous sulfate−water aerosols, govern the rate of ozone removal. We report here observations of the frequency and depth of penetration of convectively injected water vapor into the stratosphere, triggered by severe storms that are specific to the central United States in summer, and model their effect on lower stratospheric ozone. This effect implies, with observed temperatures, increased risk of ozone loss over the Great Plains in summer.
Abstract
We present observations defining (i) the frequency and depth of convective penetration of water into the stratosphere over the United States in summer using the Next-Generation Radar system; (ii) the altitude-dependent distribution of inorganic chlorine established in the same coordinate system as the radar observations; (iii) the high resolution temperature structure in the stratosphere over the United States in summer that resolves spatial and structural variability, including the impact of gravity waves; and (iv) the resulting amplification in the catalytic loss rates of ozone for the dominant halogen, hydrogen, and nitrogen catalytic cycles. The weather radar observations of ∼2,000 storms, on average, each summer that reach the altitude of rapidly increasing available inorganic chlorine, coupled with observed temperatures, portend a risk of initiating rapid heterogeneous catalytic conversion of inorganic chlorine to free radical form on ubiquitous sulfate−water aerosols; this, in turn, engages the element of risk associated with ozone loss in the stratosphere over the central United States in summer based upon the same reaction network that reduces stratospheric ozone over the Arctic. The summertime development of the upper-level anticyclonic flow over the United States, driven by the North American Monsoon, provides a means of retaining convectively injected water, thereby extending the time for catalytic ozone loss over the Great Plains. Trusted decadal forecasts of UV dosage over the United States in summer require understanding the response of this dynamical and photochemical system to increased forcing of the climate by increasing levels of CO2 and CH4.
http://m.pnas.org/content/114/25/E4905.abstract
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
The geomagnetic field deflects incoming cosmic ray particles depending on their magnetic rigidity and angle of incidence. The rigidity of a particle is defined as the momentum per unit charge R = pc/Ze, where p is the momentum, Ze is the charge of the particle, and c is the velocity of light.
https://i2.wp.com/sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif
The loss of ozone in the stratosphere will significantly increase ionization in the troposphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2017.png
Perhaps the AMS has some magical formula to alter this reality from the IEA?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/energy/renewables/world-energy-iea-global-2016.gif
Thanks for this, Dr. Roy.
The “funding” should NOT drive the science. But, if it must, maybe the current administration can fund some Skeptics!
How much money did Roy receive for testifying for Peabody Energy in Minnesota?
Davie, your envy is showing again.
IIRC, barely enough to cover his travel costs.
You don’t RC — Roy received $4,000.
Not sure if he had to pay for his own travel costs or not. I’d like to know more.
Roy?
Davie is “green” with envy.
Yep. That would easily be eaten up by airfare, hotel, and rental car for standard non-governmental travel in the US for a week.
A typical week would be Airfare 600, hotel 800, rental car 300 and food 600 for Minnesota.
I only work when I travel and Minnesota is one of my stops, it is cheaper than others, more expensive than some, 4000 leaves a tidy profit.
Airfare is variable, depending on where you fly from. IIRC, Huntsville Airport is quite expensive, due to recent major renovations. People I know there sometimes travel to Nashville or Birmingham to save, which is a 2 hour drive either way, and adds wear and tear on their vehicles, and costs gas.
Hotel expenses are typically well above the nominal rates, due to the tourist “fees” and other taxes various municipalities tack on.
And, you neglect the amount of income forgone while taking time off from his regular job.
All in all, if he made a profit, it was a very small one. Are you really suggesting Dr. Spencer sold his soul for at best a few hundred bucks?
There has only been approximately 17 years of warming in the last 67 yrs (1980-1997), and that was two decades ago despite the rapid rise in CO2 since. The lack of warming in the 21st century has been confirmed by the new Santer, Man, Mears et al. paper. Im not saying that CO2 doesnt have a warming effect, but if it is the primary cause of climate change then why has it had such a minimal effect since 1950? If the warming supposedly attributable to CO2 has been hidden by other natural factors then CO2 obviously isnt the primary cause of climate change.
Perhaps the AMS are blinded by false assumptions that arent borne out by the reality of empirical evidence. It is exactly because they reject sceptical debate by citing a false consensus on the issue that they reach the wrong conclusion.
Yes, here’s a correlation diagram, temperature vs. log(CO2),
and there are a lot of discrepancies.
Note the pause after 1998:
– http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes/
“temperature vs. log(CO2”
This relationship is wrong. CO2 effect is time dependent and this equation does not show CO2 emission time.
See DOI: 10.14355/des.2015.03.001
Volcanoes have immediate impact, so why not CO2?
The graph uses land temperature, so ocean mass has reduced influence.
How far right (and up) do you want to shift the curve?
Observations and mathematics show clearly that both CO2 and volcanic aerosols are time dependent. They are analyzed in the paper.
Nabil, DES does not look like a very convincing journal, but one of those newer fake journals looking just to score page charges.
What’s it’s impact factor?
David, the public’s review is what count. The paper has been discussed on this blog in the past and the Russian academy of science expressed interest in it. It will have duplicate publications in the future. The objective of any publication is 1) visibility 2) establish authenticity 3) give the public opportunity to validate and investigate. Few reviewers can be wrong, but the public can never be wrong.
The review process does not guarantee correct publication. In fact most of the retracted publications are from journals with high impact factor. Think of how many papers based on the green house gas effect are wrong out there, yet the were published by journals having high impact factor. I do not believe that a journal make a good paper, it is the anther that makes a good paper.
I am correcting grammar in the above reply, was inadvertently submitted
David, the publics review is what counts. The paper has been discussed on this blog in the past and the Russian Academy of Sciences expressed interest in it. It will have duplicate publications in the future. The objective of any publication is 1) establish authenticity 2) provide visibility 3) give the public opportunity to validate and investigate. Few reviewers can be wrong, but the public can never be wrong.
The review process does not guarantee correct publication. In fact most of the retracted publications are from journals with high impact factor. Think of how many papers based on the green house gas effect are wrong out there, yet the were published by journals having high impact factors. I do not believe that journals make good papers; it is the author that makes a good paper.
As per page charges, it is a fraction of other high impact journals. They all very much charge for open access.
It is not easy to publish different scientific view with virtually all of the Western Journals. They think they have the science figured out and they are in a crusade to protect it. When if fact they protect a wrong science.
Svante says:
“Note the pause after 1998:
– http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes/”
What pause???
It’s right there at the very top right,
you just need a microscope to see it.
Looks more like you need a nanoscope.
Well, yes.
Where is it in the monthly or annual temperature data?
Magoo says:
“The lack of warming in the 21st century has been confirmed by the new Santer, Man, Mears et al. paper.”
I don’t think so. Where do they say that in their paper?
Magoo…”Perhaps the AMS are blinded by false assumptions that arent borne out by the reality of empirical evidence”.
The AMS likely suffers from the climate alarmist effect inherent in the UK’s Royal Society. They were forced by dissenting engineering members to retract some of their alarmist propaganda.
Let’s remember that the AMS awarded medals to Roy and John Christy for excellence based on their work creating temperature data sets which contradict what the AMS is currently claiming.
Gordon: How does UAH data contradict AMS’s claim?
“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Only CO2 is relevant, the rest of the “greenhouse gases” do not cause climate change or their effect is negligible.
The controlling knob of the climate is and has been life on earth, long before life became aerobic.
nabil…”It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced…”
Can you produce one of your alleged sources of scientific evidence that show a clear correlation between CO2 and global warming? Where is the data?
Yes Gordon, See DOI: 10.14355/des.2015.03.001
I have more papers presently being reviewed, you will definitely be convinced.
Again, there is no such a thing as backradiation, which is the greenhouse gas effect. So the main-stream science is totally wrong, and we cannot implement regulation based on this wrong science. We have to know the cause of global warming first and act accordingly, not on the symptoms.
Nabil Swedan says:
“Again, there is no such a thing as backradiation….”
What measurements show this?
Nabil, show us a setup that measures downward IR and finds the result is zero.
Don’t wimp out here….
Nabil Swedan says:
“Only CO2 is relevant, the rest of the greenhouse gases do not cause climate change or their effect is negligible.”
No — anthropogenic GHGs other than CO2 now have a radiative forcing half that of CO2’s, raising the CO2-equivalent value to 489 ppm.
https://www.esrl.no_a_a[DOT]gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
There is no greenhouse gas effect and the radiative forcing is fiction
{laugh}
The clown who thinks the earth heats the sun is laughing.
Priceless.
The Earth emits radiation.
That radiation carries energy.
Some of the radiation is absorbed by the Sun.
What happens to the Sun’s temperature when it absorbs energy?
Let’s substitute the earth with an object the same size and temperature as the sun. Now we have two identical suns facing each other.
Per the radiative heat flow equation, Since T2 = T1, Q is zero. There is no heat transfer from this new sun (where the earth used to be) to our original sun. So our original sun does not change in temperature. Yet per DA, our cold earth somehow transfers heat to our sun, and raises its temperature. Go figure.
David, I know now why you laugh based on your comment down in the thread. You cannot tell the difference between forcing and radiative forcing. The first, forcing, is energy term in Joules, where as radiative forcing is a theory. While yes, forcing is a unit of energy and the surface receives this energy, this does not mean that the radiative forcing theory is correct. The energy flow to the surface could be caused by many factors. Certainly not by the greenhouse gas effect for it is fiction and no one has ever proven its existence. This effect is the heart of the raidative forcing theory. Therefore, the theory is fiction.
Nabil Swedan says:
“The energy flow to the surface could be caused by many factors.”
Feldman et al specifically show the increased energy flow at CO2 emissions frequencies. See their Figure 2.
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
SkepticGoneWild says:
“Lets substitute the earth with an object the same size and temperature as the sun. Now we have two identical suns facing each other.”
Let’s not, since that’s the whole point of the argument.
What happens to the Suns temperature when it absorbs energy emitted by the Earth?
“What happens to the Suns temperature when it absorbs energy emitted by the Earth?”
No temperature increase per 2LOT. Just as there is no temperature increase when you have two blackbodies adjacent to each other at the same temperature Ta = Tb. Object B is receiving radiative energy from object A but does not increase in temperature since Q is zero per radiative heat flow equation, DA.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“”Object B is receiving radiative energy from object A but does not increase in temperature since Q is zero per radiative heat flow equation.”
How is Q equal to zero?
The Earth emits radiation, right?
That radiation carries energy Q, right?
Some of that radiation is directed towards the Sun, right?
So what happens when the Sun absorbs that energy Q?
—
Hint: Your understanding of the
second law is deficient.
Dear DA,
When T1=T2, Q is zero per the radiative heat flow equation, Einstein. Are you really incapable of multiplying stuff by zero? Of course in your alternative universe, you redefine the 2LOT and I guess the heat flow equation as well.
So sad.
Hint:
When two terms are identical (T2=T1), and you subtract them, you get zero. Zero times anything equals zero. Hello! McFly!
“McFly” will be your new moniker.
SGW: But T1 clearly does not equal T2.
So answer the question in that context.
Dear McFly,
Man you are dense. The example was two identical backbodies at the same temperature. Ta = Tb. A sends radiative energy to B, but Q is zero per the radiative heat flow equation. So B does not change to a higher temperature. The point being that an object receiving electromagnetic radiation does not necessarily heat up. HELLO! McFly!
The Earth and the Sun are not at the same temperature. Obviously.
But I understand why you are refusing to answer my question in that context.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“The point being that an object receiving electromagnetic radiation does not necessarily heat up.”
No?
Then where does that EM energy go?
McFly,
When Ta = Tb, Q=0. I don’t make up the rules. You are too dense to even get it. This is a CLEAR example of objects receiving radiative energy but not heating up.
I’m done with your ignorance.
But Ta does not equal Tb.
You keep refusing to address that situation.
(And it’s obvious why.)
A minor correction, CO2 is 66% (1.985/3.027) in that table.
Sorry David, that’s exactly what you said 🙂
Rising atmospheric CO2 is delivering tremendous benefits. “Climate Scientists” can’t admit that because their funding would disappear overnight.
For a more balanced assessment of the effect of humans on the planet I recommend this:
https://object.cato.org/pubs/Global-Climate-Change-Impacts.pdf
who funds cato?
Water vapor molecules have 170+ absorb/emit bands in the significant OLR range compared to only one for CO2. AT the surface there are about 35 times as many water vapor molecules as CO2 molecules. Relaxation time is about 6 microseconds compared to an average of about 0.0002 microseconds between molecule contacts at stp. Water vapor is increasing at about 1.5% per decade (8% since 1960).
CO2 has thousands of relevant bands. Look at the HITRAN database. Between 666/cm and 668/cm there are 1,406 bands alone.
Those are transitions (line positions) not absorb/emit bands. There is only one CO2 band in the range of significant OLR. The many transitions (line positions) you are referring to are often the result of quantum mechanical calculations. WV has similar transitions at each of its 170+ absorb/emit bands.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/FAQ.html
Transitions *are* ab.sor.ption and emissions lines.
And CO2 has thousands of them. Measured, not theoretical. Again, see HITRAN.
This is an inconsequential distraction from climate change. Thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy lead to the conclusion that Water vapor absorb/emit bands rule.
Sorry, no.
Thermodynamics doesn’t even *recognize* molecular structure or quantum levels. In thermodynamics molecules are billiard balls.
There are lots of bands where water vapor and CO2 don’t overlap:
https://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/atmospheric_transmission.png
DA – And, as that graphic clearly shows, only one shared band is in the range of significant OLR.
Below about 10 km essentially all absorbed energy is thermalized. Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
Both water vapor and CO2 have thousands of bands, not just a few, as you seem to think. As that diagram shows, there is plenty of IR spectrum where CO2 and water vapor don’t overlap or only partly overlap. And there’s atmospheric CO2 where there’s little water vapor, like in the polar regions and at altitude.
“Below about 10 km essentially all absorbed energy is thermalized.”
What physics says this?
DA – Did no one ever explain to you why humid nights cool faster and farther than arid desert nights? It is a demonstration of thermalization in gas molecules. See up thread or click my name for more.
Dan, you avoided the question.
Below about 10 km essentially all absorbed energy is thermalized.
What physics says this?
DA Well, I got that backwards! Should have been: Did no one ever explain to you why arid desert nights cool faster and farther than humid nights? It is a demonstration of thermalization in gas molecules. See up thread or click my name for more.
This is a common observation. Are you unaware of it?
If you are challenging the “about 10 km”, what do you think the elevation is where thermalization ceases to dominate?
Dan…”Water vapor molecules have 170+ absorb/emit bands in the significant OLR range…”
WV makes up about 0.3% of the overall atmosphere. The heat contributed by gases in a mix of gases is based on their partial pressures which is related directly to their partial masses. Based on that, the contribution of warming by WV is far less than 1%.
WV is in a heavier average concentration near the surface but even there it represents only 1% of atmospheric gases on average. That restricts it’s contribution of heat to 1%.
99% of the heat contributed to the atmosphere must come from nitrogen and oxygen. AMSU units on NOAA satellites don’t measure the heat of WV, they measure the heat of oxygen, representing 22% of atmospheric gases.
Gordon Robertson says:
“WV makes up about 0.3% of the overall atmosphere. The heat contributed by gases in a mix of gases is based on their partial pressures which is related directly to their partial masses. Based on that, the contribution of warming by WV is far less than 1%.”
Only in Victorian England. Science has progressed enormously since then. You should try to learn some of it.
David,
Can you provide a link for this quote: “Only in Victorian England. Science has progressed enormously since then. You should try to learn some of it.”
Or are you off your meds?
If you don’t already know what that means, nothing I could write would get through to you. Study the basics of modern physics.
Dan,
NASA’s International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) data shows the total column water vapor has declined at all altitudes since the beginning of data – about 1983. Go to climate4you.com, Climate + Clouds page for the data. What data source shows increases?
DR – I had looked at the climate4 TPW data and noticed it only went to 2009. Further down is a graph for specific humidity at 2 different elevations but it goes back to before satellites so must use ‘ground’ local data. Also, I wanted numerical data. NASA/RSS provides numerical TPW data from setellite over oceans at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201704.time_series.txt They are making it harder to access. I used to go thru http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product to get to it (they explain their file nameing which changes monthly). I rationalized that the change over land should be about the same as change over ocean. I graph the data in Fig 3 in my blog/analysis.
Although the climate4 specific humidity appears to be in a slight uptrend it doesnt appear to be as much up as the NASA/RSS data. It is unclear why they are different. IMO the NASA/RSS data is less questionable but that does not mean I trust it completely. There should be an accompanying increase in cloudiness. There has been an increase in reporting of precipitation related flooding but, for now, that is merely anecdotal.
Roy wrote:
“Why was the pre-1940 warming rate caused by Mother Nature almost as strong as recent warming?”
I don’t think that’s true.
By 1910, anthropogenic GHG forcing was about 0.5 W/m2 (CO2+CH4+N2O). By 1940 it was about 0.9 W/m2. With very few manmade aerosols to cause cooling.
Awhile back I asked several scientists about just this, and they told me that pre-WW2 warming is probably due to (1) a decrease in the ice-albedo feedback cooling that was created by the series of volcanic eruptions that caused the LIA, (2) a brighter sun, and (3) GHG warming.
Source for the RFs above from Figure 3 in
“Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing,” M. Etminan et al, GRL 27 December 2016.
DOI: 10.1002/2016GL071930
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071930/full
DA…”I dont think thats true”.
Is your opinion peer reviewed?
The information I presented is, or from experts. Far more than you can ever say.
David, you believe in a main-stream science that is based on a mathematical exercise, not based on facts on the ground. Let me be clear, I have researched the history of backradiation, which is the greenhouse gas effect for over 12 years. No measurement of it at all, and those who claimed to have measured it have made instrument calibration error, which has persisted to this day. I have a paper already accepted and will be published soon on this subject. Backradiation does not exist, greenhouse gas effect does not exist, radiative forcing is fiction, and CH4 as a potent greenhouse gas is false.
Nabil Swedan says:
“Let me be clear, I have researched the history of backradiation, which is the greenhouse gas effect for over 12 years. No measurement of it at all”
Incredibly wrong.
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007)
http://tinyurl.com/mb4xz38
“Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Links for Feldman et al:
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
David, forcing is not the same as radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a theory whereas forcing is an energy term measured in Joules; it is W m-2 in a certain period of time. What they measured is energy to the surface, which we know that this is true. This does not mean that the radiative forcing theory is correct.
Nabil Swedan says:
“What they measured is energy to the surface….”
They measured energy to a portion of the surface over a certain period of time, which is expressed in W/m2.
Davie’s favorite “expert” is Pierrehumbert, who put out a paper claiming the Sun could heat the Earth to 800,000K!
(The photosphere of the Sun is only about 5800K.)
Davie loves “experts” and pseudoscience.
Under what circumstances?
Doesn’t lying bother you at all? I find that impossible to comprehend.
Davie, I’m not sure PH was “lying”. I think that he just doesn’t have a grasp of the physics, like you.
Even if I was afraid to sign my name to my thoughts and ideas, like you are, I couldn’t lie like you.
Well, if you can’t lie, could the Sun radiatively heat Earth to 800,000K, even if the Earth were “trapping” all the heat?
Why are you unwilling to accurately quote what Pierrehumbert wrote?
Why can’t you answer the question? We both know what he wrote. We both have the exact wording. He was scientifically incorrect.
That’s why you are avoiding the question.
You misrepresented what Pierrehumbert wrote, by not including the full quote.
I know that. You know that.
So why did you do that?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
Roy…”but whether the human/nature ratio is 50/50, or less, or more than that is up for debate. We simply dont know”.
The point is, Roy, science is not about debate or consensus, it’s about proof. That proof comes in the form of the scientific method which requires that a scientific conclusion be verifiable.
What you claim is far more intelligent than anything offered by alarmists, that we don’t know.
There is no proof that can meet the criterion of the scientific method that relates atmospheric CO2 to global warming. The only proof available thus far is that CO2 can absorb infrared electromagnetic energy. That truth has been extrapolated through consensus to ‘suggest’ the trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere MUST be causing the warming.
The Ideal Gas Equation suggests otherwise.
It’s more than that CO2 absorbs and emits IR — it’s that it’s delivering more energy to the surface as its atmospheric concentration increases.
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release for Feldman et al: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
The planet’s changing brightness temperature is occurring at the wavelengths where GHGs absorb:
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007)
http://tinyurl.com/mb4xz38
DA…”Its more than that CO2 absorbs and emits IR its that its delivering more energy to the surface as its atmospheric concentration increases”.
It delivers IR energy, which is electromagnetic energy. You are still confusing IR with thermal energy. IR delivers no thermal energy, any warming of the surface depends on surface atoms increasing their energy levels and that can only happen if the surface atoms absorb the IR.
Neither you nor any of the papers to which you link have proved that IR is absorbed or that it is converted to thermal energy.
Neither have you proved how a gas representing 0.04% of the atmosphere can contribute significant warming. I have not seen one paper that addresses this problem.
Gordon Robertson says:
“It delivers IR energy, which is electromagnetic energy.”
Is sunlight electromagnetic energy?
Does sunlight warm you, and the Earth, upon impact?
Ice emits electromagnetic energy. Does standing next to ice warm you up? The term “DA” fits.
SkepticGoneWild
Surround an object with dry ice until it reaches a very chilly equalibrium. Now replace the dry ice with ordinary ice. The object will warm up.
You didn’t answer the question.
And, yes, the EM an object receives from ice does increase its temperature, from what it would be without that radiation.
(Where do you think that EM energy goes, anyway?)
DA, (I like that even better than “davie”. It fits!)
Ice does not make something that is warmer, warmer. But preach that all you want.
g*r*n* wrote:
“Ice does not make something that is warmer, warmer. But preach that all you want.”
Set a very warm object near a block of dry ice. Let it cool to an equalibrium of say, 40 F.
Now replace the block of dry ice with regular ice. The warmer object will get even warmer.
snake, when you finally get to high school, you will learn about “conduction” and “convection”.
IF you ever get to high school.
You misrepresented what Pierrehumbert wrote, by not including the full quote.
I know that. You know that.
So why did you do that?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface”
I guess these Bozo scientists forgot to measure any temperature effects. Typical pseudoscience BS.
That’s (obviously) not how downwelling radiation works.
Once again dr Roy spencer here continues to disappoint me babbaling on about how we don’t know how much warming our fossil fuels emissions our causing. It is clear from professer Murray Salby, Richard linzden and many other top solar and atmospheric scientists and physicists who actually know what they are talking about and don’t accept funding from any major corporation and governmental agency that humans, if anything, and that’s a big if, have very little to do with the climate change and their associated affects on the climate system and climate forcing. Many scientists such as dr Roy spencer and even some climate change deniers leave out the most important role that is causing our climate to change and that is our sun and its affect on our magnetosphere and jet stream patterns. This back and forth arguing over whether co2 is or isn’t a big player in the climate is totally irrelevant and a big fat waste of time and money while the climate continues to change and the real cause is getting ignored and neglected by most individuals. Trouble times ahead for us. The climate is indeed changing and is going to change history forever but it is not like the government and the iPCC and other scientific orginazations say it is. Climate science isn’t science anymore it’s a big fat waste of time and money over something so obvious that it isn’t even funny. If people would focus more about the sun and its role on climate change instead of this “whether we have a big role in the climate or not crap” climate science would be a much better as far as time and research goes. We are wasting time. We need to stop this nonsense.
In what way is the sun responsible for modern warming?
Excellent graphic:
“What’s Really Warming the World,” Bloomberg Business, 6/24/15
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
“Purdy” pictures don’t always tell the whole story, and interpretation of data (as the models have proven, if nothing else) can be misleading. Especially when error bars are omitted.
And while I concede that you were commenting on a specific point, that graphic doesn’t account for the impact of oceans or the PDO, which was Perry’s point.
Perry only mentioned the ocean — he didn’t say how it’s supposedly causing global warming. Nor did you.
If the average ocean temperature increased from it’s current
average temperature of 3 C to 5 C, it would cause global warming.
Which part of the ocean?
What’s now the cause of ocean warming?
–David Appell says:
June 24, 2017 at 5:38 PM
Which part of the ocean?–
The entire ocean.
–Whats now the cause of ocean warming?–
Most [very loosely speaking, all] of energy of sunlight reaching Earth is absorbed by the ocean.
But said before, the interesting question is what cools the Earth, or essentially, what cools the ocean?
The ocean isn’t going to warm or cool equally across all depths.
Roy’s site doesn’t allow me to post the links to the ocean heat data.
What a wonderful science blog, huh, where you can’t even cite the data.
— David Appell says:
June 24, 2017 at 7:38 PM
The ocean isnt going to warm or cool equally across all depths.–
That’s correct else ocean would be very warm.
The surface temperature can remain about the same, in terms
of average surface temperature- or in terms of average temperature, a near immeasurable increase in average surface temperatures.
But if entire ocean average temperature increased by 2 C, it would cause global warming [it’s not “lost”- rather it’s hard to measure]. Of course all those ocean buoys can measure it, hence why the project was great idea.
Fake article
How so?
all manipulated bullshit to fit the global warming narrative. notice that that silly old graph charting the variance in sun compared to global temperature is completely flat. I can find millions of other charts on solar output variance and not one of them shows a straight out flat line like this one does! I suppose this fart who wrote this also thinks the earth is flat as well!
So let’s see 3 of your “million” graphs that show the Bloomberg solar irradiance graph is wrong.
PS: Cite your sources.
No need. There are plenty of them. Anyone with a brain knows TSI can’t just go flat like that over the past century. It is up to you to use your judgement on which one is right and which one is wrong.
Here is an example of one of many that show that solar flux varies over as little as 6-8 years
https://www.google.com/amp/s/wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/11/solar-cycle-24-activity-continues-to-be-lowest-in-nearly-200-years/amp/
Why no response DAVID?
I like your monthly sattelite temperature updates but please, at least try to be more certain about the claims you make rather then leaving us to unravel your giant tangled messes of misconception, confusion and uncertainty.
The basic premise of greenhouse gases capturing heat is true. It is also true that the oceans dominate the heat collection processes, so Perry is right. Moreover, often missing in the discussion is that “climate change” (eg, severity) depends greatly on water vapor dynamics and processes. In turn, water vapor is generated laboriously by the ocean surface putting about a thousand BTU’s into each pound of water vapor, a labor enhanced a bit by global heat capture in the atmosphere. Yes, there is more heat being retained everyday/night, but the oceans can handle a lot more than we may suppose from some of these esoteric discussions of light and gases overhead.
Technidigm
Technidigm12 says:
“The basic premise of greenhouse gases capturing heat is true. It is also true that the oceans dominate the heat collection processes, so Perry is right.”
Sorry, no. That’s not what Perry claimed or implied.
He apparently(?) thinks that ancient heat from the deep ocean is conveying upward to heat the ocean and the atmosphere.
Trouble is, while there’s not a lot of data on the deep ocean heat content (pending Deep ARGO), but every study I’m aware of shows it too is gaining heat:
“Deep ocean heat content changes estimated from observation and reanalysis product and their influence on sea level change,”
Kouketsu et al, GRL v116 (March 2011)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006464/abstract
Carl Wunsch and Patrick Heimbach, 2014: “Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean,”J. Phys. Oceanogr.,44, 20132030.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-13-096.1
“For 1992-2011…. In the global average, changes in heat content below 2000 m are roughly 10% of those inferred for the upper ocean over the 20-yr period.”
“NASA Study Finds Earths Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed,”
NASA 10/6/14
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed
If you have other studies of changes in deep ocean heat content, please let me know.
“Asked in an interview on CNBCs Squawk Box whether he believed that carbon dioxide was the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate, Perry said that No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in. Perry added that the fact is this shouldnt be a debate about, Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it? Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?
Your comment makes no sense. You cannot impose details on top of a generic statement (Perry’s comments) to suit your technical pride or “research” references. Perry is right to refer to the influence of the ocean, over which we have little control, as compared with CO2 and other emissions that we may have some control over.
Perry happens to be right, even if he does not know much about things like enthalpy requirements to convert water into steam or water vapor. At least he knows that water covers 80% of the Earth’s surface and that there is a lot of it relative to the mass of the atmosphere, even if that is not particularly relevant to energy and heat transfer. A thousand BTU’s to get a pound of water vapor is a lot, and it explains why a little sweat evaporates and cools you so efficiently, with little regard to how much energy you are expending.
There is a lot of elegant study out there but seldom do we look at how much energy it takes to create all the water vapor that eventually turns into rain/snow and more vigorous weather effects. The heat carried up by water vapor is released high in the atmosphere as the water vapor condenses, and gravity pulls the droplets rather quickly back to Earth as the “wind” removes a few BTU’s from each pound to cool or freeze what reaches the ground. It seems simple, but you have to be a thermal or steam engineer to appreciate the process, apparently.
Scientists have been including latent heat in their calculations since Arrhenius. (Who do you think taught it to the engineers?)
“Scientists have been including latent heat in their calculations since Arrhenius.”
That’s why the models and predictions are always wrong.
Don’t worry, we know why you’re so unwilling
to discuss your lie about what Pierrehumbert wrote.
You’re ashamed of it.
And you should be.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
“Aspects of climate science such as the greenhouse effect, the flows of solar and terrestrial radiation, and feedbacks are as scientifically sound as gravity, the human genome, or orbital mechanics.”
Extracted from AMS website at https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-science-is-core-to-science-education/
The greenhouse gas effect is as scientifically sound as gravity…….. No wonder why most of the world do not teach or recognize this greenhouse gas nonsense in their schools.
Nabil: If there is no greenhouse effect, explain this observed data:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
That curve is not the GHE DA (and by DA, I don’t mean David Appell)
That curve is a manifest demonstration of the GHE. There’s ones like it for Venus and Mars, too.
DA…”That curve is a manifest demonstration of the GHE. Theres ones like it for Venus and Mars, too”.
That’s a problem. Venus has a surface temp of 460C, far too hot to have been caused by a GHE theory. Mars has no atmosphere to speak of. The atmosphere it does have is 96% carbon, far greater than ours, yet it seems to be pretty cold on Mars.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Venus has a surface temp of 460C, far too hot to have been caused by a GHE theory.”
Why?
No answers, Gordon?
Davie, are you still linking to that worn out spectrum? Don’t you realize everyone is aware of that. Don’t you realize it means nothing about “global warming”.
I guess not.
Why did you misrepresent what Pierrehumbert wrote?
And why are you ashamed to discuss it?
Boy Davie, I’ve never seen you so desperate. You must now fully understand how you have trapped yourself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
Abstract
The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 16451715) is a useful period to investigate possible sunclimate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sunclimate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core 10Be record. Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least during the Maunder Minimum.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/48/20697.long
The BEST estimate was that 105% of the observed warming is due to human influence.
If you ignore CO2 related changes, all the natural effects (sun, orbital changes etc) add up to a slow cooling.
Without us, global temperatures would be slightly cooler than the 19th century, not 1C warmer.
Without “adjustments”, global temperatures would be slightly cooler than the 19th century, not 1C warmer.
(Fixed it fer ya, em.)
Afraid not, g*e*r*a”n.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/figure-1-homogenizationgloballand.png
Courtesy of Judith Curry, this graph of the unadjusted and adjusted Berkely temperature data shows that the difference is negligible.
Em, in my preferred world, everyone gets to believe what they want. I have no problem with you believing the planet is about to melt due to 400 ppm CO2.
Do you have a problem with me believing the Earth is just fine, it’s just that some of the people are f***** beyond belief?
Actually, adjustments *reduce* the long-term warming trend.
(See Figure 2 in Karl et al, Science 2014.)
Correction: 2015, not 2014.
“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Thomas R. Karl et al, Science 26 June 2015: Vol. 348 no. 6242 pp. 1469-1472.
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf
And DA in an earlier comment said, “What pause?”, yet he refers to a paper that refers to the recent surface warming hiatus?
Clearly you didn’t read the paper. (That’s much preferable to reading only the title.)
DA…”Actually, adjustments *reduce* the long-term warming trend”.
How did they do that when the trend from 1998 – 2015 was already flat? The IPCC admitted to the flat portion from 1998 – 2012. Are you claiming they reduced the flat trend to a negative trend?
You’re still relying on old, out-of-date data.
But hey, it’s just like you rely on old, out-of-date science.
“They cant go to Big Energy for research funding because, as far as I know, such funding does not exist.”
Very true. Big oil brands and public opinion are more valuable than the hassle of controversy fighting the debate even with empirical data. The reality is wind and solar are no threat to oil (or nat gas really), and the trend in moving away from nuclear just secures the market share.
There are few if any sources of funding for the counter view. The major oil co. I know best has a climate expert that just parrots what the UN/IPCC say. He is a chem engineer with no training no background… never published a paper. The shame is we have several really good paleo climate PhDs. He doesnt even seem interested in alternative views or the actual science. They have zero interest in fuding or even supporting the skeptic.
Of course if the satellite data I trust keep going up my perspective will change. One deg a century is a big deal.
You don’t need a lot of money. Most oil installations could set up for data collection at very low cost. A Stephenson screen or its marine equivalent at each would provide an independant temperature dataset to compare with the existing station data.
The real problem is that “sceptic” research done well tends to end up agreeing with the consensus, while research which contradicts the consensus tends to be of poor quality. Before the conspiracy theorists jump down my throat, I am not judging by agreement with the consensus, but by the standard of data collection and analysis.A well crafted science paper is like a well built wall. A poor paper is like poor brickwork.
After a while one learns to judge the quality of research, regardless of its subject and conclusions.
I would suggest asking the Koch brothers, but they already got burned once with BEST.
Examples? I think many skeptical papers are well written. They just dont get media so the average Joe or Jane in the popular science fan club dont know they exist.
For example, this paper clearly says the models likely overestimate cloud albedio feedbacks. There was no huff post article with titles like: “Science from CERN shows Models Likely Exaggerating Global Warming”. So skeptics at CERN et al go unnoticed.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/full/nature17953.html
That paper got a lot of news coverage:
http://tinyurl.com/ycygcpp4
Dave lib echo chambers do not read those outlets. You may, but you are a scientist that is liberal. Different than a liberal that supports science that agrees. So where in the Huff post or Guardian or CNN? Maybe i missed to be fair bc i dont really read them. And they lack the click bait titles equivalent to climate model outcomes… equivalent lib media title. New CERN research bust climate models as false…. or whatever. Also where is the coverage about the NOAA skeptic John Bates that said there was bias in the new data for global temp? I think if u quantify this you would agree the coverage is very one sided.
“Of course if the satellite data I trust keep going up my perspective will change. One deg a century is a big deal.”
It might go up 1 degree per century. That would be my upper estimate. I don’t it’s going to go down 1 C century.
I think going down 1 C a century would be very bad news- but that is not why, I don’t think it’s not going to lower 1 C in within the next century.
Also I don’ think if temperature increased by 2 C in next century, it would be much of a problem. I used to think it could warm by as much as 3 C within the century- and I was lukewarmer than and still one now.
The situation is that we are in cold world, it’s got a name, which is called an icebox climate. We have been in this cold world or ice box climate for millions of years.
It seems to me the only problem with warming by say 2 C, is we know so little about it, that it points to idea that such warming might lead to cooling. Or it seems possible that 2 C rise in a century has possibility of being somewhat abnormal- whereas 1 C warming per century, isn’t.
But imagine what you worry about is opposite, that 1 C warm will lead to more 1 C warming for many centuries and than we are going to eventually get something you could imagine as being hot.
A temperature of 15 C [59 F] is not warm, if your house is that cold, you turn off the heat so it becomes room temperature which about 70 F.
Now our world only has an average global temperature because the tropics has average temperature which stays mostly warmer than room temperature. Or our room temperature is room temperature, because we are tropical creatures.
And if temperature average increase by 1 C or 2 C, the tropics isn’t going to increase it’s average temperature.
The tropics is and will and has remain at near constant average temperatures for millions of years- and certainly above 0 C at night time- or all the tropical plants wouldn’t exist. So, interglacial periods are about the temperate zone and arctic warming up. We are in an interglacial period, and sea levels have risen during this period by about 140 meters. Or one lacks continental shelves during a glacial period.
Which kind interesting, does that mean surfing sucks doing glacier periods?
Anyways, we had lots of glacial and interglacial period in last few million years [and is part what a icebox climate is] and in last interglacial period got warmer then we are now, and warmer then we could possibly get in the next century [or even next 5 centuries], and somehow the dumb cave man lived thru such warmth- though more amazing, lived thru the glacial periods. Not to mention such things as polar bears- though glacial period would be quite fun for the polar bears- a golden age where roam further and ate more, and etc. Or can imagine if they managed to move out of the then much colder arctic, they would have been happier.
So 1 degree increase in temperature basically make Canada and Russian freeze less. Though doesn’t mean Canada or Russian can’t have record breaking cold periods- because that’s weather.
The problem with AGW is primarily its rapid rate of increase. It’s extremely fast, compared to almost any other time period. Plants and animals (including humans) need time to adjust to a changing climate, much more than a century for a 2-3 C change.
Yeah, dingee, we can’t have summers and winters. Too extreme a climate change.
“According to the EPA, many U.S. cities have air temperatures up to 10F (5.6C) warmer than the surrounding natural land cover.”
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/urban-heat-islands
Now if such warming affected the vermin, why are cities invaded by wildlife?
I would tend think freeways would create better barriers then some increase in average temperature.
gbaikie says:
“Now if such warming affected the vermin, why are cities invaded by wildlife?”
Yes; the number of moose in Boston and bears in Sacramento is making those cities unlivable.
Apparently Sacramento doesn’t have much UHI effect;
“Sacramento’s simulated heat island, which represents air temperatures near the ground, is approximately 0.9-1.8F (0.5-1C)”
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/sacramento.pdf
Though it says:
“This document is an archive of webpages from EPAs Urban Heat Island Pilot Project, which ran from 1998-2002. EPA no longer
updates these pages but is maintaining them for historical purposes”
But anyhow, it does appear these particular swamps are infested with other vermin.
Cities have been infested with vermin since the beginning of cities.
gbaikie…”And if temperature average increase by 1 C or 2 C, the tropics isnt going to increase its average temperature”.
Nor will the Arctic when the Sun disappears and is too low in the sky to offer much warmth. Same for the Antarctic. I don’t think a trace amount of CO2 is going to affect the temperature balance.
“I dont think a trace amount of CO2 is going to affect the temperature balance.”
This argument is so poor that it is no argument at all.
Please stop repeating it.
See Science vs. Feelies: https://tinyurl.com/y86b8j56
Svante, +1
” Gordon Robertson says:
June 24, 2017 at 3:17 AM
gbaikieAnd if temperature average increase by 1 C or 2 C, the tropics isnt going to increase its average temperature.
Nor will the Arctic when the Sun disappears and is too low in the sky to offer much warmth. Same for the Antarctic. I dont think a trace amount of CO2 is going to affect the temperature balance.”
It seems to me the natural fluctuation is making it difficult to see any “forcing” by CO2. And it seem likely we will return to the pause.
I didn’t realize that Rick Perry was DOE, does any know what his views are on increasing amount power created from nuclear energy?
I should look at up:
“Perry seemed to echo his predecessor, Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist and former energy secretary under the Obama administration who often talked about the potential of nuclear power. ”
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-mexico/articles/2017-05-10/energy-secretary-rick-perry-tours-birthplace-of-atomic-bomb
I guess one can hope he doesn’t echo the inaction of past DOE secretary.
Al Franken made a fool of Rick Perry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIMHyPxIpo
With Franken’s experience in comedy, and no science background, he’s the perfect “poster boy” for pseudoscience.
Aaron S…”Of course if the satellite data I trust keep going up my perspective will change. One deg a century is a big deal”.
If the sat data keeps going up we’ll need to look elsewhere for natural causes, or possibly to our misunderstanding of how climate works.
When the global average jumped 0.2 C in one year in 1977, it prompted objective scientists to find out why, They discovered the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Many scientists wanted to erase the increase as a mistake in data recording as NOAA is doing now.
1976 was a strong La Nina year. 1977 was a weak El Nino year.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
The PDO wasn’t discovered until 1997:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
Dr Spencer
Lost another comment.
Abstract
In the historical record of solar activity the period from 1645 to 1715 is a singular epoch during which the number of sunspots decreased markedly for a generation. Known as the Maunder Minimum, this solar epoch coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850). We estimate the change at this time in the output of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation at wavelengths from 120 to 300 nm, relative to contemporary observations. Since this portion of the solar UV spectrum determines ozone composition in the stratosphere, our results bear on the historical variability of ozone and its potential climatic effects. Between the Maunder Minimum and 1986 (the present day solar activity minimum between cycles 21 and 22) we estimate reductions of 64% in the irradiance of the Lyman α line of neutral hydrogen (at 121.6 nm), 8% at 200 nm, and 3.5% in the wavelength range from 210 to 250 nm. The reduction in the solar output from the entire spectral band between 120 and 300 nm is estimated to be 0.17 W/m2, which is approximately 6% of the change in the total solar irradiance of 2.7 W/m2 previously estimated by us (Lean et al., 1992a) over the same time span. Because of this diminished UV output due to very low solar activity the Maunder Minimum total ozone concentration may have been 4% below its 1980 level. While the climatic consequences of such a change have yet to be determined, recent work by Haigh (1994) on modulation of radiative climate forcing by stratospheric ozone emphasizes the need to understand the role of UV irradiance variability as one forcing mechanism.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95GB00159/abstract;jsessionid=5FDD739E5123956EBB09A78015970C61.f03t03
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2016.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2017.png
Better science on your part might help.
Our exhaled CO2 comes from food ultimately assembled by photosynthesis from atmospheric CO2.
All we are doing is extracting CO2 from the air and then returning it. We are charging neutral.
Our fossil fuel emissions, however, were removed from the atmosphere over millions of years and are now being dumped back into the atmosphere all at once.
Damn. Wrong comment.
Lean et al estimate the decrease in insolation during the Maunder Minimum as 2.7w/m^2.
This is equivalent to a cooling of 0.7C. Does this match the temperature data available for the LIA?
The temperature in the stratosphere above the equator shows a clear fall in ozone. It is difficult to predict what the consequences will be, but it will definitely change the circulation in the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.gif
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
E man: How do you get 0.7 C cooling out of -2.7 W/m2?
The reality is that if all human beings stopped exhaling, we could drastically reduce CO2, but that would have an equally drastically negative effect on agricultural production and all green tree and plant growth. Which do we want?
Better science on your part might help.
Our exhaled CO2 comes from food ultimately assembled by photosynthesis from atmospheric CO2.
All we are doing is extracting CO2 from the air and then returning it. We are charging neutral.
Our fossil fuel emissions, however, were removed from the atmosphere over millions of years and are now being dumped back into the atmosphere all at once.
It’s amazing how our planet knew to store carbon until it is needed.
Maybe that’s how savings accounts evolved….
Our exhaled CO2 comes from food ultimately assembled by photosynthesis from atmospheric CO2.
Not really.
There is enough food for and there are as much as 7+ billions people on earth only because the use of fossil fuels permitted it and still permits it and by the way “the whole thing” necessarily “exhales” much more CO2 than just the one that comes from metabolization of our food.
It is wishful thinking to believe that and at any rate remains to be seen whether “the whole thing” might work without fossil fuels and dumping that much additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
Excellent point!
entropic…”Our exhaled CO2 comes from food ultimately assembled by photosynthesis from atmospheric CO2″.
If you remove the C from CO2 I might agree. Seems to me O2 is used to oxidize carbon-based foodstuffs while forming CO2 from raw carbon in the food.
A far greater concern in the atmosphere is oxygen. One danger of burning fossil fuels is using up our valuable oxygen supply.
Not to worry, I’m keeping an eye it. Please don’t spread this around since alarmists and politicians will seize on it for their propaganda machine.
The air we breath is 78% nitrogen and alarmists would brand it a pollutant if they could. We need it to form amino acids just as plants need CO2.
Nitrogen can be a pollutant, like when it eutrophies surface waters, stimulating algal growth.
Do the fish and other animals that eat the algae worry about too much food?
(Davie remains lost in pseudoscience.)
When are going to admit you lied about what Pierrehumbert wrote?
Doesn’t it bother you to lie?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
William, respiration is carbon neutral. It just recycles carbon, it doesn’t create any or put ancient carbon into the cycle before its time.
Dear DA,
Respiration has nothing to do with carbon, Einstein.
Global warming is about altering the carbon cycle. It’s the carbon atoms that traverse that cycle, between land, atmosphere and ocean. Other atoms tag along molecularly, different in different places, but it’s the carbon that’s of primary interest.
Davie, are you drunk?
Most people exhale CO2, but maybe DA exhales carbon, since he’s a robot.
Skeptic…”Most people exhale CO2, but maybe DA exhales carbon, since hes a robot”.
Only if he’s a coal-fired robot. The rest of them likely expire neutrinos.
DA…”Its the carbon atoms that traverse that cycle…”
You’re describing soot, not CO2, which is a molecule. Perhaps you are unaware that atoms bound as molecules tend to exhibit drastically different properties.
Speaking of which, it’s the electrons related to the bonds in the CO2 molecules that absorb and emit IR. Those electrons are extremely fussy about what frequency of IR they will absorb. They absolutely refuse to absorb IR from a colder source because electrons respect the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Youre describing soot, not CO2, which is a molecule. Perhaps you are unaware that atoms bound as molecules tend to exhibit drastically different properties.”
In the atmosphere carbon is mostly CO2 and CH4. In the ocean it’s in dissolved CO2 and organic molecules and calcium carbonate shells. In the biosphere it’s in organic matter and inorganic forms like CaCO3. In the geosphere it’s limestone and kerogens.
It’s the carbon atoms that cycle around, attaching to various other atoms depending on where they’re at. That’s why it’s called the “carbon cycle” and not the “CO2 cycle.”
Gordon Robertson says:
“Those electrons are extremely fussy about what frequency of IR they will absorb. They absolutely refuse to absorb IR from a colder source because electrons respect the 2nd law.”
How does an atom or electron know the temperature of a photon that is about to collide with it?
Skeptic…”Respiration has nothing to do with carbon, Einstein”.
May have if you’re a long-term smoker and your lungs get blackened by it. May even ironically affect the exhalation of CO2.
The carbon from smoking that blackens lungs wasn’t created out of nothing; it came from the carbon cycle, most probably plants. So it doesn’t add to atmospheric carbon.
Wrong.
Respiration of humans was indeed “carbon neutral” before neolithic revolution. Now, at present population level and especially since industrial revolution it cannot be.
Growing, raising, fishing or hunting food for that much people systematically and necessarily dumps a lot of extra CO2 into the atmosphere at each cycle and therefore doesn’t “just recycle” carbon. Not even remotely.
Unless David Appel stops posting here, makes better use of his time, grows and raises himself his food as did our ancestors a 1000 years ago “using only renewable energy” and so demonstrates that at least one people among the 7+ billions is willing and more importantly merely capable to switch back to our ancestral carbon neutral way of life.
— alphagruis says:
June 24, 2017 at 1:16 AM
Wrong.
Respiration of humans was indeed carbon neutral before neolithic revolution. Now, at present population level and especially since industrial revolution it cannot be.
Growing, raising, fishing or hunting food for that much people systematically and necessarily dumps a lot of extra CO2 into the atmosphere at each cycle and therefore doesnt just recycle carbon. Not even remotely.–
Assuming this was correct, wouldn’t less barbaric or say “reasonable” to allow 5 billion people to leave Earth?
Not by murdering them- “leaving Earth” is not a stupid metaphor for all the thugs.
So mean decide they want to leave Earth not they face punishment, but they want to.
Now generally all the 5 billion may not leave Earth’s orbit.
They may want to live in LEO, or might want a second home in LEO- like a summer cottage- so this might not solve your problem. But other might live in high earth orbits, say another 2 billion or so, and other billion or so might go to other surfaces of other planets or outer part of system. But perhaps their children might end up further away from Earth or Earth and Earth low orbit.
So what I envision is something which could require a century of time. And it start off small. But before it can start, we need exploration of space. And what needs to be explored is what is needed for more markets in space.
At moment we have only one true commercial market in Space- or more exactly related to space. Which is the global satellite market.
And what is needed is a market in space, for space. We don’t have this at all, right now.
What seems most likely and cheapest to me, is a market for rocket fuel in space. Specifically a lunar surface market for lunar water, in which rocket fuel can be made.
So two things, develop a market for rocket fuel which is shipped from Earth [don’t have that at moment, do have sort of market for payloads delivered to ISS- which done by Russians, Japanese, Europe, and US. And US has SpaceX, Boeing, and few others doing this.
So one could use this same type model for rocket fuel delivery [actually rocket fuel is delivered to ISS- I mean different type of rocket fuel].
Next thing, is NASA should explore the lunar polar region, to determine if and where there are site which could have minable lunar water.
Such exploration is started with developing a “gas station”/depot which is used by robotic mission which begin the lunar exploration. After robotic, one sends crew to lunar surface and they return lunar samples.
And that ends NASA’s lunar exploration.
Next, NASA explores Mars, continuing to use depot and robotic mars exploration, and humans are send to Mars [again using depots]. NASA Mars exploration is looking for site in which future human settlement could be most viable. And large part of being viable is cheap access to lots of Mars water. Mars water can also be used to make rocket fuel, but main use of Mars water is farming and human use. Human on Earth use a large amount of water. A small amount of water use is the amount water used by astronauts living on ISS- that use is about 10 tons of water per year per crew member,
which is about 1/10th of what people would use of water if they conserving water on water. Or each Martian settler could need more than 100 tons of water per year per person.
Or mars water shouldn’t cost much more than say 100 times more than people on Earth pay for it. Or that would be in range of viable. Of course they are another factors other than water availability. But I want get back to a focus on the Moon.
The Moon is near term. We can start now, and be finished exploring within 10 years. Or Apollo took less time, main reason it should take 10 years, is robotic missions take a long time to design and build, operate. And sending crew is fast, and get more exploration done per hour than with robots. Main function of lunar crew is to do a through job of exploration- and it finishes it.
And lunar exploration is also gearing up for the Mars program which follows- which far more expensive and going to take much longer to do- decades. Cost of program is strongly related to time it takes- lunar program total should cost 40 billion or 4 billion per year [or less- and 1/2 costs is robotic and depot related].
So some people advocate that NASA do “trial mining” or proving that lunar water is viable, and using lunar rocket fuel for Mars exploration. I don’t. Also many want a lunar base. I don’t. But definitely a mars base, maybe several Mars bases. So whole point of lunar exploration is like any mining exploration- determine where and if a site is minable. And ultimate decision maker of whether lunar water is actually minable, is the investor who will need to invest probably less money than normal earth mining operations, but
it’s billions of dollars, and need to make billions of dollars in terms say 5 years. Or can operate at loss for first year or two, but need to show it’s will be profitable in near term.
So such investor have helped by NASA, because in business everything is about risks. And having precise knowledge lowers risks. Every start up [this is start up] has huge risks, and needs to get into black as fast as possible.
But this help provided by NASA is not limited to a select group, it’s whoever wants to do it. Certainly it does not favor large corporations- rather it favors the Apple and Facebook type business models.
But big business will probably be involved at some point- they will limit their risk, and might not want to miss out.
And only thing limited anyone from betting on this, will be the SEC- security exchange commission. They have rules to follow.
I do another post related to moving lots of people
alphag: *RESPIRATION* is carbon neutral. I didn’t say modern human life is.
Our modern lives thrives on energy, not a particular source of energy, which has varied over the centuries and millennia. And now it’s going to vary again as we necessarily phase out fossil fuels.
You won’t be phasing out oil when it is below $50 a barrel, and dropping!
But, go ahead and chop all those birds up, to “save the planet”!
Up to now modern life has proven to “thrive” essentially on fossil energies, not on any particular other source of energy.
Whether it might “thrive” similarly i. e. at a similar population level. on other kinds of energy ( such as (more) carbon neutral nuclear, wind or solar) is by no means obvious and in fact rather doubtful and highly uncertain.
Hence even “RESPIRATION” or respiration or even RESPIRATION might well not be carbon neutral at all if that much people have to respire.
With much much less people history 500 or 2000 years ago has already demonstrated that it’s of course quite possible to live in a carbon neutral way but remember those times were very tough times for most people; no democracy, slavery, no education etc.
If respiration wasn’t carbon neutral, CO2 would have been building up in the atmosphere for a few hundred million years from all the dinosaurs and trillions of animals breathing. It didn’t.
Respiration is not carbon neutral if you eat fossil food.
People eat plants, or animals who eat plants, not fossil fuels. A lump of coal doesn’t make for a good dinner.
Well, David Appel, you continue to stubbornly deny the reality and the population problem, I addressed.
As nicely summarized by Svante, even if David Appel doesn’t like it, he actually literally eats fossil fuels.
And so David Appel behaves actually exactly as those people here who stubbornly deny the physics of the GHE.
So funny.
I didn’t say a word about population.
I said that people don’t eat fossil fuels, they eat plants. They’ve always eaten plants. So do all other animals.
Does it take fossil fuels to grow crops? Currently, yes. That’s an entirely differently matter, and it will go away as the world weans itself off fossil fuels and towards renewables.
No, population, isn’t a different matter at all.
It is fundamental in present context.
There exists absolutely no scientific evidence that that much people can be properly fed with renewable energies. None and in contrast there is rather evidence in favor of the opposite.
You funnily pontificate further:
If respiration wasnt carbon neutral, CO2 would have been building up in the atmosphere for a few hundred million years from all the dinosaurs and trillions of animals breathing. It didnt.
The fact that it didn’t still makes not true your statement about carbon neutrality of respiration in the sense that respiration and photosynthesis do by no means merely compensate each other and ensure carbon neutrality over times scales that range from durations as short as a few months to hundreds of millions of years.
See the Mauna Loa curve for the former time scale and think simply of the formation of fossils fuels for the latter time scale that clearly demonstrate that over such long periods more photosynthesis than respiration must have taken place and CO2 in atmosphere actually decreased.
” alphagruis says:
June 26, 2017 at 2:24 AM
No, population, isnt a different matter at all.
It is fundamental in present context.
There exists absolutely no scientific evidence that that much people can be properly fed with renewable energies. None and in contrast there is rather evidence in favor of the opposite.”
Earth is lousy place to harvest solar energy.
The lunar polar region is a very good place if want harvest solar energy at the bottom of a gravity well.
Mars is even a better place to harvest solar energy as compared to Earth surface. And Mars only gets at it’s varying orbital distance: 715 to 492 watts per square meter.
In high orbit Earth gets: 1,413 to 1,321 watts per square meter [without night and day and summer and winter].
But Mars has thin atmosphere and Earth doesn’t.
If we create new markets in space, we can use entire solar system- and Earth can use it’s high orbit to harvest solar energy from.
So mining water in space, gives a rocket fuel market, but important in terms of Earth’s energy needs, it starts a market for electrical power in space. Only market can drive down the current high price/cost of electrical power in Earth orbit, so if get to point of electricity which you buy any amount wanted [like on Earth] being only 100 times more than earth prices [15 cent per Kw hour on earth to $15 per kw hour in space- we are halfway there. Or with large market and $1 per kw hour in space, could think of investing is SPS to provide electrical power to Earth. Or 10 year after a dollar per Kw hour in space, we could SPS beaming power to Earth- and might start with small niche markets, like Hawaii which spends to money for electrical power [or Germany] but in another 10 years, it could meet or beat all electrical power generation on Earth surface [coal or whatever].
Much cooler in the eastern US.
http://virga.sfsu.edu/gif/17062312_jetstream_h84.gif
“By early next week, it will feel more like the middle of September, rather than the end of June for many people.”
You criticize the AMS for being an advocacy group? Really? What do you consider yourself and all the others that continue to attend the yearly “fake science” conferences sponsored by the advocacy group known as The Heartland Institute?
“What do you consider yourself and all the others that continue to attend the yearly fake science conferences sponsored by the advocacy group known as The Heartland Institute?”
I would call them “non-lemmings”, “non-gullible”, “non-Chicken Littles”, “non-stupid”, etc.
Non-lemmings? Most of you on this blog site are lemmings to the one-sided thought process of anything anti-climate scientist. Anyone with an opposing opinion based on actual science, and in agreement with a clear majority of climate scientists, is automatically put down. There is no free thinking here – just lemmings of the worst kind. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Do you call the greenhouse gas effect a science?
dennis…”the yearly fake science conferences sponsored by the advocacy group known as The Heartland Institute?”
Heartland produces no fake science, they publish papers from bona fide scientists. If you are going to call a scientific paper that disagrees with another paper ‘fake science’ then NOAA and NASA GISS are at the front of the line.
Show me where The Heartland Institute is a purely dedicated scientific organization (where are it’s credentials?) and not a politically based advocacy group. Now compare that to the American Meteorological Society. What is the breakdown of climate scientists in each organization?
Dennis,
You’re making up things in order to give your thoughts credence.
Whether or not the Heartland Institute is of political or philosophical basis is irrelevant to its ability to have a conference on science.
Further, I suspect many of the conferences you would approve of are actually put on by layman, that is people who organize conferences, not the scientists who are members of the organization. Does that then not make them no different than the Heartland?
The good news is that Rick Perry appears to have a good grasp of the uncertainties involved and is unlikely to be swayed by such scolding.
His measured tone contrasts strongly with the patronizing sermons regularly delivered by the likes of the AMS. They seemingly fail to recognize that their approach is increasingly ineffective at scaring a diminishing number of citizens into voting for the punishing economic policies that are often demanded by the same people trying to cause alarm about global warming.
michael…”They seemingly fail to recognize that their approach is increasingly ineffective at scaring a diminishing number of citizens…”
Makes me wonder if there is some kind of conspiracy going on such as the underground conspiracy among top scientists demonstrated in Climategate.
Obama had his own conspiracy with his climate action plan that he withheld from Congress. It seems that has extended to the AMS, NOAA, and NASA GISS, the former two having employed scientific misconduct to make temperatures appear warmer than they are.
What is it with your side that always looks for some kind of conspiracy?
“We have to get rid of the MWP.”
Dennis Hlinka says:
“What is it with your side that always looks for some kind of conspiracy?”
Because conspiracy theories have the property that they can’t be disproven — any evidence against them is, at the very least, simply considered part of the conspiracy.
So people like Gordon who, for some ideological reason wants to reject the warming properties of CO2, can reject any and all the science by claiming conspiracies, though they have no proof of them whatsoever. That gives them an out, even if it’s lazy and intellectually dishonest.
Davie, CO2 has not more “warming properties” than a frozen pizza.
g*, your scientific claims are utter BS.
Not even worth discussing.
But what is worth discussing is why you misrepresented what Pierrehumbert wrote.
What did you think that would accomplish?
Do you really have no hesitation about lying whatsoever?
You can’t even admit your error.
Davie is so distraught over realizing his pseudoscience is nothing but poop.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
“What is it with your side that always looks for some kind of conspiracy?”
Says the people who regularly allege that every person who disagrees with the catastrophists is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.
“Makes me wonder if there is some kind of conspiracy going on such as the underground conspiracy among top scientists demonstrated in Climategate.”
The conspiracy is called Groupthink, a well known factor.
One could call it an exponential mass related, idiot conspiracy.
Though also commonly referred as, being in a cocoon.
Falling jetstream will bring relief from the heat also in the west.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/comp/ceus/ir2-animated.gif
ren…”Falling jetstream will bring relief from the heat also in the west”.
What heat? June has been cold and miserable thus far.
Sorry.In the southwest US.
93 F in Salem, Oregon yesterday, 17 F above normal. Calling for 100 F today.
Previous studies in the Central Valley found that rearing in complex off-channel habitats during natural inundation resulted in rapid growth of juvenile Chinook salmon [10, 11, 13]. However, very little of this type of habitat remains accessible to juvenile salmon.
Juvenile Chinook salmon given access to Yolo Bypass farm fields managed as winter floodplains grew at rates similar to those measured under natural flood conditions [10]. The overall rapid growth and robust body condition of the salmon in this study demonstrates that winter flooding of rice fields during the agricultural non-growing season can provide high quality habitat for rearing juvenile Chinook salmon. These results suggest that changes to agricultural management and infrastructure that increase the frequency and extend the inundation duration of bypass flood events could allow floodplain farm fields to serve as large-scale surrogates for floodplain wetlands, which once were important salmon-rearing habitat.
This study also demonstrates the potential of managing a working agricultural landscape for the combined benefits to fisheries, farming, flood protection, and native fish and wildlife species [19, 27, 28]. This relatively balanced outcome allows native species to exploit working agricultural lands as high-value habitat, thereby reconciling multiple resource management and wildlife objectives. These results should have broad applicability for the management of floodplains throughout California and beyond.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177409
Entropic Man said better science might help. What science. there is no proof C02 has ever driven the climate.when anyone has the proof I for one would like to see it.
What do you mean by “proof” in a science that isn’t experimental, but observational?
What’s the proof that smoking causes lung cancer?
What’s the proof that gravity is responsible for the Earth’s path around the Sun?
What’s the proof that the Earth’s continents were in different places in the distant past?
What’s the proof that the varicella zoster virus causes chicken pox?
These all come from many chains of observation, correlation, inference, deduction and theory — an overwhelming accumulation of the evidence.
Ultimately, it’s the same with CO2’s influence on climate. There is no duplicate Earth on which to do experiments, where we could vary the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, leaving absolutely everything else unchanged, and observe the resulting change in climate.
Besides, you can’t “prove” anything in science anyway — you can only accumulate more and more evidence. Same with CO2 and climate, where the accumulated evidence is very strong (as is the theory). Nothing in climate science makes much sense without the greenhouse properties of CO2.
David. At least you agree .nothing in climate science makes much sence.take C02 out of the models and see what happens.its not. seeing is believing. its believing what your seeing.
Ian, that’s not at all what I wrote.
Tell us what happens when you take CO2 out of the models. Please.
Take CO2 out of the models, and they become more accurate.
But why seek “accuracy” when you can just “adjust” the real data, huh?
I’m still waiting to hear why you lied about what Pierrehumbert wrote
You know very well that you misrepresented what he wrote, by leaving out half his sentence.
Why did you do that?
Just to try to score points?
Don’t you feel an inherent need to be honest?
Davie, how many shovels are you going to wear out digging yourself that hole?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
I know why you won’t answer my question.
Ian, here is evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
It’s a logical error to think that a feedback can not be an initial cause.
Svante: what feedback are you implying?
The release of CO2 from warming oceans.
Feedback through the latest ice ages and
initial cause now (and in the PETM most likely).
Most scientists now think that CO2 pulses preceded PETM warming. For example
“Two massive, rapid releases of carbon during the onset of the PalaeoceneEocene thermal maximum,” Gabriel J. Bowen et al, Nature Geoscience 15 DECEMBER 2014.
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2316
though admittedly the details are still unknown.
“Most scientists now think that CO2 pulses preceded PETM warming.”
Amazing what people will believe when their grant application depends upon it.
You have nothing whatsoever to contribute to this PETM discussion, but can’t resist judging others with no knowledge at all from you.
This aptly summarizes the problem of climate change deniers. You’re exhibit A.
We can help solve the poverty problem in developing countries by allowing CO2 to increase, promoting crop growth with concurrent increases in crop yields. Why the scientific community cannot see CO2 for what it is – a fertilizer – rather than a pollutant is beyond me.
Because that isn’t what the science says.
CO2 is a fertilizer, but it also increases temperatures and changes precipitation patterns. Those affect plant growth as well. (If CO2 was only a fertilizer, Venus and Mars would be verdant with plant life.)
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112
“Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability,”
— Camilo Mora et al, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167
“Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009), http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf
“If CO2 was only a fertilizer, Venus and Mars would be verdant with plant life.”
Because Davie’s pseudoscience doesn’t work on planet Earth, he blasts off to other planets. (But, he would find his pseudoscience doesn’t work there either!)
Why did you intentionally misrepresent what Pierrehumbert wrote?
Why do you falsely accuse? You know the quote. You know the source.
You live in denial.
You misrepresented what Pierrehumbert wrote.
Why did you do that?
You’re so ashamed of it you can’t even admit what you did.
—–
g*e*r*a*n* says:
June 23, 2017 at 6:26 AM
Davies favorite expert is Pierrehumbert, who put out a paper claiming the Sun could heat the Earth to 800,000K!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-252508
The combination of the West Coast heat wave and springs snowfall in the Sierra has Lake Tahoe close to filling for the first time in over a decade.
An influx of more than 12 billion gallons of water has poured into the lake this past week, leading to a four-inch rise in the water level since June 16, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on Friday.
The lakes water level, which has a maximum legal limit of 6,299.1 feet, was measured at 6,228.84 feet Friday morning.
Wheres the water going? A dam in Tahoe City regulates Lake Tahoes reservoir, and has been releasing billions of gallons into the Truckee River over the past four months, and dumping will continue during the summer.
U.S. District Court water officials expect the lake to fill in mid-July, according to the Chronicle. That has not happened in 11 years.
The lake has fluctuated between 6,220.26 feet and 6,229.39 feet in the past 30 years, reaching the latter mark during a January 1997 flood, according to an article published by Sierra Sun. In December, water levels sat at 6,223.04 feet.
The Sacramento Bee
The temperature in the central Arctic is still very low.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
That is a plot of ice extent, not temperature.
{Sigh.}
Can you think logically?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Don’t put up a graph of extent and say it says temperature.
As the temperature graph shows, the average Arctic temperature is exactly at normal right now, not “very low.”
ren, you very often put up links while falsely implying what they mean. Most here are now on to you, which is why you keep getting ignored and dismissed.
Davie, you very often put up links while falsely implying what they mean. Most here are now on to you, which is why you keep getting ignored and dismissed.
I asked above, but you avoided the question: why are you so willing to lie about what Pierrehumbert wrote?”
Doesn’t lying bother you?
I’m not lying at all Davie. You are falsely accusing me, because you can’t take the truth.
Here’s the exact quote:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 (10)^17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800 000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
He is hilariously incorrect, and you don’t know enough physics to know why.
It is not “normal” temperature but average 1958-2002. I do not look at one day, but the whole of May and June.
Compare yourself to 2016.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2016.png
The DMI ice temperature product (IST) uses three thermal infrared channels from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) on board the Metop-A satellite to calculate the surface temperatures in the Arctic.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice_temp/plots/icetemp.arc.d-00.png
You didn’t originally include the entire quote, purposely misrepresenting what Pierrehumbert wrote.
Why are you so willing to lie like that? Do you think that’s ethical? Doesn’t lying bother you? Isn’t there a voice in your head scolding you for lying like that?
Notice how g* is afraid to reply when called out on his lie.
Davie, you are as phony as “cabbage head” and the “con man”. You know you are the one “falsely implying”!
The quote is above. The quote is the first two sentences of the “paper”. Here’s a link to the paper, in case you can’t find it by yourself.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
(Sheesh, you climate clowns are helpless.)
You misrepresented what Pierrehumbert wrote.
Doesn’t lying like that make you ashamed?
g*e*r*a*n
You might want to look at your text messages. Maybe Joe Postma tood a little time away and sent you one to help you with your debates.
Davie, don’t be such a dingbat.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
Norm, Joseph would be laughing hardily if he knew he was keeping you awake at nights.
At least you have your “glowing cabbages” to see by.
Information about melting on the Greenland ice.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00912/e75kd37l2qyj.png
@David Appell,
“U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra, Bloomberg News, 11/12/14”
At last we can agree on something. The Global Warming scam is designed to line the pockets of fat cats like Elon Musk with taxpayer money. Musk had a hissy fit when he realized that Trump is turning off the cash spigot.
It was the US govt who earned $5 billion off that program, not the private sector.
@gbaikie,
“It seems the only advantage of constant 1 gee acceleration is
creating artificial gravity of 1 gee. And you could spin the craft to get whatever artificial gravity you wanted.”
I recalculated the trip times based on 2 “g” acceleration. To arrive at Kepler 62, a distance of 1,200 light years, at zero relative velocity would take 7.6 years at 2 “g” rather than 13.8 years at 1 “g”.
We know 1 “g” is safe over long periods of time. We know that low gravity causes health problems but at some point high gravity is likely to be harmful as well.
“We know 1 g is safe over long periods of time. We know that low gravity causes health problems but at some point high gravity is likely to be harmful as well.”
Well some people might agree that prolonged 2 gees could be harmful. But I don’t think so- and why I picked 2 gees.
Now if doing stuff, one could more easily hurt yourself- so a higher risk of that happening.
1 gee is forces at rest in one gravity, if doing things one will experience higher gees- walking, running.
Now if could find some study in which running- because of gees load not much higher than 2 gee- were causing health problems, than that could evidence which supports idea that prolonged 2 gees could cause health problems.
Now there are studies indicating just sitting in 1 gee, can be problematic in terms of health.
And so if the 2 gee environment makes one sit more, obviously it could worst than sitting in 1 gee.
One “health” thing is a mini-trampoline, if bounced upon for long periods [someone being obsessive about their use] and showed health consequences this could more evidence.
Here’s list of disadvantage, and no mention of over use:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/557401-mini-trampoline-disadvantages/
boredom is one disadvantage- particularly due to their small size.
Next look at claimed advantages:
“17 Benefits of Trampoline Exercise That May Make You Live Longer:
“Trampoline exercise is considered to be one of the best forms of exercise for adults,
When you jump on the trampoline, you will experience a brief weightless state at the top of the jump, but when you reach the bottom of the mat, your body experiences as much as 4Gs of gravitational force. ”
So problem I think is maybe too much gees. I wouldn’t suggest constant 4 gees.
And:
“A study from NASA also found that a 150 pound individual spending 1 hour on a rebounder, will burn more calories than the same person jogging for an hour.”
And it seems to me jogging is similar gees and many people might jog for excessively long periods of time every day [I don’t do it myself- even as much as once a week for 10 mins]. Next:
“2.Increase Lymphatic Flow in The Body
The lymphatic system is a network of tissues and organs which help to get rid of the body toxins, waste and other unwanted materials in the body.”
Though not work much if just sitting.
Anyhow more of “17 reasons”:
http://www.domijump.net/trampoline-exercise-benefits/
Also roughly it might be as if you were overweight, or have worse effects if you were over weight and in 2 gee environment
Or vaguely similar to person who was normal weight adding a lot of weight.
Also another thing is water could alter this 2 gee environment- or swimming could good exercise in 2 gee environment- low impact and reduces the stresses which could occur in 2 gees.
And swimming could make you “forget” you in 2 gee environment. [Can help you forget you in 1 gee
environment].
“According to this 2 negative gees is bad for you:
Negative Gz-forces, however, are an entirely different matter. Nobody, literally no humananti-g suit or notcan withstand more than 2 or 3 negative Gs before losing consciousness due to all the blood in their body pooling in their head.”
http://gizmodo.com/why-the-human-body-cant-handle-heavy-acceleration-1640491171
So don’t hang upside down in 2 gee environment- though some think it’s good to do this in 1 gee environment.
@Dennis Hlinka’
“What is it with your side that always looks for some kind of conspiracy?”
Most conspiracies turn out to be people acting in concert to enrich themselves. Thus with “Climate Scientists” there may be some minor conspiracies such as those revealed in Climategate but most of the people involved are acting in their own self interest.
If someone offered me the kind of money that Michael Mann has received over the years I might become a scientific whore too.
So most conspiracy theories are true????
I can’t wait to see your proof of that.
Davie, I can’t wait to see your proof that that is what GC stated.
You would not lie to us, would you?
why are you ignoring my questions about why you misrepresented what Pierrehumbert wrote?
Are you proud of lying like that?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
I didn’t think you had the balls to answer honestly.
Whatever amount of IR CO2 radiates downward it’s not enough, at least in my neck of the woods. It’s freezing in south central Alaska. Easy 10 degrees below normal. Definitely a glacier growing year.
Why should we heat up the entire world just to make your little neighborhood warmer???
Just move somewhere to a climate you prefer.
Minnesotans for Global Warming feel your hurt and are still trying to help:
http://m4gw.com/
You have to love those guys. Remember “Hide the Decline”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Why should we warm up the entire world just so Minnesotians will be happier?
Wouldn’t it be far cheaper, and far less destructive, if those unhappy Minnesotians just moved south????
What would Minnesota be without ice fishing, snowmobiles and ice hockey?
Because the world is warming.
They’re victims just as much as anyone else.
Maybe now you’re beginning to grasp the problem….
This is the extent of ice in the “Central Arctic”. It can be seen that it is now bigger than in the years 2013-2016.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_r11_4km.png
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
As I wrote earlier, the water level in the Great Lakes will be high.
“Midland County has received a tremendous amount of rain over a very short period of time. For City of Midland homes on the storm and sanitary system, the storm sewer system is full as it carries this large amount of rain runoff and discharges it to the river. The fullness of the system has caused major street flooding and some homes to experience basement flooding.”
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/midland-mi/48640/weather-radar/329377
“Some areas from the Midwest to the central Appalachians may challenge record lows established as far back as the early 1900s.
Temperatures will dip into the 40s and lower 50s in much of the Midwest and the 50s to around 60 F along the Atlantic Seaboard early next week.”
With greenhouse effect theory some people think that greenhouse gas heat the surface and other think the greenhouse gases reduce heat loss from the surface.
I haven’t run across any that think sunlight warms greenhouse gases [except in terms of greenhouse gas, Ozone] before it reaches the Earth surface.
And it’s commonly said that Venus is hot because of the greenhouse effect.
So both camps think the sun heats the surface, one thinks the heat is ampified by CO2 [or H20] causing backradiation add to surface temperature, the other think the Co2 prevents more heat loss than compared to not having the greenhouse gases.
A fundamental problem is the Venus rocky surface is not heated by sunlight- so it’s “sunlight heated surface” can’t be amplified nor can heat be prevented from leaving the “sun heated” surface.
Now, I would predict or imagine that believers would claim the CO2 absorbs the sunlight as it passes thru the atmosphere, but it seems few say Co2 is heated directly by sunlight in regards to Earth greenhouse effect.
Now with earth H20 prevents a significant amount of sunlight from reaching earth [at least in terms of direct sunlight] and the Co2 also does this by smaller amount. This indicated
in this graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
I once calculated an energy budget for Venus. IIRC at the top of the atmosphere Venus receives about 50% more insolation than Earth, but has a 70% albedo. Like Earth At the top of the atmosphere Venus receives and radiates a few hundred watts/m^2, with the amount of light reaching the surface comparable to a dull day on Earth.
The surface of Venus is at 450C. What makes it so hot is that over time the stronger greenhouse effect allowed a lot of stored energy to accumulate, so the surface radiates about 16,000w/m^2 and receives about about 16,000w/m^2 of back radiation.
Hilarious!
Actually Venus’s albedo is 0.90 — which is why it’s so bright in our sky.
And you’re right about the 16,000+ W/m2.
Davie never found any pseudoscience that wasn’t “right”.
He seems to have much faith in what is intuitive, def:
“using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.”
So, it’s the science of selecting people with right kind of blood.
And includes the vast landscape of anti-sciences or pseudo sciences.
I would also note that once upon a time, “scientists”
thought science could do something about the degree of superstitions that people had.
I mainly say “scientists” because they may or may not have been actual scientists in various fields, but there isn’t an actual science which which involves understanding people.
So in that regard they have to be “scientists”.
Anyways, so far, **obviously**, it hasn’t worked out the way
it was hoped.
So you don’t think science has enormously raised the standard of living you now enjoy?
“Science”, yes. “Institutionalized science”, no.
Why are you unwilling to talk about how you misrepresented what Pierrehumbert wrote?
Ashamed?
(I don’t blame you for that.)
I’ve been wanting you to “talk” about it ever since you presented the hilarious “paper”.
But, you keep running.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
DA…”So you dont think science has enormously raised the standard of living you now enjoy?”
No…it was unions.
You misrepresented Pierrehumbert’s article since I first linked to it.
You’re a liar.
And not man enough to admit it when caught.
Gordon, did lives get better before the development of unions? Say, from 1600-1900?
entropic…”The surface of Venus is at 450C. What makes it so hot is that over time the stronger greenhouse effect allowed a lot of stored energy to accumulate….”
Not to that extent. 450C is mighty hot and as astronomer Andrew Ingersoll claimed, such surface warming would contravene the 2nd law were it due to atmospheric back-radiation.
Remember, a real greenhouse traps real mass, like atoms of nitrogen and oxygen. Heat cannot be trapped unless you trap the mass referenced by the heat. There is nothing on Venus to prevent that anymore than there is on Earth.
The 450 C surface temp has to have another explanation.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Remember, a real greenhouse traps real mass, like atoms of nitrogen and oxygen.”
Wrong. Idiotic.
Gordon Robertson says:
Remember, a real greenhouse traps real mass, like atoms of nitrogen and oxygen.
Where is the data showing this?
You have none.
Run away, as usual.
gbaikie says:
“With greenhouse effect theory some people think that greenhouse gas heat the surface and other think the greenhouse gases reduce heat loss from the surface.”
What’s the difference?
— David Appell says:
June 25, 2017 at 5:10 PM
gbaikie says:
With greenhouse effect theory some people think that greenhouse gas heat the surface and other think the greenhouse gases reduce heat loss from the surface.
Whats the difference?–
Lot’s.
But as said, with Earth the sunlight directly warms the surface. A sidewalk with 70 C surface temperature is being directly heated by the sun. Or if the sunlight is shaded, the sidewalk won’t be 70 C.
On Venus the rock at the surface is never directly heated by the sun, it could be night time or anytime, sunlight doesn’t directly affect the surface temperature.
As said the warming mechanism related to Earth, is the sun heats the ocean waters. This major mechanism, doesn’t make hot days, hot days on Earth are caused by the sunlight heating a land surface, directly heating with direct sunlight.
But average global air temperature is caused by the sunlight heating the ocean. This not arguable, as earth simply has more ocean area- requiring that it involves heating the ocean.
But other than fact that 70% of earth surface is covered with ocean surface, in comparison between an average square meter of ocean vs average square meter of land, the square meter of ocean absorbs far more energy from the sun, within an average day.
So Earth average temperature is related to something on Earth which absorbs the most amount of sunlight.
Yes other factors in average temperature, but the big picture is ocean is warmed.
What absorbs the most amount of sunlight on Venus- 75% of Venus is covered with clouds.
If Earth were covered with such dense thick clouds, one would probably ask how do these cloud warm Earth.
One could a rule, whatever covers surface with super majority, then it probably has something to do with it’s global temperature.
A question to ponder.
UHI effects warm land areas, would UHI effects warm ocean areas?
Or if people lived in the tropics in the open waters- so built
floating cities, with parks and and shopping malls, or whatever, would it cause a UHI effect?
gbaikie says:
“But as said, with Earth the sunlight directly warms the surface. A sidewalk with 70 C surface temperature is being directly heated by the sun.”
Why is that the only source of heat?
Why don’t sidewalks get supercold in the middle of the night?
What happens to all the IR the atmosphere is radiating downward?
The Sun only provides an average of (1-0.3)*1365/4 = 240 W/m2 to the Earth’s surface. Yet the Earth’s surface radiates at an average temperature of 15 C in the infrared = 390 W/m2.
Where does the additional 150 W/m2 come from?
— David Appell says:
June 25, 2017 at 7:14 PM
gbaikie says:
But as said, with Earth the sunlight directly warms the surface. A sidewalk with 70 C surface temperature is being directly heated by the sun.
Why is that the only source of heat?–
First I didn’t say it’s the only source of heat, but
in terms of reaching 70 C, the sunlight is causing this.
And on Moon where on has more sunlight the sidewalk would
make hotter than 70 C.
But at the equator at the moon when a sunlight could warm
a sidewalk to 120 C [near noon], one find a time of day where sunlight only warms the sidewalk to say, 70 C- because there is less sunlight being absorbed per square meter on the sidewalk.
You also do this Earth, the hottest the sidewalk with become will be when the sun is nearest zenith. Likewise towards sundown or sunrise, the sun will heat the sidewalk
with less direct sunlight and the sidewalk will be cooler.
So I am talking about a means predicting how warm a sidewalk will become and it’s related to amount of sunlight being absorbed, which related to how sunlight there is available which could be absorbed.
–Why dont sidewalks get supercold in the middle of the night?–
Well it is interesting question. But I tend to make very long posts, so I will just leave this as question, for the time being.
gbaikie says:
“First I didnt say its the only source of heat, but
in terms of reaching 70 C, the sunlight is causing this.”
Says what physics?
gbaikie says:
“So I am talking about a means predicting how warm a sidewalk will become and its related to amount of sunlight being absorbed”
Says what physics?
gbaikie says:
“Why dont sidewalks get supercold in the middle of the night?
Well it is interesting question. But I tend to make very long posts, so I will just leave this as question, for the time being.”
Interesting how you bailed out just at the most important question.
Still pushing that stale BS. You need a better script writer for your jokes.
gbaikie says:
“Well obviously a sidewalk on the Moon would get super cold,
but would then warm up to 120 C during daytime”
The Earth isn’t the Moon.
Davie finally figured out the Moon is not the Earth!
What a clown.
DA…”Why dont sidewalks get supercold in the middle of the night?
What happens to all the IR the atmosphere is radiating downward?”
They will in the winter in the Northern Hemisphere. In milder months, the surface retains the heat for a while. In the prairies in Canada, in winter at -40C, both the surface and atmosphere above it are roughly the same temperature. Solar energy during the day will warm your body a bit, even at -50C, but it won’t melt ice or warm sidewalks.
All the down-radiating IR does nothing except light up a meter designed to detect it.
–Why dont sidewalks get supercold in the middle of the night?
What happens to all the IR the atmosphere is radiating downward?–
Well obviously a sidewalk on the Moon would get super cold,
but would then warm up to 120 C during daytime.
But roughly earth doesn’t get supper cold at night because of two reasons, it rotates every 24 hours and it has atmosphere.
Or maybe if Moon had some atmosphere, it would still get super cold because it has slow rotation [29.5 times slower than Earth].
It should be noted that having a large atmosphere- like Earth atmosphere- on the Moon or Mars is complicated, because such atmospheres would have a very tall troposphere, due to there low gravity.
Or Mars has very tall atmosphere and it only has 25 trillion tons of atmosphere. And Moon “exosphere atmosphere” has about 100 tons- the gas added by Apollo landings affecting the mass of Moon’s atmosphere [one can safely assume it was only for a relatively brief period of time].
“What happens to all the IR the atmosphere is radiating downward?”
Well, it’s not any energy we could use as source of energy.
It doesn’t affect how structures made on Earth surface- structures are mostly concerned about convective heat loss.
It should not affect what clothes you wear, which again is mostly about convectional losses. Cold weather clothing is largely about controlling the amount a person sweats, if you keep dry, roughly speaking you can keep warm on very cold weather.
A human body controls it’s temperature largely by evaporation [sweat].
gbaikie says:
“But roughly earth doesnt get supper cold at night because of two reasons, it rotates every 24 hours and it has atmosphere”
What about the atmosphere keeps the Earth’s surface warm?
hmm, it didn’t post and don’t think used word absor**ption
But I saved it- I look will at it, and/or re-write.
Meanwhile got backlog
–David Appell says:
June 25, 2017 at 10:11 PM
gbaikie says:
But roughly earth doesnt get supper cold at night because of two reasons, it rotates every 24 hours and it has atmosphere
What about the atmosphere keeps the Earths surface warm?–
Clouds can keep winter nights warmer.
Winds can cause warming, such as Santa Ana winds.
Bigger scale things are hadley cells:
“The Hadley cell, named after George Hadley, is a global scale tropical atmospheric circulation that features air rising near the equator, flowing poleward at 1015 kilometers above the surface,…” wiki
There quite list of things, those are examples.
So it’s your belief that the atmosphere, unlike every other object in the universe, does not radiate?
gbaikie…”Clouds can keep winter nights warmer”.
Not around my part of the world on the west coast of Canada. When Arctic air descends on us from the north, clouds or no clouds, it gets darned cold. The cold air just pushes them aside and goes straight down the back of your neck.
gbaikie…”Or maybe if Moon had some atmosphere…”
And an ocean.
” Gordon Robertson says:
June 26, 2017 at 12:28 PM
gbaikieClouds can keep winter nights warmer.
Not around my part of the world on the west coast of Canada.”
I lived on the big island, Vancouver, and if wanted cold nights to freeze a lake, the clear sky nights was cold enough to freeze lakes, and cloudy weather [cloudy weather is rather common] was too warm.
Backradiation never heats a sidewalk at night, even though on average 333 w/m2 of backradiaton energy is blasting it. Yet the pseudo-scientists in their phony energy balance diagram insist that 1 W/m2 of solar insolation is the equivalent of 1 W/m2 of backradiation. What a load of horse manure.
Now does 333 W/m2 of solar insolation heat a sidewalk? You betcha.
SkepticGoneWild
I am not sure what physics you make your assertion based upon.
Why would 333 W/m^2, if absorbed by a surface, lead to different warming abilities? If you maintained two fluxes at 333 W/m^2, one IR and one visible and the each surface absorbed this energy equally the temperature of each would be the same (First Law physics).
Downwelling IR decreases at night just as does upwelling IR. The emitting air cools at night so the level of backradiation also drops off. On cloudy nights when the downwelling radiation does not go down the sidewalk temperature also does not drop.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_595238d371c9e.png
This image shows a cloudless downwelling drop of IR intensity.
Why the hybrid physics and assertions. Stick to the real science.
You are too dumb to get it, Einstein.
SkepticGoneWild
That sounds like a diversion tactic. Rather than work on explaining what you cannot (since it is not based upon any real or known physics) you resort to the favorite tactic I encounter frequently. Attack and divert than I save my credibility. g*e*r*a*n seems to be a master at this tactic. He will never link to a valid source for his points and now it seems you are the same type of mind.
Make assertions with no proof or evidence then tell a person they are too dumb to understand if you would explain it to them.
So far in your group it seems you have various unphysical, untested and unproven concepts like a warm body is not able to absorb energy from a colder one. The measured IR emitted downward by the atmosphere is not real (calibration error). I might make a list. None of the assertions are supported by textbooks.
Con man, aka “Norman” is an hilarious pseudoscience pimp. He always thinks he “knows” physics, but always gets it wrong!
Perfect example, from above, Con man refers to the “First Law of Physics”. The First Law of is Newton’s law of motion and inertia. The Con man meant the “First Law of Thermodynamics”.
See why he’s hilarious?
g*e*r*a*n
You babbling moron. I guess Joe Postma didn’t send you a text before you posted that stupidity.
You jump in a post not directed at you talking about radiant heat transfer and you can’t grasp which 1st Law I was talking about? Duh!
So in what context could you derive I was even thinking of the Newton’s First Law of Motion.
Like I said you can’t comprehend what you read. No wonder your physics is so lousy you can never defend it with valid source material.
If someone makes a typo you jump all over it. 99% of the posters can figure out what someone is trying to say and forgive a typo. You are unable to grasp anything unless Joe Postma spoon feeds it to you.
Maybe you need to go out on a picnic with him and he can pump you up again. You are slipping into vast sea of mindless thought where you are unable to figure anything out.
I will help 1 + 1 = 2. Is that direct enough for you to understand? Probably not. Joe will help you. Text or email him and maybe he can explain it to you in clear language that you might be able to understand. With you I ma not expecting much.
Con-man, your exact quote “If you maintained two fluxes at 333 W/m^2, one IR and one visible and the each surface absorbed this energy equally the temperature of each would be the same (First Law physics).”
I love it when you deny your own words!
Like SGW stated, “you are too dumb to get it”.
(And, I’m not even talking about the rest of your pseudoscience.)
g*e*r*a*n
I understand. To you textbook physics is pseudoscience. The only true and real science to be found in on Joe Postma’s blog. I get that. I understand that is why you never validate any of your information with real science because your only source is Joseph’s blog.
Do you read? I said First Law physics not what you twisted to say YOU: First Law of physics. You added the of which I did not use.
Your posts aren’t very good. Did Joe not text you?
So do you think that adding equal amounts of energy to two identical surfaces it would matter the type of energy? So what physics is this based upon?
If you used a light source, flame, electrical, mechanical friction, you believe that the amount of energy is not the significant factor but the source? Hmm. I think you better email Joe on that one and be patient and wait for his reply before you inform your fans how dense you are and how little physics you understand.
Keep denying your exact words, Con-man.
“(First Law physics)”
As I wrote, I love it when you deny your own words.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
First Law in context of radiant energy would obviously be the First Law of Thermodynamics or Conservation of Energy.
I am not sure if you have done it or not but other posters have stated just “2nd Law” without the added “of thermodynamics” every time they post it. Within the context of the discussion, the reference to First Law would indicate the poster is talking about thermodynamics unless someone started to mention motion or other aspects of physics. You lose this round. Try again later.
Nice con, Con-man. Trying to weasel your way out.
You didn’t write “First Law”, you wrote “First Law physics”!
You thought you were right. You still think you’re right!
That’s why your hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Not a con or a weasel. Say it a different way and it might make sense to you (though unlikely). You really have difficulty figuring out things if not explained in detail to you. Also remember you jumped into a conversation that was not including you then you attack mindlessly what I stated and still think I am wrong about it.
You are a very weird person. You jump into a conversation, make accusations, then when it is clearly and easily explained to you, you are still unable to understand what is going on.
If you look at the context of the post itself what do you think I would mean when I say First Law physics. To make it obvious to you how about physics of the First Law, same meaning same use.
What was I talking to SkepticGoneWild about?
Here is the context: “Why would 333 W/m^2, if absorbed by a surface, lead to different warming abilities? If you maintained two fluxes at 333 W/m^2, one IR and one visible and the each surface absorbed this energy equally the temperature of each would be the same ”
Energy Conversation obviously, no other context of First Law would make sense.
Well Con-man, if you want to now claim that you should have just left out the word “physics”, then you can get away with it. I don’t know what you “meant” to write. I only know what you wrote.
And, your belligerent response only reinforced my thinking.
But, I got several more insults out of you plus more advertising for Joseph!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
In the larger picture, you should realize that the post was not to you and your inability to understand what I meant is your own problem. Had I addressed the post to you and you had trouble understanding the meaning, a valid criticism of my word structure would be okay. Since it was not to you and you jumped in I do not consider your complaint valid or your poor ability to reason out what a poster was talking about by considering the context of the discussion.
Sorry, the error is on you. If you don’t know what someone is saying and are clueless in trying to figure it out by the context of the discussion, they kindly keep your opinions to yourself.
Con-man, you’re a joke!
How many times have you jumped in on my comment, or others! That’s what people do on a blog. Duh!
Anytime I find you spouting your pseudoscience nonsense, be aware I will be “jumping in” to help you out.
You spout nonsense, I correct nonsense.
It’s what we do.
g*e*r*a*n says, June 27, 2017 at 9:35 PM:
Keep up the good work, g*e*r*a*n. I clearly don’t agree with everything you write (which would be an unnatural (and boring) circumstance anyway), but your take on Norman and all the other pretentious dabblers here is hilarious and spot on!
g*e*r*a*n
You still seem to have a huge difficulty in comprehending what you read.
You are unable to even evaluate my complaint in a reasonable fashion. Now you are assuming my complaint was you “jumping in” my post to SkepticGoneWild. That was not the complaint at all.
My complaint was you can’t figure out anything on your own and then criticize someone for your inferior reasoning abilities. The context of my post was certainly not about the Laws of Motion. But when you saw First Law you assumed (really do not know how you possibly could get that inference from the context) I was talking about the Newton’s Laws of Motion because I put physics at the end of the two words. Your error is in your own inability but you project it upon other posters.
Kristian
So have you come up with any valid textbook that will support your One-Way flux model of energy exchange? Didn’t think so, because there are none.
Thanks, Kristian!
Probably the reason you don’t agree with everything I write is because I don’t always take the time to explain myself well. My purpose is usually to debunk the pseudoscience we often see here. I don’t have the patience to write long explanations, only to then see the “unwashed” refuse to understand. I have seen you write well organized explanations, only to also be seemingly ignored. You have more patience than I do.
Please feel free to comment/question anything I write. I don’t mind clarifying to anyone that is truly interested.
Con-man writes: Now you are assuming my complaint was you jumping in my post to SkepticGoneWild. That was not the complaint at all.
But, Con-man had previously written:
“…you should realize that the post was not to you…”
“Had I addressed the post to you…”
“Since it was not to you and you jumped in…”
I love it when Con-man argues with himself!
g*e*r*a*n
Again you are exactly like your hero and idol Joe Postma. You use all his known tactics. You twist and distort context and meaning. You select a few phrases that do not represent the context they were written in.
Again I do state you are a very weird person. You rarely post any scientific thought process. Mostly you ridicule people who accept real textbook science and validate it with links to actual science.
You call textbook science pseudoscience.
You are far more interested in mess ups with word choice and typos then content and meaning. You have a super hard time figuring out things if not stated in a very narrow bandwidth that follows your own internal rules.
Your job here is to discredit real science (sent here by your leader Postma) to attack real science and confuse people who have a little science but are not willing to really study it at depth.
Great rant, Con-man, one of your best.
Every sentence was a complete mis-representation of the truth! Usually, you throw in at least SOMETHING truthful. But this time, you “went for the gold”!
Hilarious.
gbaikie…”I havent run across any that think sunlight warms greenhouse gases [except in terms of greenhouse gas, Ozone] before it reaches the Earth surface”.
Never mind GHEs, what about nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99%+ of the atmosphere. If N2 and )2 trapped in the surface can be warmed by short wave solar energy why can’t free N2 and O2 in the atmosphere absorb it?
Broad spectrum solar energy should be able to warm any atmospheric gas to some extent.
Yeah.
Now, if one can imagine Co2 absorbing longwave radiation
and causing atmosphere to glow, if atmosphere absorbs sunlight
this likewise should make an atmosphere glow.
And not sure that either kind of glowing atmosphere does much in terms of warming.
Or back to a starting question, much exactly does it warm? Assuming it glows from either type of light. {light from sun and/or Longwave light from Earth].
I think both Venus and Earth is mostly warmed by sunlight warming a surface. On Earth it the ocean [which isn’t a thin surface- as it’s transparent to sunlight] and with Venus the “surface” would be it’s clouds.
Really? And how does Venus’s surface get to 16,000 W/m2?
–Really? And how does Venuss surface get to 16,000 W/m2?–
The rocky surface of Venus doesn’t radiate much heat into space. And rocky surface absorbs no sunlight. Just as solar panels will not absorb energy of the sun on very cloudy days on Earth.
And it seems to me that even were Venus to lacked clouds, the sunlight would not reach the rocky surface and be able to warm it.
Of course Venus has lots of clouds and it’s the clouds which absorb the energy from the Sunlight.
In terms of radiant insulation of greenhouse gases. I would say that we don’t know how much water vapor is in the atmosphere from the rocky surface to say 20 km in elevation.
I think most people would assume there is little water vapor
in terms of part per million of atmosphere.
Here is something:
–Here is a comparison of the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus. I list the number of molecules per m2 of surface area of the planet in each planet’s atmosphere relative to the total number of molecules per m2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
Earth Venus
N2 0.79 2
O2 0.20 < 0.001
Ar 0.01 0.005
CO2 0.0003 64
H2O ~ 0.02 0.003
Total 1.00 66 —
http://pages.uoregon.edu/soper/Venus/atmosphere.html
So Venus huge atmosphere has about 1/7th of the water as Earth does per square meter [above it].
Though doesn't indicate where the water in Venus atmosphere it is.
Wiki:
0 462 C 92.10 atm
20 km 306 22.52 atm
So half of 92.1 Atm pressure, would be elevation of 1/2 the mass of atmosphere. 46.05 Atm, and 3/4th of mass atmosphere would be below the elevation of 23.025 Atm [lower than 20 km].
So I don't we know, but I guess most would assume there very small amount of water vapor in the 3/4th of the atmosphere which below 20 km. And the "about 1/7th of the water as Earth does per square meter" is above 20 km [or in atmospheric mass about 20 times greater than Earth's.
The clouds are all above the 20 km elevation and I assume people tend to think nearly all the water in atmosphere of Venus is above 20 km elevation.
Dr. Spenser, as you are certainly in the group of scientists that cannot be considered “independent”, can you please cite to any peer reviewed study that supports the position that climate change is not the result of human carbon emissions or that the science is not settled? I cannot find one. Thank you very much.
Brian H,
There is a reasonably good theoretical basis that added GHGs by man should provide *some* push in the warming direction, among all other pushes, warming and cooling, natural and anthropogenic.
However, this doesn’t even mean the climate has to warm, i.e. it could just cool a little less, nor does it even mean the anthropogenic influence is net warming. No one really knows.
Yes, scientists do “really know,” by doing science.
Not quite.
Only second rank “scientists” believe they do “really know”.
And they are not those (few) scientists who really “do the science”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t40aphWbo_o
I don’t click on a link unless someone tells me what the link is about, who made it, etc.
Otherwise they’re just a waste of time.
Nobody cares whether you, David Appel, click or not and at any rate you have at lot of homework to do instead. So that you hopefully in future won’t spout so much ridiculous pontifications here.
For instance you have to learn more about the relevance of statistical mechanics fluctuations or about thermodynamics that’ according to you, isn’t it funny, considers that molecules are nothing but point-like masses.
Or about carbon neutrality of the respiration of 7+ billion people.
Brian,
Your assumption is that peer review is a guarantee of true science. Bad assumption. You also assume that climate scientists behave as true scientists and follow the scientific method. Another bad assumption. You also assume that climate scientists have integrity. Another bad assumption.
Just by your questioning, I know you have swallowed the Koolaid and are not interested in real scientific truth.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“Your assumption is that peer review is a guarantee of true science.”
Nobody thinks that.
Peer review means that a paper adheres to scholarly standards, and it isn’t obviously wrong.
That’s it.
“…and it isnt obviously wrong.”
Except ones that are obviously wrong, like the ones Davie advertises.
Why did you purposely misrepresent what Pierrehumbert wrote?
And why are you afraid to answer this question?
Davie, are you so poor you can’t even afford a mirror?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253026
DA…”Why did you purposely misrepresent what Pierrehumbert wrote?”
That’s not hard to do since most of his stuff I have read comes across as pseudo-science.
Gordon, you’re an amateur who has no business judging a professional like Pierrehumbert, or a right to do so.
You’ve written so many dumb things here it’s impossible to keep count. You’re a joke, Gordon.
Brian H…”can you please cite to any peer reviewed study that supports the position that climate change is not the result of human carbon emissions or that the science is not settled?”
Can you cite any studies that ‘prove’ anthropogenic CO2 causes the global warming that produces so-called climate change? Every alarmist paper written alleges that but not one has proved a correlation between CO2 and atmospheric warming.
Peer review is not a requirement of the scientific method and for a good reason. Peer review is about opinion, there is nothing in PR to verify a paper as being factual.
The IPCC, the mother of all peer review authorities admitted there was no global warming during the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012 despite increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. UAH extended that to 18 years. That’s pretty good proof to me that CO2 has no effect whatsoever.
On June 29, there will be strong cooling in Western Europe, especially in Spain.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/29/0000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=13.85,51.65,990
Hmm…some bodies not telling the truth…according to this, taxpayers lost 2.2billion on the solyndra program.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/
Is that the same program that funded Solyndra??
Why no reply?
@David Appell,
“The density of interstellar space is about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, IIRC.”
Once again you either did not read “Bussard Revisited” or your reading comprehension failed you yet again.
Bussard ram scoops work best within our galaxy where the gas density is at least two orders of magnitude higher than in interstellar space.
Even if so, what does 100 H atoms/m3 do?
How do you harvest these molecules?
What do you do with them?
You ideas are very theoretical, at best.
And when can this ship leave? 2019?
PS: Did you find your missing 150 W/m2 yet?
You keep ignoring this question every time I ask.
Why is that?
If you would read “Bussard Revisited” you would not need to ask those questions. You are mightily opinionated for a person who does not take the trouble to read anything carefully.
Did you find your missing 150 W/m2 yet?
That’s a lot of missing energy…..
broken record.
@Appell
When asked questions that you cannot resolve within your belief system, you always disappear. This is something predictable but unremarkable, I hope you are aware.
Perhaps this time you will answer. Here is the puzzle…
You seem to spend a significant amount of your life inhabiting the basement of this and other forums where you maniacally insist everyone else is wrong. Intriguingly, in order to do so you find yourself engaged in highly technical conversations. Indeed, details are often so involved and nuanced that they allow you (and others) to hide behind “interpretation”.
My question to you is, WHO exactly do you think you are arguing with? In other words, and putting aside your obsessive need to be always right by which your “opponents” must necessarily be complete morons (i.e., 100% mistaken by virtue of existing), what kind of people have the background knowledge and technical expertise required to engage in this kind of conversations?
Laura…”@Appell
When asked questions that you cannot resolve within your belief system, you always disappear. This is something predictable but unremarkable, I hope you are aware”.
Good, Laura, you’re onto DA. It’s not a good idea to feed the trolls but we tend to feed DA tidbits now and then like a pat on the head to encourage a mischievous child who has been mislead in life. We’re hoping he will come around eventually.
When the downturn comes and the planet cools, he will be here claiming that was predicted by AGW theory and that it’s only temporary.
Laura says:
“@Appell
When asked questions that you cannot resolve within your belief system, you always disappear.”
I don’t live on this site, Laura, unlike some others here.
I’m certainly not going to apologize for that. I’ve responded to innumerable comments here — go learn.
What is your question?
Laura says:
“My question to you is, WHO exactly do you think you are arguing with?”
Every denier who comments here.
“….what kind of people have the background knowledge and technical expertise required to engage in this kind of conversations?”
Very, very few of them.
People like Gordon Robertson don’t even understand science at a high school level.
Such people don’t get a say in the science.
Your rules. It makes no difference.
So, who are the “very few of them” that have the background knowledge and technical expertise required to engage in this kind of conversations?
Please do not try to hide again (mostly from yourself, of course) and answer the question.
Laura,
What are trying to point out, with your question about ‘Who’? Not clear.
Consider the context I provided.
——
You seem to spend a significant amount of your life inhabiting the basement of this and other forums where you maniacally insist everyone else is wrong. Intriguingly, in order to do so you find yourself engaged in highly technical conversations. Indeed, details are often so involved and nuanced that they allow you (and others) to hide behind interpretation.
My question to you is, WHO exactly do you think you are arguing with? In other words, and putting aside your obsessive need to be always right by which your opponents must necessarily be complete morons (i.e., 100% mistaken by virtue of existing), what kind of people have the background knowledge and technical expertise required to engage in this kind of conversations?
——
Since Appell dishonestly switched the WHO for a HOW MANY to then further distance himself from a question that torpedoes his worldview by generalizing from a cherry picked example, I will grant you that it is possible to deliberately misconstrue my question and pretend that WHO can be answered by pretending that random people can causally acquire the necessary expertise to force Appell to fend them off by throwing the “literature” at them…
Clearly, only a fool would fall for any of this avoidance tricks.
So, WHO can discuss at this level? It is easy enough to understand, no matter how dangerous for some to acknowledge.
If I understand you, you are saying most people he is arguing with should not be expected to understand the technicalities.
The problem is, a good number of these people are making assertions that the textbook science is wrong (for example the greenhouse effect is not real or significant). That vast numbers of professional scientists, experts on these topics, are wrong. That well established science is wrong.
If people are making outlandish claims such these, they should be prepared to back it up with evidence, facts, scientifically sound arguments. Otherwise they should have no reason to be confident about their claims.
I see. You too are hiding under the how many and avoiding the who.
This has already been covered.
Maybe im being dense, but I dont follow.
How am i ‘hiding’? Who is the ‘who’ i am avoiding?
With what part of what i said do you disagree?
Playing dumb will not do.
Besides, if the question were “how many”, you would choke too.
But I have no interest in allowing you to change the question in order to avoid the answer.
And the question remains as unequivocally clear as always, who has the expertise to discuss at this level? In other words, what kind of people have the background knowledge and technical expertise required to engage in this type of conversation?
Go search the “denier” blogs and take a look at your “deniers”, not at the popcorn tourists but at the ones that you cannot deny, the ones that know what they are talking about, the ones that require skill to debate. Who are they?
Laura,
Ok, so finally, it is becoming somewhat clearer. You want us to stop arguing with ignorant people, and only argue with knowledegable people, on other blogs. If we dont do that, then we are ‘hiding’.
Hmm. Firstly, we do argue with experts, such as Roy, quite often. I would say its hard to know what someones background is, on a blog. Personally, I will happily take issue with anyone, particularly, if they are arguing against known facts, or have misconceptions.
But this is a free country, first amendment, etc. This forum is open to all points of view, and doesnt censor often, unlike some other blogs.
So coming here, you might get POV not available on other one-sided blogs, and learn something. That is my hope anyway.
I’m not telling you who to argue with.
I am asking you WHO those “knowledegable people” are.
Evidently, I am aware you cannot name names. If you could, papers would be rejected on principle, grants would be revoked, jobs would be lost, careers would end, bullets would go through windows, and debate would be crushed. In short, an alarmist’s wet dream.
That is the reason why I further elaborated by rephrasing the question as, what kind of people have the background knowledge and technical expertise required to engage in this kind of conversations?
Laura,
Im lost. No longer sure what your point is or was. Many skeptics names are well known. Some are publishing, some have blogs, like this one.
You seem to be hinting (why not just say it?) at conspiracies. That ‘we’, whoever that is, cannot name names, of skeptics? Seems counterintuitive. But that is often the case with conspiracy theories.
The question is clear and for all to see.
So is your inability/unwillingness (and Appell’s) to answer it.
As expected.
‘The question is clear and for all to see’
Sorry Laura, but it is not clear to me what you are asking or expecting.
It feels like the time we played Charades with our 5 year old. He tried very hard to get us to guess his ‘animal’. Finally we gave up, and he informs us– it was a half unicorn and half alien. Oh ok.
Maybe you should just tell us the answer you are expecting.
Gallopingcamel
“Bussard ram scoops work best within our galaxy where the gas density is at least two orders of magnitude higher than in interstellar space.”
Would you care to edit that statement? The last time I looked, interstellar space was within our galaxy.
Yes, obviously he meant to say intergalactic space.
But the interstellar space within our galaxy would be quite
varied, also the path Sol takes around galaxy is varied densities. Wiki:
“In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 10^6 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10−4 ions per cm”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
“Interstellar gas permeates the Milky Way, but not evenly. The solar system happens now to inhabit an unusually empty patch of space, the local bubble, with only one hydrogen atom per five cubic centimetres of space. In the past we must have drifted through much denser gas clouds, including some more than 100 light years across in whose cold and dark interiors hydrogen forms itself into molecules.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228411-500-earths-wild-ride-our-voyage-through-the-milky-way/
Other quote from article:
We once assumed most stars stayed in such quiet orbits for their entire lives. Our ride may have been more exciting. The characteristic spiral arms of a galaxy such as the Milky Way are waves of higher density, regions where stars and gas are a little closer together than elsewhere in our galaxys disc. Their additional gravity is normally too weak to alter a stars path by much, but if the stars orbital speed happens to match the speed at which the spiral arm is itself rotating, then the extra force has more time to take effect (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol 336, p 785). Its like surfers on the ocean if theyre paddling too slow or too fast they dont get anywhere. They have to match the speed just right, then they get pushed along, says Rok Roskar of the University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Roskars simulations show that a lucky star can ride the wave for 10,000 light years or more. Our sun may be such a surfer. Some measurements imply the sun is richer in heavy elements than the average star in our neighbourhood, suggesting it was born in the busy central zone of the galaxy, where stellar winds and exploding stars enrich the cosmic brew more than in the galactic suburbs. The gravitational buffeting the solar system received then might also explain why Sedna, a large iceball in the extremities of the solar system, travels on a puzzling, enormously elongated orbit (arxiv.org/abs/1108.1570).
And the Moon:
“Planetary scientist Ian Crawford of Birkbeck, University of London, suggests we can look to the moon to find clear evidence of such astro-catastrophes. The moon is a giant sponge soaking up everything thrown at it as we go around the galaxy, he says. Cosmic rays from a supernova will plough into the moon, leaving trails of damage in surface minerals that will be visible under a microscope and knocking atoms about to create exotic isotopes such as krypton-83 and xenon-126.”
Moon is fascinating, but forget all that, let’s instead first look for minable lunar water in poles. If we can commercially mine water, one have lots bases and lots scientific studies done.
gbaikie…”In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 10^6 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3)….”
Loosely translated there’s hardly any matter and it mostly hydrogen. Studied that in a course on astronomy. Furthermore, the mean temperature of space is around 4K (absolute) which is about as cold as you can get. Those hot regions are in the immediate vicinity of stars.
BTW…that 4K is one basis for the Big Bang theory. Mathematicians actually believe it is heating left over from the Big Bang, explaining why they are mathematicians.
But wait a minute, as they say in the cheap TV ads, they are just beginning to detect neutrinos in all that space and they seem very significant. Could it be (from another cheap history program), that the neutrinos act as the predicted aether to allow the transmission of EM?
In other words, as those ‘waves’ (not photons)of EM project radially from their sources are they propagating through oceans of neutrinos?
I know, I know (for the benefit of DA and his fellow alarmists) EM can go through a vacuum. However, a vacuum is nothing more than the absence of matter in the form of atoms and molecules. What if a vacuum is teeming with neutrinos, which is most likely.
There are interesting speculations that link the recent Ice Age cycles to our sun’s passage through spiral arms of the galaxy:
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209252
gbaikie…”Roskars simulations show that a lucky star can ride the wave for 10,000 light years or more. Our sun may be such a surfer”.
I wish Roskar would get a real job for a while to get him out of his sci-fi theories. You’ll notice the broad usage of words like ‘may’ in their sci-fi theories.
If such a gravitation effect was pushing our Sun it would be pushing the planets with it. That would tend to create chaos in our solar system.
Roskar sounds like one of the New Age astronomers who have discarded gravity as a force and replace it with the whopping lie of space-time warping.
You are right. To have any chance of getting the Bussard ram scoop to work well you would need to operate within the spiral arms of the galaxy where there is much more hydrogen than can be found between the spiral arms. I should have used the term “Interstellar Medium” which is discussed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
While building relativistic synchrotrons one our greatest challenges was achieving a decent vacuum. In parts of the Duke HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source) you can find pressures below 10^-11 Torr. My understanding is that our atmosphere (760 Torr) contains ~2.5 X 10^25 molecules per cubic meter. Thus the best vacuum in the HIGS is ~3 X 10^11 molecules/m^3…..not even close to interstellar space!
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
Enjoy the video in the above link. It shows how Inverse Compton Scattering is used to convert photons in the UV into gamma rays.
Where is your missing 150 W/m2?
broken record.
A strong jet stream drops south over the Pacific. The tropical storm moves toward the California Peninsula.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/h5-loop-wv.html
Pacific and the Atlantic are now active because the increased activity of the solar wind.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00912/jj4gena0q4z7.gif
Very much rain in Europe.
http://www.sat24.com/h-image.ashx?region=eu&time=201706262100&ir=True
Sorry.
http://en.sat24.com/en/
I would invite everyone to visit Alaska. If you come through Seward, walk up and check out Exit Glacier. It’s only now retreated to it’s MWP position as evidenced by the ancient spruce forest emerging, dated to 1180 AD. Exit glacier comes off the vast Harding Ice Field. How far up the valley do the spruce go? They might even be under the Harding itself. Perhaps from climate optimum or Eemian?
And before we believe the liberal brainiacs posting on why those periods might have been warmer than now with less CO2, ask why they can say accurately what conditions were 8,000 to 120,000 years ago but not next week? Or model the pause?
More proof is needed before hurting the poor over CO2. The planet teeters on the brink from so many other more pressing things. And if it’s proven by time that CO2 is causing significant warming above natural variabity, then let change come through capitalism choosing winners and losers (as fracking has coal) versus some central govt edict. Anyone who has opened a history book knows big govt can’t find its ass with both hands. It’s proven by the graves in its wake. More freedom = less death. Limited govt = more freedom.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
https://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
Darwin Wyatt says:
“And if its proven by time that CO2 is causing significant warming above natural variabity,”
Already proven. You’re just a denier.
Not proven. Not possible. Not science.
You’re just a comedian.
@Darwin Wyatt,
“More proof is needed before hurting the poor over CO2.”
We already know the truth thanks to hard science such as the EPICA dome ice cores. Unfortunately the “Scientists” like Thomas F. Stocker who did the research prefer to lie in order to keep their cushy jobs. Billions of poor people around the world have to suffer so these scientific parasites can enjoy secure jobs and fat pensions. How sick is that?
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
GC, did you find that missing 150 W/m2 yet??
Timely headline fits in with the topic of this posting by Dr. Roy.
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/global-warming-the-imminent-crisis-that-never-arrives/
The AMS claims that the literature says that human-emissions of CO2 are the main driver of climate change. They also claim that the evidence is overwhelming. Can someone point me to one peer-reviewed article that proves this is true? I don’t want one that just concludes it because butterflies migrate differently.
Secondly, even the climate modelers put the contribution of water vapor to be around 85% of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 being 3.5 to 7 %. We do not understand the worldwide water vapor cycle well enough to include it in our climate models, so how can we tell anything about CO2 effects on climate?
Polaris…”The AMS claims that the literature says that human-emissions of CO2 are the main driver of climate change”.
The AMS is ignorant of basic geography. It calls itself American which can only refer to a continent. There is no country legally called America, the proper name being the United States OF America. The word America, often used to represent the US, is a local colloquialism that has spread to people world wide who are ignorant of basic geography.
For another, like the Royal Society in the UK it is a front office for meteorologists in the US. It has no official status and certainly does not represent all meteorologists. Roy is a meteorologist.
The AMS is also hypocritical. It awarded medals for excellence to Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH for excellence, for their work creating data sets from NOAA satellite data, which essentially disproves what the AMS are now claiming about anthropogenic CO2.
Gordon: Your attempts at science are laughably and comically wrong.
So you don’t get to judge the science of others. Period.
Davie, you DO know comedy, so you can judge others comedic abilities. But, you don’t know science from squat.
Stick with comedy.
Maybe we should get rid of the models.and rely on the collection of data.Models have there place in science.but now we have two camps.one who are fanatically trying to prove the models are correct. And another camp trying to prove they are wrong.it seams to me that data and real world observations are the way to go
UK Ian…”And another camp trying to prove they are wrong”.
There’s nothing to prove there. Until they are validated they are as good as wrong. If they could be validated, they’d be right.
Furthermore, the satellite data has proved them wrong.
Validation:
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1.png
Validation:
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017.png
It will be hot in July, in the Southwest US. To Davie, this will validate AGW!
(Winters don’t count–That’s just “weather”.)
@ gbaikie
“Why dont sidewalks get supercold in the middle of the night?”
Answer: Because the atmosphere exchanges heat with the sidewalks via conduction, convection, radiation and latent heat.
“What happens to all the IR the atmosphere is radiating downward?”
Answer: The energy radiated does not get very far. Only a tiny fraction of CO2 molecules in the troposphere have time to radiate IR energy they have captured owing to collisions with other molecules. This is explained by Robinson & Catling in a letter to Nat Geo that I have linked (ad nauseam) here.
“Well obviously a sidewalk on the Moon would get super cold,
but would then warm up to 120 C during daytime.”
Answer: Exactly right, at least on the Moon’s equator! This was examined in some depth here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
“But roughly earth doesnt get super cold at night because of two reasons, it rotates every 24 hours and it has atmosphere.
Or maybe if Moon had some atmosphere, it would still get super cold because it has slow rotation [29.5 times slower than Earth].
It should be noted that having a large atmosphere- like Earth atmosphere- on the Moon or Mars is complicated, because such atmospheres would have a very tall troposphere, due to there low gravity.”
Answer (for Earth): I am still working on applying FEA (Finite Element Analysis) to calculating the effect of atmosphere and may fail dismally.
Answer (for Moon): The Moon does not have enough atmosphere to have a significant effect on surface temperature. However conduction of heat from the interior of the Moon has a detectable effect on night time surface temperatures.
The effect of the rate of rotation is still a matter for discussion. Scott Denning (Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University) and I are in close agreement while Ned Nikolov disagrees:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-iii-modelling-the-moon-at-various-rotation-rates/
The Moon’s average temperature along its equator can be exactly explained by standard and trivial radiative physics, as I showed here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
Roy or Developers. You really could improve with collapsible comments (in app). It is nearly impossible to evaluate conversations.
The AMA should be sued for criminal negligence and any credentials revoked.
Ocean Warming Dominates The Increase In Energy Stored In the Climate System
Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {1.1.2, Figure 1.2}
The IPCC Report does more to prove it is engaged in sophistry than real science. In its 2014 report, the IPCC states that Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It also states that only about 1% of the energy is stored in the atmosphere.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/ocean-warming-dominates-the-increase-in-energy-stored-in-the-climate-system/
Co2…”Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere”.
Yes…this is Trenberth-based sci-fi. After he got caught in the Climategate emails admitting the warming had stopped, with egg all over his face, he came up with the ‘missing heat in the oceans’ pseudo-science.
No one has explained how a planet in thermal equilibrium manages to ‘store’ heat. If they had that capacity (no pun intended) they would have reached the boiling point by now.
Earth is not in thermal equilibrium. It has an excess of incoming flux over outgoing flux of 0.7W/m^2.
This results in the system accumulating about 3*10^22J/year.
The vast majority of that energy, 93% goes into increasing ocean heat content and temperature. About 5% goes into latent heat melting ice and the final 2% warms the surface and atmosphere.
If you have a better hypotbesis, now is the time. Scientific debate is won by the side whose explaination of events best fits the data.
It is not won by insults. My own experience in debating societies is that the losing side resorts to insults when it runs out of valid arguments.
E-man, we don’t know the exact figures for incoming/outgoing photon flux. The numerous estimates are usually NOT science, especially when they try to claim they are as accurate to 0.7 Watts/m^2!
Someone has misled you to believe the planet is accumulating (net) 3*10^22 Joules/yr.
G*e*ra*n
No need to lead, or mislead me. The figures are in the literature, but can be calculated independantly by anyone with A Level physics. It is one of the climate processes you can check for yourself.
Check it yourself. You can calculate that 3*10^22J/year in three independant ways from three independant datasets.
1) The energy needed to produce the observed rate of sea level rise due to thermal expansion.
2) The energy needed to produce the observed increase in ocean heat content.
3) Satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, from which you can calculate the imbalance, and hence the accumulating energy
Don’t get lost in pseudoscience.
1) The energy needed to produce the observed rate of sea level rise due to thermal expansion.
Bogus numbers, assumptions, and estimates are too error-prone. How much of sea level rise is due to settlement from rivers, for example?
2) The energy needed to produce the observed increase in ocean heat content.
What figures are you going to use for ocean heat content? Surface and buoy samples?
3) Satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, from which you can calculate the imbalance, and hence the accumulating energy
Do you know how many satellites would be required to get anything more than a guess? How about 10,000. And, how many years? And, no orbits or equipment could change!
EntropicMan,
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the satellites are incapable of measuring the alleged TOA energy imbalance. Per NASA:
“Despite recent improvements in satellite instrument calibration and the algorithms used to determine SW and LW outgoing top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes, a sizeable imbalance persists in the average global net radiation at the TOA from CERES satellite observations. With the most recent CERES Edition3 Instrument calibration improvements, the SYN1deg_Edition3 net imbalance is ~3.4 W m-2, much larger than the expected observed ocean heating rate ~0.58 W m-2 (Loeb et al. 2012a). This imbalance is problematic in applications that use Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) data for climate model evaluation, estimations of the Earth’s annual global mean
energy budget, and studies that infer meridional heat transports.”
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/DQ_summaries/CERES_EBAF_Ed2.8_DQS.pdf
Furthermore, this is what James Hansen stated in his 2011 paper, “Earth’s Energy Balance and Implications”:
“The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the
Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m 2 (Loeb et al., 2009).
The problems being addressed with this tuning probably involve the high variability and changes of the angular distribution functions for outgoing radiation and the very limited sampling of the radiation field that is possible from an orbiting satellite, as well as, perhaps, detector calibration. There can be no credible expectation that this tuning/calibration procedure
can reduce the error by two orders of magnitude as required to measure changes of Earth’s energy balance to an accuracy of 0.1 W/m 2“
Bottom line:
The satellites cannot detect the alleged GHE.
More interesting statements from the Hansen 2011 paper:
“Earth emits and scatters radiation in all directions, i.e.,
into 4π steradians. How can measurement of radiation in a single direction provide a proxy for radiation in all directions? Climate change alters the angular distribution of scattered and emitted radiation. It is implausible that changes in the angular distribution of radiation could be modeled to the needed accuracy, and the objective is to measure the imbalance, not guess at it. There is also the difficulty of maintaining sensor calibrations to accuracy 0.1 W/m 2 , i.e., 0.04 percent. That accuracy is beyond the state-of-the art, even for short periods, and that accuracy would need to be maintained for decades.”
Hi g*e*r*a*n,
“we dont know the exact figures for incoming/outgoing photon flux. The numerous estimates are usually NOT science, especially when they try to claim they are as accurate to 0.7 Watts/m^2!”
I’m absolutely with you here. And reading SkepticGoneWild, it seems to me that even James Hansen became scrupulous in highlighting the uncertainties of the measurements when they don’t support his believing.
What do you think about the uncertainties of “homogenized” ground temperatures used to split very little data and integrate them all again to get the so called “Earth average temperature” at surface?
Have a great day,
Massimo
Hi Massimo. You asked “What do you think about the uncertainties of ‘homogenized’ ground temperatures used to split very little data and integrate them all again to get the so called ‘Earth average temperature’ at surface?
I think such “homogenization” allows them to come up with any “average temperature” they want. Which invalidates the whole process, even with “peer review”.
SGW writes: “The satellites cannot detect the alleged GHE.”
Great quote—“alleged” GHE!
g*e*r*a*n
You mentioned a distrust on the homogenized temperature data, so I assume you have some knowledge on this. I cannot figure out how Alice Springs Australia could lose 2 degree Celsius in 1880 only to slowly be corrected from the actual readings over 100 years to show a warming trend in the middle of Australia, when the actual readings do not show any warming. The nearest GISS temperatures stations are over 200km away and there is a sporadic availability of data. Can you help be understand or direct me to any research on this?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=501943260000&ds=7&dt=1
I have checked many other stations in the GISS site, many just do not make sense. And you may be right, it was designed to show warming. I have also scanned maximum temperature records in rural areas across the US that go back to at least 1920, and the majority are pre 1960. This does not seem to jive with the statement that the US is hotter now than in early part of the previous century. I believe the urban heat island effect coupled with distortion of the actual readings as lead to an erroneous conclusion. Your thoughts?
bilybob…”I have checked many other stations in the GISS site, many just do not make sense”.
You’re not the only one who suspects GISS and their data provider NOAA.
bilybob…try
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
NOAA has admitted as much although the page on which they admitted it has been removed by the climate alarmists in the Obama administration.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
They admit to slashing global stations from 6000 to less than 1500, corroborating what chiefio has claimed at the previous link.
NOAA takes temperature data from less than 1500 surface stations and uses it in a model to SYNTHESIZE the slashed temperature data using statistical interpolation and homogenization in a climate model.
Furthermore, both NOAA and GISS have been lowering confidence levels for the statistically generated data to claim record temperatures. NOAA claimed 2014 as the warmest year ever based on a confidence level of 48%.
bilybob
You might also appreciate the research done at this blog:
https://realclimatescience.com
The blog owner is a great programmer, with access to huge temperature databases. He is a leading expert in uncovering the fabrications/manipulations of temperature data.
He’s not well-trained in physics, however, and still has trouble understanding CO2 does NOT produce warming. But, he’s learning.
Billybob, the BEST estimate, local max around 1880:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/23.31S-133.69E
A nearby long term station which needed no adjustment!
https://tinyurl.com/y8t6lp24
Should have been this:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/4735
Ger*
‘What figures are you going to use for ocean heat content? Surface and buoy samples?’
Ever heard of Argo?
‘3) Satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, from which you can calculate the imbalance, and hence the accumulating energy
Do you know how many satellites would be required to get anything more than a guess? How about 10,000. And, how many years?’
Right now it is being done pretty well with two. Where are you getting 10,000?? Or is it just another made up fact?
Nate jumps in (violating Con man’s rule): “Right now it is being done pretty well with two. Where are you getting 10,000?? Or is it just another made up fact?”
Nate, what two satellites provide sufficient spectrum analysis of all Earth’s outgoing/incoming electromagnetic radiation to allow valid calculation of the planet’s energy budget?
Steve Goddard (fake name) is a bozo who makes one mistake after another.
“Steve Goddard” (Tony Heller) has had to retract:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
So, Davie, when are you going to retract your “mistakes”?
(Do I need to supply a list?)
You’ll get an answer when you display a modicum of respect.
But I doubt you’re capable of that.
Until then you’ll stay being ignored.
Davie, you wouldn’t know “respect” if someone shoved it up your pseudoscience hole.
You flail around here calling people “liars” with no remorse. You can’t support your pseudoscience, so you complain, whine and insult.
So, I guess you won’t be “retracting” anytime soon….
(No one will be surprised.)
Ger*
You are the one that said 10000. Where is that from? Or is it just the biggest number you could think of?
The CERES system uses two satellites. Point is you made the claim this is insufficient. Whats your evidence?
And ARGO data, you think it should be ignored, or did you just not know about it?
eman…”Earth is not in thermal equilibrium. It has an excess of incoming flux over outgoing flux of 0.7W/m^2″.
If that was the case, the planet would go on accumulating heat over the eons to the point where the oceans would evapourate from boiling. All life as we know it would have been killed off a long time ago.
There is no way to measure your imbalance. As g*e*r*a*n claimed, one satellite in a fixed orbit cannot be expected to measure that with any degree of accuracy.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is no way to measure your imbalance.”
Bull. Almost all of the extra heat (about 93%) goes into the ocean, so it’s the crucial place to measure heat changes.
Read and learn:
Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance, Gregory C. Johnson et al, Nature Climate Change 6, 639640 (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate3043
Trying to diagnose a global energy imbalance by looking at lower troposphere or surface temperatures is misguided.
But Davie, “improving” is not what is required.
What is the actual energy imbalance?
You need continual, and long term, spectral analysis, from numerous satellites (1000’s?) for both incoming and outgoing E/M, correlated so that they match geographically.
When you get that, get back to us.
BTW, what kind of person sits here all day long, every day, day after day, just waiting to disrespectfully troll everyone at the earliest possible moment?
I feel sorry for you, that this is all you can think of doing…..
Davie, it’s amazing how well you describe yourself.
Gordon. As far as I know the earth does not store the heat it receives from the sun.but it does radiate heat from the core.if the sun stopped shining now .it would take about 1week for the temperature to drop to 0 degrees f and a further 1 year to reach -100f in a further two to three million years the temperature would stabilise at -400f the point where the heat radiating from the core equals that radiating into space.it would still be warmer than deep space for millions of years.how long is open to debate
UK Ian…”As far as I know the earth does not store the heat it receives from the sun.but it does radiate heat from the core”.
I don’t think the heat radiated from the core has been studied closely enough. The outer shell of the core is reputedly the equivalent temperature (~6000C) of portions of the surface of the Sun. That heat has to be dissipated by the layers above it and eventually radiated to space.
Recently it was revealed that the layer below the crust is carrying a lot more heat than previously anticipated.
There is no mechanism to restore heat that is not being replaced. The premise is a daft idea put forward by climate alarmists who cannot explain the fact the planet has not warmed on average since 1998 (1995 according to Lindzen) and has experienced little or no warming since 1979.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I dont think the heat radiated from the core has been studied closely enough.”
It has. The average flux is very small, 44 terawatts, or about 0.09 W/m2.
Oh, THAT would be a funny paper?
Some clowns believe they know how much warming comes from the core. I hope their thermometers could withstand the pressures at oceans’ depths!
Hilarious.
And why is the ocean strongly warming?
Low pressure over the polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2017.png
Can CO2 significantly affect climate change?
“Following the end of the last glacial period about 11,500 years ago, Earth’s climate system began to look and behave more like it does today. The large continental ice sheets shrank, sea level rose, temperatures ameliorated, and monsoons grew in strength. Around 8,200 years ago, however, a surprising event occurred. The 8.2 ka event, was first discovered in the Greenland ice core GISP2, where high-resolution analyses indicate that over two decades temperature cooled about 3.3C in Greenland (Kobashi et al. 2007 (link is external)). The entire event lasted about 150 years (Thomas et al. 2007 (link is external); Kobashi et al. 2007 (link is external)) and then temperatures warmed, returning to their previous levels.”
National Centers for Environmental Information
Ren
IIRC the best candidate explaination for the 8.2kya event was that two large glacial lakes filled with meltwater from the Laurentide ice sheet drained rapidly off North America into the North Atlantic and disrupted the thermohaline circulation.
“The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10C (18F) in a decade (Alley 2000 (link is external)). Other proxy records, including varved lake sediments in Europe, also display these abrupt shifts (Brauer et al. 2008 (link is external)).
The Younger Dryas is clearly observable in paleoclimate records from many parts of the world. In the Cariaco Basin north of Venezuela, for example, temperatures decreased about 3C (5.5F), although some of this cooling might have been due to greater upwelling of colder subsurface water (Lea et al. 2003 (link is external)). In many parts of the Northern Hemisphere tropics, conditions also became drier (Hughen et al. 2000 (link is external); Wang et al. 2001 (link is external)).”
National Centers for Environmental Information
@ten,
Unlike Michael Mann, his colleague at Penn State, Richard Alley will answer questions from the unwashed masses. He has a great sense of humorhumor too.
Michael Mann answers every question I ask him.
So does Richard Alley.
Maybe you don’t know how to ask.
Jet stream ends drought in Italy.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/28/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-352.10,47.13,1192
It is worth seeing what is happening in the south of Europe now.
http://en.sat24.com/en/it/infraPolair
Why?
Current rainfall in Western and Central Europe will probably exceed the monthly norms for France, Germany and Poland.
How will July begin in North America?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/07/01/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-100.39,40.22,786
Scepticgonewild
That is why you don’t rely on satellites alone.
When three independant techniques give similar results, it gives you confidence in your data.
E-man, it appears you are still not convinced you have been mislead. That’s okay, we’re here to help.
You stated, farther up the thread: “The figures are in the literature, but can be calculated independantly by anyone with A Level physics.”
So, let’s assume we both have at least “A Level physics”. Now, let’s examine your first claim, that the 3(10)^22 Joules can be calculated from “the observed rate of sea level rise due to thermal expansion.”
We will need to extract the causes of sea level rise due to things other than ocean warming. So, what figure did you come up with for the mass added to ocean floors by all underwater volcanoes and lava vents? What figure for the mass of space dust on the ocean floors? What mass due to rivers and soil/sand washed in from land surfaces? What mass accumulation due to plant and animal growth, both living and deceased? Debris from sand storms? Wrecked ships, planes? (Did I leave out any other major factors?)
Of course, we will need start and stop times for all mass accumulations to coincide with sea level rise.
Then, we get to correlate temperature increases in all parts of the oceans to the volumes. Because, as you know, different volumes of the ocean have different temperatures.
Once we have a solid grasp of all the data, to a confidence of at least 1%, then we can use our “A Level physics” to calculate how much energy the oceans are gaining.
+1
Hi g*e*r*a*n,
anyways the very bad I see in temperature “homogenizing” is that NOAA gives constraints about placing the Stevenson screened thermometers far from buildings to avoid any UHI effect, and the climatologists with that magic mathematical trick allege to be able to reconstruct the temperature around well farther than the NOAA limit which should warrant no influence from UHI (which is a temperature effect indeed).
Do you get my point?
Isn’t that a sort of foolish approach?
Have a great day.
Massimo
It’s so bad that many of us know not to trust anything from NOAA or GISS. It will take years to restore confidence in such agencies.
Massimo…”and the climatologists with that magic mathematical trick allege to be able to reconstruct the temperature around well farther than the NOAA limit…”
NOAA are reconstructing temperatures from surface stations up to 1200 miles apart using statistical interpolation and homogenization.
Here in BC, on the west coast of Canada, we have a change in climate over 150 miles from a rain forest climate to a pure desert climate with temperature differences of more than 20C at times.
In California, NOAA has abandoned reporting stations in the Sierra Nevada mountains where it’s cooler and are currently using 3 stations, all along the coast. They are doing that globally, and combined with lowering the confidence levels they are producing record warming years regularly.
Temperature adjustments — required to correct biases in the raw daa — actually reduce the long-term warming trend.
Understand?
Davie, there is no “long-term warming trend”.
Understand?
Karl et al, Science 2015, Figure 2A and 2B.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469
Davie, when is “Science” mag going to change the name to “Pseudoscience”?
Norman, here’s yet another example of where G* resorts to snark because he can’t disprove the science.
G*e*r*a*n
It is possible to audit the contributions of different factors to sea level rise.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/06/what-makes-sea-level-rise/church2011/
The graph comes from the paper by Church et al (2011)
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got?
That’s all I need. Data, not opinion.
Well, 1) and 2) are closely related. Without supporting evidence for either, let’s put them on hold and go on to 3).
3) Satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, from which you can calculate the imbalance, and hence the accumulating energy.
Were you able to find the required spectral data for large areas of the globe, for long periods. That’s what we will need to proceed.
Great Plains will be green this summer.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/07/03/0000Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=cape/orthographic=-98.48,40.46,1191
The local CBS affiliate is talking crop failure here in Alaska, from cold weather. Last year at this date, 21 days over 70, this year 5. Maybe we can get our AG to bring the greenies up on charges?
http://www.ktva.com/valley-farmers-adapting-cooler-temperatures-944/
Darwin Wyatt…”The local CBS affiliate is talking crop failure here in Alaska…”
The story at your link is about people adapting rather than whining. Good for them.
The alarmists will call it weather but when spots of above average weather moves around in the Arctic they call it climate.
It’s about probability distributions — too complex for you to understand.
Anything that falsifies Davie’s belief system is only a “probability distribution”.
And, it’s just too “complex” for us to understand!
Hilarious.
DA:
“Probability distribution”
Yes, my brain is unable to grasp chaotic science. I think I would go mad if I tried… I do however know that CO2 is below natural variability. Alarmism is doa. You can’t admit that can you? Will the real denier please stand up? At most per your argument it’s not quite as cold as it could be. That’s just so brilliant! I’ll try and find humor in that while I light my blaze king…
Probability distributions have nothing to do with chaos theory.
{Sigh}
Darwin Wyatt says:
“I do however know that CO2 is below natural variability.”
Really?
I’d be very interested in seeing proof of that.
Go ahead……
It is clear that COD ‘climate change’ means all things to all people. To a clutch of Climatism devotees, the meaning was preordained when the UN supplanted ‘global warming’ as the preferred vernacular of ‘settled politics’ when in 1998 warming inconveniently and unpredictably failed to oblige, indeed, much as it did though more severely c.1940 – 1975, a period heralded by the Climatism Cognoscenti as an imminent ice-age. Given that the UNFCCC defines ‘climate change’ to derive solely from anthropogenic causes and ‘climate variability’ to encompass natural variation, one assumes that Perry is using COD lingua franca, whereas AMS were using UNFCCC lingua obscura. The two therefore appear doomed to disagree unless they first agree about what it is that they are talking about. As the UNFCCC term ‘climate change’ employed by ‘settled politics’ is preordained, the probability seems infinitesimal that agreement can ever be reached between ‘settled politics’ and science. There is a >90% UN IPCC ‘confidence’ that this is true.
Manfred…”There is a >90% UN IPCC confidence that this is true”.
I have a 99.9% confidence that the UN IPCC is full of bat dung.
In 2013 they admitted no significant warming during the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012 and followed that up by increasing their confidence from 90 to 95% that humans are causing the warming.
Fifteen years of no warming and they increased their confidence it was caused by humans.
Bat dung!!!
Gordon Robertson says:
“Fifteen years of no warming and they increased their confidence it was caused by humans.”
And Gordon lies again.
Davie believes the Earth warms the Sun.
g*e*r*a*n
You call me a con-man when the label fits you. You call textbook physics pseudoscience. You really cannot understand heat exchange at all and have Postma’s twisted delusional version as your own but will not correct his errors with real and valid physics.
You do not understand David Appell’s point about the Earth and Sun. You can’t comprehend the concept even when told.
The Earth does not “warm” the Sun even in David’s mind. In two systems of the solar system, one with planets and the other with none, the one with planets will allow the Sun to reach a very slightly (and I do mean slight) higher equilibrium temperature because the planets have slightly lowered the outgoing flux of the Sun (which is how scientists are currently finding planets around other solar systems, slight dimming effects when a planet crosses a star).
The Earth does not warm the Sun, it allows the Sun to reach a slightly higher equilibrium temperature. It is First Law of Thermodynamics physics.
If you have so much energy being generated and so much leaving, if you lessen the amount leaving without changing the amount generated, the temperature will go up. This is standard textbook physics. You do not grasp it at all and never will. Your brain cannot process concepts like this. The only way you might grasp it is if Joe Postma starts talking true and real physics and tells his followers he was incorrect and starts explaining real physics instead of his distorted view.
‘You call textbook physics pseudoscience.’
Where did I do that, Con-man?
(You wouldn’t be conning us, would you?)
g*e*r*a*n
You do it all the time. I bring up a point, link it to a textbook and you call it pseudoscience.
So, no example of me doing what you said I did?
Just another con.
Does anyone think that rising air temperatures cause an increase in precipitation?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/06/30/0600Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-8.76,41.67,1191
Everyone should understand that an increase in TPW (total precipitable water) would cause both an increase in air temperature and, if the TPW increase was more than the increased air temperature could accommodate, an increase in precipitation. So, although rising air temperature alone could not cause an increase in precipitation, it could accompany it.
Dan…”Everyone should understand that an increase in TPW (total precipitable water) would cause both an increase in air temperature…”
What are you talking about, Dan? In the nearly 30 years since this insanity was started by James Hansen in 1988 about catastrophic global warming, have you seen any evidence of a significant increase in TPW?
I notice you claimed it ‘would’ cause such and such effects. Why live in a sci-fi future world, just observe.
http://hvfarmscape.org/sites/default/files/6.jpg
DA…so you post a graphic of precipitation from 1900 – 2000 and that is supposed to prove…what??? Where’s your evidence that precipitation has increased due to global warming?
Gordon: The increasing trend.
NASA/RSS measure it over the oceans by satellite and report it monthly. I graph the data as Fig 3 in my analysis. I provided the link to the NASA/RSS data upthread but here it is again:
http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201704.time_series.txt
ren ..”Does anyone think that rising air temperatures cause an increase in precipitation?”
What rising temperatures, ren?
This is just a question.
Say, the 0.5 C LT temperature increase since 1979 found by UAH v6.0.
Rising air temperatures could be associated with the summer season. Or falling air temperature could associated with the winter season. Most land area in temperate zones during summer have less rain and with more rain and/or snow in the winter.
Are you referring to rising global air temperature. Global anything is mostly ocean surfaces, and rising temperature with ocean surface, is largely about evaporation- more evaporation
generally tends cause more precipitation.
Winter in Australia.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00913/s3061qndlqzd.png
Still low temperature in Central Arctic.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
Again, ren idiotically posts a graph of sea ice extent and claims it’s temperature.
You really can’t fix stupid.
@Appell
We can’t fix your poor reading comprehension either.
details.
Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2017
Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-05_en.png
I’m glad I do not have your intelligence.
ren, you posted a graph of extent and claimed it was about temperature.
You do this kind of thing often. It’s why your comments are so often ignored here — even the deniers see you’re irrelevant.
DA…”Again, ren idiotically posts a graph of sea ice extent and claims its temperature.”
He did nothing of the kind. He made one statement that temperatures in the Arctic were still low AND he produced a link to sea ice extent. Both are related.
You are right that you can’t fix stupid, when it applies to you.
Gordon,
You’re trying to fix obtuse. DA is a (he wishes) paid for shill. His background in physics makes him believe he is smarter than the average bear. Maybe in physics. Beyond that his purpose is to denigrate those who oppose his point of view, taking the typical Democratic style of emotional attack (see Mika and Joe) as his method.
He has nothing else. He is a lonesome, pitiful person, seeking solace here because his own blog finds few followers.
Responses to him, such as this, give rise to his self esteem, helping him believe he is important and that these attacks on Dr. R’s blog are of great import, which keeps him going between his coffee and sugar buns intake.
Lewis, maybe someday you’ll have a comment that actually contains science, and not just your usual snark and personal insults.
But I suspect it probably will never happen, because it hasn’t happened yet. You aren’t capable of it.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Its so bad that many of us know not to trust anything from NOAA or GISS. It will take years to restore confidence in such agencies.”
Those agencies are corrupt beyond reform. The only thing that makes sense now is to defund them both.
You aren’t qualified to judge the work of these professionals. You can’t even find a missing 150 W/m2.
38% probability 2014 was warmest ever!
Hilarious.
One might wonder how David Appell knows that it is the work of professionals. He doesn’t even grasp the simple nature of energy or temperature fluctuations in equilibrium statistical mechanics.
They have advanced degrees, and, unlike you, aren’t afraid to state their claims under their real names.
My “claims” whether stated anonymously or under my real name are nothing but very basics in statistical physics or thermodynamics. They can’t make me or anyone else famous, so it hardly matters.
In contrast you, David Appel, you’re now really famous under your real name., For you obviously don’t understand such elementary physics and nevertheless endlessly pontificate here about the misunderstanding of science by others.
Funny.
DA…”You arent qualified to judge the work of these professionals”.
What qualifications are required to interpret NOAA’s own admission that they have slashed 5000 surface stations from a global pool of 6500 and subjected the data from less than 1500 stations globally to a climate model, where it is used to synthesize data for the missing 5000?
What qualifications are required to recognize that offering 2014 as the hottest year ever was based on a confidence level of 48%?
Your problem is that your abject naivete prevents you seeing this chicanery.
Gordon,
Q: How many temperature stations are required to get an accurate series of the global mean temperature series.
A: Several times less than you seem to think.
I know junk science when I see it:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-calculations/
Over the southern polar circle also very low pressure.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2017.png
Any one got a comment on this? RSS v4 shows significantly greater warming than RSS v3 https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998?
Yes, but only to say it will be interesting to see what UAH team make of this. 😉
The two satellite temperature sets are diverging.
RSS has been adjusted upwards. UAH has been adjusted downwards.
entropic…”RSS has been adjusted upwards. UAH has been adjusted downwards.”
Never did trust RSS. They were developed originally to disprove UAH and ended up corroborating them. I regard them essentially as alarmists.
Gordon Robinson
RSS adjusted their data to take full account of the effect of satellite orbit decay. This changed the time of day at which measurements were taken further from midday and led to underestimated temperatures. The correction increased recent calculated temperatures and increased the long term warming rate.
In the past RSS has tended to lead the way. As RSS refined their analysis to minimise errors UAH has followed. UAH v8.0 will probably show similar changes.
/sarcon Of course, this means that Dr Spencer and Dr Christey are part of the climate conspiracy. /sarcoff
I look forward to Roy Spencer’s critique of the RSS “Adjustments”.
Ask Roy about his own adjustments, too, like the huge changes from UAH LT v5.6 to LT v6.0
Here’s one take on it:
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/06/another-correct-forecast-from-roy-spencer/
MacHeath…”Any one got a comment on this?”
RSS has gone over to the other side, where it came from.
Jetstream in southern Europe.
https://youtu.be/Jf2PN-SxJvE
Pleasant air over the Iberian Peninsula.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00914/2hmweoa9pv2q.png
I took on the idea that ocean waters heat the planet. which they will based on a hemispheric emissivity of 0.84 (which I calculated). That would yield a temperature for a water only sphere of about 286-287K. The whole essay..
https://www.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid
Regrettably I guess I was wrong on this calculation, for omitting Lamberts cosine law after all. So shame on me! Including it will put emissivity up to 0.94 after all. However there are yet some indications for water heating the planet, and I can not come to a definite conclusion at this point.
Yet I am more convinced than ever, that the role of clouds is badly underrepresented in the whole greenhouse concept. In fact I tend to believe they are responsible for almost all of the “GHE”, while vapor does not play a role at all. Furthermore there may well be man made global warming, due to air travel and contrails.
A simple analysis of nocturnal cooling patterns show an extremely strong effect by clouds, while vapor (relative humidity) is not correlated at all to the rate of nocturnal cooling.
Erich says:
June 30, 2017 at 2:12 PM
I took on the idea that ocean waters heat the planet. which they will based on a hemispheric emissivity of 0.84 (which I calculated). That would yield a temperature for a water only sphere of about 286-287K. The whole essay..
https://www.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid
That doesn’t allow me to copy and paste it. And they want me to sign up or something.
So Type out, this bit:
“296.6 or 23.6C”
Now I had posted that I thought tropics would be about 40 C.
And rather then, look at it, I tried remember. And I rambled, etc. Finally searched for that post, that I was vaguely remembering:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252285
Had I Looked for post first, could have been easier {but perhaps rambling helped somehow}.
In my rambling, I said the the sun is not a point of light, and maybe it would work if it was. No doubt gibbish. But in link I say “tropical equator region”. And that could be better way of saying.
Or in terms of earth, tropics is 40% of surface area of earth, and receives more than 1/2 of the sunlight of the sun on Earth.
And we seem to trying to determine, how much more than 1/2.
And 40 C refers to “I want to start seeing spring/fall equinox solar heating of the ideal blackbody.
Or when sun is at Zenith at noon at the equator.”
So in sense eliminating the tilt by have it at point of time
of equinox.
The ideal blackbody toy [if we had it] would provide instant answers- because of it’s nature [magic].
In the other rambling post [which I am not going to post] I was explaining how ideal blackbody differs from perfect blackbody- but then looked for reference, all saw was ideal was suppose to now be the same as perfect. So then had go back to Greenhouse theory in wiki:
“An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at the same distance from the Sun as Earth would have a temperature of about 5.3 C. ”
So for me, ideal blackbody would be “ideal thermally conductive blackbody” [because like to preserve the past].
And it has uniform temperature of “about 5.3 C”
So I imagine, that somehow, the sun is not point of light and looking at zone are related.
New question, does the tilt of Earth cause more sunlight in tropical zone. Or same thing/flip side, does it reduce the amount of sunlight in the rest of the world?
Or could it make no difference in this regard?
It makes difference because of ocean to land arrangement- but if planet all ocean, does it make a difference?
Now if the earth had no atmosphere, everyone with solar panels would then need to point their solar panels at the sun, and everyone would have total average daily flux of about 16 kw hours. And as way of persuading to buy this add on, one could need to know how much sunlight one gets without keeping solar panels pointed at the sun.
Currently with fixed solar panels, and if toward poles, you face towards the equator and have at angle- more poleward have higher angle. And at the equator they are level.
So in vacuum and at equator with solar panel level, and not moving to face the sun. How many Kw hours of sunlight do you get? Or the pointing feature gives 16 kw hours per day, what different as compared to the panels which are fixed?
I would say equator give the least improvement by having solar panel able to face the sun. And those most pole ward get the most improvement.
One more thing in terms of having atmosphere and the ocean, the ocean would absorb the energy of direct and indirect light.
And why do you use 1378.4 value for sunlight?
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
or 344.6 * 4 = 1378.4
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 – 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
My accuracy my be futile however, as we do not measure the surface temperature of the sun, but rather the radiation we receive…
“Now I had posted that I thought tropics would be about 40 C”
How did you get to those 40C ?
So, you calculated the 1378.4 number.
The average amount at Earth distance [which varies] is called the solar constant. Wiki:
“The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite as being 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m) at solar minimum and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m) at solar maximum.” And:
“The approximate average value cited, 1.3608 0.0005 kW/m, which is 81.65 kJ/m per minute”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
Or I tend say about 1360 watts per square meter.
But 1361 watts is close also.
“How did you get to those 40C ?”
Roughly a guess of how much sunlight would absorbed if you absorb all sunlight. Or how much the level surface would absorb at equator. Assuming it was ideal blackbody and rotating like Earth.
Or take 1.3608 kW/m times by 24 is 32.652 kW/m.
In half 24 hours it is about 16 Kw hours of energy. A level surface at equator gets less than 16 kw of energy. Though something pointing at the sun at the surface does get about 16 kw hours per day.
Germany the proclaimed solar capital of world get about 2 kw hours on average day. Because it’s below the atmosphere and has clouds, and is at high latitude.
And best places on Earth, under atmosphere with whatever clouds the place normally gets is about 8 kw hours average.
Or a place which has lot of clear days during the daytime in a year and is at low latitude [near equator]. [Unlike in all aspects, as compared to Germany- though the north or south pole would be worst].
And on the Moon one could get an average of about 16 kw per 24 hour day average- any latitude. Except at the poles at high elevation one can get +80% of the time getting 1.3608 kW/m [but not on a level surface- rather pointing at sun].
So if not having atmosphere, one gets most amount sunlight when in location where sun is directly overhead at noon [at zenith] if whatever getting energy does not track the sun- or the ground does not track the sun, and ground [or ocean] is roughly level on average.
Anyways, with or without and atmosphere, the tropics receive
more energy from the sun per square then elsewhere on the planet.
Earth’s tropics is 40% of surface area, if expand tropic [more poleward] so it’s 50% of total earth area. Leaving 25% of earth area at north and south Hemisphere. the region around tropics get most of the sunlight and other halves get very little.
So tropics is 23 1/2 degree [north and south] and bit over 30 degree north and south is half of the world.
“Earths tropics is 40% of surface area, if expand tropic [more poleward] so its 50% of total earth area. Leaving 25% of earth area at north and south Hemisphere. the region around tropics get most of the sunlight and other halves get very little.”
So found chart here;
http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/sun-angle-and-insolation2.htm
90 1040 100% 1040
75 1030 97% 1000
60 1000 87% 870
45 950 71% 675
30 840 50% 420
20 710 34% 240
15 620 26% 160
10 470 17% 80
5 260 9% 235
0 20 0 0
And used 3rd column percentages with 1360 watt per square
of outside earth atmosphere- for blackbody in vacuum
and got 435.5 watts 24 hour night day average in region around equator. Or one square meter lying flat at equator gets 10.4 kw hours per day.
So half world near tropics gets about 10 kw hours per day on average. And other half get 6 kw hours per day.
And 6 kw hour is 250 watts per square meter.
In terms of temperature 435 watt is 296 K [22 C]
And 250 watt is 257.6 K [-15.5 C]
So calculate tropics, and then used 340 watts [8.16 kw hour].
So if ideal thermally conductive blackbody absorbs and emits 340 watt [278 K [5 C], if disconnect the tropics from rest of two other north and south halves comprising the other 1/2 of the world. The tropical 1/2 adsorbs 10 Kw hour per day and other half absorbs 6 kw hour per day
oh also:
“In terms of temperature 435 watt is 296 K [22 C]
And 250 watt is 257.6 K [-15.5 C]”
296 K + 257.6 K / 2 is 276.8 K average global temperature
276.8 is 3.65 C
Which happens to close to Earth’s current average ocean temperature.
And it happens to resemble earth temperatures in glacial periods.
Or Earth with low average temperature of about 4 C, has warm tropics and everywhere else has low average temperature.
Or Earth with high average temperature, say 20 C, has tropics slight warmer, as warm as our present tropics of 26 C, but much warmer rest of the world- or having alligators living in
Germany.
Oh, and this assumes axis of zero, but with 23.5 tilt it should not affect yearly amount received in tropic, nor have much affect seasonally.
Of course the other north and south part of 1/2 of world, are effected a lot by the seasons. Or 6 kw average could be around say 8 kw in summer and 4 kw in winter.
So I think I got 40 C for tropics by accounting correctly for amount emitted in tropics [or the way the ideal thermally conductive blackbody account for amount emitted].
Or I had thought the tropics got about 10 Kw hours per day per square meter.
So if pointing a solar collector at sun at equator in vacuum you get about 16 kw hours and having level to surface gets 10 kw per hour.
And having it level outside the tropics is much worst, but in vacuum and pointing at the sun one gets 16 Kw basically everywhere. Which not vaguely like Earth with it’s thick atmosphere.
Though it is the case with Mars thin atmosphere. Or in term collecting solar energy even though Mars get about 600 watts rather 1360 watt at earth distance, Mars is better to harvest solar energy from it’s surface, than surface of Earth- or a lot better than collecting solar energy in Germany or Canada, or Europe in general, much better than southern Spain for instance.
And the Moon can be almost as good or on par with high Earth orbit- 32.6 Kw hours per day.
‘I got 40 C for tropics by accounting correctly for amount emitted in tropics [or the way the ideal thermally conductive blackbody account for amount emitted].”
Should have been; … accounting incorrectly for amount…
Or if heated water in pressure vessel on vacuum on the moon it could maintain a temperature of 40 C- or average day and night temperature.
Or take something as small as 45 gallon steel drum, it could heat up higher than 40 C, but might not explode, and could cool lower than 40 C during long night- or would probably not freeze completely. But bigger the container the less it warm up during the day and less it cools at night.
DA:
“Darwin Wyatt says:
I do however know that CO2 is below natural variability.
Really?”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/the-new-consensus-on-global-warming-a-shocking-admission-by-team-climate/
Last I checked Santer was one of your guys? The admission is up there with Phil jones admitting no significant warming or Mann, “it hasn’t been this warm in a millenium”.
And seriously, didn’t you say you drive a car that gets 28 mpg (if memory serves)? Your unwillingness to put your money where your mouth is speaks volumes to your true position on CO2. You tacitly admit CO2 is a long term problem if at all! Even more hilarious, the solution is continued efficiency, hydro, natural gas and low yield nuclear. All things you oppose!!! You don’t know if you’re coming or going.
Darwin, your claim was about CO2, not temperature.
There is simply no support for that claim.
SkepticGoneWild
Above you were debating with David Appell about two stars and then you went to two plates at equal temperature. Once they are at equilibrium they will not change the temperature of the other.
Please consider this. I hope you do.
You have one heated plate in a vacuum chamber with very cooled walls, to have no outside effects.
The plate has a surface area of 1m^2. It has a temperature of 300 K and is a grey body with an emissivity of 0.9.
Each surface will emit 413 Watts at 300 K so you need to supply a source of energy that will supply 826 watts of energy to the plate to maintain a temperature of 300 K.
If you then bring in another identical plate also heated to 300 K and move them close to each other, their will be no heat transfer between the two so you no longer have two surfaces both emitting 413 Watts. You only have one surface that is losing energy. But both plates have a continuous input of 826 Watts of energy. They will not lose any heat from the surfaces facing each other. That means they will both heat up until the single surface of each emits the same energy that is going into them. 826 Watts.
This will bring both plates to a new equilibrium temperature of 356.7 K. They will both have warmed up by 56.7 K.
If you have just one star that generates a constant amount of energy, its surface will reach a temperature that is equal to the amount of energy the internal fusion is generating. If another star moves into the system and they establish an orbital pattern, the presence of the other star will force the first star to reach a higher temperature than the previous state until it reaches a new equilibrium that must balance the energy generated with the energy out.
Con-man starts another con because he can’t address the one he started upthread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253406
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
The individual subthreads get too long and it gets to be a pain to look up and down to respond.
You call that a con. What do you base your allegations upon? What data? What science? What textbooks?
It is easy to degrade someone on a blog. But you are unable to support your claims with valid science. You maybe do not understand the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy conservation). Maybe ask Joe Postma about it, he might take the time to explain it to you because I see no evidence in your response that you have a clue what it means. Too bad.
Anyway what is your evidence to suggest that my post is a con. You can convince Gordon Robertson it is but does that mean much?
Con-man tries to weasel out: “The individual subthreads get too long and it gets to be a pain to look up and down to respond.”
Con-man, in your “attack” rant upthread, you could not identify one time I had called a real physics textbook “pseudoscience”. You claimed I had done that, but I have not. You have done this before. That’s why you are a reprobate. You cannot stand by what you state. You falsely accuse others, but when challenged, you weasel out.
Above, Norm the con-man, attempts more pseudoscience. He appears to be implying that “plates” are like “stars”!
He doesn’t even get the physics correct for the plates, so his pseudoscience “analogy” is another big FAIL.
Hilarious.
He tries to imply that the reason two plates have the 56.7K rise in temperature is somehow “meaningful”. He does not even understand his own example!
The reason for the increase in temp, over just one plate, is that he has decreased the radiating surfaces, while increasing the energy input.
What a pseudoscience clown!
g*e*r*a*n
Since you relish in your own brilliance. Please explain
YOU CLAIM: “The reason for the increase in temp, over just one plate, is that he has decreased the radiating surfaces, while increasing the energy input.”
Why did the plate facing the other plate stop radiating? Find in a textbook that makes such a claim? What energy input in increased?
You really do not make much sense. Both plates are at 300 K with a set amount of energy input.
What actually goes on (according to physics books). Both plates continue to radiate from both surfaces. Now each surface is also absorbing energy from the other surface. Not sure where you get your physics from. Tell me, show me a link. NOT your endless opinions.
Con-man, maybe physics is too hard for you, even to fake.
One plate, two surfaces–300K, 413 Watts/m^2 (Input power 413 Watts)
Total radiating area = 1 m^2
Two plates, close together– 356.7K, 826 Watts/m^2 (Input power 826 Watts)
Total radiating area = 1 m^2
You have doubled the power, kept the same radiating areas, and then wonder why the temperature went up?
What a pseudoscience clown!
(The clown believes that the two surfaces that face each other are transferring energy. He believe that “energy transfer” is what is causing the temperature to rise. But, all he has to do is consider bringing the two surfaces into exact contact. The output fluxes and plate temperatures would not change. To most people, that proves there was nothing “magic” happening when the plates were slightly apart. But, poor Norm will probably still not get it.)
g*e*r*a*n
You claim: “(The clown believes that the two surfaces that face each other are transferring energy. He believe that energy transfer is what is causing the temperature to rise.”
It is not “my belief”. It comes straight from textbooks.
I posted it for you already. Please read and understand the concept.
For body 1, we know that $ E_b$ is the emissive power of a black body, so the energy leaving body 1 is $ E_{b1} A_1$ . The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is $ E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2}$ . The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is $ E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1}$ . The net energy interchange from body 1 to body 2 is
$\displaystyle E_{b1} A_1 F_{1-2} E_{b2} A_2 F_{2-1} = \dot{Q}_{1-2}.$
YO
What does this information rely?
Again you twist and distort what I say. Can you just stop doing it ? Is it possible for you to honestly relay another’s ideas without adding your own twists?
Here is a blatant dishonest twist of what I stated.
I said this (clearly enough I would think): “If you then bring in another identical plate also heated to 300 K and move them close to each other, their will be no heat transfer between the two so you no longer have two surfaces both emitting 413 Watts. You only have one surface that is losing energy.”
You took this information and came up with this “He believe that energy transfer is what is causing the temperature to rise.”
How do you dignify your posts with such blatant dishonesty. Willfully and purposefully twisting the meaning.
What causes the temperature to rise is simple energy in vs energy out.
Your point about touching the plates or being apart is not very bright. There is a significant difference. If the plates touch you have no more radiant flow between them, you have conduction. IR emission is a surface phenomena. If the surfaces are apart both
simultaneously emit and absorb. Find a textbook that states this is not what is taking place.
Did I call it, or what?
“But, poor Norm will probably still not get it.”
g*e*r*a*n
Here is the proof you request:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251328
To this your reply was:
“Norm believes if he keeps spouting his pseudoscience over and over and over, it might someday become valid.
Its not working out for him, but hes hilarious to watch.”
Valid empirical science you call pseudoscience with no support of your opinion. I could probably find a dozen or so but one should be sufficient.
Why are you afraid to use valid science, such as empirical data, textbooks. You always offer you many and varied opinions on things but you never support those opinions with solid science.
But you do use your hero’s word quite often: “pseudoscience” This is a Joe Postma favorite.
Con-man “weasels” AGAIN!
Con-man, your wording was “textbook physics”, and you link to a chart!
Either stand by what you state, or apologize!
g*e*r*a*n
I was not just talking about the chart but the description which comes from textbooks on heat transfer. I link you to textbooks page and chapter because many do not allow the copy/paste function.
The chart was the empirical data, the textbook explanation followed that you called pseudoscience.
Con-man, there are NO examples of me doing what you said I did. You just make things up. You are a con. You tell falsehoods. You do not stand by your own words.
There is no excuse for doing this to yourself.
g*e*r*a*n
Here is a clear example of your use of the word pseudoscience when I bring up textbook information.
Here is the link with my textbook reality and your response:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247241
Since you call my post above pseudoscience then please read from this textbook link. It will not allow copy/paste so you would have to go to the link. Read on page 16 2-4.5
https://tinyurl.com/yazc7j3q
Yes, yes I know it is about black bodies so you will probably reject the concept they bring out. Too bad for you, if you want you can read up on the chapters on grey bodies. The laws do not change from black to grey bodies. The emissivity factor allows one to use the same equations.
Read up what it says. Come back and tell me what I have wrong about emission and an absorbing function.
If you can’t do this then you should quit calling me a con.
Con-man, your ‘interpretation” of a textbook is NOT a textbook.
You can NOT give me one example of what you said I did. You just make things up. You do not know science. You cannot legitimately debate so you just make things up.
And, when that doesn’t work, you start with the insults.
All together, it makes you a reprobate.
g*e*r*a*n
I gave you an example. You called established textbook radiation physics pseudoscience.
You divert and twist things. What is the point? You never give links to support your opinions. You declare me a con but you still have not come up with any evidence to support your rude allegations against what I post.
When will you actually work to present any evidence for you case. I recall when I could copy/paste a concept your only response was that it dealt with Black Bodies. The concepts are still active in all bodies. They emit radiation and absorb radiation. Good emitters are good absorbers. What say you?
“I gave you an example. You called established textbook radiation physics pseudoscience.”
>>>No, Con-man, I called YOUR interpretation “pseudoscience”.
“You declare me a con but you still have not come up with any evidence to support your rude allegations against what I post.”
>>>Con-man, your comments here clearly show you are attempting to dodge your own words. That is all the evidence you need, if you were seeking truth. But, you are seeking to con. You are your only victim.
g*e*r*a*n
It is a total waste of my time attempting to communicate with you no any topic as you will twist distort and attempt to belittle those you cannot understand because of your limited reasoning ability.
Here is a clear evidence of how you reject the textbook and tell me I do not understand it. But you never offer to explain it in your understanding. Really it is a very simple explanation.
Here. (I really waste time and effort with you, not sure why I do this.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252428
You do not seem to be able to conceptually understand scientific thought. You seem to be stuck on words and definitions, not content.
Do you understand the concept of the post? I know you do not and rather than expose your ignorance you come up with a phony reply that means nothing but does divert away from your lack of understanding. You can’t get it so you attack the one who does.
Nice attempt to con your way out, but it won’t work. You are caught AGAIN, Con-man.
In the link you provided, I clearly indicated it was YOUR interpretation that was WRONG, not a textbook. I even gave you a “hint”.
So, once AGAIN, FAIL!
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “In the link you provided, I clearly indicated it was YOUR interpretation that was WRONG, not a textbook. I even gave you a hint.
So, once AGAIN, FAIL!”
Here is what you replied to the textbook data: “Norm, with no science background, you can be easily fooled by not understanding the textbooks. Here, you are convinced that your link verifies your thought process. But, you keep fooling yourself.
Hint: Black body.”
You clearly did nothing at all. Where do you clearly indicate my interpretation is wrong? You just childishly insult my character that is about all you did and all you are able to do.
So please tell, what did I get wrong? I really don’t expect you to be able to do this. You are not a very intelligent person. You know limited science and cannot comprehend concepts. You hide behind twisting and distorting things so other posters will not be able to view your ignorance on topics. You will do the same if you respond. No answers, no science, no validation. Just distort and twist. Beatles almost sang about you with “Twist and Shout”. Had they sung “Twist and Hilarious” you would be forever recognized.
Hey Con-man, do you not know what a “hint” is?
Hint: Black body.
g*e*r*a*n
Your response was completely expected. A nothing response. You keep fooling people that you know something in a clever way by pretending to be in the know but never really saying anything resembling science.
YOU: “Hey Con-man, do you not know what a hint is?
Hint: Black body.”
A cult mentality. Cult members have “hidden” knowledge only they understand and they share it among the members. What does you hint do except make some posters think you know something secret.
Postma is your cult leader and you mimic him closely.
I do not expect you to come up with a satisfactory scientific explanation. At least your leader knows enough physics to be able to BS the majority of people who read his posts. You are not so talented. You use his methods but do not possess his knowledge.
Hey Con-man, that’s a new twist! In addition to all your other flaws, you’re also paranoid!
Hilarious.
And, that also serves as great cover for your ignorance. No wonder you don’t know anything about physics–everyone is keeping it a secret!
g*e*r*a*n
You are getting too predictable.
I stated: “Your response was completely expected. A nothing response. You keep fooling people that you know something in a clever way by pretending to be in the know but never really saying anything resembling science.”
Your response contained no science, no data, no facts, no links. No explanation of why you think my understanding of textbook physics is wrong.
I hope the other posters see you are a fraud. You call me the “con-man”. A name you should put on your own shirt and wear.
Do you have any post that has support from a valid scientific source? I have read many of yours and I cannot recall a single one.
You have your opinions but you never support them with valid sources.
You just do what you were trained to do by the leader of his cult. Try to discredit the people that use actual science to prove their points. That is what you are good at, that is all you can do.
Keep pound on that keyboard, Con-man. There’s zero possibility that you will ever write anything worthwhile, but humor does have some value.
g*e*r*a*n
Are you shooting for 100% no science posts? You are very critical of some other poster’s ideas and thoughts but you never really challenge them with any science, do you?
Your last post still had no scientific thought of why you thought I misunderstood the content of a textbook. I guess you will not provide such an explanation. Most likely reason is you do not know an answer but you do know how to attack a poster, but you fail to address any details on why they might be wrong.
You know you could be of much more value than calling me Con-man, David Appell “Davie”, Tim Folkerts “filbert”. I have not seen one science response to anyone but you do come up with names for each that you must find amusing.
Will you ever post scientific thought? Or is such a task beneath you?
Good points, Norman. G*eran posts insults because that’s all he’s got to contribute. Like a few others here, he can’t disprove the science, or offer better ideas, so he has to either shut up or resort to snark. Sometimes it’s frustrating, but it’s very telling.
Davie, when you’ve finished scarfing down your pizza, please show the math that the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K.
You wouldn’t want us to think all you have to offer is insults and pseudoscience, would you?
Con-man inquires: “Will you ever post scientific thought?”
Con-man, I showed you upthread how your “plates” warming each other was bogus. You ignored it.
You don’t want “science”, you want “pseudoscience”.
Sorry, I don’t do “pseudoscience”.
PS
“You know you could be of much more value than calling me Con-man, David Appell ‘Davie’, Tim Folkerts ‘filbert’. ”
Con-man, each of the above earned his nickname. But, you and Davie have both called me much worse. If you can’t take the heat….
g*e*r*a*n
Do not act innocent of your personality. I have no desire to insult people until they insult or attack my integrity. You have done it much in the past. Your posts are mostly trying to make someone appear stupid you don’t agree with without presenting science. I try to present science you, but you will degrade me with negative comments. Once you open the door to such behavior it becomes something you have brought on upon yourself.
But still you will not post some valid science, some effective criticism of my posts, some link to science which refutes what I say.
Have you ever posted a comment that links to a valid science source? If you have I might have missed it. I would say a large amount of your comments are derogatory to anyone who disagrees with you view of what you think science is saying about heat transfer. I await a post that contains some textbook information. If you can’t copy/paste the information, tell me a Chapter and page number in the link you provide.
“Your posts are mostly trying to make someone appear stupid you dont agree with without presenting science.”
>>>I just let you make yourself appear stupid. And, you’re doing a great job.
“I try to present science you, but you will degrade me with negative comments.”
>>>Con-man, you don’t present “science”. You present your “interpretation” of science, such as your link to the temperature studies in a boiler firebox, done by B&W. You had no concept of how ridiculous that example was. It was a study done at extremely high temperatures. You did not understand and tried to extrapolate it to the atmosphere. You even offered that you value for “L” was 1000 meters!
See why you’ve earned the name “Con-man”?
And, again, I pointed out upthread what was wrong with your “plates”. But, you’re still not addressing it. To address it, you would have to admit you were WRONG. And that might mean you would learn something.
Next mindless ramble, please.
g*e*r*a*n
Do you suffer from an inability to comprehend what you read?
YOU: “>>>Con-man, you dont present science. You present your interpretation of science, such as your link to the temperature studies in a boiler firebox, done by B&W. You had no concept of how ridiculous that example was. It was a study done at extremely high temperatures. You did not understand and tried to extrapolate it to the atmosphere. You even offered that you value for L was 1000 meters!”
What do you think I brought up the B&W link for? It was in response to your post on the other thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252411
In this post you challenge me to prove hot CO2 can absorb IR.
I post you a link that shows exactly that and you twist it into something I never stated and then you tell me your twist of my words proves I don’t know what I am talking about.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-252419
My post to the B&W link was for only one purpose. To show you that hot CO2 and WV will continue to absorb IR. A claim you asked me to prove and I did. You took it to some other tangent asking questions about the firebox but missing the purpose of the post.
Do you ever tire of being a very dishonest person? You intentionally twist and distort other people’s posts. Why do you think this is valid and good behavior? David Appell has also addressed your need to lie and distort. You keep doing it though, why? Just be honest and give valid points. If you are as intelligent and knowledgeable in physics as you claim then use that constructively and debate with honor and dignity not twists and lies. Still not too late to become an honest and decent poster.
BTW Con-man, Joesph’s “favorite” word is NOT “pseudoscience?”. He uses the word “sophistry”. In fact, his blog is called “Climate of Sophistry”.
So, AGAIN, you get things WRONG!
g*e*r*a*n
It did not take me long to find one of Joe Postma’s posts to find him using pseudoscientific.
https://tinyurl.com/yb6szpbs
Con-man, one example is not “proof” that “pseudoscience” is his “favorite word”.
You are blowing smoke up your own nostrils, and conning no one buy yourself.
At what height creates a jetstream and what determines its speed?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00914/vmhxatmb34l7.gif
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00914/bupax9zlyn7e.png
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00914/0prmbo6v01yy.gif
The jet stream pushes the northwest.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/comp/nhem/wv-animated.gif
Light frost in southern Australia.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00914/evy20i69998w.png
I am afraid that the fall of ozone can cause the increase of ultraviolet radiation on the surface of the Earth. In high pressure areas it can cause a sharp increase in temperature.
“The emission core of the Mg II doublet (280 nm) exhibits the largest natural solar irradiance variability above 240 nm. It is frequently used as a proxy for spectral solar irradiance variability from the UV to EUV associated with the 11-yr solar cycle (22-yr magnetic cycle) and solar rotation (27d).”
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
http://www.spaceweather.ca/auto_generated_products/solradrot_eng.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2017.png
Cycle 24 progress (July 1, 2017).
https://i2.wp.com/www.solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
https://i0.wp.com/www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
g*e*r*a*n
I was working on examples for you. I am hoping instead of name-calling or any negative post, change gears and give a good scientific analysis of my example.
In a post above you claimed the two plates could join and there is not significance if they remain apart.
Consider 3 plates of identical material touching each other. They all have an emissivity of 0.9. Each has a surface area of one square meter.
The plates are in a vacuum chamber with very cold walls. The middle plate is direct connected to a heat source adding 826 watts to the plate. The other two have no heat source but are touching the first.
Equilibrium temperature will be reached when both outer plates are emitting 413 Watts which gives an equilibrium temperature of 300 K.
Now move one plate a little away from the middle heated plate (keep the FOV as close to 1 as possible…the example is an approximation, more detailed math would give a more precise value).
The outer moved plate has no heat source of its own. It will receive all its energy from the surface of the heated plate that it now faces.
What does the math say will happen in this case?
To reach equilibrium the system of plates must get rid of 826 joules/second of energy (this is the energy added to the system of plates).
The plate moved away will continue to cool until it reaches a temperature of 271 K but the heated plate portion will raise in temperature to 322 K.
Why? The moved plate will cool until it emitting 275.3 Watts in both directions. Away from the heated plate to the chilled walls around and 275.3 Watts back to the heated plate. This gives the new equilibrium temperature of 271 K. The heated plate will keep increasing temperature until the sum of the emitted radiant energy equals 826 Watts. You have the moved plate emitting 275.3 watts (in both directions) so the heated plate will continue to increase in temperature until it is emitting 550.7 Watts (550.7 + 275.3 =826 ). So it will reach a new equilibrium temperature of 322 K.
So now what happens if we move the other outer non heated plate away from the inner heated plate?
Both outer plates will have to be emitting 413 Watts away to balance the incoming 826 Watts added to the overall system. That means each will also be radiating 413 watts back to the heated plate. It is getting 826 watts from an internal source of energy and also receiving and absorbing 826 watts from the two outer plates. It will now keep rising in temperature until it is emitting 1652 Watts (826 to each outer plate). So it will continue to rise in temperature until it is at 424 K.
I know you can understand a similar situation with insulation. If you take a plate that has 826 Watts added to it but you heavily insulate it so only a small amount of energy can leave, you will have a considerable increase in the temperature of the plate, it will keep getting hotter until the amount of energy leaving is equal to what is being added to it. Work it out yourself and see if I am wrong. Please take the time to work it out before claiming it is pseudoscience. See if the math works or not.
Con-man, me helping you does not mean I excuse your past pathetic behavior.
Now, let’s go slow and take one point at a time.
Your calculation: “The plate moved away will continue to cool until it reaches a temperature of 271 K…”
I do not get “271”. I get “252”.
If you hold to the “271”, please show your work.
Oh, I think I understand what your problem is. I made the wrong assumption trying to guess what assumptions you had made. So, disregard the 271K.
Just to clarify assumptions:
1) All plates have only two surfaces, no edges. Each surface is one square meter, so each plate has a total area of 2 square meters.
2) When separating the plates, the distance is so small that no IR is lost.
g*e*r*a*n
T=((275.3 Watts/m^2)/(0.9(emissivity))(5.67×106-8 W/m^2-K^4))^-4
T=271 K
Okay, now I think I understand your problem.
In the first situation, with 3 plates in contact, equilibrium looks like this:
300K, Pin = 826W, Pout = 826W (413W each ext. surface), flux = 413 W/m^2
Both your math and physics are correct to this point.
But, moving one plate slightly away does not cause the temperature of the other two plates to increase. This is the start of pseudoscience.
And, your example of adding insulation does not apply here.
g*e*r*a*n
This is where the textbook physics starts. When the plate is in contact it does not restrict any outgoing energy from the heated center plate. When it is moved it now lowers the amount of energy the exposed surface of the heated plate can lose from that surface.
When the plate is in contact nothing stops the full emission of radiant energy at 413 W/m^2 loss. As it is moved away it will warm and radiate energy back to the heated surface.
Initial state when plate is first moved.
Using Q/A = (emissivity)(5.67×10^-8)(300^4-300^4)
The heated surface is not losing any energy on the side that is facing the moved plate. The moved plate is radiating away 413 w/m^2 from both sides (previously it was radiating away only from its exposed surface). The moved plate will be cooling since it is only receiving 413 Watts from the heated surface but radiating away from 2 surfaces. Its radiating surface area just doubled in the move away.
Since the heated surface exposed face is not losing any heat from this side (at least not until the moved plate cools) it will warm up since it is still gaining 826 watts (more energy in than lost).
At equilibrium conditions (if the moved plate is fairly close) the math is:
Moved plate has two radiating surfaces and now has a 2m^2 radiating surface.
It emits 275.3 Watts in both directions. Away from the heated surface and the other toward. Nothing given in any textbook makes the claim the heated surface cannot absorb this 275.3 Watts. If you have a source of valid physics that makes this claim then please link it.
View of system:
^ ^
826
You have an input of energy to the system of 826 Watts. You have a total output of energy (275.3 + 550.7 = 826). The Input and Output energy are equal.
Do to math rounding errors you have a very slight difference.
Moved plate is radiating 550.6 (without rounding all the numbers would match) and receiving the rounded 550.7.
The heated plate is receiving (826 + 275.3 = 1101.3) input and radiates away 1101.4 Watts (again not perfect because of rounding to simplify).
All the math matches. All the energy flows do what the textbooks say they do.
Lets take it two points at a time:
1) When it is moved it now lowers the amount of energy the exposed surface of the heated plate can lose from that surface.
NOPE. Moving one plate does not affect the heat loss from the other plate. You have not changed the amount of surface area. The heated plate still loses the SAME amount of energy.
2) “When the plate is in contact nothing stops the full emission of radiant energy at 413 W/m^2 loss. As it is moved away it will warm and radiate energy back to the heated surface.”
NOPE. The moved plate is not a heat source. It is being heated by the center plate. It will NOT warm by being moved away. So any reflected energy will not be able to heat the center plate more.
g*e*r*a*n
All you offer is your own opinions on physics. Nothing to back it up with. Your claim I am wrong with nothing from a valid source. Anyone can make up any opinion they want, as you do. What is your source to validate your claims? Nothing, I thought so. The equation I posted is a valid equation that has been time tested and works in the real world.
Using Q/A = (emissivity)(5.6710^-8)(300^4-300^4)
You offer nothing but an opinion. I give you real physics that you out of hand reject based upon nothing and then give your assertions and opinions with zero backing evidence.
YOU: “NOPE. The moved plate is not a heat source. It is being heated by the center plate. It will NOT warm by being moved away. So any reflected energy will not be able to heat the center plate more.”
It is not reflected energy, it is emitted energy. The moved plate will be heated by the emitted energy from the heated plate and reach an equilibrium temperature based upon the energy it receives and emits. Basic textbook physics if you took the time to read any.
The emitted energy acts to restrict the amount of energy the heated plate can lose from its surface facing the plate that has moved away. Use the standard equation and see what you get.
Con-man, you trap yourself every time. If a cooling plate can warm a heated plate, then you should be able to bake a turkey with ice.
You still don’t get it, and likely never will.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Once again you give your unfounded and unintelligent opinion not backed by any textbook information. You really don’t know any physics at all do you? Why would you continue to just offer empty unfounded opinions when you could offer some solid evidence to support them. You do not offer such support but continue to post unfounded and thoughtless opinions.
g*e*r*a*n
You just do not understand the physics. It is relatively easy but you are in a political camp that will not tolerate free thought or inquiry.
The plate that is moved away and no longer receiving internal energy from the system via conduction will act to restrict the amount of energy that can leave the heated surface. Without the moved plate blocking the energy loss, surface can emit a full 413 Watts, when the plate is moved in front of the heated surface it can no longer lose 413 Watts. All the energy the heated surface is emitting is absorbed or reflected off the moved plate surface. None goes through. What is emitting on the opposite side is all from internal thermalization of the energy it received from the heated plate.
Like I had requested put actual numbers in the established heat transfer equation and you will see you are wrong and my example is correct as far as real physics goes. Joe Postma’s false and inaccurate physics does not use the correct equation to determine heat loss.
The moved plate restricts the amount of energy the heated surface can emit which causes it to increase in temperature until it reaches an equilibrium with the amount of energy that is being added to it. The moved plate is not warming the heated surface, it is restricting the amount of energy that can leave forcing the heated plate to go up in temperature.
Con-man, you hilarious rambler, you can’t create energy out of thin air!
You can’t magically turn 826 Watts into 1652 Watts!
You have no idea how much entertainment you provide.
Please don’t stop!
g*e*r*a*n
Why don’t you come clean and tell the truth for once. You don’t know a thing about physics or heat transfer. You just make up stuff and go with it.
YOU: “Con-man, you hilarious rambler, you cant create energy out of thin air!
You cant magically turn 826 Watts into 1652 Watts!”
How do you come up with this crap physics?
Where do you get 826 turns into 1652? You seem to lack fundamental logic skills and reasoning ability.
There is no turning 826 Watts into 1652. Two plates prevent the heated plate from losing any energy when it is emitting 826 watts. The energy continues to build up in the plate unit the plate can get rid of 826 watts, it happens when the plate reaches a temperature that radiates 1652 watts. It is radiating 1652 Watts but it is also receiving 826 Watts so it is still only losing 826 watts. What is wrong with your thought process. It is not a complicated idea. Why don’t you at least try to think about it at the same time you read a textbook on the topic. Maybe the light will come on.
The Con-man argues with himself, AGAIN!
“There is no turning 826 Watts into 1652.”
“The energy continues to build up in the plate unit the plate can get rid of 826 watts, it happens when the plate reaches a temperature that radiates 1652 watts.”
(Some of the best pseudoscience on the web!)
g*e*r*a*n
You just can’t understand what I am talking about.
So rather than me use textbook physics (which you reject).
Let me hear how you think things work. Describe what happens in this situation with all the energy flows.
You have a heated plate in a vacuum chamber with super cooled walls. The plate has a surface of one square meter. The material has an emissivity of 0.9. The heat source supplies 826 watts to the plate.
Now you move two plates on opposing sides very close (but not touching) to the heated plate. The two plates are of the same material as the heated plate.
Describe in you physics understanding what takes place with this system. What temperature do the two outer plates reach and why? What temperature does the heated plate reach and why? What are the radiant energy flows from heated surface to the other plates? What is the radiant energy flow of the non-heated plates?
Can you describe what you understand to take place in this situation? Explain the physics.
It’s very easy, Con-man, but you will not be able to understand.
The heated plate (in the center) at equilibrium will be emitting 413Watts to each of the other plates. Assuming a “perfect” situation with no losses, each of the other plates will then be emitting 413 Watts outwardly. In the “gaps”, there WILL be radiative heat transfer from the heated plate to the other plates.
It’s that simple, and I know you can do the math. It’s the physics that has you confused. And the reason you are confused is due to the worm in your head. That worm keeps telling you that there MUST be “back-radiation” from the two outer plates back to “heat” the center plate. You will not rid yourself of that worm.
The trouble with “Climate Science” is that most of it is not science.
The real problem is that the government made absurdly large sums of money available for Climate Science. The result was tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers that contain little science in the generally accepted meaning of the word.
Something similar has happened in public education where no matter how many research studies are done nothing useful emerges. While there are many research topics relating to K-12 education here are some interesting statistics on one of them.
K-12 READING INSTRUCTION IN THE USA
The National Reading Panel (NRP) carried out a comprehensive review of reading research that amounted to 115,000 papers written between 1966 and 2000. A screening was carried out to select only studies that met criteria .normally used in medical and behavioral research At the end of the screening, only 428 studies met the panels high standards, and in September 2000 the findings were presented to the US Congress.
Thus the panel found that only 0.37% of the studies met generally accepted standards for scientific research.
The 14-member reading panel was chaired by Donald N. Langenberg, chancellor of the University System of Maryland. Karin Chenoweth (Washington Post) asked him why he, an experimental physicist by training, was chosen. One of the reasons, he said, was, I know what good research looks like.
That answer is the key to winnowing the chaff of Climate Science with the aim of extracting the few grains of real science buried within it. Thus I would contend that there is no need to spend another taxpayer dollar on new research studies until we have extracted the few grains of gold buried in the heap of excrement called Climate Science.
If Scott Pruitt sets up a “Climate Science Panel” headed by someone like Donald Langenburg what proportion of papers would be considered “Scientific”?
My guess is that 97% of climate scientists would not make the cut. Probably the same 97% that tell us the “Debate Is Over”.
“Thus the panel found that only 0.37% of the studies met generally accepted standards for scientific research.”
Amazing!
Am I being unkind to climate scientists by suggesting that less than 3% of them will meet the criteria normally used in scientific research?
You’re likely being generous!
@ Norman, July 2, 2017 at 5:17 PM,
Those heat transfer problems for you describe can be solved with excellent precision (for simple geometry) using FEA (Finite Element Analysis). The software you need (student version) is available as a free download. Here is a link that may help:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
This is industrial grade code that can solve all kinds of problems that involve differential equations. For example it was used to design the magnets in the Duke University HIGS (High Intensity Gamma Source):
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
gallopingcamel
I was looking through your links and it led me to a blog where you, David Appell and MostlyHarmless are in heated debate. It could be useful to be very precise but if one does not accept an approximation, a more detailed solution will still be rejected. But I thank you for your response.
On at least one occasion I have admitted that David Appell was right.
For example, I attempted to explain the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) in terms of variations in oxygen partial pressure but had to admit the theory was not plausible:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/unified-theory-of-climate-revisited/#comment-5131
In contrast, David Appell is incapable of admitting he is wrong about anything. Just look at this thread and ask yourself which of us makes sense.
With regard to the thermal problems you pose I could provide an exact solution but what purpose would it serve? I would need to know the shape of the three bodies, their thermal conductivity, emissivity and the geometry. You can solve the problem yourself using the software I recommended.
gallopingcamel
I did download the software you suggested. It might take me awhile to figure out how to use it.
I thank you for the link.
norman…”Since you call my post above pseudoscience then please read from this textbook link. It will not allow copy/paste so you would have to go to the link”.
I have read your book and commented on it. You have not responded.
The authors of your book are having the same problem as you. They are confusing heat, IR, and energy in general. They refuse to call internal energy heat yet they wont specify what energy it is.
They define a blackbody as an ideal body that allow ALL incident radiation to pass into it (no reflection). In our atmosphere or surface there is no such body. You can call non-blackbodies grey bodies all you want, your insistence that the constant used in Boltzmann for blackbody radiation applies to both is absolutely wrong.
In the first paragraphs of the book the authors explain that radiation is effective only at very high temperatures. The authors claim that blackbodies absorb ALL incident radiation and transmit none. There are no bodies on Earth meeting those criteria naturally other than volcanoes.
The book may be good for presenting a basic understanding of radiation to engineers but it falls far short of explaining heat and IR. In fact, I don’t think the authors have any idea what heat is.
If I remember correctly, they don’t even mention the work of Clausius.
Gordon Robertson
I do not think I can communicate with you. You seem to dwell in the conspiratorial mind frame. All the physics is wrong but what you know. Only you know the truth, everyone else is wrong. There is not much we can discuss. You can believe what you want or what you need to. It will effect no one but you. I will continue to accept the science until a very strong experiment will overturn the established thoughts on the issue. They are actually based upon lots and lots of experiments from the past.
Anyway you CLAIM: “You can call non-blackbodies grey bodies all you want, your insistence that the constant used in Boltzmann for blackbody radiation applies to both is absolutely wrong.”
What evidence do you have to support you strong opinion? If you give a valid experiment or valid source of information I will read what you link to. I really do not care for opinions with no support. It does not matter how strongly you feel about it, without evidence it is another opinion of many.
Gordon, Norm is a con-man. He likes to ramble on endlessly, pretending to be teaching physics. He believes the more he pounds on his keyboard, the smarter he will appear.
So when he says “I do not think I can communicate with you.” That means you have won,
Congratulations!
g*e*r*a*n
There are people who know more about physics than I do. You are not one of them.
Gordon Robertson rejects the contents of a textbook on heat transfer because they do not use the terms he likes and he claims you can’t use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant for grey bodies. Big claims and he is like you. He gives endless opinions but no facts, on experiments, nothing valid. No wonder you praise him since you do the same and think it is a valuable talent.
Gordon Robertson does not accept textbook data. He provides no evidence to support his opinions that the book is wrong.
Designers use the material in textbooks all the time for real world heat transfer applications. If the equations were wrong in the textbooks, engineers would have figured this out long ago and the scientists would adapt and change the equations to fit reality. They have not done so, real world application proves Gordon’s idea is crap.
Con-man, you wouldn’t know a “textbook” if it fell on your head. And, if it did, you wouldn’t understand it.
Quit trying to con everyone. You’re only conning yourself.
g*e*r*a*n
Rather than make unfounded allegations about me why don’t you do something constructive and explain what I am failing to understand about heat transfer textbooks.
Again all you offer is your opinions. Not data, no facts, so supporting information. You are a very opinionated person but you certainly do not possess any reasonable ability to support your opinions.
Con-man, you keep talking about “science” and “textbooks”, but your conclusions and examples indicate you do not understand any of it. How does anyone explain physics to someone that is starting from the hole you are in. You have no education in physics. You just search the web of anything that you believe supports your nonsense. Like the study on boiler firebox gases you presented. You had NO clue how irrelevant that was!
But, I enjoy pulling your mask off.
g*e*r*a*n
Your tactic seems to work for you. You pretend you have this extensive knowledge of physics that you really do not. I think you know very little physics of any kind but your are a good poser. By diverting attention away from your own lack of physics knowledge and pretending everyone else knows nothing about the subject, you manage to fool only yourself.
I think you are delusional. You read something, you make it into something else and then criticize the poster for you delusion. You bring up the B&W example even again. I specifically explained it to you a couple posts up and you still do not grasp the concept.
I will explain it again. Very slowly for you. You made a post that photons could not be absorbed by hot CO2. I linked you to your own post making such a claim. I linked you to a example problem in a B&W Steam book to show you that hot CO2 very much so absorbs IR. There was nothing more to the post than that. I do not know what delusional tangent you wanted to take this post. No doubt you were upset that I proved you wrong so you needed to divert it to some strange and area that I was not addressing then make a claim I don’t know what I am talking about.
You really are unable to change your dishonest, twisting and distorting ways can you. You must do this since you do not know any physics and you need to make people believe you are some sort of expert. Who can’t see through your empty posts by now?
Con-man, have you noticed that your rambling comments just get longer and longer?
No, I guess not.
You can’t understand the B&W data. And, it would take years for me to explain it to you. And, then you would still not understand it. But, I’ll try a short version, just to see what humorous nonsense you will come up with next.
In the firebox, there are TWO “types” of gases. One “type” is the combustion gases, which are CO2 and H2O. The other type is the air that is pulled into the firebox to support combustion, consisting mostly of N2 and O2. The two “types” of gases have very different temperatures.
You have no clue.
g*e*r*a*n
I really do not know what you are trying to state about the gases in the B&W book. The only gases that have any effect are the GHG’s Nitrogen and Oxygen do not go into the equation. The temperature of the hot gas emitting and cooler yet still quite hot H2O and CO2 that absorb IR. Look at the problem again. What are you seeing?
Also read some of the Chapter itself.
http://tinyurl.com/w8v2so3
Pages in Chapter 4. 7 and 8. Read through it and see what is being said.
Con-man admits: “I really do not know what you are trying to state about the gases in the B&W book.”
That’s what I’m “trying to state”, Con-man. You have no clue.
g*e*r*a*n
Again an empty and meaningless post. Wouldn’t it just be easier if you came clean and admitted you really do not understand physics and do not possess a scientific mind.
Con-man, just 3 lines? No endless rambling rant filled with insults and pseudoscience?
I’m disappointed.
norman….G&T page 12
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
“In particular, from the viewpoint of theoretical physics the radiative approach, which uses physical laws such as Planck’s law and Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that only have a limited range of validity that definitely does not cover the atmospheric problem, must be highly questioned. For instance in many calculations climatologists perform calculations where idealized black surfaces e.g. representing a CO2 layer and the ground, respectively, radiate against each other.
In reality, we must consider a bulk problem, in which at concentrations of 300 ppmv at normal state still (some math omitted) N ~ 8 x 10^6 CO2 molecules are distributed within a cube V with edge length 10 microns, a typical wavelength of the relevant infrared radiation. In this context an application of the formulas of cavity radiation is sheer nonsense”.
Note: cavity resonator = blackbody.
see page 19 for an explanation of Boltzmann:
page 21: “The constant (sigma) appearing in the T4 law is not a universal constant of physics. It strongly depends on the particular geometry of the problem considered.”.
Gordon Robertson
I am not exactly sure what the authors are trying to point out.
For a non-black body object you use the emissivity factor. This determines how far from a black body a real world radiator is. The T^4 still applies. The Constant is still used in all equations.
I really think you might do better to read textbooks then untested material you find on the Internet.
Maybe explain what the authors are saying about Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Remember heat transfer engineering works and the equations used have been verified many times over. It is not a new science and math people should really consider the reality of the equations they question. They work in the real world, if they did not, they would change them until they found what did work.
Con-man, this has got to be one of your funniest comments yet! Almost every sentence is hilarious. I especially liked the fatuous “teaching”, especially when we know you have no clue!
Ice extent in the Arctic in June.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-06_en.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Multi decadal reductions in global low level cumulus cloud cover concentrated at Tropic latitudes. Exactly what has been observed by ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project).
Region 11 Central Arctic
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r11_Central_Arctic_ts_4km.png
Region 7 Greenland Sea
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r07_Greenland_Sea_ts_4km.png
g*E*r*a*n
YOU: “Its very easy, Con-man, but you will not be able to understand.
The heated plate (in the center) at equilibrium will be emitting 413Watts to each of the other plates. Assuming a perfect situation with no losses, each of the other plates will then be emitting 413 Watts outwardly. In the gaps, there WILL be radiative heat transfer from the heated plate to the other plate.”
I do understand completely. It is clear you do not comprehend textbook physics. It is clear that you have gotten all your knowledge of physics from Joe Postma.
Thanks for you finally pointing out your ignorance. Now I know why you avoided explaining your view and spend all your time in empty chatter.
Con-man didn’t understand by straightforward explanation, exactly as I predicted.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
It is not a good or rational explanation at all.
So the nonheated plates are radiating 413 Watts in one direction. You don’t even see how illogical your thought process is.
So the molecules of the surface of the nonheated plate that are facing away from the heated surface know to emit radiant energy but the ones facing the heated plate know they are not supposed to emit any energy. Are the surfaces like trained dogs that know when to obey?
Postma really destroyed your ability to reason and think. Too bad, wonder how many others he has wrecked along the way.
No, Con-man, you keep getting it wrong. Re-read my explanation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/the-ams-scolds-rick-perry-for-believing-the-oceans-are-stronger-than-your-suv/#comment-253747
Con-man: “So the molecules of the surface of the nonheated plate that are facing away from the heated surface know to emit radiant energy but the ones facing the heated plate know they are not supposed to emit any energy.”
Con-man, see what that worms does to you? I never indicated that the surface facing the heated plate was not emitting. I said the radiative heat transfer would be from the heated plate to the “moved” plate. You just can’t understand because of that worm.
g*e*r*a*n
So what would the surface facing the heated plate be emitting? If it is emitting 413 Watts on the side facing away from the heated surface it would logically follow it must now be also emitting the same amount of energy, 413 Watts, to the heated surface. That means you would have to supply 826 Watts to the nonheated plate to maintain this energy loss. How do you explain this with your understanding?
Con-man, this exact topic is mentioned in one of your links. Obviously, you did not learn from your own link. As I explained above, your problem is your worm. You can NOT understand radiative heat transfer until you kill that worm. That worm is telling you that ALL IR must be absorbed. You believe the worm, and that takes you into pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
Perhaps download this Heat Transfer Textbook.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
Chapter 10 page 528 shows what radiation transfer looks like. They do not support your view.
No Con-man, you do not understand.
g*e*r*a*n
Yes I understand. You are the one that can’t see it. Too bad. Live in your delusions convinced you are right even though you can see clearly you are not.
Only 3 lines, again. You’re slipping.
g*e*r*a*n
Check our slide 11 from this presentation.
See what they claim about radiant energy transfer.
http://tinyurl.com/uq44van
Very good, Con-man. You found a science source that verifies what I have been trying to tell you. Now, if you can just get that worm out of your head and LEARN.
g*e*r*a*n
So what have you been trying to tell me? How does the linked source verify what you are trying to tell me?
g*e*r*a*n
The quote from the page: “Now suppose that the two surfaces are at exactly the same temperature.
The heat flow must be zero according to the 2nd law.”
So if your non-heated plate is emitting 413 Watts, it must be at the same temperature as the heated plate. From this quote, it means the heated plate has zero heat flow to the nonheated plate. That is okay for an equilibrium condition. It would mean that both plates would stay the same temperture. The problem with your thought process is that the heated plate keeps having energy added to it.
According to the concept you are agreeing with, the heated plate cannot lose energy to the nonheated plate at the same temperature. That condition will force the heated plate to continue to warm until it can radiate away a net of 413 Watts per each face. It will only reach that net 413 watts when it is radiating 826 watts per face. Then it will be at balance. By radiating 826 watts to each nonheated plate it loses a net of 413 watts per face. This balances the 826 it keeps gaining from the internal heat source.
Use your thinking. You are the one who is wrong and does not understand physics. How can heat flow when the temperature is the same? The quote states it can’t. For heat to flow the temperature must increase and continue to increase until the net flow out equals the energy being added. Wake up and think man! It is not too late!
Con-man, you don’t have the background to understand quantum physics. Plus, you have worms in your head preventing you from learning.
Here, you do not know how to apply textbook equations to real-world situations. You believe that since the plates are at the same temperature, there can be no heat transfer between them. But, the energy flow is NOT stopped. The reason the plates are at the same temperature is that they are in a steady state condition, with the same energy leaving as coming in. The 413Watts can only leave one direction because it is blocked by the heated plate. You refuse to believe that, because of the worm. That worm tells you all IR must be absorbed. So, that’s all you can believe.
g*e*r*a*n
It is not a worm telling me the IR will be absorbed. It is sound science.
But where do you get all will be absorbed? If the emissivity is 0.9 then 90% of the IR will be absorbed, the other 10% will be reflected but the the amount of energy total will be the same.
Not sure why you make such false claims. Does that help your argument to present false claims?
Your very own words know the reality but there is a missing element in your mental processing.
Here you say it: “But, the energy flow is NOT stopped. The reason the plates are at the same temperature is that they are in a steady state condition, with the same energy leaving as coming in.”
So if you apply your own words to the two non-heated plate example.
If your heated plate is only radiating 413 Watts per face, it is also receiving the same amount from the no heated plates per each side.
So what your words state is exactly what I am stating. The non heated plate is radiating 413 watts away from the heated surface and at the same time is will have to be radiating 413 watts toward the heated surface this side is facing. So now your heated plate is emitting 413 but also receiving 413 from the non heated plate (one side). It will lose no energy via radiation in this situation. But the heated plate has a constant addition of 826 watts. If no heat transfer takes place with the non heated plate at the same temperature the heat will continue to build until the heated surface can emit 413 watts of heat, this will occur when the surface is emitting at a rate of 826 watts. It is emitting 826 watts but gaining 413 watts from the non heated surface so its net loss is then 413 watts per side which equals the 825 it is getting added to it.
“But the heated plate has a constant addition of 826 watts.”
Con-man, the heat plate emits 413 from each surface. The outside plates only receive 413 Watts.
You are so lost, maybe you are beyond help. Maybe your only value is as a comedian.
And, I love humor….
g*e*r*a*n
Your inability to comprehend what I write would not be my flaw. The inability to reason is yours and yours alone.
Now you say the the outside plates only receive 413 watts. Yet you have them radiating away 413 watts away from the heated surface. That would mean there temperature must be warm enough to emit 413 Watts in both directions. That is a loss of 826 total watts of energy. How do you explain outer plates emitting 826 watts but only receiving a maximum of 413 watts? How is that supposed to work?
The more you post the more obvious it becomes you are clueless about any physics. I link you to textbook reality but in your own delusional mind you are unable to understand it. Worst of all you can’t possibly explain your version of the radiant exchange with the plates that makes sense and the math works out.
You have the heated plate emitting only 413 watts to the each outer plate but you admitted that the outer plates would radiate in both directions so each outer plate would have to be losing 826 watts yet it only receives 413 watts. Not sure how you think your math works. It is obvious it does not.
Even an actual experiment with real plates in a vacuum would not convince you. Then you think I am the confused one.
Con-man, I have tried to explain this to you numerous times. Instead of trying to understand, you start talking about your infatuation with Joseph. Try to forget Joseph. He’s not “your kind”.
This is as simple as I can make it:
The Pin to the center plate (826 Watts) is evenly divided to the outer plates. The outgoing flux is 413 W/m^2, to each outer plate. Each outer plate receives (absorbs) all flux, due to the “perfect” scenario.
At equilibrium all plates achieve the 300K temperature. The “back-radiation” is NOT absorbed, it is “blocked”. The net IR from the outer plates ends up being only emitted from one surface. That’s why the outer plates emit 413 W/m^2, instead of 206.5 W/m^2.
The power flow is: Source–>heated plate–>outer plates–>”space”.
That’s why you could slide the plates together and there would be no change in temperature.
Try to get Joseph out of your head. You already have enough problems with worms.
g*e*r*a*n
Anyone can make up whatever physics they want. It seems you would rather make up your own physics and call everyone else wrong.
YOU: “The back-radiation is NOT absorbed, it is blocked. ”
Where does this opinion come from? What source? I have linked you to two textbook samples and both say the energy is absorbed. You come up with your own reality and say it is not absorbed and use the word “blocked” which who knows what that made up concept means.
What verification do you have for this understanding. Have you done any testing? Have you tried to put a radiating sleeve around a heated object to see if the temperature will stay the same?
Can you link me to one source of valid information that supports this conjecture of yours? The textbooks do not.
Con-man, it’s over your head. It would take you years to get to a level where you could understand. That’s why I have to use simple, descriptive words like “blocked”. Such terms are to help you understand, but you do not want to understand. You want it your way. You want IR to be absorbed anyway, anytime, always. That way, you can believe that CO2 is “warming the planet”. But, it’s not reality.
IR is NOT always absorbed. I have tried to use the simple examples that ice would bake a turkey, or a house would burn down, if all IR could be absorbed. But, again, you do not want to understand. Reality does not fit your belief system.
You keep pretending that you know physics, and that I do not. You are conning yourself. You keep linking to things you believe you understand, but you do not. One of your last links mentioned the fact that all IR might not be absorbed, but you did not want to see that. It was in the very link you provided, but your closed mind did not pick up on it. The worms make you blind to reality.
I could teach you. I could explain things to you. I could help you understand the textbooks you link to. But, until you kill the worms, my help would bounce off your skull like IR from ice bouncing off a room-temperature turkey.
I don’t point out all of your mistakes, but this one is too hilarious not to mention.
Up above, you stated: “But where do you get all will be absorbed? If the emissivity is 0.9 then 90% of the IR will be absorbed, the other 10% will be reflected but the the amount of energy total will be the same.”
Not only do you get the physics wrong, but you believe out that 10% of IR does not get absorbed!
So, your pseudoscience ends up working against you!
Hilarious.
Hi Norman,
I did respond to your other glass/box experiment but did not hear back. I will give you my take here. You have proposed a good experiment but it is worthwhile to stand back and look at it as a whole.
Label the three panels of one m2 each as A B C and let the B be the centre panel receiving the energy (826 W). This would be dissipated through A and C as you have stated (413 W/m2 each)
Now insulate the outer surface of C with perfect insulation. You will agree this would result in A now radiating away 826 W/m2 at a T equilibrium of around 357K. B and C would be at the same 357K.
Now separate C from B as you have described but keep the perfect insulation on outer surface of C. What would result? I suggest no change. A would continue to radiate at 826 W. B and C would still be at 357K despite the radiation between them as they are at the same T. There is no actual heat flow between them.
Now remove the insulation from C. Now C starts to radiate away from the outer surface to reach equilibrium at 413W and a T of 300K. This is continually being replenished by B as the temperature reduces to the 300K. There can never be an actual exchange of additional heat between the two beyond the energy being radiated away from the outer surface of C (because B and C are always at the same T or even worse the inner surface of C may be slightly lower as the conduction is far faster than radiation for Cu or Al anyway).
I appreciate there has been a feud between you two and appreciate it is not my business but this is one of the rare occasions that g*e*r* has genuinely tried to explain his position so I feel it would be reasonable to respond positively.
Peace 🙂 and don’t mind the criticism as you are doing really well in delving into all these areas and coming up with these creative ideas.
tonyM
Sorry I missed your other post to me. I am trying to find some internet experimental evidence of what happens to plates in a vacuum. So far I have not found any convincing experiments as evidence.
The rest is just theory and it does not seem it will convince g*e*r*a*n. I am not sure about you position on the matter.
Here is more textbook information that seems to agree with what I claim but that will not convince anyone who already holds a strong opinion on the issue. Maybe you can look at it and see what you think, give some feedback.
http://tinyurl.com/medk5ps
Page 385 and 386 of this link. It clearly shows and explains in the text that the surroundings effect the rate of energy loss.
They give an example of a person in a room in summer and winter and calculate the rate of heat loss a person experiences between summer and winter. You would agree that if the example is valid than warmer surroundings will alter heat loss. A human regulates their body heat, but if the body were an object that had a constant heat input, the object would have a warmer temperature in the summer than winter. This example shows that the surroundings do determine the equilibrium temperature of a heated object.
If my view is not correct then you would have to reject the textbooks it would seem, since they are showing with an example the very thing I have claimed.
Norm, you are only confusing yourself further. You have never studied physics to a level where you understand how to apply the Laws. You search and search for examples that fit your belief. Here, once again, you believe you have found an example that allows you to break the Laws. You just don’t have the background to realize both your bias, and your mistakes.
In your example with plates, you have no problem claiming that “back radiation” from the unheated plates will raise the temperature of the heated plate. You don’t understand that that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Heat energy does NOT move from “cold” to “hot” by itself. You can NOT understand that basic concept.
From your level of understanding, i’m guessing you would require 2-3 years of formal training to see your mistakes.
Norman:
Don’t pay attention to G*ER criticisms as often a word or two loosely put creates a diversion and becomes the subject of ridicule. It is easily done. I put up a post earlier today on the latest topic and realized I totally screwed up the logic (I corrected it).
What you say is perfectly correct so you don’t need to go to further examples. The surroundings will affect the rate and direction of actual heat transfer. Trouble is sometimes the wording can give a wrong impression. Even using terms like warmer can have multiple and confusing meanings.
In all of these illustrations the 2nd LOT needs to be kept in mind all the time; viz that HEAT energy cannot move, of its own accord i.e. without input of extra energy, from a colder body to a hotter body. G*E*R is spot on here.
Your book reference calls it net radiation heat transfer. This could mislead in the sense that it can imply an actual two stage process. I think this serves to cause confusion even though technically the net description is correct. Firstly there has never been an experiment to show this as a two stage process; experiments can only show a one way process hot to cold.
If you look at the first proposal you put, it had heat being transferred from cold to hot (ending up at 271K sending heat to 322K centre plate). A soon as it (C sheet) was separated it was reducing its T unless being replenished in full from the centre sheet, which is what would happen.
My suggestion is to query every step to see if it complies with the 2nd Law as it is easy to make the 1st LOT work but be in breach of the 2nd.
Additionally, the example of the person losing heat energy in the book is against an environment which does not change its T because of mass or size. So you don’t need to account for any T changes once the conditions are set (i.e. use the formula and that’s it).
I have assumed you do agree with my modified experiment and comments as you did not raise any questions.
tonyM, thanks for helping here. I don’t know how long you have followed this topic, but you seem reasonable and learned. Maybe you believe I am begin unfair to Norm. But, if you have followed him for very long, you know that he is a fake. He has no background in physics, but he wants to pretend he does. He loves to pound on the keyboard. He often even gets so tangled up that he ends up arguing with himself. Once, in a single comment, he said “Energy does NOT leave the system. Energy leaves the system.” There are many other examples of him arguing with himself.
He’s often hilarious, but he is also harmful. He can mislead the unknowing. That’s why I take the effort to reveal his pseudoscience. (Plus, it’s fun.)
g*e*r*a*n
Your diversion tactic is well established. You do not know any physics so you act like a person who has looked and read textbook physics cannot understand what he reads. You also pretend to have deep knowledge of the subject but have never validated anything you post with valid textbook material, experiment, or test. It is all huff and puff with you. Pretend and hope no one will ever learn you really have no idea what you are posting. You do it all the time.
Anyway on the content of your post. Ignoring your empty and childish criticism of my abilities.
Where do you come up with the idea tht in my example “heat” is moving from cold to hot? You don’t even read the physics textbooks I link you to (and it has been several at this time).
The books define heat (over and over so you could not have missed it if you had looked) as NET energy transfer to a surface. Do you know what the word NET means?
The backradiation to a heated surface is not heat. The NET is not from cold plate to hot plate.
In my example, where you claim that is what I am stating, 413 Watts from an outer plate to the heated plate is not a heat transfer. The cold plate is not what is heating the hot plate. The energy from its internal source is what adds the heat. The plate acts to restrict the rate energy can leave the heated plate so it will get hotter until it reaches a temperature where it can radiate away the energy it is continuously gaining.
Read the textbooks and quit giving your opinions. Also quit pretending you know any physics when you really do not.