The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2017 was +0.54 deg. C, up from the August, 2017 value of +0.41 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 21 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.72 +0.38 +0.85
2016 02 +0.85 +1.18 +0.53 +1.00
2016 03 +0.76 +0.98 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.44 +0.70
2016 06 +0.33 +0.48 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.37 +0.44 +0.30 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.54 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.45 +0.51 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.42 +0.43 +0.42 +0.47
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.38
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.24
2017 01 +0.32 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.22 +0.36 +0.09 +0.05
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.41 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.53
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through September 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for September, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
It’s been a total washout in the UK this summer, September was pretty poor as well. Starting to see Artic ice growing quite dramatically. Big concerns about a cooling world and lower crop production, which we have no plan for.
No evidence of any cooling so far. It has been quite a long wait!
Yes, Artic sea ice is growing as it does every year at this time after it passes the September minimum. Propagandist claims are meaningless unless you provide some DATA and COMPARISONS.
It’s quite clear that datasets are being manipulated. Real science shows evidence of this manipulation and shows how to remove this manipulation. Artic sea ice is above 1971 levels before steep artic sea ice gains. Record September Artic sea ice gain for September. Volcanoes going off all over the place, as a result of cosmic rays and cooling sun. Bit of an inconvenient truth for you. No good showing you the truth, because you want to believe Fear. False evidence appearing real.
tim says:
“Record September Arctic sea ice gain for September.”
Not true, according to N.S.I.D.C. data. 1980’s gain was 0.32 Mkm2 (Sept avg – August avg). This year was second, at 0.29 Mkm2.
But this doesn’t tend to be a good predictor of the next year’s minimum. (For example, 2017 saw a record low maximum Arctic SIE.)
Great idea, show us the truth. But so far the only “truth” You are able to show is that;
“Its quite clear that datasets are being manipulated”
So in lack off any data that has not have been manipulated, You are clueless regarding global temperature or any other climate data.
Please explain WHY it is “quite clear”. Please explain HOW “real science” shows what you claim. And no links to sites without scientific qualifications.
Believing the planet is warming because of man, is as stupid as believing the world is flat. I am coming to the conclusion that those with degrees can’t think for themselves and believe teacher on blind faith.
So no science then – as I suspected.
tim says:
October 3, 2017 at 3:45 AM
“Believing the planet is warming because of man, is as stupid as believing the world is flat. I am coming to the conclusion that those with degrees cant think for themselves and believe teacher on blind faith.”
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
– Christopher Hitchens, 2003 Slate article
tim says:
“Believing the planet is warming because of man, is as stupid as believing the world is flat.”
Why?
well he believes a belief if wrong..
Tim
Do you know about the fallacy of personal incredulity?
You should look it up.
http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity
test
Also, there’s a 2 Year Sea Level Pause.
Weather Bell is going to have about +.28c.
How could it be so different?
I guess I will average them. I hate when there is such a large difference.
In addition for the last 7 days going back from today Weather Bell has a plus .15c temperature anomaly.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM
The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261192
Different baseline period?
Antarctica was wicked cold last month how far south latitude does the satellite global coverage go? Maybe that was not incorporated?
Have they ever established a correlation to increasing troposphere temperatures after increasing hurricane activity? This being a year with a La Nina forming and the large number of storms, some of them reaching major status and remaining major for such long periods of time.
Could the energy released by these hurricanes be enough to increase troposphere temperatures?
Thanks.
Increased precipitation activity is the main reason for a surge in tropospheric temperatures. Whether it was the hurricanes that did it is uncertain…I doubt it, since the SH also warmed up.
Really? So I guess that people who claim that clouds are the unknown factor will now know what sort of a factor it is.
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_2weeks_anom.png
Weather bell data showing very cold Antarctica.
Or perhaps it’s your prized Weatherbell which is wrong. Stop continually looking for excuses.
Weatherbell is merely passing through NOAA/NWS model data.
OK . I think I trust your data more then Wx. Bell’s.
Correct Weather bell could be wrong.
Measuring different temps (troposphere, surface), so should we expect them to match month to month? I think not.
Top 10 Septembers on the record:
1. 2017 (+0.54)
2. 2015 (+0.45) … EL NINO
3. 1998 (+0.44) … EL NINO
4. 2010 (+0.37) … EL NINO
5. 2009 (+0.27) … EL NINO
6. 2005 (+0.25) … EL NINO
7. 2015 (+0.25) … EL NINO
8. 1995 (+0.22) … EL NINO
9. 2012 (+0.22)
10. 2013 (+0.22)
2017 0.32 above 2nd highest non-El-Nino-affected September.
Top 10 first-9-months-of-the-year:
1. 1998 (+0.558) … EL NINO
2. 2016 (+0.554) … EL NINO
3. 2010 (+0.394) … EL NINO
4. 2017 (+0.342)
5. 2002 (+0.241) … EL NINO
6. 2015 (+0.217) … EL NINO
7. 2005 (+0.204) … EL NINO
8. 2007 (+0.199)
9. 2014 (+0.159)
10. 2003 (0.157)
Highest non-El-Nino-affected year by 0.143.
Average for last 5 years (Oct 2012 – Sep 2017): +0.278
Average for “last 5 years” at same point after 97-98 El Nino
(Oct 1994 – Sep 1999): +0.106
Yup … any “pause” is over.
I understand now why Roy put up the Monty Hall distraction a couple of days before this was released. I guess he’ll now be frantically at work on version 7.
We had El Nino conditions for much of the first part of the 2017. This is the reason for the bump in temperatures in August and September as satellite temps always lag by about 3 months. Since this is equatorial it tends to affect both hemispheres equally.
That has now ended. October should see a drop. If La Nina conditions take hold (haven’t yet) then look for another change 3 months later.
We have NOT had El Nino conditions since May 2016. You don’t get to make up the facts.
Des, do hurricanes raise troposphere temperatures?
According to Dr Spencer’s answer to that question earlier in this thread … “I doubt it”.
It’s funny how American’s measure the number of GLOBAL tropical storms by counting the number that actually make landfall in their own country. Kind of like the “World” Series.
Maybe they measure landfalls because they were not as smart as the Des people who had satellites back in 1920 to detect hurricanes over the ocean.
Paul – In case you haven’t realised – we are discussing the SATELLITE period.
We did not have a La Nina in 2016, see the BOM reports which confirm that there was not a La Nina in 2016..
We are not currently in La Nina conditions. Presently less than 50% of models predict La Nina for early 2018.
If we get a La Nina in early 2018, because of lag, it will not be picked up by the satellite until around May or June 2018.
The satellite is far less sensitive to La Nina than it is to El Nino. This may be because of convection. With warm El Nino conditions, convection carries the heat up to the height at which the satellite measures the temperature. In la Nina, with cold conditions, obviously there is less convection to height, and hence an attenuated response is seen in the satellite measurements.
there is no point in predicting the future. all predictions have been wrong to date. let us wait and see what develops for the rest of this year, and early next.
BOM is NOT the only source. There was a weak La Nina from August to December. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
But since you are citing BOM, their most recent outlook:
“Five of the eight models suggest SSTs will cool to La Nia thresholds by December 2017, but only four maintain these values for long enough to be classified as a La Nia event.”
That is not “less than 50% of models”.
I have done a comparison between UAH anomaly and ONI. Except for the 97-98 and 15-16 “very strong” El Ninos, the response of UAA anomalies to El Ninos and La Ninas is pretty much the same. So you have just made that up. The only difference seems to be the there is little correlation between the value of minimum ONI during a La Nina and the maximum drop in anomalies during the La Nina. Except for two VERY weak La Ninas, the temperature drop has been between 0.15 and 0.45, with the value seemingly unrelated to the minimum ONI.
I didn’t say we had them since May 2016. Do you always make stuff up? We actually had them starting in April 2017 and going through mid July.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
Add in the 3 month lag and they started to affect GAST around July going through mid October.
Obviously, you really aren’t interested in understanding climate.
If I say “We have NOT had El Nino conditions SINCE May 2016”, how on earth is that shifting your claim from 2017 to 2016?? Do you not know the difference between “IN 2016” and “SINCE 2016” ?? Do you always make stuff up?
You seem to think that a short spurt in equatorial pacific temperatures qualifies as an El Nino. It did not meet the conditions for an El Nino. If you were to count it as one, it would be the weakest El Nino ever. Find me another WEAK El Nino where the anomaly went close to this value … nup – where it EXCEEDS this value, to account for the fact that this wasn’t an El Nino.
DES, when you say we haven’t had El Nino conditions that means not one single month would have a Nino 3.4 anomaly at .5 or above. That has not been the case. As I pointed out the period from April through mid July 2017 had that exact situation.
Don’t you know the difference between “conditions” and “events”? It certainly appears that way. You really should educate yourself.
You don’t need official El Nino or La Nina “events” to affect the global temperature. It won’t be anything like a full ENSO “event”, but it will affect monthly anomalies over a short term period just as I pointed out.
I’ve asked you to find another period in the record with similar ENSO conditions that has led to a UAH anomaly anywhere near this high. I wonder why you chose to ignore that request?
DES, you ask for something that does not exist. Nowhere in the data do we have an aborted summer period of El Nino conditions. I do get a kick out of people who appear to have no clue how to look at the data.
As I mentioned our current understanding of ENSO is poor. The fact we could have NOAA predicting a full El Nino as the El Nino conditions materialized and then a few months later predicting La Nina should tell you something. This has not happened before in the data we have. Of course, that also means it has not happened during the +AMO since we don’t have much data from the last one.
There is nothing difficult to understand in what I stated. It is a very simple description of what has been happening over the summer months. It seems those who “believe” in AGW simply cannot look at data logically.
ONI for:
March 1993: +0.5
April 1993: +0.7
May 1993: +0.7
June 1993: +0.6
But no El Nino. It was one of your “aborted summers of El Nino conditions”. How did the UAH anomalies pan out for the rest of that year?
Des, I guess you never heard of Pinatubo. Can’t directly compare anything for the 2 years after its eruption. I thought anyone commenting on climate would be aware of this fact.
However, you can look at the relative change. The anomaly in March 1993 was -.43 which jumped up to -.06 in July. That’s a rise of .37. The rise we just saw was from .21 to .54 or .33. Looks like the effect was almost identical.
Was that your point?
1980 ONI
March 0.3
April 0.4
May 0.5
June 0.5
July 0.3
Another “aborted summer of El Nino conditions”.
Des is making a habit of demonstrating his lack of knowledge. 1979-1980 was an El Nino year and all you are doing is seeing the taper off the El Nino.
Anyone with any concept of ENSO should have known this as well.
EXACTLY. We have had COUNTLESS El Nino years, countless months DURING El Ninos, countless months in the lag period AFTER El Ninos, and SOMEHOW you believe that a “not quite El Nino” trumps all of these TRUE months.
Edit: True EL NINOS
2017 2 26.67 26.66 0.01
2017 3 27.31 27.21 0.11
2017 4 28.03 27.73 0.29
2017 5 28.29 27.85 0.44
2017 6 28.04 27.65 0.39
2017 7 27.53 27.26 0.27
2017 8 26.77 26.91 -0.14
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
From that data:
1982 9 … ONI +1.64 …. UAH -0.30
1982 10 … ONI +2.16 … UAH -0.39
1982 11 … ONI +2.09 … UAH -0.27
1982 12 … ONI +2.28 … UAH -0.16
1983 1 … ONI +2.32 … UAH +0.01
1983 2 … ONI +1.94 … UAH -0.16
1983 3 … ONI +1.49 … UAH +0.15
1983 4 … ONI +1.19 … UAH +0.08
1983 5 … ONI +1.18 … UAH +0.09
1983 6 … ONI +0.82 … UAH -0.18
Oceanographers consider an ENSO season to be July to June. July16-June17 was a weak La Nina, mostly occurring in the latter half of 2016. Presently ENSO is neutral.
If you group temperatures from July-to-June, 2016-2017 was the warmest La Nina on record, according to UAH LT data. The 2015-2016 ENSO season was the warmest El Nino on record, and 2014-2015 was the warmest ENSO-neutral season.
These records are the same for NOAA surface data.
So we’re seeing warmest years no matter what the ENSO state is.
PS: This is judging the ENSO state via the ONI:
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
The new version of the ONI data is interesting. Based on this, they should be coming up with a new category for the last El Nino … VERY VERY Strong.
In reality, the definition of ENSO states is a very poor metric. It appears it was created with only a minimal knowledge of the states of the Pacific ocean. This was made more than obvious by the latest El Nino and La Nina.
The 2016-17 La Nina was a particular joke as the Nino 1-2 region was extremely warm. The anomaly for Feb and Mar 2017, normally the peak of a real La Nina, averaged +1.75. Yes that is a plus sign.
It is clear the government weather agencies need to go back to the drawing board if they want their ENSO designations to have any meaning.
People who think their comments are meaningful when referring to this kind of obvious nonsense get caught looking a little foolish.
The La Nina did NOT extend into 2017. It lasted from August to December 2016. So you anomalies for Feb/Mar 2017 are irrelevant.
Des, I just gave those months as an example compared to what would normally be seen during a standard La Nina. In fact, the Nino 1-2 area was never positive during the entire so-called La Nina.
Keep in mind it is this area’s warmth or coolness that led to the recognition that something was happening in the Pacific. The choice of Nino 3.4 for now declaring an ENSO event is based on a minimal set of data. So, no it is not at all irrelevant. It is indicative of our lack of knowledge into ENSO. A smart person would realize this lack of knowledge extends into all aspects of climate.
No – it is a temperature GRADIENT across the Pacific (or lack of one) that determines the nature of an ENSO event, NOT the temperature itself.
Sorry Des, it is not the gradient that is measured determine El Nino. It is temperature pure and simple. You really need to quit making a fool of yourself.
Then you rally have NO idea how El Nino works. I bet you think that the Pacific actually warms up in the leadup to an El Nino, instead of simply shifting the existing heat around.
yes, Des, it’s all part of my elaborate conspiracy. Thanks for such valuable insight into my motives.
Dr. Roy, you have a lot of patience….
Talking of conspiracies … how long do you think it will be before Deniers Inc. starts claiming you have shacked up with NOAA?
Lowlife slimeball. You clowns should be put on trial for wasting billions and billions of dollars on a non-problem that could be used to feed the starving, or cure disease. How do you sleep at night, lowlife?
It is being used to PREVENT starving. How do you sleep at night knowing you are trying to undo that, lowlife?
We’ve been having record grain harvests, Despicable.
“WE”? … who does “we” refer to? Are you referring to Africa?
Try the USDA dumb@$$.
And the other 98.1% of the earth’s land area?
@Des: The record grain harvest is worldwide:
http://www.world-grain.com/articles/news_home/Features/2016/11/Another_record-breaking_harves.aspx?ID=%7BF66FAB2B-AE1E-40B6-95F7-A7F92CD9B379%7D&cck=1
And, for accuracy, the US grain harvest is 7.6% of world total which puts it in 5th place behind the EU, China, India, and Russia. Russia’s grain production is on par with the US. If the EU total was broken into its constituent countries, the US numbers look even better.
Despicable,
The USDA presents GLOBAL figures, Einstein.
Or because Monty Hall just died was his motive?
Where you lose me, Dr Spencer is a global warming proponent yet you treat it like he isn’t. If you’ll eat your own because he’s not a fanatic, can I trust you for any other information?
Is it the new reality that lukewarmers are global warming proponents?
If so, I would say a few months of Trump can cause quite a change.
Used to be that it was the modelers who were over estimating future global warming effects who were the proponents.
Now, you didn’t need to do future “projection” but could use
them to claim polar bears are going to die, or arctic polar sea ice was going disappear very soon.
And things like more than meter rise in sea level and the children will never see snow.
For me, when someone says yes I believe there is some truth in something, it makes them a proponent. He’s been saying the models are half right for a while now.
Half wrong is wrong.
We recovering from the Little ice age.
And we also recovering from the last glacial period.
We are in icebox climate and there no evidence we are
escaping from it.
Our oceans are cold- which is a characteristic or definition of global icebox climate.
If the average temperature of the ocean was 10 C rather
than 3 C, we wouldn’t be in an icebox climate.
And global temperature would be about 20 C.
And be closer to a hothouse global climate which about 25 C.
Thank you very much!
A minor typo: 2016 was 0.45, not 2015.
Oh no may it be the warmest September on record! Well I’ll be!? Wait wasn’t the medival warming period way warmer then now? And also actual temps lag solar driven activity and upward El Nio events. Dumb alarmist sheeple!
Why do you continue to try to type the Spanish ‘n’ when you know it gets blocked every time? It doesn’t give a very a very good impression of your cognitive ability.
ñ should do it.
It’s becoming more and more difficult to deny AGW Dr. Roy.
When the going get’s tough, deniers can display enormous creativity in their responses. Such as someone above claiming we have just pulled out of El Nino.
When the going gets tougher stupid dumb retarded alarmists like the one above attack and ridicule people who know the facts because they know that they are in for a huge surprise eventually and want to keep the Willy wanker and the global warming factory up and running because there are true people like me who are spoiling the secret formula and that is the only way they can cover it up.
The alarmist fear mongering lemmings like Des*picable can’t help but resort to the “denier” term with its Holocaust connotations. You are a true lowlife.
The holocaust has never entered my mind while talking to deniers. The concept of a denier predates the holocaust – it goes back to Freud. The denier lemmings like Septic Gone Wild can’t help but make false word associations in order to score brownie points. You are a true lowlife.
Total BS. The connotation was clear from the beginning you pile of horse manure:
“We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I dont think theres a great deal of difference.
[Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)]
Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.
[Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University (2009)]
“”Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
[Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe (2007)]
“The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. Theyve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they havent seen does not exist.”
[Charles Larson, American University (2013)]
Welcome to the world of slimeballs, DESpcicable. These were just a few samples.
Never heard of any of those people. Quoting them doesn’t make your claim true. Please tell me precisely what part of my comments suggests I meant that – try to do that without any more guesswork.
Des believes he came up with “Deniers” on his own. He doesn’t recognize the indoctrination he’s received.
If I were you, SkepticGoneSomehow, I would take some time in reviewing all WUWT threads of the last five years, and check for quite the opposite evidence!
I remember a disgusting person with nickname ‘Gloateus Maximus’ speaking about the ‘Potsdam GESTAPO’, other people I don’t remember talking about Nazi-like warmistas, etc etc.
Here is a very nice example of how some Americans write about people they have no idea about:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/25/agus-climate-change-believe-it-or-else-prize/
http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/Articles/2017/08/14/Heil_KlimaFuehrer_Rahmstorf/index.html
My point is: the best is to keep equidistant from all this incredible sh.it!
I don’t “deny AGW”. Please pay attention, Dr. Mark.
Hi Dr. Spencer. I understood that – neither do I; however, and I expect that I’ve missed this somewhere in these parts; if you would please, what is your view on how just how much of [current/recent] GW is AGW? And, do you agree that prior to the 1950’s – 1970’s period, there would not have been any potential for any meaningful human footprint on GW, AGHG’s were just beginning to really rise significantly?
There isn’t any measurable amount warming due to “AGW” in terms global temperature.
Urban heat islands are “AGW”- human caused warming effects which is easily measurable and affects large regions [if large regions are hundreds of square km- but not large if referring to 510 million square km of the Earth].
Earth is mostly covered by ocean area, humans have had no measurable effect upon the temperature of the oceans.
Imagine if someone could determine how to correctly measure the amount of the effect of AGW, they would be “well rewarded”- fame, fortune, and whatever.
It would be a very significant accomplishment- but alas, despite the posers, no one has actually done it.
The same goes for anyone finding evidence of UFOs. Or bigfoot. Though there are quite a few people “making a living” by claiming to have such evidence.
Urban heat islands are corrected for in the surface record. It’s funny how deniers always skip over that part.
–Des says:
October 4, 2017 at 8:01 PM
Urban heat islands are corrected for in the surface record. Its funny how deniers always skip over that part.–
Global warming is indicated by rising sea level and retreat of glaciers.
Urban heat island effect is unrelated to these “thermometers”.
And the surface record seems good enough as far as I am concerned- because it seems to accurately depicts warming caused the oceans.
But it is getting rather difficult to claim low sensitivity, as well.
Earth’s temperature has low senstte to CO2.
(That wasn’t so difficult to claim.)
*sensitivity
Of course – deniers have no difficulty in making claims which run counter to the evidence, as you’ve just so proudly proven.
I’m glad you agree with me, Des.
Of course we might disagree on what you call “evidence”. Some Warmists believe DWIR is “evidence”, for example. That’s like believing Thor causes lightning by throwing lightning bolts!
That’s okay, everyone gets to believe what they want.
g*e*r*a*n says, October 2, 2017 at 3:37 PM:
Or, as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is “evidence” of its CAUSE …
“Everyone gets to believe what they want.”
Yes, you can “BELIEVE what you want”. I hope you don’t mind if I prefer KNOWLEDGE over belief.
Just keep believing, Des.
Kristian
Would you please point out precisely where I have claimed that “temperature rise alone is evidence of its cause”.
Des says, October 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM:
Des
Would you please point out precisely where I wrote that you CLAIM that “temperature rise alone is evidence of its cause”.
Des says, October 2, 2017 at 4:00 PM:
So how exactly do you KNOW that we humans are responsible for GW, des? Based on what observations?
It will be difficult for Kristian to do that, seeing as he made it up wholesale.
Kristian, you said:
as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE
I too think that that is complete fabrication, and am curious to see if you can produce a quote that verifies this statement.
What I expect is that you’ll get tricksy.
Yes, barry, sorry I forgot to include you.
Har har. I thought you’d try something cleverer.
Your best shot is with Shapiro’s quote.
–Kristian says:
October 2, 2017 at 3:56 PM
g*e*r*a*n says, October 2, 2017 at 3:37 PM:
Of course we might disagree on what you call evidence. Some Warmists believe DWIR is evidence ()
Or, as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE —
Well I believe the higher average temperature of the tropics and the higher average temperature of the entire ocean is
evidence of its CAUSE.
Kristian October 3, 2017 at 3:32 AM:
“Would you please point out precisely where I wrote that you CLAIM that temperature rise alone is evidence of its cause.
Kristian October 2, 2017 at 3:56 PM:
“… as both Dr. Mark H. Shapiro, Rob Honeycutt and Des here all stereotypically exemplify, warmists tend to believe that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE …”
Des says, October 3, 2017 at 10:39 PM:
So for the record, you hereby admit that I didn’t accuse you of what you claimed I accused you of. Good boy.
FOR THE RECORD, we have it in writing that you accused me of “believing that temperature rise alone is evidence of its CAUSE”.
Des says, October 3, 2017 at 11:37 PM:
Yes. “Believing” something isn’t the same as “CLAIMING” something out loud or in writing, is it, Des?
Note that I did not say that warmists tend to believe that temperature rise is necessarily the ONLY evidence of its cause. I said that warmists tend to believe that it’s ENOUGH to just point to a temperature rise in order to draw conclusions about its cause. And by “a temperature rise”, I naturally don’t mean monthly noise or ENSO-induced peaks. I mean of course “a rising temperature trend over time”.
You seem to believe that word gymnastics gets you out of your claim.
Des says, October 4, 2017 at 8:03 PM:
I don’t need to “get myself out of” my claim at all. You obviously DO believe that pointing to a rising trend in temperature is enough to confirm your belief in CO2 warming as CO2_atm increases. Same with barry. Same with Dr. Mark H. Shapiro. Same with Rob Honeycutt.
I have, however, never stated that this is something you have OPENLY CLAIMED. Of course you haven’t. That’s what an inherent belief is all about. You show, you don’t tell.
Which means your belief that we have this belief *IS* only a belief – nothing more.
Des says, October 5, 2017 at 6:24 PM:
Not at all. It’s based on tons and tons of evidence. It’s all around you.
You all DO believe this. It’s the most obvious thing. Anyone able to read would understand why it has to be so. It’s a settled fact, and so no point discussing, really. All we need to discuss from here on is “What do we do about it…?”
Or are you a denier, Des? Do you deny the evidence?
@Kristian
Lol thanks i gota good laugh outof that…
I would add tbat 97% of skeptics agree.. It is settled so no more evidence is needed 😜
I see you’re talking in riddles again.
Let’s add comprehension difficulties to your list of issues.
Rob Honeycutt, that was not directed at you. I posted it in the wrong level of the thread.
Don’t worry doctor spencer. The longer the better because eventually this man made global warming bullshit will be a thing of the past and bite everyone in the ass because of not looking at the real science behind climate change. Hang in there! We are slowly but surely winning the fight!
We are slowly but surely going in the opposite direction to that required for deniers to “win the fight”.
Roy…”I dont deny AGW. Please pay attention, Dr. Mark”.
You’re a better man than me. You have far more tolerance for the possibility.
In the strictest sense, I am not a denier of AGW either. I think there is a possibility of about 0.01C over decades.
I think Lindzen pegged it at around 0.4C for a doubling of CO2.
Love to know how you get “0.01C over decades” from “0.4C for a doubling of CO2”.
Whenever you’re ready Gordon.
It’s been clear for a while if you’re not a warming fanatic/ alarmist, you’re a nothing to the warming trolls/crowd. Makes me think the real disease the world should take action against is lumping crazies in with rational people. Dr Spencer has the most rational and truthful position of any climate proponent I’ve heard of yet. Maybe he shouldn’t try to balance out the fanatics and rather stick more closely to the facts and possibilities, but I’m glad someone in a prominent, non-authoritative position will at least attempt to be objective.
Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says, October 2, 2017 at 8:41 AM:
Let me fix that for you: It’s becoming more and more difficult to deny GW.
Where exactly in Spencer’s graph do you see the “A”?
You have it from the Master himself;
“I dont deny AGW. Please pay attention, Dr. Mark.”
And so should You my friend, Your kognitiv gifts and scientific skills would be far better served if You became a true sceptic.
Was about to point out the same. Since very few people deny GW, it is a non-issue.
shapiro…”Its becoming more and more difficult to deny AGW Dr. Roy”.
Only an idiot would interject with such an observation. Show me any scientific evidence of AGW.
Having ‘Dr.’ before your name does not absolve you of idiocy.
Since Dr Roy agrees with AGW, why don’t you ask HIM for the evidence?
We still hold out hope for Dr. Roy.
Does that mean he doesn’t have to supply evidence for his claims?
He does.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-266138
The question was to “show me any scientific evidence of AGW”. How exactly does Dr Spencer answer that in that post?
Anyway … of course he has supplied evidence in the past. So Gordon Robertson can look it up and be content that he has received an answer from someone he trusts.
No Des, your question was:
“Does that mean he doesnt have to supply evidence for his claims?”
(Glad to help.)
Gordon Robertson says:
“Only an idiot would interject with such an observation. Show me any scientific evidence of AGW.”
You mean you’ve been denying AGW this entire time and haven’t even taken a half-hour to read about its evidence??
Gordon??
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Tough life.
tru dat.
The data for the month of September is quite a surprise because the overall sea surface temperatures have been falling off, as well as a tendency toward La Nina, conditions.
Oceanic lag times have to be considered, and as long as the oceans keep cooling eventually so too will global temperatures.
I will be watching the global oceanic temperatures moving forward, currently +.269c and see how this translates to global temperatures, and to a lesser extent if La Nina develops
Satellite data is the best even when it goes against what one wanted.
I am positive going forward global temperatures will be dropping off.
Again this was a surprise.
Oh, with La Nina coming on, I’m pretty confident we are in for a large-ish drop. But a few months of anomalies don’t make a long-term trend. The important news remains the same: global temperatures have been rising at only about 50% the rate the models say they should be.
Dr. Spencer I think what is more important then La Nina per say is the overall oceanic temperatures on a global basis.
Exactly! Try spelling that out for the clueless dimwitted alarmists!
Oh, with La Nina coming on, Im pretty confident we are in for a large-ish drop
You were saying much the same mid-2016. Wouldn’t you be less confident when the first prediction of a la Nina fizzled out?
Barry, there was a weak La Nina in the second half of 2016, according to the ONI:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
It was the warmest La Nina on record, according to UAH LT v6.0 data.
I see the potential for a significant drop *if* we actually see the la Nina, a deepening AMO, and the predicted Bali volcanic eruption is large and extended. 2-3 months after Bali may make for interesting times.
CoRev: These would all be natural changes, indicating nothing whatsoever about manmade global warming.
DA, of cou. If they persisted long enough or drove temperatures deep enough to re-institute the “hiatus” they would also disprove the GCMs.
It’s too bad the obvious is lost on alarmists/true believers.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: ‘The important news remains the same: global temperatures have been rising at only about 50% the rate the models say they should be.’
OK, if we accept that the model predictions were on the high side, can I ask whether the models included other gases besides CO2? So if one were also to accept the methane clathrate theory then atmospheric methane could continue to increase markedly. And so there’s a mechanism by which GW could, very plausibly, accelerate from its present luke-warming rate? Methane readings do seem to be progressively increasing eg:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/
johnd says:
October 3, 2017 at 10:13 AM
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: The important news remains the same: global temperatures have been rising at only about 50% the rate the models say they should be.
That’s only according to un-peer reviewed, unpublished claims. Blog posts are not science. Real science appears in the peer reviewed published literature, in journals that don’t cause the editor-in-chief to resign when the paper is published.
You know this very well, Roy.
Lol. None of this is a surprise. As I said no one of my previous comments and so did dr spencer monthly temp anomolies mean nothing in terms of climate change. Yes, we may continue to experience periods of rapid fluctuations in monthly temps throughout the year but the long term 13 month average trend is expected to plunge downward rapidly over the next few years as we heads towards the bottom of this next solar cycle in the early to mid 2020s. By then global warming alarmism is going to melt like crazy and create a sea level rise of awareness and regret that will drown all in a flood of sorrow, pain, Missorry and will wash all those bastards away who lied to us about global warming. They will be one of the first to drown and choke and the waters of revenge and they know there death is drawing near and they only have very limited time to keep there man made global warming bullshit up and running.
Gee!
What a dummy spit!
Gee what a retarded dummy who spits venemous nonsense without bring up any supportive scientific claims whatsoever to support his or her argument. The least you can do is talk science but you choose to talk like a baby who gets his passifire stolen by his or her older brother.
What’s the matter dr nobody? Does the truth scare you? Are you to babyish to handle real science? Is your comprehension too low to comprehend what I’m saying? Do you really need to go back to kindergarten? Or did you just forget to take your meds today that dr poo poo pants prescribed for you?
Just out of interest, how old are you?
Dr No
Old enough to speak but not old enough to make sense. So I’d say the number in his name is probably it.
So real data is to be put aside due to someone’s claims of “expected” falls in the future. Yes there will be falls because this month’s absurdly high anomaly is 0.27 above the trend temperature. It MUST fall. And if we can go 0.27 above the trend, then we can also go 0.27 below, ie. ZERO. And a La Nina to that and we can go well below zero without a general cooling trend. Below zero anomalies WILL happen again, and it goes without saying that deniers will immediately claim that “this is the new trend”.
Step change and new pause probably.
That likely depends on the PDO.
ClimateChange4realz says:
“…but the long term 13 month average trend is expected to plunge downward rapidly over the next few years as we heads towards the bottom of this next solar cycle in the early to mid 2020s.”
Why didn’t this rapid downward plunge happen at the last solar cycle minimum, or the one before that?
Your joking right?
looking at this Image I on the contrary see plenty of times where these steep drops occur. In fact, it occurs everytime.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Modern-Grand-Maximum-Chen-2015.jpg
And this one…..
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/image1.png
Oh no it’s going up! Global warming has returned from its summer vacation and he is not playing anymore games! This is very serious stuff folks! Wait a minute, didn’t al gore predict the artic ice should be gone a while back in 2007? Record ice growth for September! Hmmmmmmm… After all it is the long term yearly trend that matters and that is still showing a downward trend. Oh well, back to sleep sheeples!
I must admit did not expect +.54c for Sep.
No one did. Global monthly anomolies can vary so much month to month. It is the long term yearly trend from 2016 (the red line) that matters and that is going down because we ended solar maximum
I agree but now we have to hear all the AGW enthusiast for a little longer.
Despite this month I am confident that the trend is going to be down.
The oceanic temperatures have to be paid close attention to. +.271 c last report. As long as this trends down so will global temperatures.
ocean tid bits web-site gives 6 hourly updates on oceanic temperatures plus much more info.
I promise you they will go down and with it those damn alarmists and there stupid agenda. All you have to do is look at history if you want to know how climate change is going to change the world. Yes climate change is a big deal. Yes the climate is changing and the weather is getting weirder. Yes the sea level has risen slightly over the past 100 years as well as the temperature Yes climate change is going to kill a overwhelming majority of our population in the next 10-15 years and change the way the human species live and act as a whole. That is one of the reasons why it is called Climate change. It is something that will change the world and there is nothing we can do to make it worse or muffle it specifically over the shorterm. Perhaps we could eventually have released enough ghgs into the atmosphere to then and only if then we can change the climate significantly. I’m talking thousands if not millions of years of hard core fossil fuel nonstop worse casecnario. But it is the short term that they want to mislead you and worry about and that my friend is where history comes in. Look at what happens in the 16 and 1800s with climate change. The sun has caused it and is doing the same thing is always does every 200 years or so it is not admitting as much solar radiance to warm the earth for at least the next 200 years. Start with John l casey. He is a great source of information if you want to know what’s really happening with the climate. Good luck my friend and prepare well. 🙂
I said it last month:
“Salvatore,
prepare to meet your moment of truth.
The next few months will decide you and your theorys fate, once and for all.
No ifs and buts agreed?”
and you agreed.
Probably the best predictor is to just go with the opposite of whatever Salvatore predicts. Time has told.
Sniff sniff….. hmmmmm what’s that awefull smell I’m smelling. It smells look dr nobody and Davie Appleseed arguing over something without even bringing up any arguements to support there babyish foolish claims. I for one am not a baby. Im beginning to think some of the baby’s who chat on this blog are beginning to talk More nonsense and less science. I wonder why that is?
So the oceanic temperature is +0.27. That is precisely the UAH trend value. So exactly as expected. It hasn’t “trended down”.
Gee – I though it went down BECAUSE EL NINO ENDED.
I do know for a fact the one thing did go down. human intelligence
Yes, it went down. To a higher level than it was before the distorting El Nino influence.
These alarmist sissies wet their pants if the wind blows. Truly a mental disease. All because of scientific ignorance. So sad.
So no argument then? Only bluster.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell the mantra-kockeys from talking to an online AI.
I suggest Costco and a large size of Depends for all your pant-wetting.
Online AIs typically say things that are unrelated to the input, especially if the input is more complex than a simple sentence using simple words.
Just above is a fine example.
Hello Des
I find your analysis here very interesting!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-266116
I do not know if you are aware of my monthly column at WUWT. However I would be happy to have your permission to post most of that in my next article, with proper attribution of course.
I would title it:
Can You Explain UAH6? (Now Includes August and September Data)
Perhaps, if you let me know what your suggested explanations for the high August & September anomalies are. I don’t want to be associated with some kind of nonsense rationalisation that is commonly seen on your site.
Be aware of a typo that needs fixing. In the first list, number 2 should say 2016, not 2016.
Also, when I wrote “EL NINO”, it was not necessarily an El Nino month. There is a 4-6 month lag between ENSO events and their associated anomalies. The months marked “EL NINO” are either an El Nino month or they fall within that lag period.
Did breeders in Dakotas secure cattle before winter?
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00936/c3b9vcwv2kxp.png
Is there high pressure in Asia?
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00936/h4bpd2xm3o4q.png
Kim Jong-Un seems to be creating some pressure.
Very surprising to me. I expected September’s anomaly to be somewhere between the July and August.
In response to the statement by Des: “Its funny how Americans measure the number of GLOBAL tropical storms by counting the number that actually make landfall in their own country. Kind of like the World Series.” I have seen a chart showing no upward trend in global ACE (Ryan Maue circulated it). Are you contending that there is such a trend? If so there is there a chart or other data showing this? I am not challenging you — I’m a non-expert. But if you are saying the chart that I have seen is wrong (i.e., that there is a long term upward trend in global hurricane/cyclone activity), I would be interested in checking that out. Thanks.
I find the trend in annual global ACE of +18 +/- 34 per decade, since 1970. So positive, but not statistically significant. (Well, it is stat sign at the 70% level.)
But ACE is a lousy metric, because it doesn’t consider the size of storms. I wrote about some better metrics here:
We Need a Better Way to Measure Hurricanes, Slate, Sept 21, 2017.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/09/a_better_metric_for_measuring_hurricanes.html
metric shopping
Do you know that “Accumulated Cyclone Energy” doesn’t even have units of energy?
That a car being driven at 120 mph for six hours has exactly the same ACE as a 500-mile wide hurricane with max winds of 120 mph spinning for six hours?
Does either of these make rational sense to you? It certainly doesn’t to a lot of hurricane scientists.
It makes sense from the point of view of instantaneous ferocity. But, more importantly, it is something for which we do not have to make up statistics due to the paucity of historical data for other measures.
The ACE index is hardly perfect – the measurement system has changed over the decades for a start.
At least there was a measurement system. Better than making up measurements out of whole cloth.
You believe “making things up out of whole cloth” is the alternative to ACE. It looks almost as if you know what you are talking about.
The data just aren’t there, Barry. To the extent that they are, the methodologies and technology have changed so much that it would be about as bad as splicing tree ring proxies to the modern instrumental record. With such tiny differential signals, the assumptions used in patching it all together would be the driving force in any results.
Which alternative methodologies are you thinking of?
Bart says:
“It makes sense from the point of view of instantaneous ferocity.”
Instantaneous ferocity isn’t what caused widespread damages.
ACE should at least be an energy, if it’s called an energy. It isn’t.
Bart says:
“At least there was a measurement system. Better than making up measurements out of whole cloth.”
And you think ACE wasn’t made up out of whole cloth?
Later metrics have more thought (and more data) in them.
Thank you, and I read your interesting Slate article
Unlike a few commenters to that article, it seems intuitive to me that classifying storms is a worthwhile endeavor. Among other things, doing so allows people to at least roughly compare storms over time, and to better look for and discuss trends. If we step outside the world of ACE, is there an alternate classification system which shows (statistically significant) storm intensification over an appreciable period of time?
The problem is, we cannot go back in time to collect data for other measures for the historical record. That opens the door to the usual “adjustment” scenario in which Climate Change manifests within the gaps of our knowledge, and the probity of the data preparers.
Yes and slide-rules rule, 4evr. Computers suck.
Computers do suck, in a lot of ways. For one thing, they can only tell you the implications of your assumptions. For another, easy computing power makes people lazy. They don’t give as much thought to the specific problem at hand, and rely on the computer to solve it for them through trial and error, often using canned routines that are based on assumptions that do not hold in the given instance.
Computers do not think. They only calculate. They are only tools. I’ve been fortunate that I never had to use a slide rule, or even a punch card. But, I do recognize the weaknesses of computers, and I do not abdicate my responsibility for independent thought to them.
What this has to do with the thread, I have no idea, but decided to share my thoughts anyway.
Slide-rules. Well it was picking on the idea that we shouldnt change how we measure things…
Similar to atguments made here, that we shouldnt or cannot change how we power things. I would disagree with that one just as much.
The problem is, when you change how the measurement is done, you change the outcome. It’s OK when the thing you are trying to measure has high SNR, but the signals being looked for here are relatively tiny.
I’m all for changing how we power things, if it makes sense. But, solar and wind power don’t. They’re inefficient, and horrific for the environment.
I like electric cars. I just don’t kid myself that they run on pixie dust and wishes. If anything, they require more energy in the end, due to the need to produce and transport power from remote location, and lug around a ton of batteries everywhere you go. And, the manufacture and disposal of those batteries also is not environmentally friendly.
‘Theyre inefficient’
Compared to what? Tell that to states like Texas and North Dakota, re wind. Your ideas are obsolete.
‘and horrific for the environment’ Not remotely, compared to coal.
Nonsense. Coal is quite clean these days. Heavy metals for windmills and caustic reagents for solar panels, not so much.
Solar and wind barely produce more power than used in their manufacture. And, they despoil acres upon acres upon acres of natural habitat, because the power they produce per unit is such a pittance.
How is coal mined, exactly? What happens to the tailings? Where do they end up? What happens to the ash and sludge from power plants? Didnt govt just relax rules on what coal miners can dump in rivers?
‘they despoil acres upon acres upon acres of natural habitat, because the power they produce per unit is such a pittance’
Really? So why do ranchers quite happily rent out there pastures for wind turbines (and continue to ranch). This sounds very much like one of those ‘I know you are but what am I’ retorts on the playground. Completely dumb.
”Solar and wind barely produce more power than used in their manufacture.”
Very false, by orders of magnitude.
Why do you feel it helps your credibility to continually just make sh*t up?
Check out open pit mining Bart:
https://tinyurl.com/y8kksjsk
Yes, nasty stuff, mines:
https://tinyurl.com/j9s5ytc
https://tinyurl.com/yarkc4sa
https://tinyurl.com/l9jamch
https://tinyurl.com/n3frxms
Bart, so you’re giving up your headphones, speakers, disk drives, smart phones, cordless drills, etc that use most of these magnets?
David: I am looking for such time series, but having a hard time finding them. If they exist, they are buried somewhere in published papers. Unfortunately these numbers are not yet widely available.
I was not making any such claim. Why didn’t you include the CONTEXT of that quote? Someone had suggested that September was warm SOLELY due to hurricanes. I was pointing out that he is claiming that apparently the global anomaly responds in this way ONLY due to hurricanes that make landfall in the USA and no others.
One odd ball month in temperatures does not make the case for AGW.
To people like you and me who think logically it doesn’t but apparently for the dimwitted puny minded alarmists trolling dr Roy spencer it does. While the temp anomaly is up they are scrambling to try to deviceve people and squeeze as much money out of their wallets as they can since it is only temporary for the time being and then they’ll say I’m glad I did what I could do make money and profit off of these innocent minded people while I had the chance. When they see an opportunity they strike just like al gore and the melting of the Arctic sea ice or the 1970s global cooling scare or the dumb scientist that says snow would eventually be a thing of the past. People give them money and they regret it and then they apologize and then they make up more excuses and so on. I call it the pseudoscience cycle for profit demanded by libtards and left wing conspiracy theorists. which consists of first pushing junk science down innocent peoples throats when they still have the chance while the libtards make there profit then the people cry and the libtards throw a party. Evil always wins when it comes to today’s era in pushing junk climate science. Sadly.
Nobody is claiming that it does. But it certainly puts a damper on your claims of cooling. Given that September is 0.27 above the trend temperature, I trust that if we get another month of 0.0, you won’t be claiming that it makes a case for cooling.
“Given that September is 0.27 above the trend temperature”
So what? Explain to me how this is such a big deal. Also explain to me that if there is global warming the earth should be warming and we shouldn’t be setting 100 year+ record cold temperature records like the western US did last year and other parts of the world. Nevada ski resorts should haven’t been open all summer in fact it should have been ski free all year. Global warming. More co2. Warmer world. Co2 increasing claimed as a primary driver of climate change but temperatures have been steady for 18 years how come? I thought more co2 was supposed to warm the earth continously just like all 72 of the broken iPCC models claimed. Why? Why are we still using cars? Why is this not top world news? Why is there even existing news and articles about global cooling and a coming ice age if we are trying to prove global warming is real? There is just no way around it. You could try all you want weasel your way through this one pal but the facts are on the table and the truth ain’t gonna change itself but perhaps let the people change it.
Oooooooh. So it’s A few tiny months of warming. A drop in a bottle. I will be back a few years from now and maybe then we can have a more mature debate.
The only time I made a claim for cooling was when we had those two steepest drops on record in May and June of 2016 when the alarmists were in la La Nia land and that broke records of one of the steepest drops in the sattelite era. I don’t see any records of the biggest increase in global temperatures in two months on dr Spencer’s website which shreds your garbage global warming theory to even more peices.
4realz, a little over caffeinated …
You seem to enjoy talking to yourself. Who am I to interrupt.
So where is your explanation Des?
Why would I bother replying to a nonsense claim that global warming should mean no snow?
One odd ball month in temperatures does not make the case for AGW.
Of course. But you believe that cooling over 2 months heralds a change.
If only everyone accepted that month-to-month variation is not climate. But you have ‘skeptics’ aplenty crowing about monthly, and even weekly lows, just as you see ‘alarmists’ making hay out of short-term phenomena.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“One odd ball month in temperatures does not make the case for AGW.”
That’s why no one makes that.
It is interesting that the troposphere develops so different from surface series the last couple of months, and I think it must be related to the tiny spike in the multivariate enso index – an effect that has already vanished in surface measurements.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Why do you think it must be related to that?
probably to do with the red thingies and blue thingies
Nice scientific answer I see.
Notice how many more comments there are on the February 2016 blog when we had a peak in global warming due to the the Godzilla El Nio and a secondary peak in solar cycle 25. This huge El Nio was there big chance they had to make lots of money by lying to people but sadly that is coming to a close and the earth will continue to cool in the coming years. I wouldn’t be surprised to see no alarmists on the comment sections of these monthly temp anomaly blogs 3 years time because they’ll be too busy crying there puny little eyes out in there bed pillows about how wrong, selfish and greedy they were. Sadly this isn’t something that will happen over night and for now until the long term trend is noticable and undeniable in the next few years the warmies will continue to infest dr Spencers site like a virous taking over the human body
Feb 2016: 318 comments
August 2016 (last month): 2331 comments
What was that you were saying? It’s funny how you try to make a comparison of September comments when this post has been up only a few hours. Kind of like the idiocy of trying to compare ENSO neutral temperatures to the those from the height of the 97-98 El Nino.
Bullshit! It’s right here fuckwit:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/
Buy some glasses before making dumb ignorant comments you moron
It seems you don’t know the difference between January and February. Try to get it right next time. Perhaps you would like to suggest why the number of comments fell by 90% from January to the peak temperature month of February. Does that give a positive or negative correlation between temperature and comments?
BTW – I found it interesting that Dr Spencer allows the F word to be used on his blog by only one side of the debate. Or … perhaps my perception has been skewed because only one side of the debate actually resorts to using that word. Apparently it qualifies as a proxy “argument”.
Whatever man. Believe whatever you want. But just remember that global warming is real and is caused by humans as you claim even though there is a shit ton of real evidence that disputes it coming from all these well educated scientists. The real question you have to ask yourself is How did they come to this conclusion? Why even allow this on the internet? Why are so many news articles about long term 100+ record cold being broken across the globe not in the mainstream news. why did These so called educated scientist make these horribly wrong predictions? And if it is so real and terrible then maybe we should get off our lazy asses and start changing things IMMEDIATELY! Yes we have made some progress but we can do way better. Yet the government still allows these cars that produce co2 to go on. This shit should be banned and there should be a law if it was that big of a deal. And finally, why are the government out to kill and jail people who do not believe in man made climate change? It makes no sense therefore the politics don’t make sense therefore the science backing it up makes no sense.
If you want to change topics, start another thread. This one is settled.
Why not start a new thread if you can continue one desi boy? Now answer my questions. That is….. if you can. Lol
You don’t get it, do you. I am not here to prove something that has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Any attempt to do do would be a case of casting pearls before swine. No, I am here simply to laugh at all those people who claim a GLOBAL cooling trend despite the fact there is not a shred of evidence to back up their claim. If I happen to get sidetracked into talking about warming then count yourself blessed, but I don’t respond to DEMANDS for such a conversation.
CC4R got the dates wrong. The peak was in February, but the update was early March, as usual. The number of comments was below average.
Whatever the case, it would be impossible to interpret the numbers without reading and categorizing the posts. Who could bothered doing that? No, better to make claims no one is going to bother verifying, least of all you.
4realz, never mind the caffeine, consider cutting back on the meth…
Hmmmmh!
Ein Kommentar mit Weltklasseniveau, was realz?
Bullshit. It’s right here fuck nugget:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/02/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-january-2016-0-54-deg-c/
Get some glasses and learn to read properly before making such foolish comments you moron
Where is the moderator for this site?
This gives denialists a bad name.
Only this ??
Go cry to mommy, Dr. No-nothing.
What a lovely person you are Mr Septic.
A single month does not a trend make.
Salvatore,
Global temps are up from last month, and September was the warmest month of this year. As you think the ocean sets the global temp, does that mean global sea surface temps were warm over September, and that the seas were last month warmer than at any other time during this year?
This time last year, people were blaming the warm readings on a monster el nino. September 2017 was even warmer than last, and no el nino at all.
the ocean tid bit site shows ocean cooling down from around +.38c a month ago to around +.27c currently ,was even lower a few days ago.
And how many times has this amount of cooling happened in the past?
Salvatore Del Prete wrote:
September 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM
“The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261192
Now that the UAH anomaly is high, let me point out how little I trust this data set. There is absolutely NO WAY September temperatures were 0.25 degrees above July. Similarly there was absolutely NO WAY March temperatures were 0.16 below February.
Everyone likes to point out (ie over-state) the Urban Heat Island effect as a reason that NOAA anomalies might run hot. Based on daily NOAA data, this month’s anomaly will be around the same as for the past two months. Would anyone care to suggest why NOAA data would run COLD?
Why is there NO WAY September would be that much higher than than July?
Because the surface data doesn’t indicate it.
Surface data? Your joking right?
Yeah – the data sat which DOESN’T take temperatures at different times of the day in different parts of the world, and pretends they have a valid algorithm for comparing those temperatures.
No one is saying sattelite temperature is perfect but the surface data is FAR worse:
https://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
Yeah – the way surface adjustments REDUCE the warming trend is just horrendous.
Oh I’m sorry do you not like that because it disproves your stupid global warming agenda?
Clearly picking up sarcasm is not one of your strong points.
Ya, surface data, like ship engine intake temps, and ocean water in a bucket temps. Wow! Like that REALLY relates to air temps. LMAO. And so high tech.
You DO realise that one of the adjustments is for these engine intake measurements, RIGHT? These sea surface adjustments are the main reason adjustments REDUCE the warming trend. It’s funny how you guys challenge adjustments yet never investigate why they are made.
Prove it
“These sea surface adjustments are the main reason adjustments REDUCE the warming trend.”
Not really. They reduce it in the earlier data, but increase it since 1998. They had to do that to keep an apparent upward trend. Otherwise, they would have had to acknowledge the “pause” that discredits the CO2 induced warming meme. And, they’re not going to allow that until they have absolutely run out of ways to jigger the data to allow them to claim the world is still warming.
The reduction of the long term trend was the price they had to pay to keep the charade going.
You and Tom Clancy should work together.
Don’t be naive.
The only choices are naive or conspiracy theorist?
It’s not a conspiracy theory when you have emails from the players themselves plotting to conspire.
Ive read the emails you previously posted. I dont see much conspiring. I see a lot of technical discussion about the proper way to analyze the data. Not sure why they need to do that if they’re just making up numbers?
Some trash talk about deniers, yes. Not too surprising.
One has to be a conspiracy theorist to see much more to it than that
Reading comprehension can be greatly enhanced by opening one’s eyes.
Theyvare not measuring the same temps, plus troposphere has much larger variance.
But, less bias. In estimation theory, there is always a balance to be struck between bias and variance.
But how do you KNOW it has a larger variance other than by simply trusting the satellite data?
‘how do you KNOW it has a larger variance’ It does, its readily measured.
I’m pretty sure he meant bias. The idea that data points from sparse locations can be extrapolated to produce better measurements than those which densely cover virtually the entire Earth is fantastical. Even if we made a stretch, and assumed the uncertainties were equal, that uncertainty is composed of two components: bias and variance. So, if you observe the one has less variance, you can be assured it has greater bias.
‘So, if you observe the one has less variance, you can be assured it has greater bias.’
What rot! Why would you make such a ridiculous assumption?
It could be that the troposphere has intrinsically more variance than the surface. In fact that is predicted.
See also
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-266619
“Why would you make such a ridiculous assumption?”
Because you can’t get something for nothing. The surface data themselves have undergone numerous, substantial revisions. More so than the satellite data. Just look at these two:
https://tinyurl.com/ijbfdty
Which one is right?
‘Because you cant get something for nothing.’
Diversion into other issues that have nothing to do with your statement about ‘variance vs bias’.
Which one is right?
You showed me different data sets which have different global coverage. GISS covers more of the arctic. In any case the difference in trends are not much.
“GISS covers more of the arctic.”
No, it uses an entirely conjectural model to extrapolate measurements over the arctic. Models are not data.
“In any case the difference in trends are not much.”
They’re pretty substantial, especially in the era of the “pause”. GISS has been transparently “adjusted” to do away with the “pause”.
Whatever you say, Bart.
Differences << those between RSS, UAH, and others who have analyzed that data.
Even were what you say true, “differences” is not a valid metric for reliability. The differences in results from homeopathy and magnetic therapy are << mainstream medical approaches – both leave you dead if you have a life threatening illness.
Bizarre analogy….
‘homeopathy’
Comparing mainstream climate science to far outside the mainstream medical science makes no sense.
Because the surface data doesnt indicate it.
I see no reason to prefer one data set over another. All have strengths and limitations.
There are months when even the surface data sets disagree with each other not only on the difference in change on month to another, bet also the sign.
They’re all best estimates, none demonstrably (at this point) better than another.
Also remembering the satellites and surface are measuring temps at very different altitudes. They are not directly comparable, though their general agreement over the long-term gives confidence in long-term generalities (ie, the lower atmosphere has warmed over the last 40 years).
Satellite data takes one reading of each location each day, with each location read at a different time. UAH pretends they can create an algorithm for comparing temperatures of different locations without using surface data to establish a relationship between temperatures at particular times and max/min temperatures for any day. The actual measurement process is fine (at least, any issues are notionally fixable) – the transformation of the data into a global anomaly is NOT a robust process.
16,000 measurements a day, taking 3-4 days to get near-global coverage.
The geo-spatial coverage is better – much better.
Very few instruments are used to get these readings, whereas on the surface there are as many instruments as weather stations. Like the satellites, these, instruments change from time to time, as does their environment. But the number of instrument changes for the surface is orders of magnitude greater than for satellites. Weather stations change locations.
Satellites have their own set of particular problems – orbital drift, decay, contamination from other channels, different satellites stitched together.
I’m not well-informed enough to figure out which system is better at getting a global average or for discerning long-term trends. Without in-depth knowledge, choosing one over the other would be simple barracking.
Right – so each location is being measured only once every 3-4 days. When a surface station is missing 8 days in a month it is not counted in the record for that month as it is not considered representative. So how does 7-10 days of data per month suffice?
‘Very few instruments are used to get these readings, whereas on the surface there are as many instruments as weather stations.’
The bonus with surface data, is redundancy. If one instrument has a systematic error, it can be readily found by comparing to its neighbors. Or if not caught, its effect on global average is still rather small.
Not so for systematic error in the satellite data. Its effect, if not corrected, can be LARGE.
Barry,
‘barracking’ had to look this up in Australian slang dictionary-
‘to cheer on (football team etc.), support, take sides in an argument or controversy’
“The bonus with surface data, is redundancy. If one instrument has a systematic error, it can be readily found by comparing to its neighbors. Or if not caught, its effect on global average is still rather small.”
The surface data are not without systematic errors, e.g. encroaching suburban sprawl, that affect all stations in a particular direction.
And, remember, we are looking at anomalies here. After known systematic, time varying errors have been removed from the satellite data, offset errors have no net impact.
We know, and can compensate for, systematic satellite influences. The surface data are just a grab bag of poorly quantified and poorly understood phenomena over an extremely sparse global station distribution.
‘We know, and can compensate for, systematic satellite influences.’
No I dont think you know at all what you are talking about. Several groups in literature describe attempts to do this, with very different results..
Well well, I did not know ‘barracking’ was slang.
A review of UAH and RSS versions should leave no doubt that the challenges facing satellite data are not easily compensated for. Some of the revisions are larger than surface adjustments. Nate’s point is quite right, too.
The satellite adjustments are straightforward physics. The surface adjustments, not so much.
https://tinyurl.com/y9ctrhls
Where from? An agenda driven blog no doubt.
Bart
Not correct. When a satellite reading FOR A PARTICULAR LOCATION is taken at one particular time of the day, and the reading FOR ANOTHER particular location is taken at another time of the day, some method must be found to adjust those figures before averaging so they represent the same time of day. Given that UAH flatly REFUSE to use surface data to assist them, there is no way of knowing how to compare a 9 am temperature in Sydney with a 3 pm temperature in New York. They basically GUESS the conversion, and there is MUCH room for variation in your guesses. This is not Physics. The guesswork allows different statisticians to bias the data to match their own biases.
Compare trends of UAH to RSS. Then compare trends of NOAA, et al. Which are more consistent? Try to avoid pseudo-political BS claims in arriving at your answer.
Prior to RSS’ cave in, UAH and RSS were very close. GISS and HA**UT are very different.
“…there is no way of knowing how to compare a 9 am temperature in Sydney with a 3 pm temperature in New York.”
For that matter, there is no way of knowing how to compare a 9 am temperature in Sydney with a 9 am temperature in New York, but that’s not stopping anyone. But, diurnal variation is not rocket science.
”. But, diurnal variation is not rocket science.”
Bart, again you assert things that are obviously dumb. Why?
If the professionals clearly disagree on how to do it correctly, then it is not trivial.
Either that, or the “professionals” are.
I know, when science disproves your beliefs, its safe to assume the scientists are lying.
“Everyone likes to point out (ie over-state) the Urban Heat Island effect as a reason that NOAA anomalies might run hot. Based on daily NOAA data, this months anomaly will be around the same as for the past two months. Would anyone care to suggest why NOAA data would run COLD?”
UHI effects aren’t always warming- wind can greatly affect the amount of warming of UHI effects. If rains and ground if wet there also little difference between “natural” and urban temps- urban areas could even dry out quicker from all the hard surfaces.
But generally UHI effect are surfaces which absorb more energy from the sun. Vertical structures which inhibit convectional heat loss, and moisture added to the environment.
And what process would switch the UHI effect off simultaneously in every city around the globe, and in fact make it negative?
It’s windy here.
I don’t think I have ever looked to see if wind is measured globally.
Let’s try:
“We find a general global trend of increasing values of wind speed and, to a lesser degree, wave height, over this period. The rate of increase is greater for extreme events as compared to the mean condition.”
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6028/451
So it’s out there somewhere, I guess.
Of course windiness [or shear winds] are connecting to hurricane formation. Of course with hurricanes it could just be regional thing.
There this but couldn’t open it for some reason:
http://tinyurl.com/ycs9347g
Gosh, that’s a hideous link- use tiny
But without such data, the possibility that this could occur globally is just guesswork.
–Des says:
October 2, 2017 at 7:32 PM
But without such data, the possibility that this could occur globally is just guesswork.–
If you had the data, it would still be guesswork.
But if want it to less of guess, and you want to get your answer, it appears it will require work.
Have YOU done this work?
What is funny is the large difference between weatherbell +.28c and Dr. Spencer’s data +.54c
It is crazy. This is a very big difference and should not be.
Maybe they have different baselines, Sal. You should check that.
Short of that, compare the difference for each data set between August and September. Maybe Weatherbell also had a jump up.
Barry they have always been so close to one another which gave me confidence now I do not know what to think.
If I’m not mistaken didn’t that just adjust the GISS model temperatures a couple months ago and started tampering with all the other satellite temperature measurements citing biases? I should probably search for it first but I’m being lazy. That could be why you have a big discrepancy it’s a different algorithm being used now.
I would have thought that but for the fact that they are always so close month in and month out, until now.
Link me to the Weatherbell page you’re getting your numbers from. I might be able to figure out the baseline. From memory (searching reanalysis source at NOAA), it might not be easy.
Salvatore is indeed wrong.
UAH uses a baseline of 1981-2010.
Weatherbell uses NOAA surface data, which has a baseline of 1901-2000.
This is frustrating because of the large difference in data. WX. BELL and satellite data have ALWAYS been close until this month.
Wx, bell shows global temperatures only +.16 c above normal for the past two weeks.
It is ridiculous.
Barry
In a repeat of last year, the air above the arctic is much warmer than usual. Do you still think it’s just noise?
It’s the refreezing that lets air keep near 0C.
Their anomaly for Oct 2 is +0.37, so not sure what you meant by “the past two weeks”.
What data, Isaac?
Two years of warm Arctic? Yes, it’s just noise.
38 years of temps over Arctic? From this noise you can see if there’s a trend.
Barry
Here is what I look at. Not arguing with you, exactly, just open to the possibility that it’s more than noise.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom
Salvatore, you just made a David Rose-ish error — they use separate baselines.
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_week_anom.png
Barry it show from sep25- oct 02 global temp +.159c .
Now I have very little confidence in a report that even favors what I want.
That’s not going to represent September temps (UAH). that’s the last few days of Sep and the first few of Oct. There’s no reason that should match September UAH.
What is the September monthly anomaly for Weatherbell?
I want to believe the satellite data even if it is not in my favor.
I have a funny feeling that revisions are coming.
I can’t believe +.54c it does not make sense.
I am not just saying it because I am against AGW, it has nothing to do with it.
I am lost here.
Time will tell.
So … you believe surface data over satellite data? You are making progress.
“I am lost here.”
Salvatore, it is obvious you have been lost for ages.
Welcome to the world of facts and not fiction.
Salvatore
What if the oceans had recently released a bunch of heat into the atmosphere? I’m thinking they might be a little cooler now as a result. And the atmosphere, of course, would be a little warmer than usual.
Dr Spencer
I appreciate that ocean warm the atmosphere, mainly in the mid latitudes.
If the wind transports that heat away from the ocean source to other locations, will it heat the surface of the water that it transports across.
The satelite records the ocean skin temperature. If I see warming in the southern ocean, or any ocean noted as a transport pathway, could it be transported heat that is warming the ocean surface.
Thank you
Testing
Looks like increasing water vapor (1.5% per decade, 8% since the rate increased in about 1960) is prevailing over declining solar activity and declining net of all ocean cycles . . . for now. But increasing clouds will limit that.
ALL effects associated with the increasing greenhouse effect will continue to prevail over the MINOR reduction in solar activity.
Des – The perception that the effect of solar activity is minor is consistent with the erroneous belief that the only way solar activity can influence earth temperature is by TSI change. That perception does not even do the math correctly.
Where did I say that was the only influence? BTW – did you even realise that it is impossible to predict whether the sun will continue all the way to Maunder-like conditions?
Put a number on “MINOR”
Des Sorry about the abrupt request, I was in a bind on time.
I would really like for you to quantify, if you can, your perception of minor.
What I have seen, essentially, is TSI variation range is about +/- 0.05%.
I did not intend to imply that you considered TSI as the only influence.
As shown in Table 1 of my blog/analysis, a proxy, which is the time-integral of SSN anomalies, accounts for 38% of the average global temperature (AGT) change from 1909 to 2005. That, combined with an approximation of SST oscillation and extrapolated water vapor produces a 98+% match with measured AGT 1895-2015.
By minor, I mean that the drop in TSI from the low point of recent 11-year solar cycles to the level of the Maunder minimum is about the same as the difference between the high and low point of each cycle.
How much of a drop in global temperatures have we noticed from the top to the bottom of a solar cycle? A Maunder-like minimum will give the same drop again
Personally, I have never noticed an 11-year cycle in temperatures … scientists working in the field (NOT the likes of Donald Easterbrook who doesn’t understand the science behind his claims) state that a Maunder minimum would have about a 0.4 degree effect on global average temperatures. In the 1600s, this drop was superimposed on temperatures that had already fallen significantly due to other reasons, given a total dip of 1 degree plus. Today, the effect of those “other reasons” goes the other way.
But all this is predicated on us actually getting a Maunder-like minimum. No scientist is actually able to predict that this will happen. We’ve had two major dips in TSI since the Maunder minimum – neither went all the way. It is not predictable with today’s understanding of the sun.
Des Thanks for the clarification. I do not address that issue.
I have a spreadsheet set up to solve Equation 1 in my blog/analysis (click my name to see the blog/analysis). I treat the time-integral of the SSN anomaly as a proxy (SSN varies in sync with TSI approx. 11 yr fluctuation). With all coefficients (except F which is held at 1.0) calibrated for best fit (max R^2) to reported average global temperatures (AGT), I get an excellent match of 98+% 1895-2015. The effect for which the proxy is accounting amounts to 0.38 or 38% of the AGT change 1909-2005. (AGT is very sensitive to cloud changes. Some (e.g. Svensmark) have found both average cloud altitude and total cloud cover are influenced by SSN).
When I set the coefficient for the proxy to zero and optimize the other coefficients, the match deteriorates significantly with pronounced growing separation after 2005.
As to the influence of solar changes on earth temperature, realize that the sun changes are a forcing, i.e. a power thing whereas earth temperature is an energy thing. Would you compare a trace of your Watt hour meter reading (energy) to a trace of your Watt meter reading (power) and declare they are not related because the traces are a different shape? The time-integral of power is energy. The number of people who overlook this is disturbing, e.g. Figure 1 at http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm.
Dan Pangburn says:
“Des The perception that the effect of solar activity is minor is consistent with the erroneous belief that the only way solar activity can influence earth temperature is by TSI change.”
Then what is the climate sensitivity to other solar parameters, in degrees C/(W/m2)?
Dav Your question reveals that your thinking/knowledge appears to be constrained. Proxies dont work like that (C/(W/m2)). See above that the time-integral of SSN anomalies accounts for 38% of the AGT change 1909-2015.
DP: Climate sensitivity is measured in degC/(W/m2).
Check your science.
Hello Des
I will strictly deal with September since that is what you gave.I would write a brief wrap around your numbers and admit I am puzzled and ask for their thoughts.
Sure, if it is not associated with a leading question I have no problem. But … it is not my data – you don’t really have to ask my permission.
Just in:
“Great Lakes water temperatures have gone up significantly in the past two weeks, which is usually a time period of quickly falling water temperatures. The six day stretch of record heat around Michigan is the cause of the sharp rise in surface water temperatures. Surface water temperatures on the Great Lakes have been cooler than normal for the second half of summer. Now the rapid warming at a time when lake water is usually cooling has brought water temperatures much above the long term average.’
http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2017/09/great_lakes_water_temps_soar_a.html
Oh noes! We’re doomed!
“Now the rapid warming at a time when lake water is usually cooling has brought water temperatures much above the long term average.”
Sloppy. I presume they mean temperature anomaly, which means they are not rapidly warming, just cooling at a reduced rate compared to the tendency of other years. Probably as a result of temporary weather fronts.
I presume they mean temperature anomaly
Yes, you do. But why would you do that?
Good question, Barry.
Because you can’t be bothered checking your presumption. Which is wrong.
Making your “Sloppy” comment perfectly ironic.
So, you’re saying the Great Lakes in the Fall should not be expected to be cooler than in the summer? Mmm… no.
https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/avg-sst.php
If you get around to reading the article upon which you made your presumptive critique you will see that they are not talking about anomalies, and that they are talking about an unusual rise in temperatures for the time of year, and not “cooling at a reduced rate.”
Your comment was wrong. Simple as that.
“…they are not talking about anomalies, and that they are talking about an unusual rise in temperatures for the time of year…”
Did you realize you had contradicted yourself within the space of a single sentence there?
No, he didn’t.
No, i didn’t. You presumed wrong the first time. Now you’re doubling down.
It’s simple. At a time of year when temps go down, they’ve gone up.
They’re referring to absolute temps, not anomalies. It’s not “cooling at a reduced rate compared to the tendency of other years.”
I’ve said it before – you don’t admit when you’re wrong. It’s a flaw no true skeptic should possess.
You are no skeptic.
I’ll try to write slowly.
When you say… it is unusual.. for the time of year… you are comparing to other years. That… makes it… an anomaly.
Sheesh.
As all makes clear, it is ABSOLUTE temperature (spoken very slowly) which was RISING.
So you’re statement ‘cooling at a reduced rate’ is wrong.
What is wrong is that Bart cannot ever be wrong, even when he is obviously wrong, which is often the case.
No. Absolute temperatures have been falling since the peak in mid-August.
Bart,
Now tripling down on an originally false, and still false statement. Wow.
You’re trying to keep up with Trump! Not a great role model.
I provided a link above that shows this clearly.
https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/avg-sst.php
No, that is not 2017 data.
Actually not that hard to just admit error and move on. Give it try.
There is 2017 data. Your complaint is technically correct but pointless. The summer was cold, then there was a little peak in September. How awful.
https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/statistic/avg-sst.php?lk=s&yr=0
Sure, if it is not associated with a leading question I have no problem. But … it is not my data – you don’t really have to ask my permission.
Oops – sorry. Accidentally posted this in the wrong place.
Thank you! The 9-months data would have taken me a long time to process.
I note Des is saying all effect but we are being told over and over that CO2 (and all its feed backs etc) is the major cause of the warming of the planet. The temp flat lined from round 2002 to 2015/6 when CO2 went from roughly 370ppm to 400pmm what happened to the overriding. Pretty much the same thing from 1980 to 1997 now all of a sudden with an extra 3 or 4ppm its over ridding, would it not seem logical CO2 has very little to do with the warming
Maybe just maybe something else odd is going on
Regards
“I note Des is saying all effect”
What does that even mean?
Harry
Maybe during those “flat line” periods the oceans were extra greedy and sucked up most of the atmosphere’s excess heat?
When the oceans are less greedy, a warming trend resumes.
Sir Isaac,
Would you like explain with first order principles just how exactly “heat” (I take it that you mean ‘thermalised energy’ when you say “heat” – and just as a side note, exactly how can it be determined what is “excess”?) penetrates into the ocean from above the ocean? I’d be most impressed if you could.
GC
I’m no expert, and wouldn’t be able to impress you. It’s not a hard thing to look up, though. Here’s an overview I found:
http://www.climateprediction.net/climate-science/glossary/atmosphere-ocean-interaction/
It mostly doesn’t.
Sunlight passes thru the ocean surface and largely warms the top few meters.
Such a warmed layer water is also mixed by ocean waves which create a more uniform and deeper amount of warm water. Also constant winds [ie trade winds] can pile up warmer water so it’s a few hundred meter deep.
Of course despite water’s poor conduction of heat, some heat can conducted to lower depths, but it’s mostly heated by sunlight passing thru the transparent ocean [and a portion of sunlight reaches depths greater than 100 meters] and various mechanical mixing mechanisms.
So if you have more mechanical mixing of ocean, more heat is “lost to ocean depths” and less mixing means more is “lost to the atmosphere”
Surface heat is not spread evenly over the ocean. During El Nino, the surface heat is spread more evenly, allowing more heat to escape into the atmosphere. During La Nina, surface heat is concentrated even more than usual in the Western Pacific, leaving large areas of cool water to absorb heat.
Another oceanic “cycle” is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I don’t know the specifics of where the warme water accumulates during each phase of the cycle, but the concept is similar. However the PDO operates on a much longer time scale than does ENSO. The “pause” period from 1998 to about 2014 is precisely when the PDO was in a negative phase. Warm water in the northern Pacific was concentrated into a smaller area, leaving larger areas of cool water exposed to the atmosphere. That acts as a sink of heat from the atmosphere.
The PDO left its negative phase around 2014. Since then it has hovered around zero, sometimes positive, sometimes negative. I think at the moment it is slightly negative. So this extra heat over the last couple of years is the catch-up from 16 years in a PDO-neutral state. If we go into a PDO-positive state then there is likely more heat to come. But just like the “pause”, it won’t be reflective of the upward trend caused by the increasing greenhouse effect – we still have to return to the trend when it’s over. It’s also possible that this is only a “pause in the pause” and we will go back to a negative PDO. Deniers just don’t understand how long-term this variability is. Take out all the natural variability and what is left is an upwardly marching snail. How far can a snail move in 100 years?
GC,
How bout less heat escaped from the ocean to space then usual, while input from the sun unchanged.
Despicable lectures us like he knows something. What a crock of horse manure.
“Take out all the natural variability and what is left is an upwardly marching snail.”
A snail that started moving well before CO2 emissions took off in the mid-20th, and is therefore natural variability as well. Take it out, and you have precious little that could be ascribed to CO2.
CO2 emissions started long before that.
The snail is a perfect mascot for the AGW hoax.
1) It’s not going anywhere.
2) It’s easy to squash.
“CO2 emissions started long before that.”
Not in significant amounts.
In the era 1910-1945, the change in temperature anomaly was almost precisely the same as in the era 1970-2005:
https://tinyurl.com/y77fxhwh
In the earlier era, the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration was less than 30 ppm. Compared to a purported pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, that gives a log factor of less than log(310/280) = 0.1. In the latter era, the change in CO2 was from about 325 ppm to 380 ppm, for a log factor of log(380/325) = 0.16, or 60% greater.
Clearly, if CO2 is driving things (which, it isn’t), the earlier warming period has to be explained in large part by something else. But, it is foolish to invoke some speculative phenomenon for almost precisely the same rise.
Occam’s razor clearly suggests the nearly identical warming was caused by the same cause. And thus, apparently, that cause is not CO2.
1. Looking at 50 y trend, which we now have: http://tinyurl.com/y6whc8jh, the earlier rise 0.5, latter 0.85. Not really identical.
2. Bart thinks AGW theory requires co2 to explain ALL variation. A strawman.
3. Circa 1910 we had very high volcanic emissions. Circa 1940 we had a strong peak in PDO. Both contributed to rise between these years.
Septic Gone Fetid
Alternatively – I’m lecturing like you DON’T know anything. Read any science books lately? Dropped in on a science lecture or two?
Bart, 1945 was above the trend line, look:
https://tinyurl.com/yck2o849
Nate –
“1. Looking at 50 y trend, which we now have: http://tinyurl.com/y6whc8jh, the earlier rise 0.5, latter 0.85. Not really identical.”
You are comparing apples and tennis balls. You have to look at the same interval of time. But, the earlier interval cannot be reliably extended past 1900. And, you are being biased upward by the monster El Nino towards the end of the later interval.
“2. Bart thinks AGW theory requires co2 to explain ALL variation. A strawman.”
AGW alarmists posit that CO2 is the major driving force in the warming since the mid-20th century. If it is not, then there are no current grounds for sounding an alarm.
“3. Circa 1910 we had very high volcanic emissions. Circa 1940 we had a strong peak in PDO. Both contributed to rise between these years.”
If the earlier period could have been biased up by such events, then the later one could, too. The SNR of putative CO2 induced warming is then too small to make conclusions.
Svante –
“Bart, 1945 was above the trend line…”
Yes, because that was a peak of the ~65 year cycle superimposed upon the long term trend.
‘AGW alarmists posit that CO2 is the major driving force in the warming since the mid-20th century.’
Yes , but doesnt mean all other natural variation is turned off. For example look at the period 1940 -1960, there was significant natural variation on time scales of 2- 10 y. Very similar to what we have had last 20 y (yes inclu pause), except with a large trend superimposed.
‘You have to look at the same interval of time.’ It is the same 50 y interval.
‘If the earlier period could have been biased up by such events, then the later one could, too.’
Yes, here is effect of PDO http://tinyurl.com/yaq55j95
Bart says:
“because that was a peak of the ~65 year cycle superimposed upon the long term trend.”
Yes, I think you are right, the AMO.
‘And, you are being biased upward by the monster El Nino towards the end of the later interval.’
Yes, this applies equally to the monster El Nino of 1940-42. End the series in 1938 and 2014 then. You will see a sig drop in trend in early 20 th century
“Yes, this applies equally to the monster El Nino of 1940-42.”
There is nothing like the recent El Nino blip in this interval. It is quite clear that the peaks of the ~65 year cycle were in about 1945, and then again in about 2005. That is the appropriate cutoff for comparison.
The latest El Nino blip is very anomalous. It remains to be seen if there has been a regime shift, or if the series will settle back down to the pre-existing pattern. I expect it will, but it will not change my conviction if it does not. The turnaround clearly came on schedule in about 2005.
“. I expect it will, but it will not change my conviction if it does not. ”
Clear indication that you are not doing science, your belief doesnt require real world confirmation.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/influences/timeline/
The 40-42 is only one labelled ‘a long el nino’ in soi record.
Bart, your 65 year cycle is found in figure ten here:
https://tinyurl.com/y9v2mlm4
It’s interesting how people can see a couple of ups and downs and believe they have discovered a “cycle”.
Read the paper and tell me where you disagree!
I disagree that two “cycles” establishes a pattern.
Yet, a 30 year vague coinkydink of upward movement in CO2 and temperature establishes a cause and effect relationship. Would that you fellows applied the same level of caution about your own pet hypotheses that you do to competing ones.
For the record, two very uniform cycles is highly suggestive. Much more so that a chance movement in the same, singular direction.
Bart, you find that paper satisfying? What does rest of paper conclude? A clearly increasing long term trend. AGW required to account for it.
.
In 1780 to present record, correlation to GHG forcing 90%.
30 year?? You appear confused.
“I disagree that two cycles establishes a pattern.”
Fair enough Des, but there are five peaks in fig. 10 (although the first two are close and the 2nd is weak).
Bart says:
“Yet, a 30 year vague coinkydink of upward movement in CO2 and temperature establishes a cause and effect relationship.
Cause and effect:
* continued decadal global warming
* stratospheric cooling
* no other causes in sight except aCO2.
* direct measurements:
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)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
This is known as rationalization, DA. It is how people of days past convinced themselves that night gases caused disease, or witches controlled the weather.
Indeed science involves rationalizing, i.e. finding reasons for things, as in the Age of Reason, which we seem to be moving away from.
Definitions 1 and 7.
Bart says:
“This is known as rationalization, DA”
These are AGW predictions that have been observed.
Naturally, you wish to ignore all of them, with no rational at all. But you don’t get to do that.
Your dogmatism is the worst on this blog, because it has no reasoning behind it. You simply dismiss any evidence you don’t like, and you seem to think that will somehow be convincing.
It isn’t in the least.
Harry Cummings says:
“The temp flat lined from round 2002 to 2015/6 when CO2 went from roughly 370ppm to 400pmm what happened to the overriding.”
“Cherry picking” is defined as picking the start and end dates to give you the result you want, whether it’s climatology meaningful or not.
Winter in North America will begin soon.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
and I just keep growing older
+1
Wow. Another very warm month. We haven’t had an anomaly below 0.2 since July 2015.
A 13 month average of 0.2 C seemed to be the max during that warm 2002-2007 period. Now the 13 month average has been over 0.2 for over 2 years and it doesn’t look like it will drop below 0.2 anytime soon.
The magnetic field over North America is weakening. Therefore, the jet stream will easily flowed from the Canada.
Changes in Earths magnetic field from January to June 2014 as measured by the Swarm constellation of satellites. These changes are based on the magnetic signals that stem from Earths core. Shades of red represent areas of strengthening, while blues show areas of weakening over the 6-month period.
http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2014/06/magnetic_field_changes/14582173-1-eng-GB/Magnetic_field_changes_node_full_image_2.jpg
They say there’s a 60% chance of a mild La Nina in the coming months (though Roy speaks of it as though it’s a dead certainty), so that will certainly have some effect on anomalies. Ignore the trash responses from the other guy though – he has no idea.
Aye, Roy spoke of a dead certain 2016 la Nina in the middle of last year, too. You’d think he’d be more cautious this time around.
What got me was his later defence of his prediction. I’m only paraphrasing so don’t take the quote verbatim but he said something like “this is the first time a super El Nino has not been immediately followed by a strong La Nina”. Apparently the TWO previous cases of a super El Nino were sufficient to establish a pattern in his mind which enabled him to make a 100% prediction.
Heh, I made the same point last year for the same reason.
There is a longer ENSO record back to 1900, and we see a ‘super el Nino’ not followed by a la Nina in the period 1900-1950. Too lazy to look it up, but I mentioned last year.
barry: there *was* a weak La Nina in the second half of 2016.
It was the warmest La Nina on record.
There was a la Nina only according to the ENSO monitoring system with the easiest threshold. No other. MEI; no. BoM; no. JMA: no. NOAA; yes. One the weakest and shortest-lived la Ninas on record by NOAA data.
Perhaps.
According to Japan’s Met Agency, the actual ENSO prediction looks (since at least one week) like this:
period: El Nino% – neutral% – La Nina%
SEP2017JAN2018: 0 – 40 – 60
OCT2017FEB2018: 0 – 50 – 50
NOV2017MAR2018: 0 – 60 – 40
All is said I guess.
The polar vortex is strong when the magnetic activity of the sun is quite high. That was from July 2017.
https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22089675_722813031257979_72994145818356658_n.png?oh=a6480c048ab4c45aa9cdb62a6e0c464a&oe=5A7D88CC
https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22154332_722812934591322_9034537860188116279_n.png?oh=4a3f57347977b486bdb6d2ac275498e8&oe=5A4F8BE4
Winter in the south runs without major disruption.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2017.png
In the south of WHAT?
Des says:
In the south of WHAT?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_SH_2017.png
Just checking …. you DO know you’re permitted to respond in ENGLISH, right?
Ren which data for Sept do you think is correct?
For now it looks like that.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00936/ysaksde8y2e4.png
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_week_anom.png
Data does not match one of them is not correct. This source has =.28c for sep
Salvatore Del Prete on October 3, 2017 at 4:55 AM
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_week_anom.png
Data does not match one of them is not correct.
Scusi Salvatore, but… why do you persist in comparing Roy Spencer’s UAH with Ryan Maue’s WeatherBell?
– WeatherBell is reanalysis of data obtained at 2m above surface;
– UAH is analysis of O2 microwave emission in the troposphere, performed from satellites.
Between the two, there is not only a gap of 24 C (UAH: about 264 K compared with 288 at surface); there is also a lag of at least 4 months between the two, what you best can see during ENSO events.
Thus even when surface and troposphere correlate here and there, especially over land, they nevertheless behave quite differently.
This is a little extreme and in the past they have been very close.
Very informative, Bin.
Thanks!
You’re welcome!
g*e*r*a*n, you sound reasonable and polite for once!
What happened?
He’s David A is disguise.
I’m always reasonable. I just like to refute pseudoscience. Some believe that is being impolite.
Bin offered some relevant and interesting info. I was appreciative.
Lewis, I always comment under my real name.
But I’m glad to see I’m so much in your head that you’re thinking about me even when others are replying.
Salvatore: Different baselines. See above.
Oceanic temperatures have been dropping that point is not in question.
A month is not enough to talk about La Nina. At most about a change of circulation.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00936/nkbjoetyq79u.png
Exactly ren. We are way below any persistent la Nina level:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
Now a fairly strong east wind in the Western Pacific.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
The jet stream was in September latitudinal.
English please.
The jet stream was latitudinal in September.
What does “latitudinal” mean in this context?
Wind blows along the latitude.
Carlinesque: Wind from west.
Sal, I tried to find the baseline for Weatherbell’s anomalies, but it is hard to pin down. Could be 1999-2010, which would make W/Bell anomalies generally lower than UAH. But could also be 1982-2010, which would make the similar. Finding out which version of NCEP CFSv2 data is operational for W/Bell is tough going.
However, you shouldn’t worry too much. Surface anomalies and satellites don’t track well over every month, though they often are similar.
I’d wait for the surface sets’ September data to come out and see where that sits with UAH/Weatherbell.
Hello barry,
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_week_anom.png
At the left bottom you see:
1981-2010 climatology
Climatology is a strange name, quite as strange as is ‘anomaly’.
Reminds me words like ‘coloscopy’ etc etc.
Gah, I looked right at that map for a clue and missed it. Thanks.
Well Salvatore, the baselines are the same.
Doesn’t Weatherbell use NOAA station data?
NOAA’s surface temperature baseline is 1901-2000.
Weatherbell uses a NOAA reanalysis product that has a different baseline to their surface data set.
What baseline does Weatherbell use?
Thanks Barry
Visible are very large difference in sea surface temperatures in the south and north. So winter was frosty.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.10.2.2017.gif
I have big concerns that we have no plan for lower crop production due to a cooling world. Are our governments trying to wipe people out. Agenda 21 and 2030. We had the same issue in the UK when we made the decision to Brexit, no plan B, the government thought we would be stupid enough to buy their lies.
Speaking of anomalies, something weird has been happening over the Arctic Ocean. Several years now. Summers are normal, but the rest of the year – not nearly as cold as usual. Barry thinks it’s “noise”, I’m not so sure.
Reposted from upthread:
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom
More specifically:
Warm anomalies from September – March
Normal temperatures April – August
Also, I’m also referring specifically to the Arctic Ocean area, rather than the Arctic in general.
Sorry about the extra “also”. Forgot to proofread.
You are right. More open water, less snow on ice, thinner ice => more laten heat escaping from the seawater, warmer air. Less cold air I mean.
Isaac,
I have no doubt that the arctic has warmed over the long term, that different regions have slightly different warming characteristics.
I just think you need more time to see if anything more than the usual interannual variation is occurring.
Barry
The warming is right over the Arctic Ocean. Consistently. It seems like that could be significant. The Arctic Ocean is where ice has been thinning, and where the Earth’s axis of rotation is located. Of course, could also just be a coincidence.
Maybe. The map you provided is a forecast analysis. Move the slider to the right and it’s showing you temps over the next 7 days. It isn’t a map of *actual* anomalies.
This is a good site with very good input from all sides pro/con AGW.
Who wants everyone to agree. It would be so boring if it were so.
Great!
Yet you are impervious to your many past failed predictions, and to science.
Crop failure here in south central Alaska. Our carrots are miniature this year. Fraction of their normal size. Anyone who has tasted our carrots knows they are the best in the world. Just like our Copper River reds. The summer that never was… If Mt. Agung blows, next summer will no doubt be even worse. Mind you, this is coming off -33f last winter (the coldest here in 30 years). Anyone still buying the hoax needs to spend a week in that.
Darwin
Right. If it’s cold in your neck of the woods, it must be cold everywhere.
Darwin
If you’re going to claim global warming is a hoax, at least take the time to look at the globe.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.WORLD-CED.T2_anom
15 C is pretty cold- you should wear a coat.
Average temperature in Canada is -4 C. Average temperature in US is 13 C.
Tropics about 27 C. Tropics are where the tropical paradises can be found.
We in icebox climate. It’s cold.
No one in history of our planet who has been sane wants it to get colder.
But somehow [probably due to poor education] people are worried about it getting a bit warmer.
Very well stated, gbaikie.
Which is my point. I hope it does get warmer. Longer growing season etc. The worst thing (so far as AGW is concerned) is for more ice and snow to occur. Shorter growing seasons etc. That would be much worse than flooding Miami, New Orleans and NYC.
I have a big problem with that line of thinking. Life on earth has adapted to what gbaikie calls an “icebox climate”. If the warming is too fast, which I think is likely, the result could be very bad.
I do appreciate that the conversation has changed from:
“there’s no warming, it’s a government conspiracy, scientists are corrupt, fudged data, it’s all a hoax!”
To: “warmer is better”
“Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 3, 2017 at 5:13 PM
I have a big problem with that line of thinking. Life on earth has adapted to what gbaikie calls an icebox climate. If the warming is too fast, which I think is likely, the result could be very bad.”
I think very wishful thinking to hope Earth will warm.
Warming has to have rising sea levels and rise of 1 meter is not much warming.
The sea levels have risen about 8 inches and about 2″ of the 8 inches has been considered to be due to ocean thermal expansion [the entire ocean or significant part of it [not the surface] warming].
In last interglacial period ocean warm about 6 meters higher than our current sea level. And probably at least couple of meters of the rise was due to more thermal expansion than we have. Or to get as warm as last interglacial period will require thousands of years.
In a thousand year some humans could be living in another star system. But within a century we should have people living in towns on Mars. And within century we should have Solar Power Satellite. I would like to see SPS within the next 60 years. It would require a lot of work and a lot of time, but could possible if we would ever explore the lunr polar region and determine if there water which could be profitable to mine. Or to make it simple, lunar water one sell or buy at about 500 per lb. So not water which cost more than $1000 per lb. And other things like electrical power which can bought at $50 per Kw hours.
And with free market, these prices could be lower over decades of time, so that lunar water is about $10 per lb and electrical power is about $1 per Kw hours. And within fifty years electrical power might close to earth prices- 5 cents a kw hour, and water probably still 10 or 100 times more than cost of water on Earth.
Somewhere around this point we could get SPS for Earth, and have electrical prices cheaper than now.
Or roughly the price of electrical in space is expensive, and it needs to lower by large amount before we can get electrical power from orbit. Or NASA study said launch cost have get above $100 per kg. It’s wrong, but launch cost do have lower. But we don’t launch cost from Earth to lower by a lot, rather we need launch cost from the Moon to lower by a lot.
But in terms of long term trend Earth launch cost has be lowering every decade and should continue. So if sit on butt, in century we might have SPS without exploring the Moon, first. Maybe some country in Africa will explore the Moon. Though China has been doing it [at snail’s pace] probably manage to do before 100 years has past.
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 3, 2017 at 5:46 PM
I do appreciate that the conversation has changed from:
theres no warming, its a government conspiracy, scientists are corrupt, fudged data, its all a hoax!
To: warmer is better–
For government conspiracies, one needs a smarter government- it’s never has happened and will never happen.
Government and government employees do bad stuff- or humans are “naturally” evil, plus you got: power corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This corruption mostly is due and related to enormous stupidity. So basically government conspiracies are an oxymoron. Like, idea that intelligence agencies behave similar to being intelligent [though if lying = intelligence then they are geniuses].
There is no warming form CO2 which has been measured.
Scientist are corrupt- just look at climategate.
It’s a hoax- there is no danger or need to spend trillions of dollars to make wind mills and solar panels [which don’t reduce CO2 emission and don’t make valuable electrical power].
“Warming is better” was known by the “father” of global warming. He was wrong about Co2 levels causing cooling and warming periods, but not wrong about warming being good for humans and life in general on planet Earth.
gbaikie on October 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM
1. No one in history of our planet who has been sane wants it to get colder.
2. But somehow [probably due to poor education] people are worried about it getting a bit warmer.
To (1): you hardly could write something more evident.
To (2): hopefully your education has been rich enough to let you understand a posteriori how poor this your sentence in fact is.
Nobody here is ‘worried about it getting a bit warmer‘, gbaikie.
Many people’s job actually is to avoid ‘it’ getting too warm. And they do that on the base of what other people analysed up to 30 years ago.
At that time, gbaikie, there were incredibly few skeptic scientists at work to counterbalance the other scientists’ opinion, research and results.
Why?
Today, skeptics all are whining about ‘peer-reviewed trash’ and the like.
If they had done their work in due time, they wouldn’t need to complain about that today, and you wouldn’t need to write your, sorry, somewhat poor comment.
gbaikie…”Average temperature in Canada is -4 C. Average temperature in US is 13 C”.
Depends on where you live in Canada. That -4C reveals the problem with averages.
I live on the west coast of Canada, in Vancouver. a temperature of -4C would be considered very low here and we would be praying for it to pass. Such cold is related to cold air from the Arctic descending on us. We even call it ‘Arctic air’.
On a monthly basis, the lowest monthly average we experience is +4C in January.
http://www.holiday-weather.com/vancouver/averages/
I can buy into the -4C as a national average when you consider the average temp on the Prairies is -20C. It can periodically drop to -50C, which is not all that bad with clear skies and sunshine. Not so much fun at night when the Sun is gone.
With extremes like -50C on occasion you can see that offsetting warmer temps are required to arrive at an average of -4C. Same in the States where temps in their Prairies can drop to the same -50C. I read a book by David Breshears, the famed mountaineer, who slept outside in a sleeping bag at -40C in Wyoming.
When we claim a global average of such and such, it means absolutely nothing to the locals.
— Bindidon says:
October 4, 2017 at 5:36 AM
gbaikie on October 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM
1. No one in history of our planet who has been sane wants it to get colder.
2. But somehow [probably due to poor education] people are worried about it getting a bit warmer.
To (1): you hardly could write something more evident.–
Yes I like to remind people of the very obvious. Like the tropics warms the world and the tropic high average average increases the global average temperature.
Or people in Europe shouldn’t imagine they living in place with average temperature as high as 15 C. They are living in refrigerator and worried about warming- nutty- though of course, Germans have even less justification. If I wanted to use pseudoscience: it’s probably due to sense of guilt for their past global colonization projects wrecking people’s lives [not mention their world wars and etc]. But it’s simpler to blame their lousy education- which wastes far too much their time.
-To (2): hopefully your education has been rich enough to let you understand a posteriori how poor this your sentence in fact is.-
Oh it hasn’t. Don’t expect good grammar or even a properly edited sentence from me.
If there was edit function I might manage to correct my spelling and other typos.
At https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ there such a thing, and I will spend more time editing a post then the time it took to post it. But with such option, I still not overly interested in proper grammar- just words not spelled correctly and over redundancy and omission of words.
–Nobody here is worried about it getting a bit warmer, gbaikie.–
Good news.
–Many peoples job actually is to avoid it getting too warm. And they do that on the base of what other people analysed up to 30 years ago.–
Well their job should be eliminated, obviously.
–At that time, gbaikie, there were incredibly few skeptic scientists at work to counterbalance the other scientists opinion, research and results.
Why?–
Because being a believer is government job requirement?
–Today, skeptics all are whining about peer-reviewed trash and the like.–
If today, means over last 50 to 100 years
–If they had done their work in due time, they wouldnt need to complain about that today, and you wouldnt need to write your, sorry, somewhat poor comment.–
I heard many people were inspired by the junk science of the hockey stick. I wasn’t, it seemed like same old crap to me.
So today, in regard to that is about 15 years.
lewis says:
“Which is my point. I hope it does get warmer. Longer growing season etc”
Lewis refuses to consider how warming would affect anyone other than him.
It’s Trumpian-level narcissism.
lewis says:
October 3, 2017 at 4:54 PM
“Which is my point. I hope it does get warmer. Longer growing season etc.”
Crop yields expected to fall as temperatures rise, Emily Morris, Science
08 Sep 2017: Vol. 357, Issue 6355, pp. 1012-1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.357.6355.1012-f
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6355/1012.6
(Sorry to bother you, Lewis, with actual science.
You may now return to your narcissistic, fantasy world.)
Sir Isaac
This is a snaphot describing the actual situation on a given day. What we rather need is information containing trends over 30 years.
For example something like this:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/december/DEC1978_DEC2016_trend_LT.png
(I don’t have such a picture at hand for surfaces, maybe we could manage to find one at WeatherBell.)
Bindidon
A snapshot was the best I could do, but I’m guessing I would be able to show a similar picture (warm anomaly over the Arctic Ocean) every day from now until April. That was definitely the case last fall/winter.
Not sure exactly when the pattern started, but it’s interesting to keep an eye on.
A ‘warm anomaly’ is anything above the 30-year baseline. We know temps have risen fast in the Arctic, so seeing warm anomalies in recent years should be absolutely no surprise.
snape…”Right. If its cold in your neck of the woods, it must be cold everywhere”.
The point Darwin is making is well taken by me. It’s supposed to be warming in Alaska. All the ice is gone, don’t ya know?
It *is* warming in Alaska — +0.70 C in the last 20 years, +1.14 C in the last 30 years.
Not enough for you?
Darwin: NO..AA data says Alaska’s summer (June-July-August) was 1.3 deg C above the 1981-2000 baseline.
http://tinyurl.com/ybhw8bma
Des says on October 2, 2017 at 3:51 PM (and alii)
Now that the UAH anomaly is high, let me point out how little I trust this data set. There is absolutely NO WAY September temperatures were 0.25 degrees above July.
What a strange series of comments, replies, counterreplies, one containing more polemic than the next!
A commenter above addressed the problem accurately:
OleKlemsdal says:
October 2, 2017 at 2:10 PM
It is interesting that the troposphere develops so different from surface series the last couple of months, and I think it must be related to the tiny spike in the multivariate enso index an effect that has already vanished in surface measurements.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Ole Klemsdal is perfectly right.
We all know that tropospheric temperatures highly react on El Nino bumps, and there has been one, after all.
And everybody having a look at any comparison of UAH with MEI can see that there is sometimes a 4-5 month lag between El Nino bumps occuring for example in the Nino3+4 region (5S-5N — 170W-120W) and the TLT response registered by UAH and others.
Here is the MEI for 2016-2017:
2016 | 2.227 | 2.169 | 1.984 | 2.124 | 1.77 | 1.069 | .354 | .186 | -.101 | -.379 | -.212 | -.121
2017 | -.055 | -.056 | -.08 | .77 | 1.455 | 1.049 | .461 | .027
You see that the UAH bump can be pretty good identified with the MEI bump 4 months before.
RSS4.0 TLT did similar in August with a 0.712 anomaly.
Surface temperatures sometimes do not react to such little bumps.
Given that the MEI data has a time-dependent trend, I don’t regard it as being the most useful for predicting ENSO conditions. And neither do most meteorologists apparently.
1. I don’t understand what you mean here with a ‘time-dependent trend’. All data here are after all time series; how could their trends be ‘time-independent’ ?
Any idea?
2. Maybe Des should carefully read what is written on MEI’s pages
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/index.html
e.g. about the integration of
– NINO3+4
– pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti
– etc etc.
ENSO is a bit more than a simpl average of SST in 5S-5N–170W-120W.
3. And neither do most meteorologists apparently.
Maybe you give us some proof of your assertion?
Perhaps I should have said a STRONG time-dependent trend. One that suggests we should be having more and more El Nino months, which is clearly not the case.
Satellite temperatures are more sensitive to strong ENSO events, but (from memory) not so much to the ENSO region fluctuations beneath the event thresholds.
If anyone feels like doing it, a monthly anomaly plot of ENSO index, and surface and satellite monthly anomalies (detrended) would allow at least a visual inspection of any correlation.
I’ve already done that in a much more restricted sense. It is not a monthly plot – it is a scatter plot where each dot represents one El Nino or La Nina event:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7Gb081dGd4Y051S2c/view?usp=sharing
Apologies for forgetting to label the axes. The horizontal axis is ONI and the vertical axis is detrended UAH.
The ONI reading is the average of the THREE highest (or lowest) consecutive monthly ONI readings during any one ENSO event. The UAI reading is the highest (or lowest) monthly value of the detrended UAI during each ENSO event.
I know this does not show what you were looking for. But with a good chance of a coming La Nina, it gives an idea of the drop in UAI we can expect from a La Nina event, a drop which would have to be exceeded for Salvatore Del FREEZE to have any chance of claiming a cooling climate.
As I have taken the max (min) values for both ONI and UAH during any ENSO event, not necessarily (and typically not) from the same month, the effect of the lag is implicitly included.
As you can see, except for very weak La Ninas and very strong El Ninos, there seems to be very little correlation between the strength of an event and its effect on temperature anomalies.
In the El Nino graph, the lowest dot represents Pinatubo, and the third dot from the right represents El Chichon. So they can be excluded to establish any trend.
What I don’t understand is why certain scientist think climate is easier to predict than weather. We all know climate changes, but know one really knows how and why all different climate changes in earths history took place. With the weather we know what changes the weather from day to day and month to month, because we have accurately gathered the data and the causes, from a long period of time as compared to the system. But even then Scientists often can’t even predict the weather for tomorrow within 2 degrees C for a given hour, averaged for the whole hour. And if it’s 1-2 weeks out forget about any accurate weather prediction. We have more knowledge about weather than we do climate. We don’t understand all the cycles, all the causes, all the randomness. When we can start predicting weather a month out, or hurricanes a year out, a volcanoes a month out, or earthquakes at all, when the next solar flair will be, then I might start “knowing” instead of “believing”, in AGW.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fYbr_dY01Q
ALL THE WAY TO THE START OF QUESTION TIME.
Duncan
Are you familiar with football? When Alabama played Vanderbilt a few weeks ago, you couldn’t have predicted what would happen from one play to the next, but you knew for sure Alabama would eventually win.
I think it’s naive to judge long term predictions based on how well meteorologists do in the short term.
Very good analogy. Another one that is likely too scientific for our friend … when a radioactive substance decays, there is no way of predicting which atom will decay next, but you are extremely confident of the ultimate rate of decay.
You treat me like I am not very scientific. I program Control Systems. If one could program a car that can drive itself I am very familiar with predicting, and statistics.
lets say our existence started an hour ago, and we started trying to predict weather. From our observation we would predict the day would continue to warm and warm and warm and we would be surprised when it started to cool again. I can average the weather for a whole hour and yet the trend would still be warming. same thing goes with summer and winter. Then El nino and La nina…… What other patterns are we missing? We only have been recording for a very short period of time. And don’t tell me about tree rings and glacier content. That’s like trying to measure temperature of the whole united states with the of snowfall you had in 10 random cities in a given year. Sure there is some correlation, but just because there was more snowfall doesn’t mean it was a colder year, and your sample size is so small it doesn’t mean anything anyway.
Duncan,
You seem to be in disbelief that science can find causes for what we observe in long term trends. It can, even though shorter periods are more problematic.
You mention seasons. Again we can predict the warming from spring to summer, while doing poorly on predicting next week.
Also, we have very long climate records -of glatial and interglacial periods, and a decent understanding of the causes.
nate…”You seem to be in disbelief that science can find causes for what we observe in long term trends”.
‘Science’ has still not found an adequate explanation for long term trends. The anthropogenic theory does not cut it in several ways. The modern AGW theory came from climate modelers who include among their ranks, mathematicians, astronomers, and those least likely to offer a coherent explanation as to why trace gases in the atmosphere should produce catastrophic warming.
It’s far more reasonable to presume their theories are wrong and go in search of the real reasons for the warming. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for warming over the past century, cooling from the Little Ice Age. It makes perfect sense yet many are unwilling to let go of an archaic theory related to 0.04% of the gases in the atmosphere causing catastrophic warming.
The word ‘science’ is a generic term that can apply to anything with a half-baked formalized approach to investigation.
‘Cooling from LIA’, so naming something makes it science?
duncan…”You treat me like I am not very scientific. I program Control Systems. If one could program a car that can drive itself I am very familiar with predicting, and statistics”.
You’ll find around here, and in many blogs, a core of so-called experts who would shame Jehovah’s Witnesses who appear door to door. The MO of a JW is to counter anything you say with a reference in the Bible. They take the written word as the absolute truth.
The alarmists around here do the same. Their written word is the IPCC dogma, unless the IPCC contradicts their own dogma as they did in 2013. That year, the IPCC admitted there had been no global warming during the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012.
Alarmists around here even quote skepticalscience, a propaganda machine run by an Australian who admits he is a cartoonist. There are photos of him on the Net dressed as a Nazi and it is claimed he has impersonated physicist Lubos Motl.
When you point that out, the alarmists attack you with everything from ad homs to convenient fact. They will do everything but admit the truth.
My interest has been related to why CO2 would suddenly stop warming for 15 years, a period that has been extended to 18 years. Makes no sense but alarmists claim such a periods of inexplicable science occur. They have no proof of that other than a consensus of agreement that such ‘must be’ the case.
Gordons idea of ‘science’ a little different than most. He thinks AIDS not caused by a virus, but by ‘lifestyle’.
He latches on to notions and never lets go, no matter how thoroughly they are debunked.
Duncanbelem
Have you watched the video yet?
Nate claims: “Also, we have very long climate records -of glatial and interglacial periods, and a decent understanding of the causes.”
My best laugh of the day!
Thanks, Nate.
Ger, again rhetoric, again no evidence.
Gordon,
‘photos of him on the Net dressed as a Nazi’
Do you know what a smear campaign is? You are participating in one.
I believe you have similarly done so for Hansen, Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Karl, etc
All of the most productive and influential climate scientists are the ones that get smeared.
Makes sense.
Gordon Robertson says:
“My interest has been related to why CO2 would suddenly stop warming for 15 years, a period that has been extended to 18 years.”
Of course it didn’t. And you have never offered the slightest proof that it did.
Ocean heat content shows the continued warming clearly. The data:
http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco
Gordon Robertson says:
“The modern AGW theory came from climate modelers who include among their ranks, mathematicians, astronomers, and those least likely to offer a coherent explanation as to why trace gases in the atmosphere should produce catastrophic warming.”
Yet you’ve clearly done this calculation for yourself.
Do it.
How much warming should result when Earth’s atmospheric CO2 increases from 280 ppm to 405 ppm?
Talk is cheap.Do it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“My interest has been related to why CO2 would suddenly stop warming for 15 years, a period that has been extended to 18 years.”
Your playing intentionally dumb is getting very very tiresome.
Or maybe you aren’t playing.
Yes, but if the IPCC were making the prediction they would adjust the past performance of both teams, and then conclude that Alabama would win by 250 points. /sarc
snape…” When Alabama played Vanderbilt a few weeks ago, you couldnt have predicted what would happen from one play to the next, but you knew for sure Alabama would eventually win”.
The predictions were based on Alabama’s past record and the quality of players and coaching. That’s far different than programming a computer to predict the future based on pseudo-science plugged into the program.
Gordon
Do you not understanding the point I was trying to make?
“I think it!s naive to judge long term predictions based on how well meteorologists do in the short term.”
EXACTLY!! Predictions of the result are made INDEPENDENTLY of the individual plays. You don’t need to know ANYTHING about the plays to understand the big picture. Similarly, future climate is NOT arrived at by analysing individual waether events. Replace “quality of players and coaching” with “climate forcings” and you have the picture.
duncan…”What I dont understand is why certain scientist think climate is easier to predict than weather”.
Not all scientists are created equal. In fact, not many have the ability of an Einstein to divorce their ego-based minds from the objectivity required to do good science.
Many of the so-called scientists predicting climate are climate modelers who lack the background in applicable physics to understand what they are doing. They have jumped to the conclusion, for example, that C02 has a warming effect in the atmosphere of 9% to 25% yet CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
That is a blatant contradiction of Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. Since the atmosphere is essentially a constant volume, constant mass system, atmospheric temperature is directly proportional to atmospheric pressure in an idealized atmosphere with no convective currents. Even with the convection it should still apply even though convection can create local high/low pressure systems.
Atmospheric pressure as a whole is based on the sum of the pressures contributed by each gas in the mix. The pressure is determined by the mass-percent of each gas in the mix. At a mass of around 0.04%, it is ludicrous to claim CO2 has a warming factor of 9% to 25%. If the mass-percent of CO2 is hundredths of a percent of the total, it should contribute no more than a few hundredths of a degree C to atmospheric warming.
Clearly, many of the so called scientists predicting catastrophic climate change are out to lunch.
Gordon,
‘They have jumped to the conclusion, for example, that C02 has a warming effect in the atmosphere of 9% to 25% yet CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere.’
Why don’t we use copper as an insulator instead of rubber?
Different atoms have very different properties. Its not so difficult.
‘jumped to a conclusion’
Not exactly, here is a paper from 1938, well reasoned, thorough, no politics, just good science.
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf
Tell me what you think he did wrong..
Duncanbelem says:
October 3, 2017 at 10:39 PM
“What I dont understand is why certain scientist think climate is easier to predict than weather.”
Here’s how I think about it. If you’re in a swimming pool of water, you encounter various hot and cold spots. The location of those fluctuations is very hard to predict, as is how long they will last or where they will appear or disappear next.
But the average temperature of the pool is much easier to predict — it will slowly cool as the day cools and night comes. You can calculate it via very basic thermodynamics.
The first instance is like weather. The second is like climate.
I finally watched the video above. There is a lot of mathematical hand waving going on.
It is very easy to predict the weather 1 second from now. It is even easier to predict the weather 1 foot away from me 1 sec from now. So why is it very easy to predict the weather for a short period of time with no averaging going on. Even I, without a computer could fairly accurately predict the weather 10 minutes from now given only two things time of day and current temperature.
It is also very easy to predict the climate 1 year from now within 1 degree Celsius. Because climate changes slower than weather, because of averaging over time and space. But averaging doesn’t always make a chaotic system less chaotic. It just makes changes slower. You just have to have more time, to make the climate system more chaotic.
Food for thought, I don’t know the answer. How do they know, ice during the ice age was a mile high? and the Climate was 8 degrees colder? I have no idea how they determine that.
Also it is impossible for a computer program to model chaos, or generate a truly random number. Computers always repeat patterns. I guess there could be one way and that is to sample a chaotic system. But each chaotic system is different.
https://www.random.org/
Duncanbelem says:
“How do they know, ice during the ice age was a mile high? and the Climate was 8 degrees colder? I have no idea how they determine that.”
So go learn.
Read. Study. Learn.
‘Because climate changes slower than weather, because of averaging over time and space. But averaging doesnt always make a chaotic system less chaotic.’
Yes indeed.
Still predicting an average quantity in a chaotic system can be straightforward.
Put a pan of water on the stove on high. As it heats it will have lots of turbulent convection, causing large spatiotemporal temperature variations.
Yet its average temperature will increase smoothly, easily predicted.
It is funny how Roy blocks off certain threads in this blog, but only when the final poster is a denier. Apparently it is OK to make people write a long post and not have it come through.
— Des says:
October 3, 2017 at 11:41 PM
It is funny how Roy blocks off certain threads in this blog, but only when the final poster is a denier.–
I am under the impression it’s WordPress rather than anything Roy is doing.
Though Roy did try to block someone who was… more problematic, than all the other crazies which are posting.
And Roy may have broke it, in his desperate attempts.
But perhaps not.
I have not noticed certain [or any] threads being blocked off.
–Apparently it is OK to make people write a long post and not have it come through.–
But that happen all the time. Cause I tend to write long posts and with lots of links.
It will block post if there is some word “it” doesn’t like.
I usually experiment by cutting a long post in half and narrow it down, to help find the word or symbol.
Ab*sorp*tion is one word it doesn’t like.
Which is a pain if talking about climate.
Sounds plausible except for one detail … as I said, it seems only to be a problem in threads where the final post is by a denier. As though they should get the final word. Perhaps not a large enough sample though.
Conspiracy theories are usually false Despite.
Des!
gbaikie…”Ab*sorp*tion is one word it doesnt like”.
Two others are Had.crut and re.frig.eration (required two dots).
I find one dot in absorp.tion works. It seems to depend on where you place the dot.
I have found several URL’s it won’t allow unless the word it doesn’t like in the URL name is dotted out. In such a case, it’s necessary to include the dot then advise the reader to cut/paste the URL while removing the dot.
It was a common practice a while back to replace the http in a URL with hxxp to get the URL posted. I don’t think that works with WordPress, they have spelling issues.
If that’s an actual thing, it’s coincidence. I doubt Roy believes many people are reading these meandering comments and snark to the Nth post, and that it will make a whit of difference who has the last word.
I have 10 old posts open from yesterday. Here are the numbers on the last comments.
Skeptics: 4
Realists: 4
Unknown: 2
‘Realists’ is just to get a rise. I feel impish today.
des…”It is funny how Roy blocks off certain threads in this blog, but only when the final poster is a denier”.
Roy is not blocking posts, he doesn’t have the time. It is WordPress, the host of the blog. They have a filter that blocks certain words, even in URLs.
The word Had.crut can’t get past the filter without a dot in it. Same with absorp.tion. Yesterday I found re.frig.eration requires two dots.
I have asked posters to reveal the words they found blocked by WordPress so the rest of us can avoid them.
I have complained directly to WordPress with no response.
In the threads where I am blocked, I have tried to post just “test” and it hasn’t got through.
I think it blocks you if you try too many times. Has no one else noticed that?
WordPress is the worst software ever released onto the Internet, and not just for this reason. You literally cannot delete your WP account.
250 hPa ~10,500 m, jet stream.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-95.58,49.39,519
Yawn
des…”Yawn”
Ren’s contribution to this blog regarding weather and climate science far outweighs your blatant alarmist nonsense. It’s like an alarmist, however, to yawn with boredom when real science is presented.
Really? So what is he telling us with this post?
As Gordon hinted, ren is teaching you “real science”.
The course is “Climate 101–The Atmosphere is NOT a blanket”.
Try to stay awake, so you will learn.
As requested, please explain precisely what THAT post was “teaching”.
Gordon Robertson
A big problem is you need to look in a mirror. You do not post real science. You post your own quack version of science and call it good. Many posters have given you links to look at and read to correct your phony science. You never read or look and just go right on posting all your false and made up physics. Strange person your are. One who could accuse others of peddling false science when you seem to be a major contributor to intentionally posting your own created version of physics.
I see you ARE looking in a mirror as you make that comment.
Gordon is happiest when he is ignorant. He isn’t interest in science, data or facts in the least.
Just try to imagine such an existence, if you can.
I’ve been reviewing the comments from last year. Wanted to check my memory about things on global temps that were popping up regularly during and just after the big el Nino.
A very common theme was skeptics saying that a la Nina would surely follow, and that the ‘pause’ would resume. A few said the el Nino was a speedbump in a now-cooling trend.
The irascible mpainter was totally convinced a la Nina would form shortly after the el Nino, wiping out the warm spike in due course. He sneered at comments that this was not certain, and vouched that people were too stupid to see it was obvious that a la Nina always follows immediately after a super el Nino. When he was linked to expert opinion only giving la Nina 70% chance, he scoffed at the experts and admonished others to use their own brains.
Pity he disappeared later in 2016.
Well, not really.
Perhaps some of the commenters above whistling at this latest warm month and pointing out the post-Nino temps have remained mostly higher the pre-Nino – remember such commentary from last year and are sticking to those who were convinced it would all get suddenly cooler a few months on from the el Nino.
Of course, a few months here and there, hot and cold, mean nothing in the big picture. But people seem to get energised by them, even our host.
Perhaps mpainter is lurking amongst us right now, using a different name. It makes sense that he would have to start over after making that claim.
BARRY -Here is what I am looking for if cooling does occur.
Lower overall sea surface temperatures due to less UV light , and a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in global cloud,snow,ice cover, a more meridional atmospheric circulation, and an increase in major volcanic activity.
If these things occur while solar is very low my confidence will increase.
Salvatore – everything you ever talk about falls under the domain of natural variability.
So it can say absolutely nothing about AGW. Or CO2’s radiative forcing.
Do you really not understand this??
barry…”A very common theme was skeptics saying that a la Nina would surely follow, and that the pause would resume”.
A La Nina surely will follow and the pause will likely not resume. In fact, there’s no evidence it is a pause.
There is definitely something afoot since Feb 2016 but no one knows what it is about. Blaming it on anthropogenic warming is plain stupid. Even Trenberth admitted as far back as the 2009 Climategate emails that the warming had stopped and it was a travesty that no one knew why.
Trenberth blamed it at first on the lack of instrumentation with the sensitivity to tease an anthropogenic background signal from the ENSO-based warming. Then he made the absurd claim that the missing warming must be hiding in the oceans. Since then, NOAA has fudged that alleged warming using smoke and mirrors and you alarmists have lined up to be spoon fed that pseudo-science.
It’s about time you blatant alarmists got off your high horses and began discussing the science rather than regurgitating outright crap from the likes of realclimate and skepticalscience.
There was a 0.2C bump in global temps in 1977 that was termed ‘The Great Pacific Climate Shift’. It was later identified as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. No one knew that the oceans could play with global temps like that. No one can prove the oceans are not behind the current spate of warming.
If it is the oceans, we know they have to cool eventually. There is still no objective proof whatsoever that anthropogenic CO2 is behind this. The sheer lack of it makes that abundantly clear.
Another point that is abundantly clear is what John Christy of UAH has claimed. The climate is far too complex for anyone to understand at this point.
I might add that some scientists were lined up to retroactively erase the 0.2C warming of 1977 as an error. Since then, NOAA, NASA GISS, and Had.crut have been playing that game of examining the historical record and amending it to what makes sense to them.
That is scientific misconduct and they should all be in jail for it.
Eventually you have to sit back and smile at the cavalcade of broken memes.
barry…”Eventually you have to sit back and smile at the cavalcade of broken memes”.
Is that your normal reaction to leading scientific organizations pulling the wool over your eyes? Speaking of wool, don’t you have some sheep to sheer?
It’s my normal reaction to a litany of nonsense after many postings on blogs of such nonsense from the same person.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is definitely something afoot since Feb 2016 but no one knows what it is about.”
A year and a half??
It’s called natural variation. CO2 is causing atmospheric warming of about 0.02 C/yr.
So larger fluctuations are due to natural variability.
Salvatore,
You are looking to see summertime temps in 2018 falling below the UAH 30-year mean (1981-2010).
I have your post on this bookmarked.
It COULD happen – if we get a decent La Nina, or if whatever random climatic event that pushed us to 0.27 above the trend acts the opposite way in a particular month. Make sure he understands that we are only stating that any such event will not be sustained.
Yeah, it’s possible, and not for the reasons Salvatore states. But I asked him to give a prediction that was temporally bound and that he would hold to to test his theory. This was his best shot.
I’m interested in seeing his take should his prediction fail. As he keep blaming things for failed predictions, and I’ve pushed him to stick to this no matter what, further excuses would tip the scales on my patience and I’ll join David Appell in reminding him of past failures.
CORRECT
A reminder – TEN months remaining to get your SUSTAINED and ENSO NEUTRAL reduction to baseline anomalies. That would be -0.2 to -0.4 in the case of a La Nina, sear the lower end so that it is distinguishable from random noise.
sear = near
Salvatore Del Prete on October 2, 2017 at 4:06 PM / October 3, 2017 at 4:55 AM
What is funny is the large difference between weatherbell +.28c and Dr. Spencers data +.54c
It is crazy. This is a very big difference and should not be.
Maybe I can manage to calm you down a bit, Salvatore!
Firstly: where did you obtain their data for Sep 2017? You should use only this page:
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_monthly.php
As you easily can see, the global anomaly for this month isn’t available there until today October 4, 2017.
Secondly: why do you think such a difference ‘should not be’ ?
Maybe you only look at the most recent months, and do not know exactly how much the datasets in fact differ all the time.
The greatest differences between UAH and Weatherbell anomalies since 1979 for example are
– min: -0.55 C
– max: +0.41 C
Look at the graph below:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/171004/xb6qexgg.jpg
and the yellow plot tells you that though having very similar trends (0.13 vs. 0.14 C / decade), UAH6.0 and Weatherbell have as many differences as they have in common.
Salvatore, I am afraid you are running into big disappointment…
The greatest differences between UAH and Weatherbell anomalies since 1979 for example are
min: -0.55 C
max: +0.41 C
I don’t quite understand this. Any difference between them would be a positive number.
Unless you’re saying something like, “UAH has been colder than Weatherbell by this amount, and warmer by this amount.”
Where did you get the Weatherbell (NOAA reanalsis) data?
barry on October 4, 2017 at 4:35 PM
I dont quite understand this. Any difference between them would be a positive number.
barry, when I build, for every month in two time series, the differences between the two, there will be negative and positive numbers…
And the least difference coming from the subtraction
UAH(month_i) – WeatherBELL(month_i) is -0.55, whereas the biggest one is +0.41; what else could I tell you?
Where did you get the Weatherbell (NOAA reanalysis) data?
That was a funny little piece of work, as this data I couldn’t quickly find within the public part of Maue’s site.
Thus te only way to immediately get it without registering was to take, some weeks ago, the value shown by
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_monthly.php
for every month in every year. Duuuh.
Nice info Bindidon. Thanks.
Why are they so different on a month to month basis ?
Excellent work , I appreciate this.
Thank you very much Salvatore, I lacked the time for a meaningful answer to your question above but I don’t forget it.
Thus te only way to immediately get it without registering was to take, some weeks ago, the value shown by
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_monthly.php
for every month in every year. Duuuh.
That’s a lot of piecemeal effort. Not many here would be that diligent. Good job.
I see what you are saying they differ more then I thought.
Yes, they’re measuring different things in different ways. Month to month variation may differ significantly, long-term trends not so much.
YES
Different baselines.
Actually, they’re the same in this case – 1981-2010.
This is a Weatherbell anomaly map. Note the bottom of the graph for the baseline.
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_globe_t2m_week_anom.png
Data is from NCEP CFSv2 reanalysis product.
I think all the data sets (from the Left and the Right) are lying. Both sides are manipulating the data for political gain. I really could care less if the planet is getting hotter or cooler. One thing that doesn’t lie is the images from snow/ice lines on mountain ranges. They are all basically receding. Compare a picture of a snow capped mountain range from 1940 to now. Nearly all the world’s mountains are losing snow and ice. Look at the Alps, Montana, Canadian Rockies, the Andes…… That doesn’t lie-
You are obviously right, SPQR.
– https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
– https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers
-etc etc etc
But what does that have to do with left/right?
You would wonder upon a look at how many french socialists or communists are climate ultraskeptics. And conversely I guess that many persons engaged in the climate change discussion in the AGW direction are politically very conservative.
Yes, we recovering from the Little Ice age, some have predicted that soon [decades] all glacial ice which was created in the temperate zone during LIA will have melted. This was said couple decades ago, and have not seen it revisited [I am not aware of anyone more recently making the claim that it has happened or about to happen].
Though it seems to me that the sea level lowered during LIA has been recovered.
gbaikie
Melting from the LIA should have slowed down or stopped by now. Instead, just the opposite.
snape…”Melting from the LIA should have slowed down or stopped by now”.
According to Syun Akasofu, re-warming from the LIA should occur at about 0.5C/century.
Why do you claim it’s just the opposite? There has been little or no warming since 1979 according to UAH and definitely none from 1998 – 2015. The current warming could be, and is most likely, transient in nature.
Syun Akasofu – another NON-climatologist associate of the Heartland Institute. How is that non-correlation between smoking and lung cancer / heart disease coming along?
Gordon Robertson says:
“According to Syun Akasofu, re-warming from the LIA should occur at about 0.5C/century.”
Why?
Caused by what?
Well I heard a bit about about some glaciers advancing, but this is to be expected and normal. Why do think the glaciers built up during LIA won’t melt?
Why do you assume melting glaciers is occurring because of some supposed ‘rebound’ from the LIA. Does global temperature have some static mean around which it oscillates, like a yo-yo? Is that the idea?
Why are glacier advances “expected and normal?”
–barry says:
October 5, 2017 at 5:52 PM
Why do you assume melting glaciers is occurring because of some supposed rebound from the LIA. Does global temperature have some static mean around which it oscillates, like a yo-yo? Is that the idea?–
There are two different things I would point out- my ideas and other peoples idea’s. The prediction that glacial ice formed during LIA would melt in the future, wasn’t my idea or prediction.
Though I do tend to agree, that at some point in the future the glaciers formed in a colder world would melt in a warmer world.
Or at least it seems like the better odds.
Though one could also get other glaciers forming in this warmer world, but point is it seems the ones from the colder period would tend to disappear [or they wouldn’t have formed in that colder world, but rather would have formed long before this cooler period].
–David Appell says:
October 5, 2017 at 8:23 PM
Why are glacier advances expected and normal?–
Because we are living in a icebox climate.
gbaikie says:
“Why are glacier advances expected and normal?
Because we are living in a icebox climate.”
Glaciers would advance if the surface was cooling — right?
But the surface isn’t cooling, right?
And, the data show, globally glaciers aren’t advancing.
Which is not surprising.
Begging the question – when is the “rebound” out of the LIA supposed to stop?
I don’t think skeptics would have an answer to that, because they don’t have a mechanism explaining the “rebound.”
barry…”Begging the question when is the rebound out of the LIA supposed to stop?”
Akasofu claimed 0.5C/century. The LIA ended circa 1850, which is ironically the year the IPCC now use to base their AGW propaganda. Temps during the LIA were claimed to be 1 to 2C below normal.
By the end of the LIA in 1850, it was likely already warming so this could turn into a calculus problem. As a ballpark figure, if you have 1 C to recover, a maximal date of ending of the rewarming, according to Akasofu, ‘COULD’ be 2050. If it was up to 2C, who knows?
I know, I know, it sounds like I’m covering all the bases. I really don’t know, I am just highly skeptical that a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere could produce catastrophic warming.
barry, the answer is, and youre not going to like it, “natural variation”.
(See, I said you wouldn’t like it.)
Warming to 2050?
This would put the global temp definitely higher than the MWP, and much higher than temps just prior to the LIA.
So the “rebound” would be to a new high for the last 2000 years at least. Interesting.
g*e*r*a*n,
You’re right. Nothingburgers have no taste.
— barry says:
October 4, 2017 at 4:40 PM
Begging the question when is the rebound out of the LIA supposed to stop?
I dont think skeptics would have an answer to that, because they dont have a mechanism explaining the rebound.–
I don’t think anyone, understands the mechanism for why LIA cooled.
There are things to point to.
During our interglacial period, we have had centuries of warming and cooling.
There were very large volcanic eruption during LIA.
And there was a sun which had low sunspots for a long period.
And there is a constant rise of sea level if the time scale is thousands of years.
There also a slight cooling over time scale of thousands years, starting something like 6000 years ago. Or I believe around time the Sahara desert became a desert rather than a grassland.
There were very large volcanic eruption during LIA.
gbaikie, I can’t imagine you placing LIA’s start so early.
It is very probable that the end of MWP was the probably hugest eruption of the last 1500 years: Mt Rinjani in 1257 (VEI 7).
Following that major event (only VEI 5-6 events are listed):
Quilotoa: 1280, (VEI) 6
Kuwae: 1452, 6+
Bardarbunga: 1477, 6
Agua de Pau: 1563, 5
Billy Mitchell: 1580, 6
Kelut: 1586, 5
Huaynaputina: 1600, 6
I read years ago an interesting paper
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
putting, through their analysis work, this unusually long sequence of very large volcanic eruptions in relation with a decrease of ocean heat content and increase of sea ice due to persistent lack of insolation.
This decrease of OHC was in their meaning LIA’s real origin: the aerosols produced by these eruptions were a by dimensions more important cooling factor than all solar minima put together.
And last not least: as you certainly know, the Maunder minimum began in… 1645.
I dont think anyone, understands the mechanism for why LIA cooled.
Which would make it impossible to say whether the so-called ‘rebound’ finished decades ago or is continuing.
The skeptical ‘analysis’ of post-LIA global temps completely lacks any physical basis.
— Bindidon says:
October 5, 2017 at 4:03 PM
There were very large volcanic eruption during LIA.
gbaikie, I cant imagine you placing LIAs start so early.–
I don’t place it early, though I know that some do place it early.
–Following that major event (only VEI 5-6 events are listed):
Quilotoa: 1280, (VEI) 6
Kuwae: 1452, 6+
Bardarbunga: 1477, 6
Agua de Pau: 1563, 5
Billy Mitchell: 1580, 6
Kelut: 1586, 5
Huaynaputina: 1600, 6 —
I suppose Quilotoa might be a reason some place it earlier, otherwise the ones listed wouldn’t be early.
But what I would consider important is the amount ejecta and where.
Because Tropics are the heat engine of the world and more specifically the tropical ocean is heat engine of the world and transparency of tropical ocean is important.
Now I have to look up these names:
-1280 Plinian eruption and caldera formation of Quilotoa volcano
One of the largest known eruptions on earth during the past 1000 years occurred around the year 1280 (radiocarbon dated). It followed a dormancy period of 14,000 years. The eruption emptied ca. 11 cubic km of magma during 4 eruptive phases. The first phase produced one of the northern Andes’ largest air-fall pumice and ash layer. The following phases generated large pyroclastic flows and lahars, which reached the Pacific Ocean.
The eruption was followed by the formation of the caldera and ended with the emplacement of a small lava dome.-
http://tinyurl.com/y9jqsk27
So even if most powerful recently I don’t know how many cubic km of rock to put into the sky. Maybe [wild guess] it put +1 cubic km water into atmosphere. Next, Kuwae:
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/kuwae
Again, right location, but.. Next, Bardarbunga
Iceland, nope.
Agua de Pau I see nothing
Billy Mitchell:
“1580 plinian eruption and global climate effects
The explosive eruption of Billy Mitchell volcano around 1580 (uncorrected radiocarbon age, i.e. between 14801640) ranks as one of the largest in the world during the past 1000 years. It erupted about 14 cubic km of tephra (ca. 6 km3 of magma) and produced an ash layer over 300 km2. Ignimbrite from the eruption extends in a broad fan 20 km eastwards towards the Pacific Ocean. The eruption probably caused the formation of the present-day caldera.
The eruption has very likely caused a world-wide short-term cooling such as other large eruptions (e.g. Tambora in 1815, Krakatau in 1883, Katmai in 1912, Pinatubo in 1991). ”
I would agree about Tambora, ie: The explosion is estimated to have had a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 7.[8] An estimated 41 cubic kilometres (9.8 cu mi) of pyroclastic trachyandesite were ejected, weighing about 10 billion tonnes. This has left a caldera measuring 67 kilometres (3.74.3 mi) across and 600700 metres (2,0002,300 ft) deep.[6] The density of fallen ash in Makassar was 636 kilograms per cubic metre (1,072 lb/cu yd).Before the explosion, Mount Tambora was about 4,300 metres (14,100 ft) high,[6] one of the tallest peaks in the Indonesian archipelago. After the explosion, it measured only 2,851 metres (9,354 ft), about two thirds of its previous height”
Kelut. Not seeing anything.
Huaynaputina:
1600 AD Plinian eruption of Huaynaputina volcano
The eruption of Huaynaputina volcano in 1600 AD was the largest historically recorded eruption in South America and one of the largest in the world during the past 2000 years. It erupted up to 30 cu km of tephra (or ca. 12 km3 of magma) (VEI 6) and is comparable to the Plinian eruption of Krakatau in 1883. The pumice and ash layer from the eruption covers an area of 360,000 km2.
Sounds possible and not one I was familiar with.
I had thinking of Tambora and few others not in your list.
Yes , theres a mechanism..ots tbe sun .. Distance from sun and solar activity are the man drivers of climate
Yes , theres a mechanism..ots tbe sun .. Distance from sun and solar activity are the man drivers of climate
A mechanism. Excellent!
Now we can get an idea of when the LIA ended.
Here is a graph of sunspot activity from 1910.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg
The Maunder Minimum ended about 1700, and sunspots peaked next about 1780, whereafter they held more or less steady.
So let’s allow a 40 year lag for global temps to catch up with the solar forcing, and we have the end of the LIA at around 1820.
There is one main orbital variation that changes Earth’s distance to the sun, but it is bi-polar.
Orbital eccentricity: the change in shape of the earth’s orbit from a perfect circle to an ellipse. The main cycle is about 100,000 years, so a 1000 year period will see little variation in an orbital eccentricity that itself has little variation. The extreme elipse changes the intensity of insolation falling on the Earth at a given season. So, if NH summer receives more solar radiation than usual when Earth is closer to the sun, winter will receive less. This also effects the length of the seaons by a few days from circle to extreme elipse.
The earth has been undergoing a change from the elipse to perfect circle for over 10,000 years. The MWP and LIA have both occurred during this change from one orbital extreme to the other, and so it appears that orbital eccentricity has little to no effect on global climate on this time scale.
I think we can rule out orbital variation causing and recovering LIA at the sub-millenial time scale. So that leaves us with solar intensity.
The mechanism that may have caused the LIA was back to normal in 1780 at the latest, and so the LIA ended about 1820 if solar variation is the mechanism.
That long-term solar graph again…
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg
Hi Barry,
Indeed with orbital variations, we’ re talking about tens of thousands of years where they beome the dominant reason for climate change, being primarily responsible for glacial/interglacial cycles.
The effects of orbital changes over small time periods ( as your example) 1000 years would be minimal , but still not zero.
Within those shorter time periods, over say a few hundred years or so it is solar variability which becomes the primary driver of climate.
Their is high correlation between temps and SSN which is a good indicator of sunspot activity .. With both the intensity and period of high/low activity affecting warming and cooling trends.. Compare Maunder and Dalton mimimums with the level SST numbers in the seccond half of the twentieth centuries.
We are just now back at levels not seen since the early 20th century. It memains to be seen if we will experience a dalton or maunder type minimum…
If that should occur … Temps WILL fall and there will once again be skating on the Thames
Couple typos.. Should read SST good indicator of solar activity..
And to the HIGH levels in the latter half of 20th century
“Here is a graph of sunspot activity from 1910.”
Typo – the graph is from 1610.
Well gbaikie…
The ‘fact’ that you might not be familiar with some thing has few to do with the fact that it well happened.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_gro%C3%9Fer_historischer_Vulkanausbr%C3%BCche
If you switch from there to the ->english version by clicking it at the left in the language list, you might enjoy a tiny difference.
gbaikie…”I am not aware of anyone more recently making the claim that it has happened or about to happen…”
Syun Akasofu, an astronomer famed for his work on the solar wind, has talked extensively about the LIA. He claims the IPCC erred by not including re-warming from the LIA in their claims of anthropogenic warming. He has talked about glaciers but I don’t recall him mentioning what you claim about all glaciers disappearing from temperate zones.
Are the Himalaya in a temperate zone? I don’t see glaciers disappearing there due to the extreme altitude. I have not seen any indication from climbers on Everest that the Khumbu glacier at the southern approach base camp is suffering, at 18,000 feet. Same for the Baltoro glacier at base of K2.
Are the Himalaya in a temperate zone? I dont see glaciers disappearing there due to the extreme altitude. I have not seen any indication from climbers on Everest that the Khumbu glacier at the southern approach base camp is suffering, at 18,000 feet. Same for the Baltoro glacier at base of K2.
The Himalaya are above tropic of Cancer. I don’t think anyone predicted all glaciers in Temperate Zone would disappear, rather build up of them during LIA would “disappear”.
I think some might have predicted that tropical glaciers might disappear at some point in time.
Yes, we recovering from the Little Ice age
As you have no physical mechanism to support that notion, it is only a notion. The ‘recovery’ could have stopped decades ago. You have no way of knowing.
gbaikie says:
“Yes, we recovering from the Little Ice age”
A recovery caused by what?
Or do you think climate does not need a cause in order to change?
spqr…”Compare a picture of a snow capped mountain range from 1940 to now”.
That’s ridiculous. We have 3500 foot mountains across from us in Vancouver, Canada and during a fresh snowfall the entire mountain is covered in snow. A day or two later it’s mostly gone.
Subjective analysis doesn’t prove anything.
This has nothing to do with right and left. There are political ideologies on either side of the argument. It’s mainly about alarmists and skeptics, the difference being that skepticism is a hallmark of science whereas alarmism is plain dumb.
Rubbish, it is happening to glaciers/snow-pack all around the world. And if you look at Mr. Spencer’s graph from 1979 to now, THERE IS AN UPWARD TREND. Granted, his data does show less warming; just not to the degree that most nuts on the left like Gore and his minions believe.
I am tired of this debate. Both sides are tampering with the data. Once again, I could care less if we are warming or cooling. I am not going to stop using my A/C or cutting my lawn.
Also, you missed my point. Examine permanent snow capped ranges from 1940 to now. The line (altitude) where they once had ice and snow is receding. Meaning that you have to ascend to a higher altitude to encounter it. It is happening all around the world. I was not talking about a bare range the occasionally gets snowed on.
Now just because I take note of that, it doesn’t mean that I am some left wing nut or in Al Gore’s camp (a man whom I cannot stand, and who I did not vote for in 2000). I am just making a point.
I think the whole hockey stick theory is BS, and I think the whole ‘we have been cooling for 18 years’ statement is BS.
Once again, if you look at Mr. Spencer’s data set from 1979 until now there is an undeniable upward trend. If you start the graph from 1998 until 2015, sure, it does look like there is a slight downward trend. But that is cherry picking the actual data. And even 2016 turned out to be warmer than 1998. It was in fact the warmest year as far as satellite data is concerned. Sorry, it was-
spqr…”It is happening all around the world”.
I pointed out that it’s not happening in the Himalaya, one of the most extensive mountain ranges in the world.
Furthermore, our mountains across the water in Vancouver have snow at the same altitudes each year. Our sea levels are not rising nor is global warming noticeable.
My point was that examining a photo of a mountain range in the 1940s tells us nothing. You’d have to specify the expected snow altitude on a specific date then compare it to today on the same date. Even at that, the inference is unscientific.
The way to do it is to assess all glaciers globally. 75% have been in retreat, and the mass balance of total global glaciers is negative.
spqr…”And if you look at Mr. Spencers graph from 1979 to now, THERE IS AN UPWARD TREND”.
So what? Can you prove the upward trend is related to anthropogenic warming? Have you noticed that half the trend is located below the baseline? Have you noticed the trend is flat from 1998 – 2015? If you see a trend over that period you are delusional. The IPCC did not see it nor did UAH.
Hopefully you are not yet another number cruncher who uses Excel without having a clue what the data means.
Yes, that is because you are starting the Graph from 1998. If you look at Spencer’s ENTIRE data set it is an upward trend.
I never said it is due ALONE TO ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING, those are your words not mine. I do not care what the cause is. It could be a natural cycle or a combination of other factors. I just stated that the trend is indeed upward. Please, do not make the mistake that I am some GW nut. I am not. Once again, if the earth cools or warms I don’t really care.
“Have you noticed that half the trend is located below the baseline?”
NO!! Really!! Do you understand what the baseline is?
SPQR says:
“I think the whole hockey stick theory is BS”
It doesn’t matter what you think — the laws of physics clearly imply that they require a hockey stick. And the math is trivial:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-even-easier-way-to-get-hockey-stick.html
If you want to have a fine view on Earth’s climate at its surface, you simply go to WeatherBELL.
OK: it is not direct measurement but integrating reanalysis based on a huge data set. Maybe just this makes it so trustworthy, like Nick Stokes very similar surface temperature mix.
Here you perfectly see for example with the August 2017 global average, how weak El Nina actually is:
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_082017.png
Perfect fit to JMA’s prediction for nov 17 till mar 18:
60% neutral, 40% Nina
Binny…”Maybe just this makes it so trustworthy, like Nick Stokes very similar surface temperature mix”.
Roy pointed out that it is the same data as ‘modeled’ (synthesized) NOAA data, which makes it unreliable.
I don’t expect you to get that since you claim your expertise is in computers. To those of us who have made our living based on hard physics, as in the electronics and electrical field, it is unforgivable to throw out 75% of your real data and synthesize the missing data in a climate model.
My understanding of computers is at least on par with yours, maybe even better. I have worked both sides of the fence, in computer software and hardware. I am aware of the limitations of programming and we used the term GIGO = garbage in, garbage out. Seems to fit climate models well.
Just a little hint to a troll behaving even more ridiculous than anyone of the trolls I ever saw posting at WUWT (!!!):
Roy Spencer regularly publishes graphs made by Ryan Maue. And both persons have all the science you thoroughly lack.
Any idea about what a compiler compiler might be, Robertson troll?
Why don’t you move to WUWT with all your nonsense?
– You would enjoy being there ‘entre bon amis’, e.g. the third viscount of Brenchley, or superb commenters a la ‘Latitude’;
– We would here get rid of an incredibly boring, stubborn person.
A dream, alas.
GIGO is something skeptics say when they don’t have any concrete ideas.
Did you have any concrete ideas to offer, barry?
Alarmist warmists ideas fall into the category of a ridiculously persistent El Dumbo, followed by an El Bimbo, with a continuously resilient La Nada, not to mention a smattering of El Dodo.
barry…”GIGO is something skeptics say when they dont have any concrete ideas”.
Still the same meaning: garbage in, garbage out. An apt description of a climate model.
The rats descend on this post to take up the offered crumbs.
it is unforgivable to throw out 75% of your real data
This lie again.
By a serial liar.
*How to help a skeptic understand the reality of AGW*
Step 1 (most difficult): prove the earth is warming.
Step 2: prove the warming is anthropogenic
Based on recent comments, it appears many skeptics on this blog have finally made it past step 1. Congratulations are in order!
SIS, to make the big time in climate comedy, you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. It just looks like you’re coloring with crayons.
Learn to throw in some pseudoscience. I know, a lot has already been used, but make up something. That’s what climate comedy is all about–originality. You can’t use things like “the Earth is heating the Sun”. That’s already been exploited. Try to find some other Laws of Physics to violate. That’s when it really gets funny.
Best of luck.
g*e*r*a*n
I never thought I’d say this, but, welcome to the “warmists” club!
(The anthropogenic part will come eventually.)
Sorry sis, you’re still not there. Think of something that doesn’t make you sound like a 12-year-old.
(BTW, there may be one or two out there that do not know your old screen name was “snake”, aka “snape”. I won’t tell anyone.)
I went back and read a few of Snape’s comments. A very bright fellow.
g*e*r*a*n,
It appears you haven’t yet come across Snape expounding on his grand “traffic jam analogy” of the “anthropogenic part” of global warming?
A shame. It’s a true apogee of human endeavour, a work of stupefying genius.
When this person speaks, you should listen. He’s no 12-year-old, I’ll say! He’s at the very least 13 or 14 …
barry…”it is unforgivable to throw out 75% of your real data …This lie again. …By a serial liar”.
barry insists on making a fool of himself.
From Nov 13, 2015…
https://web.archive.org/web/20151113041214/http://www.noaa.gov:80/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
direct quotes from NOAA…”Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
“The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month”.
Are you really that stupid, barry? NOAA admits on their own site to using less than 1500 stations from a global surface database of 6000 station and 1500/6000 = 25%. Since they use less than 1500 stations it means NOAA has dropped over 75% of their database. They synthesize the missing 75% in a climate model using less than 1500 of the stations in an statistical algorithm.
However, barry goes merrily on supporting this chicanery by apologizing for them and trying to obfuscate the obvious by braying about something in the 1990s.
That same site notes:
“Q. Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years?
No. Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the United States, the impacts of the warming are clear and present. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. A multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, uphill toward cooler areas.”
An additional sentence should be added:
And alarmists are wetting their pants more frequently.
Why shouldn’t people be alarmed about global temperature rise of 1 C? With 2 C probably likely?
Also, it should be noted that:
1500 stations are on land.
70% of the globe is ocean.
The “25%” reduction only applies to 30% of the globe.
i.e. a reduction in GLOBAL coverage of only 7.5%
Correction.
The “75%” reduction applies to 30%.
The reduction in GLOBAL coverage is only 22.5%
However, barry goes merrily on supporting this chicanery by apologizing for them and trying to obfuscate the obvious by braying about something in the 1990s.
That “something” in the 1990s was the amassing of thousands of weather stations’ data by hand that didn’t report in real time, and that don’t report in real time. The thousands of stations that NOAA are not able to update every month.
It’s the fact that proves your lie is a lie.
Don’t plead ignorance. You’ve obviously read the rebuttal to your lie. Thanks for admitting that, finally. And that you keep on lying when you know better.
AGW Haiku:
Carbon dioxide
Blankets the Earth in repose
Yet only a dream
Good effort.
Keep working at it and leave science to the big boys.
Doctor No-Nothing
Alchemy his frequent spiel
Science forgotten
No-Nothing means Something
How true – no science will ever pass this guy’s lips.
I was thinking about my university undergrad course in kinematics and dynamics, solving increasingly complex problems, while you were playing video games in your mama’s basement.
Judging by your comments I assume you failed.
And then took up Haiku and blogging.
Not much money in that is there?
So you’re a little boy who’s still at Uni doing first year basic kinematics. I hereby symbolically pat you on the head and invite you back after you’ve learned the physics required to understand the science of climate change.
Try this simple problem to test out your understanding of the basic physics you are learning:
Assume no gravity and no air resistance. Assume any collisions are perfectly elastic, and occur head-on so that there are no angular deflections.
There is a train moving towards me at 50 m/s.
I have a basketball and a table tennis ball.
Assume mass of train >> mass of basketball >> mass of tt ball
I throw the basketball at the train at a speed of 30 m/s.
Some time later I throw the table tennis ball in the same direction at 20 m/s, so that it collides with the basketball AFTER it has rebounded from the train.
At what speed will the table tennis ball return to me?
And please – no answers from anyone else.
The jet stream from north will now attack eastern Canada.
https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
The lying Gordon Robertson provides a quote and a link to try and corroborate his claim that NOAA deliberately shedded 75% of weather stations.
Even the link he provides gives a clue – it’s the parts Gordon never quotes. Here’s a fuller version.
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.
NOAA added millions of data from thousands of historical weather station records in the 1990s. Most of these had to be keyed by hand.
As Gordon’s link syas, they had at the time 1500 stations that reported in near real-time, in the format required by NOAA’s automatic collation network.
When the project ended in the 1990s amassing historical weather station data, 1500 stations were still reporting on the automated stream.
Contrary to the liar’s repeated lies, NOAA added weather station data, and did not “slash” thousands of stations.
Here’s the 1997 paper that describes what happens – a paper Gordon the liar has either never read, or has read but continues his lie even after reading the source.
http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
I can put up with his usual nonsense in fairly good humour, but this filthy lying, when he has been shown the truth so many times, is intolerable.
The large number of stations in the mid80s and 90s came from NOAA laboriously hand-keying weather station data over a number of years.
NOAA did exactly the opposite to what Gordon claims, which makes his disgusting lying all the worse.
[reformatted]
The lying Gordon Robertson provides a quote and a link to try and corroborate his claim that NOAA deliberately shedded 75% of weather stations.
Even the link he provides gives a clue its the parts Gordon never quotes. Heres a fuller version.
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.
NOAA added millions of data from thousands of historical weather station records in the 1990s. Most of these had to be keyed by hand.
As Gordons link says, they had at the time 1500 stations that reported in near real-time, in the format required by NOAAs automatic collation network.
When the project ended in the 1990s amassing historical weather station data, 1500 stations were still reporting on the automated stream.
Contrary to the liars repeated lies, NOAA added weather station data, and did not “slash” thousands of stations.
Heres the 1997 paper that describes what happens a paper Gordon the liar has either never read, or has read but continues his lie even after reading the source.
http://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
I can put up with his usual nonsense in fairly good humour, but this filthy lying, when he has been shown the truth so many times, is intolerable.
The large number of stations in the mid80s and 90s came from NOAA laboriously hand-keying weather station data over a number of years.
NOAA did exactly the opposite to what Gordon claims, which makes his disgusting lying all the worse.
Here’s the relevant quote from the paper describing the additional data and what they had left once the projects ended.
Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them.
Those are the facts that the Robertson has never acknowledged. Despite being shown this a dozen times.
He will be shown them again, whenever he repeats his lies.
barry…”Heres the relevant quote from the paper describing the additional data and what they had left once the projects ended”.
The relevant quote is the one I posted, that NOAA has slashed 70% of its reporting global stations. Naturally, in his denial, barry has produced the reddest of red-herring arguments.
Red Herring. … the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
NO.
NOAA had 1500 weather stations that reported weather data in the format that automated the updating each month.
Then NOAA added historical data manually that was not part of the automated stream. This is how they got 7,000 weather station data.
When the project ended, they had 1500 weather stations in the automated stream as before that reported monthly.
NOAA did not deliberately cut thousands of weather stations. They added data retrospectively.
Stop lying.
Exactly barry, well done.
Is the Robertson troll really a liar, or is he simply dumb, unable to carefully read longer documents?
Anyway: whichever alternative applies, plays no role; any of the two disqualifies him for scientific contribution.
These facts have been posted specifically in reply to his comments many times over the past year and more. Nearly every time, he disappears from the comment stream. The first few times I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
On a couple of occasions he has replied beneath, only to talk about something else. He’s seen this. He keeps lying.
I don’t bandy strong words lightly. I’d rather not. It engenders defensiveness and posturing and entrenches opposition.
But on this specific point I’ve had enough. I draw a line. I don’t have much passion for the future of the globe. I care about scientific integrity. I cannot stand lies.
Handily, he quotes above what I posted about later.
barry goes merrily on supporting this chicanery by apologizing for them and trying to obfuscate the obvious by braying about something in the 1990s.
He’s read the rebuttal previously. I don’t care if he lies to himself or to us. He lies.
Barry, of course he, like many others here, lie simply to amuse themselves.
Don’t try and get them to recant, they never ever do.
It is not worth getting upset over these people. Better is to simply point out the worst of their deceptions and, if possible, have a bit of sadistic fun skewering them.
I’ve been doing it for ages whenever I have spare time.
You can call me sadistic but I am enjoying their ever more frantic thrashings as things get hotter and the rest of the world leaves them behind.
dr no…”Barry, of course he, like many others here, lie simply to amuse themselves”.
Another brithering idiot, in deep denial. Can you read and comprehend??? NOAA admitted they had slashed over 70% of their surface stations.
It’s corroborated here in exacting detail.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
Chiefio also said:
“While the spin put on my position has tended to say there is active intentional removal of thermometers for malicious effect; I have gone out of my way to point out that I can not know any persons intent, only the result.”
YOU, Robertson, are putting spin on Chiefio’s position.
Chiefio does not know about the history of adding historical station data. You do. You’ve been told many times. Stop spinning. Stop lying.
My, my, my! All these accusations, name-calling, and consternation because the data isn’t matching the pseudoscience.
It’s hilarious.
How many Warmists have actually looked into the “forcing” of CO2? How many know the origin of this bogus concept?
None?
They just blindly and obediently swallow the spew from the cult leaders.
It’s amazing. (And hilarious.)
g*r…”My, my, my! All these accusations, name-calling, and consternation because the data isnt matching the pseudoscience”.
Far more than that. The alarmists are in deep denial that NOAA actually admitted to slashing over 70% of global surface database.
Maybe I missed something. Can you see the following at this link?
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
And does the URL not read http://www.noaa.gov???
To the person who believe assembling computer hardware makes him a Physics professional:
“All this name-calling”??
You mean “blithering idiot”?? Is that the name-calling you are referring to?
Nothing in the NOAA article says the weather station data was deliberately removed. That’s your lying spin. The article does say that data was added. THAT’s the truth. You know the true story. You’ve been given the history. You continually lie.
My, my, my! All these accusations, name-calling, and consternation because the data isnt matching the pseudoscience.
I don’t care about any data matching here.
Robertson is lying that NOAA “deliberately” slashed thousands of weather stations. Period.
barry…”Handily, he quotes above what I posted about later”.
I repeat, only a blithering idiot would deny what NOAA admitted in print. It does not matter how you try to obfuscate the matter, NOAA admitted to slashing over 70% of their global surface stations. I sent you the link and you still deny it.
You seem to think you can explain that away with some bafflegab about them actually increasing the number of stations in the 1990s. Chiefio has reported that NOAA has slashed nearly 90% of their stations since the 1990’s.
You have strengthened my case that alarmists are blithering idiots who accept any crap they are told by authority figures.
I sent you the link and you still deny it.
I quoted the article. There is no mention of deliberate removal. This is your lying spin. You have ben told how data was added retrospectively that was not part of the automated stream. Data from old weather station records that was keyed in by hand because it was not in the electronica format that allowed NOAA to get it every month. A project that ended in the late 1990s.
They started with 1500 stations reporting. They spent a few years collating masses of extra data. When they had keyed that data in to their records, they were left with 1500 automated updates, as before.
They didn’t slash data, you liar. They added some retrospectively.
The truth is the opposite of your lying lies.
Wow. I’ve seen denial from GR, and outright lies, but this takes the cake.
barry…”The lying Gordon Robertson provides a quote and a link to try and corroborate his claim that NOAA deliberately shedded 75% of weather stations”.
I posted a direct quote from NOAA where they admit to doing that. Only a blithering idiot would be in denial about that.
NOAA notes:
“Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all to determine the global temperature record.”
Only a blithering idiot would claim that the reduction of land stations equates to a the same reduction in global coverage.
dr no…”Only a blithering idiot would claim that the reduction of land stations equates to a the same reduction in global coverage”.
What are you nattering about???
NOAA cuts land stations by over 75%, synthesizes the slashed data in a climate model using less than 1500 of the stations, as they admitted on the NOAA site, and you claim that does not affect the global average to the same degree?
Chiefio has given detailed evidence that NOAA slashed the stations so they could delete colder stations and emphasize the warming from the warmer stations. In some cases, they synthesized data for cities high in the Andes using stations in a radius up to 1200 miles apart and at a much lower altitude giving those cities a much warmer temperature due to that kind of averaging.
It’s blatant cheating to synthesize a temperature for a high altitude, colder city using data from surrounding areas at much lower altitudes and warmer temperatures.
Why not just use the real data reported for that city? Do you really need to have an answer spelled out for you? They are alarmist cheaters.
I posted a direct quote from NOAA where they admit to doing that. Only a blithering idiot would be in denial about that.
Quote the exact part where it is said that the weather station data was deliberately culled.
Deliberately. Quote that, you liar.
barry…”Quote the exact part where it is said that the weather station data was deliberately culled”.
Now you are admitting it was culled and you are indulging in a semantics argument as to whether the culling was deliberate or not.
Get over yourself for cripes sake.
Now that you have finally admitted it was culled can we get on with the next part, where NOAA uses the data from less than 1500 stations to synthesize the culled data?
That’s what NOAA does and that’s why they need to provide a confidence level. You still have not addressed the question as to why they declared 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 48% confidence level. GISS has used confidence levels in the 30 percentile range.
The 48% is NOT a “confidence level”. It is a straight probability.
There are three runners A, B and C in a race. Runners A and B are each given a 26% chance of winning. Who is the most likely winner?
Now you are admitting it was culled
NO. I am paraphrasing YOUR lie and asking you to corroborate it.
and you are indulging in a semantics argument as to whether the culling was deliberate or not
Semantics? You have repeatedly said “slashed” and “cut.” YOU have said the drop out of station numbers was from deliberate deletion.
This is the lie.
Are you now qualifying your remarks? Then do so straightforwardly.
You still have not addressed the question as to why they declared 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 48% confidence level.
Indeed I have.
But I won’t do that until you clearly admit that NOAA did not deliberately “slash” thousands of weather station data.
If you can describe what actually happened accurately, then I will link you to my discussion of 2014, 48% likelihood hottest year. Hell, I’ll even discuss that with you here.
But not till we correct the spin on station drop out.
I’m curious as to why the 13 month average has not been updated over the past 2 or 3 months. The data shows a slight upturn over the past two months.
A 13-month average is centred on the middle month – month 7. Therefore the first 6 and last 6 months of the record can’t be compassed by the red 13-month average line.
EG, if we start the record in Jan 1979, then you average the 13 months Jan 1979 to Jan 1980, and the average is located at July 1979. Move forward a month, averaging Feb to Feb, and the next point is at August 1979.
I know how it is calculated. I am pointing out that it has not been updated in this month’s plot nor in the plot for last month. You can download the data and plot it out for yourself if you like. There is a slight upturn in the 13-month average over the past two months, i.e. the centered average from 8 and 7 months ago.
Including those months would show that we have pulled up after the post-El Nino decline about 0.15 to 0.2 degrees above the pre-El Nino figures. And we couldn’t have people seeing that, now could we? Roy?
Des says, October 5, 2017 at 8:30 AM:
Because that would indicate what, Des?
It would indicate that “we have pulled up after the post-El Nino decline about 0.15 to 0.2 degrees above the pre-El Nino figures”. Duh
Des says, October 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM:
And “we” couldn’t have people seeing that, because …?
You believe you’re a smart person … fill in the blanks yourself.
And a tip … when there are only two people in a thread, there is no need to keep quoting the other person. I KNOW what I said.
Des says, October 6, 2017 at 5:09 AM:
Hehe. No, Des. I want to hear YOUR answer. And “we” couldn’t have people seeing that, because …?
chad…”Im curious as to why the 13 month average has not been updated over the past 2 or 3 months”.
Waiting for the cooling which is sure to follow soon. No point wasting good red ink.
Any cooling that may or may not occur in the future, will not change the 13-month centered averages for 7 and 8 months ago. As soon as Roy updates this curve in future months, the uptick will appear.
Exactly! Poor, foolish GR imagines that the hidden upticks will be flattened by lower values over the coming months.
Actually, the averages will indeed probably drop in the next few months. The next three monthly anomalies to drop off the back of the 13-month average are 0.45, 0.42 and 0.46. Despite this month’s anomaly, it is extremely unlikely we will duplicate those figures in the next three months. I would say that the 13-month average still has about another 0.1 degrees to fall over the next year, and that is assuming no La Nina conditions.
Waiting for the cooling which is sure to follow soon. No point wasting good red ink.
While I doubt that Roy is so craven as to “hide the incline,” your defense of such a tactic is pathetic.
A repost (with some editing) of mine that is buried amongst earlier posts:
Here is a scatter plot where each dot represents one El Nino or La Nina event:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7Gb081dGd4Y051S2c/view?usp=sharing
Apologies for forgetting to label the axes. The horizontal axis is ONI and the vertical axis is the detrended UAH anomaly.
The ONI reading is the average of the THREE highest (or lowest) consecutive monthly ONI readings during any one ENSO event. The UAI reading is the highest (or lowest) monthly value of the DETRENDED UAI during each ENSO event.
With a good chance of a coming La Nina, it gives an idea of the drop in UAI we can expect from a La Nina event, a drop which would have to be EXCEEDED for Salvatore Del Freeze to have any chance of claiming a cooling climate.
As I have taken the max (min) values for both ONI and UAH during any ENSO event, which generally do not come from the same month, the effect of the lag is implicitly included.
In the El Nino graph, the lowest dot represents Pinatubo, and the third dot from the right represents El Chichon. So they can be excluded to establish any trend.
This month’s anomaly is not indicative of the trend. The trend anomaly is +0.27, and should be +0.28 by the time any La Nina begins. The scatter graph shows that, for all but the very weakest La Ninas, the drop in global anomalies during La Nina can be anywhere between 0.18 and 0.43, with little correlation between that drop and the strength of the La Nina. So we would expect a minimum TRENDED anomaly of between -0.15 and +0.10. We would need to drop below -0.15 before anyone can claim that we are having any cooling out of the ordinary.
Good work Des.
+1
des…”A repost (with some editing) of mine that is buried amongst earlier posts:”
Let’s get this straight, you post an amateur graph in which you ‘forgot’ to mark the axes, and you want us to take it seriously, especially when you de-trended the UAH data yourself?
Move along, folks, nothing of interest here.
Of course, bindiot applauds you.
Facts hurt, don’t they?
Robertson isn’t capable of plotting a graph, and takes an honest apology for forgetting to label the axes as his cue to spew scorn.
Here the same answer as in Roy Spencer’s previous thread:
Nun halten Sie doch endlich die Klappe, Robertson!
Why would you believe that I should have ANY difficulty detrending data? It is a VERY simple process, especially when you have Excel at your disposal. You really should quit showing off your lack of mathematical understanding.
It is hilarious how you dismiss any analysis without having a clue what it is you’re dismissing.
But more important is what caused the decline other then La Nina.
Is it lower sea surface temperatures overall and a slightly higher albedo?
Will it be this if the fall comes.
If so I will have more confidence.
Can you tell me which decline period you exactly mean, Salvatore?
I am talking about this decline if it comes.
What I am trying to say is La Nina does not factor into my cooling ,although it will cause cooling.
Here is what I am looking for to accompany the cooling if it comes that will give me confidence that I may be correct.
Factors with the cooling if it comes that will make me confident.
1. Very low solar activity
2. Overall lower sea surface temperatures on a global basis
3. A slight increase in albedo
a. due to an increase in global cloud coverage
b. due to an increase in global snow coverage, sea ice
c. due to a N.H more meridional atmospheric circulation
d. due to an increase in major volcanic activity.
Understood!
But be patient, as few of your parameters actually tend to behave as you wish.
If any drop in temperatures falls within this range, how will YOU determine that such a fall might have been caused by something else, other than mere conjecture and assertions?
Slavatore may get his predicted drop if Agung has a massive eruption in the next few months. It’s currently threatening to go off.
It would have to be VEI5 to have any effect on global temperatures. (Perhaps HIGH VEI4) The 1963 Agung eruption was VEI5, and was 120 years after the previous VEI5 eruption. Hopefully the fact that it is only 54 years this time will mean that not enough pressure has built up for the largest eruption. But who is to know what other difference there are this time.
One thing is certain – many deniers will claim that Agung has spewed out more CO2 than humans have by burning fossil fuels throughout our history. They won;t have any science to back this up.
Right, thanks.
Fossil fuels burned by man emit 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes:
“Volcanic vs Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide,” T Gerlach, EOS v92 n24, June 14, 2011.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011EO240001/epdf
https://news.agu.org/press-release/human-activities-emit-way-more-carbon-dioxide-than-do-volcanoes/
Apparently the Toba eruption 75000 years ago (the largest eruption of the past 2 million years) emitted about a year’s worth of anthropogenic CO2 (not that it had the opportunity to have any effect, given the vast amount of SO2 also released). Fortunately, we had one Toba, not 75000. Before that we have to back to the end-Permian eruption in the Siberian traps for their claim to be even remotely correct.
Skeptics who aren’t completely stupid know that major aerial volcanic eruptions temporary cool the globe.
Half right. Only equatorial eruptions tend to have a cooling effect. An eruption at higher latitudes would have to be absolutely massive to have the same effect. Assuming they are equatorial, they have to be powerful enough to send SO2 into the stratosphere – any lower than the stratosphere and it gets rained out. That generally means VEI5 or higher.
And yes, deniers definitely know this – hence their desire for greater volcanic activity to support their otherwise unsupported cooling hypothesis.
I didn’t know that latitude mattered, so I looked it up.
From what I gather, latitudinal differences are not well-known, but it is theorized that high-latitude volcanic emissions tend to be more localised, based on limited data.
“Half right,” seems to be over-certain. I’d have said, “probable,” or something the like.
Anyway, Agung is a tropical volcano.
I’ve done a lot of reading about this, and it is definitely a significant effect. There are no volcanoes below VEI7 that have had a measureable effect on GLOBAL climate. Ejected matter from high-latitude volcanoes generally can’t cross the equator.
There are no volcanoes below VEI7 that have had a measureable effect on GLOBAL climate
I understand the idea. How many high latitude major volcano eruptions support it? IOW, do they have much data to make a definitive assessment?
Salvatore Del Prete on October 5, 2017 at 5:32 AM
Why are they [UAH6.0 and WeatherBELL] so different on a month to month basis ?
1. As you know, UAH mesures temperatures in a tropospheric region way above surface, while WeatherBELL reanalyses temperatures directly at surface.
Roy Spencer communicated last year the 12-month absolute climatology vector for UAH, with an average value of about 264 K, i.e. -9 C, while all surface temperatures show a mean absolute value around 15 C.
According to a lapse rate of 6.5 C/km, that gives us an altitude of about 4 km. (Some people mean that in fact UAH measures way higher, as radiosondes measure at 4 km altitude higher temperatures than does UAH. I don’t share this meaning.)
Now my question to you, Salvatore: would you think that land temperatures measured at sea level must show identical to those measured at the surface too but 4 km higher, e.g. on a mountain? I guess no.
2. The other factor making the difference between UAH and WeatherBELL is the response time needed by the troposphere to react to surface events.
There is often a lag of up to 4-5 months. If the lag was identical everywhere, it would be simple to reduce the differences by offseting one of the two time series. But the lag differs everywhere.
Thus I’m sorry: it makes few sense to expect them to behave identical.
Bindidon
You’ve pointed out the lag time between surface and troposphere, but I don’t think Salvatore understands the very simple physics behind this.
If you put a large pot of cold water on a surface element, and turn it on, the element will quickly get very hot. The water in the pot, on the other hand, may take 10 – 20 minutes to boil. Turn off the heat, and the element quickly cools, but the water will stay warm for a long time.
During an el nino, a relatively small area of ocean surface gets warmer. The lower troposphere is huge in comparison, so it takes several months for such a small “element” to produce noticeable warming. Opposite for la nina.
Sir Isaac
I apologise, but… your pot explanation is not quite convincing.
If it was, then there would have been no lag differences between the 1997/98 and 2015/16 editions of Mr Nino…
Feel free to compare them!
Bindidon
The 1997/98 el nino was followed by a strong la nina, the 2015/16 wasn’t. This explains why the troposphere was warmer following the more recent event. What does that have to do with lag time? Are you sure they were much different?
If the Nino 3.4 region was +2.5 C for just one day, would you expect much of a bump in troposphere temperatures? It takes time, like it takes time for a stove to warm a pot of water. Isn’t this the lag we’re talking about?
Something to read:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3514.1
I won’t have time to read it myself for a while.
Des.
Thanks for the article. There’s is a lot to go through but this Is in the introduction:
“The phase lag and amplitude of tropospheric temperature both increase as a specified ENSO SST forcing period increases……”
A takeaway would be that a short forcing period would be accociated with a short lag time and a small temperature increase. So a one day spike in SST would not produce a similar spike in the troposphere 5 months out. The lag time would be short.
I was dumb and forgot something. Once SST’s start decreasing after an el nino has peaked, the troposphere is still getting warmer. This delay is different than waiting for water to boil.
I’m thinking an el nino continues to add energy to the troposphere even as it weakens. This would produce the delay we see.
Hunch: the slower an el nino weakens, the longer the delay will be before the troposphere temperature peaks.
Sir Isaac Snapelton on October 5, 2017 at 7:04 PM
What does that have to do with lag time? Are you sure they were much different?
Yes. If you compare, peak against peak, NINO3+4 and UAH6.0 for the two periods, you see a lag of five months for 1997/98, and of only two months for 2015/16.
The comparison with the far more complex MEI engineered by Klaus Wolters is of course less simple. MEI had in 1997/98 a double bump, what you don’t see in the NINO3+4 record.
Bindidon
You’re right. Somehow I spaced that off. So my original comment about the heating element and pot…………does not hold water.
Bindidon
I’m still on board with the “rate of cooling” idea. If you’re correct, the 97/98 event continued to warm the atmosphere for five months after SST’s had begun to fall. If SST’s had fallen more rapidly after the peak of the 2015/16 event, the “continued warming” of the atmosphere would have been more short lived in comparison.
Your right I don’t know why I was thinking differently.
The correlation is pretty simple here….latent heat energy being released by melting ice keeps the summer temperatures in the arctic in check and the temperatures in the high arctic don’t get very much above freezing ever….right now you have a winter problem in the Arctic and that is because of two things….galactic cosmic rays carry star water and it interacts as water vapor in our atmosphere and the jet stream is out of whack and is more meridonal than zonal these days because of the weakening of both the sun and Earth’s magnetospheres. The north/south flow brings in more water vapor from temperate areas keeping the Arctic warmer than normal……It’s all natural and nothing to worry about very little of this is due to man…..just need a basic understanding of one of two things….science or history….history will tell you this is all cyclical as well
Melting ice ABSORBS heat. It does NOT release heat.
+1
It is sad to see someone who has spent time learning correct terminology thus giving the superficial appearance of someone who knows what they are talking about, but who has no idea about the science behind these words.
And there are plenty here who fall into that category.
So sad!
You clowns rant on Kingbum but proclaim dumb@$$ things like:
1. The atmosphere is twice as powerful as the sun.
2. The GHE heats the earth and the sun. They are both warmer together!
3. Standing next to a block of ice will warm you up! How does your skin “know” not to absorb IR from the ice!!
Hilarious!
SGW
Still waiting for you to answer my physics question.
Despicable,
So predictable. I knew you would do that. Why would I waste my time taking orders from you? I’m glad you wasted time looking stuff up you don’t understand. It’s what you do.
SkepticGoneWild
All your points are not validated by things people have posted. You made them up on your own.
YOU:
”
1. The atmosphere is twice as powerful as the sun.
MY RESPONSE: The atmosphere has temperature when the Sun sets at night. The global energy balance graphs take this into consideration but obviously the thought process is too complex for you to comprehend.
2. The GHE heats the earth and the sun. They are both warmer together!
MY RESPONSE: No, the GHE allows a heated surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature than a surface under identical conditions with no GHE. The Earth does not heat the Sun. The presence of the Earth in the Solar System will have two possible effects. A very tiny increase in temperature to give off more energy that is not going out because of the Earth, or a slight expansion that will increase surface area an allow the energy to be realeased.
3. Standing next to a block of ice will warm you up! How does your skin “know” not to absorb IR from the ice!!
MY RESPONSE: It will if you were standing to something colder than the ice, otherwise it will not. Your skin will absorb IR from all sources around it regardless of their temperature. You claim you studied physics and you are not aware of this? I linked you to textbooks stating this very thing. Why won’t you read the science?
SGW
Do what?? Given that I don’t make any of those claims, you can’t have been talking about me.
You’re avoiding my Physics question – I KNEW YOU WOULD DO THAT.
It’s the kind of problem a REAL physics student would love to do.
Rote learning gets you only so far in your understanding of science.
LMAO. I thought you clowns think IR is “heat”. Right? Ice gives off IR, which is heat according to you buffoons. The pseudoscience of the alarmist freaks is so entertaining. And dumb@$$ gives this a +1. The guy who thinks the earth heats the sun.
IR is indeed not heat. I have not stated that it is nor thought it.
Do you enjoy your straw man arguments?
I have a question about this: if you drop some ice cubes into a bowl of warm water, energy in the water will be used to break the bonds that form the ice. This will cause the water to cool.
My question is, what happens to the energy used to break the ice bonds?
snape…”I have a question about this: if you drop some ice cubes into a bowl of warm water, energy in the water will be used to break the bonds that form the ice. This will cause the water to cool.
My question is, what happens to the energy used to break the ice bonds?”
First question to ask is how the ice bonds were formed in the first place. Someone removed the thermal energy from the water till it reached 0C when a change of state occurred. That involves subjecting the water to lower temps, as in a refrigerator.
Second question. How would you break the bonds? You would drop the ice into warmer water, which has it’s atoms/molecules at a higher thermal energy level. The ice would absorb thermal energy from the water, the bonds would break.
Now for your question, what happens to the energy used to break the bonds?
That leads to another question. What energy is snape talking about and what is it? The energy is thermal energy and it’s the average kinetic energy of the atoms that make up the water molecules. So you have sets of molecules that have lower kinetic energy and sets of molecules with a higher kinetic energy.
A basic principle in heat transfer is that molecules of a higher kinetic energy will merge with molecules of a lower kinetic energy until they reach thermal equilibrium.
What happened to the energy? Again, it is the average kinetic energy of atoms. The energy averages out till the overall kinetic energy of all atoms in the mix is in equilibrium.
The energy is averaged out among all the atoms/molecules.
If you want to get more technical, the existing water molecules are made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The atoms are bonded together by electrons and/or their charges. Electrons in the atoms exist at certain energy levels based on the temperature of the water. The electrons in the atoms of ice exist at lower energy levels.
When you mix the ice and the water, electrons in the water drops to lower energy levels through collision and electrons in the ice rise to higher energy levels due to the same collision. When the ice melts it becomes water with electrons at a lower level than the existing water into which you dropped the ice. Eventually all the electrons reach similar energy levels and the temperature evens out at the equilibrium temperature.
Surprisingly all correct … *UNTIL* you indicated that you believed that THERMAL energy of water is concerned with electron states.
Agreed, another example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.
des…”Surprisingly all correct *UNTIL* you indicated that you believed that THERMAL energy of water is concerned with electron states”.
There are two atomic particles at work in water, electrons and protons. It’s the difference in charge between the two that account for ANY kind of inter-atomic bonds. Temperature change in molecules occurs in the bonds, which are about electrons.
Where do you think the heat comes from in water? Electrons govern heat by their energy levels. Protons are incapable of changing energy levels, electrons are the variable parameter. Neutrons seem along for the ride.
Gordon Robertson
You should study some Chemistry as well as physics.
The electrons do not change energy levels in low temperature collisions. That is the realm of visible light. An object must be quite hot to emit this EMR to any degree.
The heat in water comes from the normal motion of the entire molecule, moving in one direction, possessing kinetic energy similar to a macroscopic object, it will exchange energy in a collision with other molecules.
You really need to study some real physics. Your crap you peddle is getting old and not even fun to read for amusement. What is up with you and your obsession to peddle made up physics. Every post with some science in it you post this made up physics you conjured up in your own imagination. Can you stop doing this? Who are you doing it for?
Are you a paid troll who is getting money to make the Skeptic side of the debate look like morons?
So far I have not seen any of the Skeptics on this blog link to established science. They post their own made up versions of science and peddle them or link to their own blog.
I will consider Skeptics views when they are able to support their claims with established physics. I guess it will be a long time for that event to happen.
Norman
You saved me the trouble of a long post. It’s good to see someone here knows some physics. I think Gordon Robertson’s science comes from skimming through Google search results rather than any actual education in the material. He certainly would have failed an exam based on that one.
norman…”You should study some Chemistry as well as physics”.
I don’t know how you’d arrive at such a conclusion since you have demonstrated no understanding of basic physics other than what you have gleaned from reading and misinterpreting books on physics.
I have applied atomic level physics over decades in the fields of electronics, electrical, and computers. You can’t work in those fields successfully without understand the properties of atomic particles like electrons and how they work in circuits.
I have also studied the basics of physics and chemistry in engineering studies at university. I have studied covalent and ionic bonding in molecules both in general chemistry and as applied to semiconductors. I even took a semester course in very basic semiconductor theory that involved measuring electron energy levels as applied in semiconductors.
Heck, Des even gave me a passing grade in my understanding of atomic level physics even though he balked at my claim about electrons and their importance in heating. I can live with that.
You claim electrons don’t change energy levels during low temperature collisions. Then how do they warm through such collisions? There has to be variables in atoms to allow them to change. The electron is the variable, it’s the only part of the atom that can change wrt kinetic energy.
The only way an atom can warm is if it’s electrons absorb more energy. If they absorb more energy they MUST rise to a higher energy level. Ultimately, if they rise to too high an energy level they leave the atom and become free electrons, leaving the atom ionized.
You claim further: The heat in water comes from the normal motion of the entire molecule, moving in one direction, possessing kinetic energy similar to a macroscopic object, it will exchange energy in a collision with other molecules.”
What energy, Norman? It is thermal energy. Thermal energy is the kinetic energy of atoms and it is changed by the electrons only.
What is a molecule, Norman? It is two or more atoms bound together by electrons or charges related to electrons. The electron is vital to the molecule and it is the electron that absorbs energy, not the molecule per se.
The electron changes the temperature of water. All atoms/molecules are nothing more than an aggregation of electrons/protons. There are neutrons but they don’t participate in electrical activity since they are neutral. The proton is bound to the nucleus leaving the electron as the only means of temperature change.
The vibrations in molecules are due to the electrons, or their negative charges, that bond the atoms together to form a molecule. Without electrons there would be no molecule and no vibration.
des…”I think Gordon Robertsons science comes from skimming through Google search results rather than any actual education in the material”.
Science is not about what YOU think. If you want to go at a one on one debate on atomic physics then let’s do it. If you want to really get your ass kicked let’s talk electronics or electrical theory, even computer hardware theory.
It is you alarmists on this blog with your pseudo-scientific propaganda that is the problem. Not one of you can offer a coherent and objective reply to what I have claimed. All you offer is ad homs, insults, and obfuscation. I offer insults but I back it with theory which can be corroborated.
dr no…”Agreed, another example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing”.
Another armchair physicist. I have yet to see you offer any insight whatsoever into climate or physics. All you do is offer inane articles from alarmists in the media with the insinuation they are somehow related to anthropogenic warming.
des…”You saved me the trouble of a long post”.
You mean you saved yourself the embarrassment of revealing your abject ignorance of science. With one-liners you can hide behind the illusion that you know what you’re saying. With a detailed reply you would reveal to the world how little you really know.
Imagine hiding behind a post of norman in which he posted utter rubbish while insinuating he was some kind of authority on physics. Did you really fall for that?
Gordon says:
“The only way an atom can warm is if its electrons absorb more energy. If they absorb more energy they MUST rise to a higher energy level.”
When you say “energy level”, do you mean orbital level?
https://tinyurl.com/y7bhy84v
The energy is stored in the form of chemical or potential energy, the potential being the total potential energy that describes the interaction between all the molecules.
Two molecules attract each other at larger distances and may form weak bonds when “coming into contact”. These bonds are called Van der Waals bonds and water molecules can even form stronger so called H bonds.
In ice this mean potential energy is low because the molecules form a specific pattern of well ordered H and VdW bonds. Each molecule is essentially in his electronic ground state but the latter is fairly perturbed by the presence of the other molecules and the electrons rearrange in a particularly favorable configuration with much lower energy than in isolated water molecules in vapor.
In liquid water this mean potential energy is fairly higher because the ordered arrangement in space of the molecules in ice is lost, stable bona fide H and VdW bonds can no longer be formed, yet “they can still form and break very rapidly”, the molecules remain close to each other, everyone bound to the whole thing, all are strongly interacting so that the mean energy of whole thing is still well below the one of a collection of isolated molecules far apart .
The latent heat of fusion (about 6 kJ/mole) is thus a measure of the difference in energy of the bonding pattern between molecules in ice and liquid.
In the same way the latent heat of vaporization (about 40 kJ/mole) is a measure of the very large difference in bonding between liquid and gas where H and VdW bonds can no longer exist and form at all.
Thanks for the explanations!
alphagarius…”The energy is stored in the form of chemical or potential energy, the potential being the total potential energy that describes the interaction between all the molecules”.
Good overall explanation but I think you need to go deeper. The energy stored is thermal energy and it is dependent on the energy levels of electrons. Electrons in covalent bonds, and their subsequent -ve charge in ionic bonds, or the van der Waal focess and hydrogen bonding you mention, rely 50% on the charge of electrons.
Without electrons for bonding, you have no molecules and no means of producing heat or transferring heat. Although electrons are in the order of about 1/1800th the size of a proton, they have an equal and opposite charge. Without that negative charge, you have no bonding or any other inter-atomic force of consequence.
Molecules and other inter-atomic bonds in solids vibrate due to the charge difference between electrons and protons. The positive nuclei comprised of +vely charge protons repel each other whereas the negatively charged electrons are attracted to the nuclei. Their alleged momentum keeps them from falling into the nucleii, just as the Moon’s momentum keeps it from spiraling into the Earth. The vibration comes from the equal and opposite polarities working against each other.
When we talk about IR being absorbed by a CO2 molecule, we are actually talking about the electrons in the C – O bonds rising to a higher energy level as the electrons absorb the IR. The more energetic electrons cause the increased bond vibrations which represents the heating in the CO2 molecule.
“When we talk about IR being absorbed by a CO2 molecule, we are actually talking about the electrons in the C O bonds rising to a higher energy level as the electrons absorb the IR.”
How much absorbed energy does it take for that electronic level jump from base level to 1st electronic level Gordon? A commenter of your self-professed education and experience ought to be able to tell us roughly in, say, decade multiples of order kT (the avg. energy of a molecule).
Gordon,
Learn about vibrational modes here, or at least look at the pictures:
https://tinyurl.com/y8t9n8hh
IR a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n occur when the frequency of the a.b.s.o.r.b.e.d radiation matches the vibrational frequency.
I’m familiar with the argument kingbum poorly articulated.
He thinks the sea ice that keeps Arctic waters insulated from releasing their heat will permit it when sea ice concentration reduces.
Yes, that begs a bunch of questions.
Really?? He seems to be claiming a release of heat DUE to ice melting. His first sentence doesn’t suggest that to me at all, especially given his use of the term “LATENT heat”.
I hope for his sake I’m right. Melting ice itself releases heat? Oh boy.
But that would not be the craziest thing he said:
galactic cosmic rays carry star water and it interacts as water vapor in our atmosphere
I didn’t get that far – I stopped after the first sentence. Sounds like the fiction of a flat-earther, or like the believers in the “electric universe”. I wouldn’t be surprised if we had a few of the latter visiting this blog. They believe the earth revolves around the sun due to electromagnetism – apparently there is no such thing as gravity. I think Gordon might be a contender for this group.
kingbum on October 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM
Wow. A new climate megastar is born.
Just like cockroaches.
Dr No
Such a pleasant comment
Regards
HC
Harry Cummings
Just to prove that you are consistent in your thinking, would you please post this same reply to one of Gordon Robertson’s, one of SkepticGoneWild’s and one of ClimateChange4realz’s “pleasant” comments. We would hate to think your concept of pleasantness was skewed by your belief in climate change.
Edit: Belief CONCERNING climate change.
Just in:
“On Tuesday, 2017 officially became the wettest year in Houston history.
Due to Hurricane Harvey, this week’s light showers were enough to push the yearly rainfall total past 72.86 inches, the previous record which was set in 1900 when the Great Galveston Hurricane made landfall and killed thousands along the coast.
The new rainfall record isn’t just impressive because it’s big, it’s also incredibly early.
Three months remain until the end of the year and 2017 has already beat out other extremely rain-heavy years, many of which also broke records because of tropical storms or hurricanes.”
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-weather/article/houston-harvey-rainfall-climate-change-2017-12254111.php
And they told us AGW causes drought….
Fuego volcano ERUPTS sending ash 5km into the sky after 12 eruptions in ONE HOUR.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/862368/Volcano-of-fire-volcan-de-fuego-eruption-guatemala-bali-indonesia
Only 5 km. So it won’t affect climate then.
You’re wrong.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/equirectangular
So you think pretty pictures justify your claim??
A volcano only affects the climate when it spews material into the stratosphere. Any low and it gets rained out.
Popocatepetl spectacular explosion of 5 October 2017 2:26
https://youtu.be/1jIuHGktwvk
I hope you don’t think this was a significant eruption.
The graphics on the right show the mean September sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere. The plotted values correspond approximately to the sea ice area that ‘survived’ the summer melt in the respective years
The graph illustrates a decreasing trend in sea ice extent since 1978, with annual variations of occationally more than 1 million square kilometres.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-09_en.png
Very similar data plotted on a graph that shows the annual variation more clearly.
http://tinyurl.com/ydyb8jut
For one year the difference in september sea ice extent was nearly 2 mil sq/km, and in another, 1.5 mil sq/km.
Here’s the N.S.I.D.C update on this year’s September minimum.
http://tinyurl.com/ya2hw9x9
Arctic sea ice extent for September 2017 averaged 4.87 million square kilometers (1.88 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 1979 to 2017 satellite record. This was 1.67 million square kilometers (645,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, and 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) above the record low September set in 2012.
The Antarcic sea ice has had a very unusual year.
Antarctic sea ice may have reached its maximum extent on September 15, at 17.98 million square kilometers (6.94 million square miles), among the earliest maxima on record. If this date and extent hold, it will be the second-lowest daily maximum in the satellite record, 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) above 1986. Antarctic sea ice extent has been at record or near-record lows since September 2016. A series of recent studies have explored causes of the sudden decline in extent that occurred in austral late winter and spring of 2016. Most studies conclude that an unusual period of strong meridional windsconsistent with a very pronounced negative phase of the Southern Annular Mode index, coupled with a significant wave-3 pattern in the atmospheric circulationwere the cause. A wave-3 pattern refers to a tendency for circulation around the southern continent to resemble a three-leaf clover, rather than the more typical near-zonal (along lines of longitude) pattern.
More info at link.
Annual Antarctic sea ice extent (total area of at least 15% ice concentration) for selected years since 1979.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00937/lrwf4qu6qqlb.png
There’s a page full of Arctic sea ice graphs, with links to source here.
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
Includes the one you posted, ren, and most importantly, the link to the source page.
Thank you.
You’re welcome.
Check out global extent for the last year.
https://tinyurl.com/ybrctqmg
Mainly due to the Antarctic anomaly.
Source page:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/global-sea-ice
October 11 is a predicted magnetic storm. Will it be the ignition for the eruption of Mount Agung in Bali?
No. Any eruption on that date will be pure coincidence.
You’re probably right.
https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/live/seismogram/
And now we know.
Barry/Bindidon I am being made more aware of things thank to your contributions.
As I said the fact that we disagree is good. That is how we learn.
Des, David also make good contributions.
The polar vortex pattern is unfavorable for North America.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z50_nh_f00.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_nh_f00.png
This pattern repeats itself.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_toz_nh_f00.png
Ren is begging to be noticed. Care to pay him lip-service?
Ren agrees pretty much with me that is why I did not mention him.
Respect goes to you, for being curious, no matter who inspires that in you.
(The above to Salvatore)
What? Not me? I’m insulted!
That was nuthin’. Wait til I roll up my sleeves.
Thanks. I like our give and take.
Respect for being a gentleman as well.
I wanted to post this again, and add the solar parameters I think are needed. These parameters are not in full force, but close and coming I believe. My other condition was 10+ years of sub solar activity in general which is in place.
POTENTIAL COOLING
What I am trying to say is La Nina does not factor into my cooling ,although it will cause cooling.
Here is what I am looking for to accompany the potential cooling if my thoughts may be correct.
Factors with the cooling if it comes that will make me confident.
1. Very low solar activity
a. solar wind 350 km/sec or lower
b. ap index 5 or lower with random very high spikes
c. cosmic ray counts 6500 units or greater
d. euv light 100 units or lower, uv light off 5% or more
e. solar flux sub 90
f, imf field 4.2 nt or lower
g. solar irradiance off .05% or more
2. Overall lower sea surface temperatures on a global basis
3. A slight increase in albedo
a. due to an increase in global cloud coverage
b. due to an increase in global snow coverage, sea ice
c. due to a N.H more meridional atmospheric circulation
d. due to an increase in major volcanic activity.
How much of an increase in sea ice? Where are you expecting next September’s Arctic sea ice minimum to lie?
As only equatorial VEI5+ volcanoes lead to cooling, and we have had only two of those in the past 50 years, you’re going to have to do better then wish for an increased eruption rate. You’re going to have to wish for about a fivefold increase just to keep the cooling going.
And you ARE wishing for this … you desperately WANT there to be massive cooling. Pride ahead of suffering.
It is all the above volcanic activity just one small part.
The two big ones for cooling as far as I am concerned if I am correct would be an increase in global cloud coverage and a drop in overall sea surface temperatures.
No I am not wishing for suffering or anything like that.
I have just come up with a theory that how cooling could come about if solar activity is very low for a long enough duration of time.
Global warming if it were to get out of hand would also cause suffering.
With only one of those components failing to make the grade your prediction is canceled?
Looks like a lot of ways to back off you prediction. Surely one of those is not going to make the cut.
You are right these parameters are very low and hard to al hit at the same time but I think they hit pretty much during the 2008-2010 period.
Let me say they have to come close to hitting allowing for me to be wrong easier.
As of now the only parameters I have mentioned that are not near my criteria are solar wind/AP index ,and IMF field.
Everything else is pretty much there or close enough.
For barry and other interested persons:
http://m.uploadedit.com/bbtc/1507293557582.txt
a handmade transcription of
WeatherBELL NCEP CFSR / CDASv2 monthly
Surface temperature 2m above ground Jan 1979 – Aug 2017
by Dr Ryan Maue
Obtained from public data visible on: http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_monthly.php
That’s probably the best thing that’s been done here for months. Thanks. Bookmarked.
Barry , it is amazing what he comes up with. Most appreciated.
How do you do it Bindidon! Amazing data. Wow! Thanks!
You’re welcome Salvatore.
As I didn’t find that data within Ryan Maue’s site, I simply moved within the page from year to year and from month to month, and copied the value displayed. Tedious but useful.
Please don’t forget to mention the origin when you use it.
Cool!
binny…”For barry and other interested persons: http://m.uploadedit.com/bbtc/1507293557582.txt”
You have directed us to a NOAA climate forecasting system, the output of a climate model.
In late 1997, when the huge El Nino was under way, it was predicting a global average of 0.071C for December when the actual global average was rocketing to nearly 0.8C.
Throughout 1998, the highest temp it predicted was around 0.267 C. What use is a climate model that could not predict the 1998 EN extreme?
It also missed the 2010 extreme and got 3.4 of the way to the 2016 extreme.
Barry thinks that’s the best thing that has been done here for months.
Don’t worry, I won’t forget to mention the origin when I quote it.
Gordon,
Bindidon put that together because Salvatore prefers this data (and UAH) above all else.
I’m not partial to it, and I don’t think anyone else here is apart from Salvatore.
What Bindidon did was kind and helpful – an aid to the discussion (Sal started it). Giving monthly anomalies that Weatherbell doesn’t provide on a single page in text form, keying in a few hundred monthly anomalies by hand.
It was a collegial gesture for the benefit of others. That’s why I think it was the best thing done around here in months.
You have directed us to a NOAA climate forecasting system, the output of a climate model.
Salvatore directed us there way upthread. He wanted to understand why the Sept anomaly was so different to UAH. We discussed the difference between sat data and a reanalysis product of surface temps.
Here are graphs of UAH minus Weatherbell:
Monthly:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7GOUQ5ZEd4a2RSWWs/view?usp=sharing
5-month moving average:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7GR3lmS0RhWjRuWEU/view?usp=sharing
13-month moving average:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7GelllUV9Xc0J3Y1E/view?usp=sharing
From 1999 to 2008, either Weatherbell is running hot or UAH is running cold. I wonder which. There certainly can be no physical reason for a sudden datum shift from 2007 to 2009.
des…”either Weatherbell is running hot or UAH is running cold”.
Are you serious??? UAH gets there data directly from NOAA satellites and weather bell gets the fudged NOAA data from NOAA. Which one do you think is the more accurate?
Tropical Storm will enter the Gulf of Mexico.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
ren
Did you see what’s going on within 140W-150W–30N-40N ?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/10/06/1800Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-136.23,34.49,786
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/10/06/1800Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-136.23,34.49,786
Thx ren!
Why weather forecasts do not always come true?
The reason is the variability of solar activity.
About this time last year, global sea ice extent started falling to record lows. Looking now at the much warmer than usual air mass above the Arctic Ocean, I think the same thing is about to happen again.
I’m going to keep pointing this out:
Here is a peak at the air 2 meters above the Arctic Ocean. It looked like this EVERY DAY from September, 2016 – March 2017
Starting a few weeks ago, as if right on que, the warm anomaly is back.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom
Sir Isaac
Thanks for the link, it does exactly what I all the time hope Roy Spencer would one day manage to provide us with, showing his monthly UAH 2.5 deg grid anomalies in the same manner over the entire satellite era.
Un de ses etudiants aimerait certainement se mettre quelque chose de semblable sous la dent, n’est-ce pas?
Bindidon
Yes. I wish Roy would show that.
binny…”I all the time hope Roy Spencer would one day manage to provide us with, showing his monthly UAH 2.5 deg grid anomalies in the same manner over the entire satellite era”.
Do you think satellites scan in 2.5 degree grids? Only used car salesmen like NOAA use such grids because they don’t have the data to show the areas in real time.
They synthesize most of it!!! When are you going to get that?
snape…”Here is a peak at the air 2 meters above the Arctic Ocean. It looked like this EVERY DAY from September, 2016 March 2017…”
It’s a climate model for cripes sake. There’s no one there measuring it.
Why don’t you read the accounts of people who have been to the North Pole, like Ranulph Fiennes and Pat Farmer? Farmer was there later in the year than Fiennes, around March, and he visited the Russian weather station located near the Pole. They reported ice ten feet thick at the Pole. Do you think 10 feet of ice forms with mild temperatures?
You alarmists are getting sillier every day.
Gordon
In winter, If it’s 40 F above average over the Arctic Ocean, it’s still really cold. Duh.
I can’t use a GFS model to tell what the weather is like in Vancouver, BC.?
Satellite Products
The ice surface temperature strongly affects heat exchange between the surface and the atmosphere and the rate of ice growth. In order to perform proper forecasting of weather and sea-ice conditions, it is essential to obtain accurate surface temperatures.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice_temp/index.uk.php
LOL.
Poor Gordon will only believe observations taken by Ranulph Fiennes and Pat Farmer!
Somebody explain to him what an anomaly is.
drno…”Poor Gordon will only believe observations taken by Ranulph Fiennes and Pat Farmer!”
They were there!!! They both walked from the mainland to the NP and the reverse, in the case of Farmer.
How many of the limp wristed modelers get up there to validate their pseudo-scienctific models?
snape…”About this time last year, global sea ice extent started falling to record lows”.
What planet were you on? In January 2017, there was ten feet of ice at the North Pole. It extended from near the Siberian coast to the north of Canada. That’s on turbulent, salty, sea water that takes much lower temps to freeze. You would need sustained temperatures below -40 C to bring that about.
Enough of the Arctic sea ice melting hoax. It is a record low for the one month of the year that represents the Arctic summer.
Gordon, he is living on earth. Where are you living?
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/global-sea-ice
Young snake is trying out his latest humor, and Tim jumps in to support the pseudoscience.
This from an article written in 1922:
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the easter Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto un-heard-of high temperatures in that part of the earths surface.
There were few seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surprise the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3C; this year recorded temperatures up to 15C, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.
“The Changing Arctic”
https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
g*e*r*a*n
Do you think the source I showed, Climatereanalyzer, is fake news, while a report from 1922 must be accurate?
I am inclined to believe both.
Isaac is talking about global sea ice. And he has actual data to back him up.
The fact is, global sea ice has been at or near record lows for a year. This is mainly due to anomalous weather in the Antarctic.
Barry
For me, it’s rather inevitable that Arctic sea ice extent will continue to trend downwards. What has me more interested, is why the temperature over the Arctic Ocean has been so consistently abnormal? 7 months straight last fall/winter (I checked almost every day), but everywhere else on the planet seemed to have the normal ups and downs. Now it appears to be happening again.
barry, check your (very brief) “actual data” for Arctic temps of 15C.
“Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3C; this year recorded temperatures up to 15C, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.”
Don’t you just love pseudoscience?
I don’t, but I want to thank you for providing an example.
The funny part is CO2 can NOT heat the planet.
Warmists can not get that in their head. They grasp at data-set after data-set, graph after graph, hoping for some evidence to prove their “belief system”.
It’s called pseudoscience, and it’s hilarious to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
C02 heats the earth only in a figurative sense. This has been explained to you over and over, but you’re forever pretending otherwise. It’s like criticizing someone every time they use the word “sunrise”. Pathetic
snake expounds: “C02 heats the earth only in a figurative sense.”
Now that is funny, snake. That’s a new one. Original comedic pseudoscience–I love it.
snape…”C02 heats the earth only in a figurative sense. This has been explained to you over and over, but youre forever pretending otherwise. Its like criticizing someone every time they use the word sunrise”.
You see, snape, in science we like to be precise. CO2 is either warming the atmosphere or it’s not. Observation is a hallmark of science and a good observer will note that the sun is not rising.
Some of us scientific types take exception to climate alarmists spreading sheer figurative nonsense to convince the general public we have a problem when in fact we do not. The late Stephen Schneider, a climate modeler, once queried whether a scientist should lie to get what they consider an important point across to the public. He seemed to think that was OK, I don’t.
There’s a rumour in the hallowed halls of engineering that an engineer was once observing Lady Godiva riding naked through Coventry. He was the only one to apparently observe that she was riding a horse.
Gordon
According to GFS, Vancouver airport was 12 C at 11:00 am.
Is this a hoax?
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/
Gordon
According to GFS:
The atmosphere at 2 meters above most of the Arctic Ocean will hover around – 10 C. for the next several days. You think this is incorrect? What does Pat Farmer say?
I heard that Pat Farmer is packing his long Johns and will be heading to the Arctic to check it out. He has booked his train ticket so we will know the answer in about a month.
snape…”The atmosphere at 2 meters above most of the Arctic Ocean will hover around 10 C. for the next several days”.
Let’s see where it’s at in December, January, and February and see how thick the ice is at the NP.
It’s not unusual for temps at the NP to rise to nearly 0C mid-winter, Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is famous for its chinooks. I was there one day when temperatures on one side of a main N/S highway were -20C and on the other side it was about +5C.
Weather has a way of quickly moving air around, even in a frozen environment.
Let’s just say I would not want to try surviving at the NP in an Arctic winter. If the cold don’t snuff you out the polar bears will. We have alarmists whining about polar bears dying off. Let them, for all I care, they are the most treacherous of animals, killing for the sheer joy of it.
Have you warned Pat Farmer?
Tell him to pack his blunderbuss.
(although they may not let him carry that on board the train)
Reports from an Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft
indicate that maximum sustained winds are near 50 mph (85 km/h)
with higher gusts. Strengthening is forecast during the next couple
of days, and Nate is expected to become a hurricane by the time it
reaches the northern Gulf of Mexico.
Tropical-storm-force winds extend outward up to 115 miles (185 km)
mainly to the east of the center. NOAA buoy 42056, located to the
north of the center, recently reported a 1-minute average wind of
38 mph (61 km/h) and a wind gust of 49 mph (79 km/h).
The minimum central pressure recently reported by the Hurricane
Hunter is 996 mb (29.42 inches).
New Orleans must be quickly ready for a hurricane. The tropical storm will be in the north of the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow.
Often enough during the 7-8 last years I read in comments (especially at WUWT) that anomalies are
useless;
a manipulation invented by alarmists and other warmunistas;
much less informative than absolute values.
Sometimes I tried to convince (with the success everybody can imagine) by publishing comments with two graphs, one with absolute values, one with anomalies what a strange word indeed, but who finds a better shortcut for time series deltas with annual cycle removal ?
Is it really a matter of taste to decide which of the two graphs below
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507315724836/001.jpg
or
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507315978779/001.jpg
is more useful?
And today I discovered by accident these two SST pictures at WeatherBELL, giving a beautiful comparison of the same vein:
http://models.weatherbell.com/sst/globe_cdas1.png
vs.
http://models.weatherbell.com/sst/globe_cdas1_anom.png
The former tells you what everybody knows, namely that it is warmer in the Tropics, and cooler at the Poles.
The latter tells you what not everybody imagines, namely where it is warmer / cooler than the average over a reference period.
My humble guess: those who prefer absolute values never need to work with them.
I had to split the comment (bypassing the link maximum).
The same as described above applies to a choice between
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507316296917/001.jpg
and
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507316367589/001.jpg
Sea ice extent sources used to generate the Excel graphs:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
Bin
You’re a wizard with data!
Yes, very informative.
Thanks / merci / danke…
Bindidon if the baseline for the satellite data was from 1960- 1990 how much above average would global temperatures be for this year?
Do you have that info available? Thanks.
Given that the satellite data starts in 1979, the only way to figure that out is to use land data. Is that what you’re looking for?
I wanted to see how high . Example I would think if 1960-1990 data were use +.54c based on the current baseline would have been over +.70c
Sorry Salvatore, but the question unfortunately makes few sense, as
– you need the data during that period to calculate the baseline out of it (it is the mean e.g. for each of 12 twelve months);
but
– satellite data begins with 1978/1979.
That’s would have been interesting.
Bindidon if the baseline for the satellite data was from 1960- 1990 how much above average would global temperatures be for this year?
With a lower baseline anomalies would be higher. The global temperature would be exactly the same.
I know barry. But I prefer to stay on known, reliable matters.
Exactly ,I would like to know how high the anomalies would be now if the baseline from 1960-1990 was used.
salvatore…”Exactly ,I would like to know how high the anomalies would be now if the baseline from 1960-1990 was used”.
The question arises as to why the alarmists at NOAA, GISS, and Had.crut are using such a short baseline to cover the entire historical record, which they have modified retroactively? The inclusion of the 1960s and into the 70s, which were considered colder times exaggerates current warming.
The UAH baseline covers almost its entire record. What happens if we adjust the anomalies to the entire historical record from around 1850 onward?
Don’t be so lazy. Do it yourself.
It is not that difficult to download the data and perform the calculations. I could do it in under 5 minutes.
I bet you can’t.
You are happy to sit back and throw rocks at all the work others do.
Now’s your chance to back up your words with actions.
How high are the anomalies based on 1960-1990 baseline?
That would mean more to see where we are at.
One more time, Salvatore: to compute anomalies with respect to a baseline, e.g. 1961-1990, you must
– (1) build, for each of the twelve months, the average of the absolute values measured in each corresponding month of the reference period;
– (2) subtract, from each absolute month value in the whole record, the average computed in step (1) for the corresponding month.
But as barry proposed, we could use the JMA surface record, which has the most similarity to UAH, and, in order to make it as simple as possible, compute in it the offset between the 1981-2010 and 1961-1990 baselines, and shift all UAH anonalies up by this offset.
The offset value is 0.245.
Of course, you have to do the job on a day basis for a daily oriented dataset, on a year basis for a yearly oriented one, etc etc.
That can become quite complex if in addition you have a grid of e.g. 144 x 72 cells with 13 atmospheric pressure levels for each: all must have their own baseline value.
Yes, satellite data only begin in Nov/Dec 1978. There is no data to construct a baseline starting earlier than that.
binny…”Is it really a matter of taste to decide which of the two graphs below”
Explain why the Antarctic sea ice is increasing in link two while the Arctic sea ice is decreasing? Does CO2 favour the Arctic or maybe global warming rises to the top???
Also you might explain that the data applies to one or two months in and around the Arctic summer. The rest of the year, both areas as frozen solid.
Now, the ice grows rapidly in the Laptev Sea. The Arctic Ocean will be divided into two parts.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00938/p46bc9nzq14a.png
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00938/643b0lgtlro2.png
g*e*r*a*n on October 6, 2017 at 2:57 PM
Thanks for the interesting reference, g*e*r*a*n, but I prefer to rely on nake numbers concerning the actual situation.
That the Arctic has been warmer then today in the 1930’s and even a bit more warm in the 1880’s, is a known fact.
*
Here is a graph containing the daily plots, for the period: Jan 1, 2015 till Oct 5, 2017, of the following data sets
– Arctic sea ice extent;
– Antarctic sea ice extent;
– their sum.
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507324542459/001.jpg
Linear estimates for that period, im Mkm2 / decade:
– Arctic: -10.5 +- 1.3 (decrease)
– Antarctic: +5.35 +- 2.2 (increase)
– Sum: -5.2 +- 1.1 (decrease)
Sea ice extent sources:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
Is that in your opinion pseudoscience too, g*e*r*a*n?
Let me know…
Note that these extreme increases / decreases are bound to a very short period.
The sea ice extent estimates for Jan 1979- Apr 2017 in Mkm2 / decade are
– Arctic: -0.55 +- 0.02
– Antarctic: + 0.20 +- 0.02
That is what we have to look at!
Gordon
Nobody is claiming the North Pole is ice free. Far from it: According to Wikipedia:
“Earth’s North Pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that do not melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 34 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about 1 meter thick.”
“…but I prefer to rely on nake numbers concerning the actual situation.”
Is “nake” supposed to be “naked” or “fake”?
☺
You may well have known that the Arctic has been much warmer than this year. But, you did not point it out, as I did. You might ask yourself “Why”?
“Is that in your opinion pseudoscience too”
I’m ALWAYS wary of data from “institutionalized science”, until the “swamps” get drained. But, even if the Arctic readings are exactly correct, it means nothing as far as AGW, as you have now agreed.
How can I agree upon things I do not know enough about?
That would be – in either direction – belief instead of understanding.
We all here do, in the sum, not at all know enough to state ‘It is AGW’ or ‘It is not AGW’, g*e*r*a*n.
Sorry Bin, my wording was not clear. I just meant to imply that you agreed that low sea ice does not mean anything, if historical records are considered.
But, some of us DO know enough to state “It is not AGW”.
Exactly g*e*r*a*n.
The problem with you is that you think anybody stating ‘It is AGW’ is automatically incompetent.
That you should avoid, quite a I on my side carefully avoid to think the inverse.
I know, you will reply something I don’t need, but you can’t stop by your own.
‘Das ist der unbeherrschte Drang, das letzte Wort zu haben’.
g*e*r*a*n
Gordon still thinks low sea ice is a hoax. Maybe you could convince him otherwise?
He won’t listen to reason, but maybe he would listen to another fool.
Robertson on October 6, 2017 at 12:38 PM
Robertson troll, you get day after day a bit more dumb.
All you are able to do is to lie about people or to discredit people. You are unable to discuss even simple matters.
How long will you need to understand that surface temperatures do not match satellite temperatures and vice-versa, especially during big El Nino events?
How long?
Here is a plot comparing WeatherBELL, UAH6.0 and JMA, the ‘coolest’ surface record:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/15073318916/001.jpg
WeatherBELL has his data and algorithms, JMA has his data and algorithms.
Their time series differ here and there, but their linear estimates are identical. Their differences with UAH are in average quite similar.
*
How can such a thoroughly irrelevant, incompetent loudmouth like you doubt about the accuracy of other peoples work?
Who are you in comparison with a Dr Ryan Maue? What do you represent in comparison with him? A handful of peanuts. Do you think such a person would ever rely on NOAA’s work if he did not consider it trustworthy?
Think instead of writing, Robertson, it might be an experience for you, with as possible result a bit more respect for the work of others.
Bin, just above, you indicated your “moral code” prevented you from calling people “incompetent”.
Then, 20 minutes later, you called Gordon “incompetent”.
In the future, maybe you should wait more than 20 minutes before you violate your own “code of conduct”.
As always, glad to help.
No g*e*r*a*n … you are wrong here.
‘Just above’ as you wrote, I said that I would carefully avoid to pretend anybody being incompetent when s/he says: ‘IT’s not AGW’ (and conversely, I carefully avoid to pretend anybody being incompetent when s/he says: ‘IT’s AGW’).
Because whichever the arguments these persons would present, I am not scientifically qualified to determine which of these are right.
What concerns your troll naming me an idiot, he has shown often enough his incompetence. The most recent event is the nonsense he wrote about the Arctic warming he considers inexistent just because somewhere ice is x meters thick.
No 12 years old person would do that today.
And there are so many other examples, g*e*r*a*n, e.g. his nonsense discussion about Rudolf Clausius, about GHCN stations, etc.
It’s now 3:00 AM here, and I stop this boring comment.
Good night.
binny…”What concerns your troll naming me an idiot, he has shown often enough his incompetence. The most recent event is the nonsense he wrote about the Arctic warming he considers inexistent just because somewhere ice is x meters thick”.
I call myself an idiot when I make egregious errors. That’s when I’m being nice to myself. I think all humans are idiots at one time or another.
That’s why I call you an idiot. You have ten metres of ice at the North Pole in January and you don’t understand why.
There is no sun!!! Do you seriously think any amount of CO2 in the Arctic atmosphere will warm it with no or little Sun for several months? The lack of solar energy allows very cold air from the upper atmosphere to descend on the Arctic.
If there is 5C warming in certain spots of the Arctic, which move around monthly, and there is no sun to warm the place, how can you call that warming? It warms from -50C to -45C due to unknown causes. It’s still a frozen wasteland.
The idiots who claim Arctic ice is melting are referring to one month that is the Arctic summer. There is no one up there in winter measuring ice extent and no one talks about the Arctic ice cover, which covers the Arctic ocean at times, from Siberia to the Canadian shores with 10 metres of ice.
It has to be damned cold to cover a turbulent ocean of salt water with 10 metres of ice.
People have walked across the ice in winter to the North Pole.
Why do you fall for this alarmist bs. I am sure you are an intelligent guy, why do you talk like an idiot at times? Get over this fetish you have with authority and start asking hard questions.
binny….”Because whichever the arguments these persons would present, I am not scientifically qualified to determine which of these are right.
What concerns your troll naming me an idiot, he has shown often enough his incompetence”.
How would you know I am scientifically incompetent if you admit you are not scientifically qualified? Logic like that ‘might’ get you a degree in anthropology but not in physics or engineering.
You need to prove I am wrong using scientific reasoning and proof, not base you opinion on other alarmists on this blog.
When it comes to Clausius, he stated clearly that heat cannot be transferred of it own from a colder body to a warmer body. He went deeply into that explanation and while explaining compensation he inadvertently claimed that a colder and a warmer body can exchange heat.
You jumped to a conclusion that Clausius had claimed a colder body can warm a warmer body but he was talking in the context of compensation. In his demonstrations, he used heat reservoirs to ensure that.
If a colder body is to exchange heat with a warmer body, the colder body must be compensated immediately for it’s heat loss. That cannot take place in our atmosphere.
A colder body can transfer heat to a warmer body, we all know a refrigerator or air conditioner do that, however, there are certain requirements that must be in place in order for that to happen. With an air conditioner you need a compressor driven by external power, a special gas (re.frig.erant), a condenser, and an evapourator.
The point is, under normal conditions, as in our atmosphere, heat cannot be transferred from a colder gas to a warmer gas, or a warmer surface. That pretty well rules out the GHE and AGW.
g*r…”Then, 20 minutes later, you called Gordon incompetent”.
I would have no argument with binny on that, I generally regard myself as incompetent, even an idiot. ☺
I find it tough to endure this life without seeing the humourous side of things or engaging in self-deprecation. Me calling binny an idiot is like the stove calling the kettle black.
binny…”How long will you need to understand that surface temperatures do not match satellite temperatures and vice-versa, especially during big El Nino events? ”
All you need to do is compare ‘actual’ trend lines, not the number crunched trend based on plugging numbers into a calculator. The UAH trend begins in a region of negative anomalies, crosses the baseline, which is the global average from 1980 – 2010, rises a smidgeon, then flattens out till 2015. The IPCC has corroborated the flat trend from 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus.
The surface trend is a sheer positive trend from 1980 onward and it is significantly higher than the UAH trend.
The offset value is 0.245.
Makes sense Bindidon. Helps give more perspective on what has happened to the climate.
Dear Salvatore, if Bindidons message had no ‘Reply’ link, please find the nearest one above it.
He doesn’t understand this concept. I’ve been trying to teach him this basic etiquette for a few months now.
That’s a pity, the payload here is confusing enough without random message mixing.
Meaning if the climate cools by some .24c from here it would still need to cool another .24c or so to get back to 1960-1990 levels.
Do you agree?
Roughly that
How much would you be willing to bet on AGW? 5$, 10$, your house?
If the answer is your house? I doubt it.
What about your car? Do you still drive it? I don’t care if it is electric, which is probably isn’t. Do you order things from the internet? Do you have solar panels? What is your MPG? Do you eat meat? Do you use you air conditioning? What about your heater?
You say you know AGW is happening. Your actions speak otherwise.
I’ve offered many bets on AGW. No one has ever taken me up.
Shall I propose a bet? What would your stake be?
So what would we need to observe in order to find out if “AGW” is happening or not, barry?
That’s why I am a skeptic I do not know. I never said I know AGW doesn’t exist, I am skeptical it does exist. That’s why I wont give up my car. Do you drive a car?
I don’t own a car, but that is more to do with having little money than some moral choice.
So what would we need to observe in order to find out if AGW is happening or not, barry?
I usually make an offer on a bet when a ‘skeptic’ makes some kind of predictive claim – usually about imminent cooling, or the return of the pause.
So if you and I were to make a bet, I would be asking you if there was any outcome that would cause you to “believe” in AGW, or some set of conditions that “disprove” your own view of what causes/is causing climate change.
Salvatore has risked a prediction for next year. I don’t think it’s going to “prove or disprove” AGW, but he’s committed to something based on how he views the climate system.
The AGW view is pretty straightforward. As long as anthro emissions of CO2 continue unchecked, the global surface will continue to warm over the long term.
-So if you and I were to make a bet, I would be asking you if there was any outcome that would cause you to believe in AGW, or some set of conditions that disprove your own view of what causes/is causing climate change.
Salvatore has risked a prediction for next year. I dont think its going to prove or disprove AGW, but hes committed to something based on how he views the climate system.-
I can’t think of anything that would make me believe in AGW.
But there other option of a set of conditions which would disprove my view.
Well, my view is that Earth was never a snowball:
“The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that Earth’s surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago).” -wiki
Related to this is that if put a lot water at Mars equator, it would increase the average temperature of Mars.
But will make it more stark, if put a lot of -60 C snow/ice
at the Mars equatorial region it will cause Mars become warmer.
Of course presently the equatorial region is warmer than -60 C. So the immediate effect would be to make Mars have lower average temperature.
I guess more people might agree that instead if you put enough -60 C snow on lunar equatorial region, that would cause the Moon be warmer.
Of course both would be examples of AGW effects.
And visual effect from Earth of snow on the equatorial of the Moon would be surprising.
Btw would you think that such a thing could cause warming effect upon Earth?
It’s cold making something warmer, argument, isn’t it?
I think it’s better than ice cooking a turkey.
barry says, October 7, 2017 at 3:19 PM:
So if you and I were to make a bet, I would be asking you if there was any outcome that would cause you to believe in AGW, or some set of conditions that disprove your own view of what causes/is causing climate change.
Yes, and then I might ask you:
Is there any outcome that will cause you to no longer believe in AGW, that an increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the climate to warm?
Exactly. Which is why, being wedded to this particular conviction, you will end up believing – whether you’re conscious about it or not – that observing global temps increasing over time somehow itself constitutes evidence that your idea of what’s CAUSING that rise is correct.
Exactly. Which is why, being wedded to this particular conviction, you will end up believing whether youre conscious about it or not that observing global temps increasing over time somehow itself constitutes evidence that your idea of whats CAUSING that rise is correct.
Yep, it does constitute….
EVIDENCE
…. that increasing conc of CO2 in atmos causes surface to warm.
But that is not why I hold the opinion that it does.
What would be the conditions under which you would accept a bet that AGW is real? As in, something observable in the future.
I don’t bet on AGW, Duncanbelem.
No car, using as less CO2 as possible. Why to use it if I can avoid doing??
And yes, I ‘order things from the internet’, though I know that Amazon, Facebook etc etc have giant server farms partly driven by coal plants!
I don’t say I ‘know AGW is happening’.
I only say that not all IR reemitted by Earth in response to solar SW passing thru the atmosphere is evacuated out to space.
That’s all I know and thus all I say. That’s enough, too.
The rest I leave to people knowing more than I.
More food for thought. Don’t solar panels absorb solar radiation, which is then turned into energy, and eventually turns into heat? So couldn’t solar panels heat the earth if there enough of them? How does that compare to man made CO2?
Fossil fuel energy sytems turn cold fossil fuels into energy, too. Can you think of a way of comparing?
Solar panels convert about 20% of sunlight into electrical power. Or said to to be about 20% efficient.
A Solar thermal collector in contrast of about 60%. Or per square meter a solar thermal collector captures about 3 times the amount of energy as solar panels.
And basically oceans are Nature’s solar thermal collectors.
Solar panels aren’t a viable way to make electricity and a large amount of solar panels that exist are subsidized.
If there were viable there would a lot of solar panels being used to make electricity, but solar panels only generate less than 1% of electrical power which needed.
With say a coal electrical power plant they tend to more 50% efficient, which means of total heat generated more than 1/2 of the heat is converted to electrical power. Or about 1/2 of the heat energy is “wasted” but if purpose is to make heat to warm the world, it’s not “wasted”. Or it’s “100% efficient” in terms of warming the world.
In terms of CO2 heating the world, no one knows how much CO2 warms the world, because the increased levels of CO2 has not had measurable warming effect. But some people think a doubling of CO2 would cause about 1 to 5 C of warming. Increase the average temperature of Earth by 1 to 5 C.
Climate models which assumed a doubling of CO2 could cause 1 to 5 C increase in global temperature, have incorrectly predicted future warming. And therefore many assume that CO2 must cause less warming then they thought.
But were a doubling of Co2 to cause 1 C increase in global average temperature, this would case more warming than all chemical combustion, whether it’s coal, oil, gas, or forest fires.
Ah, but there is a thing I forget to mention, making solar panels costs a lot of energy- they require more viable energy to be used to make them. And since China makes most of the solar panels and China burns coal to make over 80% of their electrical power. I would say the heat added by making them is more the the heat from their use.
Duncanbelem on October 6, 2017 at 10:52 PM
Dont solar panels absorb solar radiation, which is then turned into energy, and eventually turns into heat?
Hmmmh.
1. Either you look at solar panels built over ordinary soil or upon roofs, and there you see that the panels won’t absorb much more than would have had the stuff below in their absence.
Or you look at the giant solar farms actually built everywhere in desertic areas, and there indeed you see an increase of absorp-tion and a decrease of albedo because desert sand efficiently reflects sun light.
2. But… what about considering, as barry slightly suggested, the heat generated by traditional plants?
For each GWh you produce in a coal/gas driven or a nuclear plant, you have 3.3 GWh thermic energy dissipated into the environment (either into rivers, or into the atmosphere).
3. Moreover, when comparing such things, you can’t reduce the comparison to the generation point.
You have to consider, like for cost calculation or CO2 emissions, the heat produced during the entire process
– from the plant’s construction till its dismantling;
– during the plant’s existence of course, and, last not least,
– from the extraction and processing of the resources needed to drive the plant till their disposal after energy production.
Having that all, you then may compare.
Good points, How do we know the Warming we are experiencing is CO2 and not power generation?
Duncanbelem
The energy produced by combustion and solar is transitory. CO2 accumulates.
snape…”The energy produced by combustion and solar is transitory. CO2 accumulates”.
Not exactly true. Besides, it’s accumulation over the past couple of hundred years only amounts to 0.04% of the atmosphere. Does that seriously scare you?
— Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 7, 2017 at 9:17 AM
Duncanbelem
The energy produced by combustion and solar is transitory. CO2 accumulates.–
The heat from solar is not transitory unless you consider thousands of years transitory. And the presence of CO2 would transitory also in such timescales. One could argue that the heated ocean is far less transitory than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but I rather go on to another topic.
The whole idea of greenhouse effect is roughly to make heating effects last longer. Or no one argues that greenhouse gas will keep Earth warm if the sun were to disappear.
So any heating effect “by combustion and solar” would “last longer” due to the entire greenhouse effect rather than just the amount increase in ppm of of CO2.
But heat from combustion like “heating” Co2 concentration should little effect related to warming the Earth’s ocean and ocean basically is Earth’s average temperature.
But if look at urban area which has concentration generated heat from combustion or other heat generation and one higher CO2 level in urban area. These effects are dwarfed by Urban Heat Island effect. Or UHI effect are measurable and the other effects are insignificant or difficult to measure or discern.
–But if look at urban area which has concentration generated heat from combustion or other heat generation and one higher CO2 level in urban area. These effects are dwarfed by Urban Heat Island effect. Or UHI effect are measurable and the other effects are insignificant or difficult to measure or discern.–
Though I wouldn’t argue that water vapor isn’t a significant part of the UHI effect, not would say it’s latent heat of water vapor rather than the radiant properties of H20.
And of course more humidity makes a city feel warmer, and for a human body which controls it’s temperature by evaporation it’s more than just “a feeling” [it causes heat exhaustion and can lead to death or severe medical problems].
“…not would say its latent heat of water vapor,,”
Should be: “…though I would say, its the latent heat of water vapor,”
GR – why don’t YOU explain why you believe that 0.04% can be significant, WITHOUT using an argument by disbelief.
Edit: CAN’T
Duncanbelem on October 7, 2017 at 8:46 AM
First I searched in Wiki for ‘World energy consumption’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Energy_supply.2C_consumption_and_electricity
As you see, electricity consumption (and therefore production) is a small part of the whole (22%).
Then I googled for ‘energy needed to warm earth by 1 C’, and found immediately some info in ‘stackexchange’:
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjzjMaC6N7WAhWsD8AKHdBgDwEQFgg6MAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fphysics.stackexchange.com%2Fquestions%2F176683%2Fat-what-energy-consumption-would-we-get-a-1-degree-rise-in-the-earths-temperatu&usg=AOvVaw04NsmI4h8ZVRrl8-UkSDa5
The last comments by pentane and Floris are interesting.
Please do the rest, Duncan, I lack the time to do!
But what about the feedback effect. Alot More Co2 is produced naturally than by humans, and a lot more water vapor. As the earth heats more CO2 comes out of the ground, and more water vapor out of the oceans.
Waste heat is trivial in comparison to accumulation of energy due to persistent greenhouse gases: https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm
Thanks for the hint, even if SkS by no means belongs to my favourite sites…
The second comment on the SkS page was very interesting however:
do.ug_bostrom at 17:02 PM on 26 July, 2010
Somebody’s crunched numbers. Small globally, noticeable regionally:
Nearly all energy used for human purposes is dissipated as heat within Earth’s landatmosphere system. Thermal energy released from non-renewable sources is therefore a climate forcing term. Averaged globally, this forcing is only +0.028 W m−2, but over the continental United States and western Europe, it is +0.39 and +0.68 W m−2, respectively.
…
Flanner, M. G. (2009), Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02801, doi:10.1029/2008GL036465.
Incredible but… true.
tom…”Waste heat is trivial in comparison to accumulation of energy due to persistent greenhouse gases:”
You’re referencing a site, skepticalscience, run by an undergrad who works as a cartoonist. He used to admit that in the early days of his site but has recently omitted such information.
For dumb trolls unable to read:
Flanner, M. G. (2009), Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02801, doi:10.1029/2008GL036465.
Edit: CAN’T
RayP dealt with this issue many years ago
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
Short answer is no.
If the jet stream in the west of the US will press further south (solar activity is low), the storm could hit in Houston.
RAINFALL: Nate is expected to produce the following rain
accumulations through Monday:
Eastern Yucatan and western Cuba: 2 to 4 inches, max 6 inches.
Eastern Belize and the Cayman Islands: 1 to 3 inches.
East of the Mississippi River from the central Gulf Coast into the
Deep South, eastern Tennessee Valley, and southern Appalachians:
3 to 6 inches, max 10 inches.
Across the lower Ohio Valley into the central Appalachians:
2 to 4 inches, max 6 inches.
Heavy rain began in Louisiana.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/new-orleans-la/70112/weather-radar/348585
I think I’ve just read the most elegant proof that a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer (with input to the system from the sun).
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
The key is in figure four. In a universe where a cooler body cannot cause a warmer body to become warmer, the resulting numbers don’t reach equilibrium with the input.
Check it out.
Old Bunny is a fine guy when the goal is to put a maximum of contents into a minimum of wording.
binny..”Old Bunny is a fine guy when the goal is to put a maximum of contents into a minimum of wording”.
Even if the wording is utter rubbish.
How Gordon?
“I think Ive just read the most elegant proof that a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer”
Sorry barry, it’s more like an “elegant spoof”!
If you’ve ever studied the concept of “analytical proof”, then see if you can find the flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_proof
(I’ll return later today to explain, if you get stuck.)
Yes g*e*r*a*n!
Don’t forget to do that… and be sure I’ll send an email to Nick Stokes concerning Eli’s post and your answer to it.
Nick has a PhD in math and is absolutely incorruptibe, and I’m therefore sure he will be a good examinator.
I strongly recommend you not to divert and/or confuse, and to come back with unbeatable arguments.
I didn’t mean to exclude you, Bin. You’re certainly welcome to try to find the flaw also.
This is a valuable learning opportunity to those that wish to learn.
binny…”Nick has a PhD in math and is absolutely incorruptibe…”
You think the sheisters at NOAA are incorruptible. What would a pure mathematician know about thermodynamics? Even Ph.Ds in physics often get it wrong.
One of the great dangers in math is manipulating an equation and claiming it as proof. If you manipulate an equation using time so that time is on the LHS, you can claim all sorts of weird and wonderful things, like time dilation or space-time warping.
Problem is, time has no physical existence. Humans created time by inventing a machine, a clock, and measuring the interval of one rotation of the Earth. Subdividing that interval produced the second, the basis of the MKS (metres, kilograms, second) system of measurement.
The first term, metres, is also a human invention. It is defined as a fraction of the distance between the Equator and the North Pole. So here we have an illusion called space-time that can bend, and it’s based on the human imagination.
So, is catastrophic global warming.
Especially funny is Bin’s worship of Nick. Nick, to Bin, is incorruptible! Nick is a demigod. Nick can do no wrong.
Here is a take down of the demigod:
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/nick-stokes-busted-part-5/
You all can stop your ridiculous nonsense.
1. I’m still waiting for g*e*r*a*n’s confirmation of what he pretends concerning Eli Rabett’s post:
Ill return later today to explain, if you get stuck.
After hours of waiting: nothing!
2. And if any of you deplorable deniers thinks he could impress me with this woeful, laughable Tony Heller aua Goddard, he is plain wrong.
What this man presents is simple garbage.
3. Hold on people. You Roberson and g*e*r*a*n: what are you in comparison with a Nick Stokes, a Ryan Maue, a Roy Spencer?
Less than peanuts.
Bin, see if you can find my response.
Hint: I mentioned you and barry.
(Let me know if you need more clues.)
Thanks to Barry for pointing Eli here.
There is an important condition that everybunny misses. If you just have a warm body sitting in space, it will cool by radiation.
If you have a warm body and a colder one near it, it will cool a little bit slower because of interchange of radiative energy btw the two but the net interchange of heat will be from the warmer to the cooler. But in both case the body(s) will cool down to the background temperature of the universe, like a few C
However, and here is what folk miss, if you have a heat source, like the sun, heating the warm body at a constant rate while it cools by radiation, the warm body will become hotter if there is a colder body near it because of the interchange of radiative energy between them.
On the Moon, the sun roughly takes the same path.
So you could build a structure with flat roof and slot in the roof that allows sunlight to pass thru it hit the floor.
So have non insulated roof which heated by the sun. No walls,
and beam of sunlight passing through the slot in roof and hitting floor/ground. Would the floor in sunlight get hotter
because it has a hot roof above it.
Or hotter than without the roof?
I did not know that the moon heats the earth. It is the cooler body near the hotter body.
Thanks Barry, interesting discussion. I think the key here is, “with input to the system from the sun”. Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?
It is my understanding that if you turn the sun (in this example) off, the cooler object would act as a heat sink and cool off the warmer object (not make it warmer). If there were a cooler object, say hypothetically one side had an atmosphere (the green cooler object) and the other side did not (Space, even cooler), then the side facing Space directly would cool even faster, but there would not be an increase in temperature.
To repeat, my question: Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?
Thanks again.
bilybob: Without the “outside” original source of energy, the first object will cool. Adding a cooler object in between the first object and an even colder space will slow down that cooling of the first object. See the Rabbett’s excellent illustration. In that illustration, after the blue plate has reached equilibrium, imagine removing the Sun. Then compare the rate of cooling of the blue plate by itself, to its cooling with the green plate added. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Thanks Tom, as I thought, a cool object can not raise the temperature of a hotter object unless an outside energy source is provided. It could, however, slow the rate of cooling.
bilybob
An outside energy source is not required. If the blue plate had an internal energy source instead, same thing happens. That’s why we wear a coat on a cold day.
Thanks to both you, I just wanted to be sure that an energy source is needed.
Suppose the Sun was absent, and the blue plate had its own internal energy source (like our bodies do). Then the green plate would radiate energy back to the blue plate. That green-plate energy is just a regular source of energy as far as the blue plate is concerned; the blue plate does not know or care how the green plate got its energy, and does not even know or care that the green plate exists. The blue plate knows only that it’s now getting energy from outside itself.
Suppose the blue plate’s internal energy source is constant. Suppose that before the green plate was added, the blue plate had reached equilibrium, which means its energy radiated out equaled its energy from its internal source; its net energy content was stable, so its temperature was constant.
Adding the green plate in the first moment does nothing, because the green plate has zero energy so radiates nothing back to the blue plate. But energy from the blue plate is absorbed by the green plate, and as soon as the green plate’s energy rises above zero, the green plate starts radiating energy. Half of its radiated energy goes back to the blue plate, which absorbs it.
In the first moment that the blue plate absorbs that first energy from the green plate, the blue plate gets warmer because still it is radiating energy at its previous rate; its energy input has increased without an corresponding energy output increase. The green plate has increased the temperature of the blue plate, despite the green plate being cooler than the blue plate.
A moment later, the blue plate starts radiating more energy as a result of its new, higher, energy content (temperature). But its increased radiation is less than its increased energy input. So it reaches a new equilibrium, but at a higher temperature. The blue plate’s equilibrium temperature is higher than it was without the green plate.
bilybob: The insulating object (the green plate in the Rabbett’s illustration) absorbs energy from the first object (the blue plate). The insulating object radiates some of its newly gotten energy back to the first object. That gives the first object a source of energy it lacked before the insulating object was added. That energy adds to whatever energy the first object is getting from other sources. So the insulating object makes the first object warmer than it would be otherwise. However, whether the first object cools or warms or stays the same depends on the net of its energy input from all sources and its energy output.
If the first object now has no other sources of energy than the insulating object (the Sun was removed), then the first object will start cooling by an amount proportional to the new absence of energy input from the Sun. But the first object still has an energy input from the insulating object, so it will cool slower than it would without that insulating object’s presence. Because the first object is cooling, it progressively has less energy, so progressively it emits less energy. That sends less energy to the insulating object. Since the insulating object’s energy comes only from the first object, the insulating object progressively will cool, and therefore progressively will radiate less, and therefore progressively will send less energy back to the first object.
But through that entire process, the presence of the insulating object keeps the first object warmer than it would be otherwise.
But through that entire process, the presence of the insulating object keeps the first object warmer than it would be otherwise.
Yes!
Great, that’s what I thought, absent of added energy either external as in the sun or in Sir Isaac Snapelton’s example, internal heat generated by a human body, a hotter object will cool in the presence of a cooler object. But an insulator will enable the hot object to cool more slowly.
Thanks Again All
WRT the second law of thermodynamics:
Through the entire process, the insulating object was always receiving more heat from the warmer body than it was adding.
snape…”WRT the second law of thermodynamics:
Through the entire process, the insulating object was always receiving more heat from the warmer body than it was adding”.
You never learn…IR is NOT heat.
bilybob…”a hotter object will cool in the presence of a cooler object. But an insulator will enable the hot object to cool more slowly”.
A hotter object cools when it’s surroundings are cooler than the body. It has nothing to do with the presence of a cooler body.
An insulator in contact with a hotter body prevents the atoms on the body from transferring heat to it’s surroundings by conduction. An insulator has no effect on radiation.
The purpose of insulation, as in a home, is to prevent molecules of air from coming in contact with an outside wall. It has no effect where the studs and joists sit between the inner drywall and the outer walls. Insulation fills an air space and by displacing the air it prevents air molecules from conducting air from the inside to the outside.
Once again, you are confusing heat, which is the motion of air molecules, with infrared radiation, which is emitted by air molecules when they cool.
binny…”But through that entire process, the presence of the insulating object keeps the first object warmer than it would be otherwise”.
Spoken like a true computer programmer. You need to get it in your head that back-radiation from a cooler body has no effect whatsoever on a warmer body. If it did, you could throw out the 2nd law.
The person who started the pseudo-science about net IR flow satisfying the 2nd law should be put in a pseudo-science internment camp.
Thanks Gordon, I was not so much concerned about the IR versus heat debate. And yes, I agree a hotter object will cool when placed in cooler surroundings, my reference to the cooler object was only in relationship to this thread itself.
My question was, “is there was proof that a colder object could warm a hotter object, if there were no other energy inputs into the system”. And everyone seems to agree, the answer is no, or at least there was no proof provided. But I will keep an open mind if you disagree.
That’s right, bilybob. A cooler body cannot cause a warmer body to get warmer unless energy is being provided to the system.
If you turn the sun off, though, the warmer body will cool at a slower rate. That’s because the two bodies (the warmer and the cooler) are not themrally isolated, but continue to emit and receive radiation to and from each other. Eventually they both cool to an equal temperature (absolute zero in the hypothetical closed system) and this effect ceases.
Where people go wrong is in having a one-eyed view of the 2nd Law – they only understand the idea within closed (isolated) systems, never open systems (with an internal/external energy source.
It is always the case that the net flow of heat is from hotter to cooler, but the cooler body can have an incident impact on the warmer one without violating the 2nd Law. Insulation is but one example.
tom…”The insulating object radiates some of its newly gotten energy back to the first object. That gives the first object a source of energy it lacked before the insulating object was added. That energy adds to whatever energy the first object is getting from other sources”.
No, no, no. Please stop talking about generic energy and specify your energy. You have thermal energy and infrared energy, which is electromagnetic energy. As energies go, they have nothing in common other than that mass radiates IR based on it’s temperature.
Of course, you can relate the amount if IR generated to the heat loss of a radiating object but you cannot proceed on the assumption that IR from any source will be absorbed by a warmer body simply because the IR is incident upon it. That is a fallacy perpetrated by catastrophic global warming alarmists.
The 2nd law governs all heat transfers between bodies. It states clearly that heat can only be transferred from hot to cold without compensation. Figure that one out and apply your IR flux to it, not the other way around.
Gordon, do you agree that the transfer rate [W] depends on the difference in temperature?
Billy Bob, That is correct. In the absence of a heat source, the whole system cools, however with a third body the rate of cooling is a bit slower because the heat content of the two plates can be a bit higher than the heat content with only one plate.
This point is often missed in discussions of the greenhouse effect which has to include solar radiation as an external source of energy.
As to whether IR is heat that depends. The simplest formulation is that if the distribution of energy as a function of wavelength can be described by a temperature yes, it is heat (e.g. the Planck formula). This gets a bit tricky if you have to take the quantum state distribution of the radiators into account.
bilybob…”To repeat, my question: Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?”
No there isn’t. The fallacy exist only is thought experiments that involve incorrect physics. The incorrect physics in the Rabbett thought experiment is that the net flow of radiation satisfies the 2nd law.
Never has, never will.
bilybob,
To repeat, my question: Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?
You can see in the debates the oft-repeated line that a cooler object can warm a warmer object if there is a heat source supplying the system.
If you turn off the sun then everything cools. The analogy is about thermodynamic equilibrium with a constant energy source.
The purpose of it is to correct those who do not believe a cooler body can warm a warmer one under any conditions. These guys and gals believe that it is not possible at all, because it busts the laws of thermodynamics.
This proof otherwise is very simple and elegant.
“This proof otherwise is very simple and elegant.”
barry, your belief system trumps all reality.
Maybe so. But I’ve yet to see you point out a specific flaw with the article I linked.
Where I believe individuals gets tripped up is if you run the numbers with the sun on and then run it again with the sun on for a while (until equilibrium temp) then turn it off the warmer blue plate cools. Then run the experiment both ways again only this time add the cooler green plate. Since we are only comparing 2 variations of the energy source with 2 variations of the plates we can look at the 4 possible variations.
A) Sun on all the time no green plate – Temperature of Blue plate = Ta
B) Sun on then turned off with green plate – Blue Plate cools
C) Sun on all the time with green plate – Tc > Ta
D) Sun on then turned off with no green plate – Blue Plate cools
So you have four experiments, mathematically the blue plate only gets warmer if the sun is on. Otherwise the blue plate cools even in the presence of the green plate.
Many focus on variation C above and conclude the green plate raised the temperature of the blue plate. However, the green plate only raised the equilibrium temperature, the sun did the heating.
While in experiment 4 the blue plate cools, it does not cool as fast as when there is no green plate because the total heat energy of the system is higher than when the green plate is there and the temperature of the blue plate with the green plate always lags that of the blue plate alone.
The conclusion that the green plate only raised the equilibrium temperature and the sun did the heating is a distinction w/o a difference. Without the green plate the temperature of the blue plate would have been lower. Without the sun both would have been at the background pressure of the universe eventually
The conclusion that the green plate only raised the equilibrium temperature and the sun did the heating is a distinction w/o a difference.
Eli, this discussion has been replayed many times, with the accusation that one is creating a perpetual motion or creating energy from nothing. This conclusion is to show that this is not the case.
I may have stated it clumsily.
barry…”I think Ive just read the most elegant proof that a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer (with input to the system from the sun)”.
Most elegant, it’s riddled with inaccuracies.
First, some history on Eli Rabbett. His real name is Josh Halpern and he’s a physicist who teaches chemistry. Why does he need to hide behind a nym? And why is he such a cynical alarmists who revels in attacking skeptical scientists? His blog is riddled with venom against anyone who is skeptical of AGW.
Secondly, he rebutted the paper by Gerlich & Tscheuschner which falsified the greenhouse effect and AGW. He made a complete ass of himself. G&T are experts in thermodynamics and in his rebuttal, Halpern claimed that G&T were implying one radiator in a system with two radiators in proximity was not radiating.
You see, Halpern, like the alarmists in this blog, believes infrared radiation is heat. G&T had to point out the obvious, that IR is not heat and you cannot sum IR and imply it satisfies the 2nd law. G&T rightly pointed out that to sum heat transfer you must sum heat quantities, not IR.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, IR is electromagnetic radiation. In order to warm atoms with IR, the IR has to fit precise criteria based on it’s frequency and intensity. There is a presumption with alarmists that all IR incident on a surface has to be absorbed and that is plainly wrong.
Halpern believes that a summation of IR satisfies the 2nd law provided the net flow of IR is positive between a warmer and a cooler body. According to G&T that is wrong. They stated that the 2nd law is about heat, and by implication NOT ABOUT IR.
In this stupid thought experiment, Halpern has applied Botlzmann to a fictitious plate representing the Earth’s surface and gotten it entirely wrong. In the first diagram he states that the plate must radiate to reach a state of thermal equilibrium with a solar input of 400 watts/m^2. He shows the plate radiating 200 W/m^2 in either direction, leaving a deficit of 200 W/m^2.
Halpern is setting us up for his later claim that the plates must warm up to reach the solar input of 400 W/m^2. What an absolute load of pseudo-science. Plate one, the blue plate, will warm up immediately to balance the 400 W/m^2. Why shouldn’t it, there is nothing shading it from the full input from the sun?
The rest of the thought experiment is defeated right there. The green plate is superflous.
Why Halpern would put forward such a stupid thought experiment is beyond me. And the fact barry would fall for it, claiming it to be elegant, reveals him as someone who does not understand even the basics of physics.
I might add that once the blue plate warms so it is radiating 400 W/m^2, Halpern seems to imply the green plate will cause it to warm beyond 400 W/m^2 by back-radiating energy to the blue plate.
Absolute nonsense. The back-radiated IR will not be absorbed because it fails to meet the criteria required to be absorbed by a warmer body. If Halpern is claiming the green plate (get it…’green’?) is acting like CO2 in the atmosphere he’s even more misinformed than I have regarded him to be in the past.
The 2nd law stands. The blue plate will warm till it’s radiating 400 W/m^2 and that’s as far as it will warm. There is nothing that can prevent it continuing to radiate at 400 W/m^2. The green plate does absolutely nothing unless it is an independent heat source with its own internal heating plant capable of warming it to more than 400 W/m^2.
In reality, that independent heat source would have to be another star like the Sun which is close by.
Gordon
Nobody is trying to disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics, just your stupid understanding of it.
Gordon
“The rate at which heat transfers from the hotter object to the colder object increases with the temperature difference between the objects.”
As the blue plate warmed the green plate, the rate of heat transfer between the two decreased. The blue plate was then receiving more energy from the sun than it was able to get rid of. It’s temperature therefore had to increase.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
You might notice Gordon Robertson makes up his own physics and peddles it like a Preacher. He will never link to actual physics since he does not know what he is talking about. He scrambles physics so intently it is painful to read his torture of reality.
I have found with him there is nothing you can say to him that will affect his closed mind thoughts.
He will repeat his nonsense indefinitely at least as long as he has an audience. He is not a boring as g*e*r*a*n or Mike Flynn (one really boring person) but reasoning with him is a wasted effort. You might think he can learn but after a few years you come to realize he is too far gone for anything but his own limited imagination he is like a small child playing with his imaginary ideas and building worlds out of them. That is why I think he is much more interesting than the others. I did forget the mindless SkepticGoneWild. Another poster who makes up their own physics and will not accept established physics and believe all who understand real physics are morons.
Gordon,
They stated that the 2nd law is about heat, and by implication NOT ABOUT IR.
IR is radiant energy (and the link I provided does not specify IR, just EM in general).
Do G&T maintain that energy is not included in thermodynamics?
The 2nd Law relates to isolated systems, does’t it? A system where energy doesn’t enter or leave?
This does not relate to the earth’s climate system, where energy is constantly being received by the sun. In Rabbett’s example, the system is the 2 plates, the sun is constantly providing energy.
He shows the plate radiating 200 W/m^2 in either direction, leaving a deficit of 200 W/m^2.
Where is the deficit? The lone blue plate must radiate 400 w/m2.
200 w/m2 + 200 w/m2 = 400 w/m2.
When we introduce the green plate, it is receiving half the total radiation of the blue plate – 200 w/m2.
At equilibrium, the green plate is emitting a total of 200 w/m2 – 100 w/m2 either side.
So now we add the total thermal radiation of the 2-plate system.
One side is radiating 200 w/m2, the other, 100 w/m2 = total thermal radiation of 300 w/m2.
That is 100 w/m2 short of the input from the sun. So what must happen for the 2-plate system to achieve equilibrium with the solar input?
“In order to warm atoms with IR, the IR has to fit precise criteria based on its frequency and intensity. There is a presumption with alarmists that all IR incident on a surface has to be absorbed and that is plainly wrong.”
Gordon, you may not be a black body, but if you sit down next to a lava flow you will , without benefit of any precise criteria shortly become one.
Roy Spencer.
You are supposed to be a climate scientist, and would therefore be expected to have familiarity with basic physics. Why is it then that you allow the nonsense of the likes of Gordon Robertson to remain unchallenged and uncorrected on your blog?
Dr Spencer tried hard but has now given up on Gordon et al.
This particular issue is no. 2 under his Top 10 list of stupid skeptic arguments, here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Bernard, if you seek censorship of science, consider some of the Warmist/Alarmist sites. Dr. Roy tries to maintain some level of scientific integrity. As long as someone does not try to take over the blog, he allows views that conflict with his own.
That’s right G*e*r*a*n.
Dr Spencers “stupid skeptic arguments” no 2.:
“THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiationincluding cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you dont believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flowthe rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler bodys temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
The trouble is that these comments exist without any direct rebuttal from the host, which then leads to the impression of tacit acceptance.
This in turn creates the impression that Spencer supports the assertions, and that in turn serves to provide years of fodder on the intertubes for the science deniers who promulgate the notion that carbon dioxide does not warm the planet and that Dr Roy Spencer, Climate Scientist and Valiant Renegade Blogger, agrees.
Yes, you have a point.
I suppose he can’t keep up with the Gish gallop. He did put in a reminder here though:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-266136
Bin and barry, I’m back!
The “elegant proof” fails for many reasons. If you have never seen the “proof” that 1 = 2, then first examine this”
https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html
You can “prove” a lot if you can fool the audience. Magicians know this well. And, the perpetuators of the AGW hoax also know it.
Thermodynamics and quantum physics are both advanced fields. Few folks understand the two sciences. They “see” what they want, and run off claiming they understand.
So, let’s just use some basic logic, related to “analytical proof”.
In a legitimate proof, there is a “given”. From the “given”, with the correct application of laws of math and physics, each step leads to a “proof”.
In the example provided by barry, the “given” includes the assumption that “cold” warms “hot”. Then, the “proof” that results is “cold” warms “hot”. The “given” is “proved”!
It’s called “circular reasoning”. You start with the assumption of what you are trying to prove, and BINGO, you end up with what you set out to prove.
It’s “pseudoscience”, and it’s hilarious.
That’s nothing useful, g*e*r*a*n. And you know it.
It remembers me your poorish claim about sea level rise ‘explained’ by the Archimedes principle.
Laughable.
Bin, I never expected phony intellectuals to accept truth.
Do you know the difference between an “intellectual” and a “phony intellectual”?
(Jeopardy tune playing, as Bin contemplates.)
Answer: There is no difference.
g*e*r*a*n
You: In the example provided by barry, the given includes the assumption that cold warms hot
Not true. Initially, the hot radiated 200 W/m^2 in the direction of the cold. The cold only radiated 100 W/m^2 in the direction of the hot. Throughout the example, the blue plate was always losing heat to the green plate. Never the other way around.
Because it was colder, the green plate always REMOVED heat from the blue plate! Removing heat is called cooling, not heating.
snake, that’s not humor. It’s like you’re trying to slink away from pseudoscience.
(Or should I say “slither”?)
g*e*r*a*n*,
Do you have anything to say about the demonstration I linked?
What “demo” is that?
The link I provided that started this sub-thread. Perhaps you didn’t read it.
Surely you wouldn’t play games.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267175
So you read it. Can you point out any flaws in the math?
No flaws in the math. Just flaws in the logic.
As I indicated, and you obviously ignored, “proving” a given is not a “proof”. It is circular reasoning. A technique often used in pseudoscience.
The example you provided has a flaw, which the author points out. Anything divided by zero is zero – that’s where the logic breaks down.
So can you point to the precise flaw/s in the demonstration at the link I gave? There is no dividing by zero in those equations, so where is the error?
What is the precise flaw in the logic? You have provided a general contention, but you haven’t identified what is specifically amiss with the article.
barry
g*e*r*a*n is not a very intelligent person and prefers his own created physics. You are wasting any time trying to reason with him. He does not possess that quality. He is also very boring if you interact with him long enough as he can’t come up with new ideas or thoughts after awhile. He gets very repetitive. He might jump in on your thoughts. You can look at it and see a waste of time. But you will not be able to discuss ideas intelligently with him. One needs the ability first and none of the hard-core skeptics seem to possess rational thought process. Even the insults they pull up are redundant. One classic is that people who actually read physics and try to learn it don’t understand what they are reading.
You will notice g*e*r*a*n using this constantly even though he does not know any actual physics, he just uses a few terms like quantum and we are supposed to be impressed with his posts.
barry, in an analytical proof, you start with a “given”. Then, you build from that to what you are trying to prove. Each step must be based on established laws.
Your example tries to claim “cold” can warm “hot”. But, it uses “cold” warming “hot” to prove that!
Circular reasoning.
AKA, “hilarious pseudoscience”.
I see the con-man has returned to entertain us with his endless rambling.
Enjoy.
g*e*r*a*n,
When the argument starts (figure 1), there is no presumption about cooler bodies heating warmer bodies. It’s a simple set of diagrams, followed by equations enumerating the energy flows.
By figure 4, we see that the 2-plate system receiving energy from the sun does not radiate energy equal to that being received.
Figure 4 is the key figure. The numbers don’t add up to a system in thermal equilibrium with its energy source.
Thus it is concluded (not presumed) that the system must radiate more energy to achieve equilibrium. The blue plate must radiate at a higher temperature to achieve equilibrium with the input. Thus, the introduction of the second plate causes the blue plate to radiate more energy (it gets warmer) in order to achieve equilibrium with the input form the sun.
Starting with figure 1, and the math below accompanying, where is the logical flaw?
barry, the “argument” starts with the very first sentence: “An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter.”
He sets out to prove “cold” can warm “hot”.
Figure 4 illustrates his disconnect. He mistakenly assumes the “green” plate can only emit 100 W/m^2. So, he “assumes” that the cold (green) plate must then warm the hot plate.
Assumptions are not science. That’s the logic flaw.
The green plate can emit whatever it must, based on the plate temperature.
I know you do not WANT to understand this. It would destroy you believe that “back-radiation” can heat the planet.
All mass emits IR. So, my recommendation is for you to heat your abode with a bowl of fruit next winter.
If it doesn’t work, just add more fruit!
Figure 4 illustrates his disconnect. He mistakenly assumes the “green” plate can only emit 100 W/m^2. So, he “assumes” that the cold (green) plate must then warm the hot plate.
The green plate is emitting 200 w/m2: 100 wm/2 either side.
The blue plate is emitting 400 w/m2: 200 w/m2 either side.
The 2-plate system is emitting 300w/m2 in total: that’s 100 w/m2 short of the input from the sun.
Do you disagree with any of this?
If the blue plate is emitting 200 w/m2 (from either) side …it is emitting 200 w/m2 … Not 400
Here is the error in the whole thought experiment…
If the energy source is 400 w/m2 then the blue plate temp will rise until it is also emitting 400 w/m2 in all directions.( not 200) .. Now add the green plate and see what happens..
Yes, of course, the green plate is emitting 100 W/m^2 from BOTH sides. I was referring to the energy leaving the system to the right.
Do you want to just tangle this up, or do you want to understand?
You can settle this in your mind with a cheap handheld IR thermometer. Measure the temperature of an apple. Then, set a mug of cold beer next to the apple. Does the temperature of the apple go up?
Yes, of course, the green plate is emitting 100 W/m^2 from BOTH sides. I was referring to the energy leaving the system to the right.
Yes, you were.
But the total 2-plate system is emitting 300 w/m2.
That’s 100 w/m2 short of the input from the sun.
The laws of thermodynamics require that the 2-plate system must radiate an equivalent amount of energy that it receives from the sun.
What must happen for the 2-plate system to come into thermal equilibrium with the solar input?
Oh, easy–Both plates are at the same temp.
Ok, thanks. Couple of questions.
1. How does the green plate, which is shielded from the sun by the blue one, achieve the same temperature as the blue plate?
2. If the blue plate gets cooler, because of energy being drawn by the green, how does the 2-plate system achieve thermal equilibrium with the sun? The 2-plate system would now be emitting even less energy than that received by the sun.
Feel free to provide some numbers to exemplify, if you want.
Assuming all the “perfect” conditions implied:
Both plates at 244K. Emission to left and right both 200 W/m^2.
(Where do I send the bill?)
How can the green plate radiate at 400 w/m2 (200 wm/2 either side) if it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate?
barry, now you have reached the quagmire of IR photon a b so r p tion.
You will have to open your mind.
So first, tell me that you now understand the “clothing” nonsense has no relevance to the AGW discussion.
How can the green plate radiate at 400 w/m2 (200 wm/2 either side) if it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate?
If the left side of the green plate receives 200w/m2 from the right side of the blue plate, and the green plate radiates 200 w/m2 on its right side, then that means that the left side of the green plate must be radiating at…
0w/m2.
That’s physically impossible.
barry, I see you give up your blankets, coats, and sweaters, then I will know you are ready to learn more.
There are no blankets or sweaters in this sub-thread. I’m happy to leave them out of this particular discussion.
My question still stands.
How can the green plate radiate at 400 w/m2 (200 wm/2 either side) if it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate?
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “You can settle this in your mind with a cheap handheld IR thermometer. Measure the temperature of an apple. Then, set a mug of cold beer next to the apple. Does the temperature of the apple go up?”
A more reflective example would be to take an apple that is heated (insert a heating element) and set the apple next to a mug of liquid nitrogen and measure its equilibrium temperature (since you do not understand what equilibrium means g*e*r*a*n, it is the state when the temperature is no longer changing).
Now remove the mug of liquid nitrogen and place a mug of cold beer next to the apple. What happens? The equilibrium temperature is higher. The apple warms up next to a cold beer. Imaging that.
g*e*r*a*n you are hopelessly outclassed by barry. He has considerable knowledge of actual physics over you and you seem lame in your arguments with him.
(The con-man rambles incoherently, AGAIN.)
barry, if you can not give up your baby blanket, you are not ready to learn about how IR photons behave upon impact with a surface.
Learning often involves admitting you were wrong.
I think you’re stumped by my last question, and are mow diverting the conversation to the topic of a different thread.
It was almost a straightforward conversation there for a few posts. I was enjoying that. I don’t think you can answer my last question, and I don’t think you’re going to try. If that’s the case, thanks for the conversation on the 2-plate system.
barry states: “I think you’re stumped by my last question, and are mow [sic] diverting the conversation to the topic of a different thread.”
No barry, I’m not stumped. But thanks for revealing, again, your confusion.
I’m not going to explain photons reaction to mass, until you admit your obsession with blankets/coats/sweaters has no relevance to Earth’s energy balance. I can NOT help people that adhere to their false religion.
But, here’s a hint: 100 + 100 + 200.
See if that helps.
I’m afraid it doesn’t.
The green plate is emitting thermal energy to the right (leaving the system) at a rate of 100 w/m2. The blue plate is emitting to the left (leaving the system) at 200 w/m2.
The amount of energy leaving the system is 300 w/m2.
But the amount entering the system is 400 w/m2.
The laws of thermodynamics requires that these values should be equal.
Your final answer that was specific enough was that both plates should be the same temperature, and both emit 200 w/m2 out of the system.
My query was: how can the green plate emit 200 w/m2 out the right side if it is receiving only 200 w/m2 from the blue plate? That would mean the green plate is emitting more than it is receiving.
Unless the left side of the green plate is emitting 0w/m2.
I hope we can agree that is not physically possible.
The physics and doesn’t work for the answer you gave.
What must happen with the 2-plate system so that it’s outward flux is equivalent to the 400 w/m2 influx provided by the sun?
Barry: The real world is 3D, not 2D. The plates are emitting heat 360o. So, there is no 200W to the direction of the green plate and no 100W back. If it were, the blue plate would become hotter. Then it would emit more watts to the direction of the green plate which in turn would emit more watts back. Thus you would have invented perpeetum mobile.
Compare the earth and the moon. Do they heat each other?
Barry: The real world is 3D, not 2D. The plates are emitting heat 360o. So, there is no 200W to the direction of the green plate and no 100W back.
It’s an idealised thought experiment, put together for its simplicity, but it makes the point successfully.
The problem remains if you have cubes instead of plates. But now conduction is a significant factor (which is why the 2-plate system works better for the purpose). But let’s imagine conduction is not a factor.
The green cube on the right now only receives 66.6666 w/m2 from one side of the blue cube. The 2-cube system still won’t be in thermal equilibrium with the input without some change.
Here’s the math for cuboid thermal radiation with no conduction complicating it.
Blue cube receives 400 w/m2 on one side
Radiates 66.6666 w/m2 on all sides
Green cube receives 66.6666 w/m2 on one side
Radiates 11.1111 w/m2 on all sides
Total amount of thermal radiation leaving the 2-box system is:
(5 x 66.6666) + (5 x 11.1111) = 388.88
Still a deficit.
If we factor conduction, the deficit is greater. The blue cube will emit less than 66.6666 w/m2 to the green cube. Even less if we take it that the blue cube is radiating 360 degrees (from the corners and edges, too).
The problem remains with 2 spheres. There is still a deficit. (If you can do the math, by all means lay it out)
Something has to happen to make the outward thermal flux of the 2-plate (box/sphere) system equal to the solar influx received on the blue surface.
Let’s stick to the 2-plate system for ease of conceptualizing and of math.
Barry: you did not consider the perpeetum mobile problem at all. And what about the earth and the moon?
Everything in the universe gives off thermal radiation at various wavelengths, including the Earth and the Moon.
“Perpetuum mobile”. You are meaning to say ‘perpetual motion machine’. There is an answer here that does not involve that. You have actually supplied the answer in part, but made an incorrect conclusion.
esalil
Eli used infinite thin plates facing each other to reduce the difficulty of the problem to 2D. The idea was to make the discussion as simple as possible while retaining the physical concepts. You can actually find discussions in textbooks where the effects of the edges of the plates are discussed which are shown to go to zero as the plates grow in area.
Such 2D cases are important learning tools across physics for example 2D capacitors.
Eli used infinite thin plates facing each other to reduce the difficulty of the problem to 2D.
That’s how I saw it.
We’re locating this in space to remove the effects of convection and isolate radiative transmission.
We’re using extremely thin plates to remove the effects of conduction and isolate radiative transmission.
We can also stipulate that the two plates are extremely close.
The tiny amounts of energy one could quibble over under these conditions in no way effect the basic conclusion: there is a significant deficit in energy outflow from the 2-plate system if the temperature of the blue plate does not increase.
Eli Rabett and Barry: You are telling that the infinite thin green plate heats the infinite thin blue plate which becomes hotter. The hotter blue plate emits more heat to green plate which becomes still hotter. The still hotter green plate emits heat to blue plate which becomes still hotter and so on….
Maybe you are violating something.
The warming stops when the total thermal emission of the 2-plate system matches the input from the sun. This must happen or else the laws of thermodynamics are violated.
Here are the visuals and the math.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
It’s a simple demonstration that the blue plate must get a bit warmer in order for the thermal outflux of the 2-plate system to match the thermal input. According to the laws of thermodynamics and the math.
Barry: if the blue plate gets a bit warmer, so by definition it emits more IR. This, according to you, heats more the green plate which by definition emits more IR……..
Barry: why not try the following explanation: sun heats the blue plate and because it is infinite thick it gets immediately the equilibrium temperature depending on the physicochemical properties of the plate. Now, it emits a constant amount of heat (and IR) to the surroundings. The green plate, initially colder, starts to warm, and because it is as well infinite thick, gets immediately the equilibrium temperature depending on its physicochemical properties. If it is of the same material and size as the blue one the temperature may approach the temperature of the blue one depending on how far the plates are from each other. The blue one has its initial temperature and the green one is more or less colder. Only changes in the intensity of the sun can change the temperatures of the plates.
Barry: if the blue plate gets a bit warmer, so by definition it emits more IR. This, according to you, heats more the green plate which by definition emits more IR…
until thermal loss from the 2-plate system reaches thermal equilibrium with the input. That is the limit at which the 2 plates stop warming, or the 1st law is broken.
If you believe the mutual heating has no limit, then you are violating the 1st law.
What stops the 2 plates infinitely warming up? The thermal loss of the 2-plate system coming into balance with the input. How does this happen? Both plates also emit more heat away from the system as they warm up. You’re neglecting increased thermal loss in your view.
If thermal loss remained the same, then yes, they’d heat up indefinitely. But that’s obviously unphysical. Warmer plates are also going to radiate more away from the 2-plate system.
And they will radiate more away from the system until they reach equilibrium with the input. No more warming occurs after that equilibrium is reached.
Barry: you broke the first law by increasing the temperature of the blue plate. It was initially in thermal equilibrium with the sole energy source, the sun. To become hotter it needs extra energy. Where does it come from?
A 1-plate system became a 2-plate system. That changes the dynamics.
Look at the diagram again. With 2 plates the system is emitting less thermal energy than it is receiving. That breaks the 1st law. Energy has been destroyed (!).
The green plate cannot emit more radiation than it receives from the blue plate. So it can’t emit 200 w/m2 away from the system (to make equilibrium with solar input), because that means it would be emitting 0w/m2 towards the blue plate.
That’s physically impossible.
The green plate must emit thermally to the blue plate. Therefore the blue plate is now receiving thermal radiation from the sun and the green plate.
The net flow of heat must always be from hot to cold. So the blue plate must remain warmer than the green. They both heat up until the thermal outflux from the 2-plate system matches the influx from the sun.
When equilibrium is reached, the warming stops.
If you’ve ever cooked anything in a saucepan and put a lid on it you’ve seen this dynamic in your own kitchen.
The temperature at the bottom of the pot increases. So does the lid. Your pot doesn’t heat indefinitely until it melts, because it stops getting hotter when the pot+lid gets hot enough to be in thermal equilibrium with the heat being received.
I cook a lot. I see exactly this process all the time.
There are many observable analogies in daily life. All based on a second (cooler) body being introduced to the system, slowing the rate of heat loss from the system, and the warmer object warming up. At all times, the net flow of heat is from hot to cold (the 2nd law cannot be violated), but the total energy in the system increases because it is cooling less quickly.
It happens when you put on a sweater. The loss of heat from your skin is slowed.
It happens when your car overheats on a hot day but not a cold one. Hotter ambient air slows the rate at which your engine loses heat. At no time is the ambient air hotter than the engine.
I think this should be intuitively obvious just from observation of these things in our lives.
But apparently its not. That’s why I think the demonstration linked is a good one. You can see that the math does’t add up if the blue plate doesn’t warm a bit after the green one is introduced.
Have a slower look again.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Barry: I did see the link. the blue plate is emitting 200W back to the sun and 200 W to green plate. Now, the green plate emits 100W back to blue plate. So, the blue plate receives 400W from the sun and 100W from the green one. Makes 500W. Now, the blue one must emit 250 W back to green one, which in turn emits 125W back. So the blue gets 525 W and emits 262,5 W back… and so on. The temperature of both plates rises.The problem is of course that finally there are a lot more watts on both plates than initially. Where does that extra energy come from manifested as higher temperature in both plates?
You state:
“There are many observable analogies in daily life. All based on a second (cooler) body being introduced to the system, slowing the rate of heat loss from the system, and the warmer object warming up. At all times, the net flow of heat is from hot to cold (the 2nd law cannot be violated), but the total energy in the system increases because it is cooling less quickly.
It happens when you put on a sweater. The loss of heat from your skin is slowed. It happens when your car overheats on a hot day but not a cold one. Hotter ambient air slows the rate at which your engine loses heat. At no time is the ambient air hotter than the engine.”
The sweater does not warm up your skin. Your skin stays at the temperature determined by the catabolism of your body.The heat loss is of course slowed but not because of IR emitted back to the skin by the sweater but the insulating effect of the static air layer between the skin and the sweater. The catabolism (energy production) slows down as well since your skin must not be heated any more as efficiently.
Your car example is neither good since lot of energy must have been added to the system to make the ambient air hotter.
Are there real world applications of the above skenario? I eagerly wait for examples. They would be revolutionary for us people living in cold climate. With less electric power we can achieve higher ambient temperatures.
the blue plate is emitting 200W back to the sun and 200 W to green plate. Now, the green plate emits 100W back to blue plate. So, the blue plate receives 400W from the sun and 100W from the green one. Makes 500W.
Yep. The blue plate is now warmer, and emitting 100 w/m2 more.
The 1st Law is broken!
But wait. The green plate is emitting 100 w/m2 out of the system.
500W – 100W = 400W.
How about that?
Let’s sum the thermal emission of the 2-plate system.
Blue plate emits 400 w/m2 because that is what it receives. 200 to the left, 200 to the right.
Introduce green plate, which receives 200 w/m2 from the blue plate. It emits at 100 w/m2 towards the blue plate, and 100 w/m2 to the right.
We’re interested in how much the 2-plate system is emitting outward, in order to see if it = input from the sun.
2-plate system outflow is the sum of thermal emission to the left of the blue plate, and to the right of the green plate.
200 w/m2 + 100 w/m2 = 300 w/m2.
There’s a deficit of 100 w/m2.
Where does that extra energy come from manifested as higher temperature in both plates?
There is no extra energy. But there is more heat internal to the system. (Just like putting on a sweater is adding no more energy to your core body process, but the result is warmer air near your skin, and a warmer sweater).
Blue plate and green plate are transferring some energy between them that is not getting out of the system.
But it has to get out to match input
It can only get out if one or both plates warm up enough to radiate it out.
Green plate cannot warm up to 400 w/m2 total, same as blue plate, because it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate. Energy cannot be created.
So both plates have to warm up until energy outflux is in equilibrium with influx.
You need to factor outflux in your calculations, not just the transfer between the plates, or you only have one half (figuratively speaking) of the balance sheet. The outflux increases, too, until the 2-plate system is in equilibrium with the solar input.
Heating is a dynamic process, thermodynamics (despite the name) is not. Output has to equal input. Every time. That’s a constant. If that means temperatures has to change in the system receiving the input to match output, that’s because the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken.
Barry: OK, even I can calculate that 534 W is needed for the blue plate for the emission of 267w both sides and the green plate get this 267W and emits 133W both sides. Now, both plates emit outside 400W and inside 400W, altogether 800W, double the amount what the sun emits. I cannot understand how one can neglect the inside emission. But if the case is so easy, it must be proved somewhere experimentally. Please, provide the links to the papers where it is shown.
Now, both plates emit outside 400W and inside 400W, altogether 800W
You’re treating energy lost as additional energy.
The whole system is emitting @ 400W
Energy inside = energy outgoing. 400 – 400 = 0. We have equilibrium. There’s no deficit.
You don’t need to read a paper. You need to go and cook.
Heat your pot until the contents (say water) are simmering. Let that be the equilibrium.
Now put a cooler lid on the pot.
Putting on the cooler lid will cause the interior to warm up. The water will eventually boil.
Obviously we haven’t created energy. The pot must be in thermal equilibrium with the element and the ambient air.
Why does the water in the pot get hotter?
And why does it not get infinitely hotter?
If you doubt that what I’ve just described works, go do the experiment. It’ll take half an hour at most. Get a medium sized pot and half fill it with water. Heat it until it is simmering. Little tiny bubbles. Hold it constant there to make sure it isn’t getting any hotter. Now add the cooler lid. See what happens.
Barry: you cannot be serious. The lid on the water pot has nothing to do with the plate example we are discussing on. The lid prevents the evaporation so that less energy is needed for boiling. I thought that you knew that.
Try to calculate by yourself. You cannot ignore some (400W inside) of radiation.
As I anticipated there are no publications on this matter. So it is purely imaginative.
Barry: you cannot be serious. The lid on the water pot has nothing to do with the plate example we are discussing on.
Of course it does.
Both systems have a constant (unchanging) source of heat.
Both systems start in thermal equilibrium.
Both systems have introduced to them a cooler body.
Both systems warm up after the cooler body is introduced.
What’s the difference? One is a convective system. One is a radiative system.
Don’t tell me you’re trying to say the laws of thermodynamics apply to convection but not radiation!
barry: so you are serious. Do you not know that evaporation consumes much energy? Consult elementary chemistry and physics books. In an open pot the vapor carrying lot of energy dissappears into the kitchen ceiling. in the pot with a lid on it vapor stays in the pot so that the boiling starts with less energy, thats all.
As I anticipated there are no publications on this matter. So it is purely imaginative.
Lord, there are a zillion textbooks explaining this.
But why not take a lesson from the guy who invented the 2nd Law?
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20044#page/100/mode/1up
Clausius is referring to the difference between a closed system (he calls it a ‘circular process’), and an open system, whereby the ‘change’ is energy leaving and entering the system.
In the examples above we have energy entering and leaving the system. An open system. Where there is a source of heat adding energy to the system and the system losing energy to space – this is the “change. The energy is not contained within the set-up(circular process), it flows through.
Clausius also has something to say about the green plate (cooler body).
“…it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well..”
Of course, the net flow is always hot to cold, but both bnodies are emitting and receiving heat from each other – whether through conduction, convection or radiation (or some combination).
The maker of the second law gives that clause to the second Law…
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Because there are circumstances where a cooler body can cause a warmer one to get warmer.
Insulation is an example.
The sweater is an example.
The lid on a pot is an example.
The overheating car is an example.
The 2-plate system is an example.
They all have this in common – they are not closed systems. They are all receiving heat, which enters and leaves the system being warmed.
Without a source of heat, introducing a cool body to a system can never cause a warmer body to get warmer.
No laws were broken in the making of this post.
“Without a source of heat, introducing a cool body to a system can never cause a warmer body to get warmer….No laws were broken in the making of this post.”
barry 7:05am, except one law was broken, namely the 1LOT.
There are circumstances in the earth system at night (no sun heat source) where Dr. Spencer has shown by experiment you broke 1LOT by your statement. See his experimental results for the Green Plate Effect: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
and showed how that can happen at night on the real atm.:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Of course the usual suspects tried to disarm his experiments with prose, none showed a counter experiment or where his actual experiments did not actually show correct data.
Ball,
In the night time experiment, one body of water cooled slower than the other. But the IR sheet can’t cause the water to get warmer than it was – at night – it just slowed the cooling.
Yes, without a source of heat (night time) the one body got warmer with the added absorbed IR than the one without the added absorbed IR as both cooled all night.
Check out what you wrote: “Without a source of heat, introducing a cool body to a system can never cause a warmer body to get warmer.” That breaks 1LOT as the absorbed IR in the one body would have had to simply disappear in order for the one body not to get warmer than the other (IR into one, no warmer than the other).
If this bothers you, think this through using the reality of absorbed IR must increase the KE of the constituent particles over no IR not to break the 1LOT. Thus one body must get warmer than the other but still cool all night.
There are commenters that this bothers to no end, no kidding, ha. you watch. There are whole websites that have sprung up that can’t understand this simple test. They are so hung up on the “heat” term they will not ever understand this test which was the motivating reason for Dr. Spencer at the time, due all the emails he was getting.
And, yes, this is called “slow the cooling” but even that will be misconstrued by some. If you train yourself to drop heat term, and think instead of avg. KE of constituent particles as suggested by Clausius, you are better off in understanding these tests of Dr. Spencer and why he did them.
The fun and games appear in most threads.
Check out what you wrote: Without a source of heat, introducing a cool body to a system can never cause a warmer body to get warmer.
Meaning the temperature of the warmer body cannot increase in that situation. But the temperature of the warmer body can increase with a source of energy and flow out of the system. I think the wording is pretty clear.
What you are pointing to is an example of a warmer body cooling at night. And cooling more slowly than another body. That is nothing like what I’ve written, though it is also factual.
Barry and Ball4: I am living currently in an environment where the actual outside temperature is +7C. I have electric heater on in my living room so that the inside temperature is +21C. I think all the furnitures have more or less the same 21C temperature. So, I have here an open system which is in thermal equilibrium. The literature says that ice emits 300w/m2 of IR. So, according to you a cubic meter piece of ice (the green plate) will rise the temperature of a piece of a furniture (the blue plate). How nice. Ill wait for the freezing of the sea there outside to pick up ice cubes. Then I can turn the heater lower.
“Meaning the temperature of the warmer body cannot increase in that situation.”
Simply means the added IR increased the KE of the constituent particles over no added IR. Thus 1LOT is not broken, the temperature in both bodies declined all night. One cooled slower, the one with the added IR.
Note I did not use warming term, did not use heat term, did not use heating term. There is never a need for those unless one’s intent (intentional or unintentional) is to add confusion.
“So, according to you a cubic meter piece of ice (the green plate) will rise the temperature of a piece of a furniture (the blue plate).”
Not according to the example, esalil.
Consider in the example that the added green plate does not block radiated energy from the right. In your room, when you add the piece of ice you are at very least blocking radiation emitted from the wall behind the ice (and the air, piece of furniture so forth).
The is classic strawman per the def, you changed the example to try and defeat your opponent. You have not defeated: “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”
The blue plate would warm until it reached equilibrium with the flux received from the sun. For that to occur the side facing the sun has to be emitting 400 W/m2. The other side of the plate would also emit 400 W/m2. No, this does not mean the plate is emitting 800 W/m2. It just means the plate has warmed to the temperature whereby it’s surface area (which includes both sides of the plate, and the edges at the top and bottom) is emitting 400 W/m2 from every point. Just the same as if a sphere were there instead of the plate, the sphere would emit 400 W/m2 from every point on its surface once at equilibrium. It wouldn’t be 400 W/m2 divided by an infinite possible number of points around its 3D surface. So why do you think it should be 400 W/m2 divided by 2 in the case of the plate!? So, anyway, you add the green plate. This now warms until it too is emitting 400 W/m2 from both sides and so equilibrium is achieved between it and the blue plate. End of thought experiment.
The only other thing to consider in this experiment is the sun. That will be radiating out an identical flux in all directions. However you need to consider distance too. The flux these plates will receive from the sun also depends on their distance from the sun. So we know that the blue plate is far enough away from the sun that it receives a flux of 400 W/m2, in this thought experiment. If the green plate is put close to it, that will then reach equilibrium with the blue plate at 400 W/m2. However if you put the green plate far enough away from the blue one then that 400 W/m2 emitted from the side of blue plate facing towards the green will not equal 400 W/m2 from the green plate’s perspective. Let’s say it’s far enough away from the blue plate that it only receives a flux of 200 W/m2. In which case it will warm until it produces 200 W/m2 from each side. The only reason I add this second paragraph is to ensure nobody thinks I’m suggesting the blue plate warms until it reaches the same surface temperature as the sun. It doesn’t, because it’s at a distance from the sun such that it’s receiving only 400 W/m2. The sun itself most likely emits a far greater flux (unless the sun in this thought experiment is meant to be a very cold one, and the plates are supposed to be sitting right next to it).
To add to that first paragraph…
The assumption I’m making is that the flux being shown as reaching the blue plate from the sun is the flux which reaches both sides of the plate (i.e the entire surface area of the plate). This assumption is made because that’s the way energy budgets of the Earth are typically shown. The Earth in a sense actually receives 1,368 W/m2 from the sun (known as the solar constant). However, the flux shown as the input of a typical Earth energy budget is this number divided by 4, 342 W/m2. This is to attempt to account for the fact that the Earth is a sphere and it is designed to be an average amount of insolation that each point of the Earth would receive (assuming the Earth was rotating fast enough that the illumination of the sun is spread evenly over its entirety).
If the assumption I referred to does not apply in this thought experiment, and the 400 W/m2 is actually like a “solar constant” figure, then as these plates aren’t rotating, but heat can be conducted through the plate, you could argue to divide by two (so that 200 W/m2 are leaving each side). If there is no conduction through the plate then only one side would warm, the side facing the sun, until it was emitting 400 W/m2. If conduction is occurring then you would indeed have 200 W/m2 leaving each side of the plate, however you would have to divide the “solar constant” figure by 2 also, for the same reasons as the adjustment is made to the real constant on a typical Earth energy budget. So in this scenario the blue plate would be at equilibrium with 200 W/m2 emitted from each side. Adding the green plate would result in the temperature of the green plate warming until it was also emitting 200 W/m2 from each side.
The sun in this example emits much more than 400 w/m2 in total. 400 w/m2 is the amount received by the Earth.
A little thought experiment. Let’s make the sun a household object for ease of conceptualization. A light bulb.
If a light bulb is emitting at 40 w/m2, only a portion of that reaches your hand (unless you are a giant, and you manage to completely encircle the bulb with your hand).
If you manipulate reality, and unfold the light bulb so that its surface is emitting in one direction only (towards your hand), then you are receiving 40 w/m2.
You can do this much more simply in real life. Put a second light bulb right next to the first one, also emitting a total of 40 w/m2. Now you’re getting the front and back of the bulb emitting towards your hand at the same time.
In your view, adding a second light bulb should make your hand feel no warmer. By extension, adding a wall of 100 light bulbs emitting at 40 w/m2 should make your hand feel no warmer.
I hope you can see that this is not the case.
The blue plate can only emit a portion of its total radiation in either direction. It can’t emit its total in one direction, and its total again in another direction.
Your blue plate is indeed emitting 800 w/m2.
There is not a second sun on the other side of the blue plate.
The green plate is shielded from the sun by the blue.
So in this scenario the blue plate would be at equilibrium with 200 W/m2 emitted from each side. Adding the green plate would result in the temperature of the green plate warming until it was also emitting 200 W/m2 from each side.
How can the green plate emit 200 w/m2 on both sides (total 400 w/m2) if it is only receiving 200 w/m2 from the blue plate?
Amending the first sentence”
The sun in this example emits much more than 400 w/m2 in total. 400 w/m2 is the amount received by the [blue plate].
Barry, if your reply is directed at me, then yes:
“The sun in this example emits much more than 400 w/m2 in total. 400 w/m2 is the amount received by the Earth”
That is what I had assumed as explained in my first comment at 11:51 am:
“So we know that the blue plate is far enough away from the sun that it receives a flux of 400 W/m2, in this thought experiment.”
I think for the rest of your comment, I explain myself more fully in the second post at 2:08 pm, so that will hopefully clear that up.
Distance and conductivity add complication to the math but the principle remains the same. There is a deficit in outflux of the 2-plate system if the temperature of the blue plate remains the same after the green plate is introduced.
There is no defecit. The blue plate emits as it receives from the sun. The green plate emits as it receives from the blue plate. Everything is at equilibrium. Conductivity is not introduced to add complexity, it is a necessary condition if both sides of the plate are to emit, that’s all. Since the diagrams show both sides are emitting we can assume that it is included. I was just trying to cover all ways of looking at the problem. The consideration of distance was only added for the reasons explained in the second paragraph of my first post. Again, I already assumed that the sun emits more than 400 W/m2 and that the blue plate was at the distance from the sun such that 400 W/m2 was received.
There is a deficit in outgoing flux in the 2-plate system (or 2-sphere system) if the temperature of the blue plate doesn’t change.
Blue plate cannot emit 400 w/m2 either side. That would mean that a body immediately to the left of the blue plate was receiving 400 w/m2, and a body immediately to the right was receiving 400 w/m2, the sum of which is 800 w/m2.
The blue plate cannot emit twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. Otherwise it has created energy, violating the 1st law.
But it cam emit more than 400 w/m2 if it is receiving additional energy from somewhere else. This is what happens when the green plate is introduced. Net flow between them is still from hot to cold.
Both plates heat up until the total thermal emission from the 2-plate system is in equilibrium with solar input. As some of the energy remains in-system, between the 2 plates, the whole system must get warmer to compensate and match influx.
I dont understand why you are summinng the emittance from each side of the plate ..
If the plate is 1 sq meter in size its total surface are is 2 sq meters ( both sides)
If one side has a energy source of 800 watts it will be receiving 400w/m2
And it will warm until it is radiating 400w/m2 in all directions
Add yourr green plate now and see what happens
It just means the plate has warmed to the temperature whereby its surface area (which includes both sides of the plate, and the edges at the top and bottom) is emitting 400 W/m2 from every point.
That means that if we stick a non-conducting shield in front of the sun with a tiny aperture, the blue plate would still receive 400 w/m2.
Umm no , it would be recieving 400w/m2 x the area of the aperature … I think lol
Then divide that by the area of the plate (2m2) and you would know what the emittance of the plate would be at equlibrium temp .. I think. 😉
I refer to an assumption in my second post, at 2:08 pm, October 9pm. It needs to be known whether or not the assumption applies in this thought experiment. If yes, then the blue plate emits 400 W/m2 “each side” and no it does not add up to a total output of 800 W/m2. Until you can get your head around that, no point going any further!
“October 9”, not “October 9 pm”, sorry.
Greenhaus,
The assumption Im making is that the flux being shown as reaching the blue plate from the sun is the flux which reaches both sides of the plate (i.e the entire surface area of the plate).
Not sure if you’ve examined the diagrams at the link. Here it is.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
The sun is on the left, the blue plate to the right, perpendicular to the sun. The blue plate receives 400 w/m2 from the sun on its left face.
Does this clarify?
Referring to this comment from Eli Rabett:
“Eli used infinite thin plates facing each other to reduce the difficulty of the problem to 2D”
As the plates have no “depth” dimension (infinitely thin), they are (or should be) essentially 1D objects as far as the attempt to depict them on this 2D diagram is concerned. The plates are meant to be “facing” the sun and viewed from the side from the perspective shown in the diagram, which means any width that these plates may or may not possess cannot be shown. On the diagram they’re depicted as though they have height and depth (2 dimensions), but the thought experiment requires that they don’t have depth. Obviously for them to be visible on the diagram a depth of some kind must be drawn in, to some extent, despite the experiment requiring this dimension be non-existent. Lacking depth means that there is no real sense in which these plates have two “sides”.
So the first trick being used here by Mr Rabett is to set up this conceptualisation in the viewer of his diagrams that there is two sides from which these plates can emit (that the plates possess depth, when actually they don’t). This completely fooled me as can be shown by my consideration of conduction through the plate’s depth. Well, there is no depth, so there is no conduction. But since there is no depth, there also aren’t two sides to the plate. Rendering every conclusion drawn by Mr Rabbett involving fluxes leaving both “sides” of a plate false.
Huh? Are you implying that a 2D view is intrinsically impermissible (but 1D and 3D are fine)?
I don’t think you get to decide that one of the dimensions is verboten.
But if I’m misunderstanding you here, and 2D is a permissible way of looking at the construct, how would you amend it while keeping the same diagram?
Barry: yes, I had seen the diagrams. You say:
“The sun is on the left, the blue plate to the right, perpendicular to the sun. The blue plate receives 400 w/m2 from the sun on its left face”
On a typical Earth energy budget diagram, the Earth is shown as receiving 342 W/m2 on what could be seen as one “face”, to relate it to the situation you depict in your quote. However the Earth itself, as a whole, is receiving 1,368 W/m2 from the sun. Hopefully I don’t need to explain again the reason why this is all so. So in the same way I look at the 342 W/m2 on an energy budget of the Earth, I am looking at the 400 W/m2 from the sun on Rabett’s diagram. As it is on the Earth energy budget diagram, where this 342 W/m2 is impinging on every point around the Earth (due to assumed rapid rotation), so it is with the 400 W/m2. So it is effectively impinging on both sides of the blue plate (because heat can conduct through the plate).
This was all, however, posted before I read that Rabett intends that the plates have no depth. That being the case, they don’t have two sides. I refer you in that case to the post I made before this one.
“Huh? Are you implying that a 2D view is intrinsically impermissible (but 1D and 3D are fine)?”
I am not implying that a 2D view is intrinsically impermissible. I am implying that in a 2D view with the perspective as it is (plates seen from the side, facing the sun), a plate that lacks depth would be invisible. I understand that for the purposes of the diagram, a line must be drawn for the plate, which will give the illusion that the plate is not, as Mr Rabett puts it, “infinitely thin” (in other words, that it possesses no depth). I’m not saying that’s impermissible. I’m saying it leads to the false impression that the plate does indeed possess depth, and thus has two sides which it can emit from.
In reality, if a plate lacks depth, there is no real physical sense in which it can have two “sides”. So it won’t emit from two “sides”.
Abstractions like these are common in getting to grips with complex ideas.
Maths itself is an abstraction, and useful proofs come from generalized or idealized formulae. You can’t get much more abstract than solving in 7, 9 or 13 dimensions.
This formula/diagram is an elegant demonstration of how the 2nd Law is not violated by a warm body getting warmer when a cooler body is introduced to a system that has energy constantly entering. That’s all.
If you have the chops, make the same construct in 3D (use spheres, one behind the other), using more complex math, and show your results. You will always find that there is a deficit if you don’t allow the nearest plate/sphere to get warmer.
Follow your criticisms and do the math. I’d be keen to see your results.
“This formula/diagram is an elegant demonstration of how the 2nd Law is not violated by a warm body getting warmer when a cooler body is introduced to a system that has energy constantly entering. Thats all.”
It’s completely unphysical nonsense. That’s all.
My criticisms wouldn’t follow into a real-world way of looking at this situation because the situation itself cannot exist in the real world. If you can’t see the problem with a plate that has no depth somehow emitting from two non-existent “sides” I’m not sure there’s any point continuing this conversation. So I won’t.
Don’t get hung up on that, make it negligible depth, say 1 mm.
Yes, what Svante said.
But if you’re not into a 2D view, take it to the third dimension and do the math. Sun –> sphere –> sphere. Line them up so that the sphere on the right is perfectly shielded from the sun by the sphere in the middle. It will make the math less complex.
You should discover that the sphere in the middle needs to heat up once the second sphere is introduced to the system, in order for the 2-sphere system to emit thermal radiation equivalent to that being received by the middle sphere from the sun.
OK, so assume the plates are 1mm thick and they can emit from either side (enabled via conduction through the plate). We’re back to where we were before…with what I was trying to explain to you before.
Basically, I agree with Phil, who just explained it in a much, much, much, much more concise way. Objects radiate a flux from their entire surface area, i.e including both sides. It makes no sense to suggest that an object emitting a flux of 400 W/m2 from one of its sides and 400 W/m2 from the other side is emitting 800 W/m2 in total. The object is emitting 400 W/m2. If it was hexagonal, in the “depth” dimension as it were (looking like a hexagon facing towards us on Eli’s diagrams), and there were six arrows coming out each labelled 400 W/m2, would you claim it was emitting 2400 W/m2!?
The blue plate will emit 400 W/m2 to the green plate, which will warm until it (the whole surface area of it) is also emitting 400 W/m2 from its surface area, i.e both sides (assuming that it is the same size as the blue plate, as it appears to be).
I’ve also realised that what I wrote in my second post at 2:08pm on October 9 is wrong. I’d overthought things and had complicated the issue by comparing a rotating Earth to a stationary flat plate. A rotating Earth will of course never conduct heat right through from one side to the other but a thin stationary plate will. To compare an assumed fast speed of rotation with the conduction through the plate was a false equivalence which led me to the wrong conclusion that the output flux as well as the “solar constant” input should both be divided by two.
My first post was OK as it was, and the last one too. So for my comment at 1:21am on October 10, you can ignore that part about the assumption, it makes no difference. The rest is right, the plate warms until it emits 400 W/m2 from its entire surface i.e from both sides; which shouldn’t be summed.
Greenhaus (and Phil),
It makes no sense to suggest that an object emitting a flux of 400 W/m2 from one of its sides and 400 W/m2 from the other side is emitting 800 W/m2 in total. The object is emitting 400 W/m2.
There is a way of testing this notion in real life.
Please bear with me. I’ll number the logic train for your ease of reference in reply.
Let’s substitute the sphere of the sun for a light bulb.
It’s total received power in all directions is, say, 40w/m2.
(1) Based on what I’ve quoted of you above, you’re saying it emits 40 w/m2 to a flat plane perpendicular to one side of it, and it emits 40 w/m2 to a flat plane on the other side of it.
Correct so far?
Let the flat plane be your hand. Let’s call the position of your hand ‘in front.’
You’re saying your hand receives 40 w/m2 from the front, and another hand (mine) receives 40 w/m2 from the back of the bulb.
(2) If we could manipulate reality, we would unfold this light bulb into a plane emitting in one direction only, toward your hand. Your hand should feel no warmer than it did when the light bulb was a globe. You’re still receiving 40 w/m2, and no more.
Correct so far?
There is a way to do this without God-like powers. We can easily mimic the effect of having the front and back of the light bulb warming your hand at the same time.
(3) We simply stick another light bulb emitting at the same power. You’re still receiving 40 w/m2 to your hand and no more.
Agreed?
According to you, your hand should feel no warmer.
You can actually try this out.
I’m going to bet your hand feels warmer.
Use a thermometer if you don’t trust your senses.
Let’s take the logic of this further.
If we unfolded both light bulbs into a unidirectional thermal plane, our hand should feel no hotter. It’s still only receiving 40 w/m2. So we can add 2 more light bulbs to mimic that effect.
(3a)Eventually we could have a wall of 100 light bulbs, all emitting at 40 w/m2, but your hand would receive the same amount of heat as if there was one 40 w/m2 light bulb. According to the notion expressed where I’ve quoted you above.
I say that your hand receives (a bit less than) 20 w/m2, and my hand on the other side receives (a bit less than) 20w/m2.
I say that you do indeed sum the two sides to get (closer to) 40 w/m2. (It’s radiating in all directions)
I say that adding a second bulb, mimicking the effect of receiving thermal radiation from the front and back of one bulb, will make your hand feel warmer. Or raise the temperature of a thermometer.
What do you say?
Ok i think the confusion isjust how much energy iscoming in to the first plate .. If your power source is applying 400w to just one side of the plate (and the plate is 1m2 on each side) then it will emit 200w/m2 … 400 watts in 400 watts out..
Further your second plate will receive 200 watts thus emitting. 100w/m2 at equlibrium .. As long as yoi continue to provide power the first plate will remain at a. Higher temp than the second …
Actually there’s a far easier way to settle this.
I asked:
“If it was hexagonal, in the depth dimension as it were (looking like a hexagon facing towards us on Elis diagrams), and there were six arrows coming out each labelled 400 W/m2, would you claim it was emitting 2400 W/m2!?”
Answer the question.
“If it was hexagonal, in the depth dimension as it were (looking like a hexagon facing towards us on Elis diagrams), and there were six arrows coming out each labelled 400 W/m2, would you claim it was emitting 2400 W/m2!?”
Answer the question.
I’m having trouble seeing what you’re saying.
If it were a six-sided 3D shape (ie – a box), with arrows coming out of each side at 400 w/m2 (as received by 6 surfaces perpendicular to each side of the box), then I would definitely say the box was emitting 2400 w/m2 total.
I hope this is close enough to what you’re asking.
Would you mind thinking about and responding to my post? Is there a fault in the train of logic?
OK. Well, to be clear, I was talking about a shape that would be a hexagon in 2D (as I said, facing towards the “camera”, as it were, which has “photographed” the 2D image of Eli’s diagram – yes I know it’s not a photograph and yes I know there’s no camera). In 3D I was envisioning it to extend in the “width” dimension so it would actually be an 8-sided shape. In the same way that a 2D box (a square) becomes a six-sided shape when you consider it as a 3D box. In 2D if you draw on six arrows from the hexagon you imagine that it now emits in total 2400 W/m2. It doesn’t. It is simply emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions. Just as when considering it in 3D, it is not now emitting 3200 W/m2. It is emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions. I hope this is now completely clear.
Firstly, I’m not going to quibble over nit-picky stuff. We’re dealing with idealized scenarios and these conversations are much better if conducted in good faith. You’ve already done the same for me.
I’m picturing a camera looking at the flat side of a hexagon, and the arrows are pointing not at the camera, but radiating perpendicular to the line of sight. From the edges of the hexagon outwards. Is that it?
You’ve got it. That’s the 2D view of the shape. The arrows are drawn pointing out in six directions from all six sides, 400 W/m2 each. Which only means that the object is emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions. Now consider it in 3D. The side facing the camera is a side of the shape. Side 7. That’s emitting 400 W/m2 straight towards the camera. The side you can’t see in the 2D image, side 8, is emitting 400 W/m2 away from the camera. The 3D object is emitting 400 W/m2 in every direction. It’s not emitting 3200 W/m2.
Consider your box example. Seen in 2D, it’s a square. You’ll have four arrows drawn from each side. Again, as you say, perpendicular to the line of sight. Each arrow shows a flux of 400 W/m2. The box (square in 2D) is not emitting 1600 W/m2. It’s simply emitting 400 W/m2 in every direction. Now consider it in 3D. Side 5 is emitting 400 W/m2 straight towards the camera. Side 6 can’t be seen in 2D, but it’s emitting 400 W/m2 away from the camera. In total, it is not emitting 2400 W/m2. It’s emitting 400 W/m2 in every direction.
Now consider your plates…
The arrows are drawn pointing out in six directions from all six sides, 400 W/m2 each. Which only means that the object is emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions.
I think this is an assertion of how you want me to see it.
I would say:
The object is emitting 400 w/m2 in EACH direction.
But really, the diagramatic with arrows and what it means depends upon whoever writes it up.
I have answered many of your questions. If you are not satisfied, I understand. We can get back to your take and how I understand it at a later point.
I’ve have recently asked you to consider various things which have been unanswered. I would like to return to these now, in fair play, and ask you to respond.
Could you reflect on this post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267892
And tell me if there is any fault in the train of logic. Feel free to ask for clarification.
I have ONE follow up scenario – an even simpler one – afterwards, to make the point I am trying to make.
If you will indulge me in this, I promise to come back to your take in due course.
(Have to go to bed. I’ll see your post in the morning, or after whenever you post it. I’m enjoying the conversation)
“The object is emitting 400 w/m2 in EACH direction”.
Yes. I agree. An object at a temperature emits the same flux of energy in each direction. If the blue plate has warmed to the temperature it can due to its distance from the sun and the internal properties of the plate then it will emit the same flux in each direction.
OK then onto your thought experiment. I disagree at 3. You are adding another energy source. A passive emitter is not the same as an energy source. Remove the energy source and the temperature of (and therefore flux emitted from) a passive emitter will drop. Not so for an energy source.
I guess what I’m trying to get across to you is that all objects above 0 K emit radiation in all directions. In which case it is senseless to claim that a) an object can only emit in 2 directions, or b) that you would divide up or multiply the flux emitted by the object based on the number of directions you perceive it to be emitting in. Think about it. All directions (an infinite number?)
Our disagreement is about whether or not you should sum the 2 surfaces of the emitting blue plate to arrive at the total received.
I don’t think (3) fails because adding another bulb is the same as unfolding the single light bulb. It emits 40 w/m2 from all surfaces (as received by your hand), so all we’re doing by adding another bulb is putting another surface emitting at 40 w/m2 to your hand. You say these surfaces cannot sum, so your hand should still be receiving 40 w/m2.
So here’s the simpler demonstration.
You say, the blue plate emits 400 w/m2 from both sides to match the incoming from the sun. So it is emitting 400 w/m2 back to the sun, and 400 w/m2 away from it.
Now add a second sun to the other side of the plate.
The plate is receiving 400 w/m2 from the left, and 400 w/m2 from the right.
If what you’re saying is right, the blue plate should not get one bit warmer with a sun added on the other side.
If you say the blue plate should now emit 800 w/m2, then you do indeed have to sum the two surfaces (of the suns) emitting at 400 w/m2 received.
But all we’ve done is slice the first sun in half and brought the back half around to the other side of the blue plate. The sun, after all, emits 400 w/m2 in all directions, so it should not matter how many of its emitting surfaces get received by the blue plate: it still only receives 400 w/m2 because you can’t sum these surfaces to get more power, according to you.
Barry,
If your plate is 1 square meter its surface arrea is 2m2.. If you arw receiving insolation on just one side at a rate of 400 w/m2. You re recieving 400 w .. If you add another sun on he other side such that side is ALSO receiving 400w/m2 you will be receiving 800 w. Th plate wil warm until it also radiates 800 watts … Divided by its surface area= 400w/m2
Do we agree on this ?
Greenhaus continues to try and complicate the issue to confuse everybunny.
If anybunny noticed, the incoming and outgoing energies were stated as watts per meter squared.
Making the geometrical shape of the plates thin plates simplifies the problem so no fancy geometry is needed.
Best
Eli
Yes, Phil, I agree with that.
Ok good .bear with me here … Because i am trying to figure this out…
So les get rid of the second sun … Or plate is now emitting at 200w/m2..
If we can slice the plate in half yet keep them touching at all points .. Assuming 100% efficiency in convection of1 plate to the other … We still essentially have 1 plate emitting at 200w/m2 in either direction..
Agreeed?
Not trying to confuse the problem … Trying to understand it…
So then if we move the second plate away just far enough that we no longer have conduction … The net radiative transfer between them should be zero (they have the same temp)
What happens?
Eli,
Greenhaus and Phil are confusing the issue. Phil’s comment above is succinct.
I dont understand why you are summinng the emittance from each side of the plate
But their confusion is not tricksy. They genuinely see it that way.
When I first posted at your blog on this, I was confused by the very same notion for a brief while (first put forward here by Gordon Robertson).
But then I thought about it, in much the same way as I’ve been trying to argue with Greenhaus, and eventually saw Gordon’s error.
Total emittance is the sum of surface emittance. Otherwise you could keep introducing (source) surfaces emitting at the same power and the energy received would be no different.
Two suns (surfaces) emitting at 400 w/m2 should supply no more warmth than one. According to these gentlemen.
But Phil may have seen the light. He agrees just above that adding another surface emitting at 400 w/m2 (received) does indeed warm the blue plate further. You do sum emitting surfaces to get total power.
No, Barry, adding another lightbulb is adding another energy source. Unfurling the lightbulb is unfurling the lightbulb. People such as Eli Rabett are misleading you.
Try reading through the later comments under this article::
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/
For a different perspective on Eli’s thought experiment. If you comment there, with the same open-mindedness and decent attitude you can post here, you might find it a worthwhile experience. Entirely up to you…
Phil,
If you add another sun on he other side such that side is ALSO receiving 400w/m2 you will be receiving 800 w. Th plate wil warm until it also radiates 800 watts Divided by its surface area= 400w/m2
Yes, you divide its surface area by 2. 2 sides.
Each side is emitting at 400 w/m2 while receiving a total of 800 w/m2.
This is so in our idealized thought experiment, whether the 800 w/m2 is being received from one side of the blue plate or 400 w/m2 from each side.
Now remove the second sun, as you say. The blue plate is now receiving 400 w/m2.
Divide by 2 to get the emittance of each side of the plate.
200 w/m2
Greenhaus,
As promised, I now return to your hexagonal view.
Each surface of the hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.
You’re saying that the total emittance of the edges cannot be summed to say that the total power of the hexagon is 2400 w/m2 received.
You’re saying that each edge emits at 400 w/m2 received, and that the entire hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.
Correct, according to you?
If so, hold that thought.
Now segment the hexagon into six equal parts. Each is now separate, with their edges emitting at 400 w/m2 received.
Turn all six edges to point at the blue plate.
The blue plate must still be receiving 400 w/m2 only, because we cannot sum the edges of the hexagons.
Correct, in your view?
Now put 3 of the hexagon slices on the other side of the blue plate. They are all emitting at 400 w/m2.
In your view, the blue plate cannot get any warmer. Even though it is receiving 400 w/m2 from one side, and 400 w/m2 from the other.
We cannot sum the power of the hexagon edges. You have been clear on this. So there can be no additional energy being received by the blue plate.
Correct, in your view?
But this is exactly the same as if we introduced another sun emitting at 400 w/m2 on the other side of the blue plate. It’s the same amount of power exactly as the three hexagon slices. And we cannot sum it, according to you.
You said introducing another sun is introducing “another source of power”.
But that new source of power emits exactly the same amount of energy to the blue plate as the 3 hexagon slices. You could swap them as a heat source with no difference to the energy received from that side of the blue plate.
So if a second sun is a new source of power, then so must be the 3 hexagon edges.
Are you beginning to see it? Because I think I have no more thought experiments to add.
“Each surface of the hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.”
I have to stop you there immediately. Each “surface” of the hexagon? No, each “side” of the hexagon.
“Is emitting at 400 w/m2 received”? I’m not sure this is English.
Look I’m not trying to be rude. It really seems like you are even being forced to reinvent the English language inside your head in order to make this work. You seem like an intelligent person and it’s sad to see the extent these people have worked a mind over.
OK.
Each side of the hexagon is emitting a flux relative to the temperature the hexagon (as a whole) has reached. You can conceive of it as 6 separate fluxes if you like, be aware that’s just to aid understanding. All objects above 0K radiate in ALL directions. You can consider it in 3D as I said and think of it radiating in 8 basic directions. However, in 3D as well…it radiates in ALL directions.
“I have to stop you there immediately. Each surface of the hexagon? No, each side of the hexagon”
To be clear: this is not semantics. The words are different for a reason. The *surface* of the hexagonal shape referred to has six *sides* in 2D and eight *sides* in 3D.
As a counter to your thought experiment, consider two apples. An apple is a passive emitter, same as the hexagonal shape, same as the plates. Remove it from an energy source, it will cool. Same as the hexagonal shape, same as the plates. Cut Apple 1 in half and place the two sides either side of Apple 2. Does Apple 2 get warmer? No.
All things radiate in all directions. No argument from me there.
… 400 w/m2 received
It’s a nod to the fact of reduced power over distance. Not meant to confuse, but to acknowledge that 400 w/m2 square is what the surface receives. If the sun is a few million miles way, it obviously radiates at a higher power at its surface, and that wavefront spreads and disperses over distance.
But let’s not get hung up on that. Even if you disagree with it. (Please don’t start a new conversation) Let’s just say 400 w/m2 and I’ll drop the phrasing.
Our argument is not about those things. It is about this.
You are saying that the total power of a sphere (hexagon/plate) is not divisible by its surfaces. The total power in our example is 400 w/m2, and any slice of the emitting surface is also emitting at 400 w/m2. Not some lesser power.
Right?
You have said that if the blue plate receives 400 w/m2 to one surface, it must radiate that amount on both surface, not half each side.
Obviously, I disagree. I have returned to your hexagon example to demonstrate why. Call it edges or sides or whatever, the point is the relationship between total power emitted, and the relative power of each surface. You say they are all the same.
Each side of the hexagon is emitting a flux relative to the temperature the hexagon (as a whole) has reached. You can conceive of it as 6 separate fluxes if you like
Yes, that’s what I did just above.
I’m going to repeat what I said. I ask you to deal explicitly with that and not other stuff. This is the last shot I’m going to make and it would be good to have it dealt with as a whole.
Youre saying that the total emittance of the sides cannot be summed to say that the total power of the hexagon is 2400 w/m2 received.
Youre saying that each side emits at 400 w/m2 received, and that the entire hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.
Correct so far, according to you?
If so, hold that thought.
Now segment the hexagon into six equal parts. Each is now separate, with their sides emitting at 400 w/m2 received.
Turn all six sides to point at the blue plate.
The blue plate must still be receiving 400 w/m2 only, because we cannot sum the sides of the hexagons.
Correct, in your view?
Now put 3 of the hexagon slices on the other side of the blue plate. They are all emitting at 400 w/m2.
In your view, the blue plate cannot get any warmer. Even though it is receiving 400 w/m2 from one side, and 400 w/m2 from the other.
We cannot sum the power of the hexagon edges. You have been clear on this. So there can be no additional energy being received by the blue plate.
Correct, in your view?
But this is exactly the same as if we introduced another sun emitting at 400 w/m2 on the other side of the blue plate. Its the same amount of power exactly as the three hexagon slices. And we cannot sum it, according to you.
You said introducing another sun is introducing “another source of power”.
But that new source of power emits exactly the same amount of energy to the blue plate as the 3 hexagon slices. You could swap them as a heat source with no difference to the energy received from that side of the blue plate.
So if a second sun is a new source of power, then so must be the 3 hexagon edges.
Those 3 sides of the hexagon are supplying additional energy to the plate, the same amount of additional energy we get by adding a new sun to that side of the plate.
But according to you, that is not possible, because those 3 sides of the hexagon are indivisible from the total power of the hexagon, and no new energy can be added just by moving them to the other side of the blue plate.
Do you see it?
I see I kept the “receiving” terminology in the copy and paste. Please ignore it. We’ve done well so far refraining from quibbling about terminology. Just ignore the “received” bits, please, and let’s continue in good faith.
Given a body of any shape the emission from any infinitesmal part of the surface of area dXdY is [dXdY s T^4] where s is the Stefan Boltzman constant and T the temperature. You can integrate this out to fit any surface. The shape of the body does not matter.
It’s really simple if you have a plate of area A on one side the total area is 2A and the total emission is [2A s T^4] with A s T^4 coming out of each side.
The issue about infinitely thin is also a distraction. All that is needed is that the thickness t << XY so you can neglect emission from the edges.
“Do you see it?”
No, Barry. Do you see that if you cut Apple 1 into 1,000 segments, and put 500 segments on either side of Apple 2, then Apple 2 will not get warmer?
Apple 1 and Apple 2 are of equal temperature. Thus their surfaces radiate a flux relative to that temperature in all directions (including towards each other). When cut into 500 segments, each segment remains at the same temperature. So each segment is now radiating a flux relative to that temperature in all directions. Including towards Apple 2 for the segments on one side, and including towards Apple 2 for the 500 segments on the other side. So in a sense you now have 1000 segments radiating towards Apple 2, and yet it gets no warmer.
Greenhaus,
Could you respond to the post in the terms I put it ? Based on your hexagon? Let’s stick with the thought experiments we have and play them out.
You are saying introducing a new sun (light bulb) to the other side would make the plate warmer. I quote you:
No, Barry, adding another lightbulb [sun] is adding another energy source.
Relocating half the hexagon (3 segments) to the other side of the blue plate does the same job as introducing a new sun. These 3 segments are also radiating at 400 w/m2.
But in your conception these 3 segments should not add any energy, because they are indivisible from the total energy of the whole hexagon, also radiating at 400 w/m2 “in any direction” (whether in 2D or 3D). I quote you:
“The arrows are drawn pointing out in six directions from all six sides, 400 W/m2 each. Which only means that the object is emitting 400 W/m2 in all directions. Now consider it in 3D. The side facing the camera is a side of the shape. Side 7. Thats emitting 400 W/m2 straight towards the camera. The side you cant see in the 2D image, side 8, is emitting 400 W/m2 away from the camera. The 3D object is emitting 400 W/m2 in every direction. Its not emitting 3200 W/m2.“
I say there is a discrepancy here.
Either a new sun adds no more energy and the blue plate can’t get warmer (contrary to what you said), or relocating the 3 segments does radiating at 400 w/m2 towards the right side of the blue plate does add more energy, which is contrary to the notion of each side of the hex radiating the same amount as the whole hex.
Please tell what you think is fallacious with my critique here, in the terms provided (the hexagon idea is yours).
“Relocating half the hexagon (3 segments) to the other side of the blue plate does the same job as introducing a new sun”
You are acting like I’m trying to skirt round the issue by introducing my own version of your thought experiment. My version of your thought experiment can be seen to be exactly the same as yours. It is also a real experiment you can actually do. Make yourself a hexagonal shape out of some passively emitting material. Divide the shape into six equally sized segments. Put three on each side of whatever passively emitting object you like. Measure the temperature of the object before and after adding the segments each side. There will be no temperature difference.
When I introduced the idea of the hexagon the point of it was to explain that an object (the plate) will emit the same flux from however many sides it may have. I was simply trying to introduce to you the idea that dividing the flux that an object emits from all over its surface by the number of sides it has, makes no sense. Because an object radiates energy in all directions, from every point around its surface. Now in your thought experiment you have replaced the hexagon as some external, different thing and you still have the blue plate. The hexagon was meant to *be* the plate, just to show you that it doesn’t matter how many sides it has.
Regardless of the fact that you are completely missing my point, you appear to be visualising the hexagon as some sort of energy source (equivalent to a second sun). I will try to pinpoint exactly where you go wrong: adding another energy source “adds more energy” (your wording), yes. As in additional energy, energy that wasn’t there to begin with (it’s tied up inside the second sun as potential energy, before the second sun is introduced). Dividing up a passively emitting object does not “add more energy” because you can think of the passive object as merely “recycling” the energy already provided by the energy source (first sun). The energy that a passive object emits ultimately *comes from* the energy source in the first place. Turn off the sun and there is no more energy for passive objects to “recycle”.
Perhaps that will help. I have really tried. I haven’t seen your friend Eli (whose opinion you seem to trust) helping you in any way to correct what he must surely realise, qualified as he is, are your misconceptions here. I do however have a life to get on with. I have spent a lot of time here and I really should be getting on with other things. Last post!
Eli has posted some math just above, solving surface area/power.
Yes, I have been analogizing the hex with the sun – based on your idea that the sun radiates at the same power in all directions that it does in any single direction. The half of the sphere “seen” by the blue plate emits 400 w/m2 to it, and the unfolded sun is also emitting at 400 w/m2 unidirectionally. According to you.
Surface area has no meaning WRT to power, according to you. That’s why you say you cannot divide the energy emitted by the blue plate in half to reflect two surface areas emitting a power that sums to the whole.
You’ve said the same of suns and apples and plates.
I finally figured out the simplest way to show you are wrong.
I say, the sun has a surface area. It cannot emit at the same power for one size of its surface area that it does for a smaller or larger surface area. It can’t emit the same power from its ‘front’ than it does if the back and front were facing in the same direction – toward the plate. More area will provide more thermal emission. Less will provide less.
How do I know this?
I calculated a change in power (watts) by changing the size of the emitting emitting surface area.
You can do it yourself just by clicking on this link, and converting w/m2 to w/cm2.
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/heat-flux-density/
Choose 400 w/m2 and see the result. 0.04W/cm2
The values are different.
Because surface area does matter in terms of thermal emission.
The fact we are using the unit W/m2 (Watts per square meter) should have clued us in from the beginning.
Thus, the blue plate emits 400 w/m2 –> It has 2 surfaces –> Each surface must emit 200 w/m2.
Greenhaus is missing the point and misleading others. Although you could work the problem out with varying degrees of difficulty the reason to use perfectly absorbing flat thin plates is that you can eliminate geometrical issues having to do with how much of the radiated energy hits the plates. With thin large plates the answer is ALL OF IT. With other shapes you twist yourself into Euclidean knots although if you do it correctly you get the same answer.
Calculation of the geometric factor if the surfaces are finite and arbitrary is not trivial and only confuses the issue, which Eli suspects strongly is Greenhaus’ purpose since he or she cannot falsify Eli’s proof. For a discussion of this see
http://www.mie.uth.gr/labs/ltte/grk/pubs/ahtt.pdf pp 487 and the following 100 pages or so
“Because surface area does matter in terms of thermal emission.”
Of course.
“I say, the sun has a surface area.”
Yes.
“It cannot emit at the same power for one size of its surface area that it does for a smaller or larger surface area. It cant emit the same power from its front than it does if the back and front were facing in the same direction toward the plate. More area will provide more thermal emission. Less will provide less”
And there isn’t more surface area, there’s exactly the same amount. Your “unfolded sun”, or lightbulb, from earlier, is just the surface area of the sun, bulb, of whatever, folded out into a flat plane and thus emitting in only one direction. No surface area is added or removed. That’s the only reason I ever agreed to your “unfolded sun” or “unfolded lightbulb” as it was at the time, emitting the same flux as the normal bulb (just in one direction).
I’m glad that you’ve had the revelation that the m2 in W/m2 refers to surface area. It’s funny because I’ve been repeatedly trying to explain that the *surface* area of an object is what is relevant to its flux and not the *side* area (meaning *total surface area divided by number of sides*, is not relevant). Kind of my whole point for the last several posts. I said the last comment was my last post and I really wanted it to be, but when people put words in my mouth it really irritates me.
If you want to claim victory, fine, just don’t make up my position in order to do so,
I think i figured out what was confusing me. (Physics courses were so long ago lol)
I have been picturing the blue plate as a ‘sun’ to the green plate , providing power without regards to radiative transfer and temperature..believing the green plate is at equlibrium radiating 100w/m2. This is also the error in the original thought experiment
Because the blue plate is actually a passive emitter and we need to look at radiative trransfer…
As long as the net radiative transfer from blue to green is positive , the temperature of green will increase…
Thus equlibrium is only reached when green is emitting 200w/m2.. And this the same temp as blue
Energy is conserved 200w out either side and 400 input
Net radiative transfer is 0 and the plates temps are the same
The waem plate has warmed the cold plate and all is as it should be
Thanks to greeenhaus for helping me with that
Energy is conserved 200w out either side and 400 input
Wouldn’t that mean that the green and blue plate are emitting each 0w/m2 to the inside?
Which would mean that the inside surfaces of blue and green plate are 0K.
?
No,
It means the net transfer between them is 0
Picture it as a wave of energy moving from the right side of the system and out the left with a total power of 200 w
And another moving from left to right …
You started by wondering if the blue plate should be emitting 400 w/m2 either side.
Seems now you’ve agreed it should be emitting 200 w/m2 either side.
Based on:
Energy is conserved 200w out either side and 400 input
So if the blue plate emits 200 w/m2 towards the green plate, the green plate only receives 200 w/m2.
So it emits 100 w/m2 out either side.
How can it emit more than 100 w/m2 outside the system?
It must get warmer.
For it to get warmer, the blue plate has to make it warmer. There is no other way.
The blue plate has to emit more than 200 w/m2 towards the green plate. The green plate is receiving energy from nowhere else.
If energy was a wave passing through the 2-plate system, 400 w/m2 would enter from the left, and 400 w/m2 would exit through the right.
But energy is not flowing unidirectionally. Some is being emitted back towards the left, some to the right. And some between the 2 plates.
Someone downthread asked me to describe a way in which a mug of cold beer could make an apple warmer than it was. I described this system:
A box with an apple and a heater, and a hole in the top just a little smaller than the circumference of the mug.
Let the system settle to equilibrium. Heat flow to the apple and out the hole at the top is now constant. The apple is now at a constant temperature.
Now place the mug of cold beer over the hole at the top.
The apple will eventually get warmer because heat loss from the system is being slowed down. The mug will also warm from the bottom, but at no time will the temperature of the whole mug be warmer than the apple. It is losing heat to the cooler outside air along every side. The top of the mug will be cooler than the bottom after equilibrium is reached.
The introduction of the green plate slows the loss of heat from the blue plate. The green plate is now emitting half the thermal loss of the blue plate back to it. The blue plate must warm. The green plate also must warm in response. Now it can emit more than 100 w/m2 out of the system. Both plates warm until the thermal loss out of each side of the system = input. Then the warming stops.
The green plate will be less warm than the blue.
Just like the mug will be less warm than the apple.
Unless the primary laws of thermodynamics apply differently to radiation than it does to convection and conduction.
You’re welcome, Phil, although I don’t agree with your solution.
The correct answer is as shown in this comment:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31029
The reasoning is explained in the comments there.
greenhaus, how can that solution be correct?
It is violating 1st law. The green plate has net -200. It cannot be in equilibrium.
Picture it as a wave of energy moving from the right side of the system and out the left with a total power of 200 w
And another moving from left to right
Ah. I misperceived that as I was writing. Annoying that I have to scroll an entire subthread to jump between a reply and my response.
The energy source is coming from one side only, not both. The green plate can never be as warm as the blue plate, because the blue plate shields it from the sun. Your view would work if the sun was between the two plates.
The green plate cannot warm to the same temperature as the blue plate, because as the green plate warms it emits more thermal radiation back to the blue plate, which is already receiving 400 w/m2 from the sun. The blue plate must lose more heat, which then warms the green plate.
This continues until the 2-plate thermal outflux is equivalent to influx.
Like the mug of cold beer makes the apple warmer.
A cooler body can make a warmer body warmer if there is an energy source supplying the system, and the introduction of the cooler body slows the heat loss from the warmer body.
There are many everyday examples dotted throughout this comments section. I cooked last night. I saw this in action.
Thermal radiation is subject to the same basic laws of thermodynamics as convection and conduction.
BTW Phil,
Your solution is completely at odds with Greenhaus’.
You see that total power lost by the system is equivalent to the sum of that lost by each side. Greenhaus believes you cannot sum the sides.
Where your blue plate (with no green plate) is losing 200 w/m2 either side, his is losing 400 w/m2 either side.
That’s a fundamental difference.
@ Greenhaus:
I’m not sure that is the correct solution, but then, as i’ve said i’m a long way from my Physics courses and I am open to being corrected (by you and/or Barry).
If the 400/m2 is the total flux applied to the plate I would agree with you.. but following the thought experiment (and barrys) thinking.. if that is just the power incident on one side… dividing by 2 to get the proper total flux seems logical to me (the minor area of the edges not withstanding)
Please look at my follow up to barry and you’ll see my thinking and perhaps be able to correct me
@barry
I agree having to scroll up to leave a reply is annoying so i will start a new sub thread off the main with my response to you.. (this may take a while lol)
The problem is basically flawed from the get go as essentially the plates are 2D objects inserted into a 3D space. We can see from the diagram that from left to right there is meant to be some sense of distance, not to scale of course in the diagram itself, but it is meant to be representing a space in which there’s the sun, then at a certain distance to the right is the blue plate, then further the green. Call this the x axis. Since these are “infinitely thin” plates their depth actually don’t “exist” in a sense along this x axis, since this is the dimension they are lacking. I understand that you can reduce problems to 2D or have multiple dimensions to consider various things but having 2D objects in a 3D space is a different matter. It’s just completely nonsensical. You could argue that for consistency if the plates lack depth then there should not be any distance between the sun and the plates. Without depth you could also assume that the front side of the plate, facing the sun, and the back side facing away, are essentially the same thing.
That the surface area receiving 400 W/m2 is receiving the flux from the sun is half the surface area emitting does present a problem from a conservation of energy point of view if both sides emit 400 W/m2. But equally, as Postma points out, the side facing the sun also has to reach a temperature where it’s emitting 400 W/m2 to be in equilibrium with the flux from the sun:
“Yes, if the plate was thick and made of a material with very low thermal diffusivity, then the sun-facing surface would have no reason not to warm right up to the equivalent temperature and emit 400 W/m^2. The heat flow equation is used for surfaces facing each other and the facing surfaces are what find equilibrium with each other, not the other side of the surfaces or the facing surface + other side surface. If you look at radiative heat flow textbooks and the sections on view factors and radiant heat flow between objects, the heat flow equation is always between the surfaces facing each other only. Thus, this is where Q goes to zero to find thermal equilibrium which is defined as Q = 0. The equations dont concern themselves with what happens on the other side of the surface receiving heat.”
You have a conundrum between the two arguments (which are both pretty fundamental concepts to physics) that really only exists because of the flawed setup. So you could also argue that really there’s no answer, it’s just a bizarre thought experiment which doesn’t relate to reality in any way and we’re wasting our time thinking about it.
Postma continues:
“After setting up the 400 W/m^2 and the first plate, the example then immediately divorced from reality by not using the actual, correct heat flow equation that would exist between a heat source and a plate the other side of the plate isnt a factor, i.e. the equilibrium condition is NOT that the input gets split by two.
But still, what about the thermal energy being conducted into the plate? Does this reduce the equilibrium temperature of the plate since that energy then gets emitted on the other side?
Consider then if the plate had infinite thermal diffusivity and/or was extremely thin. What would happen then? Think of whats actually happening to the molecules of the plate to cause the plate to warm. The molecules are being induced to vibrate because of the vibrating electromagnetic waves incident upon them. The molecules are induced to vibrate by what is forcing them to: the electromagnetic waves. So, they can do nothing but vibrate at the rate at which they are being forced. At the 400 W/m^2.
Now, their splitting and multiplying energy by two will immediately make them have a conniption and claim that energy is not being conserved with this result (of 400 W/m^2 for the plate). The reason why they are wrong about that is because no energy is *LOST* by the plate on its sun-ward facing side. Cant they see that? For every 400 W/m^2 emitted on the sun-ward side, 400 W/m^2 is replaced. There is ZERO energy loss from the plate on its sun-ward side. The only place where the plate can lose thermal energy is, of course, obviously, on its other side. *An object cant lose thermal energy in the direction from which it has and is gaining thermal energy.(!) Thats a contradiction in terms. If youre gaining thermal energy from one direction from a source, you can not simultaneously be losing thermal energy to that direction to that source.(!)* Logic! Physics! Maths!
Energy is conserved because then the 400 W/m^2 from the source eventually finds its way through to the other side of the plate (whether thick or thin) and is emitted there.
People with PhDs are good at confusing themselves.”
continued here : http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268263
I repeat here, for the second time, what I wrote on another Roy Spencer thread :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/the-11-year-major-hurricane-drought-much-more-unusual-than-two-cat-4-strikes/
*
For the trolls who
– pretend to know everything better about Clausius, but are
– only able to refer to free, inexact english translations, and of course are not
– able to carefully read the original documents published by Clausius himself in German.
*
What is called the second law of Thermodynamics, has been stated as a principle (but was never proved) by Rudolf Clausius in an article entitled
Ueber eine veraenderte Form des zweiten Hauptsatzes der mechanischen Waermetheorie
i.e.
On a modified form of the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat
published 1854 in ‘Annalen der Physik und Chemie’ Band XCIII Nr 12, pp. 481-506.
to be found in e.g.
http://zfbb.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00140956/18541691202_ftp.pdf
The exact text (in p. 488) is:
Dieser Grundsatz, auf welchem die ganze folgende Entwickelung beruht, lautet: es kann nie Waerme aus einem kaelteren in einen waermeren Koerper uebergehen, wenn nicht gleichzeitig eine andere damit zusammenhaengende Aenderung eintrift.
i.e.
This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
It should be clear to anybody that a truncation of Clausius’ statement down to e.g.
‘Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body’
is nothing else than lack of understanding or will to manipulate.
*
Moreover, people always referring to Clausius’ statement mostly ignore his deep knowledge concerning radiation. Here is an example of this knowledge.
Here is a link to Clausius’ main work:
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
where you see therein the following (paragraph 1 on p. 315):
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
Braunschweig, 1887
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
i.e.
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
*
Clausius had, over 150 years ago, perfectly understood that radiation isn’t a simple, unidirectional process.
Of course, the one or the other stubborn denialist certainly will have no problem in inventing some pseudo-argument against even Clausius knowledge!
Thanks for admitting your ignorance of thermodynamics, Bin.
Thanks for that.
Beautiful Bindidon!
And you all can be sure that despite clear references to Clausius wonderful work and thoughts, the Robertson troll will repeat ad nauseam his lies concerning Clausius, 2Lot etc!
100% sure.
Bin, always be sure to refer to people having different opinions as “liars”.
It shows your “intellectualism”.
Always remember, it’s all about YOU!
It was not an opinion, Bindidon showed by direct quotation that Gordon was prevaricating.
Gordon says:
“An insulator in contact with a hotter body prevents the atoms on the body from transferring heat to its surroundings by conduction.”
Gosh, are you saying insulation slows the rate of cooling? Good job Gordon!
+1
Bin wrote,
This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
It should be clear to anybody that a truncation of Clausius’ statement down to e.g.
‘Heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body’
is nothing else than lack of understanding or will to manipulate.
—————————-
Yes. The 2loT applies to closed, or isolated systems. The climate system is not closed or isolated. It receives constant energy from the sun.
When the sweater analogy is mentioned, I’ve often seen ‘skeptics’ say that a sweater could not warm a cadaver. This is the point at which they remove the source of energy (body heat) to try and rebut.
Just to keep it focused – the point being discussed here is the contention that cooler bodies can never cause warmer bodies to get warmer under any circumstance. Whether one discusses convection, conduction or radiation is beside the point. All you need is one example of a cooler body causing a warmer one to get warmer to disprove this silly notion. Putting a sweater on (a live human body) on a cold day sweater is one such example.
Blankets, coats, sweaters all “prove” the 2nd LoT is invalid, according to AGW “science”!
And, the Warmists must cling to that.
Otherwise, the cult just dies away.
Do you hold that if a live human being puts on a sweater on a cold day, the air between the jumper and the skin will not get warmer?
Do you hold that the atmosphere is a sweater?
On the notion that a cooler body cannot cause a warmer body to get warmer under any conditions, I’m curious about your answer to this.
If a cooler body always draws the heat from a warmer body under any conditions, putting on a sweater on a cold day should cause you to feel colder.
Do you hold that if a live human being puts on a sweater on a cold day, the air between the sweater and the skin will not get warmer?
Vous perdez votre temps dans d’inutiles discussions, barry. Ce commentateur a toujours raison.
Bin states: “Ce commentateur a toujours raison.”
C’est vrai, Bin.
barry, a sweater acts as an insulator. Clothes, in any form, have NO relevance to the atmosphere. Your reluctance to leave the issue indicates you do not understand physics.
The point of contention is that a cooler body cannot cause a warmer body to get warmer under any circumstance.
You say,”a sweater acts as an insulator.”
The sweater is colder than the skin temperature.
Putting on a sweater raises skin temperature.
So it seems you agree that there are some circumstances where a cooler body can cause a warmer body to get warmer without violating the 2loT.
Would this be correct?
Incorrect. A sweater does NOT violate the 2LoT.
The sweater is an insulator. It inhibits convection and conduction.
The atmosphere is NOT an insulator. It ALLOWS convection and conduction.
Your reluctance to leave this issue indicates you do not understand physics.
A sweater does NOT violate the 2LoT
I totally agree.
I’m approaching this methodically, starting with a common notion expressed here, that a cooler body cannot cause a warmer body to get warmer under any circumstance.
I shall take it we have reached agreement on this point – that there is no violation of the 2nd Law that, in some circumstances, a cooler body can cause a warmer body to get warmer.
Agreeing on this does not require either of us abandoning our views on AGW, just establishes a point of agreement from which to move forward.
NO!
barry, in NO circumstances can a cold body warm a hot body.
You MUST get that false belief out of your head.
“Cold” does not warm “hot”.
Repeat it 10 times before bedtime, if necessary.
So having established that it is possible for a cooler body to cause a warmer body to get warmer without violating the 2loT, we can now discuss between us if this does or doesn’t apply in the atmosphere.
I’m going to continue methodically, testing statements made, to see if we can pin-point exactly where our thinking diverges.
Atmospheric thermal processes include conductive, convective and radiative. I think we may agree on that, but feel free to say otherwise.
Let’s start with a statement you made in your last post.
The atmosphere is NOT an insulator.
I’m taking that as a blanket statement, and challenging it to see if we may agree that the truth is more nuanced.
Does the atmosphere insulate the surface of the earth from UV rays?
I would say “yes,” and from that would argue that the atmosphere has insulating properties per se, and that we should abandon the notion that the atmosphere is incapable of acting as an insulator.
If you agree, we can get more specific. If not, then I’d want to clear that up.
barry, in NO circumstances can a cold body warm a hot body.
Oh no! We’re back to square one.
My sweater is colder than my skin.
I put it on in the cold night air and my skin temperature increases, by insulating against energy loss.
A colder body has made a warmer body warmer. In this case, through insulation. The 2nd Law is not violated.
Yes?
barry claims: So having established that it is possible for a cooler body to cause a warmer body to get warmer without violating the 2loT, we can now discuss between us if this does or doesnt apply in the atmosphere.”
FALSE!
That was only “established” in your mind.
barry asks: “A colder body has made a warmer body warmer. In this case, through insulation. The 2nd Law is not violated. Yes?
NO!
barry, if you can’t leave the pathetic clothing issue, I will have to assume you can not advance.
A cold sweater is NOT warming your body. The sweater is impeding convection and conduction. Your body is supplying any “heating”.
Your mind is infested with AGW pseudoscience. TRY to avoid the clothing nonsense. Leave that for the junior high kids.
A cold sweater is NOT warming your body. The sweater is impeding convection and conduction. Your body is supplying any heating.
Yes, the sweater is not a source of heat.
The enregy is provided by your body.
But a sweater is colder than your body heat, and when you put it on, it impedes the escape of warmth from your skin.
Putting on a sweater makes your skin warmer, even though the sweater starts out colder than your kin.
Putting on a colder object makes you warmer. A cooler object has caused the air near your skin to warm up, through insulation.
Any disagreement there?
g*r…”A cold sweater is NOT warming your body. The sweater is impeding convection and conduction. Your body is supplying any heating”.
This is very basic thermodynamics. When I mention conduction and convection some alarmists on this blog wonder what I’m talking about. The AGW theory has created a myth that heat can only be transferred by radiation.
In a home, if you want to block radiation, you have to install a reflective barrier in the walls and ceiling. The R-rated insulation that goes between joists and studs is there to block conduction and convection.
barry, ask yourself why you are desperately grasping at straws? Clothes have no relevance to the AGW discussion. You are clinging to a failed premise.
Why do you do this to yourself?
barry…”I put it on in the cold night air and my skin temperature increases, by insulating against energy loss”.
You have radiation on the brain. As g*r claims, the sweater stops and slows down molecules of air. It helps trap warm air molecules against your body. Just stopping convection as in a greenhouse will allow the inside of the greenhouse to warm. Radiation is not involved to any degree.
A sweater has nothing to do with blocking IR emitted by the body. Ergo, the body does not cool appreciably by radiating IR, it cools by transferring heat to air molecules. The cooling of your skin (a chill) is the effect of hot air rising off your skin and being replaced by cooler air via convection.
The contention I am challenging is that a cool object cannot cause a warmer object to get warmer under any circumstance.
I’ll repeat that so there is no misunderstanding.
The contention I am challenging is that a cool object cannot cause a warmer object to get warmer under any circumstance.
We’re stuck disagreeing about that and I won’t be moving on until we find a resolution. Back to the example to hand.
The sweater is not a source of heat.
The energy is provided by your body.
But a sweater is colder than your body heat, and when you put it on, it impedes the escape of warmth from your skin.
Your core body temperature hasn’t changed. The temperature of the ambient air hasn’t changed. The only difference is that you put on a sweater. This is the ’cause’ we are talking about, because everything else is the same.
Putting on a colder object makes you warmer. A cooler object has caused the air near your skin to warm up, through insulation.
Any disagreement there?
The clothes do not make you warmer.. They do however slow your rate of cooling .. The sweater does not warm your skin … Your core warmsyour skin which warms the air trapped under the sweater…
You may ‘feel’ warmer but the coat has not warmed you ….
barry, you just keep beating the dead horse.
I can do that too:
barry, ask yourself why you are desperately grasping at straws? Clothes have no relevance to the AGW discussion. You are clinging to a failed premise.
Why do you do this to yourself?
If we can’t find a point to agree on from which to progress there’s no point in moving on.
Because otherwise we are just playing a game of contradiction, and that is not in the least bit interesting. To me, anyway.
Last try:
A sweater is not a source of heat.
The energy is provided by your body.
But a sweater is colder than your body heat, and when you put it on, it impedes the escape of warmth from your skin.
Your core body temperature hasnt changed. The temperature of the ambient air hasnt changed. The only difference is that you put on a sweater. This is the cause we are talking about, because everything else is the same.
Putting on a colder object makes you warmer. A cooler object has caused the air near your skin to warm up, through insulation.
Any disagreement there?
barry…”But a sweater is colder than your body heat, and when you put it on, it impedes the escape of warmth from your skin”.
Have you ever put on cold clothing when you feel warm? They feel cold. They will warm quickly due to contact with your skin and the air surrounding your skin.
The sweater impedes warmth from your skin by trapping air molecules, similar to the glass in a greenhouse. A sweater cannot trap radiation.
Example, I wear a heart rate monitor when I go walking/jogging. I have a transmitter I wear around my chest by my heart and it picks up electrical activity from my heart. It transmits that activity to a receiver on a watch, which displays my heart rate.
In winter, I wear up to 5 layers of clothing when temps fall to 0C or below, including a heavy, quilted winter coat. The electromagnetic energy from the chest transmitter goes straight through the clothing no problem. IR from your body would not be impeded in the least by a sweater.
The sweater impedes warmth from your skin by trapping air molecules
Agreed.
So, the contention that a cool body cannot cause a warmer body to get warmer under any circumstance is wrong.
There have been quibbles over the notion of ’cause’.
The sweater is not a source of heat.
It changes the rate of heat flow away from your skin.
Putting one on ’causes’ your skin to feel warmer.
Assuming that we are agreed on that, let’s move on to radiation. I have a question.
Do the laws of thermodynamics also apply to radiation, or only convection and conduction?
barry, you can not get away from the coat/sweater/blanket nonsense. I have warned you that it just reveals how little you understand about thermodynamics. A coat is NOT supplying heat energy to a person. It is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”. You just can’t see that, because you MUST have “cold” warming “hot” for your pseudoscience.
Often it is impossible to save people from the mind control of false religions.
A coat is NOT supplying heat energy to a person.
I’ve stated a few times that a coat/ sweater is not a source of heat. Yet here you are saying so as if you’ve not read me saying that. Looks like our communication is breaking down.
It is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”.
The language I use has been been precise, and not that. I think we’re quibbling over semantics here.
I said that a cooler object can cause a warmer object to become warmer. I never said it supplied the heat.
You put on a sweater. You get warmer.
Your core body temperature hasn’t changed. The temperature of the ambient air hasn’t changed.
What has changed is the introduction of insulation around your body, in the form of a sweater. This is the cause of you feeling warmer.
IOW, a colder object has made a warm object warmer.
You just cant see that, because you MUST have “cold” warming “hot” for your pseudoscience.
Right now I don’t care about that. I’ve been trying to get some basic agreement on how thermodynamics operate.
You have avoided answering my last question above on the 2-plate example by diverting to the conversation on sweaters. You are stumped. I think we’ve gone as far as we can.
Thanks for the conversation.
barry, you keep missing the point. You keep saying the right things, but you keep coming back to the wrong conclusion.
Trying to use a sweater as an example of “cold” warming “hot” is flawed thinking. I’m trying to that thought process.
You may decline, of course.
Your conversation has been polite. I interpret that to mean, at some point, you will figure things out.
Should be: “Im trying to correct that thought process.”
Gordon Robertson says:
“The electromagnetic energy from the chest transmitter goes straight through the clothing no problem. IR from your body would not be impeded in the least by a sweater.”
Prove it?
Why wouldn’t IR be “impeded?”
Why do you think you wear a coat, anyway? Or sleep under blankets? Magic?
barry, you keep missing the point. You keep saying the right things, but you keep coming back to the wrong conclusion.
Trying to use a sweater as an example of cold warming hot is flawed thinking. Im trying to that thought process.
The net flow of heat is always from a hotter object to a colder one.
Where people seem to get stuck is in understanding that a change in that flow can cause that warmer object to get warmer, even if the material introduced to the system is cooler than the object that warms up as a result.
Insulation is an example.
‘The net flow of heat is always from hot to cold’ seems to have become mantra against the greenhouse effect. That’s why people come up with insulation analogies (and others) as an argument. The basic premise is unchanged, but these examples are meant to ameliorate a dogmatic, simplistic response that ignores the fact the changes in the rate of heat flow can occur even if the property changing that rate of flow is cooler than the warmer object.
Agreeing that cooler objects can change the rate of heat flow does not automate belief in the greenhouse effect. It just gets rid of an overly simplistic view of the 2nd Law. One can agree that insulation does the job it does, and then argue that the atmosphere is not an insulator. You’ve already opened that argument here recently.
barry VIOLATES the laws of thermodynamics: “Where people seem to get stuck is in understanding that a change in that flow can cause that warmer object to get warmer, even if the material introduced to the system is cooler than the object that warms up as a result.”
No barry, you can NOT cause the warmer object to get warmer without adding more energy.
No barry, you can NOT cause the warmer object to get warmer without adding more energy.
To be precise, all you need is a constant addition of energy and a change in the rate of its flow.
For the sweater analogy, the constant source of energy is the body. The change in the loss of heat from your skin to the adjacent air is caused by putting a sweater on. You feel warmer as a result of putting the sweater on, not because the source of heat (your body) has changed.
And once again, the sweater analogy misleads you.
A sweater is a passive insulator. It’s properties of heat transfer do not change. The atmosphere is an ACTIVE heat transfer median. It transfer more heat energy with higher temperatures, and less heat energy with lower temperatures. It acts to CONTROL Earth’s temperature.
Comparing a sweater/coat/blanket to the atmosphere is desperate pseudoscience.
barry…”Do you hold that if a live human being puts on a sweater on a cold day, the air between the jumper and the skin will not get warmer?”
Let’s remove radiation from the equation. The human body is around 98.6 F. Say 100F to make things easier. If you immerse your body is a tank of 100F water it will likely feel OK but for a comfortable bath it’s likely around 105C or so.
In 100F water the body will neither heat up nor cool due to the water alone provided your body is mainly immersed. Your head is likely out and cooling can take place through your head.
There is no radiation cooling your body to the water because you are in equilibrium with the water. If you stay in the bath long enough the water will cool due to conduction through the metal bath, convection, and radiation. As it cools you start to feel colder because the cooler water below 100F is gradually taking heat from your body.
In the atmosphere, in a warm room, you are essentially cloaked in an invisible mass of molecules. The air molecules draw heat from your body by simply touching your skin. All air molecules do that and N2/O2 makes up 99%+ of the air.
Even the thin layer of a T-shirt will trap enough air molecules, allowing them to warm. They warm quickly. If you put on a sweater, you trap even more air molecules. Furthermore, you further prevent convective air currents from carrying off the heated air next to your skin. The more layers you add, the more air your trap, and the warmer you feel.
If you are wearing a T-shirt and sweater at room temperature, and the air next to your skin is in equilibrium with your skin, there’s no need for radiation. Radiation takes place only when there is a temperature gradient from your skin to the surrounding air.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Lets remove radiation from the equation.”
Dingbat.
I asked Gordon if he believes that the laws of thermodynamic do not apply (or apply differently) to radiative energy. I genuinely don’t know what his answer would be.
barry…”This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens”.
Clausius called it compensation. Here’s an example.
In an air conditioner, a compressor driven by external power compresses a gas like propane till it is a high pressure liquid. The HP liquid enters a condenser with fins that are open to the atmosphere. The HP liquid releases heat to the atmosphere.
The condenser output leads to a valve that atomizes the cooled liquid and that leads to an evapourator, with fins like a radiator, that allows the HP liquid to expand. As it expands the fins are in contact with a space that requires cooling. The reduction in pressure of the HP gas draws heat from the space, cooling it.
As the space cools, heat is being transferred from the cooler space to the warmer atmosphere but it’s done through the contraption I have just described. At no time is heat transferred directly from the cooled space to the atmosphere.
Clausius claimed the space cannot transfer heat to the atmosphere on it’s own. Neither can cooler gases transfer heat to warmer gases in the atmosphere OR to a warmer surface.
The “another change” you always ignore is the Sun, which is pouring heat into the Earth at fantastic rates.
But Davie, you have indicated the Sun is not a factor.
Confused much?
I’m not confused that you’re referring to a different argument.
Des on October 6, 2017 at 3:54 PM
From 1999 to 2008, either Weatherbell is running hot or UAH is running cold.
Why do you expect surface records to behave exactly like what is measured somewhere between 4 and 7 km above surface?
The big peaks in your diff plot are related to ENSO events, because they show the biggest differences between surface and troposphere:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1507417565931/001.jpg
And this diff plot you would obtain for any big ENSO event in the satellite era between UAH and any other surface record.
With one exception, 2015/16, because what happened in this period manifestly must have been far more than solely an El Nino bump.
If it had been an El Nino and nothing else, all surface records would not have shown anything else than for 1997/98, because according to all ENSO indices (JMA, ONI, NINO3+4, SOI, MEI) 2015/16 was by no means stronger than 1997/98:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1507418427132/001.jpg
Now look at a comparison between UAH and three surface records (JMA, GISS, Had-CRUT4.5)
– for 1997/98:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1507419733400/002.jpg
– for 2015/16:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1507419928457/001.jpg
You clearly can see for 1997/98
– how much UAH differs from surface;
– how similar the surface records have been.
In 2015/16, the surface records were on par with UAH.
A look by JMA at
– what happened in 1998
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1507420405932.jpg
– and in 2016
4GP.ME/bbtc/1507420527513.jpg
tells you a lot.
The question is why was it warmer then 1998. I say it is all natural variability but let us see what happens from this point in time moving forward.
Natural variability due to what?
If it’s all natural, why are all Earth climate systems gaining heat? The ocean, the SST, the surface, the lower troposphere, the ice melting?
Where is all this observed heat coming from?????????
I DON’T expect satellite and surface readings to respond in the same way on MONTHLY time scales. What is not expected is a steady fall for a decade followed by a SUDDEN return to normal. But actually, I DID expect to find it. It is the main reason for the recent RSS adjustment. The NOAA-15 satellite which was in operation for PRECISELY that period was drifting at a much faster rate than for the other satellites. The correction for satellite drift was a general one applied to ALL satellites equally. RSS have now corrected SPECIFICALLY for that rogue satellite … UAH refuses to do so, because they know what it will do to their trend. Research NOAA-15 if you like.
It seems that Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius has been wrong a posteriori, because he manifestly contradicted over 100 years ago what some today’s people mean he should have understood by 2LoT.
Delicious.
L’illusion est-elle une maladie?
Barry
g*e*r*a*n (and many others) will never answer the question because doing so would obviously prove they’re wrong. They know it, we know it.
If this were a moderated debate, they would be forced to answer. As it is, they can duck and dodge forever.
snake can never learn how to place his comments.
That’s why he will never make it to high school.
Okay, there are also other reasons.
g*e*r*a*n
And what is your reason for failing to study physics?
Con-man, do you own a mirror?
g*e*r*a*n
Yes I do own a mirror and I do study physics (the real stuff and not your blog material that you are so fond of).
Answer this one (which you won’t or can’t because you lack real knowledge of physics).
Why do all radiant heat transfer textbooks use the equation
Q/A (Heat flow from a surface of certain size…Watts/m^2)
equals
Constant emissivity of surface
times
Constant Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
times
(Temperature of surface in Kelvin to the 4th Power minus the temperature of the surroundings to the 4th Power).
If reality is as you and Gordon believe, the surrounding IR is not absorbed by the warmer surface, then why is this value considered and shows to have considerable effect on the amount of heat the hot surface will lose?
I am thinking you are not capable of understanding that question so you will actively ignore answering it. Maybe by will answer by saying this is a rambling post or some other empty diversion.
I know Gordon can’t answer it. He is lost in a world of his own imagination, no bringing him back to reality. Maybe you will at least attempt and answer.
Con-man, physics books use equations because they are valid.
You just do not know how they apply.
norman…”Why do all radiant heat transfer textbooks use the equation
Q/A (Heat flow from a surface of certain sizeWatts/m^2)
equals
Constant emissivity of surface
times
Constant Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
times
(Temperature of surface in Kelvin to the 4th Power minus the temperature of the surroundings to the 4th Power).”
*************
That has already been explained to you and from one of those texts you keep pushing. They stated in the text that radiation equations like Boltzmann apply only at very high temperatures.
At very high temperatures, the radiators are independent sources of infrared. That’s not the case at atmospheric temperatures where surface radiation is dependent on solar radiation and GHGs in the atmosphere are dependent on surface radiation.
When you see equations like Boltzmann applied to radiation you seem to reach the conclusion that heat is being transferred both ways. The equations are about EM, not heat. When someone uses the term ‘heat radiation’ he/she is wrong. Heat is never radiated, it’s EM being radiated.
If you have two nearby bodies radiating IR and you want to measure the mutual IR exchange, that’s one thing. You could be doing it to test radiation for other purposes than a heat transfer. It’s quite another to imply the 2nd law does not apply and that heat is transferred both ways.
Heat is the property of mass. You cannot transfer heat physically without transferring mass. When you talk about transferring heat via radiation you are talking about decreasing the heat in the mass of one body and increasing it in the mass of the other.
In the hotter body, the atoms are at a higher energy level. In the cooler body they are at a lower energy level. When a higher energy atom cools by dropping to a lower energy state it emits EM. That EM can be absorbed by an atom in a cooler body, raising it’s temperature.
Nowhere in nature can energy be transferred naturally from a lower energy level to a higher energy level. It makes no sense.
With an air conditioner, where you can transfer heat from cold to warm, you are messing with the properties of a gas. You compress it to a liquid, expose the high pressure liquid to the atmosphere, where it loses heat, then run the cooled liquid through an evaourator where it is allowed to expand while extracting heat from a cooler area.
Heat will not transfer by itself from a colder region to a warmer region. You must supply external energy and do it using a third party gas.
Would Gordon Robertson care to tell Eli under what conditions the Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not apply, what the dimensions of the emitting system are and how low the temperature has to be? Since this is the equivalent of finding a set of conditions under which Planck’s radiation law does not apply, the conditions are pretty esoteric and really don’t apply to any macroscopic materials above the temperature of the Cosmic Radiation Background.
Which brings up another point, since the CRB is a radiation field described by a temperature, and thus a form of heat, or thermal radiation why can IR emission from a black body not be a form of heat.
No handwaving here Gordon.
g*e*r*a*n
I know exactly how to apply the equations. You are the one who is unable to comprehend. I read some of your interactions with barry. You can only think of one case. A hot object emitting to a cold object that has no heat source. You seem unable to operate the physics when an object is heated. I do not know what mental block you possess but one you do indeed.
Since you bring up the point that I do not know how to use the equations, take the time to point out your knowledge of what it means. I know you won’t and are unable but I thought I would ask anyway.
Gordon Robertson
Just once tell me where you get your physics from. It is not in textbooks, so what is your source?
Gordon Robertson, I have answered nearly all your questions with valid links to real physics over the course of some threads. You ignore the evidence like it is some diseased animal that will infect you. Why do you pretend falsely that you are interested?
I am not planning on continuing to find the correct information for you. You are happy with your made up physics. I can’t change you, reality does not change you.
You are quite far from reality but that suits you. When you think mankind made up time and space I really have to let go.
You are too far gone in delusional land of Gordon Robertson. It makes you happy, who am I to rain on your Parade. You need to post your ideas, which only people like Mike Flynn or g*e*r*a*n will agree with (two others isolated in their own dimension of thought unwilling to be bothered by reality and actual physics).
I have wasted much time and hope thinking links and real physics would be able to reach you. Reading your latest post indicates this is not possible. You live in your bubble reality but it is a happy place for you. Enjoy your world. Others may envy you someday while they struggle with the complexities of the real world and difficult reality.
Gordon Robertson
I just have to correct your false notion.
YOU: “When you see equations like Boltzmann applied to radiation you seem to reach the conclusion that heat is being transferred both ways. The equations are about EM, not heat. When someone uses the term heat radiation he/she is wrong. Heat is never radiated, its EM being radiated.”
NO GORDON, I do not reach that conclusion at all. Heat flow (maybe that term will work better for you, that is how established science likes to use it) Q, is the NET energy exchange of a surface you are investigating. You can investigate the hotter surface or the colder one. The NET energy still applies, Q (heat flow) still can be calculated. In the case of the hotter surface, Q will be positive indicating the surface is losing Heat (cooling down). If you examine the cooler surface Q (heat flow) will be negative indicating this surface is gaining energy and getting warmer.
You suffer from the same mental block as g*e*r*a*n and SkepticGoneWild and no matter how many times and different ways it is explained to you your mind cannot comprehend the concept. The equation applies to all forms of radiant heat transfer. It gives you a rate of energy loss of a surface. If the surface is unheated (no energy added by external source) the heat loss will cool the surface. If the surface is heated (a situation your mind cannot process…a mental block) than the surrounding cooler environment will determine how hot the surface will get.
I do not think it is possible for anyone on this planet to explain it to you. You will either “get it” or you won’t and you will continue to argue against something you can’t understand .
g*e*r*a*n
I am getting tired of your use of the term Con-Man to address my posts.
There is one thing I can predict. I was correct and I knew in advance I would be right.
I ask you to answer a question and predicted you were unable to do so. You did exactly as predicted.
MY POST: “If reality is as you and Gordon believe, the surrounding IR is not absorbed by the warmer surface, then why is this value considered and shows to have considerable effect on the amount of heat the hot surface will lose?
I am thinking you are not capable of understanding that question so you will actively ignore answering it. Maybe by will answer by saying this is a rambling post or some other empty diversion.”
AND JUST AS EXPECTED: YOUR RESPONSE: “Con-man, physics books use equations because they are valid.
You just do not know how they apply.”
No answer to the question but an empty diversion with a derogatory inflammatory thrown in for maximum diversion. Now do you really consider yourself to be intelligent and knowledgeable of physics?
Con-man, you ramble so much, and write so poorly, I cannot figure out what your “question” was referring to.
If you can’t ask a question clearly, in 25 words or less, you probably don’t know what you’re talking about.
Yes, Bin, it seems to me that the disagreements stem from a misunderstanding of the 2loT. It applies to isolated (closed) systems: when there is no energy (or matter) entering or leaving the system.
Which is not the case for any of the examples we have been through over the months, including the source of the arguments – Earth’s climate system.
barry, the 2LoT applies EVERYWHERE!
Not knowing how it applies indicates your inability to understand physics.
Yes, g*e*r*a*n, it even applies to those “colder objects” we wear to keep us warm.
If “those colder objects we wear” are wet, then they won’t “kept us warm”.
That is important if you wish to survive in certain conditions found on Earth.
Can you explain, why wet clothes will not keep you warm?
If you have to alter the example to argue against it, you have already failed.
Let’s stick with dry clothes and see how we go.
If you have to stick with dry clothes, you have already failed.
The 2nd Law applies everywhere.
But I don’t think you fully understand the 2nd Law, g*e*r*a*n.
Definition:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system, meaning a system which neither energy nor matter can enter or leave.”
The bolded part is the bit I think you don’t understand.
barry, in the study of thermodynamics it is necessary to identify a “control volume”. Anything can be a CV, as long as all mass and energy leaving/entering is accounted for.
Entropy within a CV increases with time, with no energy/mass entering or leaving.
So, EVERYWHERE you construct a CV that meets the criteria, the 2LoT applies.
Take my recommended “system” of an apple and a mug of cold beer. Totally enclose that CV so that no energy/mass leaves or enters. Now you have an “isolated system”. Entropy increases, meaning the “hot” apple warms the cold beer, as temperatures equalize.
You seem to be wanting to learn. That’s good.
barry…”The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system, meaning a system which neither energy nor matter can enter or leave”.
That’s not the 2nd law. Clausius developed the theory of entropy separately from the 2nd law. He stated in words that entropy is the integral of infinitesimal changes of heat into and out of a system at the temperature T at which each change occurs.
The implication of entropy, as explained by Clausius, is that entropy = 0 in a reversible process. Since most real life processes are not reversible, entropy is always a positive number. From that came the notion that the universe is heading toward chaos. I think some people have taken that far too literally.
I realize that many modern scientists insist on using entropy to represent the 2nd law but it complicates matter for visualization. Far easier to use the heat transfer version which states that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body without compensation.
I did not know till recently that Clausius also wrote the 1st law. He developed the notion of U = internal energy.
Take my recommended system of an apple and a mug of cold beer. Totally enclose that CV so that no energy/mass leaves or enters. Now you have an isolated system. Entropy increases, meaning the hot apple warms the cold beer, as temperatures equalize.
Yep, that is the case in a closed system. No disagreement from me.
However, none of the examples we have discussed (sweaters, blankets (insulators), car engines on hot days etc) occur in a closed system.
I think your misunderstanding stems from assuming that every example is a closed system.
The Earth’s climate is not an closed system either.
barry, if you want to believe the 2LoT only applies when you want it to apply, fine.
Thanks for letting me know not to waste my time.
I always said it always applies.
“The 2nd Law applies everywhere.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267310
But that doesn’t mean that cooler bodies cannot warm warmer bodies under certain conditions – such as with open systems. Or through insulation.
In the same vein, the law of gravity does not mean that birds cannot fly.
The 2loT always applies. I think you don’t properly understand what it is and how it applies. From what I’ve read today, it appears your perception of it is limited to half its definition.
barry perceives: “From what Ive read today, it appears your perception of it is limited to half its definition.”
barry, you get to believe whatever you want.
barry…”It applies to isolated (closed) systems: when there is no energy (or matter) entering or leaving the system”.
The old red herring argument about closed versus open systems. When the 2nd law beats your argument, obfuscate.
2nd Law doesn’t “beat” my argument, because the 2nd Law is not violated by it.
The old red herring argument about closed versus open systems.
It’s not a red herring, it is the crux of your misunderstanding. Waving it off will bring you no closer to figuring that out.
+1.
Gordon simply refuses to even try to understand.
Gordon,
try and answer me this.
I face an electric radiator and it warms me. Obviously I am absorbing IR energy. The radiator is emitting energy.
I now point the radiator towards the sun.
The radiator is still producing and emitting the same amount of energy, but it is being directed at a hotter body.
What happens to that energy?
Does it head towards the sun but turn back when it realises it is approaching a hotter body?
Does it keep going and pass right through the sun ?
Or does the radiator switch itself off?
dr no…”I face an electric radiator and it warms me. Obviously I am absorbing IR energy. The radiator is emitting energy”.
That does not mean you are absorbing the energy. You will absorb it only if the radiator is at a higher temperature than the atoms/molecules in your skin. You could stand near a large mass of ice, like an iceberg, and it will absorb energy from your body but your body will not absorb energy from the ice.
The IR from the ice may contact the atoms/molecules in your skin but they will ignore any IR at a lower state of energy. It’s a fallacy that all EM must be absorbed when it is incident on a mass.
As far as the IR from the radiator pointed at the Sun, the portion reaching the Sun from a small angle will simply disappear as far as we are concerned. No one knows what happens to it. To think it is absorbed by a cauldron of gases in excess of 1 million C in places is ludicrous.
Gordon Robertson says:
“That does not mean you are absorbing the energy. You will absorb it only if the radiator is at a higher temperature than the atoms/molecules in your skin.”
How does the radiation from the radiator know whether to be absorbed or not?
Where else does it go if it is not absorbed? Does it do a U-turn and is absorbed somewhere else?
You refuse to address these baby physics questions.
“You could stand near a large mass of ice, like an iceberg, and it will absorb energy from your body but your body will not absorb energy from the ice.”
That means if I stood next to a person who was a fraction of a degree cooler than me, I would not feel their presence. However, if they warmed up just a fraction of a degree, I would suddenly absorb their radiated energy.
Then if they cooled a fraction, it would switch off again.
That type of “all or nothing behaviour” does not happen in nature.
It has never been measured. You are completely wrong.
“No one knows what happens to it. To think it is absorbed by a cauldron of gases in excess of 1 million C in places is ludicrous.”
You don’t know?!!
What sort of answer is that?
You mean that the radiation from my neighbour, who is slightly cooler than I am, just disappears?
You are sounding more and more foolish if you cannot answer such a simple question.
All you climate clowns have to show is how a mug of cold beer can warm an apple next to it.
Good luck.
That’s an interesting problem. I’ll have a go.
An apple sits in a small box with a heater off to the side providing constant heat. There is a hole at the top of the box through which the heat escapes. The hole is slightly smaller than a mug (full of cold beer). Our experiment has been running a wee while and is in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Now put the mug of beer over the hole, reducing the rate at which heat escapes the box.
Will the apple get warmer, cooler, or stay the same temperature?
barry, notice that you have to change the simple example.
A mug of cold beer can NOT warm an apple.
Yet you strive to create something that “proves” differently.
Ask yourself why you do this.
Why do you run from the truth?
dr no…”You mean that the radiation from my neighbour, who is slightly cooler than I am, just disappears?”
What I’m trying to say is that science has not advanced to the point where we can account for what happens to IR that is radiated to space. You seemed to infer that radiation from a cooler source would be absorbed by the Sun. I have claimed that’s highly unlikely given the extreme temperatures of the Sun. You asked what happened to it and I claimed I did not know.
No one knows, we don’t have the instrumentation to find out where it goes. We don’t even have the instrumentation to accurately measure radiation in our own atmosphere, we have to resort to unvalidated climate models based on wild guesses.
However, we do know something about energy. In the electrical field we know that electron current cannot flow from a lower potential energy at a negative terminal of a battery to the high potential terminal of the same battery. Electrons always flow from a high potential region to a low potential region unless you find some way to drive them up the potential hill.
That applies to gravity as well. Objects don’t fall from a lower level of potential energy to a higher level of potential energy. It would be nice if sometimes they did but they don’t.
Heat transfer faces similar limitations. Heat can only be transferred from a high energy region at a higher temperature to a lower energy region at a lower temperature. The reverse transfer is not possible without some kind of external interference. That automatically rules out radiation from a low energy source transferring heat to a high energy target.
In your thought experiment, your radiator is at a very low energy region and you are claiming its radiation can be transfer to an extremely high energy region on the sun. I am trying to tell you that cannot happen.
Heat transfer is a lot like charge transfer in an electric circuit. Both heat and charge are transferred by electrons in atoms. That suggests to me that heat ‘MAY’ be related to electric charge as well as work. I ‘SUGGEST’ that because thermal energy can be converted to electromagnetic energy, which is definitely related to charge, emitted to a cooler object, and converted back to heat.
In an electric circuit, electrons move slowly, at the rate of a few centimeters per second. The charges they carry are transferred electron to electron at the speed of light. The electron is a particle of some kind and it carries a charge which can be passed on to another electron.
I am telling you doc, we live in a weird and wonderful world. I don’t pretend to understand it to any degree of intimacy but I have been privileged to have studied enough at the atomic level to get it that heat cannot be transferred cold to hot without a whole lot of intervention. In my mind, there is no way radiation from a cooler body can be absorbed by the atoms in a warmer body.
It goes against everything I have learned in the electronics and electrical field.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “A mug of cold beer can NOT warm an apple.
Yet you strive to create something that proves differently.
Ask yourself why you do this.
Why do you run from the truth?”
Why don’t you ask yourself why you are unable to grasp simple concepts of heat transfer?
A mug of cold beer can warm a heated apple relative to other conditions. If you have an unheated apple then only a hotter object can warm it. You do not stipulate this in your point. You use an absolute statement “NOT” in all CAPS which would mean all possible conditions.
I have given you a simple example of where you “NOT” does not hold true.
A heated apple next to a mug of liquid nitrogen will reach a certain equilibrium temperature. Now remove the liquid nitrogen and replace it with a mug of cold beer and the apple will warm to a higher temperature. It is fairly simple and valid physics.
Gordon, you state:
“Heat can only be transferred from a high energy region at a higher temperature to a lower energy region at a lower temperature. The reverse transfer is not possible without some kind of external interference. That automatically rules out radiation from a low energy source transferring heat to a high energy target.”
Just relax a bit and consider this demonstrable fact:
IR is exchanged in both directions but the NET heat exchange is from the warmer to the cooler body.
Note the word NET. There is NO violation of any law.
Under your faulty model, you seem to violate the conservation of energy since you cannot explain what happens the radiated energy if it happens to be directed towards a warmer body.
g*e*r*a*n,
barry, notice that you have to change the simple example.
Change? This was the challenge.
All you climate clowns have to show is how a mug of cold beer can warm an apple next to it.
I showed you can do that by having a source of energy – the heater.
If you’re not allowing a source of heat energy, then we’re analogising about a climate system that has no heat source.
Heater = sun
barry, again, place a mug of frosty cold beer next to an apple. Does the temperature of the apple increase?
Your attempt to bring in other equipment, and alter the simple scenario, indicates you know the answer is NO!
Ice cannot bake a turkey.
A bowl of fruit cannot heat your house in winter.
A mug of cold beer cannot warm an apple.
But, you have to believe all those things to believe in the AGW/GHE.
Belief systems often defy science and logic.
barry, again, place a mug of frosty cold beer next to an apple. Does the temperature of the apple increase?
The temperature of the apple decreases. There is no energy source acting on this set-up to alter that conclusion.
Your attempt to bring in other equipment, and alter the simple scenario, indicates you know the answer is NO!
Indeed. But you asked how a cold mug of beer could make the apple warmer and I constructed a way in which it could.
We are establishing examples for how the introduction of a cold object can make a warm one warmer.
To do that you need an energy source separate from the beer and the apple.
Not only is it permitted to introduce an energy source to the experiment, it is completely apropos the basis of our argument. The Earth’s climate system has a ‘heater’ too. It’s the sun.
Well barry, in all your floundering around you finally back-flipped into some truth:
“The Earths climate system has a heater too. Its the sun.”
That’s what skeptics have been preaching for years–“It’s the Sun, stupid.”
Welcome to awareness.
You’re conflating 2 different arguments.
When skeptics say, “It’s the sun,” they mean that the output from the sun has changed (become more intense), and that is the cause of global warming.
My answer to your challenge required no change in the output from the heater. The apple warmed up because the flow of heat leaving the system was impeded by the mug of beer.
barry, you used to be fairly straight-forward. I don’t remember you ever being devious. But look what has happened to you.
barry says: “You’re conflating 2 different arguments.”
When skeptics say, ‘It’s the sun,’ they mean that the output from the sun has changed (become more intense), and that is the cause of global warming.
NO barry, skeptics are pointing out the Sun is a heat source. CO2 is NOT a heat source. The Sun can warm the Earth, CO2 can NOT warm the Earth. You are the one conflating the issue.
barry says: “My answer to your challenge required no change in the output from the heater. The apple warmed up because the flow of heat leaving the system was impeded by the mug of beer.”
NO barry, my “challenge” had no “heater”. You can NOT warm an apple with a mug of cold beer. You know that, so you have to try to add complexity so that you can make it appear that you are somehow proving “cold” can warm “hot”.
Fanatics often don’t recognize their own fanaticism.
“You can NOT warm an apple with a mug of cold beer.”
You can increase the temperature of an apple with a mug of cold beer. Go to Barry’s link for the two plates illuminated by a rudimentary sun:
“The Green Plate Effect”
“Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”
Perhaps the author should dumb that down for anger, and draw a cartoon of the green plate in the shape of a green mug of cold beer. And the blue plate in the form of a blue apple.
Now we have to cartoon it for anger:
“The Green Mug of Cold Beer Effect”
“Introduction of the green mug of cold beer raised the equilibrium temperature of the blue apple by 18 K.”
There, even anger should get that but I somehow doubt it.
Thinking out loud, perhaps a cartoon of green ice and a blue turkey would work better for anger because he writes about those so often. But, you know, I again also doubt it.
No 2LOTs were harmed in barry’s linked example.
I don’t know what the problem is, G.
We all know that the sun is the source of heat on Earth. Why do you speak as if this is in question? As if anyone ever said differently?
Molecules are not heaters. Clouds are not refrigerators.
Yet these components in the atmosphere have an impact on the way heat transfers through the atmosphere, causing the surface to be warmer or cooler, depending on their structure, location, abundance, etc.
Of course I introduced a heater in order to show that the introduction of a cooler mug of beer to a system can change the rate of heat loss in that system to warm an apple. I agree that without energy being added, this won’t work.
You seem to want to prohibit any energy source in order to get people to ‘admit’ cooler objects can’t warm warmer objects. We all already agree with that. So why won’t you move on?
If I can agree that the apple can’t get warmer without energy being added to the system, why can’t you agree that it can get warmer by the introduction of a cooler object if there is an energy source and the cooler object slows the loss of heat from the system?
Why do you insist on me repeating the first half of the second law when I’ve already agreed with it a few dozen times?
And why do you shun the second half of the 2nd law statement whenever someone brings it up?
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
This conversation has been stuck in a loop because you keep shunning the qualifying phrase of the 2nd law statement.
You keep shunning heaters.
binny…”It seems that Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius has been wrong a posteriori, because he manifestly contradicted over 100 years ago what some todays people mean he should have understood by 2LoT”.
Clauius was a great German scientist, you’re just a plain German idiot. Imagine having the temerity to slag a great scientist whose laws still stand, and to do it because his laws beat your current obfuscations on climate.
Bin can change his personal “moral code” in 20 minutes.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267136
Don’t try to divert, Robertson troll…
Unkile you, I didn’t invent anything about Clausius’ wonderful work.
And if I hadn’t taken the time to retrieve what he really wrote, you still would repeatedly do.
And I tell you this, Robertson troll: each time I see you writing here anything wrong about his work, I will repeat the comment putting everything in the right place.
Each time!
Feel free to name me an idiot, I definitively enjoy it. Who in the world are you, after all.
binny…”And if I hadnt taken the time to retrieve what he really wrote, you still would repeatedly do”.
Where do you think I got his work? I read it from the originals.
Problem with you is that you lack the background to understand what he said. Furthermore, you are so inundated with AGW pseudo-science, you try to replace the 2nd law of Clausius with the false science that infrared energy can be summed to satisfy the 2nd law.
That’s would be a neat trick were it true. The 2nd law applies only to heat transfer but some rocket scientists think you can sum electromagnetic energy fluxes to account for heat transfer.
Why don’t you get the basic principle of the work of Clausius that heat cannot be transferred, of itself, from a colder body to a warmer body. You are hung up on his comment that a simultaneous transfer has to happen in the opposite direction to allow heat to be transferred cold to hot but you have no idea what he meant.
The methodology required to transfer heat cold to hot is far more than trivial. Such a methodology is not available in the atmosphere and the assumption that summing IR fluxes to satisfy the 2nd law is NOT one of them.
In a nutshell, heat cannot be transferred by it own natural devices from cold to hot. In a gas, heat is the kinetic energy of moving/vibrating gas particles and there is no reason why any particles at a lower state of energy should transfer that lower energy state to a higher energy state. That presumption goes against every basic principle of energy transfer in physics. It flies in the face of any principle in physics that energy can flow against a potential energy gradient.
That does not make it impossible, however, to transfer energy against a potential energy gradient you must supply external energy. Heat at a lower energy state will not transfer itself by it’s own means from a lower energy state to a higher energy state.
That’s what Clausius meant, and, yes, he was brilliant. His ability to analyze complex situations and to explain them in simple terms was uncommon.
It’s blatantly obvious from the 2nd law of Clausius that heat cannot be transferred from colder regions of the atmosphere to warmer regions or from colder gases to the surface. You alarmists cannot accept that basic tenet of thermodynamics and you create ridiculous thought experiments in a pathetic effort to make it so.
When I point out to you that NOAA has slashed over 75% of its data while synthesizing the slashed data in a climate model you find that to be perfectly normal science. You even defend that scientific misconduct. You should be outraged that a major scientific organization would allow petty politics to govern the way it does science.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Its blatantly obvious from the 2nd law of Clausius that heat cannot be transferred from colder regions of the atmosphere to warmer regions or from colder gases to the surface.”
Gordon, you are a stupid dumb liar who is incapable of learning.
Here is what Clausius ACTUALLY said:
Clausius’ statement of the second law of thermodynamics (1854):
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius#Work
Do you see that part, “…without some other change…?” What do you think it means??
It means, Davie, that more energy has to be added to the system.
(What on-line diploma mill did you get your physics “education” from?)
DA…”Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
Do you see that part, without some other change? What do you think it means??”
**********
If you weren’t a stupid, idiotic clown with a comprehension problem you would have gotten what it means first time I explained it.
It means a form of compensation has to accompany a process in which heat is transferred from a colder mass to a warmer mass.
In fact, I have explained it at least twice in this thread alone. Are you always so obtuse?
Here it is again.
In an air conditioner, in which heat is transferred from a cooler region to a warmer region, heat is extracted from the air in a cooler region and exhaled to the warmer atmosphere. That is done using a gas that can be compressed to a high pressure liquid with a compressor. Naturally, as the pressure rises and the volume decreases, the temperature must rise to ‘COMPENSATE’.
The HP liquid is passed through a condenser, a radiator-like assembly that allows the heat in the liquid to escape to the atmosphere. After the condenser, the cooled liquid is passed through an atomizing valve then into an evaporator, another radiator-like device that allows the HP liquid to expand back to a low pressure gas.
The evapourator takes in cooler air from the cold region and extracts heat from it as it expands. The low pressure gas goes back to the compressor and the cycle repeats.
The compressor requires external power to run it…you don’t get something for nothing. In essence, you are modifying the pressure, volume, and temperature of a gas in order to move heat from a cooler region to a warmer region.
YOU CANNOT DO THAT IN THE ATMOSPHERE USING NATURAL MEANS!!!
The fact that you have to resort to wiki for your information suggests you don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground about thermodynamics.
It means, Davie, that more energy has to be added to the system.
Exactly!
That has been noted hither and yon from the outset.
Those who have said so throughout these threads (and over the months) are wondering how it is you’ve missed them saying so.
And wondering why you keep asking about systems where no energy is being added.
It has seemed that all this time like you’re missing the point.
1. As long as energy is being added to the system, the introduction of a cooler body to that system can indeed cause a warm object to get even warmer. Insulation is but one example.
You can take the bolded bit as read. We all know it. Just as we know that:
2. In a system with no energy being added, there is no way physically possible that the introduction of a cooler body can cause a warmer body to get any warmer.
We keep talking about system 1 (open system). You keep rebutting with system 2 (closed system).
We’re talking past each other.
Whenever you respond to 1., you always change the wording. You say, “a cooler body cannot warm a warmer one,” or, “heat cannot flow from cold to hot.”
Those statements are not equivalent to 1. This is the point at which you speak of a closed system fact in response to an open system fact.
This happens constantly. As in every time. You do not respond to the concept uttered. You change it to the old refrain.
You misrepresent what’s been said.
binny…”I will repeat the comment putting everything in the right place”.
How would you do that as a computer programmer. Look it up on Google, or by misinterpreting the words of Clausius?
“Who in the world are you, after all”.
I have already admitted in another reply that I’m an idiot. I have no problem being an idiot, I am wondering why you receive it as such an insult that you have to become emotional about it.
If you’re not an idiot, why do you find it so necessary to defend yourself with such hostility against the accusation?
Lighten up man, it’s easier being perceived as an idiot. If you are perceived as being highly intelligent, you can only fail in the eyes of the observer. If you are perceived as an idiot, you can only improve.
You don’t seriously think I’d call you and idiot if you were one. I don’t insult the mentally handicapped by pointing out their handicaps.
Mind you, it works well in blogs when people start using ad homs. It always amazes me how people who are quick with ad homs are often sensitive to being called an idiot.
If you want a rational discussion then get off the insults. They are useless against me. If you don’t understand something in science, say so, or at least offer a rational rebuttal.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on anything in science. Although I have studied basic atomic theory extensively, and applied it over decades, I consider myself a neophyte in atomic theory. It chagrins me when people ignore atomic theory, however, or question my offerings from experience, when they obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
There is a reason heat only flows from hot to cold under normal conditions and that reason can be found in atomic theory. Thought experiments suggesting the opposite are meaningless and they are too often based on illusions held by the human mind about reality.
“There is a reason heat only flows from hot to cold under normal conditions and that reason can be found in atomic theory.”
You really are an idiot, because this statement is obviously false.
You also don’t understand physics.
Davie, teach us again how the Sun can heat Earth to 800,000K.
That’s always good for a laugh.
DA…”There is a reason heat only flows from hot to cold under normal conditions and that reason can be found in atomic theory.
You really are an idiot, because this statement is obviously false.
You also dont understand physics”.
*************
One of us is a blatant fraud and it’s not me.
G*e*r*a*n,
You said it yourself: “No energy can leave or enter the volumes, unless we allow.”
https://tinyurl.com/ybszkvzh
“A cold sweater is NOT warming your body. The sweater is impeding convection and conduction. Your body is supplying any heating.”
Wow, You finally get it! Way to go g*e*r*a*n!!
But, you don’t.
You BOTH get it!!
g*e*r*a*n agrees that you feel warmer when you put a sweater on.
He disagrees that putting the sweater on is the cause of you feeling warmer.
If we can work why there is a material distinction here, instead of a contradiction, we will understand his thoughts on the mater.
Over to you, G.
barry, the “material distinction here” is that you, maybe honestly, believe a sweater is somehow analogous to the atmosphere. That analogy is “pseudoscience”.
You need to ask yourself why you so desperately cling to a bogus concept.
A sweater IS analogous to the atmosphere, g*e*r*a*n.
The sweater impedes the heat loss from your warm, body-heated skin to your cold surroundings, at any given skin temperature.
The atmosphere impedes the heat loss from Earth’s warm, solar-heated surface to its cold surroundings, at any given surface temperature.
This is what insulation does.
It can be confusing until you recognize the atmosphere’s ability to vastly increase radiation to space, based on temperature.
That’s why I recommend people avoid comparing the atmosphere to clothing. It’s too easy to get “wrapped around the axle”.
g*e*r*a*n says, October 9, 2017 at 11:55 AM:
It’s not confusing at all. Convection operates in the atmosphere. Only conduction transports heat to any real extent through the sweater. Convection is vastly more effective at transferring heat than conduction, it needs a much smaller temperature gradient to become efficient. But the working principle is exactly the same. More heat IS transported through the sweater once your skin starts warming. The conduction simply works so slowly that it cannot balance the suppression of convection and evaporation from your skin. Until you get hot enough and/or the surrounding air gets cold enough.
The atmosphere can easily be viewed as a “conductive” insulating layer wrapped around the solar-heated surface of the Earth, a gaseous blanket if you will, only – because the atmosphere is a fluid, not a solid – with conduction replaced by convection as the primary method of internal energy transport.
The atmosphere is warmer than space. Because it has a (thermal) MASS. It is ABLE to be warmed by the heat transferred to it from the surface. Space isn’t. This simple fact alone makes the atmosphere an insulating layer. Because with a smaller temperature difference between the solar-heated surface and its immediate thermal surroundings, the heat loss from the surface will be smaller, at any given surface temperature.
On top of that, the atmosphere weighs down on the surface, exerting a distinct pressure on it. Space wouldn’t. This pressure restricts and suppresses evaporation rates from the solar-heated surface of the ocean, at any given surface temperature. Forcing the SST to rise up to a level where it is finally able to balance its input of heat from the Sun with its (mostly evaporative) output of heat to the atmosphere.
The atmosphere also has a density and viscosity which actively resist fluid flow and turbulence, the main drivers of convection and advection. On the surface of Venus, the atmosphere is so thick and viscous that there is hardly any air movement, only a steady laminar flow moving at a glacial pace, and no turbulence whatsoever. Surface heat thus basically has no way of adequately escaping the surface via convection. It creeps out. On Mars, on the other hand, the surface air is so tenuous and wildly turbulent that no excess surface heat will ever manage to linger. It swirls out.
Radiation? Part of the package. But not the CAUSE of temperature.
kristian…”The sweater impedes the heat loss from your warm, body-heated skin to your cold surroundings, at any given skin temperature”.
You need to be more specific. A sweater does not impede radiation nor does insulation in a home. Radiation through air is a very ineffective manner of heat transport. The insulation in homes affects the thermal transfer of heat through air molecules by conduction and convection only, by replacing air in spaces.
I have already given an example using my heart rate monitor. The chest transmitter that sits on the skin under your clothing can easily transmit EM through 5 layers of clothing to the watch receiver on your wrist, including a heavy winter coat. At the wavelength of IR, the openings in clothing would appear as a cavernous pathways.
A sweater impedes air molecules and prevents cooling by convection. It won’t impede all air molecules, and yes, the temperature difference does matter. You will still cool through a sweater via conduction/convection. just not as quickly, depending ion the temperature.
The glass in a greenhouse poses a fairly solid barrier to air molecules. Subsequently the air in a greenhouse warms far more than a leaky sweater would warm under the same conditions.
rate of heat flow through a solid is:
change in Q/change in time = -K A (T2 – T1)/x
It is plain that the temperature difference across x, the thickness or length of a material, influences the rate of change of heat transfer. It’s the same with radiation through space.
It makes sense, if you increase the EMF across a resistor you increase the electrical current. Why would thermal energy not be transferred more quickly if you increase the potential thermal energy across a solid?
If you put on a sweater over a tee shirt at room temperature you may even warm up. If you put on a sweater over the same T-shirt at 0C, you will cool quickly. If you do it at -40C, you will be hypothermic in seconds.
The temperature gradient affects the rate of cooling. The Earth’s atmosphere is warmer near the surface and at the same temperature as the surface. That impedes the transfer of heat via radiation right there. The electrons doing the transmitting on the surface mass are concerned with the difference in temperature (average kinetic energy) between them and the electrons in the molecules of air.
If this proves anything it’s that radiation is an ineffective means of cooling. I think cooling in the atmosphere is far more efficient via convection and conduction than radiation.
Take the electric stove ring experiment again. If you have a 1500 watt ring glowing cherry red, and you touch it, you know what happens, and instantly. You can hold the same finger a 1/4″ above the ring fairly comfortably for a short period. Pull the finger back 5 feet and you feel nothing.
I think that pretty well proves that heat transfer by conduction is by far the most efficient means of heat transfer.
With a sweater, the air heated next to your skin by conduction should keep you in thermal equilibrium. However, convective currents and the propensity for hot air to rise carries the heated molecules off cools you. If you can block the convective currents with a sweater while slowing down the hot air rising, you will remain warm at room temperatures. All bets are off as the temperature plunges to 0C and beyond.
In my post above I claimed, “With a sweater, the air heated next to your skin by conduction should keep you in thermal equilibrium”.
That should read, “Without a sweater…”.
Kristian, as I indicated folks that want to complicate the issue will.
In your attempt to explain heat transfer, you forgot to mention that heat transfer to space is only via emission of photons. Heat energy is NOT transferred to space by conduction or convection. Hence, the analogy to a sweater fails miserably.
Oh, I know endless paragraphs can be written by those wanting to pontificate. Some folks just love to argue, for no reason.
“Pigs can’t fly”, is easily understood. But, if someone wants to confuse the issue, they will come up with 100 reasons how pigs can fly–helium balloons, wings and jet engine attached, shot from a cannon, etc.
It makes for rambling debates, fills up blog threads, and maybe soothes the ego of the writer. But, it is confusion to anyone trying to understand, and usually results in promoting pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n says, October 9, 2017 at 2:35 PM:
Pointless quibble. What difference does it make what method of heat transfer finally removes the energy from the sweater and atmosphere systems to their respective surroundings? Heat loss is heat loss. In both cases heat needs to travel from the warm surface, through the cooler, but still fairly warm insulating layer, and finally out to the cold surroundings, rather than straight from the warm surface to the cold surroundings.
We all know that the atmosphere ISN’T a sweater, g*e*r*a*n. Each little detail doesn’t have to be exactly the same.* The general working principle, however, is exactly the same in both cases:
The sweater impedes the heat loss from your warm, body-heated skin to your cold surroundings, at any given skin temperature.
The atmosphere impedes the heat loss from Earth’s warm, solar-heated surface to its cold surroundings, at any given surface temperature.
*
The relevant dictionary definition of an analogy:
“resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike”
The analogy in this case is about the physical phenomenon of INSULATION.
Kristian, I’ll let you argue with yourself:
“A sweater IS analogous to the atmosphere, g*e*r*a*n.”
“We all know that the atmosphere ISNT a sweater, g*e*r*a*n.”
Have a blast.
Surely you understand what an analogy is?
barry asks: “Surely you understand what an analogy is?”
barry, surely you understand you have debased yourself?
barry…”g*e*r*a*n agrees that you feel warmer when you put a sweater on.
He disagrees that putting the sweater on is the cause of you feeling warmer”.
And you are in denial as to what causes the warming. You stubbornly cling to the sad theory that all cooling has to be caused via radiation.
I am not in denial as to what has changed that causes your skin to feel warmer.
It’s not your core body temperature – that remains the same. It’s not that the ambient air miraculously gets warmer on its own whenever someone puts on a sweater.
The cause of your skin feeling warmer is the introduction of a layer of insulation that slows heat loss.
The sweater is not a source of heat. The sweater changes the rate of heat loss. Thus, putting it on causes you to feel warmer.
But g*e*r*a*n has a different take:
g*e*r*a*n agrees that you feel warmer when you put a sweater on.
He disagrees that putting the sweater on is the cause of you feeling warmer.
If we can work out what material distinction is here, rather than an apparent contradiction, we will understand g*e*r*a*n’s thinking.
barry, by misrepresenting my “take”, you basically concede the argument.
I accept your concession.
In what way have I misrepresented your take?
Here it my representation of it:
1. g*e*r*a*n agrees that you feel warmer when you put a sweater on.
2. He disagrees that putting the sweater on is the cause of you feeling warmer.
Please indicate which of the 2 statements misrepresents your view.
barry tries to act innocent: “In what way have I misrepresented your take?”
Busted again:
“2. He disagrees that putting the sweater on is the cause of you feeling warmer.”
barry, the slide downhill is easy. The climb back up is hard.
Then I am glad I was in error, and you agree that:
Putting the sweater on is the cause of you feeling warmer.
I don’t know what you believe you have proved, but enjoy your “eureka moment”.
Maybe you could get a patent on your sweater invention. After all, trying for such a patent is no more ridiculous than believing the atmosphere is like a sweater.
Nothing about the end of the few days drought in hurricane US landfall ?
Sorry.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
At this blog, only Cat 3+ hurricanes count, for some reason.
TOTAL CYCLONIC INDEX FOR GLOBE- is what matters
No, since it doesn’t include storm size. ACE isn’t an energy, despite its name.
I disagree.
Salvatore, if you think ACE is an energy, you’re flat-out wrong.
Anyone can obviously see it is not an energy.
Denying the most obvious things just makes you a fool.
TOTAL CYCLONIC INDEX FOR GLOBE- is what matters
I agree.
The jet stream will remove the drought in the eastern US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/10/09/0600Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-99.41,36.21,684
The Arctic is divided into two parts – cold and warm.
http://www.tinypic.pl/cm22x9a2whw2
ren…”The Arctic is divided into two parts cold and warm”.
The entire globe is divided into hot and cold ren. See the hot spot in the Arctic with a temperature of around 5C over the 1980 – 2010 average? It has been moving around for several years now. It is never in the same place month to month. Check different months in link 2.
There must be a cloud of CO2 hovering over the North Pole. ☺
While your there check out the deep blue spot over the Antarctic. Seems to be around -5C.
Check out all the white = no warming. The western half of Australia did not warm in September even though dr no whined about how warm it is down there.
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/september/SEPTEMBER_2017_map.png
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
It seems like you believe that “global warming” means that ALL areas should be warmer than average at ALL times.
The 2 big keys moving forward are will very low solar correlate to lower overall sea surface temperatures and an increase in global cloud coverage?
If yes global temperatures go down.
The climate simply is not very sensitive to changes in solar irradiance — it’s only about 0.1 C/(W/m2) or less.
Has nothing to do with full solar irradiance spectrum as a whole but rather UV light variation and galactic cosmic ray increases due to a very weak solar wind.
Prove it.
You have never, ever given a climate sensitivity to any of the parameters you like to throw around.
The historical climatic record shows a pretty strong correlation.
and it is going to happen now once again.
It is going to be interesting to see what you say as the global temperatures drop as we move forward from here.
DA…”You have never, ever given a climate sensitivity to any of the parameters you like to throw around”.
Nor have you. Even when the IPCC admits no sensitivity over 15 years you persist with your whiney propaganda.
BARRY – you are reasonable so I am gong to ask you to comment on the short comings I see with AGW theory.
Lack of a lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator.
Lack of an evolution to a more +ao/nao over at least the past decade.
Lack of any real trend in a decrease in OLR radiation.
Lack of any evidence that the climate is unique when viewed against the historical climatic record.
Lack of idea of what could cause warming other than trace gases.
The effect upon non crazy people to make them imagine that Earth could become like Venus.
Mars has more greenhouse gases per square meter than Earth has, yet the Mars greenhouse gases don’t warm Mars.
The theory effect upon some of it’s believers to think CO2 alone causes the entire greenhouse effect. Or in accordance with the Greenhouse effect doctrine, that CO2 causes the entire rise of 33 C of Earth’s warming.
The inability to see that clouds on Earth are not gases. And that clouds are never gases. And clouds have a warming effect.
And dust in an atmosphere can have a warming effect. And has a significant warming effect on Mars.
That Venus at 1 atm of pressure is not warmer than it should be- or doesn’t require “magical gas” to be hot.
gbaikie says:
“Mars has more greenhouse gases per square meter than Earth has, yet the Mars greenhouse gases dont warm Mars.”
Why do you claim that?
The greenhouse effect on Mars is calculated to be 8 K — the difference between its average surface temperature and its brightness temperature.
It’s smaller than Earth’s because, of course, the Martian atmosphere is so thin.
PS: The atmospheric mass on Mars is about 210 times that of Earth’s.
Mars is small planet.
Is Earth warmer because it’s more massive?
The Moon is 1/80th of the mass of Earth, is it cooler
because is much smaller than Earth?
Obviously not, if you would simply examine the surface temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars.
Mars is cool because its atmosphere is very thin.
gbaikie says:
“The Moon is 1/80th of the mass of Earth, is it cooler
because is much smaller than Earth?”
You sometimes ask good questions, but you don’t follow through and think to the answer.
–David Appell says:
October 8, 2017 at 2:56 PM
Obviously not, if you would simply examine the surface temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars.
Mars is cool because its atmosphere is very thin.–
The surface of Venus would be around 1 atm, Or surface of Earth isn’t at the bottom of the oceans.
But if bopping around our solar system and you want something like 1 atm of pressure, you could apply the same metric to Mars.
So you make a part of Mars Hellas Basin deeper for people who want 1 atm.
Currently it’s “7,152 meter” below the “standard topographic datum of Mars” and about twice the pressure. One would have to make it very deep and it would nice a warm down there.
But a cheaper way is to make a lake and at 30 meter depth you would have 1 atm of pressure.
So with Venus you land on floating city and on Mars you land within a lake.
DA…”Mars is cool because its atmosphere is very thin”.
Then you agree that Earth is warmer due to its thicker atmosphere of N2/O2 and that CO2 could not possibly warm the atmosphere due to its extremely thin concentration.
-The greenhouse effect on Mars is calculated to be 8 K the difference between its average surface temperature and its brightness temperature.
Its smaller than Earths because, of course, the Martian atmosphere is so thin.-
Mars has less gravity than Earth. Mars has about 1/3rd the gravity as Earth. A planet with 1/3rd the gravity as Earth and same amount atmosphere per square meter as Earth [10 tonnes of mass [not weight]] per square meter would have 1/3rd the pressure.
Roughly Mars has 1/100th of the pressure as Earth does.
The air pressure of Mars will vary a lot more than Earth- in regards to large regions, like of the scale of Australia.
Or for example the Hellas basin:
Hellas is the third or fourth largest impact crater and the largest visible impact crater known in the Solar System.
…
With a diameter of about 2,300 km (1,400 mi), it is the largest unambiguous impact structure on the planet; the obscured Utopia Planitia is slightly larger. (The Borealis Basin, if it proves to be an impact crater, is considerably larger.)
…
The altitude difference between the rim and the bottom is 9,000 m (30,000 ft). The depth of the crater (7,152 m (23,465 ft)[1] ( 7,000 m (23,000 ft)) below the standard topographic datum of Mars) explains the atmospheric pressure at the bottom: 12.4 mbar (0.012 bar) during the northern summer .This is 103% higher than the pressure at the topographical datum (610 Pa, or 6.1 mbar or 0.09 psi) and above the triple point of water, ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellas_Planitia
So have vast regions with about twice as much atmospheric pressure- and don’t have that on Earth, but you can climb the highest mountains on Earth and get about 1/3rd of the pressure. Of course there mountains of Mars, and biggest mountain on Mars is almost more like continent than a mountain:
“Because of the size of Olympus Mons and its shallow slopes, an observer standing on the Martian surface would be unable to view the entire profile of the volcano, even from a great distance…Similarly, an observer near the summit would be unaware of standing on a very high mountain,”
And:
“The typical atmospheric pressure at the top of Olympus Mons is 72 pascals, about 12% of the average Martian surface pressure of 600 pascals”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Mons
[Probably could find various good locations for ski resorts- if you can add water.]
But the radiant theory of gases of Greenhouse effect theory, doesn’t care about pressure. And you mentioned the atmosphere as being thin, The air density of Mars, roughly speaking [not really including above mentioned variety of terrain or even much to do with air temperature differences,
is about .02 kg per cubic meter and Earth at sea level is about 1.2 kg per cubic meter. Or 60 times .02 is 1.2 or in terms of thin, Mars is about 1/60th of Earth’s atmosphere.
One might ask where on Earth is the air density about .02 kg per cubic meter?
Well at 10 km it is less than .02 kg per cubic meter.
So if you think any warming is done above 10 km on Earth
related to CO2. The comparison is 97% CO2 of Mars with .0004% with Earth.
What about 5 times thicker than Mars found on Earth, that would be about 6000 meters. The comparison is 97% which we will divided by 5 which is 19.4 % of CO2 with .0004% with Earth.
What about 20 times thicker or .4 Kg per cubic meter.
So that a a bit over 2000 meter elevation, or less than 2500 meter
So 97% / 20 is 4.85% vs .0004 %
Let’s double .0004: .0008. 0016 .0032 .0064 0128, .0256 .0512 .1024 2048 and 4096.
Or Whatever heating by CO2 done above 2500 meters is 1/10th of Mars heating from CO2.
But I tend to think any warming caused by CO2 is probably below 500 meters above the surface. For other reasons unrelated to this Mars comparison.
Going back to comparison, there is also a lot less vapor above 2000 meter elevation above the surface of Earth.
So unless you think the warming of 33 K from the greenhouse effect is occurring nearer the surface, one has to face the fact that Mars has a lot more greenhouse gases.
Or said differently Mars doesn’t have much greenhouse gas close to it’s surface. Or Mars atmosphere is quite tall considering how cold little of the atmosphere there is [due to it’s low gravity].
Or if Mars had a large atmosphere like Earth, the Mars troposphere could be quite cold, yet, still have taller troposphere than Earth’s tropical troposphere.
gbaikie says:
“The theory effect upon some of its believers to think CO2 alone causes the entire greenhouse effect.”
No knowledgeable person thinks that.
“The inability to see that clouds on Earth are not gases. And that clouds are never gases. And clouds have a warming effect.”
And are a positive feedback to AGW.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/a-bit-more-about-clouds/
DA…”And are a positive feedback to AGW”.
Positive feedback requires an amplifier and clouds are not amplifiers.
G = A/(1-AB)…equation for positive feedback.
G = overall gain, A = amplification from an amplifier, B = feedback.
If B is +ve, the sign in 1 – AB remains -ve. If B is -ve, the sign becomes +ve.
In the atmosphere, A = 0 => G = 0/(1 – 0B) = 0.
There is no gain in the atmosphere, only negative feedback of various degrees.
David Appell says:
October 8, 2017 at 1:45 PM
gbaikie says:
Mars has more greenhouse gases per square meter than Earth has, yet the Mars greenhouse gases don’t warm Mars.
Why do you claim that?
Mars has 28 times more Co2 per square meter as Earth and it’s got 210 ppm of water vapor.
Some people think CO2 has large effect.
Or 28 times 400 ppm is 11200 ppm of CO2.
Some think Earth having 1.12 % of CO2 would make Earth like
Venus. Or least would make a huge difference.
Now it’s is true that Earth has a lot water vapor- 30,000 to 40,000 ppm in the tropics, but many believe that CO2 greatest effects are where there is less water vapor- whether it’s outside of the tropics and/or in higher elevations where air is colder and therefore has less water vapor.
So if believe CO2 is the control knob, Mars would have to have a powerful control knob.
Why did you claim that the greenhouse effect doesn’t warm Mars?
What’s your evidence?
— David Appell says:
October 8, 2017 at 3:18 PM
Why did you claim that the greenhouse effect doesnt warm Mars?
Whats your evidence?
And this one:
The greenhouse effect on Mars is calculated to be 8 K the difference between its average surface temperature and its brightness temperature.–
Let’s search:
“greenhouse effect on Mars is calculated to be 8 K”
First one said 5 K:
https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
Next:
Mars 1.52 AU 227 K 220 K
[7 K] but goes on:
Include only sunlight absorbed:
Mars 227 K 217 K 220 K
[3 K]
hmm not related:
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2154.full
Let’s try something else: warming effect of global dust storms on Mars
“In particular, the slight increase in surface air temperature is similar to climate variations seen on Earth, even though the processes involved are significantly different, added Fenton. ”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html
“Across the past two decades, the model showed the surface temperature of Mars has increased by about 0.65 degrees Celsius (1.17 degrees Fahrenheit).
“That magnitude of change is comparable to what we’ve estimated for global warming on Earth over the last 100 years,” said study participant Paul Geissler of the USGS.”
https://www.space.com/3575-dust-storms-fuel-global-warming-mars.html
[[so the model said. And slight increase over two decades equal to 100 years of warming of earth- LOL. But anyhow, models]]
And end with this:
“Dust lofted by Martian winds links directly to atmospheric temperature: The dust absorbs sunlight, so the sun heats dusty air more than clear air. In some cases, this can be dramatic, with a difference of more than 63 Fahrenheit degrees (35 Celsius degrees) between dusty air and clear air. This heating also affects the global wind distribution,”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-mars-orbiters-reveal-seasonal-dust-storm-pattern
So why not, just link your reference and we can go from there.
gbaikie says:
“So if believe CO2 is the control knob, Mars would have to have a powerful control knob.”
Why?
Why are you ignoring the density of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere?
I got around to discussing density in post above.
More could be said, but it was probably too long.
gbaikie says, October 8, 2017 at 10:45 AM:
Indeed.
In every cubic metre of atmosphere above the solar-heated surface of Mars there are ~26 times as many CO2 molecules as in a similar volume on Earth. This would equal a CO2 concentration of about 10,000 ppm in Earth’s atmosphere.
And still, the T_s of Mars (its global average surface temperature) is estimated – from actual global measurements over multiple years (IRTM, TES, MCS) – to be ~8 (6-10) Kelvin LOWER than the planetary T_e (its calculated emission temperature in space. Which means that, if Earth’s “greenhouse effect” is said to be a positive 33 K (T_s > T_e, 288K – 255K), then on Mars it is a negative 8 K (T_s < T_e, 203K – 211K).
In fact, the dust storms on Mars provide an excellent example of how the atmosphere does NOT on average warm the surface by radiation. Because during global Martian dust storms, the atmosphere warms immensely (by up to 40 K), but at the same time the surface actually COOLS greatly:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103504003756?via%3Dihub
Kristian says:
–October 8, 2017 at 11:29 PM
gbaikie says, October 8, 2017 at 10:45 AM:
Mars has more greenhouse gases per square meter than Earth has, yet the Mars greenhouse gases dont warm Mars.
Indeed.
In every cubic metre of atmosphere above the solar-heated surface of Mars there are ~26 times as many CO2 molecules as in a similar volume on Earth. This would equal a CO2 concentration of about 10,000 ppm in Earths atmosphere.
And still, the T_s of Mars (its global average surface temperature) is estimated from actual global measurements over multiple years (IRTM, TES, MCS) to be ~8 (6-10) Kelvin LOWER than the planetary T_e (its calculated emission temperature in space. Which means that, if Earths greenhouse effect is said to be a positive 33 K (T_s > T_e, 288K 255K), then on Mars it is a negative 8 K (T_s < T_e, 203K 211K).–
Well, never heard that before. Question, on Earth the custom is 5 feet above a land surface [in "natural terrain of area"] and in the shade in a certain type of white box.
On Mars it is said the air temperature varies greatly with on modest elevation [a few feet].
Are we talking air temperature or surface temperature?
–In fact, the dust storms on Mars provide an excellent example of how the atmosphere does NOT on average warm the surface by radiation. Because during global Martian dust storms, the atmosphere warms immensely (by up to 40 K), but at the same time the surface actually COOLS greatly:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103504003756?via%3Dihub —
Again I thought "the point" was air temperature rather ground surface temperature. Though it seemed there was apple to orange comparison of Earth air temperature, and the ground surface temperature of Mars and the Moon. And have no idea of the manner one is "supposed" to measure Mars surface air temperature.
Slightly different question in your opinion would having a warmer atmosphere cause a slower rate of cooling at the surface of Mars.
Personally I don't think a vacuum or near vacuum like Mars has "a problem" of rapid cooling, though if given enough time something [particularly if kept in the shade] can cool to very low temperature. Or refrigerators or freezer are non insulated box kept in the shade. Or for regulated temperature in a constant cold environment underground.
Or said differently the home heating bill if on the Moon is cheap.
gbaikie says, October 9, 2017 at 12:37 AM:
Yes, sadly it’s a little known fact.
The figures we are commonly presented with, suggesting a smallish “GHE”, are nothing but assumptions, really, based solely on a preconceived idea that there HAS TO BE a “GHE” of some strength on Mars, simply by virtue of all the CO2 in its atmosphere. There can’t NOT be a “GHE”, right?
But the temperatures given are CLEARLY not global or annual. -55C is the average SUMMER temperature in the mid-latitudes and the annual temperature around the EQUATOR. The GLOBAL ANNUAL surface temperature is MUCH lower, around -70C.
Here are a couple of papers shedding light on this particular issue:
Fenton et al., 2007, comparing IRTM and TES (relevantly, Table 1). http://depts.washington.edu/marsweb/papers/PDFs/Fenton-etal-2007-warming-albedo-changes.pdf
Bandfield et al., 2013, comparing TES and MCS (relevantly, Table 2 & Figure 6). http://gemelli.spacescience.org/jbandfield/publications/bandfield_mcs_tes.pdf
Surface.
Yes.
–But the temperatures given are CLEARLY not global or annual. -55C is the average SUMMER temperature in the mid-latitudes and the annual temperature around the EQUATOR. The GLOBAL ANNUAL surface temperature is MUCH lower, around -70C.–
Hmm, I thought equator was bit warmer and I thought global average was somewhere in range of -50 to -60. But -55 C at equator and global -70 is “warmer” equator then I thought, but it seems correct that there should such difference.
Now, I have “always” assumed that snow built up during the winter at the poles is a significant warming effect.
Of course the poles are small area in comparison to entire planet, but nevertheless I thought it had small global warming effect. Of course this due mostly to latent heat of CO2 [though also with some H20 which has more latent heat per kg as compared to CO2.
gbaikie says, October 9, 2017 at 10:01 AM:
Exactly. Of course you thought so. Because that’s what we’ve all been TOLD, over and over again. Even as the actual DATA says otherwise. And so we’ve never been SHOWN, just told. Because there HAS TO BE a “GHE” on Mars, doesn’t it? All that CO2 in the atmosphere can’t do nothing to raise the T_s above the T_e, can it …?
–Kristian says:
October 9, 2017 at 11:06 AM
gbaikie says, October 9, 2017 at 10:01 AM:
Hmm, I thought equator was bit warmer and I thought global average was somewhere in range of -50 to -60.
Exactly. Of course you thought so. Because thats what weve all been TOLD, over and over again. Even as the actual DATA says otherwise. And so weve never been SHOWN, just told. Because there HAS TO BE a GHE on Mars, doesnt it? All that CO2 in the atmosphere cant do nothing to raise the T_s above the T_e, can it ?–
Well Mars average temp of -50 to -60 means to me that it’s a guess or there is quite a bit of uncertainty.
I agree that many would consider that a planet of 97% CO2 had to have some warming related to CO2. But there was always been wide difference about of how much warming. I seen various claims of 15 K or 7 K in terms of a greenhouse effect.
But also I heard excuses for why the CO2 doesn’t cause warming- not enough sunlight reaches Mars, or one needs more atmosphere for the CO2 to do any warming.
I guess the main point which was considered definite would been that Mars had atmosphere and therefore had to have atmospheric warming effect of some amount.
-Here are a couple of papers shedding light on this particular issue:
Fenton et al., 2007, comparing IRTM and TES (relevantly, Table 1). http://depts.washington.edu/marsweb/papers/PDFs/Fenton-etal-2007-warming-albedo-changes.pdf
Bandfield et al., 2013, comparing TES and MCS (relevantly, Table 2 & Figure 6). http://gemelli.spacescience.org/jbandfield/publications/bandfield_mcs_tes.pdf —
That’s interesting, but I didn’t see the part about Mars
average temperature of -70 C
— Are we talking air temperature or surface temperature?
Surface.–
Ok
– () in your opinion would having a warmer atmosphere cause a slower rate of cooling at the surface of Mars.
Yes.–
Ah, then of course the question is, how much. Mars surface warms to 20 C or more during the day and then cools in the 12 hour night to some hideously cold temperature.
I suppose that it’s due to only a shallow ground surface which is warmed by the sun to +20 C. Or scratch the surface and would be cold.
Now this makes sense if surface were all dry sand, but there are exposed rocks all over the place [unlike the moon] due to wind blowing the dust off of them.
Or mars rover get dust on the them but the solar panels can also be cleaned by some dust devils.
Though I suppose this generally is discussed in above articles in regards brighter dust and darker regions. Or there a lot dust and not enough bare rocks
In every cubic metre of atmosphere above the solar-heated surface of Mars there are ~26 times as many CO2 molecules as in a similar volume on Earth.
There are more water vapour molecules (GHGs) per cubic meter in Earth’s lower atmos than Mars’. Water vapour absorbs IR more strongly than CO2. And there are 100 times as many molecules (all types) per m3 than Mars.
GHG per volume more abundant on Earth, and atmospheric density 100 times greater for molecular collision.
IR escapes Mars atmos far more quickly than on Mars.
… than on Earth.
“IR escapes Mars atmos far more quickly than on Mars.”
barry, where do you get such “facts”?
1) How fast does Martian IR “escape”?
2) How fast does Earth IR “escape”?
barry says, October 9, 2017 at 5:16 AM:
Er, yes. And? What are you trying to say, barry? There is STILL no “GHE” as defined on Mars. It is STILL negative, as defined (T_s vs. T_e).
BTW, IR does NOT escape the Martian atmosphere “more quickly” than it does Earth’s atmosphere. More than twice as many joules (pretty much all in the form of IR) escape for space through every square metre of ToA per second on Earth than on Mars.
Don’t you start with this “delay” silliness of Snape’s as well, barry. Planetary temperature hasn’t got anything to do with any “delay” in the release of energy.
Planetary temperature hasnt got anything to do with any “delay” in the release of energy.
Might be a language quibble. I’ll quote someone you will agree has an intelligent view on the matter.
“The atmosphere impedes the heat loss from Earths warm, solar-heated surface to its cold surroundings, at any given surface temperature.
This is what insulation does.”
Yes, that’s called an IMBALANCE. Not a delay. The outgoing isn’t taking longer to get out. Less simply goes out.
Are you saying the atmosphere “traps” a portion of the heat, holding it perpetually?
barry says, October 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM:
Of course. How do you think the atmosphere warms? It’s called “internal energy”, denoted by U in the field of thermodynamics:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/inteng.html
Before the atmosphere has accumulated enough internal energy, it is too cold and thus unable to emit enough radiative heat to space so as to balance the incoming heat from the Sun.
An imbalance. Not a delay. Simply Q_in > Q_out.
“11:06am: Even as the actual DATA says otherwise… 8:00am: There is STILL no “GHE” as defined on Mars. It is STILL negative, as defined (T_s vs. T_e).”
Not with any precision or confidence per the papers you cite, Kristian, as the Fenton paper uses GCM model runs to come up with Mars annualized global Ts. Sure, some initial conditions were from measured Mars satellite data then computing Ts from annualized GCM model runs: “We applied two maps of surface Lambert albedo to the NASA Ames Mars general circulation model…”
The GCM results for Mars Ts are 201.6K, 202.4K, rounded Table 1.
In the Bandfield paper Te inputs are shown and calculated from same simple Te balance as NASA (1) uses for Earth to compute 254K to find a range:
Mars Te calculated in the range: 200.9K to 205.5K, rounded
Given Bandfield on Mars annual: “…global albedo is highly variable (~6%)…” indicates the actual DATA and GCM analysis can be contrary to Kristian’s doubtfully precise conclusion i.e. these works Kristian cited do NOT say otherwise with any confidence.
Remove ? in the ref link:
(1) https://nssd?c.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
An imbalance. Not a delay. Simply Q_in > Q_out.
The atmosphere is perpetually emitting less energy than it receives?
Isn’t the first law of thermodynamics violated here?
I can see that happening if the atmosphere becomes an ever stronger “insulator,” but at equilibrium Q_in must = Q_out on average.
barry says, October 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM:
Ehm, no. Not “perpetually”. Up to the point where the atmosphere is warm enough.
Why? The imbalance between heat in and heat out accumulates as atmospheric internal energy.
Yes, of course. I’m not sure I understand your “objection” here.
Yes, of course. Im not sure I understand your objection here.
I thought you were describing an atmosphere in (average*) equilibrium with the input: the atmosphere of *today*, rather than an imaginary scenario where the atmosphere suddenly has suddenly appeared and you are describing it at some point in time before the imbalance is compensated.
Taking the atmosphere as having achieved (average) equilibrium, how would you explain the warmer surface if not by saying that heat loss to space is slowed by the atmosphere.
In this regard, criticising the word “delayed” seems more like a semantic quibble than a physical objection.
(* Noting that the atmosphere is dynamic and is always in some sort of thermal disequilibrium with the input, day by night by day).
barry says, October 10, 2017 at 5:20 AM:
Strange, because quite early on I stated: “Before the atmosphere has accumulated enough internal energy, it is too cold and thus unable to emit enough radiative heat to space so as to balance the incoming heat from the Sun.
An imbalance. Not a delay. Simply Q_in > Q_out.”
I would’ve thought this to be pretty hard to misconstrue.
It’s not SLOWED. It’s REDUCED. It doesn’t take any LONGER for the heat to get out. There is LESS heat moving out. At any given surface temperature.
Drop the whole idea about a “delay”. It creates confusion rather than clarity. There is no delay. There’s only ever an imbalance between heat IN and heat OUT. A positive imbalance (Q_in > Q_out) causes net energy to accumulate inside the atmosphere, making it warmer in the process.
At the point where a dynamic equilibrium between IN and OUT is achieved, we’ve finally reached a steady state, and the average U and T of the atmosphere no longer change. At this point there is no longer an imbalance; as much goes out as comes in, on average. But at this point, the now stable surface temperature is relatively high. So how do we explain this “warmer surface”? We explain it by describing the accumulation of internal energy in (and thus warming of) the atmosphere during the buildup period towards the dynamic equilibrium, as a result of the positive imbalance between the heat INPUT and the heat OUTPUT, only finally neutralised as the output grows sufficiently large to match the input, by virtue of the increasing atmospheric temperature. As the atmosphere warms this way, the surface is in turn forced to warm as well, because of a lowered temperature difference/gradient between it and its immediate thermal surroundings. Smaller temperature difference, smaller heat flux. At any given temperature …
It is indeed a “physical objection”. There simply IS no physical delay in the release and/or transfer of energy/heat. There is only LESS energy/heat being released and/or transferred per unit time. Because of a smaller temperature difference.
The heat moves just as quickly, barry. There is only LESS of it.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Lack of any real trend in a decrease in OLR radiation.”
It’s difficult to measure. But the trend at the surface has been measured. Why do you ignore it?
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
Salvatore: A recent paper says it’s found evidence for the tropospheric “hot spot”:
“Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2),” Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 054007.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/article
Here’s the relevant figure from that paper:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/14/a-global-warming-fingerprint-confirmed-upper-troposphere-warming/
David that just is not the case.
Salvatore, if you’re going to deny peer reviewed published science, you’ll have to do a lot better than simple minded denial.
It has been shown through data the hotspot does not exist.
Ask Dr. Spencer if you do not believe me.
salvatore…”David that just is not the case”.
Ignore Appell and his cherry picked, idiotic Google searches.
From the link:
“Satellite measurement of temperature variation in the troposphere are not as useful as one might hope, because those instruments tend to average out temperatures over a much larger area of air than suitable for measuring the expected warming.
The new study, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2), by Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, takes a new approach”.
So what did the rocket scientists who wrote this paper do? They used sparse radiosonde data and homogenized it in a model statistically like the fudging done at NOAA.
John Christy has explained using sat data that no hot spot exists and that is good enough for me.
AGW kaput!!!
agree
It does turn out to be more complicated than that. Various people claiming that a lack of UT warming was evidence of no warming have now been shown wrong, but even a lack of warming is not, if you will, an anti-AGW fingerprint. In the end it turns out to be a very complicated phenomenon and it would probably take me five blog posts to adequately related the conversation Ive had over the last 24 hours with various climate scientists about the details.
Data from this level of the atmosphere is poor at its best. You DO NOT disprove Global Warming and its global rate of warming from patchy data.
That is not proper science. This my-optical approach to science is called confirmation bias. Lack of data will never disprove the existence of AGW. It proves nothing.
Ross, to the true believers, there is NOTHING that will disprove AGW.
ross…”Data from this level of the atmosphere is poor at its best. You DO NOT disprove Global Warming and its global rate of warming from patchy data”.
You seem to accept AGW theory based on no observable, scientific evidence.
The lower tropospheric hot spot is predicted for ALL warming scenarios, not just an increasing greenhouse scenario. It’s absence still has to be explained, but it is not an AGW issue.
“The lower tropospheric hot spot is predicted for ALL warming scenarios, not just an increasing greenhouse scenario. It’s absence still has to be explained, but it is not an AGW issue …”.
The equatorial troposphere hotspot as predicted by the models is a signature of the supposed positive water vapour feedback, as I understand it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/new-evidence-regarding-tropical-water-vapor-feedback-lindzens-iris-effect-and-the-missing-hotspot/
Yes, and the water vapour feedback is a feature of ALL warming scenarios.
The positive water vapor feedback acts of course whatever might ever be the cause of global warming.
The absence of the hot spot might well mean that the models do not a good job in simulating the convection-latent heat transfers and so the lapse rate.
alpha-g…”The absence of the hot spot might well mean that the models do not a good job in simulating the convection-latent heat transfers and so the lapse rate”.
It’s far more than that. Models include an ESTIMATE of the CO2 warming effect of 9% to 25%. There is absolutely no basis for such an estimate and based on it’s mass, CO2 should represent no more than a few hundredths of a degree C warming.
Furthermore, there is a positive feedback built in the model programs due to an alleged amplification of surface warming by CO2. That is impossible in our atmosphere, were positive feedback related to temperature amplification an issue we’d have been doomed long ago.
Positive feedback MUST meet the following equation:
G = A/(1 – AB)
Where G = overall gain, A = amplification due to some kind of amplifier, B = feedback.
It’s plain that feedback is a small player in the equation and that amplification is the main factor. Modelers have confused this seriously, claiming feedback causes amplification, which is wrong. An amplifier of some kind has to be in place separate from the feedback and that’s not the case in our atmosphere.
Remove that PF from models, as should be the case, and catastrophic warming disappears.
Thanks Des
The TRUE signature of greenhouse warming:
Warming due to increased insolation warms ALL parts of the atmosphere.
Warming due to an increased greenhouse effect warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere.
We are indeed getting a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere.
We will see. Like with everything else there are other factors which could influence stratospheric temperatures, those being major volcanic activity , water vapor, and solar activity.
In addition since 1995 the rate of cooling in the stratosphere has been VERY slow.
des says, October 9, 2017 at 5:11 AM:
No, this is not the true signature of “greenhouse warming”. It appears you don’t even know your own “hypothesis”.
The true signature of “greenhouse warming” would be a systematic reduction in total all-sky OLR at the ToA relative to tropospheric temps over time.
We see no such thing in the real-world data.
“We see no such thing in the real-world data.”
As I’ve pointed out many times before, Kristian comes to this conclusion incorrectly using data the CERES Team has determined is not calibratable with enough confidence.
To understand, just inspect Kristian charts which have not shown confidence interval ref.s as does the CERES Team (Loeb 2016). CERES Team comes to an opposite conclusion than Kristian in their Table 4 showing reliable confidence that earth OLR has decreased in their longest calibratable data series (thru 12/2014).
And not just the CERES team. Other groups come to the same conclusion.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
Ball4, could you resupply a link to Loeb 2016?
barry says, October 9, 2017 at 4:49 PM:
barry, the CERES team have NOT come to the conclusion that the OLR at the ToA has gone down; quite the opposite:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/olr.png
You can plot the data yourself if you don’t trust me:
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF4Selection.jsp
I’d like to see Ball’s link. I know that CERES team concede there is structural uncertainty in the data, and that there are different versions. I’m not inclined to rely on a single data set without more background from the makers (and other opinion).
I’m also not inclined to dismiss your view out of hand just because I have doubts.
“I’d like to see Ball’s link.”
Below at 5:49pm.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267667
barry says, October 10, 2017 at 5:27 AM:
He’s already given you the link.
Read the Data Quality Summary of the CERES EBAF Ed4 ToA dataset:
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/user/DQS/CERES_EBAF_Ed4.0_DQS.pdf
There is “structural uncertainty” in ALL datasets, barry, but some are more certain than others. The ‘CERES EBAF Ed4 total all-sky OLR flux anomaly at the global ToA’ dataset is probably THE most precise and stable radiation flux dataset available. It’s not PERFECT. Nothing’s perfect. But it’s as good as they come.
There aren’t really any other datasets out there of CERES EBAF Ed4’s caliber when it comes to LW flux anomalies at the ToA. It is a touchstone for all the others, the standard against which they are evaluated.
It’s funny. Because to me you DO seem very much inclined to dismiss my view out of hand as soon as you’re provided with an opportunity. You even openly admit you “have doubts”.
Why? Doubts about what? Do you think I’m making up the data I’m presenting, barry? Or do you think I’m pointing out what I’m pointing out specifically because I have data to back my view up?
The data speaks for itself.
“The data speaks for itself.”
Not with enough confidence for meaningful ToA OLR trends prior to 1/2003.
The CERES team tells us there simply isn’t enough surface thermometer data to confidently calibrate CERES radiometers for OLR trends before then. After 1/2003 enough surface data became available to confidently compute CIs for meaningful OLR downward trends from 3 instruments as summarized in Loeb 2016 Table 4.
Yes I saw Ball’s link downthread after I posted, as well as yours and have started going through them all. I’ve also been hunting up more recent Loeb stuff. There’s work from other teams, too. This will take time. I’m in the middle of some very busy weeks.
Its funny. Because to me you DO seem very much inclined to dismiss my view out of hand as soon as youre provided with an opportunity. You even openly admit you “have doubts”.
Doubt is the spine of skepticism. I’m not in the least embarrassed to “admit” I have them. Would you accept carte blanche anything I said? I hope not.
I’m grateful that you provide numerous links. Others here should follow your example.
barry, this site has and had numerous issues posting links since a certain commenter wore out his welcome doing so some time ago; some have resorted to tinyurl. It is irritating that comments get rejected automatically by unforgiving software so I’ve learned to just limit posting links.
In going thru the Loeb et. al. publications you will encounter numerous specialist terms they have adopted in their niche that frustrate newbie progress but with some patience and scanning this circumstance is endurable if you really have enough interest.
BARRY you are reasonable so I am gong to ask you to comment on the short comings I see with AGW theory.
Lack of a lower tropospheric hot spot near the equator.
As I understand it, reviews are mixed on observations. According to some obs, no enhanced warming. According to others, there is.
But this needs to be clearly understood – the hotspot is not a function specifically of greenhouse warming. It’s a theorized function of surface warming from any cause, including solar.
If it’s not happening, it means that atmospheric modeling of heat transfer in general is faulty.
Lack of an evolution to a more +ao/nao over at least the past decade.
I don’t know anything about this issue.
Lack of any real trend in a decrease in OLR radiation.
From what I’ve read, there is an observed decrease over time. Here are a bunch of studies on it.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/
Lack of any evidence that the climate is unique when viewed against the historical climatic record.
I don’t think that’s an argument against AGW. No one claims that the Earth has not been hotter (or cooler) in the past. You read of ‘unprecedented’ warming, but that is usually in the context of the instrumental record, or the holocene after the climate optimum, or including the climatic optimum. Or that the rate of global warming is unprecedented over the last century compared to other centennial periods (usually of the last 2000 years, for which we have fairly good temporal, if not spatial resolution).
But in terms of absolute change – the planet has been much warmer many times – in fact probably for most of its existence. But since no one is claiming that the last century or few decades is the all time (as in hundreds of millions of years) hottest, I don’t see that the fact that it is not is an argument against AGW.
THANKS BARRY
Barry’s replies are very sensible.
barry says, October 9, 2017 at 4:31 AM:
No. What you have read is not about total all-sky OLR through the ToA. It’s about trace gas-affected bands of the full EM spectrum. In clear-sky.
The only thing, however, that really matters if you’re looking for an “enhanced GHE” signal is the total all-sky OLR at the ToA, preferably (if available) the global one, but the global quite naturally has a tendency to correlate tightly with the tropical one, especially over time, normally resembling simply a dampened version of it.
We basically have 32+ years of consistent, extensively quality-controlled ToA radiation flux data covering this particular parameter, through the ERBS and CERES satellite missions, supported and corroborated by other datasets such as ISCCP FD and HIRS.
Here’s the total all-sky OLR at the (tropical) ToA since 1985 vs. UAHv6 TLT:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
ERBS Ed3_Rev1, 20N-20S vs. 60N-60S:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-olr-20-20-vs-60-601.png
CERES EBAF Ed4, 20N-20S vs. 90N-90S:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/olr-trop-vs-gl.png
There is no reduction in total all-sky OLR over the last 32+ years. The opposite is true. Its increase corresponds very well with the rise in tropospheric temps over that same period.
This is THE biggest piece of evidence AGAINST the idea of an “enhanced GHE” as being a cause of global warming.
Kristian says:
“There is no reduction in total all-sky OLR over the last 32+ years.”
Wrong wrong 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)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://tinyurl.com/knoa4dy
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006, Chen et al, (2007)
http://tinyurl.com/mb4xz38
“There is no reduction in total all-sky OLR over the last 32+ years.”
Repeat 4:39pm: CERES Team comes to an opposite conclusion than Kristian in their Loeb 2016 Table 4 showing reliable confidence that earth OLR has decreased in their longest calibratable data series (thru 12/2014).
Could you give a link to Loeb 2016, Ball4?
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/3/182/htm
4:50pm: Dr. Loeb used to have a nice page up listing all his publications with free links, can’t find it now.
This link will likely work. If you do dig in, and have the pre-req.s accomplished enough to at least roughly understand the CERES calibration to surface thermometer T issues, you will also find a need (as they write) to go back and read ref. 9, the 2012 publication.
From google string: “norman loeb” ceres publications
barry,
That Loeb paper simply provides a preliminary description and analysis of the new and updated Edition 4 of their radiation flux data product. It was published before the actual dataset, and they were basically still working on it at the time. The full dataset was finally completed and officially published on their data products page about a year later. The data is freely available to the public, as well as an accompanying Data Quality Summary, and the CERES team openly encourage scientists to use it in their research.
The data plotted in the paper is but a subset of the full dataset, and correlates pretty much perfectly both with the full 4th edition (as plotted by me), AND with the previous (2.8) edition.
Ball4 is essentially being a troll. He’s got nothing, and he knows it.
The data:
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAF4Selection.jsp
The Data Quality Summary:
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/user/DQS/CERES_EBAF_Ed4.0_DQS.pdf
The ERBS Ed3_Rev1 data can be found here:
https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/project/erbe/edition3_rev1/access_ed3_rev1_data.pdf
Enjoy!
Here’s, btw, the Ed4 data in the paper’s Fig.7 overlain by the older Ed2.8 data (01/2003 – 12/2014, 30N-30S):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/olr-30-30-paper.png
A near perfect match. The OLR simply goes down inside this particular interval because the tropospheric temps went down inside this particular interval. ENSO.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/tlt-30-30-uahv6.png
Full dataset (including the above interval):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/tlt-30-30-2000-2016-uahv6.png
Full GLOBAL dataset:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/uahv6-tlt-90-90.png
“The OLR simply goes down inside this particular interval…”
Very good progress Kristian. Which is the longest interval available with enough confidence to professionally publish the results. You improve to agree with CERES Team and backtrack from your earlier: “There is no reduction in total all-sky OLR over the last 32+ years.”
And yes, CERES team attribute this: “…to all three data products show a consistent decrease in LW TOA flux that is mainly associated with ENSO variability.”
Now the question to look into is the confidence level of the data products pre-2003 that you use and for which you do not show any CI. For that, a dive into the prior work ref.s is needed and some reading (esp. ref. 9 from 2012). I will leave that to barry as I’ve already done so.
Ball4 says, October 9, 2017 at 11:07 PM:
Nope. The full dataset (2000-2017) is the longest interval available with enough confidence to professionally publish the results. It was published almost a year after the paper, and is now the official ToA radiation flux dataset to be used in scientific research, freely available online.
Er, no. The interval in question spans from January 2003 to December 2014. That’s 12 years. If you read my words above, you will see that I write “over the last 32+ years”. That’s from January 1985 to January 2017.
The OLR went down between 2003 and 2014 simply because it follows tropospheric temps (and T_tropo => TLT happened to go down over that period, due to a particular succession of ENSO states), something it isn’t supposed to do according to the idea of an “enhanced GHE”. It is rather supposed to track significantly and systematically below over time.
But despite this 12-year cooling period, tropospheric temps clearly went up overall between 1985 and 2017. As did the OLR:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbsceres-vs-uah1.png
*Yawn*
Just read the data quality summaries, both of CERES EBAF Ed4 ToA, and of ERBS Ed3_Rev1.
The precision and stability of these datasets are extensively discussed in the literature. They’re as good as they come.
“Theyre as good as they come.”
Yes, but pre-2003 the published reports explain why the data is not calibrated precise enough to surface T with confidence intervals to draw the conclusions on OLR that Kristian does. OLR could have gone up or done pre-2003 (Kristian’s 32+ year interval), unfortunately the CI is not good enough in those earlier years to decide the matter with any confidence.
All Kristian has to do is add the pre- & post-2003 CI to his charts to learn this but to date Kristian hasn’t shown the ability to do so, as the CERES Team did post-2003 thru 12/2014 in the published 2016 report.
Ball4 says, October 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM:
And a year later, after having finished constructing and validating the very dataset they preliminarily discussed in that paper, they published THE WHOLE THING on their web page, Data Quality Summary included. Just go over and have a look, troll.
If you have questions about the full dataset (CERES EBAF Ed4 ToA) and its validity, then I’m sure Norman Loeb and the others on his team will be delighted to provide you with all the answers you seek …
Until then, the data, as officially published and quality-checked on CERES very own data products web page (as of October 2017), explicitly tells us that the total all-sky OLR at the global ToA has NOT gone down, but UP since 2000, its evolution corresponding neatly with that of tropospheric temps over the same period:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/olr.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/olr-vs-tlt.png
I’m sorry, troll, but you will just have to live with the fact that this is the reality of things …
“…then I’m sure Norman Loeb and the others on his team will be delighted to provide you with all the answers you seek.”
Once again ad infinitum I suppose, they already have Kristian, in Loeb 2016 (and its references) which tell us in Table 4 explicitly with confidence intervals that the total all-sky OLR at the global ToA has gone DOWN in the longest available calibratable period 1/2003 to 12/2014. Data from THREE different instruments.
They go on to tell us in their publications their own data before 1/2003 cannot be confidently used for OLR studies as it cannot be reliably enough calibrated to thermometer surface temperatures.
I hope this infinite series converges some day. One way is for Kristian to add confidence intervals to his self cites and learn this for himself but I have little hope of ever seeing THAT done.
Question:
Less OLR is the initial response to a GHG increase, until the earth warms and equilibrium is restored.
But the increase started a long time ago, should we not see OLR go up in response to earths warming decades ago, even though equilibrium is still ahead of us?
Yes. The CI meaningful OLR data only starts in 1/2003 and is accumulating. The CERES team is collecting data and trying to get the next constellation satellite launched and lobbying for more to keep the data series going without irritating gaps.
If Kristian would calm down, learn how compute the CIs comparable to CERES team, he could meaningfully extend Table 4 as EBAF data is released. Then reliably watch confidently for changes in OLR trends. Maybe to show OLR stopped decreasing right on this blog and start to increase back to equilibrium with ASR as the near surface atm. changes T as in top post and moves its emissions to enabling frequencies.
I posted a link to this study a few weeks ago. It’s very relevant to the OLR argument I’m seeing between Kristian/Ball4, so hear it is again:
http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110
In my mind, looking at OLR to prove or disprove the GHE is a fools game. True, an incremental increase in GHG’s would in theory lesson the OLR, but it seems like natural variation (ocean conditions, volcanoes) would completely overwhelm the signal.
Here’s a thought experiment.
Putting on a thin shirt might raise your body’s temperature 0.1 F. It would also have decreased “OLR” until the new equilibrium was reached.
Now put on 20 shirts over a period of several hours. The OLR would go up a little with each shirt, but would always stabilize at the initial level.
Your body’s temperature, OTOH, would now be 2 degrees higher than it had been.
OLR is not CUMULATIVE, whereas the the change in temperature is.
11/2014 of the article is prior Loeb 2/2016 paper showed in CERES data OLR to be decreasing in the real world & not the modeled world this article seems to be discussing. So Dr. Donohoe’s guess about what would probably not happen based on model studies (OLR decrease), did really happen (OLR meaningfully decreased 1/2003 thru 12/2014).
Ball4
I’m not saying the GHE doesn’t reduce OLR, just that the effect could be easily obscured by other variables, namely ENSO events. In the case of the model simulation I mentioned, it was water vapor uptake of solar radiation that overwhelmed any OLR decrease.
Don’t be surprised if the years 2014 – 2017 show an increase in OLR due to el nino warming.
Interesting link Sir,
Kristians observation is correct and we are looking at a feedback.
Svante says, October 10, 2017 at 4:18 PM:
No, it isn’t. That’s only supposed to happen in the hypothetical case of a massive pulse being abruptly injected, like a CO2 doubling overnight. In the real-world, the increase is incremental, very slow and gradual, which means that the system is always able to equilibrate between the ‘steps’.
This is why the definitive signature of “greenhouse warming” (an “enhanced GHE”) is specifically this:
OLR (=> T_e) stays flat over time, while T_tropo (=> T_s; TLT) rises:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
IOW: We are not supposed to observe a positive imbalance at the ToA from a hypothetical “strengthening of the GHE” causing global warming. That’s the whole point.
Which means, if we do see a positive imbalance at the ToA, we basically know that it’s something ELSE than an “enhanced GHE” at work.
And that “something else” is of course an increase in the input from the SUN: +ASR. Which is exactly what we observe in the relevant data (ERBS+CERES).
“IOW: We are not supposed to observe a positive imbalance at the ToA from a hypothetical strengthening of the GHE causing global warming. Thats the whole point.”
A blackbody is vacuum which emits 240 watt would be -18 C.
Earth emits an average of about 240 watts, Earth average temperature is not -18 C.
The difference of 33 K is suppose to be caused by greenhouse gases.
That’s the whole point of Greenhouse effect theory. Or without greenhouse gases the pseudoscience “theory” predicts that Earth would have average temperature of -18 C
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 10, 2017 at 5:55 PM:
We are not looking to “disprove” the “GHE”, Snape. We’re looking for evidence that could verify the idea of an ” ENHANCED GHE”.
Exactly the same is the case with the Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel comparison. It is not primarily a test of the central idea of a “GHE”. It is primarily a test of the central premise behind an “ENHANCED GHE”.
And if looking for observations from the real Earth system to verify or falsify the idea that an “enhanced GHE” is somehow CAUSING global warming, then look no further than the OLR. Total All-Sky OLR at the ToA, plus tropospheric temps (T_tropo => TLT), are THE parameters to follow. Over time. Not from year to year, not even over a few years. OLR responds rather peculiarly to strong ENSO events, because of the distinct humidity and cloud anomalies they generate. If you go beyond 5-7-10 years, however, a pattern of systematic divergence SHOULD quite significantly start to emerge. T_tropo/TLT should be observed to rise distinctly above the corresponding OLR, the deviation growing steadily with time …
In the imaginary Earth without greenhouse gases and having an average temperature of -18 C, what would Earth be like?
Could there be high air temperatures- as high as the Earth with a 15 C average temperature has?
If one could never have an air temperature temperature as high as say 50 C, what would high possible air temperature be?
30 C? 20 C? 0 C?
I would say that to have an imaginary Earth with -18 C, one couldn’t have ocean in the tropics. Instead all ocean water is at the poles and is frozen- so would have tens of km of frozen ice in the polar regions. And this allows very little water vapor.
Such situation “allows” there not to be much greenhouse gases- the CO2 freeze out at the poles and the tropics would be dry and hot- a vast low elevation desert which could have air temperature above 50 C, but the average air temperature might be around -18 C.
Or basically you have Antarctica on steriods- two of them- and instead barely getting near -100 C during the winter and having average temperature of around -50 C, it’s average temperature is below -100 C and during winter gets colder than -100 C.
But that’s my take, what else could an imaginary earth at 1 AU from the Sun, be -18 C?
–but the average air temperature might be around -18 C.–
Meant:
but the average global air temperature might be around -18 C.
Ball4 says, October 10, 2017 at 2:00 PM:
I’m not talking about whether the OLR went down during this particular interval or not. It did. I’ve shown you, “ad infinitum I suppose”, that this is very much the case, and shown both by EBAF Ed2.8 and EBAF Ed4. There’s no mystery here. It did because the tropospheric temps did.
I’m talking about your peculiar and continuing claim that this particular interval is “the longest available calibratable period” of CERES EBAF data. That is YOUR claim and YOURS ALONE, troll.
I wish you’d actually quote from the papers you use as “evidence” for you tedious assertions. You never do.
Where exactly does it say that the interval in Figure 7a (Loeb et al., 2016) is “the longest available calibratable period” og CERES EBAF data???
Where and when did Loeb state this?
And where exactly does it say that the published CERES EBAF Ed4 ToA data product (03/2000-01/2017, 90N-90S) can NOT “be confidently used for OLR studies as it cannot be reliably enough calibrated to thermometer surface temperatures.” Both before 2003 and after 2014. Where?
Please cite and refer (publication, page, paragraph, line). Put up or shut up.
Or else we’ll all have to assume that you’re just making things up in your head, troll.
* * *
Look, it’s quite an easy task to show that you’ve got absolutely no case here.
Here’s the infamous Fig.7a) from Loeb’s 2016 paper:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/remotesensing-08-00182-g007.png
(Total All-Sky OLR at the 30N-30S ToA, 01/2003 – 12/2014.)
Here’s the final EBAF Ed4 product as officially published on CERES’ own data products page plotted and superimposed on the three Fig.7a) curves, total all-sky OLR at the 30N-30S ToA, 01/2003 – 12/2014:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/remotesensing-08-00182-g007-b.png
The exact same pattern.
Here’s that black EBAF Ed4 curve in the previous graph correlated with UAHv6 TLT, 30N-30S, calibrated to correspond:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/olr-vs-tlt-30n-30s.png
Yup, it goes down. It’s all about the particular succession of ENSO states.
However, extending from the 30N-30S band to full global, and also including the entire EBAF Ed4 ToA OLR dataset as of today (03/2000 – 01/2017), the correlation looks like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/olr-vs-tlt.png
It no longer goes down. And it still simply tracks tropospheric temps.
It’s not supposed to, according to the idea of an “enhanced GHE” as the driver of global temps.
The chart that Kristian links 9:49am is for an increase in ASR with lapse rate held constant*. This can easily be seen by inspection as the temperatures are higher at each height. There is more energy in the system from more sun load. Thus Fig. 1 is not as Kristian writes just “the definitive signature of “greenhouse warming””
The definitive signature of greenhouse warming (Kristian terms) would show the area under the straight line held constant for a fixed amount of energy in the system since +CO2 is not an energy source to the system. Ts plus delta Ts at the bottom and passing thru (rotated about) Ze + delta Ze up to a lower temperature at the tropopause and lower stratosphere.
Which is just what is found in the near surface temperature data of the top post chart, the OLR data decreasing from CERES Team in Loeb 2016 Table 4, and in sparse temperature data for the lower stratosphere.
Initially equilibrium OLR decreases as CO2 is added to an atm. & then OLR rises back to match the ~fixed ASR over time for a new system equilibrium at a higher surface temperature. The accumulating ARGO data as used by CERES Team also supports Kristian’s term for definitive signature of greenhouse warming.
*Authors quote Fig. 1: “…due to a doubling of CO2 assuming a fixed atmospheric lapse rate…as well as (changes) in the absorbed solar flux”
Again, read the Data Quality Summary of EBAF Ed4 ToA:
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/user/DQS/CERES_EBAF_Ed4.0_DQS.pdf
Note, this summary was written and published a year after the Loeb et al. (2016) paper.
Come back and let us know when you’ve found exactly where it says here that its global all-sky LW flux anomaly parameter is not suitable for climate (or “OLR”) studies and comparisons with temperature series.
Kristian 11:28am: “I’m talking about your peculiar and continuing claim that this particular interval is “the longest available calibratable period” of CERES EBAF data. That is YOUR claim and YOURS ALONE, troll.”
It is not MY claim Kristian, this is what the CERES Team explain in their published reports.
“I wish you’d actually quote from the papers you use as “evidence” for you tedious assertions. You never do.”
The papers are free on the internet (or used to be) for anyone to dig into & dig you must. Especially the Loeb 2016 and 2012 papers. The language of the specialists is not scrutable for many here (took me some time to learn the lingo) so long quotes are useless without commenters having the pre-req.s accomplished, you will have to do the work to read the bulk of their calibration work, I am ready to help if you want to do it in a professional way.
The evidence? Loeb 2016 Table 4. They do not use any EBAF data before 1/2003 because they explain the data CIs prior that date widen for too little confidence in the OLR trends. And they explain why in 2012 paper iirc.
You have a computer, some interest/knowledge to read, some cohones so use them to compute the CIs as CERES Team does and you will eventually agree with them.
Kristian 11:41am: “Come back and let us know when you’ve found exactly where it says…”
“It”, the EBAF user report, was my first stop & isn’t where you will find the CERES Team explaining why they do not use EBAF data for OLR trends prior to 1/2003 in Table 4, unfortunately way more work is required.
I had to first parse the Loeb 2016 then the Loeb 2012 paper and possibly even some of the other ref.s in THOSE to dig out their reasoning on why the CIs prior 1/2003 show little confidence on OLR. The pdf you link is a caution for users and I assume the users can/will then apply CIs in their work to show which trends have enough confidence to publish, except of course for you.
Again, I am interested enough & ready to help if you want to do it in a professional way.
“Look, it’s quite an easy task to show that you’ve got absolutely no case here.”
Compute the CIs and show that! Your CI work has to show same results in same CIs as CERES team and you will find the CERES Team case is solid, I am only an interested reader of their work.
I have no other claim than their work, I rely on their Table 4 and prior explanations. There is no silver bullet quote as you request & would know if you had invested the lengthy time & at first inscrutable reading. You have to do a first read, mark the stuff you don’t understand, go back and dig into understanding each mark. It takes a lot of effort AND I could be wrong, but still Table 4 used no data prior 1/2003 and I think I understand well enough now why that is.
So let me ask Kristian: Why does Table 4 not use EBAF data prior 1/2003?
That was the 1st question I asked myself a year or two ago & the answer is not easy to dig out but it is there. And I think I understand.
Kristian says:
“the system is always able to equilibrate between the steps.”
How can that be when you think of the mass involved? Do you think we have zero warming in the pipeline? I say we have to run our radiation surplus for decades to reach equilibrium.
Tropical storm raging over Alabama.
“An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at the same distance from the Sun as Earth would have a temperature of about 5.3 C. “- wiki, Greenhouse effect
What temperature would it be if it wasn’t thermally conductive?
The moon isn’t ideal thermally conductive blackbody and it’s somewhat close to a blackbody.
Here are the surface temperature of the Moon at noon [and rest of the day]:
http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Which varies depending upon latitude.
So latitudes near the equator at noon is close to a surface 120 C.
On Earth Sweden is around 60 degree latitude and on the Moon at noon at 60 degree latitude the surface temperature peaks
between 300 and 350 K [26.8 and 76.8 C]. Or roughly about 37 C or 99 F
At time of year when Sweden has 12 hours of day and night
Or at equinox when the Sun is at Zenith at the Earth’s equator [“around 20 March and 23 September.”-wiki], it’s like the Moon at 60 degrees latitude.
When Sweden is near winter it’s like the Moon at 80 degree latitude on the moon. At 80 degree.
80 degree latitude on Moon at noon, the temperature between 200 and 250 K [-73 C to -23 C]. Or roughly about 225 K or -48 C.
And when near summer Sweden like moon at 40 C [about 350 K].
One can also draw circles. One has 360 degrees of latitude and longitude. On Earth at equator at equinox the sun moves 15 degree [360 / 15 = 24 hours]
So on the Moon when the sun at zenith at some point along the equator- 60 degrees north, south, east, and west can be the perimeter of a circle.
On earth 60 degree west or east of the point of zenith, is 4 hours difference- 8 am and 4 pm.
So at equator on the Moon when sun at same position as 8 am or 4 pm the surface is about 37 C. And it’s this temperature along the arc of circle when goes 60 degrees north or south latitude [above and below point on equator at Zenith].
So you have big circle, and has go further from the center which the sun is at zenith the surface temperature drops from about 120 C to 37 C.
One could draw a new circle every “4 hours”, or sun move away from a point which was at zenith, and that point would lower to 37 C in “4 hours” and draw another circle at new zenith. And keep doing than and would draw 6 circle in a 24 hour day.
Or one point at equator has 8 hours of 24 hour in which the surface is warm to 37 C then 4 hours later it’s 120 C, then 4 hours after that it cools to back to 37 C.
What about the other hours of 12 hours of daylight- the two hours after dawn and 2 hours before sunset. Dawn and sunset are 90 degrees. 10 degrees less is 2/3rd of hour. Or 80 degrees as said above is -48 C. Or 40 minutes after dawn or before sunsets the temperature is about -48 C.
Or from 4 pm to 5:20 pm it goes from 37 C to -48 C.
Now “hour” on the Moon equals about 29 hours on earth, so even though the Moon has some “thermally conductive properties” cooling from 37 C to -48 C in about 40 hours is somewhere in the ballpark.
Or roughly speaking the last or first “hour” of daylight on the Moon is well below 0 C.
How much area of the Moon is in “the last hour” or 15 degree, east, west, north and south?
Moon’s diameter is:
Equatorial radius (km) 1738.1
Polar radius (km) 1736.0
So say 1737 times 2 = 3474
And circumference, 3474 times pi:
10,914 km
10,914 divided by 360 degree is:
30.31 km per degree
Times 15 degrees: 474.75.
circumference times 474.75 is:
4,963,141.5 square km
Google: 38 million square km
A sunlit side 19 million square km
Less 1/4 and more than 1/5 during daylight
is pretty cold.
If it was more than 15 degrees one would have allow for curvature- not as simple. And one can do same in regards to equator- 7.5 degrees north and south is also about 5 million square km. Or 15 degrees north and south is about 10 million square km [of the total 38 million square km- or less than 1/3rd or 33%].
At any given point in time, one region on the sun lit side
which about 5 million square km which below 0 C. And have 1/6th of the equator which has bell curve which peaks at
120 C and drops to 37 C.
If you pick 15 degrees north and south of equator, then it’s 10 million / 6 = 1.67 million vs about 5 million square km.
Or you could average those two regions average temperatures.
Now, if the moon was more thermal conductive or had shorter day, a large part of the 5 million square km region could be much warmer than less than 0 C and the equator highest temperature would remain about the same, And the late afternoon part of bell curve would warmer. And one could argue about earier morning part of bell curve.
This reads like gibberish.
What is your point?
As said the Moon would be warmer if had faster rotation.
And the Moon with same rotation it would be warmer if it was more thermally conductive [or more resembling an ideal thermally conductive blackbody- or in numerous other ways, be more thermally conductive.
And what reads like gibberish is a reason, why it would be warmer with faster rotation or if more thermally conductive.
Or one could also say, a faster rotation is one mechanism to make it more thermally conductive
Does the ozone hole decrease? Observations show that the size of the ozone hole changes every year. The chart below shows that the ozone hole was very big in 2015. This year, the peak of solar magnetic activity has occured. Below the plot of the ozone hole and solar activity.
https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
I read up on it from time to time. Apparently the (Antarctic) ozone hole stabilized in the mid-1990s, and has been fluctuating in size around the stabilization ever since. The largest fluctuation (greatest size) occurred in September of 2006.
Does the chart show stabilization? Look at 2015 and 2017.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
You have to look at all the years to see if stabilization (fluctuation around a mean) has occurred.
The ozone hole was bigger in 2006 than in 2015, 16 and 17.
Does that mean that the ozone hole is getting smaller?
No. You need to see it in the context of all the years.
When you do, you see that the ozone hole grew until the mid 1990s, and then stopped growing.
For each year after it was sometimes larger, sometimes smaller than in the mid 1990s, but on average over the years, the hole got neither larger or smaller.
When I run my heart beats faster. If you took my heartbeat after I woke up, and 10 years later measured it directly after a 400 meter sprint, you’d come the mistaken conclusion that my heart has been speeding up over time.
You can’t make determination of a trend by measuring at small intervals, or short time periods.
You need as much data as you can get.
On a different track,
Some of you may enjoy this website
http://stuffin.space/
At the same time three seasons in the US. Winter in the west, autumn in the center and summer in the east.
This can only make the current pattern of the jet stream.
The atmosphere doesn’t seem to be cooperating with a developing la nina. Trade winds in the eastern Pacific are unusually weak:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Jet stream does not allow this.
http://virga.sfsu.edu/gif/17100912_jetstream_pac_h84.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
All oceanic trends are down overall of late.
The question is do they continue, and to what degree moving forward?
Snowstorm in Colorado and Nebraska. Denver under the snow.
Salvatore
The nino region warmed up the past week. According to NOAA, nino 3.4 is currently 0.0 C
Again:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Not according to ocean tid bits which is up dated every six hours.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“All oceanic trends are down overall of late.”
Totally false. Here are the data:
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr
Not according to Ocean Tid Bits.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
-.229c now
Salvatore
We’ve talked about this before. You’re looking at an index. Probably a running average of several weeks/months. The 3.4 region was recently lower so that’s part of the negative number you see.
Salvatore
Bindidon could sort this out. I’m just guessing.
To me it is clear. Ocean tid bits is updating every six hours what the temperature anomaly is for each of the ENSO regions.
What else could it be if not that?
Salvatore
My guess is they are updating a running average every six hours.
Salvatore
I think if the tropical tidbits ENSO value was a “real time” observation, it would be constantly jumping up and down. If it’s smooth, it’s more likely a running average.
Do you see day to day ups and downs?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM
The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261192
You could be corrects Sir Isaac
This a test, please ignore it, unless of course it appears. I am trying to troubleshoot a post to get past the idiotic censors at WordPress, the host of Roy’s blog.
regarding the phantom water vapour feedback:
water vapour feedback is thrown about as a cause of global warming yet no one seems to know what it is. It is offered as a mysterious effect that somehow amplifies the effect of other GHG, whose amplification abilities are not explained either.
Here’s an article from the IPCC on water vapour feedback:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/268.htm
Note the crux of the claim, that the theory is based on general circulation models. These models are programmed by humans who in many cases are mathematicians who have no basic understanding of what positive feedback means in reality.
In the claims above, water vapour positive feedback is NOT explained. Since an amplification is claimed, the FB must be positive. If the atmosphere is considered as an amplifier then surface flux could be the input signal. A positive feedback from the atmosphere would have to increase the signal.
In physics, positive feedback is part of an overall system of amplification featuring an independent amplifier. All feedback lacking such an amplifier MUST BE negative feedback.
The formula for general feedback is G = A/(1 – AB). where G is the overall gain, A = the independent amplification, and B = the feedback, positive in this case. If B does not exist, it is 0 and G = A.
There is no evidence for such an atmospheric positive feedback enabled amplification in mainstream physics, it is an incorrect assumption based on the theory of climate modelers.
How would such a positive feedback occur in relation to amplifying heat on the planet?
It is not explained by the IPCC, or any other alarmist, how heat is amplified. The entire premise of water vapour feedback is that IR back-radiation from clouds or atmospheric gases can warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar energy. Where did that pseudo-science emanate?
The surface radiates an immense flux of IR from every nook and cranny on the surface. The 0.04% of ALL CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly match the entire surface of the planet, as a mass, from which IR can radiate. It should be noted that the ACO2 came from oil in relatively small parts of the surface.
It’s plain that CO2 cannot possibly absorb all surface IR flux and what flux it can absorb is diminished in intensity due to losses through the atmosphere. The back-radiated quantity is only a fraction of the IR it receives.
For positive feedback to occur, in lieu of an independent amplifier, the back-radiation from CO2 must replace all losses from the surface. Furthermore, the temperature of the source of the radiation must be greater than the surface temperature.
Some on this blog have claimed a net positive IR flux between bodies can compensate the 2nd law. Although I disagree, how does a cooler quantity of IR from a body of gas much smaller than the surface area of the planet transfer heat to the surface under those peculiar circumstances, where the net positive flow of IR must be from surface to atmosphere? That plainly means the surface is giving up more heat than it is receiving and that is not conducive to surface warming.
Most CO2 will be at the same temperature as the surface or cooler, and heat cannot be transferred from a cooler gas to a warmer surface.
In other words, the surface flux would have to be amplified independently of CO2 back-radiation. Positive feedback requires an independent amplifier and neither clouds nor CO2 can provide such an amplifier.
No such thing as water vapour positive feedback and the IPCC has once again been taken in my the charlatans who program climate models. There may be WV feedbacks, but they are not positive.
Gordon Robertson says:
“These models are programmed by humans who in many cases are mathematicians who have no basic understanding of what positive feedback means in reality.”
Any mathematician — all of them smarter than Canadian engineers — knows what a positive feedback is.
It’s hardly a difficult concept to understand.
DA…”Any mathematician all of them smarter than Canadian engineers knows what a positive feedback is.
Its hardly a difficult concept to understand”.
It’s awfully apparent that you don’t understand it and neither does Gavin Schmidt. He had to be corrected by a …wait for it…engineer.
In fact you don’t seem to understand a lot about anything in physics.
Gordon, you’re lying again.
It’s a very bad habit of yours. Didn’t your momma admonish you as a child, or were you allowed to lie without consequence?
ice melting albedo decrease feedback.
Is this not positive feedback? Then how is it possible?
The chart below shows a big increase in geomagnetic activity in September. I have written earlier how this affects the circulation and activity of hurricanes in September 2017.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif?time=1507519202000
dr no…”Just relax a bit and consider this demonstrable fact:
IR is exchanged in both directions but the NET heat exchange is from the warmer to the cooler body.
Note the word NET. There is NO violation of any law.
Under your faulty model, you seem to violate the conservation of energy since you cannot explain what happens the radiated energy if it happens to be directed towards a warmer body”.
So many people are caught up in this pseudo-science. The doc claims: “IR is exchanged in both directions but the NET heat exchange is from the warmer to the cooler body”.
He manages to equate IR to heat in the same sentence.
Doc…how can you have a Net heat exchange??? Heat is a property of mass, more specifically, of atoms. Heat is the average kinetic energy of the motion of atoms, whether in rectilinear motion or in vibrations between atoms in a solid.
To have a net exchange of heat, you’d have to interchange the atoms. Come on, doc, put on your thinking cap for a moment, this is not rocket science.
Once again, all matter is composed of atoms, which are aggregations of electrons, protons, and neutrons. There are sub-atomic particles but let’s stick to the Bohr model of the atom.
In the Bohr model, electrons supposedly orbit the nucleus comprised of neutrons and positively charged protons. The negatively charged electron resides in certain energy orbitals around the nucleus and the electron can change energy levels if it acquires a precise amount of energy representing the difference between the energy levels.
Granted, this is a gross oversimplification but it represent a ballpark description of the reality concerning thermal energy, aka heat.
If the electron absorbs a quantum of energy, it jumps to a higher energy level and the kinetic energy of the atom rises. That KE is heat and KE is energy in motion. If that electron is shared with another atom in a molecule, the KE of the molecule rises.
Can we agree on that? If not, what else in an atom’s structure could account for heat? There are only two charged bodies, the electron and the proton. The electron is the only body capable of changing energy levels, and an increase in energy level is required when an atoms warms.
What else in nature can account for heat? It has to be the electron and that applies to electric current as well. I find it remarkable that the simple, lowly electron is responsible for transporting electric charge around a conductor and producing heat.
Let’s get back to your net energy exchange. If the electron causes heating in an atom by jumping to a higher energy level the opposite is true as well. When it falls to a lower energy level it cools the atom while emitting a quantum of energy, we call a photon.
So, here you have a mass at 100C radiating photons into space and a photon is intercepted by a cooler mass at 50C. The photon has the right intensity and frequency and absorbs the photon, and the atom warms. Meantime, that same 50C mass radiates a photon of it’s own at a much lower intensity and frequency and it reaches an atom in the 100C atom.
You are claiming that averaging the two way energy transfer accounts for the 2nd law, which states clearly that heat cannot be transferred from a colder mass to a warmer mass.
The second law does not state that a certain amount of heat is transferred both ways, it states clearly that no heat can be transferred from cold to hot. There’s a reason for that.
Something is wrong here doc. The energy of that photon in electron volts is E = hf, where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the EM (photon). The hot photon (100C) will have a much higher E and a different frequency than the cooler photon (50C).
In fact, all of the electrons in the 100C mass will reside at higher energy levels than the electrons on the cooler mass (50C). In order for the cooler photons to raise the electrons in the 100C mass to a higher energy level they would need to acquire extra energy somewhere.
You cannot sum the IR between masses of different temperatures and claim that heat can be transferred in both directions. The transfer is EM, not thermal energy. It makes no sense that electrons in a hotter mass should absorb energy from photons emitted by a cooler mass and the 2nd law verifies that.
As far as energy disappearing, I did not claim that. I merely said I did not know where it went. I don’t think anyone does.
another point, doc.
If you have two bodies of identical mass, they should be radiating exactly the same amount of IR each. Therefore the net IR should be zero.
With a net IR of zero, there should be no heat transfer, yet you claim there is a heat transfer and that the 2nd law is not violated.
If there is a heat transfer then one body has to be radiating IR of higher intensity. Otherwise, your implication is that larger masses deliver more heat to smaller masses than what smaller masses radiate to larger masses.
As long as you visualize heat transfer as a net flow of radiation you will never understand that heat cannot flow physically through space unless the atoms with which it is associated flow through space, as in the convection of gases.
The only thing that makes sense regarding heat transfer via radiation between a hotter mass and a cooler mass, and which satisfies the 2nd law, is a one way heat transfer via radiation from hot to cold. That makes perfect sense if the transfer is from a body at a higher level of potential energy to a body of lower potential energy. That is, from a body at a higher temperature to a body of a lower temperature.
The IR from the cooler body is simply ignored by the hotter body.
Heat does not leave the hotter body and flow through the air to the cooler body. The heat is lowered in the hotter body as it converts to IR, then the IR flows to the cooler body and is converted back to heat as the receiving atom’s electron absorbs it and rises to a higher energy level. IR is EM, NOT thermal energy.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If you have two bodies of identical mass, they should be radiating exactly the same amount of IR each”
Absolutely, completely wrong.
You really are a moron, Gordon.
DA…”If you have two bodies of identical mass, they should be radiating exactly the same amount of IR each
Absolutely, completely wrong.
You really are a moron, Gordon”.
Why don’t you work on your comprehension, idiot. That was an inference I asked dr no if he had made.
If you are going to skim replies and rush off to Google to verify them, at least have the intelligence to double check what you are replying to.
You claimed it. It was as stupid as everything else you try to pass off here.
Gordon you are mostly right IR is not heat, here is a slightly more physical statement if you study a meteorology text:
Heat does not leave the hotter body and flow through the air to the cooler body. The heat is lowered in the hotter body as it converts to IR (i.e. is emitted as EMR), then the IR flows to the cooler body and is converted back to heat (absorbed, transformed into constituent KE) as the receiving (molecules) absorb it and rises to a higher (internal) energy level. IR is EM(R), NOT thermal energy.
“The IR from the cooler body is simply ignored by the hotter body.”
This Gordon is completely wrong on as shown by relevant test & everyday experience. If you doubt me Gordon, go to Planck’s 1912 Treatise and look up the ref. tests he cites (they are free on the internet) – the tests he used to develop his ideal Planck curve formula.
Geez, in Gordon physics, if someone comes in from the arctic cold outside Gordon’s igloo, that someone would be invisible to Gordon in his physics!… as would the igloo!!
Perhaps Gordon has uncovered the secret to the cloaking devices in Star Trek et. al.??
Gordon, this is equally true per Clausius/Planck original writings:
Heat does not leave the cooler body and flow through the air to the warmer body. The heat is lowered in the cooler body as it converts to IR (i.e. is emitted as EMR), then the IR flows to the warmer body and is converted back to heat (absorbed, transformed into constituent KE) as the receiving (molecules) absorb it and rises to a higher (internal) energy level. IR is EM(R), NOT thermal energy. Net macro flow of constituent particle KE to IR to constituent particle KE is always from higher T body to lower T body in order to increase universe entropy (2LOT).
Or as Planck wrote more succinctly in 1912 (in German, this is a 1914 Planck approved translation):
“A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.”
Please read those carefully, look for too rapid typing caused typo.s, my physics editor is on vacation.
ball4
The exact reference to Max Planck’s work, translated by Morton Masius:
https://archive.org/download/theoryofheatradi00planrich/theoryofheatradi00planrich.pdf
The theory of heat radiation
by Max Planck
Published 1914 by P. Blakiston’s Son & Co. in Philadelphia
Page 6 in FUNDAMENTAL FACTS AND DEFINITIONS
ball4…”Or as Planck wrote more succinctly in 1912 (in German, this is a 1914 Planck approved translation):
A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B at 1000C”.
I have read Planck and I admire the guy. I have found myself having to forgive him for using terms like heat rays. His concept of radiation was skewed because he was not privy to the later work of Bohr and Schrodinger who developed that theory.
No one knew till the early 20th century that IR as EM was a separate entity from heat. Clausius seemed to have a better understanding of the subject back in 1875 but he too was misinformed about IR as opposed to heat. Clausius attributed heat to the motion of atoms, both in a linear fashion in a gas and in a vibrational mode in a solid. He was right about that.
Unfortunately, Clausius thought of IR as rays of heat as well, as if the atoms he visualized as creating heat could radiate it. The electron was not discovered till the 1890s and it was not till around 1913 that Bohr formulated the model of the atom with electrons.
Neither Planck nor Clausius apparently knew about electrons.
Electrons change the entire picture of heat transfer between bodies by radiation. It is not heat being transferred, it is electromagnetic energy which is formed when an electron’s energy is converted to EM as it falls from one energy level to another. An electron is a charged particle and it carries a magnetic field as well. Somehow it is able to convert the kinetic energy of heat to EM.
On the other end, provided a body’s atoms are cooler, the EM from the hotter electron can be absorbed by the cooler electron. That is not possible in the reverse direction since the EM from a cooler electron in an atom of a cooler body lacks the intensity and frequency to raise an electron in a warmer body to a higher level.
Heat is all about electrons and has nothing to do with IR. Once the IR leaves the electron it has no heat associated with it. If the electrons stay with the hotter body, so does the heat. However, the heat can decrease in one body and increase in another due to the emission/absorp.tion of EM from an electron in a hotter body. That is heat transfer and it can’t happen between a cooler and a warmer body.
Yes 6:24pm, thx, and you can therein find the tests Planck ref.s that “confirm” his eqn. 276 on p. 199.
Those early 1900s publications can be found for free on the internet if your google-fu is strong enough.
Please also note, though some write eqn. 276 is confirmed only in vacuum, those tests were run at room temperature and 1bar in the lab. The experimenters took decent care to minimize conductive and convective energy transfer so radiative transfer eqn. 276 could be developed reasonably well and later confirmed by theory from 1st principles.
Also later confirmed same formula does apply in a vacuum thus NASA found it eminently useful for their space applications. As do thermos bottle, hot water pipe & home/window insulation manufacturers, so forth, here at 1bar on earth. Alas, the IR astronomers could not beat Eqn. 276 and moved to high altitudes in remote regions for their observational work & are inventing mirrors that move to cancel atm. scattering (star twinkling).
Gordon 6:27pm: It is not heat being transferred, it is electromagnetic energy which is formed when an electrons energy is converted to EM as it falls from one energy level to another.
Concur, but this event only happens extremely rarely in earth atm. at STP.
To jump an electronic level in the molecules of interest, you need order of 100x the collisional energy available at say 288K. So happens extremely rarely in our atm.
To jump a rotational quantum level, tests show only need 1/3 the collisional energy at 288K so those are by far the most common sources of emitted/absorbed photons in the atm. of earth; vibrational jumps account for just about all of the rest as they need order of 10x the energy which can be found in the tails of the stat.s.
You can find all this in Bohren 1998 Chapter 3. Please, read it and start contributing tested physics, of meteorological interest.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy.
Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process.
Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is all about electrons and has nothing to do with IR.”
You can’t even keep your own gibberish straight.
You used to tell us that heat was the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. Now you stay it’s about electrons.
How does heat from the Sun get to Earth, if not by EM waves?
ball4…”If you doubt me Gordon, go to Plancks 1912 Treatise and look up the ref. tests he cites (they are free on the internet) the tests he used to develop his ideal Planck curve formula”.
Planck developed his theory on EM radiation studying the entire EM spectrum. He was trying to understand why the EM spectrum feel off on the ultraviolet end. He could not figure it out and final resorted to manipulating the math till he arrived at the theory of quanta between electron energy states.
“…”if someone comes in from the arctic cold outside Gordons igloo, that someone would be invisible to Gordon in his physics! as would the igloo!! ”
Bally…don’t be like that idiot Appell, read what I wrote. I did not say anything about colder bodies not radiating IR, I said the IR radiated by them is not absorbed by warmer body.
We don’t detect IR with our eyes, remember??? If you were sleeping in an igloo at -30C, the ice would not make you feel warm. The function of an igloo is to prevent the wind getting at you. Also, your body heat should warm the air inside the igloo somewhat.
The 2nd law says what it says for a reason. Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a cooler mass. It says nothing about net IR flow as claimed by dr no. That’s what prompted my reply to him.
If heat can only be transferred hot to cold it implies no IR is absorbed by a warmer body from a cooler body. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that statement in physics since electrons that absorb IR in an atom only accpet IR of specific intensity and frequency.
Gordon 5:58pm: “I said the IR radiated by them is not absorbed by warmer body.”
Then neither would be visible band, same physics apply. Gordon, get a grip, read a beginning meteorology text on the subject (Bohren 1998 for example Chapter 3).
“Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a cooler mass.”
As you wrote, strictly it is IR transferred between bodies, heat stays put and goes up/down due to incident absorbed/emitted IR. Try to stay with your own story Gordon.
“If heat can only be transferred hot to cold it implies no IR is absorbed by a warmer body from a cooler body.”
Strictly this is not true, I wince when you write this Gordon. JC Maxwell and Boltzmann later improved on Clausius work showing how KE can transfer from a cooler body to a warmer one as long as universe entropy is increased in the process. You just need to catch up on your reading. Yell for help; don’t ride a high horse, ask for citation/experiment. Plenty around here but you have to be selective.
ball4…”Gordon 5:58pm: I said the IR radiated by them is not absorbed by warmer body.
Then neither would be visible band, same physics apply. Gordon, get a grip, read a beginning meteorology text on the subject (Bohren 1998 for example Chapter 3″.
*********
I have read Bohren on atmospheric physics. He was the one who claimed the concept of heat trapping by GHGs was a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly. Bohren is a skeptic of the AGW theory. He also claimed the other AGW theory is a simple model. He claimed it held more promise but that it was only a theory.
I don’t care what frequency band of the EM spectrum you are talking about it’s not possible for ANY EM to be absorbed by a warmer body when it is emitted by a cooler body.
Please refrain from talking about objects becoming invisible. Sight is not about heat, it is about chemical receptors in the retina being sensitized by the frequency of EM in the visible portion of the EM spectrum. The receptors are sensitive to the extremely high frequency vibrations of EM and different frequencies stimulate them to produce various colours.
Another point to note, there is no colour in light, and no heat. The eye produces the colour and electrons in atoms produce the heat when they absorb certain EM.
Heat has no properties related to frequency. It is strictly about the intensity of energy an electron has in an atom.
“I don’t care what frequency band of the EM spectrum you are talking about its not possible for ANY EM to be absorbed by a warmer body when it is emitted by a cooler body.”
Most that contribute tested physics here already know this in spades Gordon, the early 1900s test ref.s in Planck’s treatise prove you are wrong. You simply need to read them. Get off your high horse on this, stop those that have read those tests from wincing all the time.
NB: Carefully examine the cavity temperature range tested from dry ice to super heated steam. Then find fault and that eqn. 276 p. 199 is bogus at some temperature: you won’t & can’t. Planck eqn. 276 has survived all testing to date, at all temperatures and all frequencies all the time.
“The eye produces the colour..”
Along with our brains. You get this right Gordon.
A banana is yellow not because so many websites say that it abs.orbs all frequencies except yellow which it reflects so it is almost an immutable truth.
Try this: point a spectrophotometer at a banana, hey, you will find it reads out emission all across the visible and maybe discern just a very little more intensity in the yellow bands than the red bands. Our brains somehow make that spectrum yellow. Look the spectrum up in your Bohren 2006, he has the results – can find them on the internet too with enough google fu.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The 2nd law says what it says for a reason. Heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a cooler mass.”
That’s not what the second law says.
How many times does this have to be explained to you?? Are you really too stupid to understand, or too egotistical to admit you’re wrong?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat does not leave the hotter body and flow through the air to the cooler body. The heat is lowered in the hotter body as it converts to IR, then the IR flows to the cooler body and is converted back to heat as the receiving atoms electron absorbs it and rises to a higher energy level. IR is EM, NOT thermal energy”
Wrong.
Heat transfer is energy transfer. Energy takes different forms in different places. But it’s all energy. Hence it can be, and is, heat transfer.
How does heat get from the Sun to the Earth?
Gordon Robertson
Your Chemistry and Physics are truly awful. You really know very little real science and just make up your own colorful world.
You keep claiming that the energy is stored in electron orbitals. Sad sad made up physics. G*e*r*a*n will lap up all your false physics and use it as his own next year. He might be one of the few posters who knows and understands less physics than you, but he is hilarious.
YOUR WORDS are just sad and wrong: “Can we agree on that? If not, what else in an atoms structure could account for heat? There are only two charged bodies, the electron and the proton. The electron is the only body capable of changing energy levels, and an increase in energy level is required when an atoms warms.”
Gordon, most the K.E. of molecules comes from the nucleus. It has a considerably higher mass than electrons. Electrons changing orbitals does not constitute kinetic energy. It is potential energy and when released will be a visible photon of energy. It is almost sickening how poorly you understand even the most basic and simple Chemistry and Physics they teach in grade school.
The nucleus of the atoms are the massive particle that is holding the internal energy of an object (the neutrons and protons). Atomic vibrations are the product of the mass of the atom trying to move in one direction. The electronic bonds created by the electrons prevents them from moving freely so they just oscillate rapidly back and forth. Kinetic energy is energy of mass. Wake up and quit posting such complete crap. It is offensive to my scientific mind and totally unproductive. If we all made up our own physics with our coloring books and crayons like you do, where would the world of science be.
READ SOME SCIENCE BOOKS, please and soon. You embarrass yourself with your incredibly terrible scientific posts. I understand you have a good imagination but made up physics is not for adults. I could be amused with your posts if I thought you were a 2nd Grade science student.
Norman +1
Except for this improvement:
Electrons changing orbitals does not constitute kinetic energy. It is electronic energy.
It is electronic energy and when released by say, dropping from 1st electronic to base electronic energy level, will be emitted as a photon of energy (EMR).
Also, I might add, to absorb from base electronic level to 1st level takes order of 100x the collisional energy available at STP in earth atm.
Thus most photon emission at STP in the atm. is from the rotational quantum dropping a level (1/3 collisional energy), after having been bumped up, and some from the vibrational level drop (10x). Gordon has never recognized this simple quantum physics found in beginning meteorological text books. I always assume because he hasn’t passed a course in meteorology nor as you write, read & understood a beginning meteorology text from beginning to end. I think Gordon has the chops to do so but he has not demonstrated doing the work; he’s not worth debating, just skip his stuff for your emotional intelligence – well except for the most egregious whacky stuff as you do.
ball4…”Electrons changing orbitals does not constitute kinetic energy. It is electronic energy”.
Oh, rubbish. Kinetic energy is a generic term for energy in motion. The available electron energy levels have a difference in potential energy between them measured in electron volts. If an electron falls through an electric energy potential it creates kinetic energy. In this case, the KE is thermal energy.
When the electron makes the quantum leap down to another energy level it generates a photon of E = hf, where h = Plank’s constant and f = its frequency. E is the energy between energy level in eV.
When an electron absorbs a photon, the energy of the photon must be able to supply the original E. If it can’t, it is ignored. That’s why photons form a cooler source don’t have the E to be absorbed.
“Oh, rubbish.”
Cite a test Gordon. You can’t or won’t.
Gordon, you are just out of your league.
Get a basic first year college chemistry textbook and read it.
To be clear, what you don’t get is that the IR photons from CO2 molecules are quantized, they only come from the allowed electronic transitions, which are independent of the temperature of the CO2 gas, or the kinetic energy of the CO2 molecule.
Anyway the idea that a colder object cannot heat a warmer object is utter rubbish at the molecular level.
ball4…”Gordon has never recognized this simple quantum physics found in beginning meteorological text books”.
What would a meteorologist know about thermodynamics???
Just kidding Roy. ☺ ☺ ☺
“Thus most photon emission at STP in the atm. is from the rotational quantum dropping a level (1/3 collisional energy), after having been bumped up, and some from the vibrational level drop (10x)”.
What are you blethering about bally? We’re talking about electrons not the sci-fi generally associated with quantum theory.
The Bohr model is based on basic quantum theory. That’s all we need here, not the nonsense about theorized rotational modes that no one has ever witnessed. No one has seen electrons either but I worked for decades in the electronics/electrical field successfully based on the Bohr model.
Can’t you get the very basic physics that EM is generated by electrons as they change energy levels? Where do you think it comes from, out of a hat?
BTW, it was Bohr who claimed a photon requires a specific intensity and frequency to be absorbed by an atom.
“What are you blethering about bally? Were talking about electrons not the sci-fi generally associated with quantum theory.”
YOU are talking electrons, alone, testing shows there is more to the story Gordon, open up your horizons. See Bohren 1998 Chapter 3.
ball4…”YOU are talking electrons, alone, testing shows there is more to the story Gordon…”
Elaborate, let’s see your understanding of the issues. I am not looking to ambush you, I seem to recall Bohren had a chapter on the atmosphere related to scattering, etc.
Can you give a hint as to what he was discussing? I still have the book on Atmospheric Radiation somewhere.
Gordon 7:30pm, that would take me all of Chapter 3 Bohren 1998. I don’t have that much time or finger strength.
Obtain copy from your local college library. When you read and understand the quantum physics application to meteorology, we will see a marked improvement in your contribution to climate blogs. It will be a blessing. I don’t count on it but there is always room for improvement.
BTW…when you run a high frequency electrical current up and down an antenna, the antenna generates an electromagnetic field. That’s the basis of all communications. It’s also the basis of all electrical machinery.
Get it?? Electrons and their charges run up and down an antenna real quick and EM is generated? What’s the difference between that electron running up and down an antenna and an electron in an atom moving from one energy level to another? They both generate EM?
How about the reverse, an EM wave hitting an antenna? It causes electrons to run up and down the receiving antenna albeit at a much reduced intensity. You need to get it that there is an intimate relationship between electrons and EM and between electrons and heat.
When those little critters start vibrating at radar and microwave frequencies they can produce a lot of heat. Doubt that??? Stick a glass of water in a microwave and leave it for 5 minutes. Heck, they produce a lot of heat just running through a resistor.
And please, don’t walk in front of a radar sail generating 10KW of power.
If you are ever working on your car, better not short out the battery. Doing so will produce a flash of EM that can blind you and heat that can seriously burn you.
Yes Gordon 7:19pm, radiation from a microwave or radio antenna might closely fit this description because an antenna is a coherent object, its parts fixed relative to each other (on the scale of the wavelength), driven by electric currents that are more or less time-harmonic.
It would take some ingenuity to make a microwave or radio antenna that did not radiate completely polarized waves.
However, meteorology is based on unpolarized radiation at much shorter wavelengths which originates from vast arrays of tiny antennas (molecules) emitting more or less independently of each other, and hence do not expect the same degree of regularity of the radiation from such sources.
So Gordon is off base talking about antennas here on this climate blog. Go to an antenna blog. What a relief that would be. Won’t happen.
ball4…”So Gordon is off base talking about antennas here on this climate blog. Go to an antenna blog. What a relief that would be. Wont happen”.
I certainly am not off topic talking about the EM radiated by an antenna.
I have already described in great detail how EM can carry audio information from a radio station to a receiver without carry any information at audio frequencies. EM transmission does not work at audio frequencies. In a similar manner. EM carries heat information from a hotter body to a cooler body without carrying heat itself. EM cannot carry heat information from a cooler body to a warmer body because the warmer body will not accept it.
The analogy is perfect. EM is a messenger in both cases. It’s like a catalyst, it makes a chemical reaction go without taking part in the reaction.
Once again, EM is not heat. Neither EM nor heat have anything in common. You cannot sum IR and claim it represent heat for the simple reason that the 2nd law restricts heat transfer to one direction only.
If any of you alarmists understood what it takes to warm a mass at an atomic level you’d see the problem immediately with a two way heat transfer. None of you appear to have even a basic understanding of atomic theory.
“I certainly am not off topic talking about the EM radiated by an antenna.”
You are in meteorology, on a climate blog, where the radiation of interest is not polarized, not coherent, shorter wavelength.
Heck, the seemingly heretical assertion about emissivities greater than 1 in the atm., when cast in the language of antenna engineers, would be considered almost trivial. Any antenna engineer knows that the effective area of a receiver can be much larger than its geometrical area. Take down your antenna analogies Mr. Robertson!
Gordon Robertson says:
“Once again, EM is not heat. Neither EM nor heat have anything in common.”
Completely wrong.
EM waves/particles carry energy. Heat is the transfer of energy. Hence a moving EM wave/particle, which is the transfer of energy, is heat.
Very very obvious.
DA: “Completely wrong…Very very obvious.”
What is very obvious is a terminology issue. DA you are the one with the problem as you have read so many websites that say heat is a transfer of energy that it must be another immutable truth.
Tell me: does heat exist apart from the avg. KE of an object’s constituent particles?
If you answer no, then tell me how something that doesn’t exist in a body can transfer from that body.
If you answer yes, then cite me where heat has been isolated from the avg. KE of an object’s constituent particles.
norman…”You keep claiming that the energy is stored in electron orbitals.”
Ok, norman, I’ll bite. Where is energy stored in matter?
Matter is made up of atoms and there are three major particles in an atom: the neutron, the proton, and the electron. The protons and neutrons are bound to the nucleus and only the electron is free to change energy states.
Where is the energy stored, norman?
Next you’ll be telling me electrons don’t carry the charge in electrical conductors.
The problem is norman, your understanding of science has not developed to the point where you get it that the entire universe is pretty well made up of protons, electrons, and neutrons. Our Sun is a super hot cauldron of boiling protons and electrons. The solar wind is all protons and neutrons.
For cripes sake norman, you are all electrons, protons and neutrons. You’d better get along with those little negatively charged particles, they keep you alive. Mind you, they can kill you too. Oxidized particles called free radicals have unpaired electrons and they can be hazardous to your health. Fortunately antioxidants like vitamins C and E will neutralize them if you take enough (more than a gram of C per day).
All light is produced from atoms, all electromagnetic energy. It’s an established facts that EM is produced when an electron in an atoms falls from a higher energy state to a lower energy state.
All heat is produced from atoms, all electricity, all magnetism, all chemical reactions. There is nothing that is not produced by atoms and the principle mitigator of all that is the electron.
Yes…the electron runs the universe.
1) It’s an established fact that EMR is produced when an atm. molecule falls from a higher rotational energy state to a lower rotational energy state.
2) It’s an established fact that EMR is produced when an atm. molecule falls from a higher vibrational energy state to a lower vibrational energy state.
1) 2) make up nearly all photon emission in our atm., see Bohren Chapter 3 for a ref. to the testing.
ball4…”1) Its an established fact that EMR is produced when an atm. molecule falls from a higher rotational energy state to a lower rotational energy state”.
What is a molecule and why does it rotate? A molecule is two or more atoms bound together by electrons or the charges related to electrons. Bohren just didn’t take it deeply enough.
Everything about a molecule is related to the +ve charge of the proton and the negative charge of the electron. Even though the electron has a mass of about 1/1800th of a proton it has an equal and opposite charge.
The shape of a molecule is determined by forces related to the interaction of the negative and positive charges. Some molecules form a dipole which has a -ve charge at one end and a positive charge on the other. The molecule can rotate around the dipole axis when it collides with other molecules/atoms, provided it is free to rotate. Obviously it won’t rotate of bound in a sold.
I still think it comes down to the behavior of the electron since it is free tio change energy states and the proton is not.
Bit of background on electron orbitals:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/hydrogen/transitions.html
“When an electron absorbs a photon it gains the energy of the photon. Because an electron bound to an atom can only have certain energies the electron can only absorb photons of certain energies”.
energy levels:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/hydrogen/levels.html
“What is a molecule and why does it rotate?”
Along its spin axis. Because Bohren explains testing has shown good agreement with measurements of the heat capacity ratio for monoatomic gases by considering them as point masses even though they are not. It is not enough to get the right answers by making a lucky guess. Your next guess may not be so lucky.
In classical mechanics, a bowling ball has rotational energy – stop one from spinning (not translating) with your hand as a test. According to quantum mechanics, the quantized energy levels of spinning atoms are widely spaced relative to collisional energy, spaced order of 1/3 kT in the STP atm. If all internal modes of motions of the atm. constituents including those of electrons, neutrons and protons contributed to tested specific heats of atm. gases, then the world would be a much different place.
“Bohren just didn’t take it deeply enough.”
And you haven’t even read Bohren 1998 yet, ha. He will quickly take Gordon deep, way over Gordon’s head even in this introductory text. For the rest, see Bohren Chapter 3, p. 120.
In your link to electronic energy levels of H, compare the first electronic level jump (find order of 100x) to order of 1/3 kT rotational energy in collisions at earth STP, let us know what you find. Or you could just read Bohren 1998.
ball4…”It is not enough to get the right answers by making a lucky guess. Your next guess may not be so lucky”.
Lucky guess???? I have worked in electronics for decades and studied it in depth as an engineer at university. No luck there, mate.
You say it rotates around it’s spin axis. You need to differentiate between the sci-fi of probability based quantum theory and the real world in which we live and practice. QM has it’s place but you don’t get something for nothing. To get the math across they had to obfuscate the reality. Planck admitted that you cannot visualize QM.
So why bother? We know positive and negative charges in atoms/molecules often align in a linear fashion. There’s your axis, with a positive charge at one end and a negative charge at the other end. Spin is an imaginary concept from QM. No one knows if an electron spins.
Do yourself a favour and stop trying to visualize QM. It is mathematical hocus pocus and if you get immersed in it you will be able to talk bs mathematical theory without having a clue as to what is going on in the real world. 1/3KT means dick when trying to understand heat transfer and the relationship between an electron and heat.
In QM, they talk about the probability of finding an electron in a theoretical probability cloud. What the heck good is that when you are trying to troubleshoot the power output stage of a transistor amp? In chemistry they can apply the theory to visualize orbitals but I can’t think of another application.
Electronics is based on quantum theory but you don’t need to know a thing about QM to understand electron theory or apply it. Even at an in-depth level in semiconductor theory, where you are studying how electrons and holes interact with potential hills, you don’t need it.
I don’t pretend to understand what electrons are or if they really orbit a nucleus. However, the little blighters are seriously involved with heat transfer and electrical current. If you start thinking in terms of QM, the numbers and probabilities, all you’ll get is a headache. You’ll be able to talk a good show but you’ll end up living in a surreal world talking to nerds who seriously think the actions of an electron in a local circuit can affect another electron a mile away.
Those idiots will be trying to apply entanglement theory a century from now and be no closer. Both Einstein and Schrodinger walked away from the sci-fi. Unfortunately, Bohr did not have the same sense.
“I have worked in electronics for decades and studied it in depth as an engineer at university.”
Then you have the chops (by that I mean the pre-req.s accomplished) to learn the application of QM to meteorology, you have a fascinating learning experience ahead in Bohren 1998 Chapter 3 and the rest of the text.
This will take some work and study on your part Gordon in order to contribute reliably on a climate blog, or just stick to antenna blogs where your experience does count.
“1/3KT means dick”
Thus it is painfully obvious that Gordon hasn’t accomplished the work to understand even the most basic introductory meteorology text such as Bohren 1998. Gordon isn’t able to contribute on a climate blog just yet, but with some work, study and accomplishment by Gordon, tomorrow…who knows?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Spin is an imaginary concept from QM. No one knows if an electron spins”
Completely wrong.
Spin is as real as mass or charge.
You mistake is thinking that something with spin is spinning in the classical sense. It is not — spin is a quantum number, a parameter than specifies and distinguishes a quantum state. Nothing is actually spinning — it’s just that the math of quantum spin is similar to the math of angular momentum of classical (large) objects.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“In QM, they talk about the probability of finding an electron in a theoretical probability cloud. What the heck good is that when you are trying to troubleshoot the power output stage of a transistor amp?”
Good god you are such an incredibly stupid idiot.
There is more to the world than your little circuits. Have you ever even tried to understand how a transistor works? That requires the quantum mechanics you clearly do not understand.
You are so continually stupid here that you have to be a troll.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If you start thinking in terms of QM, the numbers and probabilities, all youll get is a headache. Youll be able to talk a good show but youll end up living in a surreal world talking to nerds who seriously think the actions of an electron in a local circuit can affect another electron a mile away.”
Nobody thinks that, which just shows that you don’t understand quantum entanglement either.
But your motives are becoming clearly. You do not and can’t understand quantum mechanics and modern physics, and it really really grates on you that so many others DO understand them. Your so bothered by this that you choose to insult all the scientists who developed QM, because admitting you don’t understand them is too big of a blow to your ego. Same with climate science.
Ball4
Thank you for your correct and reasonable posting. It does help.
norman…”Ball4
Thank you for your correct and reasonable posting. It does help”.
Ball is wrong. There is no such thing as electron energy, electrons have kinetic energy or potential energy. When they produce kinetic energy the KE is heat. Heat can also be produced by the atomic interactions between atoms in a molecule or atoms in a lattice. Any work done by atoms is heat.
However, we have been talking specifically about heat transfer wrt to radiation and that involves EM as IR. It is the electron that absorbs and emits IR, not the nucleus. When an electron drops from a higher energy state to a lower energy state it emits a photon of IR with energy equal to the energy difference. It also loses KE when it drops and that loss represents a loss of heat. The electron converts the KE to EM.
When you multiply those KE losses by a bazzilion bazzilion to the bazillionth power it represents the heat loss on the earth’s surface as it cools via radiation.
How else would heat be transferred via radiation? EM is not heat, it’s an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field. It cannot transfer heat. However an electron can absorb certain kinds of EM and convert it to heat.
Gordon Robertson
Even with your definition of “heat” (which is not longer used in science, I gave you a link to the current use of heat in science…I cannot help that you ignore it) being kinetic energy of molecules…You incorrectly state this:
“EM is not heat, it’s an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field. It cannot transfer heat.”
EMR can certainly transfer heat even if it itself is not heat. EMR is energy. Absorbed energy will become your definition of “heat” therefore EMR can transfer heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
“However, we have been talking specifically about heat transfer wrt to radiation and that involves EM as IR. It is the electron that absorbs and emits IR, not the nucleus.”
Completely wrong.
With GHGs, IR is absorbed or emitted not by electrons changing states, but by the molecule itself changing states — vibrational and rotational states. These do not involve electrons changing states.
This is why all GHGs consist of molecules of 3 or more atoms.
“There is no such thing as electron energy..”
While exceedingly small, electron rest mass energy E=mc^2 so there is such a thing. However, I was writing about electronic energy levels above the atm. molecule’s base unexcited electronic energy level. Perhaps I should again suggest Gordon read Bohren 1998, chapter 3.
“However an electron can absorb certain kinds of EM and convert it to heat.”
Certain kinds of EMR in order of increasing energy to be absorbed and released as KE in atm. constituent particle collisions:
1) Molecular rotational energy levels (most common)
2) Molecular vibrational energy levels (less common)
3) Molecular electronic energy levels (rare, hardly ever at STP)
And, Gordon, it is not the electron absorbing the quantum of photon energy per se, it is the atm. constituent molecular system doing the absorbing. Even in your unrelated antenna studies you should have learned this.
Gordon Robertson
YOU ASK: “Where is the energy stored, norman?”
Kinetic Energy. The energy of motion. It is stored in the mass by equation K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
The mass of an atom or molecule is in the nucleus. The motion of the nucleus, its velocity, is where the energy of an individual atom is stored.
Here is a good link to explain it to you. Please take the time to read. Thanks.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/kintem.html
norman…”The mass of an atom or molecule is in the nucleus. The motion of the nucleus, its velocity, is where the energy of an individual atom is stored”.
I am not disputing that. I mentioned twice in other posts that the proton has 1800 times the mass of the electron. However, the electron has an equal and opposite charge.
Molecules are bound together by electrons in one way or another. If two nucleii approach each other they repel each other. It is the negative charge of the electrons that holds two atoms together in a two atom molecule. The protons repel and the electrons attract. The result is a vibration in a solid due I presume to the push/pull action. As you heat the atom the push/pull becomes more extreme.
Admittedly, the theory of bonding is far more complex than I have described it. However, in the bonds and the lone atom, the only particle that can move wrt to the other is the electron.
I get what you mean wrt to rectilinear motion. An atom traveling in a straight line should gain it’s momentum from it’s mass. However, the electron motion itself is what produces heat.
I am not trying to get into a pi**ing context, my goal is to learn. I have a fair amount of experience as it is working with electronics and studying in the field. I am by no means an expert.
Here’s a very quick site with a short movie. It’s an ad for courses so they cut you off. They claim “Kinetic and potential energy of atoms result from the motion of electrons. When electrons are excited they move to a higher energy orbital farther away from the atom. The further the orbital is from the nucleus, the higher the potential energy of an electron at that energy level. When the electron returns to a low energy state, it releases the potential energy in the form of kinetic energy”.
https://www.brightstorm.com/science/physics/heat-and-thermodynamics/kinetic-and-potential-energy-of-atoms/
I not only studied this in electrical engineering I got it in astronomy and chemistry as well. When I was studying it decades ago I had no idea heat is the KE of atoms and that electrons are the main particle in heat transfer.
Here’s another site with a far more in-depth article:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module%203/hydrogen_atom.htm
See further down the page under ‘The Hydrogen Line Spectrum’. I did study this in astronomy many years ago but I regret that I’ve forgotten much of it. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe as we know it.
I am not exactly blowing these theories out of the top of my head. I have studied this stuff well in the past at a university level.
“When an electron changes from one energy level to another, the energy of the atom must change as well. It requires energy to promote an electron from one energy level to a higher one. This energy can be supplied by a photon whose energy E is given in terms of its frequency E = hf or wavelength E = hc/λ.
Since the energy levels are quantized, only certain photon wavelengths can be absorbed. If a photon is absorbed, the electrons will be promoted to a higher energy level…”
Gordon Robertson says:
“The problem is norman, your understanding of science has not developed to the point where you get it that the entire universe is pretty well made up of protons, electrons, and neutrons.”
Completely wrong.
In fact, it’s now known this ordinary, “traditional” matter only makes up about 4% of the known universe.
About 23% is dark matter, and about 73% is dark energy. We don’t know what either of these are, but we know it’s out there.
norman…”Gordon, most the K.E. of molecules comes from the nucleus. It has a considerably higher mass than electrons. Electrons changing orbitals does not constitute kinetic energy. It is potential energy and when released will be a visible photon of energy. It is almost sickening how poorly you understand even the most basic and simple Chemistry and Physics they teach in grade school”.
Explain that. How does a proton bound to a nucleus with neutrons change energy states? Bohr established back around 1913 that electrons were the work horses of the atom.
Mind you, if you look at the bigger picture with a mass of atoms in a solid, the atoms vibrate through their bonds. That vibration is work and work is equivalent to heat.
How does potential energy translate to the ‘change of state’ of an electron energy-wise? Do you even begin to understand the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy?
Put a 10 kilogram boulder on the edge of a cliff at 100 metres altitude. It has potential energy. That is it has the potential to exert energy. Push it off, and as it falls it develops kinetic energy.
You have an electron sitting at a potential difference of -3.4 eV and it jumps to -13.4 eV. The potential difference is represent by the difference in eV levels. When it jumps, there is a kinetic energy and a photon with an energy equal to the difference in energy levels is emitted.
You cannot just examine 1 electron. At any one time, there is a high probability, however, that a whole lot of electrons will be changing energy levels. They seem to do it for the sake of it. If you average the KE over bazillions of them you will get an average KE.
As you heat the atoms in general, the electrons begin living at higher energy levels and the average KE increases. If you heat the atoms enough, the electrons will fly off as free electrons. That’s when things melt.
If that electron is part of a covalent bond in a molecule, the KE of the entire molecule rises. You cannot look at a molecule as a unit, it is two or more atoms bonded together by electrons or their charges. The atoms don’t behave any differently because they are bonded together as a molecule.
Gordon Robertson
The vibration of the nucleus within electronic bonds is where the internal energy of the object is stored, this is what is changing when you add energy to it or cool it. The molecules vibrate more rapidly when heated (the nucleus, mass of the atom is moving at a more rapid rate) and vibrate slower when cooler. The electrons are not jumping around the orbitals in this process. As Ball4 pointed out the energy is far to low to move electrons around in orbits. You need much more energy to do that and most the EMR will be visible. Some high energy IR, noting like the low end EMR emitted by CO2.
Here is some links, if you look it will clearly explain it to you. Please take the time to look around. It will be good for you.
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/using-the-kinetic-energy-formula-to-predict-air-molecule-speed/
Use this calculator to get the molecular kinetic energy of air molecules converted into electron volts.
http://www.metric-conversions.org/energy-and-power/joules-to-electron-volts.htm
Use this calculator to see how the energy of collisions of molecules at room temperature are far to low to move the electrons up and down orbitals.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/converters/e_of_photon
These are valuable resources and will much to aid you in getting to the path of real physics.
Gordon Robertson
To go with your links about orbitals and emission of photons.
https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/tag/hydrogen-spectrum/
Most the EMR emitted by electrons is in the UV and visible range. The lowest of the energy levels is in the near IR which is around 1 or 2 microns.
15 micron CO2 emission is around 20 times less energy than the lowest visible light photon and around 7 times less than the near IR emission of the hydrogen atom.
Your ideas are not based upon reality. It is a good thing to change your thinking quickly and learn the real physics. You do not have to ignore physics. You demonstrate you were able to learn when you went to school many years ago. Why stop learning now. You just need to realize you really do not know much about radiant energy and then your mind will open to learn the truth.
Barry:
Whilst the Eli Rabbett plate thought experiment is a very interesting one I can understand why Gerlich et Al were able to thrash Eli Wabbit’s rebuttal of their paper. I have come across this problem before when Norman introduced a bit more complex variation a few months back involving three plates.
This Wabbit experiment belongs with Elmer Fudd in cartoon strips if if it is meant to show that heat can pass from cold to hot (in defiance of 2LOT) or that it models the issue of “back radiation” in CAGW. The atmosphere is between the sun and earth surface as a starter.
Equally, Wabbit could surely tell us that a freezer compartment is heating the room because heat flows from the freezer to the warmer room. Just ignore the energy being used to compensate. Gordon has covered this well. Older style refrigerators even used a flame as the energy source to achieve freeze conditions.
Perhaps Wabbit can show the T increase when the energy source is removed! Otherwise it is meaningless and is of no relevance to the the skeptic argument. Without going into too much detail:
1. nowhere does Wabbit describe the constraints which are fundamentally different to an earth system such as conduction/convection, intermittent sunshine on a rotating planet, latent heat, earth surface pressure, surface variation including 70% ocean etc.
2. For a thought experiment, I can live with assuming no conduction/convection and no loss of heat from the sides and that there is a zero K background other than the “sun.”
3. Nowhere does Wabbit take into account variations due to emiss-ivity/absorp-tivity which can throw his conclusions into reverse.
Without going into detail now, imagine varying the absorp-tivity/emiss-ivity of the second plate (green), as opposed to the 1.0 assumed by Wabbit. It is not too hard to figure out that with progressively lower numbers, the new smaller and smaller “back radiation” will NOW result in a greater T increase of the first plate.
4. If we now slam the two together in an ideal fit then lo we have faster transfer between the plates and achieve the lowest T for the blue plate no back radiation.
5. Now slip a piece of perfect insulation between the two and presto no “back radiation” but a big T increase with the 400W/m^2 being radiated by the first plate alone.
So what answer does one want between the two extremes? No worries; we can achieve it as long as we use energy in the process. Wabbit relying on this sort of experiment will surely revolutionize physics. A physics Nobel prize no doubt based on the principle that he can show that the lower the “back radiation” the greater the T of the blue plate. MMM – Mickey Mouse Mann eat your heart out.
“This Wabbit experiment belongs with Elmer Fudd in cartoon strips if if it is meant to show that heat can pass from cold to hot..”
Then It is not meant to show that TonyM and you know it, your strawman is just that. The example barry pointed to is simply meant to show as stated “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.” Note no mention of heat or heating in stating The Green Plate Effect. No violation of 2LOT, universe entropy increased.
“Equally, Wabbit could surely tell us that a freezer compartment is heating the room because heat flows from the freezer to the warmer room.”
No. Energy flows from the freezer to the warmer room in the form of EMR. Radiative transfer. As well as conductive and convective energy transfer. TonyM simply shows the confusion that arises using the term heat. Never a need to use the term heat TonyM, end your confusion, drop the heat term from your comments & live long and prosper.
Ball4:
No confusion on my part; it seems you are confused with what I was saying. I used the term “equally” and “could” to imply that all sorts of possibilities can arise if one introduces energy including the effective transfer of heat from “cold to hot” which is the common concept applied to a violation of the 2LOT. Clearly Wabbit did not make such a claim about a freezer.
No need to get too pedantic on the concept of energy and heat transfer. It has been amply described to understand the difference. Were you being objective you would notice I am emulating the language used by Wabbit :
“The sun warms the plate, but as the plate warms it radiates until the radiated heat matches the heat being absorbed from the sun”
and Wabbit quoting Tyndal:
“[T]he atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet. ”
But of course in trying to distract with gotcha pedanticism of thermalization you neatly bypass the key point I was making that :
” based on the principle that he can show that the lower the back radiation the greater the T of the blue plate. ”
which counters this clown’s characterization:
“Show this to the next fool with an agenda who thinks that the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
His thought experiment belongs to Looney Tunes for he misrepresents the argument with an absurd experiment which can be shown to backfire. I read it as basically Wabbit’s cheap shot at Gerlich et Al for having his balls busted over this issue. Just he does not want to formally take them on again in case he gets whatever else is left busted.
I take it you will now write to Wabbit pointing out the same issue and deficiency of terminology.
By all means live well and prosper!
tonyM: “No confusion on my part”
The classic inop. blog retort. Unfortunately, though, tonyM confused something that doesn’t exist in nature (heat) with something that does exist in nature (energy, in various forms). I clipped tonyM statements exactly so I am not the one confused about tonyM meaning, only tonyM.
“His thought experiment belongs to Looney Tunes…”
Sure, heat exists in cartoons and also confusedly in tonyM comments; in real life heat has no existence apart from the KE of any object’s constituent particles. The Green Plate Effect is left standing, untouched by tonyM’s confusion that heat exists in nature apart from KE of those constituent particles. The article linked by barry has no such confusion.
NB: Tyndall was writing & experimenting in the mid-1800s when heat really was thought to exist in nature that could be poured from an iron bar once the peasants observed one could boil water without fire. No more firewood gathering! Oh well, didn’t exactly work out that way. The hot iron glow turned out to be just from the high vibrational KE of the bar’s constituent particles that came from gathering firewood & its oxidation. The peasants reluctantly went back to gathering firewood to this day!
Ball4
Aaah yes…the classic avoidance of the issues I raise.
Tyndal predates our knowledge etc… so excuse his terminology. That’s fine! I am aware of that.
Wabbit must also predate our knowledge for he uses the same terminology in his own descriptor. Furthermore it is Wabbit who then quotes Tyndal – for added effect I assume.
Why did you avoid stating the complete quotes I used but only selectively focused on Tyndal when I clearly stated that it was Wabbit quoting Tyndal.
This seems standard diversion/obfuscation tactic for it is similar to your opening gambit of strawman argument. Why did you leave out:
“.. or that it models the issue of back radiation in CAGW. ”
If Wabbit does not do either of those things what does he do?
All the descriptors match the issues arising with the GHG idea from where I see it. But it’s fine by me if you don’t see it that way.
Then you carry on to note no violation of 2LOT or other aspects. So what? Who said that the experiment as stated violates any Physics Laws?
Thanks for your trip through forests gathering wood but it has little to do with any issues other than more diversion from the Wabbit Looney Tunes experiment which backfires under scrutiny as it can support any answer one wants in T of the plate between the two extremes as shown.
“Tyndal predates our knowledge etc”
Properly, it is Tyndall. No, his tests remain part of our knowledge to this day, replicated to better precision. It is his terminology that has been improved in modern day.
“Why did you avoid stating the complete quotes…”
The full quotes are available nearby to the interested reader.
“Who said that the experiment as stated violates any Physics Laws?”
tonyM did: “(in defiance of 2LOT)”
“..which backfires under scrutiny as it can support any answer one wants in T of the plate between the two extremes as shown.”
Incorrect, there are two proper eqn.s and 2 proper unknowns so the example is found solvable: “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.” & NOT any other answer as tonyM writes.
I repeat Tyndall predates our knowledge. You confirm it. End of story.
You avoid addressing the issue that my sole emphasis was on Wabbit using the same terms which you found objectionable and then he doubled down by quoting Tyndall who used the same terminology.
In answer to my question:
‘Who said that the experiment violates the 2ndLOT’ you replied that I did and quote totally out of context without tying anything together.
It isn’t too hard to follow. Mine was a conditional statement followed up by the freezer example which illustrated the use of compensating energy input which shows thermalizing from cold to hot.
I then followed by emphasizing an energy source saying:
Perhaps Wabbit can show the T increase when the energy source is removed! Otherwise it is meaningless and is of no relevance to the the skeptic argument.
Compare that with Wabbit’s opening and closing sentences unconditional and wrong as no skeptic I know of believes his version of 2nd LOT as he wishes to apply it to skeptics viz:
An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter
and ending with:
Show this to the next fool with an agenda who thinks that the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Not sure what he is trying to show. This gives rise to options that Wabbit’s fictional skeptics are wrong or it is a statement about GHG or both. The evidence seems to be both but either way he fails.
In the first case there is no serious skeptic that I am aware of who holds to his assertion about their understanding of 2LOT. There is no excuse here as Gerlich et al were clear on this.
In the latter case I have shown that the experiment backfires as the smaller the back radiation the greater the T of the blue plate.
Hardly an endorsement for GHG effect.
I see it as great Looney Tunes material.
You can keep on believing that Wabbit has shown something of substance.
“the freezer example which illustrated the use of compensating energy input”
Very good progress tonyM, you improved using the energy term for your freezer example instead of the heat term you previously used.
“Not sure what he is trying to show.”
That your comment (and similar comments) on The Green Plate Effect being “(in defiance of 2LOT)”, a typical comment on climate blogs, is easy to prove wrong. Dr. Spencer has run tests on the atm. showing that comments about defiance of 2LOT are easy to prove wrong with actual data.
“You can keep on believing that Wabbit has shown something of substance.”
Well, he succeeded in proving your comment The Green Plate Effect being “(in defiance of 2LOT)” is wrong. As he shows, there is no defiance of 2LOT, universe entropy increased in the example.
Ball4
You seem to have a proclivity for embracing an idee fixe and avoid all the evidence to the contrary. You continue to assert that I felt Wabbit violated physics laws.
Perhaps you should reread my opening sentence to Barry where I say:
..the Eli Rabbett plate thought experiment is a very interesting one..
It may not have been put in the superlative form but “very interesting” is a clear endorsement of the experiment. If I had felt it violated physics principles I would have disqualified it on those grounds alone from any further consideration and stated it rather than proceed.
You were quite happy to jump in suggesting I used a strawman argument but fail to see the fictional skeptic denier Wabbit created to advance his cause in some way which is what I was addressing. Wabbit surely creates the strawman there.
My whole text refutes what you assert but feel free to continue to believe whatever you wish to believe. Wabbit could not present this to Gerlich et al as some sort of rebuttal as he would indeed receive another good butt kicking for the reasons I have stated as well as, perhaps, for others I have not considered; good Looney Tunes material there.
BTW: Nothing that I have said takes away from it being a very interesting thought experiment (ie a very good, thought provoking experiment – in case you misinterpret this meaning).
Clearly I only meant to italicize the first clause in italics.
It should be be clear enough without re-posting to correct it.
Ok, so now tonyM apparently wants to retract writing The Green Plate Effect being (in defiance of 2LOT) and wants to go with “If I had felt it violated physics principles I would have disqualified it..”
Good move tonyM, system S is shown positive so there is no defiance of 2LOT, universe entropy increased.
Ball4:
I don’t retract anything.
Only a fool can’t comprehend what I have said and yet still wants to rabbit on.
Then you claim the example is both in “defiance of 2LOT” and in compliance with 2LOT.
You can’t lose. Good luck with convincing others with that approach on blogs, it covers the waterfront.
I repeat:
Only a fool cant comprehend what I have said and yet still wants to rabbit on.
I overestimated your brain power. I explained that you missed the conditional component. You obviously do not have the neurons to retain the conditional component of a statement or question. Most people can, so I conclude you are below average IQ by continuing to rabbit on about something you don’t understand.
Let me hear it again….yes I thought so!
Classic strawman tonyM, you have not defeated your opponent’s argument “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”
You simply avoid doing so. This tactic is not convincing. Insults are always a clue to a tactic not being convincing.
I repeat:
Only a fool can’t comprehend what I have said and yet still wants to rabbit on.
You now dig deeper into your quagmire and extend your incapacity to grasp an argument. Do you even grasp what you are saying?
In science models are subjected to scrutiny. Wabbit’s model fails to satisfy a key component of GHE and in fact results in an opposite affect to the GHE claims in the literature. It’s a Looney Tunes farce. You rabbit on without comprehending this thus proving my point.
Confusion defines you. You even claim that heat exists in the KE of constituent particles “apart from KE of those constituent particles.” Tell that to a thermometer; it now measures heat according to you.
You keep proving my point.
“Wabbit’s model fails to satisfy a key component of GHE. Wabbit’s model fails to satisfy a key component of GHE and in fact results in an opposite affect to the GHE claims in the literature.”
The model is for the Green Plate Effect.
“Tell that to a thermometer; it now measures heat according to you.”
A thermometer measures the avg. KE of the measured object’s constituent particles. Heat does not exist in the object other than the avg. KE of the measured object’s constituent particles. So there is never a need to use the heat term unless to cause confusion.
I repeat:
Only a fool can’t comprehend what I have said and yet still wants to rabbit on.
You keep doing it and prove my point.
Wabbit’s objectives are clear viz. to model an earth/ sun /atmosphere / back-radiation even acknowledging it is a flat earth experiment as opposed to sphere/rotation.
Wabbit has even gone to Postma’s site where Postma finds a different error to the one I raise:
Your example does not demonstrate a radiative greenhouse effect, and in fact the mathematical limits of your own work show that the fundamental requirements of the RGHE do not manifest, and hence your example refutes the RGHE.
Nowhere in all the interactions on the various sites does Wabbit attempt to walk away that his model is meant to support the atmosphere RGHE. I have posited the anomaly to him on this very thread. He has not denied that association nor does he put forward your absurd rationale of not scrutinizing the model. The difference is he is a scientist and you have a dearth of that quality.
You are the only one in denial thus again proving my point yet again.
TB Contd..
You just will not learn!
You lack Physics knowledge and lack an understanding of what heat means but just keep on doubling down on your ignorance:
here:
in real life heat has no existence apart from the KE of any objects constituent particles.
You then double down here:
.apart from KE of those constituent particles.
and here:
My warmer than the source detector thus does measure heat that has emitted the EMR, quite accurately actually
and again definitive here:
The avg. KE of those particles is heat and thats about it.
And again here… could we reasonably say it is an exponential doubling function.
(with DAppell:)
Tell me: does heat exist apart from the avg. KE of an objects constituent particles?
If you answer no, then tell me how something that doesnt exist in a body can transfer from that body.
If you answer yes, then cite me where heat has been isolated from the avg. KE of an objects constituent particles.
Heavens must you be such a dill who can’t grasp that if heat exists in the constituent particles (ACCORDING TO YOU)then because heat is an EXTENSIVE parameter and is additive the sum of all the constituent parts ends up being the heat in the whole body or system.
Geesh this flies right over your head again proving my point. I guess you are too set in your ways to think of looking up Thermodynamic definition of heat rather than just clutching a B4 dictionary.
tonyM 9:36am: “heat exists in the constituent particles (ACCORDING TO YOU)”
Thanks for going to the trouble of copying my words exactly which demonstrate I did not write what tonyM writes as there is only 1 hit on words tonyM wrote in all these threads and forks.
“…heat is an EXTENSIVE parameter…”
No. Energy is an extensive property though.
“being the heat in the whole body”
A throwback to the caloric theory tonyM, modern science has moved on. There is no work in the whole body either in case you haven’t noticed. There is internal energy in the body though.
“…think of looking up Thermodynamic definition of heat rather than just clutching a B4 dictionary.”
Clausius provided the thermodynamic definition of heat in his very 1st memoir, p. 18, look it up, it is the best def. I have found. There is no B4 dictionary, I use what Clausius wrote, tested science found in the American Journal of Physics, 69 (2), Feb. 2001, p. 107, and The Physics Teacher 8, 295 (Sept. 1970). Look them up at your convenience.
I repeat:
Only a fool cant comprehend what I have said and yet still wants to rabbit on.
Look at this twerp trying to dissemble, squirm and mislead that these are somehow not the essential words or meaning he has for heat. To me that is effectively lying. To show this limp, spineless character up I will quote verbatim with time slots attached and leave out quotation marks:
Ball4 says:
October 9, 2017 at 10:48 PM
in real life heat has no existence apart from the KE of any objects constituent particles
(and in the same paragraph)
apart from KE of those constituent particles
Ball4 says:
October 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM
My warmer than the source detector thus does measure heat that has emitted the EMR, quite accurately actually
Ball4 says:
October 11, 2017 at 7:41 PM
The avg. KE of those particles is heat and thats about it.
Ball4 says:
October 11, 2017 at 1:53 PM
Tell me: does heat exist apart from the avg. KE of an objects constituent particles?
If you answer no, then tell me how something that doesnt exist in a body can transfer from that body.
If you answer yes, then cite me where heat has been isolated from the avg. KE of an objects constituent particles.
Ball4 October 14, 2017 at 12:15 PM
A thermometer measures the avg. KE of the measured objects constituent particles. Heat does not exist in the object other than the avg. KE of the measured objects constituent particles.
People don’t need to copy/find. They can now go directly to your comments to discern your deception and absurd physics’ belief that heat is the KE in particles of matter.
Further more I do not need to consult Clausius; you certainly would not understand him. Heat is an extensive property. Example a 50gm object at 10C cannot receive the same amount of heat from a 1 gm object at 20C compared to an object with a mass of 1000gms (at same 20C, ceteris paribus).
Gees you keep showing you are a dumb cluck. You just don’t grasp physics. My guess is you will come back for more!
tonyM 10:10pm: “to discern your deception and absurd physics’ belief that heat is the KE in particles of matter.”
Fun reading my comments again, thx. Any fool can see what I commented is the same as Clausius defined which is all any fool can do to look up the citation freely available on the internet. Heat is defined by Clausius as a measure of the KE of particles in a body.
“Heat is an extensive property.”
Heat entity does not exist in nature anymore tonyM, thus heat has NO properties since the 1800s detour through imaginary heat land so tonyM can write anything tonyM desires about heat since the claim can neither be proved right nor wrong by any test. KE of the particles in a body is an extensive property though, tests confirm.
“Example a 50gm object at 10C cannot receive the same amount of heat from a 1 gm object at 20C compared to an object with a mass of 1000gms (at same 20C, ceteris paribus).”
There is no heat in the 1 gm object tonyM for the 50gm object to receive, just like there is no work in the 1gm object, there IS plenty of internal energy U in the 1 gm object. The U can transfer by conductive, convective, radiative energy transfer in accord with 0,1LOT and 2LOT.
The constituent particles of the 1gm object are vibrating (and/or translating) in accord with 20C of temperature and those particles are charged thus emit photons (or EMR if you prefer) which are emitted from the 1gm object incident on the 50gm object, where some of the EMR is scattered, some EMR possibly transmitted, and the remainder EMR is absorbed by the constituent particles of your 50gm object which increases their internal energy (U,KE) by 1LOT and Planck radiation principles.
Come on back for more tonyM! Eventually you will agree with Clausius, Planck and their experiments, as I do.
Ball4:
Perhaps if you actually focus on what I said rather than your own interpretation it would avoid your confusion. You might then upgrade your version from 19th century to modern Thermo definitions of heat. You state Clausius definition and embrace it as your idea of heat:
Heat is defined by Clausius as a measure of the KE of particles in a body.
The avg. KE of those particles is heat and thats about it.
.. thus does measure heat that has emitted the EMR,
It is clear you are saying for a body: heat exists which “emitted the EMR,” “The avg. KE of those particles IS heat” and it exists in a body as an intrinsic ONGOING part of matter (of the avg KE of particles ?).
Then you confuse yourself by saying it does NOT exist. So it is a yo-yo between existing and not existing.
The irony of all this is that I agree with your latter view except I will take it further : HEAT DOES NOT EXIST IN A BODY in equilibrium no matter its avg KE. The avg KE does not measure its heat nor is heat the avg KE of particles nor does does heat emit EMR as you have claimed. End of story.
I could not be clearer: NO, NIL, Nada, Nyet, Zip, Nihil, Niente heat in any particles (of body in thermodynamic equilibrium). I have only been telling you that for some time now. A body does contain energy of course.
Had you looked it up as suggested you might not hang on to outdated idee fixee concepts that were perfectly fine for their time well over a century ago.
Extensive property confuses you as well. It does NOT mean that heat resides in matter, as you try to assert from what I said. Heat is a transient phenomenon which manifests itself under conditions which are laid out if you consult a text.
Referring to IUPAC Gold Book (2014):
The IUPAC Gold Book defines an extensive property as a physical quantity whose magnitude is additive for subsystems.[1] The value of such an additive property is proportional to the size of the system it describes, or to the quantity of matter in the system. For example, the amount of heat required to melt ice at constant temperature and pressure is an extensive property, known as the enthalpy of fusion. The amount of heat required to melt one ice cube would be much less than the amount of heat required to melt an iceberg, so it is dependent on the quantity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties#Extensive_properties
Equally my example illustrates the extensive property of the transient heat phenomenon.
Flipping through the comments below, the modern definition of heat was laid out for you by Norman but you take no notice of the key elements (needs a little elaboration). He is quoting standard current definitions and has nothing to do with internal energy or what you have suggested.
Ironically you basically agreed with Norman’s definition but then turn around and make contradictory claims in other places where you refer to heat as some intrinsic ONGOING part of matter or must be contained in the matter if someone says heat is transferred across a boundary. Nonsense because you confine yourself to a 19th century view.
But I guess this goes straight over your head for you can’t/won’t see the implications and connections and seem to want to straddle the old world and the new at the same time painful. A bit like Moses visualizing the promised land but not quite managing to get there.
“…you are saying…heat…exists in a body as an intrinsic ONGOING part of matter (of the avg KE of particles ?).”
No, no intrinsic property for heat, I am simply writing: Heat is defined by Clausius as a measure of the KE of particles in a body. This seems simple enough for many to understand but not, it seems, tonyM.
tonyM can twist that into a pretzel all you want but you will fail in giving heat a corporeal existence beyond Clausius’ measure of the KE of particles in a body.
“..nor does heat emit EMR as you have claimed.”
You should quote my words again not just make up claims with word jazz. Matter emits EMR, heat is not matter.
“The avg. KE does not measure its heat..”
See the C and H on your faucets? These symbols are assigned based on a measure of the avg. KE in the constituent particles of the water that you feel, measured in degrees (C,F,K) by a mercury thermometer & as Clausius taught.
“the amount of heat required to melt ice…”
The amount of energy required to melt ice…is known as the enthalpy of fusion. Stick with enthalpy in modern physics, leave heat in the 1880s and the layman dictionary where it belongs if you want to reduce physics confusion. If you want to keep confusing readers of physics, continue to use the term heat – this confusion is aptly demonstrated by tonyM and elsewhere around here.
“Equally my example illustrates the extensive property of the transient heat phenomenon.”
Word jazz, it does not, to have a property heat must exist, but you have not succeeded in giving heat corporeal existence as heat is sufficiently defined by Clausius only as a measure of the KE of particles in a body.
“…you refer to heat as some intrinsic ONGOING part of matter…”
Only tonyM does: extensive property of the transient heat like Moses wandering around: tonyM is seeking heat in corporeal form. Not going to happen, endless.
B4
Here goes B4 again ; squirming and wriggling into denial again. I should be used to it by now.
When you don’t like what is said you say quote me precisely. I did on multiple occasions!!
Here is one with a time reference. Oh you did not find it lost your glasses again. Guess these did not exist in Moses time.
Ball4 says:
October 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM
“My warmer than the source detector thus does measure heat that has emitted the EMR, quite accurately actually.”
It you say it very clearly; heat that has emitted the EMR.
Very very clear in your own words.
You now are in a state of continuing denial; cognitive dissonance.
I have quoted you verbatim with time references two posts back on multiple points. But as usual you go into denial: the perpetual denier.
You can’t grasp the principles which are clearly stated in Thermodynamic texts. You won’t gho look them up. You are wasting my time. I suggest you go continue play with yourself as usual. Seems your name reflects that.
The heat I clearly discussed being the measure of the KE of the charged particles in the body vibrating causing photons to be emitted & absorbed by the detector. I even defined it as you don’t clip: “the avg. KE of the respective objects constituent particles” for some reason known only to tonyM.
“You can’t grasp the principles which are clearly stated in Thermodynamic texts.”
Name a modern thermodynamic text that teaches heat exists in a body tonyM, support your unfounded assertions with actual text quotes. There is plenty of disinformation crept in after Clausius accurate definition of heat, you might actually find one still clinging to caloric theory.
Just internal energy U exists in a body in modern physics.
Ball,
You took some time off from playing with yourself in the corner to play with yourself in front of your computer.
As you go into denial despite showing you your statements verbatim with timestamps you are clearly wasting my time. You can’t grasp that heat like work are transient phenomena and NOT something possessed in either body even though a transfer can occur under defined conditions in both cases. We don’t say a body possesses work and likewise with heat (at equilibrium there is zero heat transfer).
Go look up references on your own if it is of interest. Stay stuck with your definition if it satisfies you. Ultimately as long as the definitions comply with reality and give the same quantitative answers under controlled experimentation and does not create its own inconsistencies then it suffices.
Now go back to playing with yourself instead of trying to thrust your outmoded view onto others.
“you are clearly wasting my time.”
Here is the appropriate link, tonyM only clipped what he wanted and for some reason did not clip my def. of heat from Clausius in the same comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267808
“Go look up references on your own if it is of interest.”
I’ve already looked up around half a dozen thermodynamic texts, all state heat is not contained in a body anymore. This proves tonyM knows he cannot show a modern text ref. to the contrary.
“Stay stuck with your definition if it satisfies you.”
tonyM reading comprehension hits a new low, it is Clausius def. in 1st memoir p. 18. tonyM can not be bothered to look it up, not mine.
“…does not create its own inconsistencies then it suffices.”
Here tonyM is demonstrated wrong by inconsistencies in these threads and forks leading to confusion so shown NOT suffices in over 2500 comments. tonyM is assertion only, has no experiment showing heat is def. as anything more than a measure of the KE in a body.
B4
Still playing with yourself.
All your dissembling, obfuscation, denial will not be sufficient to counter your various statements that I have quoted verbatim with time stamps showing your belief that heat is contained in a body.
Why is it such a revelation that you can’t find a modern text which says heat exists in a body? No text would support your claims such as ” heat that has emitted the EMR, ” or “The avg. KE of those particles is heat and thats about it. ”
Are you going to be such a fool suggesting that you could not understand my clear statement that there is NO heat residing in a body. I only said it in about five languages. Let me repeat it for you:
I could not be clearer: NO, NIL, Nada, Nyet, Zip, Nihil, Niente heat in any particles
You now wish to cover that up with more conflation and obfuscation. Tap , tap your words: “The avg. KE of those particles is heat” or ” heat that has emitted the EMR, ”
No amount of rabbiting will alter what you have said unless you retract it.
But feel free to believe what you wish; go back and play with yourself and avoid wasting my time.
Perhaps Wabbit can show the T increase when the energy source is removed! Otherwise it is meaningless and is of no relevance to the the skeptic argument.
If the “skeptic argument’ requires removing the energy source, then they are not talking about Earth’s climate system, which has an energy source!
Of course T increase won’t happen without an energy source! No one disagrees with that.
But we’re talking about a climate system that is powered by a sun.
What the hell are skeptics talking about??
Quite enjoyable to watch them thrashing about.
Yes, agree! https://calculatewithchris.com
Barry:
The idea as proposed is a very interesting thought experiment to explore in its own right, which I have actually done previously in a separate discussion totally unrelated to Eli Rabett. But it does not reflect the earth climate system at all. I did go into a number of reasons showing differences. It is not a comprehensive list.
I put my two issues into the open at the outset:
This Wabbit experiment belongs with Elmer Fudd in cartoon strips if if it is meant to show that heat can pass from cold to hot (in defiance of 2LOT) or that it models the issue of back radiation in CAGW.
I covered the issue of compensation to show that there is no violation of 2LOT in a cold to hot transfer under those conditions. So much for Wabbit’s strawman pejorative of the evergreen denier and next fool with a belief that cold to hot transfers cannot occur.
Then I posed tongue in cheek (even with an exclamation mark):
Perhaps Wabbit can show the T increase when the energy source is removed!
to indicate that I would indeed have to sit up and take note under those conditions but recognizing that can’t happen (that is not a criticism but simply reflects the 2LOT).
Then I went into point form to address it with more clarity where Wabbit’s Looney Tunes proposal comes unstuck viz point 3 :
It is not too hard to figure out that with progressively lower numbers, the new smaller and smaller back radiation will NOW result in a greater T increase of the first plate.
That is a Looney Tunes fiasco for GHG; an increase in back radiation is supposed to result in a T increase according to the experts and Wabbit fancies himself as being an expert.
Now that Eli Rabett has joined in let me welcome him and propose that he presents his piece to Gerlich & Tscheuschner to set them right. It might indeed be “quite enjoyable to watch” the thrashing.
Well, if you believe that you need Feynman diagrams to discuss heat transfer, rope em in.
You are hoist on your own petard and won’t admit it. Fancy a lowly “evergreen” denier may have spared you an embarrassing exchange with G&T by pointing out the fallacies involved.
As you don’t accept my conclusions you do have the option to take G&T on and teach them a thing or two.
Gordon Robertson says: October 7, 2017 at 12:58 PM
bilybobTo repeat, my question: Is there a proof that shows a cold object can cause a hotter object to become warmer without an outside energy source to the system?
No there isnt. The fallacy exist only is thought experiments that involve incorrect physics. The incorrect physics in the Rabbett thought experiment is that the net flow of radiation satisfies the 2nd law.
Never has, never will.
=================
Gordon,
You have not answered my question I posed to yourself about the operation of a room temperature thermal imaging camera. Just how does an object at -30C focussed onto the microbolometer cause a pixel to be warmer than one with -40C focussed on to it taking into account that the microbolometer pixels are all around 25C. Your physics says that the photons will be rejected because the pixels are hotter than the source of the photons.
BUT
A room temperature thermal imaging camera works! You can purchase one for a few hundred notes to attach to your phone.
Remember no cold rays, and also a rt thermal imager is not a quantum device that is sensitive to IR wavelength.
From the last thread:
Ghalfrunt says: October 5, 2017 at 6:06 AM
Gordon Robertson
Your physics just does not work and certainly does not allow room temperature thermal imaging cameras to work. Nor does it allow CO2 lasers to cut wood. I do not even think it would allow humanity to exist.
Gordon Robertson says: October 2, 2017 at 3:29 PM
Ghalfrunt There are no cold rays so how does focusing an object at -40C onto a microbolometer at 25C
You seem confused about the difference between heat (thermal energy) and electromagnetic energy.
Detecting IR on an infrared camera has nothing to do with heat transfer per se. I am not denying that bodies emit electromagnetic energy, of which IR is part of the EM spectrum, I am claiming that not all IR is capable of heating an atom, or an aggregation of atoms as a mass
The 2nd law certainly suggests that to be the case. If heat is restricted to being transferred between bodies from a warmer body to a cooler body, under normal circumstances, with radiative heat transfer that suggests IR from a cooler body is not absorbed by the warmer body.
================
GH
So here you are saying that some IR CANNOT heat objects
====================
Gordon Robertson says: October 2, 2017 at 3:46 PM
Ghalfrunt At -50C (approx.) the heat from the object adds sufficient energy to the sensor for detection and the sensor warms until the energy OUT to the camera environment equals the energy IN from the camera environment plus the energy in through the lens.
You need to be more specific with your energies. How does the heat from the body add energy to the sensor? Are you talking IR energy? IR is not heat, IR is electromagnetic energy and EM is very different than thermal energy in its properties.
============
GH
The sensor has to be in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. The lens itself emits IR (since its temperature is greater than 0K) to the sensor. The electronics in the bolometer emit IR to the sensor element. The electronics in the bolometer conducts heat to the sensor via its (minimal) mechanical linkages. The general enclosure (camera body) emits IR to the sensor.
The sensor also emits photons to the surroundings mentioned. The relative loss of heat and gain of heat has to be balanced for the system to work as a thermometer. (there is a calibration shutter which periodically obscures the output of the lens and presents a known temperature to the sensor which can then be calibrated)
Each photon carries an amount of energy which when the photon is absorbed by the sensor gets converted to heat. The sensor is a simple resistive plate a few microns square which can only convert photons to heat. The change in the sensor element RESISTANCE is detected by the electronics. there is no quantum effect with a bolometer.
================
GR
The body at -50C will not transfer heat to the sensor, it will radiate EM as IR to the sensor, unless of course the sensor is below -50C. The detection of IR is not the same as the detection of heat. The sensors in an IR detector are not reacting to heat, they are reacting to light at the frequency of IR. Its a form of photoelectric effect.
===========
GH
NO IT IS NOT it is a simple heat to resistance change that is detected nothing to do with IR frequency/wavelength
===========
GR
You need to understand that the IR being detected by the detector heats the detector to a temperature higher than a reference, which needs to be lower than the source of the radiation body temperature.
=============
GH
This is garbage.
==============
GR
Alternately, in a laboratory setting, the detector could be calibrated to sense temperatures at a lower temperature even though the IR is not heating the detector.
For example, in a lab setting, the detector sensitivity could be measured down to certain temperature and the current out of the detector could be calibrated to the expected current.
==============
GH
How can it do this if IR causes no change to the sensor. The sensor does NOT work by magic!! It simply measures the temperature of the sensor element. THAT IS ALL IT CAN DO
=============
GR
I have no idea how they work but bolometers (detectors) used in astronomy have a reservoir cooled to -273 C.
=============
GH
Yes cooling the sensor enables it to work at lower temperatures with less noise. This should be obvious. Many astronomical sensors use quantum sensors which operate over very narrow frequency band and do not use a microbolometer.
You STILL HAVE NOT used your physics to tell me how a room temperature microbolometer camera can measure temperatures down to -50C. Remember no negative photons, and a sensor only sensitive to temperature change NOT wavelength.
If you search for the ultimate infrared handbook by FLIR a company that exists by selling both quantum and microbolometer cameras based on real physics, the operation of thermal cameras should become clear.
You must also be able to explain how a CO2 laser can cut wood by burning when the wavelength of its output is a mere 10.6um by using your new physics.
It is interesting to also have a look at fifteen terawatt picosecond co2 laser from OSA. How can a cool 10.6um beam carry so much power?!
Ghalfrunt says: October 5, 2017 at 7:28 AM
Weins law gives 10.6um as peak BB temp of 0C (273K).
So now lets use a laser power meter e.g. B01LL7YZ38 to measure the output power of a co2 laser. According to your physics if the sensor (aluminium block and thermocouple is warmer than 273K the laser will not heat the block. How do you explain the fact it does?
The block is not particularly sensitive to frequency of radiation 10um to 1um so it is definitely not a quantum device!
In normal physics each photon of 10.6um laser output carries 1.87e-20 joules. and assuming these mainly get absorbed by the black aluminium block each will impart 1.87e-20 joules to the block causing it to warm
Of course the block will also be losing heat. If the laser power is 60 watts then it will be generating 3e21 photons per second into the Bloch. The block will get hot just as it does in reality.
Now of course if your physics is correct then a 60 watt laser could not damage your hand if placed in the beam your hand is much hotter than the 0C of the beam and so the photons would not touch your body!!! PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS.
Ghalfrunt 7:25pm +1
Ghalfrunt believes that a laser is relevant to atmospheric IR. And Cabbage Head votes +1.
That’s the kind of pseudoscience we love.
More please.
A co2 laser emits coherent waves/photons at 10.6um atmospheric co2 emit photons at 10.6um.
How does this affect whether they are absorbed or reflected by a hotter surface
And this still does not answer the question of how a room temperature microbolometer worls
Ghal, I’ve heard both the bolometer and laser routines before. They are indeed funny. But, you bring additional comedy with your apparently fervent belief they are relevant to Earth’s energy budget.
(For those not interested in climate comedy, a laser uses specialized circuitry and external power to AMPLIFY photon energy by STIMULATING coherent emission. Such a process is NOT natural or evident in the atmosphere.
A microbolometer uses specialized circuitry and materials. Specially designed lens are used to focus IR. The design is involved and complicated because IR photons are not typically “captured” by surfaces hotter than their emitter.)
g*r…”The design is involved and complicated because IR photons are not typically captured by surfaces hotter than their emitter.)”
I tried explaining that to Ghal. In astronomy, the EM detector is cooled to near absolute zero. I tried to explain to Ghal that if the detector is warmer than the source of the IR, the detector cannot measure heat. It would need some sort of pre-calibration in a lab to equate the induced current/voltage to a particular IR frequency. But then you’re talking about a photo-electric effect, not a temperature effect.
You don’t need a thermometer to measure the IR effect of heating on a detector. There are other ways to detect and measure IR.
“I tried to explain to Ghal that if the detector is warmer than the source of the IR, the detector cannot measure heat.”
Disagree Gordon. My room temperature Ryobi IR002 is uncooled yet when I point it at lab glass of ice water it reads out 32F. When I point it at my boiling tea kettle, it reads 212F. As you write, these temperatures are due to the avg. KE of the respective object’s constituent particles which emit EMR in view of and enabling my IR detector. My warmer than the source detector thus does measure heat that has emitted the EMR, quite accurately actually.
Now if I wanted to measure much feebler EMR with increased sensitivity like that from the CMB, I’d cool the spectrophotometer and radiometer with liquid helium vented dewar to remove thermal noise and situate it in space. I would make sure not to inadvertently point it at the sun or earth from which it is shielded (and from the transmitting antenna) by shiny foil. The original data overlaid the BB spectrum so perfectly, the investigators won a Nobel (2006).
This “all IR is magically abso*rbed” nonsense is especially funny to me because I am having trouble with one of my remotes. The remote controls my ceiling fans, but one fan does not understand that “all IR is magically abso*rbed”. It takes about 5-6 tries to adjust the fan. I replaced the battery in the remote, and it works fine with the other fans, so the trouble is in the receiver on just the one fan.
I will have to get a hammer and teach it that “all IR is magically abso*rbed”!
☺
ball4…”My room temperature Ryobi IR002 is uncooled yet when I point it at lab glass of ice water it reads out 32F”.
I mentioned to Ghal that other means are available to detect infrared and temperatures other than detecting heat directly. One popular method with an infrared detector is to use LEDs. An LED emits light at a certain frequency when a current is run through it. Conversely, when a certain frequency is shone on it the LED produces a current.
It’s the photoelectric effect and that has nothing to do with heat detection. However, the current produced by the photoelectric device can be used with a look up table to determine the temperature of a mass expected to radiate such an IR frequency.
Another method COULD be the use of a look up table. That is used in synthesizers to produce sounds. When a certain key is pressed an algorith looks up the parameters of the desired sound and retrieves them from a table.
With a frequency detector in the IR range, the IR could be identified as to its freq and the information about that frequency re temperature could be retrieved.
You guys have seriously blinded yourself to the notion that IR is heat. It’s a high frequency EM wave comprised of an electric field and a magnetic field. Heat has no frequency nor does it have an electric or magnetic field.
NOAA is familiar with manufacturing temperatures in a model, why is that so foreign to you?
So now you change to if the IR detector IS warmer than the source of the IR, the detector CAN measure my cooler ice water brightness temperature?
Ghal…How does this affect whether they are absorbed or reflected by a hotter surface…”
The explanation is in how the electrons in an atom work. The electron absorb and emits EM. There is nothing else in the atom capable of doing that. The electron is a negatively charged particle with a magnetic field around it when it moves. Somehow it can produce an electromagnetic wave when it drops from a higher energy state to a lower energy state.
All EM comes from electrons and only electrons can absorb EM. The higher the energy level of the electron the higher the frequency of the EM. Seriously high frequency radiation like x-rays and gamma rays come from seriously high energy stars.
An electron can be raised to a higher energy level if it absorbs a photon of IR having specific parameters. It’s important to understand that not all IR is absorbed by all electrons. The photon must supply enough energy to raise the electron to the next level at least.
Photons of IR from cooler bodies apparently lack the energy required by the electron and they are ignored.
If you are looking for a technical explanation, and this is only a guess, consider an electron in a battery which has a potential of 9 volts at the negative terminal and 0 volts at the positive terminal. No one expects the electron to flow against the 9 volt potential but we do expect it to flow with the potential, from negative to positive.
Now hook up a circuit where you have a 24 volt battery in a series opposing configuration with the 9 volt battery. That means the batteries are connected negative to negative.
I have never tested this and one has to be careful the batteries don’t heat and explode. However, this kind of example is given all the time in beginner’s electrical classes. According to the poobahs giving the problem sets, current will flow in the opposite direction through the 9 volt battery.
It seems that a higher potential will cause the reverse flow of current through a reverse potential. In order for that to happen, one driving potential has to be larger than the other.
When an electron receives a photon of IR the intensity of the photon must give it enough energy to jump to the next potential energy level. If it can’t, nothing happens. The jump is quantum in nature, it’s either or. The electron won’t jump a little bit, it has to jump all the way, and it does it instantaneously without a time lag. Such are the mysteries of quantum level world.
Photons from cooler energy level electrons simply lack the energy to impart to the hotter electron to raise it to a higher energy state.
Anyone got a better explanation?
something just occurred to me. The reason electrons are the only particle in an atom to generate EM is they are the only particles that can move freely. Electrons have negative charges and any moving negative charge carries a magnetic field.
Apparently protons get trapped by strong atomic forces in the nucleus and cannot move freely like the electron. The forces must be strong since protons should repel each other and don’t. Positive nucleii will repel each other but not protons in the same nucleus.
The solar wind is made up of free electrons and protons and apparently both are diverted by the Earth’s magnetic field. However, one or both induce currents in our atmosphere when they interact with our magnetic field.
Anyway you look at it, it’s all freakin amazing.
Gordon, you got that right, EMR in meteorology (or your antenna stuff) is all freakin’ amazing.
That JC Maxwell could figure EMR out in eqn. form using Faraday’s EM experiments is even more freakin’ amazing given the tools of the time.
ball4..”That JC Maxwell could figure EMR out in eqn. form using Faradays EM experiments is even more freakin amazing given the tools of the time”.
Not just that, the technology of the time. These guys were literally working in the dark. I take my hat off to the whole bunch of them in the 1800s and before, what they did was nothing short of amazing.
When Maxwell went to school in Scotland, they called him Daftie Maxwell. In Scottish, daft means stupid. Some kind of stupid to put out a unified set of equations like he did.
Impressed the heck out of Einstein.
The reason I go on about Clausius is that he not only did some impressive math and physics, he took the time to explain things subjectively with great clarity. You should read his analysis and reasoning for heat through a lens. It annoys me when I read him stating heat is essentially a property of mass then a modernist comes out and claims it as a mysterious exchange of energy across a plane.
That serves a purpose for engineers applying thermodynamics, they don’t need to know the derivation of heat at the atomic level. However, it gives people the impression that heat is not related to atoms, in particular, electrons.
I have done extensive studies in how electrons transport electric charge through conductors but it blew me away not that long ago to read an article from MIT claiming electrons also transport heat through conductors. They even have a quantum theory using phonons that describes how phonons carry heat through an insulator.
I love this stuff, even if no one agrees with me. I marvel at people like Clausius, Maxwell, Faraday, Oersted, Planck, and even Tyndall. Not to mention the next generation like Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, and Pauling.
Schrodinger essentially developed the basis of quantum theory with his equations but it was Linus Pauling who took his math, simplified it for more complex atoms, and applied his vast experience with crystal structures to reveal the structures of atoms and molecules. Much of the stuff I spout here comes from Pauling and his work.
Gordon, you finally get a +1. You earned it.
Now if only commenters can get you excited enough about meteorology to learn there are more than electronic energy levels in the atm. constituent particles absorbing and emitting (and scattering)photons on earth et. al. Way more. Hugely way more.
You are like the electronic hammer looking for an electronic nail, try a little knowledge expansion will ya’?
Although dinitrogen and dioxygen are the numerically dominant atmospheric gases, they are not radiatively dominant. The contribution to the emissivity (over the Planck spectrum for typical terrestrial temperatures) of Earth’s atmosphere is mostly from comparatively small amounts of certain infrared-active gases, water vapor being by far the most abundant, although still less than about 1 percent of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is another famous infrared active gas, with an abundance of around 400ppm.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Schrodinger essentially developed the basis of quantum theory with his equations but it was Linus Pauling who took his math, simplified it for more complex atoms, and applied his vast experience with crystal structures to reveal the structures of atoms and molecules.”
Completely wrong.
Crystallography reveals the structure of crystals, that is, the arrangement of atoms in a crystal lattice, not the structure of atoms.
Gordon Robertson says:
“something just occurred to me. The reason electrons are the only particle in an atom to generate EM is they are the only particles that can move freely.”
Completely wrong.
Any particle can generation EM waves (photons). Any accelerating charge, even when traveling in a straight line, generates photons. Protons can generate photons. So can neutrons. In fact, a photon can generate more photons. Quarks can generate photons. So can gluons. Nuclear fission creates photons (obviously). So does nuclear fusion.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Apparently protons get trapped by strong atomic forces in the nucleus….”
Completely wrong.
Protons are held in the nucleus by the strong force. The “atomic force” is electromagnetic.
DA…”Completely wrong.
Crystallography reveals the structure of crystals, that is, the arrangement of atoms in a crystal lattice, not the structure of atoms”.
Du – u – u – h!!!!
I said Pauling used his vast experience in the field of crystallography COMBINED with the Schrodinger equation, after he simplified it for his means, and worked out the shapes of molecules. Pauling got his first Nobel for the extensive work he did describing the covalent bond. He applied quantum theory to chemistry, one of the first scientists to do so, to enable his research.
Pauling was the first to describe the shapes of many molecules.
DA…”Completely wrong.
Protons are held in the nucleus by the strong force. The atomic force is electromagnetic”.
Would you care to enlighten us with your vast knowledge of strong forces as opposed to atomic forces? What would those strong forces be if they are in an atom and holding it together?
You don’t know. Oh, Ok, I see.
Let’s check…
https://www.britannica.com/science/strong-force
“Strong force, a fundamental interaction of nature that acts between subatomic particles of matter. The strong force binds quarks together in clusters to make more-familiar subatomic particles, such as protons and neutrons. It also holds together the atomic nucleus and underlies interactions between all particles containing quarks.
The strong force originates in a property known as colour. This property, which has no connection with colour in the visual sense of the word, is somewhat analogous to electric charge. Just as electric charge is the source of electromagnetism, or the electromagnetic force, so colour is the source of the strong force. Particles without colour, such as electrons and other leptons, do not feel the strong force; particles with colour, principally the quarks, do feel the strong force. Quantum chromodynamics, the quantum field theory describing strong interactions, takes its name from this central property of colour.
Protons and neutrons are examples of baryons, a class of particles that contain three quarks, each with one of three possible values of colour (red, blue, and green). Quarks may also combine with antiquarks (their antiparticles, which have opposite colour) to form mesons, such as pi mesons and K mesons. Baryons and mesons all have a net colour of zero, and it seems that the strong force allows only combinations with zero colour to exist. Attempts to knock out individual quarks, in high-energy particle collisions, for example, result only in the creation of new colourless particles, mainly mesons”.
Quark, quark!!
When a proton is torn from the nucleus on the Sun, and fired toward Earth as the solar wind, what happens to the quarks? Do they ride along with the proton or do they gather in bunches in the universe as angry quarks?
DA…”Any particle can generation EM waves (photons). Any accelerating charge, even when traveling in a straight line, generates photons. Protons can generate photons. So can neutrons. In fact, a photon can generate more photons. Quarks can generate photons. So can gluons. Nuclear fission creates photons (obviously). So does nuclear fusion”.
You are somewhat confused Appell. You need to learn how to read Google to glean the real information rather than what you think it means.
On our planet, electrons are abundant and accessible whereas protons bound in their nucleii with your quarks, are not. Electrons are involved in the production of EM fields everywhere, protons and quarks are not.
In the universe at large, most EM as light and higher frequency EM is the product of electron transitions between energy states. To get an EM field from a proton, you have to accelerate it in a cyclotron under specific conditions.
Two nice, instructive documents, both to be found in
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/
1. ABSORP-TION, EMISSION, REFLECTION, AND SCATTERING
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf
2. THE RADIATION BUDGET
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf
All stuff far far away from any redundant polemic.
binny…”Two nice, instructive documents….”
If you look under the first link at the Radiation.pdf file you will see some interesting contradictions.
They begin right at the beginning of the article claiming:
“Conduction is the transfer of kinetic energy of atoms or molecules (heat) by contact among
molecules travelling at varying speeds”.
It’s fundamentally correct but misleading. Conduction in a solid where atoms are bound to one another does not involve contact between ‘molecules’ traveling at varying speeds. It involves the vibrations between the atoms in their bonds and those bonds are electrons (covalent bonds), or the charges produced by electrons (ionic bonds).
The description above of heat is more pertinent to gases and liquids than solids, however, it gets across the message that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, more precisely, of electrons. In a solid, the nucleus does not move significantly and the electron is the variable particle.
A bit later they claim: “Electromagnetic radiation is usually quantified according to its wave-like properties, which include intensity and wavelength. For many applications it is sufficient to consider electromagnetic waves as being a continuous train of sinusoidal shapes”.
That is an apt description of EM. They might add that it is made up of an electrical field at right angles to a magnetic field and that it is produced when an electron in an atom drops from one energy level to another.
So far so good. Later, under Definition of Radiation, they claims: “The rate of energy transfer by electromagnetic radiation is called the radiant flux, which has units of energy per unit time. It is denoted by F = dQ/dt .
I have no argument with that basic definition other than the facts they have used Q, which is a harbinger of what is to come. Already they have equated EM to heat even though they have provided two very different definitions for heat and EM.
They go on to talk about irradiance from the Sun and I have no problem with that since they are talking about EM. However, a bit later under Planck, they claim: “It had long been observed that the surface of all bodies at a temperature greater than absolute zero (0 K) emits energy, in the form of thermal radiation. These electromagnetic waves were thought to be due to the motion of electric charges near the surface of the radiating body”.
Suddenly it’s ‘thermal’ radiation. I have no problem with them using that term to denote that the EM came from a thermal source, however, others extend that to mean heat is being transmitted through space. That leads to the notion that IR is heat.
Planck was guilty of referring to EM (as IR) as heat rays, but he can be forgiven for that. He had no idea at the time that the rays emitted were not heat. We know now that heat and IR are two different forms of energy and there is no excuse for anyone making that mistake. Heat is converted to EM by the electron in the atom and heat is NOT radiated.
The mistake leads to erroneous assumptions such as the 2nd law being validated by a net IR energy flow. It cannot explain why the 2nd law claims heat can only be transferred from a hot body to a cooler body without compensation and you alarmists fumble with an explanation that makes no sense.
They go on to describe a black body as the perfect absorber and emitter of ALL RADIATION, yet they seem happy to apply blackbody theory to any old body, whether it is a perfect absorber/emitter or not.
This article on radiation is about the irradiance of EM, and not about heat. The confusion between equations related to EM, such as Boltzmann, Planck, and Kircheoff, do not address the issues of heat and the 2nd law. It is unacceptable to apply those equations blindly and claim they represent heat transfer.
For one, the equations apply only at exceedingly high temperatures and for another they apply to theoretical constructs.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Planck was guilty of referring to EM (as IR) as heat rays, but he can be forgiven for that.”
Look at you, with the audacity to try to correct a giant of physics.
BTW, Planck was right. You are wrong. Everyone here knows it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“For one, the equations apply only at exceedingly high temperatures”
“High” compared to what?
“…and for another they apply to theoretical constructs.”
As does all physics. And all science.
As you can see, in the western US, the winter.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00938/rpypq6iczhnb.png
esalil says:
October 10, 2017 at 4:57 AM
Barry: if the blue plate gets a bit warmer, so by definition it emits more IR. This, according to you, heats more the green plate which by definition emits more IR..
Yes it’s a convergent series which reaches the equilibrium as Eli showed.
And what determines the equilibrium?
esalil
Equilibrium is determined when the energy is equal to the energy out. At that point the temperature is not changing.
Yes, the blue plate gets immediately the equilibrium temperature. The addition of the green plate does not change the temperature of the blue plate since there is no additional energy coming from the sun.
esalil, the original blue plate equilibrium T1 is 244K.
With the additional energy from the added green plate, T1 of blue plate converges at equilibrium computing to 262K from 1LOT energy balances as shown.
Thus the addition of the green plate does change the temperature of the blue plate. This has been confirmed in tests since the 1800s. Dr. Spencer has done a similar test.
Although each plate would have a real world emissivity below 1.0, in a test T1 would be slightly different. As far as the radiation field between them is concerned, it is as if the emissivity of the green (or blue) plate were 1.0 i.e. would be black body radiation field.
This is because, you are right, some of this radiation is reflected twice again to contribute further to the leftward radiation, and so on ad infinitum. As well as the rightward radiation. Write that series out and in the limit: the series converges. Nature is doing that convergence as the system approaches equilibrium.
The energy comes from the sun. The green plate has no other energy than received from the sun via the blue plate.The energy from the sun is constant.
esalil
Yes what you say is correct. The input energy is constant but that does not mean the temperature of the blue plate must be some set temperature. The addition of the green plate will be able to alter the temperature the blue plate (with constant energy input) will reach. You seem to think in only one way. Energy in determines equilibrium temperature. Having a surrounding object will change the equilibrium temperature because it will radiate energy back to the source and the amount of NET energy leaving the source will be reduced but the incoming energy is the same. Temperature must rise under this condition.
It is well established in the radiant heat transfer equation:
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ac = area of the object (m2)
q is the amount of heat the hot object will lose. It is dependent upon the temperature of the surroundings. The warmer the surrounding becomes the less energy the hot surface can lose so its temperature is forced up with an input energy until it can lose energy at the same rate it is gaining energy. Think about it awhile and do not let your bias stop you from understanding the science. It is very well established and it does work. Heat transfer is used in many real world applications. If the established science was incorrect the engineered world of heat transfer would fail. Think about it.
Con-man, that equation does not apply to a “plate scenario”. I’ve explained that to you before. But, without a meaningful background in physics, any explanation is over your head.
Hilarious.
Norman: by adding more and more green plates you get the blue plate become hotter and hotter. Show me those real world applications.
g*e*r*a*n
You have explained only that you do not understand physics to any degree, are just an intentionally annoying troll, have no interest in science of any type.
On another thread you tried to demonstrate your lack of understanding by trying to incorrectly use the concept of heat content. When energy is added an lost heat content will be determined by how hot an object must get to lose the same amount of energy that is entering the concept.
The thing g*e*r*a*n is that I am not a troll like yourself. I was conned by your PSI people for some time then I started to read textbook physics to correct my flaw. Since you are a troll you have no desire to learn the truth but just post to annoy people. You are not that good at this activity either as you become very boring after interactions with you. At first you did annoy me and illicit some response. The more you post the more boring you get because you do not change your method. What will it be this time?
“Rambling” “Pseudoscience” “Hilarious”? I think you might want to expand your dictionary of pet terms to become, at least, an entertaining troll again.
Norman: by adding more and more green plates you get the blue plate become hotter and hotter. Show me those real world applications.
Yes, the blue plate gets hotter and hotter with more green plates. Each additional green plate (in the idealized scenario) returns half as much heat to the one before it.
Which means that the sum of all green plates can never = the thermal radiation of the blue plate.
But as long as you keep adding green plates the whole system warms up a bit each time. It warms up by less with each green plate added.
You want a real world example? Here’s one for the 2-plate system.
Go put half a pot of water on the stove. Heat to boiling then lower the heat until it’s just below boiling. Simmering.
Now put a lid on top.
According to you, the water won’t boil.
Because the addition of the cooler lid to the system cannot possibly cause the water to get hotter.
According to you.
If you don’t see that this is wrong, you’re no cook.
esalil
barry provided you with one real world example. Here is another that is actually used based upon multiple reflectors. A reflector will be even better than an emitting plate but the concept is very similar. Maybe read up on it.
https://www.aerospacefab.com/product/mli/
Barry: you cannot be serious. The lid on the water pot has nothing to do with the plate example we are discussing on. The lid prevents the evaporation so that less energy is needed for boiling. I thought that you knew that.
Norman: looking quickly at your link I got the impression that it shows just the opposite mechanism to the blue and green plates. The layers shield the extra heat from outside in space crafts. So, the
temperature is lower at each layer, not higher. Correct me if I am wrong.
esalil
It works both ways, if you had a heated object inside a multilayer insulation blanket it would get much warmer than if it was exposed to the dark side of space.
Spacesuits use this technology to keep astronauts from freezing to death when no Sun is shining. It keeps them from getting too hot or cold. If you read up on the topic it will explain it in more depth. It keeps the electronics cool when exposed to solar energy (in space) and also keeps the components warm when the satellite is on the night side of Earth.
Norman: No. This is just an example of normal insulation: The insulated object does not receive or loose too much heat. There is not such a situation as in the experiment with blue and green plates. So far I have not seen any real world applications of theplate experiment.
esalil, I do not see how The Green Plate effect is any different than insulation. Just change the picture of the sun to one of your body. Adding the green plate is like putting on a jacket. More green plates, more jackets.
Ball4: the claim is that the colder green plate makes the warmer blue plate still warmer. The insulation does not rise any initial temperature higher. It decreases the cooling effect of the surroundings or vice versa decreases the warming effect of surroundings. The insulation does not do what the green plate is claimed to do.
“The insulation does not rise any initial temperature higher.”
Nor is that part of the example.
No initial temperatures are varied (higher). That is a strawman you just made up. The initial blue plate equilibrium temperature remains at 244K in the example.
The final blue plate equilibrium temperature remains 262K. Introduction of the second (green) plate (aka insulation) raised the equilibrium temperature of the first (blue) plate by 18 K. Just like adding a jacket to warm your skin from the outdoors cold.
You can change the semantics all you want, add all the strawmen you want, change the initial conditions, the physics & math example remain the same which is why they are called principles.
Ball4: english is not my first language. Perhaps I have used wrong words. By initial temperature I ment the equilibrium temperature of the blue plate after receiving the 400W from the sun. It is claimed that the green plate rises the temperature of the blue plate. Since the green plate does not generate energy the system violates the laws of thermodynamics. What is strawman? I know what it literally means but in this context?
“What is strawman..in this context?”
Just enter into google window string: strawman def
Find: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.
The opponent’s real argument is: “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”
esalil has not defeated the opponent’s real argument.
And can’t because actual tests such as the ones Dr. Spencer has run in nature prove out “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”
A result which is simply based on 1LOT and Planck radiation.
Ball4: see my reply directed to barry and ball4 at 4:30AM
Are you standing behind this result?
esalil 9:03am, I am standing behind the author’s example because it is simply based on 1LOT and Planck radiation. After all, Planck formula employs THREE universe constants & obtains from experiment and 1st principle theory.
See my comment about esalil room example blocking radiation that doesn’t occur in The Green Plate Effect. esalil changed the initial conditions, has not defeated “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”
Ball4: your experiment, fully imaginative, can never be proved experimentally. My experiment, true real life, can be proved any time. And if you wish electric heater can be placed in front of a table and the ice cube behind the table. Now it is identical with the blue plate and the green plate. The radiation to the right from the ice cube does not mattersince the radiation to the right from the
green plate does not either.
esalil 7:35am, your experiment is different proposition than the blue plate, green plate.
“..your experiment, fully imaginative, can never be proved experimentally.”
It is not my experiment. The experiment by Dr. Spencer proves out the blue plate, green plate thought experiment for which the analytic solution rests solely on 1LOT and Planck radiation for its results are both fully tested.
“And if you wish electric heater can be placed in front of a table and the ice cube behind the table.”
Yes, and if you are careful with your experiment, you will find the same results as Dr. Spencer who also used ice & an electric heater in HIS living room, then your experimental results will show a cool object can make a warm object warmer still. Fully consistent with 1LOT, 2LOT and Planck radiation.
Just like the green plate calculations: “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”
Ball4: I read the experiment by Roy Spencer. Think carefully what happened in the test. Try to get rid of the concept that everything is governed by IR radiation. Initially, there was a lamp heating the hot plate below of which there was a bucket of ice. The heat from the lamp was transferred via the hot plate to the ice. The ice started to melt consuming much of the heat (333 kJ/kg) provided by the hot plate. This situation reached equilibrium temperature of about 255F. Now, by introducing a white plate at room temperature between the hot plate and the ice the melting of the ice was diminished. So the energy consumption of the hot plate was diminished. That is why the constantly heating lamp raised the temperature of the hot plate to 257F. So, it is not the white plate which raised the temperature of the hot plate, it is the lamp. If instead of white plate the plate were black the temperature should raise less if it were the function of back radiation of IR of the plate. I guess the temperature should stay at 257F be the plate white, black or transparent.
esalil 3:46am: “Try to get rid of the concept that everything is governed by IR radiation.”
The experiment does not contain the concept that everything is governed by IR radiation nor do I. Dr. Spencer: “The hot plate is kept above the ice to minimize any air convection effects on the results.”
“The ice started to melt consuming much of the heat…”
No heat was consumed in this test. Heat entity no longer exists in modern physics, energy does there was energy transformation in this test. Using the term heat as a noun confuses you.
“This situation reached equilibrium temperature of about 255F.”
No evidence of that. Equilibrium is not mentioned in the article.
“Now, by introducing a white plate at room temperature between the hot plate and the ice the melting of the ice was diminished.”
That is speculation. The data were only recorded for the black plate. Dr. Spencer: “The results presented below are for the arrangement on the right.” for which “the metal sheet is aluminum flashing, painted flat black.”
“If instead of white plate the plate were black…”
Again, you raise a strawman and change the proposition. This is speculation. There are no data given for this situation, you will have to run your own test for data to support your proposition as you are guessing: “I guess the temperature should stay at 257F….”
So I recommend esalil “Think (more) carefully what happened in the test. which was the experiment results show a cool object can make a warm object warmer still.
Ball4: “The hot plate is kept above the ice to minimize any air convection effects on the results.
To me this sentence means that everything is tried to be kept as much as possible within IR.
“Using the term heat as a noun confuses you.”
In my country the temperature in a room is raised by heat, not by energy. I guess that also in anglosaxon world my sentence could be misiunderstood only with bad will.
“No evidence of that. Equilibrium is not mentioned in the article.”
OK, not mentioned. It was my interpretation of the figure 3 of more or less constant temperature of 257F. What, if a longer shielding time would have dropped the temperature back to 255F as is obvious in the 4th cycle and partly also in the 5th cycle? How would this be interpreted?
“The data were only recorded for the black plate. ”
Kind of dyslexia. I was talking and you correctly referred my words about the plate between the hot plate and the ice. Spencers words:” ice is blocked with a second sheet(painted with very high IR emissivity paint, Krylon white #1502)”. Again, everything tried to be explainable with IR.
“Again, you raise a strawman and change the proposition. This is speculation. ”
My view is classical physics view that heat flows always unidirectionally from hot to cold. Spencers experiment did not disprove this view. If he had used in addition to the white plate alternatively also a black plate and an IR-transparent plate and got results that the
temperature of the hot plate would have not raised then my view would have been disproved. But since it was not tested both views are speculative. The only fact is that the temperature of the hot plate raised. Was it caused by the white plate or the lamp is purely speculative.
So, Ball4, Think (more) carefully what happened in the test”.
T varies with the white plate in and out, the lamp is constant. Energy can transfer both ways. Heat entity separate from KE does not exist in nature in any country, that was a dead end in physics of the 1800s. Yes, convection and conduction are minimized (not ignored) to obtain the experimental data/results for IR: a cool object can make a warm object warmer still.
Ball4: wikipedia 16.10.2017: “Heat is the amount of energy that flows spontaneously from a warmer object to a cooler one.”
“T varies with the white plate in and out, the lamp is constant.”
Yes, that is a fact. But the claim that white plate warms the hot plate is only religiously correct. Scientifically, if one wants to prove that the warming is due to the IR backradiation of the white plate the other alternatives must be experimentally excluded. What if it is the plate itself without IR-emitting properties? My claim is that it is the blocking of the energy consumption of the ice. The experiment does not prove or disprove this alternative. So, the explanation of the results is not scientifically sound.
“Yes, that is a fact. But the claim that white plate warms the hot plate is only religiously correct.”
The term warming is not religious as the thermometer temperature of the hot plate is shown to increase when the black plate is introduced adding more photonic energy to be absorbed in the hot plate over the less photonic energy of the ice.
“What if it is the plate itself without IR-emitting properties?”
THAT would be a religious finding as all matter that has ever been tested is found to be with IR-emitting properties at every frequency, every temperature all the time. Of course, this black painted aluminum plate may be the first matter ever found without IR-emitting properties. Just point an IR-thermometer at it in equilibrium with room temperature and the black plate will register as room temperature on the readout. If it registers, 0 K you may have something or an inop. device in which case use a mercury thermometer.
“My claim is that it is the blocking of the energy consumption of the ice.”
That is true claim, the black plate blocks (is opaque) to the photons emitted from the hot plate thus the ice cannot consume (esalil term) i.e. absorb the blocked hot plate photons & vice versa. Which all means the experiment results show a cool object can make a warm object warmer still.
Ball4: what black plate?
The unpowered plate manufactured by Dr. Spencer: “the metal sheet is aluminum flashing, painted flat black…a room-temperature high-emissivity sheet” i.e. plate used as an ice shield to show data taken: “then with the ice covered for 5 minutes.”
I still recommend esalil think (even more) carefully what happened in the test procedure. To understand the data from the experiment reults show a cool object can make a warm object warmer still.
By the way, “Heat is the amount of energy that flows…” is an oxymoron, like heat transfer, jumbo shrimp or Microsoft Works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
as reported by the editor, Robert H. Romer, American Journal of Physics, 69 (2), Feb. 2001, p. 109 from Harvey S. Leff, “Entropy and heat along reversible paths for fluids and magnets,” Am. J. Phys. 63 (9), pp. 814817 (1995).
pp. 814-817 geez.
Ball4:
“painted flat black”
looks like we were referring to different experiments.
I recommend Ball4 that before thinking (even more) carefully what happened in the test procedure you read particularly carefully how the experiment was designed.
To your knowledge: melting of ice is a physicochemical process and in such processes energy is consumed(esalil term, as you referred), not absorbed.
“such processes energy is consumed (esalil term, as you referred), not absorbed.”
esalil, energy can neither be consumed nor created, energy can be transformed from one form to another.
In physics, photon energy can be absorbed/emitted (i.e. transformed), scattered and transmitted. Consuming photon energy would be like wolfing down a sandwich.
This is simply your definition problem created by a language difference not a physics problem.
Ball4: I do not know what is your academic education but obviously not chemistry.
A quote from a chemistry textbook:
“In any change, physical or chemical the total amount of energy remains the same (the only measurable exception to this occurs in nuclear reactions. Chemical energy is an important way of storing energy in foods, fat reserves and fuels. In energy producing reactions (exothermic) the total energy of the products is less than that of the reactants – energy is released to the surroundings. Combustion and respiration in biological systems are the most obvious examples. In energy consuming reactions (endothermic) the total energy of the products is more than that of the reactants – heat is taken from the surrounding substances.”
As the quote says there is no difference in terminolgy between chemistry and physics. So, the phase change from ice to liquid water is energy consuming – endothermic – reaction for which heat is taken from the surroundings.
So, the definition problem is yours.
By the way you did not comment the role of the black/white plate in Spencers experiment.
A quote from “a chemistry” text! This blog is discussing atmospheric science texts.
You will want to challenge this author that the caloric theory is outdated, no longer in use, this is a relic of outdated physics that need to be updated to eliminate confusion: “heat is taken from the surrounding substances.” Actually, in atm. texts energy is transferred from surrounding substances: air, water, dirt so forth.
I quoted Dr. Spencer above the white sheet was not used for the data taking, so no comment is appropriate. Black sheet comments are appropriate based on the data.
“In energy producing reactions (exother.mic)…”
Exother.mic reactions are a release, transfer out of existing energy.
“In energy consuming reactions (endother.mic)…”
Endother.mic reactions are an abs.orp.tion, transfer in of existing energy.
Ball4:
“A quote from a chemistry text! This blog is discussing atmospheric science texts.”
Seems that you claim that atmospheric science has different rules to natural sciences. You might be correct. We can every now and then read so peculiar claims coming from atmospheric sciences.
“I quoted Dr. Spencer above the white sheet was not used for the data taking,”
Seems to be hard admitting errors. Where I stated that white plate was used for the data taking?
Just looking through an article supplied by binny at:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf
On page 19 of 23 according to Adobe reader, or 3-19 according to the actual page number, there are two graphs. One shows spectral emissions of solar energy as recorded at the TOA and at surface level. The other shows emissions from the surface.
Note that both are crappy renditions, one dated 1976, but that is typical of these so-called representations of emissions. On the bottom graph, CO2 is show as having a major notch around 15 micrometers and H20 with a notch at 6 micrometers.
Note that surface emissions are rated at a max of 9 W/m^2. That seems strange, but hey, that’s what the graph says.
Now look at the upper graph of solar irradiation. In the CO2 range of 15 micrometers, we have about 200 W/m^2. That means IR in that range is 20 times stronger coming from the Sun than from the surface.
There seems to be a notch at 6 micrometers where H2O is believed to absorb but nothing at 15 micrometers where CO2 is believed to absorb.
What gives? Is incoming IR not the same IR as outgoing IR?
If what I’m seeing is interpreted correctly, AGW is a serious hoax. Over 50% of incoming solar energy is in the infrared region yet all we hear is about outgoing IR which is 20 times weaker than incoming IR. If GHGs are warming the atmosphere it appears blatantly obvious they are being warmed by incoming IR from the Sun.
Oh, oh, oh…I think I have an explanation for graphs in my post above.
The top graph shows a notch in the H2O region but not much of anything at 15 micrometers for CO2. The graph is dated as 1976. Get it? No one cared about CO2 in 1976. Today, we have a totally manufactured science about CO2 where it has been given properties it did not have in 1976.
In the 2nd graph, surface emissions are rated around 8 W/m^2. How did we ever get up to a surface radiation of 200 W/m^2?
Bullshit.
You’re a plain idiot.
First graph ( sun irradiance) ranges from 0 to 4 micrometers wavelengths. Irradiance is in W / m2. um not W/m2
Second graph ( IR emission ranges from 4 to 19 micrometers and radiance is in W/m2 ster . um not W/m2
Gordon Robertson says:
“The top graph shows a notch in the H2O region but not much of anything at 15 micrometers for CO2. The graph is dated as 1976. Get it? No one cared about CO2 in 1976.”
You’re an idiot.
A 1965 report to the Johnson Administration had a chapter on CO2s potential to cause warming:
Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, Presidents Science Advisory Committee (1965), pp. 111-133.
https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf
Plenty more where this came from:
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
Gordon Robertson
To save you further embarrassment. In the first graph you missed the decimal point and just saw what you wanted to see but not the reality presented. Correct your error and it will help your thought process.
Also if you want the total energy emitted by the surface you would have to integrate under the entire curve. That would give you the total W/m^2 given off by the surface. I am sure you can see your error on this thought and correct it so it will improve your thought process.
Do not be so quick to find flaws in science. Think about, reflect and consider. You are obsessed with trying to prove GHE is incorrect you are unable to process science reality and prefer the junk blog science over actual textbook physics. This behavior is like g*e*r*a*n. Please do not be like this one. You claim to actually have studied real physics long ago (you need to refresh your mind) do not be fooled by the false physics you are reading on blogs. One sucker (g*e*r*a*n) who loves his Joe Postma, is more than enough per blog. Your pal Claes Johnson is a real moron when it comes to physics. He knows about nothing and screws up what little he does know.
Con-man, you must have had another bad day washing dishes at your dead-end job.
Oh well, you can make up for it by getting on a blog pretending you actually have a science background and falsely attacking people that don’t follow your pseudoscience.
I’m sure that will make your life better.
norman…”Do not be so quick to find flaws in science. Think about, reflect and consider. You are obsessed with trying to prove GHE is incorrect you are unable to process science reality and prefer the junk blog science over actual textbook physics”.
Yes…I admit to making a mistake with the graphs, I should have known better than to wander into areas where I lack expertise. I am still wondering, however, if incoming solar heats GHGs in the atmosphere.
GHE and AGW are pseudo-science. Why are you defending that crap? And why are you lecturing me when you don’t get it that electrons are very important in general physics? They are at the root of everything, from chemical reactions, to chemical bonds, to electrical machinery and computers.
Everything is made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Unfortunately, we humans seldom look beyond atoms and molecules.
They produce light, heat, and all that good stuff. And they can do it because they are free to move around. They can even leave the nucleus and operate independently.
Why can’t you see that infrared is not heat and that it cannot be summed to represent heat transfer? Certainly, a known quantity of heat at a certain temperature will radiate a known amount of infrared from the electrons involved in the mass. I have no problem with such a one-to-one relationship. There is another law, however, the 2nd law, that states heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body under normal conditions.
Why does that conundrum not interest you?
As far as books are concerned, you cannot believe everything you read. I have seen egregious errors written in electronics text books and I know they are errors.
Just today, I read for the umpteenth time that electrical current runs from positive to negative. The reasoning given is that the positive charge was theorized before the electron, which was not discovered till the 1890s.
So here we are, some 130 years later, still teaching falsely that current runs from positive to negative. And why?? Because IT’S CONVENTION. Some people have the temerity to argue there is a positive test charge traveling through a conductor which is nonsense. They are speculating that holes left when electrons vacate an atom to move through a circuit carry mass.
There’s no such thing as a positive current carrier in electronics and we’ve known that for 130 years. Yet we still teach that crap. There is not even a positive current carrier in a semiconductor (holes). Shockley, who invented the concept, claimed he did it only to make visualization easier. Personally, I have dealt with semiconductors for decades using only electron theory.
In a cooper conductor the protons in the copper atoms stays put. Only the electrons can move.
You are basing your arguments on text books written by engineers. I generally defend engineers but some of those text books offer drivel in thermodynamics. Heck, all of them in the electrical field still preach that current flows from positive to negative.
Norman…I think you are probably a good guy and I have nothing personally against you. Will you please read up on atomic theory and get it that electrons govern the heat in an atom. If you do, you will see instantly that heat cannot be transferred both ways through radiation.
It makes no sense that an electron at a higher state of energy should get bumped to a higher energy state by IR from a cooler body.
I am not raving here, I am convinced of this now. It falls in line with everything I have studied in electrical engineering about the electron. Two way heat transfer makes no sense and summing IR fluxes is absolutely ridiculous.
I know what it states in your text books and I am not calling them wrong. What I am saying is they are presenting generalities that apply elsewhere, and passing them off to the reader as specific.
I would like to see anyone really apply Boltzmann to heat transfer. The authors writing the books have likely never applied Boltzmann they have only theorized about it.
Boltzmann can be applied to IR energy transfer but I cannot imagine why anyone would want to measure it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Everything is made of electrons, protons and neutrons.”
Utterly wrong. Quit lying about this basic stuff.
Just quite lying.
It makes no sense that an electron at a higher state of energy should get bumped to a higher energy state by IR from a cooler body.
Well in CO2 a vibrating bond can be excited to a higher energy level by a photon of the right energy irrespective of the temperature of the source. It has nothing to do with electrons. A 15micron photon emitted at a temperature of 0C is able to excite a ground state CO2 molecule at 20C to an excited vibrational state.
Right Phil. But GR is unable to grasp the concept of a quantum state unless it is a (badly outdated, incorrect) orbital state of a Bohr atom.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is another law, however, the 2nd law, that states heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body under normal conditions.”
What are “normal conditions?”
(This should be good….)
GR wrote:
“It makes no sense that an electron at a higher state of energy should get bumped to a higher energy state by IR from a cooler body.”
Why?
Does IR not carry energy? (Maxwell would find such a claim laughable.)
Gordon Robertson says:
“NormanI think you are probably a good guy and I have nothing personally against you. Will you please read up on atomic theory and get it that electrons govern the heat in an atom. If you do, you will see instantly that heat cannot be transferred both ways through radiation.”
Then how does the Sun heat the Earth, and the other planets?
Gordon Robertson says:
“I would like to see anyone really apply Boltzmann to heat transfer”
Gordon: What does Boltzmann assume when he derives his statistical mechanics?
What properties of the system does he assume?
alpha-g…”Bullshit. Youre a plain idiot”.
That’s you off my Christmas list, and it will me Mr. Idiot to you.
What’s your problem anyway, can you not talk in scientific terms or are you a pimply-faced teenager with trouble finding girls? I have teed off at others in this blog after being ad hommed, insulted, and essentially called a liar.
What have I done to you? I recall replying to you civilly, are you maybe in a huff because I pointed out an inconsistency in a point you provided?
Exc-u-u-u-u-u-se me, they call it science.
I took a quick look at the lower graph and saw CO2 centred on 15 micrometers then I went to the graph on the top and mistook the numbers at the bottom of the curve for 16 and 30, basically because it’s an old graph and hard to read. I should have verified it, the graph on the bottom appears to be wrong.
You could have pointed out the error without getting into the idiot stuff. However, if that’s the game you want to play I have some really good insults reserved for you.
The infrared spectrum is centred on 3 micrometers putting it at the tail end of the curve. That would be right off the left end of the curve below. Even at that, the intensity from the sun is still likely in the range to heat GHGs.
“Irradiance is in W / m2. um not W/m2”
Explain the difference, I think it is superflous nonsense. Same with the steradian crap. I have yet to see one post in this blog that uses more than W/m^2.
Why do we need to be super careful when 99% of people use W/m^2 and some idiot uses steradians in there?
Steradians generally apply to space measurement where there are vast distances between stars. When we measure on the Earth’s surface it’s general concerned to be a relatively flat, tangential plane. Why do we need dome ridiculous European invention that makes little sense?
And tell me this, what the heck does this mean:
watt per steradian per square metre per nanometre?
That is scientific lunacy. Whoever invented that is likely kept in a cage.
There are no dimensions to a steradian and the pertinent parameter is the square meter. But, wait, where the heck does the nanometer fit into this? Have we all gone collectively mad? No, not we…them!!!
“I should have verified it, the graph on the bottom appears to be wrong….Explain the difference, I think it is superfluous nonsense. Same with the steradian crap.”
Ha, the 3.7 graph is not wrong Gordon. The radiation measured is coming from a hemisphere of directions at the surface looking up, so you have to multiply up the amounts shown (1-10) by the amount of steradians in a hemisphere to compare to the approx. 345 global avg. It is the way spectrophotometers work.
Geez, that would not have caused consternation for a meteorologist only an electronics guy. And it is not nanometers look closer, it is per micron of wavelength meaning the radiation intensity at each wavelength.
Commenters & websites are trying to teach meteorology to Gordon 1 comment and 1 link at a time.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have teed off at others in this blog after being ad hommed, insulted, and essentially called a liar.”
That’s because you are a liar. Clearly. And some of us here are not willing to accept your continual lies, one after the other.
I’m not surprised that Gordon doesn’t understand the difference between area (m2) and solid angles (steradians). And clearly, as we’ve seen often here, not understanding makes him anxious and embarrassed and makes him lash out.
David
People like Gordon used to regularly show up at chess tournaments. A guy would walk in thinking he’s the next Bobby Fisher. Arrogant, obnoxious, believing all the serious chess players were fools.
Of course, these fools would get crushed and you would never see them again.
We’re not so lucky in a science blog. Gordon is too arrogant to realize how stupid he is, and there is no “checkmate” to ever change this.
You pegged GR exactly, Isaac.
For anyone who loves and respects science, it is disheartening to see the many ways Gordon butchers it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There are no dimensions to a steradian”
Completely wrong.
A “steradian” *IS* a dimension — a unit — of a solid angle.
Just after replying to Norman I came across this wiki article on radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of a body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature”.
What’s the first thing that stands out? How about this: “When the temperature of a body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change.”
Does this apply to a solid? No…so it’s a gross generalization. How do atoms/molecules collide in a solid? In fact, what is it in a solid that produces heat? Put it this way, what is it that stops happening when solids are cooled to absolute zero?
What holds the atoms together? Is it crazy glue?
All this stuff is aimed at gases in particular, where attempts are made to apply Boltzmann. Boltzmann does not apply to a solid till it’s heated white hot and gives of colours equivalent to what might be expected from black bodies.
They follow with this: “This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation…”
Again, a gross generalization. That’s not how EM is generated, EM comes from electrons and electrons only.
I am telling you Norman et al, you cannot rely on wikis or text books to give you a reliable account of many issues in thermodynamics.
from the same article: “a person near a raging bonfire feels radiant heating from the fire, even if the surrounding air is very cold”.
Why???
Is the EM from the fire carrying heat to them? No. The EM is causing the atoms/molecules in their skin to rise in temperature by forcing them to vibrate harder.
It is the person’s own body warming itself.
Good grief…doesn’t anyone get this?
similarly, when you place a cup of cold water in a microwave, is heat being carried from the magnetron in the microwave cavity to the water?
You could place a cardboard cover over the cup of water and it won’t even warm. The microwaves will go right through it and convey EM to the water molecules.
Microwaves don’t carry heat. They cause molecules of water to become agitated and the agitation heats the water.
In essence, the water heats itself.
Come on guys, this isn’t rocket science.
Of course, Appell would reason that the water, when it boils, would heat the magnetron.
just to be clear…the bonfire is not heating you directly because they claim the air is too cold around your body.
Why??? Is the air immediately above the fire warm? What happens if we move closer to the bonfire, at some point, will we feel heat directly from the fire?
Of course. The air is cool where we are standing because we’re too far away to allow warmed air to heat us directly.
So we move closer till we feel the air is warmer. Is it just the 1% water vapour and CO2 warming us? Don’t think so. All the air is warmer, all 99% of the N2/O2 is warmer. When that warmed N2/O2 surrounds us with bazzillions of warmed molecules, our skin receives heat directly to our skin.
N2/O2 will warm directly through contact with the fire, same as it does when it contacts the Earth’s surface.
There’s no reason to be speculating that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere has anything whatsoever to do with atmospheric warming. N2/O2 can do it entirely on it’s own through conduction and convection.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The air is cool where we are standing because were too far away to allow warmed air to heat us directly.”
What if there was a vacuum between you and the fire?
How does the Sun heat the Earth? (We already established it’s not via the solar wind, which is too small by a factor of 100,000.)
Gordon Robertson says:
“Theres no reason to be speculating that a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere has anything whatsoever to do with atmospheric warming.”
Why?
Assume CO2 is X ppm of the atmosphere. How does its ability to warm the surface warming depend on X?
Gordon Robertson says:
“N2/O2 will warm directly through contact with the fire, same as it does when it contacts the Earths surface”
But why is the Earth’s surface getting warmer?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Microwaves dont carry heat. They cause molecules of water to become agitated….”
How?
How does a microwave cause a water molecule to be “agitated?”
What exactly does “agitated” mean, anyway?
Are you really claiming that microwaves don’t carry energy?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Of course, Appell would reason that the water, when it boils, would heat the magnetron.”
Would boiling water heat your hand, if you stuck your hand in it?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Is the EM from the fire carrying heat to them? No. The EM is causing the atoms/molecules in their skin to rise in temperature by forcing them to vibrate harder.”
How exactly does this happen if the EM isn’t carrying energy (heat)?
Hmmm?
Gordon Robertson
You need to study some physics. I gave you tools above (various calculators) if you will not work with them you will not understand your many flaws. You have many and they are too ingrained for me to explain each and every one to you on this blog. If you read a good physics book and not reject the contents because they go against your imaginary physics, you will start understanding the many things you do not now understand. A good Chemistry textbook will also do great things to help you.
I do not know where you get your understanding on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and think it only applies to very hot objects. This is fantasy you made up. It has zero basis in reality. You seem to make up lots of physics. Why do you need to do this? If you think you are correct do valid experiments and publish your results. Prove to the David Appell’s of the World your incredible intelligence and wisdom and all the many generations of hard working scientists are idiots and fools.
Norman says:
“I do not know where you get your understanding on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and think it only applies to very hot objects. This is fantasy you made up. It has zero basis in reality.”
+1
“You seem to make up lots of physics.”
As I see it, this is the real question we need to address. Why does Gordon need to deny basic science and make up his own physics? His ego? His pride? An inability to learn and understand? Embarrassment and shame at being unable understand physics, so needing to deny all of it?
“Why does Gordon need to deny basic science and make up his own physics? His ego? His pride? An inability to learn and understand? Embarrassment and shame at being unable understand physics, so needing to deny all of it?”
Neither David:
They are Trolls having a laugh with you.
The same Trolls from years back when I used to post occasionally here.
Some were even banned by Roy.
But as ever he is unable to keep them banned.
You will never influence them.
They do it to annoy you/others.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I did not say anything about colder bodies not radiating IR, I said the IR radiated by them is not absorbed by warmer body.”
Why not?
What information does an IR photon carry about the temperature of its emitting body?
Where does the purported “rejected” energy go? How?
Please show the experimental evidence for your claim.
Davie understands little about physics, so he has to constantly beg for information:
What if there was a vacuum between you and the fire?
How does the Sun heat the Earth? (We already established it’s not via the solar wind, which is too small by a factor of 100,000.)
Why?
Assume CO2 is X ppm of the atmosphere. How does its ability to warm the surface warming depend on X?
But why is the Earth’s surface getting warmer?
How?
How does a microwave cause a water molecule to be “agitated”?
What exactly does “agitated” mean, anyway?
How exactly does this happen if the EM isn’t carrying energy (heat)?
Why not?
What information does an IR photon carry about the temperature of its emitting body?
Where does the purported “rejected” energy go? How?
The answer to this question
“What information does an IR photon carry about the temperature of its emitting body?”
is none
In the case that the IR photon is emitted from a CO2 molecule relaxing from an excited vibrational state, the wavelength of the photon is from the change in energy levels of the associated chemical bond, not from the temperature, or kinetic energy of the molecule.
Now this question,
“Assume CO2 is X ppm of the atmosphere. How does its ability to warm the surface warming depend on X?”
The Infrared output of a volume of CO2 gas is dependent on both the temperature of the gas and the concentration of the gas.
This question
“How does a microwave cause a water molecule to be agitated?
What exactly does agitated mean, anyway?”
Water absorbs the microwave photons and this causes the vibrational states of the chemical bonds to excite to a higher level, ie the molecule vibrates more.
Agitated means more vibration.
“Water absorbs the microwave photons and this causes the vibrational states of the chemical bonds to excite to a higher level, ie the molecule vibrates more.”
Actually Bob, it is the dipole of the water molecules that is affected by the microwaves. The dipole responds to the oscillating magnetic field of the photon. That oscillation creates friction, which creates heat.
g*r…”The dipole responds to the oscillating magnetic field of the photon”.
Appreciate your analysis. A dipole is a description of a bond with a +ve and a -ve end. The charge difference could be a degree of electronegativity. Of course, a major cause of electronegativity is the electron arrangement in an atom.
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/electroneg.html
If an atom is more electronegative, another atom bonding with it which has a lesser degree of electronegativity would be consider +ve wrt the more electronegative atom.
Everything that goes on in a molecule is related to positive and negative charge. The positive charge can come from the positive nucleus or from an atom that is less electronegative than another.
The dipole must use electrons to absorb photons of IR. There’s no way for a dipole itself to absorb the IR because it does not exist outside the electron bond between atoms. The bond is the dipole. The bonds are electrons and the dipole is created by the electronegativity of the electrons in both types of atoms of CO2.
I cannot buy the argument that a dipole arrangement alone causes CO2 to absorb IR more than other molecules. There has to be something else involved.
I suspect it is related to the fact that oxygen has 6 valence electrons and carbon has 4. Oxygen is more electronegative than carbon as well, creating the dipole action. If I had to bet on this I’d bet the oxygen is absorbing the IR via it’s valence electrons, causing a fluctuation in the dipole bond.
I find it annoying on alarmist sites like UCAR and NASA where they present a simple explanation without going into atomic detail. They probably have no idea what is involved.
Actually g*e*r*a*n,
The water molecule only responds to the photon if there is an allowable transition to a higher level.
The heat occurs when the molecule collides with another molecule or atom and transfers the energy by relaxing to a lower energy state and increasing the kinetic energy of the other molecule or atom.
No friction involved.
Oh, so you have dropped your “chemical bond” nonsense in favor of your “transition to a higher level” nonsense.
Hilarious.
Here’s the REAL science, in case you’re ever interested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating
Hi Bob & g*e*r*a*n,
no Bob I really wonder you don’t know the very effect behind the MW oven.
g*e*r*a*n is right, it’s just the friction between molecules due to their non neutral atomic placement (water molecules are polarized) that make them susceptible to the EM alternate field at some frequency. The wavelength of the MW oven magnetron (about 210mm) is too long to interact significantly with the single molecule itself, it’s the molecular dipole that is drifted back and forth by the alternate EM field.
Do you want a proof?
When water is in its solid state (ice) it become practically insensitive to the very same EM field. That is if you put an ice cube into an EM insensitive container (for example made of polyethylene) and you put them inside your MW oven, then you can try to melt it by setting the maximum power of your oven. But if you do it nothing happen. The little melt you get after a along time is the one due to the air and the container temperature around it. That is because in the solid state of water the molecules are tightly bounded together and don’t allow the EM field to move them back and forth.
Here you get an explanation:
https://lesson-plans.theteacherscorner.net/science/experiments/microwaveice.php
Here instead, there is a couple of nice videos of the easy to made experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve-S1vLbcOg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LIZuscM5uc
Have a great day.
Massimo
I wasn’t talking about how a microwave oven works.
I was sloppy in describing infrared photons as microwaves.
Thanks to Bob Droege for these useful explanations.
You understand pseudoscience so well, Bin.
g*r…”How exactly does this happen if the EM isnt carrying energy (heat)?”
Don’t know if you’re having a go at DA with this question. Or if you’re repeating a question from DA. ☺
EM is energy of a different form than thermal energy. The electrons in the water molecules convert it to heat. All atoms vibrate harder when they increase their energy levels. Just like electrons running up and down a metal wire propagate an EM field around the wire.
Just follow the thread, Gordon.
Gordon Robertson says:
“EM is energy of a different form than thermal energy. The electrons in the water molecules convert it to heat.”
You’re merely labeling.
Some kinds of energy you’re OK with calling heat, but other types you deny are heat.
That’s nonsensical.
Energy is energy. Sometimes it is the energy of infrared radiation, and sometimes it’s the kinetic energy of molecules. Sometimes its visible sunlight. Sometimes it’s crystal oscillations.
You don’t get to pick and choose.
Hi David,
“What information does an IR photon carry about the temperature of its emitting body?”
Since the photon carried energy is always E = h/lambda, where h is Planck’s constant and lambda is the carried EM energy wavelength, I really wonder why do you continue to reiterate this question which has a clear and obvious answer: its wavelength!
Of course, you can argue about the Planck’s distribution of the photons for a certain body at a certain temperature and I agree with you about that, but any single photon carries an information about its emitter temperature. If the photons were taken one by one their wavelength hasn’t any significance, but in case they are taken as a photons flux (which is the reality) their wavelengths have it.
Anyways, above in response to the statement:
N2/O2 will warm directly through contact with the fire, same as it does when it contacts the Earths surface
You asked:
“But why is the Earths surface getting warmer?”
Because the Earth is rotating. Because of that, as seen by the ground it’s like we are warmend by a pulsed source (the Sun of course). In this case the final temperature reached by the globe is determined also by the thermal time constant of every singular matter on Earth.
Note that when the climatologists compute the theoretical average maximum temperature dividing by 2 because only half globe is irradiate by the Sun, they do the big mistake of ignoring the Earth’s components time constants. That because if they take account of that time constants the average temperature is surely higher than the one they compute today.
At the border case where the time constants are infinite the Earth temperature would skyrockets to the same temperature as the Sun was radiating to the whole globe surface at the same time.
So, Gordon is right when he wrote that also N2/O2 will warm directly through contact the surface. But not only N2/O2 do that, the whole Earth matters do it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
You know of course that there are only three pieces of information carried by a photon. Wavelength is one and direction are the other two.
Typically a source of photons emits more than one wavelength like say the sun or a light bulb.
“Since the photon carried energy is always E = h/lambda, where h is Plancks constant and lambda is the carried EM energy wavelength, I really wonder why do you continue to reiterate this question which has a clear and obvious answer: its wavelength!”
This statement of yours shows you do not have an understanding of the physics associated with light.
Yes Bob,
I explained later that the WL of a single photon as no information about the temperature of the source by itself, but the bulk flux of photons give it, the wavelengths are not randomly distributed.
That is, a body having a temperature do not emits one photon a time but a Plank’s distribution spectrum of photons, so that photons as a bulk give the information.
Of course when light travel into the space between matter should be considered as EM wave, because it is a continuous. It’s when it interacts with matter that the photons formalism applies.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Nope, not a continuous wave, but in individual wave packets, which we call photons.
Hi Bob,
I don’t agree, an EM wave is a continuous.
The photon is an abstraction of human mind to explain some of its interaction with matter.
Try to explain the Doppler effect seen by the telescopes looking to the current universe borders which result red-shifted without continuous waves.
Anyways this page demonstrates to me how some scientists are spending their time on a “non problem”, light is both depending on the context.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-1/Wavelike-Behaviors-of-Light
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO says:
“The photon is an abstraction of human mind to explain some of its interaction with matter.”
Nope. Photons are as real as you are.
Really?
I never seen one.
It’s a formalism, noting less nothing more.
You forgot the spin or polarization !
But of course, you’re right. A single photon carries no information about the temperature of the matter that .emitted it.
For the very good reason that what emits the photon may well be far from thermodynamic equilibrium and not even described by a meaningful temperature.
bob…”You know of course that there are only three pieces of information carried by a photon. Wavelength is one and direction are the other two”.
A photon is a theorized particle defined as a particle of EM with momentum and no mass. It was developed to particalize EM and no one knows if such a particle exists. Einstein remained undecided throughout his life.
EM is defined as a wave of energy with an electric field and a magnetic field at right angles. It is also defined based on intensity and frequency.
How can ‘a’ photon be part of an electromagnetic wave and have properties separate from the wave?
“How can ‘a’ photon be part of an electromagnetic wave and have properties separate from the wave?”
Testing shows a light beam can act as both a particle and a wave. Photon is simply the name of the particle. Though the wave concept has been far more productive over time. Name an invention that came about due only the concept of a photon. I can’t.
Photon is a bit more useful for discussions as waves going back thru all space are more difficult to imagine.
binny…”Photon is simply the name of the particle. Though the wave concept has been far more productive over time”.
You have been reading too much sci-fi binny. An EM wave has no particles, and remember, a photon has no mass.
How can a particle have no mass…only if it’s an invention of the human mind?
Bohren has pointed out that momentum is a reality, not a definition. Therefore it’s conceivable that ‘something’ could have momentum and no mass as a photon is claimed to be. Highly unlikely, I think.
The photon is the electromagnetic wave, each photon is a wave unto itself.
You have to get to the modern physics, if this 19th century stuff is all you want to understand, you will never get far.
Look up the wave particle duality.
Google De Broglie
What did Einstein get the Nobel Prize for again?
It seems to slip my mind.
Oh yeah, the idea that light was comprised of discrete amounts of energy rather than continuous waves.
Bright guy that one, should have got the prize for the Special Theory of Relativity, not to mention the General Theory of Relativity.
“…the idea that light was comprised of discrete amounts of energy rather than continuous waves.”
Not for that idea exactly. But that’s ok to think that way if it is more soothing to you, to think that photons can be incarnated, imagined to be objects we can kick or be kicked by.
Waves extending through all space are not so easily incarnated. You can readily conceive of the photon as a thing. And yet an electromagnetic wave is just as much a thing as a photon: both possess energy and momentum (linear and angular) but not, it seems, mass.
Hi Bob & alphagruis,
I still don’t agree with you when you wrote:
“A single photon carries no information about the temperature of the matter that .emitted it”
This is plain wrong written this way without the following caveat:
“except when the photon is part of a flux of photons which is coming from a body made of matter”.
This because if your statement was true the IR thermometer shouldn’t work at all.
In fact, how could the detector of the IR thermometer (which is made of matter, and for that interacts with light via the photons quantization formalism) measure the temperature of the aimed body if any single photon didn’t carried a part of that information?
The answer is:
any single photon has part of it source temperature hidden into its wavelength (its energy); into the measured flux of photons the quantity of photons carrying the very same energy depends on Planck’s distribution; the total amount of energy carried by the photons which are part of the flux give the source temperature.
Please note that I’m no ways talking about the “color temperature” which is simply a different formalism to express the light wavelength.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“Not for that idea exactly. But thats ok to think that way if it is more soothing to you, to think that photons can be incarnated, imagined to be objects we can kick or be kicked by.”
Yes I think that way, my job depends on the ability to produce 511 Kev photons at precise locations, like your brain, assuming you think you might have Alzheimer’s and want to get a PET scan for that.
And photons do exert a force on objects in their path.
A photon has no rest mass, ie it has no mass when it is still, but that never happens.
Massimo 2:01am, I point my IR thermometer at the daytime sky where a sounding rocket has told me the air column temperature is effectively 255K by thermometer. A photon of wavelength 4.7 microns is determined to have hit my IR thermometer’s IR detector by my spectrophotometer.
According to you: “any single photon has part of it source temperature hidden into its wavelength (its energy)”
If so, you should now be able to tell me whether that single photon came from an object effectively at 5780K or an object at 255K.
So which one? The atm. or the sun?
Bob 6:57am, “A photon has no rest mass…”
Given the near impossibility of measuring “no” (zero) in the face of inevitable errors and uncertainties, it would be more correct to say that the upper limit of the photon rest mass keeps decreasing, a recent value for the upper limit being about 10^-24 times the rest mass of the electron.
Hi Ball4,
-“Massimo 2:01am, I point my IR thermometer at the daytime sky where a sounding rocket has told me the air column temperature is effectively 255K by thermometer. A photon of wavelength 4.7 microns is determined to have hit my IR thermometers IR detector by my spectrophotometer.
According to you: any single photon has part of it source temperature hidden into its wavelength (its energy)…-
No ball4, you missed that I wrote that my argument was bout “when the photon is part of a flux of photons which is coming from a body made of matter”.
For me “body” implied “solid”.
I fact if you point the sky, your IR thermometer is useful for nothing.
The only way you have to measure the effective temperature of a particular place into the air is putting there a solid target with a known emissivity, allow it to stabilize at the very temperature of the air on that place, and point your IR thermometer to that solid target, being careful aim all the FOV of your IR thermometer on the target.
Please, I’m not saying that the statement:
“A single photon carries no information about the temperature of the matter that .emitted it.”
is always wrong, I just assert that it’s not always true.
I believed I was clear about that, evidently I was not. I hope now I’ve been clear.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, “I(n) fact if you point the sky, your IR thermometer is useful for nothing.”
The cost of my sounding rocket determination of the clear sky effective column temperature of 255K by thermometer above my location was many $1,000s (convert to your local currency) even if I recovered the rocket for reuse.
This huge cost was completely eliminated by using my capital cost $30 Ryobi IR002 with no per use cost added to read out the same 255K by pointing it up at the same column, same time. I’d say that means my IR thermometer is useful for something…something BIG actually.
“I just assert that it’s not always true.”
Asserting doesn’t cut it Massimo, cite or explain an experiment proving where it is not always true, you can’t.
Your statement is always false. An electromagnetic wave is just as much a thing as a photon (the name of the EMW manifesting as a particle): both possess energy and momentum (linear and angular) but not, it seems, mass or any other property to indicate the temperature of the emission source.
Ball4 says:
“Given the near impossibility of measuring no (zero) in the face of inevitable errors and uncertainties, it would be more correct to say that the upper limit of the photon rest mass keeps decreasing, a recent value for the upper limit being about 10^-24 times the rest mass of the electron.”
Photons always travel at the speed of light. They don’t have a rest mass.
Massimo PORZIO says:
“In fact, how could the detector of the IR thermometer (which is made of matter, and for that interacts with light via the photons quantization formalism) measure the temperature of the aimed body if any single photon didnt carried a part of that information?”
Because the thermometer doesn’t measure a single photon, it measures many of them and then uses the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate temperature, while assuming an emissivity of 0.95.
Massimo PORZIO says:
“The answer is:
any single photon has part of it source temperature hidden into its wavelength (its energy)”
No, it does not.
A single photon carries no information about the temperature of its emitter.
Gordon Robertson says:
“A photon is a theorized particle defined as a particle of EM with momentum and no mass.”
Wrong.
Einstein’s theory of the photoelectric effect proved the existence of photons. As has an enormous amount of physics since.
And, yes, photons have no mass. No big deal.
DA 4:35pm: “Photons always travel at the speed of light.”
In a vacuum. In a medium, photons travel at the speed of light in the medium.
DA: “(Photons) don’t have a rest mass.”
Then many physicists have been wasting their time and the taxpayers’ money for quite some time. Also the case, if the photon mass was identically zero.
For experimental limits on the photon rest mass see Jun Luo, Liang-Cheng Tu, Zhong-Kun Hu, and En-Jie Luan, 2003: “New experimental limits on the photon rest mass with a rotating torsion balance.” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 90, pp. 081801 (1-4). The authors cite a string of papers, published during the previous 33 years, reporting ever-decreasing upper limits on the photon rest mass.
There probably is a new lower limit out there somewhere. Go for it.
Hi Ball4,
it seems to me that you (and David) are unable to figure out how an information could be carried as multiple singular bits of it (the wavelengths of the singular photons). that are carried by many different components of the carrier (the whole flux of photons).
you wrote:
“Your statement is always false. An electromagnetic wave is just as much a thing as a photon (the name of the EMW manifesting as a particle): both possess energy and momentum (linear and angular) but not, it seems, mass or any other property to indicate the temperature of the emission source.”
When you have a radiating BB (or gray, it doesn’t matter), it’s not a singular electromagnetic wave but a group of them at different frequencies which build up the Planck’s BB spectrum.
It’s not the EM wave which possesses the whole temperature information (as it’s not the singular photon), but the BB EM spectrum of waves that carries it (the flux of photons).
Anyways the EM waves (or the photons) which build up the flux must embed part of that information, otherwise how could the radiometer compute the temperature?
For the EM waves is the sum of their singular energies correlated to their WL by the Planck’s distribution that builds up the information.
For the photons formalism, it’s the sum of the energies of any single photon that build up the flux that give the temperature information. And since the energy possessed by a photon is a function of its WL, its the photon WL that is a part of the source temperature information.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi David Appel,
you are great!
You wrote:
“Because the thermometer doesnt measure a single photon, it measures many of them and then uses the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate temperature, while assuming an emissivity of 0.95.”
And after replying to my statement:
The answer is: any single photon has part of it source temperature hidden into its wavelength (its energy)
you wrote:
“No, it does not. A single photon carries no information about the temperature of its emitter.”
It seems to me that in this case you are affected by the illness called cognitive dissociation: how could be possible in your world, that an IR thermometer measures many photons and uses the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate temperature, if the photons themselves doesn’t carry the information?
David, the fact (it’s a fact not a theory) is that any photon composing the flux coming from a BB (or gray) carries a part of energy that by the SB law is converted to its source temperature.
The energy in a photon is a function of it’s WL. THe consequence is that any photon coming from a BB source must have in its WL a part of its source temperature.
Get it?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Ball4,
missed to reply to your:
“The cost of my sounding rocket determination of the clear sky effective column temperature of 255K by thermometer above my location was many $1,000s (convert to your local currency) even if I recovered the rocket for reuse.
This huge cost was completely eliminated by using my capital cost $30 Ryobi IR002 with no per use cost added to read out the same 255K by pointing it up at the same column, same time. Id say that means my IR thermometer is useful for somethingsomething BIG actually.”
Please tell me, what the heck is it the “effective column temperature” which your mighty IR thermometer is useful for?
To explain my perplexity I make you an example with two different border atmospheric setups:
a) clear sky – your IR thermometer receive the downwelling energy from the whole atmosphere
b) cloudy sky – your IR thermometer receive the downwelling energy from the clouds at an unknown height ignoring the whole energy above them.
Since between “a” and “b” there are a myriad of other intermediate atmospheric setups, your concept of “effective column temperature” has no meaning for me.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo 6:52am, “Please tell me, what the heck is it the “effective column temperature” which your mighty IR thermometer is useful for?”
As I wrote, my mighty IR thermometer is useful to reduce the cost of sounding rockets to determine the effective temperature of the air column for which my spectrophotometer is measuring the spectrum in its view. This is also useful in the top post chart. The effective temperature is handy to know to plot the ideal Planck curve as background on the actual spectrum.
“…your IR thermometer receive the downwelling energy from the clouds at an unknown height ignoring the whole energy above them.”
My IR thermometer does not ignore the “whole energy above them” and the cloud heights are not unknown as they are routinely measured by weather recording stations. Particularly aviation weather stations.
Massimo 8:08am: “It’s not the EM wave which possesses the whole temperature information (as its not the singular photon), but the BB EM spectrum of waves that carries it (the flux of photons).”
Actually Massimo you never answered my question above when you wrote about a single photon, sun or atm. because you cant. No one can.
You are simply wrong on this. Photons or a google of them carry no source temperature information. Yes, my spectrophotometer can absorb a google of photons looking up at the atm. and plot at each wavelength (or inverse cm^-1) against the radiance (sometimes per steradian). But it CANNOT know or plot the effective temperature on these charts.
If you look at a chart of radiance vs. wavelength, they are easy to google, you can see the output of the spectrophotometers. The only way to plot temperature on there is to also plot the ideal Planck formula to add curves at various temperatures. Take a look, thats very common. The actual curves will be slightly lower than the Planck curve at that temperature due to the realistic emissivity of the actual scene being below 1.0 of the Planck curve.
As a practical example, consider a star or exoplanet measured spectrum. Astronomers cannot know the temperature of the source from that data. They have to determine (estimate) the temperature by other means.
Hi Ball4,
You wrote:
-My IR thermometer does not ignore the whole energy above them-
Really? How does your IR thermometer know how much radiation is above those clouds since it can’t know the their height and thickness?
Again, you:
“and the cloud heights are not unknown as they are routinely measured by weather recording stations. Particularly aviation weather stations.”
What the heck are related the measurements of those clouds which shield your IR thermometer from the rest of the atmospheric column above them, with the simple measurement made by your mighty IR thermometer pointing them from the below?
Are you joking with me?
Your IR thermometer has no way to know the total amount of the energy of the whole column in case of clouds. It can’t do it because of the very same reason a satellite radiometer in the IR band can’t estimate the temperature at ground when that ground is below some clouds.
“As a practical example, consider a star or exoplanet measured spectrum. Astronomers cannot know the temperature of the source from that data. They have to determine (estimate) the temperature by other means.”
So do you discovered just now that temperature is a proxy measurement?
Again, at this point I think that you are joking with me, so I drop the discussion, anyways my point is still the same:
if the IR thermometer can measure (or estimate or whatever you prefer to call it) the temperature of a BB, any single photon must carry a part of that information otherwise the IR thermometer couldn’t get you the temperature measurement.
Sorry I’m too busy to continue this discussion at this level.
Have a great day
Massimo
Massimo 9:20am, Do you understand you changed: “My IR thermometer does not ignore the whole energy above them.” into another proposition:
“How does your IR thermometer know how much radiation is above those clouds since it can’t know the their height and thickness?”
The clouds absorb, scatter SOME radiation from above & SOME reaches my IR thermometer in its sensitivity range along with radiation not absorbed, not scattered from above those clouds. My IR thermometer can not “ignore” the whole spectrum of energy above them or clouds would be black across the visible spectrum but they are visibly white and shades of gray.
A sounding rocket sent up through clouds will encounter typically more convection than clear sky, but analysis shows a computer can return the reasonably close temperature profile as the sounding rocket thermometer. Clouds are not as ornery as you may think unless you want to discuss storms in which case I keep my IR thermometer indoors.
Hi Ball4,
I’m back since now I’m at home and less busy now.
Ok, if you want to joke, you can tell that you can get the whole column down welling radiation when there are no clouds or they are insignificant.
Instead, your IR thermometer doesn’t work in case the clouds block all or partially the above them down welling radiation. What it make it useless in that case, it’s that you don’t know how much it is the clouds IR blocking capability. In this case to get a relevant value from your IR thermometer you should know how much they shaded off the down welling radiation coming from above them, and you need other instruments to do that. But even in that case, you should know before how much of that radiation should be scaled-up by the clouds shading effect and how much not because the first is coming from above and the second is coming from below the clouds.
I would never use an IR thermometer alone to get the temperature of a deep gaseous non homogeneous matter such as the atmosphere.
Have a great weekend.
Massimo
Maybe not by Massimo, but experimentalists obtain the same atm. column effective temperature reading (within confidence intervals) from sounding rocket thermometer, IR thermometer and analytical techniques such as LBLRTM. A lot of the measurement work accomplished by the 1960s, added analysis work was done in the 1990s when it was an active research topic.
Today that work is built upon, manifested by chart in the top post.
Hi Ball4,
Are you sure about what you state?
AFIK LBLRTM stand for Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model, which implies a WL selective capability of your IR thermometer, which it hasn’t.
At this point, maybe we are discussing about different instruments.
In my engineering world an IR thermometer is an instrument with a detecting bandwidth typically ranging from 2/4um to 14um, I don’t know what do you intend for IR thermometer instead.
Here now is 00:45AM time to go asleep.
Have a nice sunday.
Massimo
Massimo, yes the typical cheap IR thermometer has less sensitivity than the ones I switched to thinking about aboard CERES that are used in the top post chart. Still, the cheap ones are remarkably accurate & like CERES, need calibration so may have taken only a small bit of liberty.
Massimo, you have a typo. The energy associated with a photon is “h*c/lambda”.
(I know you knew that.)
Yes, My mistake!
Massimo PORZIO on October 11, 2017 at 4:05 AM
N2/O2 will warm directly through contact the surface
Does anybody doubt here about the existence of conduction followed by convection? That is so thoroughly evident!
Less evident for many people is that N2/O2 are, with the exception of UV catch on top of stratosphere by Ox, 10,000 times more transparent to SW and LW than are H2O and CO2, their respective abundance taken into account (see HITRAN2012 data for a comparison).
The question remains, to which a layman like me can’t give any answer: how would the atmosphere behave if it was made of N2, O2 and Ar only, with no constituents able to absorb any radiation?
binny…”how would the atmosphere behave if it was made of N2, O2 and Ar only, with no constituents able to absorb any radiation?”
It’s pretty obvious to me, there would be little or no difference. The 0.04% of CO2 and the 0.30% of WV (averaged over the entire atmosphere) would contribute barely anything.
I have based that on Dalton’s law and the Ideal Gas Equation. In a mixed gas, each gas contributes to the overall pressure based on its mass. Temperatures rises with pressure from the surface upward and the density of all gases thins.
Since N2/O2 comprises about 99% of the atmospheric mass, both should contribute 99% of the heat.
I think radiation from the surface is a red herring. The atmosphere is heated by conduction through direct contact of atmospheric gases with the surface (including oceans) then convective forces carry the heat to the upper atmosphere where it radiates to space.
Some here seem to think N2/O2 cannot absorb/emit energy. That’s nonsense. If the temperature difference is enough between the gas molecule and it’s surroundings, the gas will emit at it’s natural frequency.
“Since N2/O2 comprises about 99% of the atmospheric mass, both should contribute 99% of the heat.”
Ahhh….but that goes against Gordon writing IR is not heat.
ball4…”Since N2/O2 comprises about 99% of the atmospheric mass, both should contribute 99% of the heat.
Ahhh.but that goes against Gordon writing IR is not heat”.
*************
Ahhhh…bally’s mind is stuck in radiation mode. How about via collisions or convection?
If N2/O2 pick up heat at the surface, and rise, as heated air does, they will collide with other N2/O2 and transfer heat by conduction.
Heat is not IR per Gordon, heat is also not collisions or convection Gordon. Air constituent particles can collide, a google of them can convect.
The avg. KE of those particles is heat and that’s about it. Truth is, Gordon has yet to master even the introductory course in meteorology, crack open Bohren 1998 and make a good start Gordon.
Gordon Robertson says:
ball4Since N2/O2 comprises about 99% of the atmospheric mass, both should contribute 99% of the heat.
“If N2/O2 pick up heat at the surface”
What do you mean by “heat” here?
How do N2 or O2 “pick up” this heat?
You need to start describing the details of the physics, which you’re totally avoiding.
Bin asks: “The question remains, to which a layman like me can’t give any answer: how would the atmosphere behave if it was made of N2, O2 and Ar only, with no constituents able to absorb any radiation?”
Bin, without radiative gases, the atmosphere would cool much slower.
Massimo PORZIO says:
“Since the photon carried energy is always E = h/lambda, where h is Plancks constant and lambda is the carried EM energy wavelength, I really wonder why do you continue to reiterate this question which has a clear and obvious answer: its wavelength!”
How does a photon’s wavelength depend on the temperature of its emitter?
Massimo PORZIO says:
“But why is the Earths surface getting warmer?
Because the Earth is rotating.”
So the Earth is spinning faster during each of the last 5 decades?
Prove it.
Hi David,
since I don’t believe you are an idiot, I suggest you to read all what I wrote about the two issue above.
I never meant that:
“…a photons wavelength depend(s) on the temperature of its emitter…”
and
“…the Earth is spinning faster during each of the last 5 decades…”
Read and say your point of view (if you have one), otherwise it’s better you say nothing because anybody honest here who followed the discussion knows that those above are silliness.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi David,
I’m sorry but as I wrote above by copy & paste it seems that I never wrote “a photons wavelength depend(s) on the temperature of its emitter”, which untrue of course because is what I’m arguing indeed.
I just would write that I never wrote that “a photon wavelength represents by itself the temperature of its emitter”
I apologize for that.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Sorry, Massimo, for misinterpreting and my confusion.
Hi David,
maybe it was my bad English indeed.
My starting argumentation about your statement where you implied that a photon hadn’t any information about the source temperature was just a phylosophical issue. I’m absolutely aware that we are unable to extract the temperature of the source from one single photon.
Have a great day.
Massimo
DA…”What information does an IR photon carry about the temperature of its emitting body?”
It’s frequency and intensity. Hotter bodies emit higher frequency IR and intensity.
E = hf
“Where does the purported rejected energy go? How?”
Photons can simply disappear during certain interactions with electrons. Look it up yourself.
Or, the IR could simply pass on through, or be reflected.
Do you remember the first law?
“Photons can simply disappear during certain interactions with electrons. Look it up yourself.”
Nonsense
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed only altered in form.
Gordon Robertson says:
“DAWhat information does an IR photon carry about the temperature of its emitting body?
Its frequency and intensity.”
A blackbody emits radiation at all frequencies.
How does the Sun, absorbing a photon from the Earth, know the intensity, which is a function of all the other photons at that frequency?
How does it know the intensity of all the other photons emitted by the Earth?
How does the Sun determine the “temperature” of the incoming photon from its frequency?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Photons can simply disappear during certain interactions with electrons. Look it up yourself.”
What does that mean, disappear?????
“Or, the IR could simply pass on through, or be reflected.”
Pass through? How?
Reflected? When?
Start answering questions, Gordon.
I’m sure the GRs and g e r a ns here are just messing around. But that is very unfair on those looking to this blog for scientific facts. Some of the last statements are just so flat earth they could have been written by the cleaner at unseen university.
To contract this and to carry forward the microbolometer theme I will copy some info to a following post. No one has of course yet explained how radiation from -40c can cause a pixel to be warmer than one with -50c focussed when the pixel is already at 25C.
Ghal, in whatever information you want to contribute about bolometers and lasers, you might want to also include a disclaimer that there is NO relevance to the atmosphere.
Since, you don’t want to be “very unfair on those looking to this blog for scientific facts”.
Could you please stop discrediting opinions without presenting anything really able to falsify them?
You pretend to have higher physics knowledge: thus you might well come around with some consistent proof of what you claim or, if like me layman you can’t, ar least with a link to such a proof.
Bin, when I offer a simple example, that clearly demonstrates an “opinion” is invalid, you should see the effort to discredit the simple example.
I suggested trying to warm an apple by setting a mug of cold been next to it. You should have seen the reconstructions, rearrangements, and even bringing in liquid nitrogen! All an effort to defend pseudoscience.
It’s hilarious, don’t you think?
g*e*r*a*n
You misrepresent what you call a reconstruction. You made an absolute statement that a cold much of beer could NOT warm and apple.
I gave you an example of where it could. The apple must be heated. You never stipulated that this could not be done.
In the first case of a heated apple you put it next to a mug of liquid nitrogen. It reaches a certain temperature under these conditions. Now you replace the mug of liquid nitrogen with a mug of cold beer and the heated apple will warm to a higher temperature then when it was next to the mug of liquid nitrogen.
So explain in detail why you consider this to be pseudoscience?
(NOTE: the above question only has 11 words, you should be able to handle it)
Bindidon has you pegged.
HE STATES: “You pretend to have higher physics knowledge:”
He correctly can see through you sad attempts at trying to convince someone on this blog that you have any real physics knowledge. You have nothing but bluster and BS. And of course misrepresentation.
(See what I mean, Bin?)
g*e*r*a*n
YOUR ORIGINAL CHALLENGE:
“All you climate clowns have to show is how a mug of cold beer can warm an apple next to it.
Good luck.”
There is even an easier way than the one I described (which is too advanced for you to comprehend. When I put in liquid nitrogen as a cold sink you were completely confused and could not process the comment).
You stipulate nothing about the apple. I can put an apple in a freezer and get its temperature well below freezing and then set it next to a cold beer and the cold beer mug will warm the frozen apple.
That one should be simple enough for your limited brain to process. You can Thank Me for aiding your request.
Con-man, nice reconstruction. Throw in a little more liquid nitrogen, and blow torch the apple, and you may have Davie and B4 sending you roses.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I know you are not very intlligent. I think you are trying to be funny and original with your last post. It really does not say much.
Since you are a troll I wish you had more creativity. If one chooses to waste their time annoying other people for amusement, it would be nice if they had a little bit of creative ability.
You still demonstrate a complete lack of physics, as usual, your pretending to know the subject is running low. Your tank is empty.
Here is a thought for you. You would certainly agree that if you wrap thick insulation around a heated object it will warm up, correct? Why do you think radiant energy works so much differently?
If you restrict the outflow of energy by any method but maintain a constant energy input why do you agree that an object that has insulation around it will warm up but one with a radiant barrier will not? I know you can’t answer this and I am not expecting you to do so. It is maybe for someone else to answer that actually knows a little physics.
You need a new nick name…Pretender.
Con-man, your writing skills are as lacking as is your knowledge of science.
“If you restrict the outflow of energy by any method but maintain a constant energy input why do you agree that an object that has insulation around it will warm up but one with a radiant barrier will not?”
What an hilarious waste of electrons.
Let me try one:
What if the atmospheric CO2 level increased to the level, in which the saturation of the evaporative rate eclipsed the upper level of the modular elimination, transcending the molecular diversity of the water vapor content, before the increased solar radiation melted the ensuing lapse rate, do you agree that the previous upper level is not compromised by the upwelling transmutation of the subsequent depression of the outgoing perturbation incumbent to the virulent resistive substantive rejection?
Your answer, please.
+1
But hey man. .. Instead of mocking them shouldt we rather seek to enlighten them ? Or do you thinkthats hopeless?
norman…”You made an absolute statement that a cold much of beer could NOT warm and apple.
I gave you an example of where it could. The apple must be heated. You never stipulated that this could not be done”.
***********
What you did was plug a vent hole with a mug of beer. How ingenuous was that?
There is no way a cold mug of beer cold warm an apple that is warmer than the mug of beer. Why are you having so much trouble understanding that???
And why are you lecturing me on not understanding physics when you make claims like that?
This is not just about science and proofs, it comes down to common sense. If you asked every person on this planet if they’d warm their homes using ice, 99.999999% would say no. They know ice cannot transfer heat to warm a home under normal circumstances.
Why don’t you???
The only way ice could warm a home is if the home was pre-cooled to a temperature lower than the ice. Even at that, there would have to be a lot of ice and when the ice and the home reached the same temperature, the house would stop warming unless something warmer was used to heat it.
We’re expecting our first snowfall here this week … Maybe i should collect a few bucketfulls and bring them inside so i dont have to burn as much gas to warm my house 😜
“There is no way a cold mug of beer co(u)ld warm an apple that is warmer than the mug of beer.”
Obviously, Gordon has not been following the fork(s) discussing how a cold mug of beer could warm an apple that is warmer than the mug of beer without harming 2LOT.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267171
For Gordon, picture the blue plate as a warm blue apple (244K). Picture the green plate as a really cold mug of green beer (230K). Set the really cold mug of green beer in the shade of the blue apple.
Voila, blue apple at equilibrium becomes 262K, increases the avg. KE of its constituent particles 18K.
For Gordon, I’ll rename this The Cold Mug of Green Beer Effect.
Introduction of the cold mug of green beer raised the equilibrium temperature of the warmer blue apple by 18 K.
Credit to the original author with a hat tip to anger. No 2LOTs were harmed in the making of this example.
The con-man vomits: “I know you are not very intlligent [sic].”
Even with the help of auto-spell, poor Norm can not spell correctly.
If you think that is funny, you should see his “science”.
That’s HILARIOUS!
I see b4 can ramble almost as well as the con-man.
Birds of a feather, I guess.
But neither can warm an apple with a mug of cold beer.
That’s HILARIOUS!
anger 11:04am: “I suggested trying to warm an apple by setting a mug of cold been next to it.”
If you think that is funny, you should see anger’s “science”.
That’s even more HILARIOUS!
B4 climbs the tower, and reaching the top, realizes the tower is not ivory. But, clueless as he is, he assumes it is soap.
Descending to the bottom, he attempts to claim adoration for climbing the “soap tower”, only to be told it is not a “soap tower”, it is a “salt pit”. His “up” was “down”. But he ignores reality.
B4 dances in victory of his accomplishment, as the crowds walk away amazed at his self-delusionment.
Gordon Robertson
You are not making any sense.
You are not understanding the point I am making and going off on some tangent never stated by me.
Do you read what I posted? I do not think so.
You make a claim that I claimed: “There is no way a cold mug of beer cold warm an apple that is warmer than the mug of beer. Why are you having so much trouble understanding that???”
You miss the point completely. It is a heated apple in two different situations. One is next to a mug of liquid nitrogen. The heated apple gets to a certain temperature. Remove the mug liquid nitrogen and put a mug of cold beer next to the apple and the apple will warm up to a new temperature. Nothing hard to understand, basic physics.
You can use ice to make your home warmer as well. The ice is not warming your home but it can prevent even colder air from removing energy faster (say compared to Arctic air like in an igloo) so the ice will allow the room to reach a higher temperature than if the surroundings were cooler than ice.
g*e*r*a*n
Sorry I did not realize you were so slow and dense. I guess I need post really simple messages so you do not get confused.
I will try to make it really simple for you.
1) There is a heated object. (Is that a simple enough statement for your brain to process or is the word “object” too hard for you to figure out what that might mean?)
2) The heated object reaches some temperature and stays at that temperature (I am sure equilibrium is too much of a word for you to process).
3) Insulation is wrapped around the object to slow the loss of heat to the surroundings.
4) Will you agree the temperature of the heated object, with insulation wrapped around it, will be greater than the same object with no insulation?
5) Can you process the question in 4)?
6) Can you answer the question in 4)?
The con-man rambles in circles. He’s trying to convince himself that he warm an apple by placing a mug of cold beer next to it.
It’s hilarious to watch. It’s almost like someone predicted it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267935
g*e*r*a*n
So are you saying, with your diversion that means nothing, that you are unable to answer or process question 4?
What circles am I rambling in with my post?
You are a pretender for sure, you can’t even answer a very simple question on heat transfer. Basically because if you do answer you expose your ignorance of physics.
Most regulars know that you are devoid on knowledge of physics. It would seem you do not want new people visiting this blog to see you are just a pretender so you like to divert.
Like I said before, you are not very creative in your attacks against me. You do not answer a simple question and use the word rambling again.
Con-man, after you finish washing the dishes, see if you can come up with 50 ways to make pigs fly.
Here, I’ll give you some motivation: “Pigs can NOT fly!”
Go for it.
g*e*r*a*n
Wow! You are in super diversion mode. You just will not answer a simple question.
I will post it again for you.
Here is the question:
4) Will you agree the temperature of the heated object, with insulation wrapped around it, will be greater than the same object with no insulation?
I wonder why you would think “Pigs Flying” has any valid point to this question.
Is it impossible for you to answer this question? Why the diversion?
Poor Norm, he can only con himself. He doesn’t realize that his attempt to divert failed. He got caught. He can’t correctly answer the apple/beer mug situation because it debunks the pseudoscience that “cold” can radiatively warm “hot”.
A con-man that can only con his self.
Hilarious!
anger: “Pigs can NOT fly!”
Put enough radio controllable power on one and that pig will fly just fine. HILARIOUS! More hilarious pseudoscience from anger, please.
Internet sez: Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact. This could mean they were disproved scientifically, can’t be tested or lack evidence to support them.
Obviously the con-man had too many dishes to wash today. Either that, or he can’t come up with any more pseudoscience. Coming up with comedy routines can be exhausting.
But fortunately, B4, aka “trick”, aka “Cabbage Head”, has joined the fun. Cabbage Head, like Norm, is a master of pseudoscience. He has claimed that cabbages emit visible light. He has claimed a cabbage can light up a dark room. You can’t get anymore pseudosciency than that!
Hilarious.
Ghal…”Some of the last statements are just so flat earth they could have been written by the cleaner at unseen university”.
The flat earth stuff is your domain. I have it in writing, a well established fact, the heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder object to a warmer object.
If you want to confuse yourself by thinking heat can be transferred from a cooler object to a bolometer, with it’s detector at a warmer temperature, there’s no way to reason with you.
I have in-depth experience in electronics, computers, and the electrical field. I have seen processes emulated.
IR represents a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation. There are other ways to detect frequency without measuring a temperature change. An infrared detector could use a narrow filter to eliminate all frequencies but those in the IR range. Then it could use a circuit to narrow down the frequency measured using filters. You could narrow the IR bandwidth as much as you like.
Once that’s established, it has a number to work with. It can use that number to look up a table in its memory that has been calibrated to show a corresponding temperature for that IR.
It is not measuring heat per se, It is detecting IR as EM just as the antenna in a transistor radio detects EM. We already know what temperature of a material would be expected to emit IR in a certain frequency range. Those temperatures can be stored in a table in the device and correlated with the IR frequency measured.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have it in writing, a well established fact, the heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder object to a warmer object.”
Established by whom? When? Where?
Yet again you fail to understand the Second Law.
Clausius’ statement of the second law of thermodynamics (1854):
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius#Work
NOTE: WITHOUT SOME OTHER CHANGE
Davie, the “change” means adding more energy or work to the system.
“Yet again you fail to understand the Second Law.”
CO2 adds no energy, or work, to the system.
Davie’s pseudoscience FAILS again.
(And again, and again, and again.)
The other change being that the Sun is available and doing thermodynamic work on the system.
Thanks Bob.
Exactly Bob, as in “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
So G*E*R*A*N,
You still think cold cannot warm hot?
Go back to school and get a refund or enroll in a physical chemistry class.
Bob, I have no idea where your confusion lies. I am forced to assume you may be referring to chemical reactions that release heat (exothermic).
In your mind, you may believe that is an example of “cold” warming “hot”.
It just indicates you do not understand thermodynamics.
Conversion of chemical energy to heat energy does NOT violate the laws of thermo.
G*E*R*A*N
Let me relate an actual real experience with actual heat sources and measuring equipment in my professional life.
I work with gas chromatography instruments and was tasked with verifying that a certain temperature in the instrument could be reached to verify that the equipment functions.
An internal thermocouple controls a heating element designed to heat a metal block to 250 C.
I had to use a hand held meter with a thermocouple to verify the temperature of the heating block.
I removed parts to access the heating block, parts which included the insulation, measured the temperature and it was not warm enough to reach the spec of 250 C, but when I replaced the insulation the temperature miraculously increase to within spec.
I measured an increase in temperature by placing a colder object, which I was holding in my hand, nearer to a warmer object.
I heated something by putting a colder object next to it.
And got paid for it, including dinner.
Now does that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
+1 Bob
“I have it in writing, a well established fact, the heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder object to a warmer object. ”
This is true if and only if we are talking about a closed system.
Double secret hint
We are not.
Bob, apparently you do not understand thermodynamics.
I have a piece of paper that says that the UIUC considers that I have demonstrated sufficient understanding of the subject of thermodynamics.
I’ll take their opinion over yours.
So Sorry
Not accepting text or URLs!!!!!
Maybe your comments contain for example things like absorp-tion, or some words or links might contain the character sequence ‘d’ ‘c’.
Ww all use to separate them with a hyphen or a dot, what disturbs when you want to provide a link, as it becomes invalid.
Yesterday I had an idea: to use the paragraph character instead, as it is not displayed by the site’s software in comments. Unfortunately it doesn’t work, the character is eliminated at input before filtering comes into action.
binny…”Yesterday I had an idea: to use the paragraph character instead, as it is not displayed by the sites software in comments”.
Have you tried converting the paragraph character to it’s unicode equivalent?
If you enter the smiley in typical fashion, you get this: 🙂
If you enter it as (remove the dots between characters):
&.#.9.7.8.6; ☺ you get a smiley.
note: just remove the dots, leave the ‘and’ and poundal signs at the beginning and the semicolon at the end.
So you have [and character][poundal character]9786[semi-colon]
Find that combo (without dots) in a Unicode 1.1 table and see if you can find the equivalent for your paragraph sign.
Does this work??? §
If so, it’s &.#.1.6.7.; with dots removed.
Gordon, if you teach them anymore, they will just call you a “liar”.
It’s best to keep facts away from folks obsessed with their beliefs.
g*e*r*a*n
I also predicted you would like Gordon’s made up physics. Since you know nothing about physics anybody that tells you anything you want to believe you accept it. You stay away from established science and textbooks.
Con-man, some folks may think you are repetitive, boring, and unoriginal.
But, I think you are hilarious.
More please.
Robertson, I was sure you wouldn’t understand.
My goal evidently was to avoid filtering but without having the character visible.
But you are so proud to tell the whole world about the little you know that you don’t even notice that this little is totally beside the problem.
That is the reason why most of your comments are so boring, smugly, tedious, and – above all – redundant.
I had an issue a few days where absolutely nothing I posted was making it through. I took my laptop to work and posted from there. When I brought it back home it was working fine.
Welcome to the suckiness of WordPress — worst software ever unleashed onto the Internet.
Warming due to water vapor increase is countering the average global temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring.
Atmospheric water vapor is increasing twice as fast as it would as calculated from increase in vapor pressure of the liquid water due to temperature increase of the (ground level) liquid water.
Kristian still thinks that when input = output, there can be no “delay”. This drives me crazy.
– One runner per second starts the 100 yard sprint across a football field.
– It takes each runner 10 seconds
– 10 runners will soon accumulate on the field
– 1 runner will be exiting the field each second, so input will equal output.
Question: what happens when we introduce a delay? Let’s say it takes each runner 40 seconds to run the 100 yards. How many runners will accumulate? What happens to input/output?
snake, you are definitely an up-and-coming climate clown.
How about, runner how wanting to race, show up to race 1 runner per second.
When 100 runner show up, runners start running across the field in two at a time, each pair starting when the pair before them reach the finish line and it takes about 2 seconds
to run the race.
gbaikie
How about answering my question before proposing something new?
How about answering my question
40?
nothing?
“Kristian still thinks that when input = output, there can be no delay. This drives me crazy.”
The ocean stores the sun’s energy for thousands of year. You could call this “delay”.
If the sun disappears, the earth will continue to radiate heat
[which was created by sunlight and as the earth radiates this heat will get colder] one could say this is delay.
The sunlight heats a sidewalk, the sidewalk is cooled by convection heat loss to the atmosphere [the atmosphere gains heat- that warmed atmosphere requires time to lose the heat to rest of universe- it’s delayed.
But you are concerned about photons being delayed.
And I think that Kristian doesn’t think delaying photons causes Earth to be warmed by 33 K or by 1 K.
gbaikie
Yes, my runners question was just to show how slowing/delay can lead to accumulation, and I agree there are many examples of how energy leaving Earth’s surface is delayed from moving to space.
gbaikie
Maybe the word “overlap” is better than accumulate. Definitely better than trapped. Runners entering the field overlap with runners who have not yet left. Energy entering earth’s atmosphere overlaps with energy that has not yet left.
Speaking of delay, how delay is involved with a ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
The ideal thermally conductive blackbody which at Earth’s distance from the Sun is 5.3 C.
The answer is none- that’s why it’s magical.
— Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 12, 2017 at 7:36 AM
gbaikie
Maybe the word overlap is better than accumulate.–
Well the runners are running laps, though I one could also return to the word blanket. And blankets also overlap.
The sky of 10 tons per square meter overlaps the spaceship Earth as it plows the straightest course within the curved spacetime of Sol.
gbaikie
I’m not sure you get what I mean. When runners enter the field and join other runners who have NOT YET LEFT the field, this amounts to an overlap. None of the runners are trapped.
-Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 12, 2017 at 1:39 PM
gbaikie
Im not sure you get what I mean. When runners enter the field and join other runners who have NOT YET LEFT the field, this amounts to an overlap. None of the runners are trapped.–
Yeah, but they are delayed.
As the energy from sunlight is delayed in the ocean before eventually it is emitted into the vast universe.
One could also say the spaceship Earth is delayed by some small amount when it crashes into billions and billions of photons and protons from the sun.
Trapped is merely an expressive term for delayed for a long time. Trapped might also suggest one probably will die, when the trapper eventually shows up [unless you first starve or freeze to death].
gbaikie
Yes, I agree with you.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 11, 2017 at 5:08 PM:
I don’t THINK it. I’m TELLING you. It drives you crazy, because 1) you don’t understand what I’m saying, 2) you don’t understand how the climate system works, and 3) you don’t understand how an object warms, thermodynamically.
THAT is your problem, Snape. The problem is NOT that you have this revolutionary idea which no one understands.
Nothing. The exact same number of runners will accumulate. As long as the INPUT of runners to the field per unit time stays the same, the total amount of runners that can accumulate in the field is strictly constrained. I’ve explained this to you a hundred times, it feels. But you’re simply not interested in listening.
BTW, there’s no delay when input does NOT equal output either. Then we have an IMBALANCE.
Kristian
The input to the field is constant: one runner per second. Do the math, my friend.
BTW
When input is greater than output we have an imbalance…….created by delay. (Assuming input is constant)
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 11, 2017 at 11:14 PM:
Yes, and the OUTPUT is only determined by the amount of runners ON the field at any point. This is what you don’t get, my friend.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 11, 2017 at 11:31 PM:
No, Snape. No, no, no!
The imbalance is there as a result of LESS output, and the output is smaller simply because the atmosphere (or any warming object/region) is still too cold for the input. This has got nohing to do with the energy taking LONGER to get out. There is simply too LITTLE energy stored up to create a sufficiently high temperature.
How hard is this concept to wrap one’s head around!?
Kristian
How many runners will accumulate on the field if it takes them 40 seconds to run the 100 yards instead of 10 seconds? It’s not that hard.
Kristian says: “There is simply too LITTLE energy stored up to create a sufficiently high temperature.”
The field represents the atmosphere. The end zone where the runners start represents the earth’s surface. The opposite end represents space.
The runners represent energy emitted from the surface.
When the overall current of runners moving across the field slows down, but input remains constant, more runners will end up on the field. This is analogous to more energy “stored” in the atmosphere. Enough energy stored will create a “sufficiently high temperature” for output to again equal input.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 12, 2017 at 5:44 AM:
Hahaha! You’re a lost case, Snape. You evidently STILL think it matters how long it takes each individual runner to cross the field. That the output depends on the time it takes each separate packet of energy entering the system to move back out of it.
This is the FIRST thing I pointed out to you. I can’t believe you’re still stuck on that silly idea!
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 12, 2017 at 6:27 AM:
Yes, I’ve known this all along. It’s not that I don’t understand your analogy, Snape. I’m just telling you it’s WRONG.
This is your mental blind spot, Snape.
No, more runners will NOT end up on the field. Because the output does NOT depend on how long each individual runner spends crossing the field. It ONLY depends on how MANY runners are ON the field at any time, no matter how “fast” or “slow”, or in what “direction”, they move.
No. How much energy accumulates in the atmosphere depends on the difference between the input and the output, that is, the magnitude of the imbalance between them. If the input is constant, then the mean temperature of the atmosphere determines the output. If the temp’s too low (too little energy stored inside of it), then the output will be too small, and the imbalance is positive – more energy will accumulate, increasing the atmospheric temperature, and thus its output, gradually closing the gap between it and the input.
I’ll give this thing one last go.
Rather than a “traffic jam” or a bunch of “runners across a field”, look at it like this:
You’ve got an immense car park. There are two separate gates, one for entering and one for exiting the car park. Quite a standard setup, really. The ways in which these two gates are operated, however, are rather unique, and each distinctly dissimilar from the other.
Gate 1 (car park entry)
The rate at which the gatekeeper at this end lets cars IN is strictly a function of two variables: a) the absolute number of cars pulling up to the gate each second, and b) the fraction of this number being rejected by the gatekeeper. (That’s a) TSI/4, and b) albedo; => Q_in.)
Gate 2 (car park exit)
The rate at which the gatekeeper at this end lets cars OUT is strictly a function simply of the total number of cars in the car park. (That’s T_av; => Q_out.)
You see here how fundamentally different are the terms of entry and the terms of exit.
Between the two gates, inside the car park, the cars are just … there, filling up the car park. (That’s U.)
As one should easily gather from the above, if the car park started out empty, and the release of cars from the car park, out through the exit gate, is but a function of the number of cars in the car park at any time (the more cars in the car park, the more cars are let out through the exit gate, via an exponential relationship), then the number of cars exiting the car park per unit time would start out rather low, in fact, at exactly zero.
The number of cars let in to the car park, through the entry gate, however, is completely unrelated to the number of cars already in the car park, and so this could very well be large even from the get-go.
Ok. So, if you have a large number of cars entering at one end and hardly any cars exiting at the other, what do you have? A positive IMBALANCE between IN and OUT. And what will such a positive imbalance lead to? It will lead to an accumulation of cars. The car park will start filling up.
And AS the car park starts filling up, the number of cars being released from the car park per unit time, out through the exit gate, naturally starts growing.
What is worth noting here is that as, say, a thousand cars are let into the car park through the entry gate each second, and only, say, two cars are let out of the car park during the same short interval, right at the beginning of the process, this exchange still occurs at the exact same time. There is no “delay” between the entering of cars and the exiting of cars. We don’t have to wait until each individual entering car have eventually found its way back out through the exit gate. And so it makes no difference whether each individual car takes ten minutes or just one minute to move from the entry to the exit gate. Because the number of cars being released from the car park at any one instant is NOT a function of how LONG each individual car stays in the car park. It is ONLY a function of the total NUMBER of cars in the car park at that instant.
I’ll repeat those two final sentences for you: Because the number of cars being released from the car park at any one instant is NOT a function of how LONG each individual car stays in the car park. It is ONLY a function of the total NUMBER of cars in the car park at that instant.
THIS is how the Earth system works, Snape.
Kristian
How many runners will accumulate on the field if it takes them 40 seconds to run the 100 yards instead of 10 seconds?
It’s a simple question and has a specific answer. Gbaikie can help with the math if you can’t figure it out.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 12, 2017 at 10:50 AM:
Now you’re just being an obstinate child, Snape. Or are you simply this thick?
Why do you keep asking me this question when I’ve told (and explained) you a dozen times over that the situation you’re describing is not at all equivalent to what’s happening in the Earth system?
Did you even bother to read my previous comment before ‘responding’?
Enough.
Kristian
Who’s the one being obstinate? My question is simple and has a specific answer. I think the general idea relates to the climate science, you don’t. I get that. But by first answering incorrectly, and then refusing to answer at all, you’re not debating in good faith. I’m out.
Kristian
How many runners will accumulate on the field if it takes them 40 seconds to run the 100 yards instead of 10 seconds? Its not that hard.
But why is atmospheric water vapor increasing???
Dave, your ruse is up. You just can’t keep asking questions pretending you know something.
It’s obvious you have no clue.
Dan Pangburn says:
“Warming due to water vapor increase is countering the average global temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring.”
Average atmospheric water vapor doesn’t increase unless the atmosphere’s temperature first increases.
That first increase is being caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases.
No response.
Typical of DP.
DA…”Why does Gordon need to deny basic science and make up his own physics? His ego? His pride? An inability to learn and understand? Embarrassment and shame at being unable understand physics, so needing to deny all of it?”
First, you need to define what science you are talking about. You seem to have absorbed one facet of science and you are trying to impose it on others. eg. GHE and AGW.
I have no problem with Newtonian science in general. Newton was my kind of scientist, someone who observed and reached good conclusions that have stood the test of time. I have serious problems with your kind of science in which allegations are made and everyone is expected to agree, and with no proof offered, only conjecture.
There have been many, many scientists along the likes of Newton till the turn of the 20th century when sci-fi based quantum theory took hold. By 1930, Schrodinger and Einsten both divorced themselves from what was to follow in QM.
Today, we have scientists making seriously unfounded allegations and no one is questioning them. This nonsense of a trace gas, accounting for 0.04% of the atmosphere, creating catastrophic warming and climate change is one of those stupid allegations.
That’s all I’m fighting here, not science in general. I am also trying to support what Roy and John at UAH have found through 38 years of data, little or no warming.
It so happens I have expertise in certain areas of atomic theory. Furthermore, based on my training and experience in electronics, I am able to see aspects of atomic theory that have been passed off as a given, such as heat being transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
Not one alarmist in this blog has provided even a reasonable argument to account for such heat transfer and it’s because you fail to understand heat at the atomic level. You are all hung up on the sci-fi you have been spoon fed by scientists who don’t understand either.
An appeal to authority is the MO of alarmists. None of you have the guts to examine science for yourselves yet you regard me as an idiot for trying.
Gordon
I can’t keep your argument straight. You think object A (80 C) will “reject” the wavelength of IR emitted from object B (79 C)? How is object A sensitive to such a small difference in wavelengths?
If object B were 79.999999 C. , you think object A would still reject all it’s IR? Too long of a wavelength, right? Needs to be a tiny bit shorter?
Gordon doesn’t answer questions that reveal how wrong his claims are.
We would all like to cling to a objective and deterministic view of the universe but it is time to stop clinging to the past and embrace modern science.
Yes Virginia, Einstein was wrong about God.
You can find him at the Casino.
(couldn’t not chuckle at this)
Gordon Robertson says:
“This nonsense of a trace gas, accounting for 0.04% of the atmosphere, creating catastrophic warming and climate change is one of those stupid allegations.”
Why?
You keep saying this, but have never ever once even tried to prove it.
So prove it or shut up finally.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I am also trying to support what Roy and John at UAH have found through 38 years of data, little or no warming.”
Another lie.
Try 0.5 C of warming.
And understand that “Roy and John” firmly accept AGW — their disagreement is about its climate sensitivity.
Gordon Robertson says:
“It so happens I have expertise in certain areas of atomic theory. Furthermore, based on my training and experience in electronics,”
What expertise?
Gordon, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but to the many people here who obviously do understand physics, claiming you have knowledge in electronics is not impressive in the least. It’s just engineering.
Davie doesn’t appreciate engineering. He’d rather fly on a plane designed by a botanist.
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-48/issue-04/features/microbolometer-arrays-enable-uncooled-infrared-camera.html
Article states microbolometer is not wavelength sensitive
Ghal…”Article states microbolometer is not wavelength sensitive….”
There is a serious misconception that microbolometers operate by changing the temperature of a detector. They, in fact, change the resistance of a detector to control a current through the detector.
That’s what an optical detector does, The EM affects a current change through the detector.
Heating and temperature have nothing to do with the detection unless the device heats up and changes the parameters of the current generated by the light.
Please read referenced article and then point out where it says microbolometer-arrays-enable-uncooled-uncooled-infr use wavelength to determine temperature
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
Everything is made of electrons, protons and neutrons.
Utterly wrong. Quit lying about this basic stuff”.
OK Mr. Rocket scientist, show me anything significant that is not.
If you can’t, shut your gob.
The jet stream will accelerate in the northern Pacific and will bring lows on the north west coast of North America.
https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
I invite.
I did in my comment, GR.
ordinary matter (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc): about 4% of the universe
dark matter: about 23% of the universe
dark energy: about 73% of the universe
You really don’t even try to understand, do you?
Davie, zealotry is clinging to your false religion no matter how ridiculous it makes you look.
You get high makes in zealotry.
Phil…”Well in CO2 a vibrating bond can be excited to a higher energy level by a photon of the right energy irrespective of the temperature of the source. It has nothing to do with electrons”.
Phil, you must have studied at the same Home Economics school as Appell.
You mentioned a vibrating bond. What exactly do you think a bond is??? Do you think atoms are stuck together with toothpicks and crazy glue?
A bond is an electron, or the charge produced by an electron. In a CO2 molecule the bonds are covalent bonds involving 4 shared electrons between the carbon atom and two oxygen atoms.
The molecule is stuck together by forces from electrons which move between atoms. When a photon of IR is absorbed, it is absorbed by electrons THAT MAKE UP THE BOND.
The nucleii of the C and O atoms repel each other when they are close enough together. The electrons have an equal and opposite charge to the +ve protons and they are attracted to the protons, however, their momentum keeps them from spiraling in to the nucleus.
So, a covalent bond involves electrons shared between the C and O atoms, and it is the sharing holds them together.
Any vibrations in molecules are due to the electron’s -ve charge and the proton’s +ve charge pulling against each other in adjacent atoms and oscillating. In some cases, such as the linear CO2 molecule the O atoms is more electronegative than the C atom. That sets up a dipole action where the C atom is regarded as a positive charge since it is less negative than the O atom.
The O atom also has two extra electrons each in its valence band. If one of those absorbs a photon and jumps to a higher energy level it creates an even stronger dipole. Also, the molecule warms.
You keep telling yourself you understand science.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The molecule is stuck together by forces from electrons which move between atoms. When a photon of IR is absorbed, it is absorbed by electrons THAT MAKE UP THE BOND.”
Wrong.
The absorbed IR changes the a rotational or vibrational quantum state of the molecule. These do not involve jumps in electrons among cells.
So many silly thought experiments, so little science, the Greenhouse Effect being the ultimate “thought experiment”.
Gavin Schmidt had this to say about the GHE:
“The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being ….(blah, blah, blah) … around 33C. This is more of a “thought experiment” than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline”
The GHE. The ultimate unprovable hypothesis.
SkepticsGoneWild
Gordon believes an object at 79.99999 C. will emit IR at a wavelength completely unacceptable to an object at 80 C.
You think this is science?
It’s not science unless it follows the scientific method. Thought experiments are not science.
SkepticsGoneWild
My “runners” comment is not a thought experiment. It’s a story problem, like you would find in a junior high math class.
Gordon’s position on IR is not science. It’s just some crap he’s made up.
SkW: You failed to understand what Gavin meant.
He meant that if you subtract all GHGs but water vapor from the atmosphere, you’ll get an average surface temperature more than 33 K less than today’s.
That’s because of feedbacks. So just taking CO2, CH4, etc out of the calculation does not lead to the same result as the elementary derivation of the GHE (33 K), because the albedo isn’t constant (as the 33 K calculation assumes).
In other words, it’s more complicated. And I know “skeptics” (deniers) don’t do well with complications.
Here’s what Raymond Pierrehumbert wrote in his textbook:
“One sometimes hears it remarked cavalierly that water vapor is the ‘most important’ greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The misleading nature of such statements can be inferred directly from Fig 4.31…. If water vapor were the only greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature would be a chilly 268 K, and that’s even before taking ice-albedo feedback into account, which would most likely cause the Earth to fall into a frigid Snowball state…. With regard to Earth’s habitability, it takes two [water vapor and CO2] to tango.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, “Principles of Planetary Climate,” (2011) p. 271
Davie, you forgot to mention that Ray also teaches that the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K!
(Don’t leave out the funny parts.)
Calculation of Pierrehumberts 800,000 K:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2017-0-21-deg-c/#comment-253922
Davie, you persist in your pseudoscience, but no one else does, very long.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2017-0-21-deg-c/#comment-254544
I have addressed your lie many times.
You are nothing but a destructive element here who has no problem lying time and time again. You’re not here to discuss science, but only to troll and insult people.
You do not deserve replies. Piss off.
Davie can’t make his pseudoscience work with me, so he lashes out.
He doesn’t understand that his failures are not my fault.
It’s hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You are not correct in your assessment of David Appell’s reaction to your posts. He is speaking the truth about you. You are a liar and dishonest and you also know you are and do not care, which makes you a sociopath.
You are very annoying most the time and you contribute about zero science on this blog.
You claim all the scientists who post don’t know science but you are unwilling and unable to find reasons to support your childish insanity.
You are a low-life and know it and it does not bother you in the least.
Probably the most pathetic thing about you is your inability to answer a simple question and then spending numerous posts avoiding the question and jumping to “Pigs flying”
The Question: “4) Will you agree the temperature of the heated object, with insulation wrapped around it, will be greater than the same object with no insulation?”
Norm, you may have noticed by now that all of you incessant ranting and raving does NOT make your life any better. You’re only conning yourself.
g*e*r*a*n
Why do you think an accurate assessment of your online personality is supposed to make my life better?
It is hard for me to determine the reason you even post.
Have you decided not to answer the simple question?
The Question: “4) Will you agree the temperature of the heated object, with insulation wrapped around it, will be greater than the same object with no insulation?”
Con-man, where is the endless rambling, insults, and hilarious pseudoscience?
Too many dishes to wash today?
Norman, thanks for getting g#e!r&a@n to prove my point. Well played.
In your dreams, Davie. Only in your dreams.
DA,
We don’t need no stinkin’ explanation of what Gavin meant. He was very clear:
“It’s not an observable state”
Sorry you can’t comprehend plain English, Einstein.
Did you ever get that “Earth heats the Sun” paper published? Bwahahaha!
That’s exactly what I explained. Sorry it went over your head.
skeptic…now they are talking about a super volcano under Yellowstone. I think the current generation of scientists are likely the most stupid ever.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I think the current generation of scientists are likely the most stupid ever.”
You’ve said a lot of stupid things, but this is probably the stupidest of them all.
Your real problem is that you lack humility, and thus think you’re always right about everything just because you think it.
Very similar to Trump, actually. Very similar.
As an earlier post of mine got buried, here it is again, in context:
Me on October 6, 2017 at 3:54 PM
From 1999 to 2008, either Weatherbell is running hot or UAH is running cold.
Bindidon on October 7, 2017 at 6:05 PM
Why do you expect surface records to behave exactly like what is measured somewhere between 4 and 7 km above surface?
My response:
I DONT expect satellite and surface readings to respond in the same way on MONTHLY time scales. What is not expected is a steady fall for a decade followed by a SUDDEN return to normal. But actually, I DID expect to find it. It is the main reason for the recent RSS adjustment. The NOAA-15 satellite which was in operation for PRECISELY that period was drifting at a much faster rate than for the other satellites. The correction for satellite drift was a general one applied to ALL satellites equally. RSS have now corrected SPECIFICALLY for that rogue satellite UAH refuses to do so, because they know what it will do to their trend. Research NOAA-15 if you like.
Thanks Des, I’m aware of the ’15 vs. 14′ problem.
But that is a quite different matter which has few to do with ‘Weatherbell running hot or UAH running cold’ but, as Paul Clark explains on his WFT, much more with the period chosen (1999-2008):
http://4gp.me/bbtc/150784163653.jpg
If you choose the ‘official hiatus period’ (1998-2012) you obtain this when comparing UAH, RSS and WB:
4GP.ME/bbtc/1507840219737.jpg
Now switch to the troll’s period (1998-2015):
4GP.ME/bbtc/1507840947519.jpg
and soon again you see different things.
The best imho is to stay on periods as long as possible, allowing you to draw some more conclusions:
4GP.ME/bbtc/1507841255139.jpg
Here you see that WeatherBELL is, with 0.14 C / dec, on par with UAH (0.13) while RSS is way higher (0.19), on par with GISS (0.18).
What do you mean, Des? That from 1979 till 2017, either WeatherBELL is running cool or GISS is running hot?
des…”RSS have now corrected SPECIFICALLY for that rogue satellite…”
I think it has more to do with the company they keep…NOAA. I have never trusted RSS.
Gordon Robertson
Someone who willing and knowingly makes up their own version of reality should not be one to distrust anyone but themselves. I do not think RSS is in the business of making stuff up like you do.
You know you are making stuff up, kind people link you to real physics. You ignore it and keep making up your own stuff and then you question the integrity of NASA and others. I do not have solid evidence of NASA making up stuff. I have a daily dose of you making up stuff that is completely untrue, has no basis in reality, and you are told by many of your false reality and you do not care. You keep up with the false reality and then you complain, without evidence, NASA is dishonest? You are a strange human. I am glad you post, it shows me how strange the human mind works.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I think it has more to do with the company they keepNOAA. I have never trusted RSS.”
How does RSS “keep company” with NOAA.
RSS is a private company. UAH are funded by NASA.
Sorry, UAH is funded by NOAA (!) and DOE.
Gordon,
Here’s is a picture of thermal vibration:
https://tinyurl.com/ztslwzy
IR a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n occurs when the frequency of the absorbed radiation matches the vibrational frequency.
It is not about electrons jumping to a higher orbital level.
Learn about vibrational modes here, or at least look at the pictures:
https://tinyurl.com/y8t9n8hh
Gordon Robertson doesn’t accept any physics learned after 1899.
And not all of it before then, either.
svante…”IR a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n occurs when the frequency of the absorbed radiation matches the vibrational frequency.
It is not about electrons jumping to a higher orbital level”.
What do you think causes vibrational states? It’s you svante who needs to dig deeper and learn about the role of the electron in bonding and vibration. You are currently hung up on the notion that something else is vibrating besides the bonds made up of electrons.
Rotation can occur via collision but nothing will rotate until an electron sets up a dipole.
Continued below.
svante…from your wiki link:
“Temperature is a physical quantity that expresses the subjective perceptions of hot and cold”.
Temperature is a physical quantity???
Temperature is an invention of the human mind which measures relative levels of a physical quantity called heat. Temperature is based on the set points of the boiling and freezing points of water.
Come on, svante, you can reason that out, why do you settle for wiki nonsense?
In his book on heat Planck pointed out all the human inventions, like temperature, density, linear measure and time. Why are modern scientists so stumped about that?
So you can drop the “electrons jumping to a higher orbital level” when we talk about IR?
svante…”So you can drop the electrons jumping to a higher orbital level when we talk about IR?”
It seems most scientists understand what you don’t. An electron can reach a higher energy level through absorbing energy via collision or by absorbing EM.
Go on, look it up.
I am not implying that energy levels are pre-established around a nucleus. It likely has something to do with an electron’s momentum, which keep the electron falling into the nucleus.
Now I’ve looked it up:
“Certain energies in the visible and uv regions of the spectrum can cause electrons to be excited into higher energy orbitals”
“Photons in the infrared region of the spectrum have much less energy than photons in the visible or uv regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. They can excite vibrations in molecules. There are many possible vibrational levels within each electronic state.”
https://tinyurl.com/3xhp96p
As you can see below the tropical storm strengthens. High convection. Caribbean are at risk. A hurricane in the middle of the Atlantic is not dangerous to land.
The jet stream in the north will now accelerate (geomagnetic storm) and will direct the hurricane to the west.
https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
PhilWell in CO2 a vibrating bond can be excited to a higher energy level by a photon of the right energy irrespective of the temperature of the source. It has nothing to do with electrons.
Phil, you must have studied at the same Home Economics school as Appell.
Actually I’ve taught the subject at the graduate level at one of the top universities in the world
So, a covalent bond involves electrons shared between the C and O atoms, and it is the sharing holds them together.
Any vibrations in molecules are due to the electrons -ve charge and the protons +ve charge pulling against each other in adjacent atoms and oscillating. In some cases, such as the linear CO2 molecule the O atoms is more electronegative than the C atom. That sets up a dipole action where the C atom is regarded as a positive charge since it is less negative than the O atom.
A linear CO2 molecule has no dipole, the dipole CO2 has is due to its bending (one of the vibrational moles). The energy contributed by the vibration is due to both the kinetic energy and potential energy of the atoms and therefore contributes twice as much energy as a rotational or translational mode.
The O atom also has two extra electrons each in its valence band. If one of those absorbs a photon and jumps to a higher energy level it creates an even stronger dipole. Also, the molecule warms.
More likely it gets excited into an anti-bonding orbital and the bond weakens.
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/Environmental/L13/CO2-MO.gif
Thanks Phil. for teaching a manifestly unteachable person.
But please don’t wonder when being, in a week or so, confronted again with the same ‘thoughts’ as if you had never replied to the comment.
And then again, a year from now.
Good comment, Phil.
binny…”Thanks Phil. for teaching a manifestly unteachable person”.
If you’d stop butt kissing long enough to learn some atomic theory you might feel differently. I doubt if you’d be man enough to admit you’re wrong.
Teaching a grad class is no guarantee what you are teaching is correct.
Gordon,
“Teaching a grad class is no guarantee what you are teaching is correct.”
Fair point.
Phil…test
phil…”A linear CO2 molecule has no dipole, the dipole CO2 has is due to its bending (one of the vibrational moles)”.
What do you call the electronegativity differencee between each O atom and the C atom?
What do you think causes the modes? Phil, it’s all about positive and negative charges, and which charge is free to move around?
Bonds are electrons, Phil.
Go, on binny, look it up.
I bet you don’t even understand that electrons run the computers on which you program. You probably think there are devices for accepting a 1 or a 0.
Gordon Robertson
You really enjoy making up your own version of reality.
I think you should reconsider before showing the public how goofy you are. You are attacking the knowledge of an actual teacher at high level courses and you are completely wrong. You know very little science. Just make it up as you go.
Here is a video for you to learn you errors. I think you should step back a bit and come to the realization you know very little science and what you think you know is not correct. Making up physics is not valuable to anyone including yourself. It makes you delusional.
Here is the video. She does a very good job of explaining dipole molecules and what they mean. Watch it and quit making an idiot of yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInyDN57uAw
Gordon Rorbertson
Either you want to learn real science or you don’t.
If you have more fun making up your own science to get reactions from actual scientists (mostly negative) then it is pointless to view the video. If you are an honest person who just has problems understanding complex science concepts but wants to learn the modern 3D visual images will help you greatly.
Here is another video for you. My suggestion is you take the time to view it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnBH-yy4Tkc
norman…”Here is a video for you to learn you errors”.
very good, norman, your video confirmed what I said, that CO2 has two dipoles. The fact that they cancel does not negate the fact that CO2 has two dipoles.
So, what happens when an O2 molecule, or both, absorb IR. Their electrons rise to a higher energy state, and that higher charge forms even more of a dipole between the O2 and C molecules. You get bending, or vibration.
You are out of your league norman.
“So, what happens when an O2 molecule, or both, absorb IR.”
If the photon energy quantum absorbed is equal to the next rotational level higher, the O2 molecule will rotate quantum jump faster about its rotational axis with the increased energy in the excited rotational state.
If the photon energy quantum abs.orbed is equal to the next electronic level higher, the O2 molecule will be in the excited electronic state.
Gordon, what you are missing is the photons emitted from air molecules at STP (earth surface, global avg. T) and abs.orbed by them only have the energy in collisions at that temperature on the order of kT and that is order of the hf energy needed go up from base level to excited rotational level.
For a photon to bump up an electronic level takes order of 100x the hf energy available at 288K, so that only occurs at MUCH higher temperatures like exist in MUCH higher, thinner levels of the atm.
You have never been able to comprehend or abs.orb this tested circumstance, I suppose it takes much more energy for you to do so. Like 100x more.
Gordon Robertson
You are out of your mind Gordon. You really are a troll like g*e*r*a*n with one purpose to annoy. You have no interest in science or rational debate.
You probably are not an idiot but intenionally trolling this blog and laughing at people trying to convince you of real science. You do not care so it really does not help to inform you.
Gordon CO2 does not have two dipoles. It has zero dipoles. Cancel of dipoles does not make two dipoles when they are opposing each other. Your physics stinks!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
Read the article before you comment. I waste too much time on your posts as it is.
Gordon Robertson says:
“very good, norman, your video confirmed what I said, that CO2 has two dipoles. The fact that they cancel does not negate the fact that CO2 has two dipoles.”
Of course it does.
As the woman in the video says about CO2, there is
“not a molecular dipole present.”
CO2 is a “nonpolar molecule.”
Here again we see the ridiculous, egocentric Robertson troll trying to discredit evens persons he doesn’t know anything of.
Not everybody needs to specialise in electronics to earn money, Robertson troll.
The difference between you and me is that I never would try to discredit you on the base of what you know.
You discredit here yourself by posting lots of arrogant nonsense, and being incredibly impolite. This is reason why I began to be impolite against you in turn, Robertson troll.
You are such a genius that it certainly wouldn’t take you more than a month to surpass the knowledge and experience I acquired 30 years ago in the fields of compiler construction and automated grammar-driven generation of language processing software.
I’m sure!
I have a dream, Robertson troll: that one day you quietly leave this wonderful web site you continuously pollute with your useless garbage.
But unfortunately, it’s only a dream.
binny…”The difference between you and me is that I never would try to discredit you on the base of what you know”.
Could have fooled me.
binny…”You are such a genius that it certainly wouldnt take you more than a month to surpass the knowledge and experience I acquired 30 years ago in the fields of compiler construction and automated grammar-driven generation of language processing software”.
In one sentence of a few words, give me the definition of a class in C++.
There are some very good programmers but I’d feel safe claiming most programmers are hackers who write bloatware. You did not say what language your compiler was aimed at.
Look yourself for one fitting your narrative, Robertson:
http://tinyurl.com/y7cj923r
I used a compiler description language we designed 40 years ago and used till around 1990.
I see no reason to tell you anything further about what I did how, Robertson. Persons naming me an idiot are not suited for that.
Prof. Gerlach only corresponds via ouija board these days.
ha
da…”ha”
Speaking of butt-kissers.
eli…”Prof. Gerlach only corresponds via ouija board these days”.
He’s still a damned sight distance ahead of anything you’ll ever understand about thermodynamics.
“Hes still a damned sight distance ahead of anything youll ever understand about thermodynamics.”
Have you scanned the Rabbets CV?
Do you know what he teaches?
Advanced Physical Chemistry
Mathematical Methods for Chemistry.
It’s enough for me to ask “What about that Iron Maiden again?”
bob…”Have you scanned the Rabbets CV?”
I don’t care about his CV, I have read his rebuttals to Gerlich and Tscheuschner. What good is an impressive CV if you cannot tell the difference between infrared and thermal energy?
G&T had to tell him you cannot sum IR and claim it as a summation of heat. I would think that would be obvious. They further pointed out the 2nd law is about heat, not IR. Another doh!! moment.
I would like to know why he has to go under a nym if he has such an impressive CV.
The second law is about energy and entropy, and that includes both infrared and thermal energy.
It seems you are the one confused about infrared and thermal energy and the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps it is time you googled it.
I have read G&Ts paper and what an earthshaking piece of drool it is.
The gist of that work is that the greenhouse effect does not work exactly like a greenhouse, DOH, everyone knows that.
Seriously you buy that and come here and act like you know what you are talking about.
+1. FWIW before bunnies dig in too deeply, Gerhard Gerlich died in 2014
I did not know that.
May he rest in peace.
Bob Droege on October 13, 2017 at 7:40 AM
Do you know what he teaches?
What do you expect from a person discrediting even Ray Pierrehumbert in harsh terms, though a renowned professor and climate science specialist as is Judith Curry made in 2011 a positive critique of his work?
The best is that this respectless commenter Robertson has no idea of how unknown Gerlich and Tscheuchner were before publishing their GHE ‘falsification’; their reputation began with their paper’s publication, and is restricted to the skeptic blogosphere.
Moreover, he ignores that this ‘falsification’ was not only criticized by Ele Rabett aka Joshua Halpern, but also by
— Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Ldecke (Germany)
— Dr. Arthur Smith, American Physical Society
— Jochen Ebel, a german physicist who scrupulously commented GT’s full 100 page long paper.
A spicy fact is that Horst-Joachim Ldecke is press officer of the very climate skeptic ‘Europisches Institut fr Klima & Energie’; their web site looks like a german WUWT.
Judith Curry has a B.S. degree in Geography. The course requirements do not include a class in thermodynamics.
Judith Curry has a PhD in Geophysical Sciences.
Perhaps you could try Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich not Gerlach.
Perhaps
Terry Gerlach and this
http://worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
Yes it could be.
On EliRabett site he says:
Yes as Gerlach & Tsheuscner point out the solar Flux at the Sun is much higher than the IR Flux
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Both those latter names reflect the G&T duo but are both wrongly spelt (or a huge coincidence).
I have no idea; just a suggestion. Flicking through the only mention of T Gerlach is from David Appell so may be a reference to that part-thread.
However Eli Rabbet refers to Prof. Gerlach and Terry Gerlach does not have that title.
Please do not expect a response to this
It’s “Gerlich and Tscheuschner” (note spelling), neither of whom is Terry Gerlach (note spelling).
No great expectations on this; it is of no importance.
Average ocean temperature is 17 C and the tropical warms the world.
What would the world’s temperature be if it didn’t have an ocean?
gbaikie
Interesting question. Do you have an answer?
I would say without ocean, earth would have global average temperature less than 5 C AND because there would be large regions at lower elevation, one could daytime air temperature higher than 60 C.
Or ocean basins which cover 70% of surface and currently have
average ocean depth of about 4000 meters, and they would be filled with a denser atmosphere, and present continents at our sea level would be around 1/2 atm. So the existing land continents which are only 30% of Earth surface area would very cold.
In tropics or summer in lower elevation of ocean basins, one would get the higher air temperature and the colder continents would both warm and cool the basins.
The higher elevation of continents would sort of act like our ocean do [but with big difference of all continents being only 30% of surface area].
Or oceans basins would be invaded by cold air and warm air from the higher elevations. Also the ocean basin more poleward wcould have significant cold fronts descending towards tropics.
But generally outside tropics and not in summer it would be a lot colder than current earth. And unlike our tropics, that tropics could have weather which caused the air temperature to be below freezing.
Or what would be the effect if we had only 1/2 of the ocean- instead of average depth of 4000 meter, it was 2000 meters.
That make wherever you living 2000 meter higher in elevation
or 6.5 times 2 is 13 C cooler.
The ocean might have higher temperature, say 18 C instead 17 C but land areas would much lower average temperature and be warmed by the ocean less than it is now.
But you still have ocean and global average temperature is still mainly determined by ocean temperature, so average global temperature might be only about 1 C cooler. 14 C rather than 15 C. And land area closer to new sea level could get higher air time temperature and would have significantly higher average temperatures.
But Canada currently at -4 C, would be -17 C [or colder]
Halving the ocean would have other consequences- we in an icebox climate because of ocean circulation and halving earth’s ocean would certainly affect ocean circulation.
Roughly speaking there should be less ocean circulation, and roughly speaking there should be more vertical mixing of the ocean.
And the simple subtraction of the ocean would increase the average temperature of the entire ocean [there would be a lot less deep cold water].
So we have an average temperature of 15 C because of the arrangement and characteristics of the land masses- if different, Earth average temperature could be 25 C.
Or idea of Earth having 1 degree difference is simple or instantaneous result rather than a “evolutionary change” which would result. Or land temperature would be much cooler but ocean average temperature might increase significantly and ocean average temperature rather than ocean surface temperature, controls Earth average temperature.
gbaikie…”I would say without ocean, earth would have global average temperature less than 5 C …”
Here on the west coast (some say ‘wet’ coast, other say God’s country) at Vancouver, the oceans keep us at winter temperatures between 0C and around 5C. We dip below 0C a few degrees every so often when cold air from the Arctic descends upon us.
Meantime, on the Canadian Prairies, between about 500 miles and 1500 miles inland, temperatures routinely drop to -20C to -40C. I think that’s a good example of ocean warming.
yes, also called Oceanic climate:
Wiki: “An oceanic climate (also known as marine, west coast and maritime) is the Kppen classification of the climate typical of west coasts in higher middle latitudes of continents, and generally features cool summers (relative to their latitude) and cool but not cold winters, with a relatively narrow annual temperature range and few extremes of temperature, with the exception for transitional areas to continental, subarctic and highland climates. Oceanic climates are defined as having a monthly mean temperature below 22 C (72 F) in the warmest month, and above 0 C (32 F) in the coldest month.”
As I recall the area would get up to about 95 F but the summer month would be cooler. My elder brother calls it God’s country, I guess he likes the greenery- and cloudy weather and the wet. And in winter sometimes it snows- once when I was there it snowed about 3 feet. And it freezes but a month wouldn’t be at 0 C [or lower].
I didn’t live in cold winter until I lived in Oregon, and didn’t live in place where it’s pours into I moved to LA [a bloody desert!}.
Disturbing news from La Palma in the Canary islands .after days of tremors fears are growing of an imminent eruption.the fear is it could be the trigger that will send the western flank of the island sliding into the Atlantic.the result would be a mega tsunami. Taken in Africa coastal Europe the East coast of South America.The Caribbean . and East coast of the USA
Looking at Google’s output, you see that nearly all sources of that info are located in the UK.
Try to read out of this:
http://www.la-palma-zentrale.de/informationen/la-palma-mega-tsunami.php
I couldn’t translate it for you using Google’s translator, as this page is designed such that you can’t click anything and copy out of it, nor even view the original HTLM/Javascript source.
Thanks I’ll have a look.I know a little Spanish.I will get better info next WK.we fly to the Canaries on monday.
Have a nice holiday!
I apologise to have been too lazy to transcript the uncopyable text by hand into Google’s translator:
https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#es/en/Buenos%20diaz
But I’m sure you’ll have some notebook there…
I had forgotten to look for answers on a little message concerning how would the atmosphere behave if it was made of N2, O2 and Ar only, with no constituents able to absorb any radiation.
Of course, the Robertson troll did answer… by guessing, as usual.
Gordon Robertson on October 11, 2017 at 2:11 PM
Its pretty obvious to me, there would be little or no difference. The 0.04% of CO2 and the 0.30% of WV (averaged over the entire atmosphere) would contribute barely anything.
…
Some here seem to think N2/O2 cannot absorb/emit energy. Thats nonsense. If the temperature difference is enough between the gas molecule and its surroundings, the gas will emit at its natural frequency.
What a ridiculous nonsense, Robertson troll!
N2 and O2 do not absorb nor do they emit anything comparable with H2O or CO2 in the range between 0.7 and… 10,000 microns.
Here is a comparison taking the relative atmospheric abundance of compared gases into account.
I used two pictures because otherwise N2/O2 would have been totally invisible (and you of course would pretend that the software producing the pictures doesn’t work).
H2O/CO2:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507913396166.jpg
O2/N2:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1507913693257.jpg
We are comparing here
– 13500 lines with an intensity of about 2 E-6 cm-1/cm
and
– 690000 lines with an intensity of about 2 E-2 cm-1/cm.
Thus H2O/CO2 (0.44% of the atmosphere) emit/absorb IR far much better than do N2/O2 (99% of it).
*
You have been told that many times, Robertson troll.
But everybody knows here that you ignore facts as good as you claim housemade nonsense or discredit other people’s work, e.g. that of Joseph W. Chamberlain, who presented in 1979 the math properly explaining the influence of tiny gas traces in the atmosphere.
binny….”Of course, the Robertson troll did answer by guessing, as usual”.
Once again, I’m trying to understand how you know I’m guessing when you admit your are a layman who knows nothing about physics.
You are so hung up on your appeal to authority you are willing to accept any propaganda that suits your belief system. Unfortunately, science is not about belief, or an appeal to authority.
binny…”Some here seem to think N2/O2 cannot absorb/emit energy. Thats nonsense. If the temperature difference is enough between the gas molecule and its surroundings, the gas will emit at its natural frequency.
What a ridiculous nonsense, Robertson troll!
N2 and O2 do not absorb nor do they emit anything comparable with H2O or CO2 in the range between 0.7 and 10,000 microns”.
************
You are revealing your layman-based ignorance. N2/O2 can and does absorb as much heat as CO2 or H2O, but it absorbs it through conduction and convection. Do you somehow think N2/O2 molecules are not mass? They are like any other molecules, put them up against something warmer and they will absorb heat from the warmer body.
I was not talking about absorbing infrared energy but you are still caught up in the pseudo-science that climate is driven by radiation only.
I even posted a link that reveals N2 emits considerable energy in the atmosphere.
Before you go criticizing someone who has spent much of his life working in a physics-related field, you should at least learn the very basics of thermodynamics and how heat can be transferred and absorbed.
Even Appell, the legend in his own mind, is totally confused about the fact N2/O2 absorbs heat directly from the surface. I guess both of you think the hot air that rises into the atmosphere is only CO2 an H20.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Even Appell, the legend in his own mind, is totally confused about the fact N2/O2 absorbs heat directly from the surface.”
How does N2/O2 absorb IR from the surface, Gordon?
Remember, the Earth’s surface emits far more energy as IR than it does as thermal energy:
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg
Gordon Robertson says:
“You are so hung up on your appeal to authority you are willing to accept any propaganda that suits your belief system….”
and in the very next comment he appeals to authority!
“Before you go criticizing someone who has spent much of his life working in a physics-related field….”
Gordon, everyone here sees how wrong — how comical, actually — your “physics” is. You get almost everything wrong. Everything.
You get so much wrong it’s difficult not to think you are a troll doing it on purpose.
binny…”Here is a comparison taking the relative atmospheric abundance of compared gases into account”.
You have used an amateur presentation from an admitted layman to relate the IR absor.p.tion of N2/O2 to CO2/H2O.
Brilliant binny, there are two other modes of heat absorp.t.ion by which N2/O2 can absorb heat from the surface and N2/O2 accounts for 99% of the atmosphere.
I take back what I said about you likely not being an idiot.
By accident one more time, I had the pleasure to discover an interesting information.
OK: I know since at least ten years by reading french newspapers that many keen proponents of nuclear energy consider CO2 emissions to be highly climate-damaging.
No wonder: electricity production in France is about 70% nuclear-made.
*
But till today I really did not know that the World Nuclear Association in person would bring their economic interests and the topic called ‘Climate Change’ so close together.
No: it is not hidden somewhere in the deep of their site; already on their main page you can see that. But yes, in the deep it really gets a bit more violent:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/climate-change-the-science.aspx
Incredible. WNA manifestly is by dimension more warmist than I might ever become: though – as a layman – I agree to the trace gas based, so called ‘Greenhouse’ effect, about the relevance of the ‘A’ in ‘AGW’ I still have far more questions than I obtained answers until now.
*
Most delicious is that these french proponents of nuclear energy in fact are nearly all harsh skeptic hardliners: sometimes you see that the same commenter lashing CO2 in a newspaper is perfectly able to thrash the global warming within another newpaper.
C’est la vie / That’s life.
binny…”But till today I really did not know that the World Nuclear Association in person would bring their economic interests and the topic called Climate Change so close together”.
I see that Germany is tearing down nuclear plants and building coal-fired plants to replace them. Meantime, Germany promotes the propaganda of anthropogenic warming.
Merkel is a hypocrite.
Robertson on October 13, 2017 at 1:02 PM and subseq.
A. You are revealing your layman-based ignorance. N2/O2 can and does absorb as much heat as CO2 or H2O, but it absorbs it through conduction and convection.
And you reveal yours, Robertson. And you reveal your arrogance, too.
1. How can you imagine I would ignore conduction and convection? Who gives you the right to pretend such a lie?
2. You manifestly can’t accept that N2/O2, though evidently participating in surface’s thermal energy intake by initial conduction followed by convection, nevertheless do not absorb IR radiation and therefore cannot reemit it, and therefore cannot contribute in evacuating thermal energy out of space.
3. Thus either does the IR LW radiation emitted by Earth in response to Sun’s SW irradiance directly get to outer space through the atmospheric window, or it is absorbed and reemitted in all directions by atmospheric constituents able to do that: mainly H2O, and a little by CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs etc.
B. I even posted a link that reveals N2 emits considerable energy in the atmosphere.
No it does not emit it, Robertson. It can only pass it through convection, and convection requires a medium. Outer space is none.
C. You have used an amateur presentation from an admitted layman to relate the IR absor.p.tion of N2/O2 to CO2/H2O.
One more proof of you arrogance: SpectralCalc an amateur?
Who are you to pretend so what? In comparison with them, Robertson, you are a the same amateurish level as I am.
D. I take back what I said about you likely not being an idiot.
1. It seems that you didn’t realise yet how much I get distressed about that.
2. Do-ug Cot-ton was like you an excessively exhausting person. But at least he had, as opposed to you, real knowledge. I didn’t share his ideas, but they had a real background; you are merely guessing and trumpeting all the time.
3. I don’t call you an idiot, Robertson. I call you a crank person.
binny…”You manifestly cant accept that N2/O2, though evidently participating in surfaces thermal energy intake by initial conduction followed by convection, nevertheless do not absorb IR radiation and therefore cannot reemit it, and therefore cannot contribute in evacuating thermal energy out of space”.
According to your theory, any mass can only cool through radiation. Also, N2/O2 are the only masses that can absorb heat at the surface through conduction but are never able to cool.
How do you think, N2/O2 cool? If they absorb heat at the surface equivalent to 15C and they rise to the elevation of the peak of Everest near 30,000 feet where it’s -30C, both must remain at 15C according to your theory.
Ideal gas equation: PV = nRT, or P = (nR/V)T for a constant volume, constant mass as in out atmosphere. Since the atmosphere has a pressure gradient due to gravity, the mass has a gradient as well. The mass is constant (i.e. there are only so many molecules), the density varies due to gravity.
Note that P is directly proportional to T.
A gas will cool by itself if it rises to a higher altitude due to reduced pressure. You have cooled the surface simply by N2/O2 absorbing heat at the surface and rising to a higher altitude.
Please get this radiation nonsense out of your head, it is clouding your brain. Radiation from the surface is very inefficient through air and its intensity degrades rapidly due to the inverse square law. There is no way surface radiation is a prime cooler of the surface, it is conduction and convection that does the cooling.
Gordon Robertson says:
Ideal gas equation: PV = nRT, or P = (nR/V)T for a constant volume, constant mass as in out atmosphere. Since the atmosphere has a pressure gradient due to gravity, the mass has a gradient as well. The mass is constant (i.e. there are only so many molecules), the density varies due to gravity.
Actually this is an adiabatic expansion where PV^gamma is constant
Note that P is directly proportional to T.
No, T2/T1=(P2/P1)^(gamma-1)/(gamma) where gamma=1.4 for air.
binny…”No it [N2] does not emit it, Robertson. It can only pass it through convection, and convection requires a medium. Outer space is none”.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
title of article: A Strong Infrared Radiation From Molecular Nitrogen In the Night Sky.
Note further down at “A Graph Of Nitrogen Spectral Lines”:
The graph shows several nitrogen spectral lines in the IR region.
Yes several lines in-between the solar spectrum and the earth’s emission spectrum, the strongest N2 lines are at ~4.5 microns, where they are dwarfed by the CO2 lines which are 10 orders of magnitude stronger!
Phil.
Thank you. Gordon has been informed of this many times on different threads but chooses to ignore the information.
I have high doubts you will be able to convince him either. I have posted many links for him to look at but he just ignores them and continues on. I spent a bit of effort on his Chiefo link a few threads ago but it did not matter.
Gordon is a troll who has NO interest in science or learning. He is here to annoy and amuse himself. If you read his explanations of IR production by molecules, he has been informed he is wrong (with numerous links to correct his errors) but will just continue to post the false material anyway.
I do not know how long you have been reading this blog but you will learn about Gordon Robertson and g*e*r*a*n. They are both active trolls who are just having a good time annoying people. These types are on all subjects all across the internet. Probably ignoring them is the best action.
Norm ends his ramble: “Probably ignoring them is the best action.”
Con-man, there you go conning yourself again. You couldn’t possibly ignore me. You can’t make a comment with mentioning me. Your obsession with me is all consuming.
Hilarious.
norman…”I do not know how long you have been reading this blog but you will learn about Gordon Robertson and g*e*r*a*n”.
That’s odd, I am in support of what UAH claims about catastrophic GW/climate change. I am in full support of the UAH database. You are an alarmist, so who is the troll here???
Although I disagree with Roy on some of his views on thermodynamics I fully support the basic premise of his site that any warming will not be catastrophic in nature. I fully agree with John Christy of UAH that climate science is not clearly understood due to its complexity.
When I offer my views on atomic theory, based on decades of study and practice in the field of electronics, I am met with novice rebuttals like yours. You try to lecture me on physics in a patronizing, derogatory manner, yet you call me the troll.
You alarmists have set yourselves up on Roy’s blog as some kind of authority figures on anthropogenic warming. Does that not come across to you as odd, that you’d infiltrate a site on CAGW skepticism and call a defender of that view a a troll?
I am providing atomic level theory that supports Roy’s data. The only way I differ with Roy is on his views of the GHE, which I don’t think exists. Other than that I fully support his views. I even support his views on evolution.
I am afraid you and your ilk are the outliers here.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “You are an alarmist, so who is the troll here???”
Where do you get that idea from. I can’t stand your unscientific posts.
YOUR CLAIM: “You try to lecture me on physics in a patronizing, derogatory manner, yet you call me the troll.”
There is no derogatory manner. You are completely wrong on your physics and it has been pointed out to you numerous times with a vast amount of links.
YOUR CLAIM: “When I offer my views on atomic theory, based on decades of study and practice in the field of electronics, I am met with novice rebuttals like yours”
Your views are wrong, incorrect, made up physics. In the past I have given you many links (as have others) showing your flaws. You ignore real physics and prefer your made up versions.
I will tell you simply. Visible light, UV and near infrared are EMR that are produced by electrons moving up and down energy levels.
Mid IR is not produced by electrons moving up and down energy levels. You keep claiming this. All scientists tell you that is not correct and link to various articles explaining reality to you. You ignore them.
I could care less about the political nature of climate change. I post here to learn science and to keep your pollution in check. The world has many scientific illiterate people and your junk science is adding to this degeneration of science. I am attempting my best to learn the real science behind climate change.
Roy Spencer is a valuable teacher of real science. I was twisted by the blog science and was able to free my mind from the trash by going to textbooks and actually reading the material and working to understand it.
You have no desire to do this. I have linked you numerous times to good online textbooks and given you Chapter and page numbers to read. You choose not to read the material.
Because you have demonstrated you do not want to learn and grow and you continue to degenerate science, I will actively oppose your garbage as long as you post here. Hopefully an interested person may go to the links and learn real science instead of your made up version.
phil…”the strongest N2 lines are at ~4.5 microns, where they are dwarfed by the CO2 lines which are 10 orders of magnitude stronger!”
And CO2 is dwarfed in the atmosphere by N2, 77% to 0.04%. Do you not think that adds up to anything?
And CO2 is dwarfed in the atmosphere by N2, 77% to 0.04%. Do you not think that adds up to anything?
Nothing at all when the lines are 10 billion times weaker than CO2.
Gordon Robertson says:
“And CO2 is dwarfed in the atmosphere by N2, 77% to 0.04%. Do you not think that adds up to anything?”
So what does it “add up” to?
Be specific, since you never are and hand-wave only.
BTW…norman pointed me to a site to teach me about dipoles. The professor in the video agreed with me that CO2 has two dipoles.
The only thing I got wrong, and should have recalled better, is that electronegativity is actually a measure of the proton’s ability to attract negative charges, such as electrons. The term electronegativity is a misnomer in that it does not suggest a negative charge but an affinity for negative charges. That would mean a strong positive charge is involved.
binny…”Do-ug Cot-ton was like you an excessively exhausting person. But at least he had, as opposed to you, real knowledge. I didnt share his ideas, but they had a real background;”
Once again, you are not in a position to judge, being an admitted layman in physics. You are an alarmist groupie, going along to get along. Your belief system is based on consensus and mutual back-slapping.
OT…….for the past year or so I’ve been checking out the 2 meter anomaly at Climatereanalyzer, and haven’t seen the forecast this warm. Yes, it’s just noise, but sort of odd given the recent downturn in global SST’s.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom-MSLP
I’m referring to global anomaly this time, not just Arctic
In your scale of idiots to crank persons where is Al Gore?
Does he write here?
binny…”Does he [Al Gore] write here?”
Through you and other alarmists he does.
I think chiefio is probably right in his assertion in this article that the CO2 warming alarmists have likely stifled any ab.sorp.tion/emission activity of N2/O2 in the infrared region.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
binny has made much of N2 being such a small player in the IR region but when you consider that N2/O2 account for 99% of the atmosphere and CO2 a mere 0.04% that small amount can far outweigh larger GHG IR activity from a trace gas.
Gordon, I think you and “Chiefo” are both missing some key understanding.
To focus on just one important detail, the IR you two are concerned about is around 1.0 um. This wavelength is WAY too short to be important for thermal radiation from the atmosphere. The atmosphere emits/abs.orbs pretty much all of its IR between 4-40 um. There simply isn’t significant IR near 1 um to emit/abs.orb.
Exactly Tim.
But to cut off any further discussion, I choosed the ‘more secure’ alternative to show N2’s absorp-tion / emission intensity compared with that of H2O and CO2 (10^-7), as N2 has a spot at 5 microns, jsut above the boundary between solar and terrestrial radiation.
Otherwise you get told by trolls that yes, it’s above 4 microns and thus terrestrial, and soon they made out of N2 a strong IR absorber.
Gordon Robertson on October 13, 2017 at 4:33 PM
I THINK chiefio is PROBABLY right in his assertion in this article that the CO2 warming alarmists have likely stifled any ab.sorp.tion/emission activity of N2/O2 in the infrared region.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
Ha ha ha ha ha!
I remember somebody having discovered that what this superman presented as a proof that N2 absorbs at least as much IR as does CO2 in fact is completely flawed!
I vaguely remember about a spectral line coming from… a star, oh Noes.
But Google unfortunately didn’t find a link to that thread of Roy Spencer which contains the info. I’m sure it was in this year.
It’s 2 AM, I’ll search for that tomorrow!
But before going asleep, here are two charts from
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
showing us that Phil.’s info (October 13, 2017 at 4:37 PM) is absolutely correct.
HITRAN2012
Wavelength area: 0.16 – 10 microns
Scaling by atmospheric abundance
5 km altitude
Linear scale (i.e. not logarithmic, that distorts the ratios)
1. N2
4GP.ME/bbtc/1507939207394.jpg
2. H2O + CO2
4GP.ME/bbtc/1507939548881.jpg
Please look at the left of the charts in order to compare the intensities:
N2: maximum is 4 E-9 cm-1/cm, 1131 (!!!) lines
H2O+CO2: maximum is 1.5 E -2, 576528 lines
Thus N2’s absorp-tion power is by dimensions less than that of H2O/CO2, namely by a factor of… 10^7, yes 10,000,000.
Bonne nuit les petits… ha ha ha, ce Robertson est vraiment ridicule. S’il n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer!
Thus N2s absorp-tion power is by dimensions less than that of H2O/CO2, namely by a factor of 10^7, yes 10,000,000.
Ooooh! Ho do specialists calculate the power factor due to the number of absorp-tion/emission lines?
@barry
“The energy source is coming from one side only, not both. The green plate can never be as warm as the blue plate, because the blue plate shields it from the sun. Your view would work if the sun was between the two plates.
The green plate cannot warm to the same temperature as the blue plate, because as the green plate warms it emits more thermal radiation back to the blue plate, which is already receiving 400 w/m2 from the sun. The blue plate must lose more heat, which then warms the green plate.
This continues until the 2-plate thermal outflux is equivalent to influx.”
I agree that because the power source is on one side only , you will never truly reach equilibrium.. there will always be a temp gradient from left to right. thus more output to the left than to the right as well
also there always be leakage along the edges and due to diffusion according to the distance between the plates..
but for the sake of the ‘thought’ experiment we can set these values to 0 and idealize the equilibrium state for temp T and output in w/m2
Here’s my thinking:
the plates are each 1 sq meter so there surface area is 2m2
so then with power input of 400w/m2 incident on just 1 side we have a flux of 200w/m2 and a power input of 400w
the blue plate will warm to temp T1 and radiate at 200w/m2
if we introduce the green plate (as close as possible to the blue plate such that there’s no conduction), at first NET radiative transfer is +200 w from the blue plate to the green
the green plate will warm until NET RT is 0 .. i.e. the green plate is radiating 200w.. thus at equilibrium it’s temp will be t1 the same as the blue plate..
This implies energy waves of 200w/m2 in both directions from the right side of the green plate flowing to the left and 200 from the left side of the blue plate flowing to the right…
please dont ask me to try to explain how the vibrations of the atoms back and forth create these waves or to get into wave mechanics and interference patterns…. id have to pull out the old textbooks (if I could find em lol) and bone back up on all that.. im sure ive forgotten much more than I remember 😉
to help understand it though i would like to continue with our thought experiment…
lets move the green plate far far away so that there is no RT from blue to green… (it will cool to the baseline temp)t0
now lets halve the power of the sun hitting the blue plate..
with a power input of 200w the plate will cool to temp t2 whereat it will radiate at 100w/m2
ok so lets be nice and give our green plate its own sun..incident upon its right side also providing an input of 200w.. it will warm until it too is at temp t2 and emitting 100w/m2…
now lets instantly move the green plate (with power source) back to beside the blue plate..
note the RT is 0 (they are both radiating at the same rate) that RT will remain 0 while BOTH plates warm to temp t1 and radiate 200w/m2
you should be able to actually test this if you had the right equipment…
you’ld need a vacume chamber with1 plate and another with 2 plates (1 on each side) with power supply you could turn on/off
chamber 1
1) turn on plate with power 200 w record eq temp of plate
2) turn on plate 1 with power 400w .. record equilibrium temp of plate
3)chamber 2
turn on plate 1 with power 400w , plate 2 off record eq. temp of plate 1 and plate 2
4)turn on plate 1 with power 200w, turn on plate 2 with power 200w
record eq temp of plates 1 and plate 2
i suggest that the plate temps recorded in 2 and 3 4 should be nearly the same while the temp of 1) will be significantly lower
conclusions..
a cold plate will not warm a heated plate rather a heated plate will warm a cold one
Heated plates WILL warm each other to a higher temp..
This is how I understand it .. if anyone sees a a flaw here please educate me 😉
Phil
You lost me here: “the blue plate will warm to temp T1 and radiate at 200w/m2”
The blue plate would warm until it’s radiating the same as it’s receiving, which is 400w/m2. Am I missing something?
Sir I,
The blue plate receives 400 W/m^2 on ONE side @ 1m^2 and 0 W/m^2 on the other side @ 1m^2 = 400 W total incoming power.
The blue plate radiates 200 W/m^2 from BOTH sides @ 2 m^2 = 400 W total outgoing power.
Tim, +1, this is without the green plate in place. You might want to add the math after the green plate arrives and reaches equilibrium.
Oh, I agree 110% that the addition of the green place does indeed cause the blue plate to get warmer yet.
Tim
Yes. So I assume he meant to write, “the blue plate will warm to temp T1 and radiate (from each side) at 200w/m2” ?
Isn’t that implied, Sir I? If it warms to some uniform temperature, then both sides will radiate evenly, ie @ 200 W/m^2.
Tim
If a plate warms until it radiates at 400w/m^2, it’s implied that each side will radiate at 200w/m^2.
If a plate warms until it radiates at 200w/m^2, it’s implied that each side will radiate at 100w/m^2
That is not what I would infer. I infer that if I am told it radiates @ 400 W/m^2, then it radiates @ 400 W/m^2 — whatever the area might be. If it happens to have an area of 2 m^2, then it radiates 400 W/m^2 from each square meter for a total of 800 W.
Tim
Lol…….now I see what you’re saying. For me, that’s a counterintuitive way of looking at it.
I should say WAS counterintuitive, makes perfect sense now.
Heya..
Maybe .. Units units unitsaa my prof used to say ..
So lets make it an intertnal powersource of400 watts.. Witha surface area of 2 sq m it will radiate at 200 w/m2 .. Does that clear it up ?
phil…”The green plate cannot warm to the same temperature as the blue plate…”
Why don’t you and barry get it that this thought experiment is seriously flawed. It presumes that radiation from a cooler source can warm a warmer source. It also presumes that IR is heat, a presumptions by which Rabbett was wrong before.
Gordon 7:46pm, you are thinking incorrectly as testing shows radiation from a cooler source can increase avg. KE of a source with higher temperature, consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT. There is no serious flaw as you write.
Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Ball4, thanks for pointing out that reference. What is truly amazing is that Roy Spencer still puts up with this guy and he hasn’t been banished like those others who have repetitively regurgitated similar nonsense.
You can particularly sense Roy’s exasperation with Gordon’s unwillingness to listen and/or inability to comprehend at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/#comment-222200.
It has now been 14 month since then and Gordon appears to have not learnt anything.
MikeR 12:07am: Dr. Spencer tried to banish g*e*r*a*n for the whacky untested physics comments (as unlearnt as many) & the insults, simply resulting in a name change adding the *, so Dr. Spencer stopped that approach, was a wasted effort.
Results in this dinner party being wide open to uninvited, unwanted guests, the wild west, full of gunslingers unlearnt in the basics of civility or meteorological physics. But still a fun party for all the regulars. Join up only if well armed.
Gordon
The green plate will always recieve more IR from the blue plate than it gives back, so the “heat transfer” is from the blue to the green.
Gordon
Again, the “heat transfer” is from the blue to the green plate. The blue plate gets warmer because it’s losing heat at a slower rate than it had been originally. The green plate is not doing any heating.
I Gordon,
That was a quote from barry ,
I apologize if that wasnt clear …
I was maintaining that the greeen plate WILL warm to the same temp as the blue (not acounting the munor temp gradient and leakage fronm the edges..
Sorry if i didnt make that clear
No, because the green plate’s only source of energy is radiation from the blue plate, and the blue plate can radiate both to the surroundings and the green plate. Thus the amount of energy the green plate receives per second is less than the amount of energy that the blue plate receives per second.
You don’t need Stefan-Boltzmann to prove that out.
Phil says: “the green plate will warm until NET RT is 0 .. i.e. the green plate is radiating 200w.. thus at equilibrium its temp will be t1 the same as the blue plate..”
No, this is wrong. If the two were the same temperature, there would be no net radiation between the two.
* The Blue plate would receive 400W on the front, radiate 200 from the front, and radiate 0 W from the back. 200 W mysteriously disappears!
The green plate would receive 0 W on the front and radiate 200 W on the back. 200 W mysteriously appears!
(Assuming I remember the problem correctly. I lost the link to hte original a while back in the thread.)
Tim
I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed by “t1” he was referring to the equilibrium temperature of the blue plate before the green plate was introduced. IMO, that would be correct.
Yes!
Hi Tim ,
You said
“no, this is wrong. If the two were the same temperature, there would be no net radiation between the two.”
I said the NEt RT between them is zero … That is the same thing ..
What you are missing is thayt both plates are radiating 200w/m2 (net RT 0)
They are exchanging energy at the same rate in opposite directions
Phil
I wish someone would do an experiment in a vacuum as you suggest and end this nightmare. Gordon will not believe it but at least it will be empirically proven as a fact and end the endless debates on the topic.
I have looked around for experiments using heated plates but so far I have not found any that would address the situation.
I do not own a vacuum chamber or I might attempt the experiment myself.
Norman
What about doing the experiment as originally stated by Barry, but point a large fan towards the edges of the plates? Air, heated by conduction or radiation, would be constantly blown away, thus preventing either of the plates from being heating by convection.
Just tape a thermometer to the shaded side of the blue plate. Wait till the temp is steady, and introduce the green plate.
I have a hunch this idea wouldn’t actually work. Just thinking out loud.
No, because then much heat will be conducted away from both plates by the flow of air.
Eli, if care is taken to minimize convection, the radiation field will be enough to obtain close enough results to prove your original point.
I wish i had the equipment to test it as well .. Maybe someone hete reading this has the resourcrs and can do the experiment??
The experiment has already been performed by Dr. Spencer. The experimental results were consistent with “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.”
Dr Spencer possesses two 2D plates!? Astonishing. There I was thinking such objects could not possibly exist in reality.
Greenhaus 8:11am, “Dr Spencer possesses two 2D plates!?”
Not that I know of. Only in your discussions were the plates made 2D so YOU must have them as you built a strawman with a different proposition. The original post on the other site used 3D m^2 blue and green plates with t << side length.
anger prefers cold mugs of beer and some ice rather than plates, sometimes a turkey too, the physics work the same just change the names to protect the innocent: "Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K."
No, introduced by Eli Rabbett, here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267630
Search on 2D introduced by esalil here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267545
Greenhaus then built comments around 2D; check of the cartoons in the original post shows 3D plates t << plate sides. But as Eli writes, including the radiation from the 4 negligibly small areas is needless complication as was tried with the hexagon diversion.
Eli’s exact words:
“October 9, 2017 at 3:38 PM
esalil
Eli used infinite thin plates facing each other to reduce the difficulty of the problem to 2D. The idea was to make the discussion as simple as possible while retaining the physical concepts. You can actually find discussions in textbooks where the effects of the edges of the plates are discussed which are shown to go to zero as the plates grow in area.
Such 2D cases are important learning tools across physics for example 2D capacitors.”
A 2D plate doesn’t have a side facing the sun and a side facing away from the sun when the dimension it lacks is its depth. It just has one side. If Eli wants to now do a complete 180-degree turn on his own words and say that the plates are NOT “infinite thin” and it’s NOT a 2D plate introduced into a 3D space but rather it’s a 3D object introduced into a 3D space then he can answer Joseph Postma’s rebuttal to that situation, posted here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31030
So GW, Joe rebuts by commenting a power of 400 (red arrow) into the system generates a power of 800 OUT of the system (blue arrow left, green arrow right) would exist at system equilibrium.
Doesn’t even pass 1LOT let alone 2LOT unless there is hidden fuel being consumed in the generator behind the curtain. I see he arrived at this thru many years of numerical modeling.
Doesn’t mention thru years of experiments. In fact, haven’t ever seen Joe actually perform an experiment but I don’t keep track of all his antics. Just like Claes Johnson, Joe is never restrained by actual experimentation to support his posts/comments like Dr. Spencer does.
Or, 400 W/m2 in (red arrow), 400 W/m2 out (green arrow). The blue arrow left must be 400 W/m2 if the side of the plate facing the sun is at equilibrium with the input from the sun. The other side of the blue plate must also radiate 400 W/m2 since the molecules of the plate are being induced to vibrate at the rate produced by the input (400 W/m2). Considering there will be conduction through the plate what else can they do? If the side of the blue plate facing the sun only produces 200 W/m2 then it is receiving more energy than it is emitting.
But this argument can (and probably will) go round and round in circles forever.
“Or, 400 W/m2 in (red arrow), 400 W/m2 out (green arrow). The blue arrow left must be 400 W/m2 if the side of the plate facing the sun is at equilibrium with the input from the sun.”
Sure could be at first in transition, this is not equilibrium for the system though. At system equilibrium 1LOT shows there MUST be 400joules/sec-m^2 in and 400joules/sec-m^2 out contrary to Joe’s equilibrium picture. He needs the generator and fuel for that to be equilibrium.
“But this argument can (and probably will) go round and round in circles forever.”
No, the argument has been settled by test. If Joe runs a test, he will need a generator to get his equilibrium power chart nearby your link. Once he removes the generator equipment, he will measure 400 in and 200blue + 200green out and be forced to concede. Joe won’t do that as his blog is aptly named.
New equilibrium Joe would find by test computed by Tim here with numbers same as the original post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268348
OK, Ball4. I’m sure you’re right. Or maybe wrong. No, definitely right. Though possibly wrong. Or right.
Proper testing is the arbiter GW, if you doubt Tim’s equilibrium energy balance being proper according to his use of long established principles, you are free to run the test, as is Joe P.
However, you will not run any tests and neither will Joe since as I wrote, Joe’s blog is appropriately named. Total lack of experiment there supporting assertions unlike Dr. Spencer’s blog backed by proper experiment.
GW
In your link to the ever goofy Joe Postma, they draw what they think is a correct picture of Eli thought experiment.
There “correct” version has 400 Watts/m^2 going to the left and 400 watts/m^2 going out from the right. The system as they draw is losing 800 Watts/m^2 but only gaining 400 Watts/m^2 from a heat source. They are wacko at that blog.
Thanks for the link to that horrible science. I like to know where skeptics come up with bad science they peddle.
This one violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The system is making 400 Watts/m^2 out of nothing and emitting at this rate.
Bad science. Glad you stopped over here. Tim Folkerts is one you can really learn the textbook physics from. A very sharp poster.
OK, Norman. Adding up fluxes based on the number of sides an object has is definitely the way to go.
The experiment has been done by anyone who’s used a thermocouple with a radiation shield. NACA did work on this for Gas Turbine measurements (Scadron & Warshawsky). A thermocouple measured a lower temperature than the hot gas it is in contact with because it radiates to the cooler walls. By interposing a radiation shield between the ThC and the surroundings the shield reaches a temperature intermediate between the surroundings and the gas, radiation from this shield and the ThC causes the ThC to increase in temperature and be closer to the true gas temperature. So the shield even though at a lower temperature than the ThC causes the ThC to be hotter.
You can find worked examples on this in any Heat transfer text
http://mgh-images.s3.amazonaws.com/9781133007470/509094-9-41PEI1.png
http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/repeat-problem-940-addition-radiation-shield-emissivity-s-01-chapter-9-problem-41p-solution-9781133007470-exc
Yes, end this nightmare.
Perhaps a few of us could pitch to buy the equipment.
Send it on for people to replicate the result.
… pitch in via PayPal or something…
Hoping we do not have to discuss the results foreverer.
Hoping we do not have to discuss the results forever.
Phil,
Replied below.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268303
Phil, I replied right back at the original discussion before you had posted your redirection to here.
Before shuting down:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/
Who remembers?
binny…a review as to the facts with regard to Fred Singer. Fred made the error of presuming the reference to the 2nd law by the so-called deniers meant the GHE did not exist. The 2nd law reference was to AGW, not the GHE.
Here’s a good article on the Dragon Slayers that credits Roy and Richard Lindzen.
Other than that, I don’t know much about them. having come to my opinions on my own. I am familiar with some of the work of Claes Johnson, a mathematician who has claimed to explain quantum theory using Newtonian principles. I found his reasoning, based on harmonic oscillator to be compelling.
Claes has never tested his theory. He would be surprised if he did. Just like G&T have never tested their stuff, as they admit. Dr. Spencer does the testing for you.
Don’t you understand, Robertson troll, that you do not reply to comments but are only interested in pushing your stoopid, egocentric narrative in front?
Don’t you understand that you permanantly pollute this wonderful site with your bloody cowpats, what constantly forces commentators to put their answers to the end of the thread, in order to avoid a constant up-and-down to skip your scrap?
Johnson assumes smart photons that know not to hit warmer bodies than the ones that they have been emitted from. Of course, Johnson photons carry thermometers that they use to measure the temperatures at their point of origin and where they are going to arbitrary accuracy. Oh yes, they each carry a small memory chip to remember this.
It violates a whole lot of physics.
This is a sample of flat-earth GHE physics:
_____________________________________
David Appell says:
April 20, 2017 at 8:21 PM
SkepticGoneWild says:
What a howler! The earth heats the sun.
Of course it does. Obviously.
The Earth emits radiation. A little of it is in the direction of the Sun.
Do you think those photons do a U-turn before they get there?
_____________________________________
You avoided the question — do you think that radiation makes a U-turn?
DA,
Why not ask our resident rocket scientist Eli Rabett? He knows everything, especially in creating illogical thought experiments that have no basis in reality. Two colored plates out in space. Who the hell cares?
So Eli, does the sun absorb minute IR from the earth and increase in temperature as David proclaims? After all, photons are incredibly stupid.
I’m just trying to figure out who belongs to “The Earth heats the Sun” club. Apparently the club is larger than ever imagined. If you are a GHE believer, you are probably a member of the club and don’t even know it!
SkW: you avoided the question again.
Why won’t you address it?
SkepticGoneWild asks
“Why not ask our resident rocket scientist Eli Rabett?”
Too Funny
page 118
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810015593.pdf
LMAO. Bin claims the moral high ground but routinely insults people by calling them “stoopid”, “dumb”, “deniers” etc. What an arrogant hypocrite.
Then he pollutes this blog with his pseudo-science bs.
Good explanation of electronegativity.
http://dl.clackamas.edu/ch104-07/electron.htm
I find it interesting, although most likely wont, that nitrogen and oxygen are the most abundant molecules making up the atmosphere (99% combined) yet they are both 2 of the 3 strongest electronegative atoms of all atoms.
Plus…nitrogen and oxygen are right next to each other on the periodic table with carbon right before them.
Test
You flunked. Please report to the principal’s office Monday morning.
(Don’t bring your slide rule. I could be considered a weapon.)
Phil,
(continued here to obviate so much scrolling up and back the thread)
Blue plate radiates at 400 w/m2 – one side 200 w/m2, the other equivalent, in our idealized set-up.
You said blue plate radiates at 200 w/m2, but I think you meant to say it radiates that from one side.
Assuming so, green plate receives 200 w/m2, emits 100 w/m2 either side. System is now emitting (losing) 300 w/m2, 100 w/m2 short of input. We know the 2-plate system has to emit a total of 400 w/m2 to equilibrate with input.
This is the point at which our thinking diverges.
How does the green plate heat up without additional energy?
Where does the extra energy come from?
Barry
Tim explained to me that the blue plate DOES radiate at 200w/m^2.
If you’re interested, scroll up a little bit to see our discussion.
Hi barry,
The blue plate radiates at 200w/m2 in BOTH directionsat equilibrium.. 400w in 400 w out…
Introducing the second plate doesnt change that whether it is a 400w power source on the blue plate alone or a 200 w source on each plate…
Reread my reasoning and ,as my prof used to say, … Units units units … 200w/m2 is not the same as 200w..
Phil
Both plates will warm simultaneously until the green plate radiates 200w in each direction – same as the blue plate had earlier. But because the blue plate has now reached a higher temperature, it will be radiating at a higher rate than it had before.
Whoops! I have to take that back. The green plate would never radiate at 200w in each direction, because to do so would mean the blue plate would be radiating to the LEFT at more than 200 watts.
Getting there.
The point is that if the blue plate radiates energy to the green plate the green plate will warm. Then the green plate radiates some of that energy to the blue plate so the blue plate is now receiving MORE power than 400 W/m2, so it MUST warm.
Since the blue plate is now WARMER than it was when there was no green plate, it has to radiate MORE than 400 W/m2, or if you prefer the inverse, since the blue plate is now warmer than it was, the power radiated from each face must be more than 200 W/m2
Except that it wont.. as long as the NET radiance transfer from blue to green is positive.. blue will cool and green will warm…
the power supply maintains blue s temp and green will continue to warm till net RT approaches 0
THAT is equilibrium..
Phil explains radiative physics to Eli.
What’s not to like?
The blue plate receives 400 w/m2 from the sun.
Have a look at the diagram.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
I started writing “400 w/m2 received,” but Greenhaus didn’t think I was speaking English, so I stopped to prevent a quibble. However, that’s the right way to put it.
Do you now have to amend what you’ve said? I’m standing by.
To keep it simple, write everything in terms of w/m2 (sticking with the convention of no power loss with distance, for ease of conceptualizing the relative flow). Our plates can be 1 square meter to keep it really simple.
Barry, please stop misrepresenting what happened, it is really very irritating. You actually said:
Each surface of the hexagon is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.
Which I stand by saying is a very peculiar way to word a sentence. If you were simply saying “the hexagon receives 400 W/m2 from the sun” then you should have said so.
And according to what you later said you were not even thinking about the hexagon as being the blue plate (I had meant for the hexagonal shape to represent the blue plate to make the point I was making) in any case.
To borrow from Quokka at Rabett Run in the comments the S-B law doesn’t depend on how many planar faces there are, it cares about temperature and surface area. If we took our plate and put slight bends in it to form a concertina shape with many planar surfaces, the amount of energy it radiates would be unchanged because neither the temperature nor the surface area have changed.
This whole thing about hexagons is simply a forlorn attempt at distraction
You are very funny Eli. You are simply repeating the point that I am making, to you, back to me, as if it is some sort of refutation!
Yes, it depends on surface area. Except for, apparently, when it comes to a plate. Then the number of faces the object has is important. Hilarious.
Eli 7:32am, “If we took our plate and put slight bends in it to form a concertina shape..”
Strictly this is incorrect. Planck radiation formula is limited to objects that have all positive radii thus do not radiate to themselves and all object diameters larger than the wavelength of interest.
To prove that experimentally, drill a 1″ hole in your plates. Then observe thru an IR camera, the hole surfaces will be a different color (but not different temperature) than the plate body. You can find that experiment on the internet.
I remember what I said, Greenhaus.
The nub of our disagreement was this:
I say the blue plate emits 200 w/m2 on each side to equilibrate with the sun. You say it emits 400 w/m2 on each side.
Our argument (hexes, apples, suns etc) was all about which was the case. This is where we see things differently.
Last I remember, you were trying to draw a distinction between a “passive” and an “active” emitter.
I don’t see how that should matter. All things radiate in all directions, as you said. A spherical sun radiates only a portion of its total power in any one direction. A steel ball heated by the sun would likewise only radiate only a portion of its power in any one direction. Surface area matters – as you agreed.
For ease of conceptualizing, the demonstration at Eli’s place is in 2D. Conduction is also removed from the set-up for ease of conceptualization. It simplifies the math. The 3-body set up would still demonstrate what is being shown if everything was in 3D, and we accounted for conduction and distance. But the math would be much more complex.
Surface area matters. The plate has 2 sides. If its area is 1 meter square, then each side must radiate at 200 w/m2 to equlibrate with the 400 w/m2 it receives from the sun.
1 m2 + 1 m2 = 2 m2
That’s the total surface area of the blue plate.
Now solve for input and surface area.
2 m2 square plate must emit 400 w/m2 it receives from the sun
1 m2 of the blue plate must emit 200 w/m2
That’s one side of the blue plate
Simple 2D math
“I remember what I said, Greenhaus.”
Then why did you lie about it? I am sick to death with you people.
“A spherical sun radiates only a portion of its total power in any one direction”
For crying out loud. “In any one direction”. There are INFINITE directions. Do you think this means the spherical sun radiates nothing!?
The “sun” in this problem is only there as a source of energy. If anybunny wished is could have been put in as a flat plate matching the other two plates and radiating a constant 400 W/m2 of energy towards the left side of the blue plate or an electrical resistor buried in the blue plate providing heating of 400 W/m2 of power per unit area.
Like with the hexagons or whatever, or the spherical cow sun, these are merely bushy talled squirrels running across the thread to distract from the hole that Greenhaus and others are digging.
Barry
The diagram shows that the left side of the blue plate recieves 400w/m^2 from the sun. That equates to 400w total power received.
The plate would then emit a total of 400w. Expressed in terms of watts/surface area: 200w/m^2.
That’s because the plate has 2 square meters of surface (not counting edges).
“Surface area matters. The plate has 2 sides. If its area is 1 meter square, then each side must radiate at 200 w/m2 to equlibrate with the 400 w/m2 it receives from the sun.
1 m2 + 1 m2 = 2 m2
Thats the total surface area of the blue plate.
Now solve for input and surface area.
2 m2 square plate must emit 400 w/m2 it receives from the sun
1 m2 of the blue plate must emit 200 w/m2”
Yes, to satisfy conservation of energy. As discussed in my comment here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268262
Now put the green plate in. It receives thermal energy from the blue plate and radiates some back to it. Thus the blue plate is receiving more that 400 W/m2. That means it has to heat up so that at equilibrium it is emitting more than 400 W/m2.
It’s arithmatic
binny…”the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange….”
As I tried to tell you before, you quoted Clausius out of context. He was talking about compensation when he referred to thermal energy being transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. He threw in the statement about heat exchange out of the blue.
Clausius and Planck can be forgiven for thinking of heat transfer as IR flow. Planck called IR ‘heat rays’. Since the times of Clausius and Planck we now know that heat is the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom. Thermal energy is constrained to the atoms in a body and cannot flow between bodies.
Clausius actually had that right in solids and he declared that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. He even coined the symbol U to represent internal energy. He did not know about EM and its substance.
It is now clear that EM is not heat, to everyone but Eli Rabbett and other alarmists. An electron converts it’s heat as kinetic energy to EM when it drops to a lower energy level. The electron does not transmit heat, it transmits EM.
Now go back to your original statement of Clausius, that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body without compensation.
When G&T tried to explain this in their paper, Eli Rabbett made the startling statement that one body is not radiating. Of course, it’s radiating, the IR from a cooler body is simply not absorbed by a warmer body.
Greenhaus,
That the surface area receiving 400 W/m2 is receiving the flux from the sun is half the surface area emitting does present a problem from a conservation of energy point of view if both sides emit 400 W/m2. But equally, as Postma points out, the side facing the sun also has to reach a temperature where its emitting 400 W/m2 to be in equilibrium with the flux from the sun:
Postma is wrong.
The blue plate is losing 200 w/m2 from the right side. It can’t emit 400 w/m2 towards the sun, or energy is not conserved here, it is being created. It can’t emit 0 w/m2 to the right, or we’ve broken the rule that objects radiate in all directions (2 directions in our 2D model).
Blue plate emits 200 w/m2 either side.
That means the green plate is receiving 200 w/m2 when introduced to the system on the right side of the blue plate. Like the blue plate, it warms up and emits half that amount either side.
The 2-plate system is now losing a total of 300 w/m2. That’s 100 w/m2 short of the in put from the sun.
So the green plate has to heat up.
Sow how can the green plate get any hotter? Energy cannot be created.
It must receive more energy from the blue plate. The blue plate must heat up in order for this to happen.
Both plates heat up until the total thermal loss from the 2-plate system is equal to the input from the sun.
The green plate cannot heat up to be as warm as the blue plate, because the blue plate is receiving thermal radiation from (sun + green plate), and green plate is only receiving thermal radiation from the blue plate.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Planck called IR heat rays. Since the times of Clausius and Planck we now know that heat is the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom.”
Planck was, of course, right.
You, of course, are wrong — heat takes many forms, including IR.
Nope, the “back radiation” can NOT raise the temp of the blue plate.
THAT would be pseudoscience.
Ger*,
Let me just add that in physics, applying common sense or analogies to other things can be helpful, but it is not reliable. Case in point: relativity. When applying common sense leads to contradictions, that is a clue that it is wrong.
So you may be using common sense to assume that since heat flows from hot to cold, then radiation or photons should never flow from cold to hot.
Consider water evaporating from a glass into the air. We know that in fact some water molecules in the air are impacting the liquid surface and sticking, but most are going from the liquid into the air. So the net flow is from liquid to gas.
Or in circuits, the net flow of charge is in one direction, but individually, electrons can go the other way.
So in heat transfer, photons can go from cold to hot, and do. But the net flow is from hot to cold.
Hi barry,
sorry for delay, i missed this post..
the disconnect between you and Greenhaus is all about the units you are using…
when i hear that an object is receiving 400w/m2 i assume that means over its entire surface area… the flux i believe Greenhaus called it
when i realized that you were both effectively talking about 2 different levels of power input i suggested the 1 sq m plate to try and simplify …
so then what we need to agree on is just how much energy is entering the system… if it is 400w then the blue plate will radiate at 200w/m2 or 200w in each direction…
with that in mind please show me where there is flaw in myconclusion that the blue plate will then warm the green plate until it ALSO is radiating 200 w in each direction..
400w in.. 400w out.. NET RT between the plates is 0.. temp is t1.. we are at equilibrium..
Oh, I see what you mean.
The blue plate receives 400 w/m2 on its its left side – as in the diagram. Here is the link again so that you can see it.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
It thus radiates 200 w/m2 from each surface to equilibrate with the input.
That means that the green plate, which is shielded from the sun by the blue plate, is only receiving 200 w/m2 to its right side, as in the diagram. That means that it warms up to emit 200 w/m2 in total, which, like the blue plate, is half that amount on each surface – 100 w/m2.
The flaw:
How does the green plate heat up to emit (lose) more than 100 w/m2 on its right surface? It must receive more energy. It is only getting energy from the blue plate, so the blue plate must warm.
Your answer above, that the energy between the blue plates “cancels out,” is effectively changing a 3-body set up to a 2-body set up.
There has to be a negative temperature gradient from the blue plate to the green plate, because the blue plate is receiving thermal radiation from the (sun+ green plate), but the green plate is receiving thermal radiation only from the blue plate. The blue plate must always be warmer than the green. The 2nd Law is preserved.
Hi barry,
again i dont think you see what i mean..
the system we are looking at is the plate (or plates) if energy is added to the system the system MUST warm until energy output equals input
if we are adding 400w total to the system (from any direction)
then 400w total must be leaving the system at equillibrium
as our ‘ thought experiment’ only allows for energy to leave to the right and to the left then at equillibrium output MUST be 200w to either side (with the characteristics of the plates as originally given)
and their temp must be the same.. because the NET RT at equilibrium must be 0
barry asks: “How does the green plate heat up to emit (lose) more than 100 w/m2 on its right surface? It must receive more energy. It is only getting energy from the blue plate, so the blue plate must warm.”
barry, think of it this way:
The blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 to the green plate. The green plate warms accordingly. But, as the green plate warms, it wants to emit IR from both surfaces. But, the blue plate is at a higher temperature. So the green plate increases in temperature until it equals the blue plate temperature. At that point, it is emitting 200 W/m^2 to the right.
But, the blue plate is at a higher temperature. So the green plate increases in temperature until it equals the blue plate temperature. At that point, it is emitting 200 W/m^2 to the right.
The blue plate is at a higher temperature, because we sum both sides of the blue plate (200 w/m2 + 200 w/m2) to get 400 w/m2.
But the green plate is only receiving energy from one side of the blue plate, not both sides. (And it is shielded from solar energy by the blue plate)
The thermal radiation from the left side of the blue plate cannot bend around, double back and focus its energy on the green plate. This energy is leaving the 2-plate system (to the left), not returning to it.
How does the green plate get more energy than the 200 w/m2 it receives from the right surface of the blue plate?
again i dont think you see what i mean..
I do. Where we disagree is that there must be a thermal gradient (negative) from the blue plate to the green plate.
I don’t think you’ve addressed my comments on that.
I think that your description is effectively of a 2-body set up, where you’ve canceled relative heat loss inside the 2-plate system. So now you only have Sun + 1 other body.
To repeat and rephrase (please remark on any error you see in the following):
Green plate only receives 200 w/m2 from right side of blue plate.
It cannot receive 400 w/m2 from the blue plate, because 200 w/m2 is leaving the 2-plate system to the left of the blue plate. That radiant energy cannot bend around to focus back on the green plate.
The environment surrounding the 2-plate system is a vacuum, so the green plate cannot get energy from the environment – only the blue plate.
It’s not getting energy from the sun because it is shielded from the sun by the blue plate. So all energy received by the green plate is coming from the right side of the blue plate.
And the blue plate is only giving 200 w/m2 to the green plate.
Green plate emits 100 w/m2 on each side to match input from blue plate.
The green plate can only heat up (and it must for the 2-plate system to equilibrate with input) if it gets more energy from the right side of the blue plate. That’s the only way it can get warmer. The only way it can get more energy from the right side of the blue plate is if that side of the blue plate gets warmer: IOW, only if the blue plate warms up.
barry responds: ‘The blue plate is at a higher temperature, because we sum both sides of the blue plate (200 w/m2 + 200 w/m2) to get 400 w/m2.”
NO. It is hotter because it receives 400 W/m^2 from the source.
barry continues: “The thermal radiation from the left side of the blue plate cannot bend around, double back and focus its energy on the green plate. This energy is leaving the 2-plate system (to the left), not returning to it.”
Do NOT get lost in pseudoscience.
barry continues: “How does the green plate get more energy than the 200 w/m2 it receives from the right surface of the blue plate?”
It doesn’t. But, that energy must be emitted from the right side. That’s why blue and green plate obtain the same temps.
Sorry, GHE goes bye-bye. AGW goes bye-bye.
But, you secretly knew that was coming, right?
g*e*r*a*n: “Thats why blue and green plate obtain the same temps.”
You’ve just contradicted yourself….
barry: “Blue plate must always be warmer than green plate”
g*e*r*a*n: “Warmer or nearly equal.”
barry are you really claiming I contradicted myself?
g*e*r*a*n: “Thats why blue and green plate obtain the same temps.”
g*e*r*a*n: “Warmer or nearly equal.”
Do you actually believe that is a contradiction? Are you just trying to be funny, or are you that desperate?
Ger* and others
It is not that complicated.
You have to satisfy conservation of energy, and the Planck law. The only way to do that is as has been explained by Eli and Barry.
I1, I2 are intensities radiated from plate 1, 2 in BOTH directions.
Conservation of Energy for plate 1
400-2*I1 +I2 =0
Conservation of Energy for plate 2
I1-2*I2 =0
Solve I2 =I1/2 substitute into eqn1. 400-2*I1 +I1/2
so 3/2 I1 = 400 I1 = 267 I2 = 133
use sigmaT1^4 =267 sigmaT2^4 = 133 to find T1 and T2
This is textbook physics. It has been solved by thousands of students. It is also used regularly to understand radiation shielding in spacecraft and cryogenics.
It’s ok if you haven’t had the class and dont understand it.
But that does not make it wrong.
Sorry Nate, it is you, et al, that do not understand physics.
Your “solution” raises the temperature of the system without adding any new energy. That’s a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
The correct solution of the problem, for the perfect conditions (no losses, no leakages, identical plates, ideal conductors, etc.) is:
400 W/m^2 input to the blue plate (left plate)
both plates achieve the equilibrium temperature (T1 = 243.7K)
blue plate emits 200 W/m^2 to the left
green plate emits 200 W/m^2 to the right
The 2-plate system has 400 W/m^2 incoming and 400 W/m^2 outgoing.
ger*.
No, the sun has happily provided the energy.
As fun as it is to see you tie yourself in knots trying to guess a ‘solution’ using misconceptions, there is no way to solve it without math and correct physics.
You remind me of students, who, never having been to class, flail on a midterm problem.
BTW. Your ‘solution’ has plate 1 transfering. 200 W to plate 2, yet they are at same temp!
2LOT violation, bigly.
Why should a plate in shade reach same temp as one in sun?
Why is blue allowed to radiate in 2 directions, but green plate only in 1?
Nate: “No, the sun has happily provided the energy.”
g*: Sorry Nate, 400 Watts is 400 Watts, same in both situations. There is no “new” energy, as I said, and you failed to understand. As someone wrote: “As fun as it is to see you tie yourself in knots trying to guess a solution using misconceptions, there is no way to solve it without math and correct physics.”
Nate: “BTW. Your solution has plate 1 transfering. 200 W to plate 2, yet they are at same temp! 2LOT violation, bigly.”
g*: Wrong, bigly. As I explained elsewhere, the situation compares to a voltage source and a simple resistive load. The source and load have the same voltage, but energy flows from the source to the load.
Nate: “Why should a plate in shade reach same temp as one in sun?”
g*: In this ideal situation, the first plate heats the second plate. There are no losses.
Nate: Why is blue allowed to radiate in 2 directions, but green plate only in 1?
g*: The green plate emits in both directions.
Yes, the 400w is there. So what?
Analogy to circuit is pointless. Stick to heat. Dont get heat flow across empty space for free. Must be a temp difference.
Green radiates 200 in both directions? Ok. So must be recieving 400 from somewhere.
Where? Blue is sending 200.
You see it doesnt add up.
Now Nate, are you really confused, or are you just trying to confuse the issue?
Let’s go slow, taking only one thing at a time.
Do you understand that you cannot raise the temperature of a system without adding more energy?
Ger*,
Dont why you are confused about me being confused. Ive been using conservation of energy, so naturally I do understand that Temp cannot be raised without energy input.
Nor have I claimed this anywhere.
As I showed in the calculation, there is 400 W/m2 input from the sun. So the plates obviously heat up, until they reach a steady temperature, equilibrium. At which point, the blue plate radiates 267W/m2 and the green plate 133 W/m2, in both directions.
ger*
You avoided answering my question about the green plate.
You claim it is sending 200W/m2 to right and 200W/m2 to left. So it must be receiving 400 W/m2 from somewhere, to remain in equilibrium
Yet the Blue plate can only provide 200 W/m2 in your proposed solution. This does not add up.
Whoa Nate, remember one topic at a time. Let’s not make it confusing.
Topic 1 is the question: “Do you understand that you cannot raise the temperature of a system without adding more energy?”
To which you answered, correctly: “…so naturally I do understand that Temp cannot be raised without energy input.”
We both agree.
Yet, only adding the second (green) plate, the bogus solution has the temperature of the first (blue) plate rising from 243.7K to 261.9K. That’s an temperature INCREASE of about 18K, with the same energy input.
Do you agree that is impossible?
‘the temperature of the first (blue) plate rising from 243.7K to 261.9K. Thats an temperature INCREASE of about 18K, with the same energy input.’
This is not my statement.
Lets not get distracted. You still didnt address the problem, which I’ll repeat:
‘You claim it is sending 200W/m2 to right and 200W/m2 to left. So it must be receiving 400 W/m2 from somewhere, to remain in equilibrium
Yet the Blue plate can only provide 200 W/m2 in your proposed solution.
This does not add up.’
Point is your solution, or mine, has to explain equilibrium.
Then we can discuss getting there.
Nate: “This is not my statement.”
g*: It was MY statement, based on the conditions given. What made you believe I was attributing the statement to you? (No need to answer if you now understand.)
So, if you agree that the bogus solution is invalid, due to the increased temperature, we can move to Topic 2.
Topic 2) “You (g*) claim it (green plate) is sending 200W/m2 to right and 200W/m2 to left. So it must be receiving 400 W/m2 from somewhere, to remain in equilibrium. Yet the Blue plate can only provide 200 W/m2 in your proposed solution. This does not add up.”
Nate, it may help if you draw this out on a piece of paper. At equilibrium, the green plate emits 200 W/m2 to the left and to the right. The 200 W/m2 emitted to the left is reflected back by the blue plate. You also have 200 W/m2 arriving from the blue plate. So, adding up, 200 + 200 – 200 – 200 = 0.
Status:
Topic 1–Closed
Topic 2–Closed, unless Nate has questions.
‘The 200 W/m2 emitted to the left is reflected back by the blue plate.’
As I suspected, you have no answer that isn’t total nonsense.
The plates are not mirrors.
As difficult as it may be you have to admit that your proposed solution does not satisfy energy conservation. And move on.
As to point 1. No just no.
The plates begin cold, and once exposed to the sun absorb energy until they reach equilibrium. Is no there there.
Why Nate, blasting off into pseudoscience so soon?
Who said the plates were mirrors? Who’s violating “conservation of energy”?
You agreed that raising the temperature of a system requires adding energy. From the website of the source of this nonsense:
Solving for T1 the answer is T1 = 262 K.
Without the greenhouse plate it was 244 K.
Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.
All he did was add the second plate and the temperature went up 18K!
You have to go against facts, logic, and YOUR own thinking: “I’ve been using conservation of energy, so naturally I do understand that Temp cannot be raised without energy input.”
That’s what false religions do to a victim’s mind.
Ger*.
When plates have to become magic mirrors, that reflect photons from one source, but absorb from another, in order to avoid violating a law of physics, isnt that pseudoscience at its finest?
Sorry you cant just make up science to suit your erroneous beliefs.
As to the temp rise with same 400 w input, i fail to see the problem.
Afterall, the initially cold plates can rise in temp? How? Because < 400 w is initially going out. Agreed?
The addition of green plate blocks the outflow of heat to empty space, initially. Just as adding double paned windows to your house makes your house warmer.
So, let’s identify your new topics, to avoid confusion.
Topic 3: “When plates have to become magic mirrors, that reflect photons from one source, but absorb from another, in order to avoid violating a law of physics, isnt that pseudoscience at its finest?”
There are no magic mirrors. They occur only in your belief system. So yes, some might agree that is “pseudoscience at its finest”.
Topic 4: “As to the temp rise with same 400 w input, i fail to see the problem. After all, the initially cold plates can rise in temp?”
The wording, from the website, clearly indicated he was adding the green plate to the system in equilibrium. He even indicated the blue plate temperature BEFORE and after. You do not want to accept that, because it means you have to back away from what you agreed to earlier.
Topic 5: The addition of green plate blocks the outflow of heat to empty space, initially. Just as adding double paned windows to your house makes your house warmer.
Well, that’s not exactly how it works, but at least you didn’t back out of what you had said earlier, or violate any more laws of thermodynamics. But, it is funny how you have to bring in both “double paned windows” and “magic mirrors”. Do you work for a glass company?
Status:
Topic 1Closed, Nate rejects laws of thermodynamics.
Topic 2Closed, Nate rejects properties of radiative heat transfer.
Topic 3-Open
Topic 4-Open
Topic 5-Open
‘There are no magic mirrors. They occur only in your belief system.’
Ok so we are off to deep denial land. I’ll repeat your words;
‘the green plate emits 200 W/m2 to the left and to the right. The 200 W/m2 emitted to the left is reflected back by the blue plate. You also have 200 W/m2 arriving from the blue plate. So, adding up, 200 + 200 200 200 = 0.’
If the blue plate can reflect back ALL of the 200 W/m2 from the green plate, then it is acting like a perfect mirror. No? Yes?
Meanwhile, the blue plate absorbs ALL of the 400 W/m^2 from the sun.
So, according to your statements, it can reflect ALL photons from one source and absorb ALL photons from another source. How does it know how to recognize where the photons came from?
Do you not see that this is a magic mirror? Ie one that does not exist in nature.
‘Well, thats not exactly how it works’ double paned windows.
Happy to hear how it does work, so long as you dont invent new physics to explain.
To elaborate further, the addition of the green plate is just like adding insulation to something heated. It could be an oven, toaster, your house, whatever. What happens when you add insulation with a constant input power? The temp rises.
Now you will undoubtedly say the green plate is not insulation.
Oh but it is. I have encountered its use to insulate in my own work.
To insulate a container holding cold liquid helium, there is a vacuum jacket containing many thin metal layers, with gaps between. Outer layers are warmer and inner layers cooler. Each layer is blocking some radiation -just as the blue layer is blocking some radiation from green layer.
Dont believe me? How about rocket scientists?
https://www.aerospacefab.com/product/mli/
This relates to Topic 3.
Nate: “So, according to your statements, it can reflect ALL photons from one source and absorb ALL photons from another source. How does it know how to recognize where the photons came from?”
g*: The answer is the word “source”. In thermodynamics, a “heat source” brings new heat energy into the system. The 400W to the blue plate is from a “heat source”. The 200W emitted from the right side of the blue plate has that potential. It gets ab.sor.bed by the green plate. And for the same reasons, the 200W from the green plate gets reflected by the blue plate.
A quick analogy is a simple electrical circuit, such as a flashlight. The circuit is basically batteries, a switch, and a bulb. Consider the batteries as the “source”, and the bulb as the “load”. (Throw out the switch to make it simpler.)
Now, with connections and no wire loses, the voltage of the “source” is V. The voltage of the “load” is also “V”. But, energy flows to the load from the source, not the other way around. Same voltages (temperatures), but only one-way energy flow. The source lights the bulb. The bulb is not supplying energy to the source.
So, there are no “magic mirrors”. It’s just how thermodynamics works.
Nate, now you’re starting a new topic. Let’s work off some of the others first, if you don’t mind. It will hold down the confusion.
Your new topic is:
Topic 6–Is the green plate an insulator?
I’ll put it on the list, but please, no more until me make some progress.
Topic 1-Closed, Nate rejects laws of thermodynamics.
Topic 2-Closed, Nate rejects properties of radiative heat transfer.
Topic 3-Open
Topic 4-Open
Topic 5-Open
Topic 6-(not started)
The 200W emitted from the right side of the blue plate has that potential. It gets ab.sor.bed by the green plate. And for the same reasons, the 200W from the green plate gets reflected by the blue plate.”
This is gibberish. Again you have plates behaving differently depending on your whims. Not ok. Plates have same properties on all sides and for all photons..as problem was setup.
Point 7-g* is trying to make the plates behave differently.
I’ll add it to the list.
I take it then, that points 3 and 4 are closed.
Status:
Topic 1-Closed, Nate rejects laws of thermodynamics.
Topic 2-Closed, Nate rejects properties of radiative heat transfer.
Topic 3-Closed, plates are not mirrors
Topic 4-Closed, Nate no longer agrees to what he agreed to
Topic 5-Open
Topic 6-(not started) Is the green plate an insulator?
Topic 7-(not started) g* is trying to make the plates behave differently.
I’ll have responses to 6 & 7 in an hour or so.
Topics list.
AFIK we are still talking about the same 2 topics.
1. Equilibrium
2. Not equilibrium
My discussion of magic mirrors is to clear up #1. My discussion of insulation is to answer your problems with #2. My bringing up a real world application is to show you that I am not making this sh*t up.
Sorry, I am not going down the rabbit hole to discuss electronics with you. Stick to heat please.
Points 6 & 7
Nate believes the green plate is an insulator (Point 6).
Nate believes g* is trying to make the plates behave differently (Point 7).
Nate, the green plate is no different from the blue plate. Just as the blue plate is not an insulator, the green plate in not either. They are both the same. You are the one trying to make them different. You are calling them “magic mirrors”.
Why are you trying to change the conditions?
It appears you know your pseudoscience is a hoax.
Nate: “AFIK we are still talking about the same 2 topics.
1. Equilibrium
2. Not equilibrium”
g*: Nate, where have you been. I have detailed the topics. You never complained earlier. Now you are off on your own topics!
Hilarious.
Nate: “My discussion of magic mirrors is to clear up #1.”
g: Sorry Nate, Point 1 was about the fact that you cannot increase the temperature of a system without increasing the energy. You’re grasping at straws now.
Nate: “My discussion of insulation is to answer your problems with #2. My bringing up a real world application is to show you that I am not making this sh*t up.”
g*: Sorry Nate, Point 2 involved your not understanding the energy budget of the green plate. It had nothing to do with insulation. You ARE making this sh*t up!
Nate: “Sorry, I am not going down the rabbit hole to discuss electronics with you. Stick to heat please.”
g*: Nate, as simple flashlight is NOT electronics. Maybe you do not have the science background to be here.
ger*
No ger*an, you are contradicting your own words. You claimed the plates absorb or reflect photons differently depending on their source, then the direction of travel? I guess? It is quite confusing, and not consistent with any plates i know if.
As I said you are tying yourself in knots to defend an incorrect notion about radiative heat transfer. You are not using established physics, so of course you cannot get the right answer.
You could learn correct science….but you seem to prefer to cling to misconceptions.
Nate: “No ger*an, you are contradicting your own words. You claimed the plates absorb or reflect photons differently depending on their source, then the direction of travel? I guess? It is quite confusing, and not consistent with any plates i know if.”
g*: FALSE! You can’t show me one time where I contradicted myself. You can not support your own words.
Nate: “As I said you are tying yourself in knots to defend an incorrect notion about radiative heat transfer. You are not using established physics, so of course you cannot get the right answer.”
g*: Show me even one example where I am not using “established physics”. You can not support your own words.
Nate: “You could learn correct science.but you seem to prefer to cling to misconceptions.”
g*: Nate this is where you need to look into those “magic mirrors”. Everything you claim about me is true about YOU.
g*: FALSE! You cant show me one time where I contradicted myself. You can not support your own words.
N:You say “the green plate is no different from the blue plate. Just as the blue plate is not an insulator, the green plate in not either. They are both the same. You are the one trying to make them different.”
Previoiusly you said: ” 200W emitted from the right side of the blue plate has that potential. It gets ab.sor.bed by the green plate. And for the same reasons, the 200W from the green plate gets reflected by the blue plate.”
Here you have the blue plate acting as a perfect reflector (definition of a mirror), and the green plate acting as a perfect absorber. That is different behavior, a contradiction.
g*: Show me even one example where I am not using established physics.
In the problem as given, the BLUE plate is acting as a perfect absorber wrt the sun. It absorbs ALL of the 400w/m2, and emits 200 to right and left. This is the definition of a Black Body.
But wrt the 200W/m2 coming from the GREEN plate, the BLUE plate is acting as a mirror (perfect reflector) (G:the 200W from the green plate gets reflected by the blue plate).
A plate (BLUE) cannot simultaneously act like a Black Body and mirror. It is one or the other. This does not agree with any established physics.
Nate: “Here you have the blue plate acting as a perfect reflector (definition of a mirror), and the green plate acting as a perfect absorber. That is different behavior, a contradiction. A plate (BLUE) cannot simultaneously act like a Black Body and mirror. It is one or the other. This does not agree with any established physics.”
g*: FALSE! You are incorrect in determining what is happening. The plates are identical, but their temperatures are NOT. Temperatures affect heat transfer, whether the transfer is conductive, convective, are radiative. Energy does NOT move to a higher potential. I’ve explained this with the simple flashlight circuit, but you do not have enough physics background to understand.
Ger*
G:”The plates are identical, but their temperatures are NOT.”
Earlier G:”the green plate increases in temperature until it equals the blue plate temperature.”
Huh??!
An analogy to circuits does not get you out of jail for violating other known physics laws. And it just opens up new avenues for misunderstanding.
Look, here is the key point. I dont know how to make this more plain or more clear.
You have the Blue plate acting as a mirror, perfectly reflecting the 200 W/m2 from the Green plate. But is required by the setup of the problem, and its behavior in isolation, to act as Black Body, a perfect absorber.
It cannot be both a perfect mirror and a perfect Black Body, according to known physics!
Have you ever seen your reflection in a piece of charcoal?!
Put in wrong thread-should be here:
Ger*an,
Let me just add that in physics, applying common sense or analogies to other things can be helpful, but it is not reliable. Case in point: relativity. When applying common sense leads to contradictions, that is a clue that it is wrong.
So you may be using common sense to assume that since heat flows from hot to cold, then radiation or photons should never flow from cold to hot.
Consider water evaporating from a glass into the air. We know that in fact some water molecules in the air are impacting the liquid surface and sticking, but most are going from the liquid into the air. So the net flow is from liquid to gas.
Or in circuits, the net flow of charge is in one direction, but individually, electrons can go the other way.
So in heat transfer, photons can go from cold to hot, and do. But the net flow is from hot to cold.
Nate: “An analogy to circuits does not get you out of jail for violating other known physics laws. And it just opens up new avenues for misunderstanding.”
Nate: “Have you ever seen your reflection in a piece of charcoal?!
Nate: “Let me just add that in physics, applying common sense or analogies to other things can be helpful, but it is not reliable.”
Nate: “So you may be using common sense to assume that since heat flows from hot to cold, then radiation or photons should never flow from cold to hot.”
Nate: “Consider water evaporating from a glass into the air.”
Nate: “Or in circuits, the net flow of charge is in one direction, but individually, electrons can go the other way.”
Nate, you are bouncing all over the field, in a failed attempt to run from reality.
Wow, what a smoke screen!
The bogus solution fails for the reason we both agreed on–it has the blue plate increasing in temperature with no new energy being added to the system. You are in denial of that very fact, consequently, your smoke screen is necessary to obfuscate the debate I am attempting.
Ger*
“Nate, you are bouncing all over the field, in a failed attempt to run from reality.”
Funny, this is the first you have entered into an extensive back and forth with me. So I thought that was an improvement, and encouraging that maybe you actually are interested in science. But now I am discouraged again.
You asked me to show you your contradictions. I did that, several times.
You asked me to show you how you violated established physics. I showed you.
You have no real counter-arguments for these.
Without you asking, I showed you real-world applications.
I tried to explain that applying only common sense can lead to wrong answers.
These are the normal ways that scientifically-minded people get persuaded to reconsider their ideas.
But not you, I guess. Too bad.
The smoke screen continues!
And, that’s because Nate can’t deal with:
“The bogus solution fails for the reason we both agreed onit has the blue plate increasing in temperature with no new energy being added to the system. You are in denial of that very fact, consequently, your smoke screen is necessary to obfuscate the debate I am attempting.”
Ger*
‘The bogus solution fails for the reason we both agreed onit has the blue plate increasing in temperature with no new energy being added?”
Not sure who you reached ‘agreements. wasnt me.
BTW, when we add the green plate, how does its temperature rise to the temperature of your ‘solution’ with no new energy being added to the system?
Even your gotchas are full of contradictions!
I am ‘in denial’?
But you are totally fine with 400 = 200? or
Black plate turns into a mirror??
Nate inquires: “BTW, when we add the green plate, how does its temperature rise to the temperature of your solution with no new energy being added to the system?”
It’s called “radiative heat transfer” and “conservation of energy”. The “source” supplies 400 W/m^2 to the blue plate. The blue plate radiates 200 W/m2 to the green plate. The green plate warms to the same temperature as the blue plate so that it can then radiate 200 W/m^2 to the right.
Most of the rest of your recent comments were just more desperate smoke screen. Such as: “Not sure who you reached agreements. wasnt me.”
Someone hacked your screen name?
Desperate.
Earlier G:the green plate increases in temperature until it equals the blue plate temperature.
The latest statement is “G:The plates are identical, but their temperatures are NOT.
So which is your ‘solution’ anyway? You seem to have proven yourself wrong!
I am doing a ‘smokescreen’?
Me pointing out that your idea of ‘heat transfer’ requires charcoal to transform into silver is diversion from my real intentions??
Okay, Nate, I’m going with the assumption that no one wants to be an idiot. You have confused yourself with the “plates are at the same temperature” and “the plates are at different temperatures” nonsense.
So, let me try one more approach.
The plates are both heated from the source on the left. The heat transfer is from left to right. The blue plate is “up stream” of the green plate. It will have an infinitesimally higher temperature, due to the heat transfer. In a “perfect” set up as this example, the “infinitesimal” is ignored and the plates are considered to be at the same temperature.
“The blue plate radiates 200 W/m2 to the green plate. The green plate warms to the same temperature as the blue plate so that it can then radiate 200 W/m^2 to the right.”
So let me get this straight, before the green plate reaches its final temp, it is radiating < 200 W/m2 to the right? So the total outgoing is < 400 W/m2. Makes sense. That allows for the addition of energy to the system.
Hmmm sounds very familiar..Oh yeah, when I said this:
N:"The addition of green plate blocks the outflow of heat to empty space, initially. "
So really your BIG PROBLEM earlier: "Do you understand that you cannot raise the temperature of a system without adding more energy?"
is not a problem at all. As you demonstrated we are adding more energy to the system.
See, no 'smokescreen' necessary at all.
Nate gets more desperate: “Me pointing out that your idea of heat transfer requires charcoal to transform into silver is diversion from my real intentions??”
Nate, you’re already so confused you shouldn’t be trying to turn charcoal into silver. I think they used to call that “alchemy”. Nowadays, it’s often called “pseudoscience”.
Nate exhibits more confusion: “…is not a problem at all. As you demonstrated we are adding more energy to the system.”
Nate, you are confusing “adding energy” BEFORE equilibrium with AFTER equilibrium. Before equilibrium, the 400 W/m^ heats the system (raises the temperature). Once equilibrium is reached, the temperature can go no higher, without increasing the available energy.
That’s what you essentially agreed to, before you realized it “sank your boat”. Now you are on a desperate (and failing) effort to spin your way out.
It’s fun to watch.
‘It will have an infinitesimally higher temperature, due to the heat transfer. In a perfect set up as this example, the infinitesimal is ignored and the plates are considered to be at the same temperature.’
Ok, interesting. I am breathing hard to keep up with all the changes…
Now you have stated that the 200 W/m2 going right from the BLUE is absorbed by the GREEN. BUT the 200 W/m2 from the GREEN going left is reflected by the BLUE.
So, is it the ‘infinitesimal’ difference that allows the BLUE to act like a mirror and the GREEN to act like charcoal?
But then what happens when they reach the same temp?
‘Nate, you are confusing adding energy BEFORE equilibrium with after equilibrium”
No not at all. I am not confused. It is all being added BEFORE reaching equilibrium. When the GREEN plate reaches its final temp. That is equilibrium.
So you agreed, that the system can ‘add energy’ by the addition of the GREEN plate?
Nate tries another “gotcha”: “But then what happens when they reach the same temp?”
Nate, see previous discussions on “same” vs. “infinitesimally higher”.
Nate desperately implores: “So you agreed, that the system can add energy by the addition of the GREEN plate?”
Sorry Nate, I never agreed to any such thing. But your desperation is becoming funnier and funnier.
‘I never agreed to any such thing.’
Oh but you most certainly did.
G:The green plate warms to the same temperature as the blue plate so that it can then radiate 200 W/m^2 to the right.
and here:
G:Before equilibrium, the 400 W/m^ heats the system (raises the temperature).
There is warming, so energy is clearly being added.
Yes or No?
So many contradictions, Im losing track.
‘Nate, see previous discussions on same vs. infinitesimally higher.
You dont think its odd that a plate should reflect 200W/m2, but if its temp was infinitesmally lower it could switch to absorbing 200W/m^2?
I think that is an odd scenario. I think most people would think so. Go ask a colleague..
Infinitesimal is usually discussed in calculus of continuous variables.
This scenario is not at all continuous in its behavior.
Nate claims: I think that is an odd scenario. I think most people would think so.
No, it’s not odd at all. Consider a long, horizontal pipe. At one end of the pipe, water is pumped in at a pressure of 10psi, flow rate of 5 gpm. It’s a “perfect” pipe, with no frictional losses. Near the outlet, the pressure is 10 psi and flow rate of 5 gpm.
So how can water flow from 10 psi to 10 psi? Answer: It is being pushed by the pump (source). Do you believe the water can flow backwards toward the pump, by lengthening the pipe?
You’re lost in pseudoscience, trying to argue how “pigs can fly”.
Fun to watch.
So you use an imaginary perfect pipe, to prove something?
Pipes are not perfect, Dufus, and if they were, then a tiny pressure will give infinite flow…
Your scenario with plates turning from mirrors into charcoal with an infinitesimal temp change? Does that really sound sensible to you?
What would happen if I added 1 W/m2 to the GREEN plate from a bulb on its right?
Wouldnt its T rise a bit? Then would its 200+ W/m2 now be absorbed by the BLUE?
So many crazy things…I get dizzy.
Nate believes he has me stumped: “So you use an imaginary perfect pipe, to prove something?”
Nate, the original plate scenario involves “perfect” conditions.
Sheeeesh, you’re making this too easy!
And, right on schedule the name-calling begins:
“Pipes are not perfect, Dufus”
Hilarious.
“G:Before equilibrium, the 400 W/m^ heats the system (raises the temperature).
There is warming, so energy is clearly being added.
Even in your scenario, the Green plates temp is rising until equilibrium is reached.
As you say, ‘the 400W/m2 heats the system (raises the temperature). ‘
Therefore energy is added to the system.
Yes or No?
So never got an answer on this.
But clearly there is really no choice here,based on your earlier comments the answer must be Yes.
In that case then you have to agree that your BIG PROBLEM with my solution, based on ‘energy added to the system’ is not really a problem.
Are you putting up a smokescreen to ignore this?
‘And, right on schedule the name-calling begins:
Pipes are not perfect, Dufus
Oh did that hurt your feelings? Sorry.
Im surprised it took me this long, given that
G labels my textbook physics ‘pseudoscience’ over and over. Calls me ‘desperate’ over and over, claims I “do not have enough physics background to understand.”
The latter particularly funny since I do have physics expertise, as should have been obvious.
Whatever makes you feel superior, Ger*an.
Nate, that’s a long ramble at 6:22, just to demonstrate AGAIN that you do not know the difference between BEFORE and AFTER equilibrium.
That, plus all the other examples prove that you do NOT have physics expertise.
And, I don’t have to worry about feeling superior, you take care of that for me.
Thank you very much.
Ger*,
Here you have a system heated on one side, so it is absolutely natural for there to be a temp gradient.
This fits both physics (Fourier) and common sense. It is precisely temperature difference that drives heat flow.
Here G:The plates are identical, but their temperatures are NOT.”
you are clearly intuiting that temperatures need to be different.
It is only for inexplicable reasons that you desire the temps to remain the same.
Yes the system is idealized, but it still obeys radiative physics laws. A heat flow of hundreds of watts/m2 across a vacuum gap requires a significant temp difference.
So why not just let nature do what it does, and let the temperatures be different…..?
Then all contradictions melt away.
‘Nate, thats a long ramble at 6:22, just to demonstrate AGAIN that you do not know the difference between BEFORE and AFTER equilibrium.”
I do know the difference. Until the GREEN plate reaches its final temp we are not at equilibrium.
Any warming (Green or Blue) requires new energy input to the system.
Nate erroneously claims: “It is precisely temperature difference that drives heat flow.”
g* responds: Nate, it is the energy flow that creates the temperature difference. Your thinking is backwards. The green plate is NOT a “heat source”. It’s temperature is determined by the energy it receives from the blue plate. (You may be confusing “radiative” heat transfer with “conductive” heat transfer.)
Nate continues with his misunderstanding of radiative heat transfer: “A heat flow of hundreds of watts/m2 across a vacuum gap requires a significant temp difference”.
g* responds: Photons “flow” from the source. Photons “flow” from ANY temperature above 0 K. Photons do NOT require a “significant temp difference” to be emitted.
Nate inquires: “So why not just let nature do what it does, and let the temperatures be different..?”
g* responds: Nature does not violate the laws of Nature.
Nate claims: “I do know the difference. Until the GREEN plate reaches its final temp we are not at equilibrium. Any warming (Green or Blue) requires new energy input to the system.”
g* responds: I’m not yet sure you really “know the difference”, based on some of your previous statements. Maybe if you would go back and voluntarily correct your mis-statements I would be more convinced.
Ger*,
‘Nate continues with his misunderstanding of radiative heat transfer: A heat flow of hundreds of watts/m2 across a vacuum gap requires a significant temp difference.
If I am misunderstanding then so are all the textbooks, so is Wikipedia (if you like), or wherever you care to look.
For Radiation: heat flow from object 1 to object 2 (W/m^2) proportional to the difference in 4th power of temperature,
T1^4- T2^4.
So your ‘infinitesimal’ temp difference can only produce an infinitesimal heat flow. Not hundreds of W/m2.
Dont have to believe me. Google it. Find me a source, other than Ger*ans imagination, that says something different.
Nate, one of the problems I have, when dealing with beliefs, is often the person does not know physics. But, it gets worse. Often the person does not even know the pseudoscience he so fervently believes in.
So since you want to teach me science, let’s see if you know what you believe in:
There are two plates in the scenario under discussion. At equilibrium, the blue plate would be at 261.9K, and the green plate at 220.2K, based on pseudoscience. So, add a third plate, call it “x”, down stream of the green plate. At equilibrium, what would be the temperatures of all three plates?
blue plate temp = ?
green plate temp = ?
x plate temp = ?
Most of the believers could not figure it out the pseudoscience they adhere to. Can you?
“For Radiation: heat flow from object 1 to object 2 (W/m^2) proportional to the difference in 4th power of temperature,
T1^4- T2^4.
So your infinitesimal temp difference can only produce an infinitesimal heat flow. Not hundreds of W/m2.
Sorry this is the real physics, ger*.
Do you have a reputable source, outside of your mind, that shows this physics is wrong or not?
I see your trying another diversion…
There are two plates in the scenario under discussion. At equilibrium, the blue plate would be at 261.9K, and the green plate at 220.2K, based on pseudoscience. So, add a third plate, call it x, down stream of the green plate. At equilibrium, what would be the temperatures of all three plates?
blue plate temp = ?
green plate temp = ?
x plate temp = ?
Yes, can do. Why do you ask?
I can show you, but if I do it, you will label it pseudoscience, so whats the point? To waste more of my time?
Well, it’s been over 3 hours, and Nate can not stand up to the easy test. All he has is his “belief”.
“Blah, blah, blah” counts for NOTHING.
He has demonstrated he doesn’t know physics. Now he has demonstrated he doesn’t even understand the pseudoscience he touts.
This little problem was a case of “when the rubber meets the road”. Nate found out all 4 of his tires were flat!
Hilarious.
Ger*
Oh I have to be on duty for you all the time, in the middle of my real work and while driving???
Id be happy to go over it with you, if you are truly interested.
But if you want me to do this work, what do i get out of it? more accusations of pseudoscience?
How bout first you answer the questions that I asked that you avoided?
”Find me a source, other than Ger*ans imagination, that says something different.”
referring to the standard radiative heat transfer eqns
Nate, you have responded relentlessly now for about the last 5 days. But suddenly, you are too busy. And, you probably actually believe that. Just like you believe you can solve the simple problem:
“Yes, can do”
“I can show you”
“I’d be happy to go over it with you”
You actually “believe” all that. And, your “beliefs” supersede facts every time.
Hilarious.
Well as fun as this is, life does intervene, maybe not for you. Is this your job, to f*ck with people and waste their time on the internet?
You wont answer my basic questions about real vs Ger*an pseudophysics, nor about energy flow on the way to equilibrium. Why? I guess them would be too embarassing for you.
You wont fail to understand the many contradictions of your pseudophysics.
But you expect me to do trivial algebra exercises for you (T1,2,3=270,244,205) I guess you cant do them yourself.
Oh I need to snap to it, or else I must be an idiot, right?
You are clearly a child.
Well finally! At least you were able to find someone that knew the pseudoscience.
Okay, did you notice the 270K, for the blue plate? The single plate temperature was 244K! So by adding two plates, the temperature goes up 26 K. For someone that understands thermo, that should be a problem.
Of course, if you believe the two plates are “insulators” and can “trap heat”, then no problem.
The rest of your blah, blah, blah and attempted insults just make it more fun.
(If you have any relevant questions, I’m willing to answer, but I doubt that actual science will fit your beliefs.)
‘Of course, if you believe the two plates are insulators and can trap heat’
You get very hung up on labels and names. No need to label anything, just apply the correct laws, conservation of energy, SB, and solve. This is how real physics can solver real problems.
There is no more of a thermo problem with 3 plates than there was with two.
As you showed, whether your ‘solution’ or mine, there is a rise in temperature within the system when the GREEN plate is brought in. YOU explained it. Less heat was escaping to the right initially. Energy WAS added.
If you can’t follow this very simple reasoning, then the logic chip in your brain needs to be replaced.
Are you going to argue back with words and labeling again? Or another diversion.
Or will you, as you need to, find the flaw in the logic
Nate, that’s just more incorrect blather.
And even your wandering confusion shows that you can’t think for yourself.
Nate: “As you (g*) showed, whether your solution or mine, there is a rise in temperature within the system when the GREEN plate is brought in.” (FALSE #1)
I think you actually believe this crap. You have to, in order to keep your belief protected. You have to believe that I am the one not seeing reality.
Your “solution” (pseudoscience) to the 3 plate scenario:
Blue = 270 K
Green = 244 K
x = 205 K
The correct solution is
Blue = 244 K
Green = 244 K
x = 244K
So, there is NO rise in temperature “when the GREEN plate is brought in”, in the CORRECT solution. You stated otherwise. You were demonstrably WRONG, yet you fully believe your FALSE statement. Your beliefs are more important to you than facts and logic.
Nate: “Less heat was escaping to the right initially. Energy WAS added.” (FALSE #2)
Same thing, I think you actually believe this crap. You feel you have to keep your belief protected.
In BOTH situations the energy added is the same. In BOTH situations the energy leaving is the same. The flux of 400 W/m^2, incoming and exiting, is the same in BOTH situations.
But, you can’t believe that, because it would ruin your pseudoscience. Your beliefs are more important to you than truth.
This also explains why black is white.
Younger Ger*an:
Nate inquires: BTW, when we add the green plate, how does its temperature rise to the temperature of your solution with no new energy being added to the system?
G: “Its called radiative heat transfer and conservation of energy. The source supplies 400 W/m^2 to the blue plate. The blue plate radiates 200 W/m2 to the green plate. The green plate warms to the same temperature as the blue plate so that it can then radiate 200 W/m^2 to the right.”
Older wiser Ger*an:
G: “So, there is NO rise in temperature when the GREEN plate is brought in, in the CORRECT solution.”
You contradict yourself again! Really hilarious! There is no end to it.
Is there warming or not in the system when the green plate is brought in?
You do realize, the Green plate is part of the system? If it warms, the the system is rising in temperature. Hence energy must be added.
Nate claims: “You contradict yourself again!”
FALSE #3.
Nate, there is NO contradiction, only a failure on your part to understand. Your inability to fathom BEFORE and AFTER equilibrium is amazing. It just exemplifies your lack of knowledge of thermodynamics.
As explained earlier, when the green plate is introduced, it is being warmed. There is 400 W/m^2 entering the system, but less exiting. The “missing” W/m^2 goes into raising the temperature of the green plate. Once equilibrium is reached, temperatures are no longer increasing, and 400 out = 400 in. The blue plate temperature does not rise above it’s equilibrium 244 K.
You’re welcome to try again. There seems to no limit on your devotion to your false religion.
Svante says: “This also explains why black is white.”
Exactly, Svante. They will argue any wrong fact to support their beliefs. They would argue against “pigs can’t fly”, if they believed doing so would support their dogma.
More specific:
Younger Ger*
G “..the green plate warms….”
Older wiser Ger*
Nate: As you (g*) showed, whether your solution or mine, there is a rise in temperature within the system when the GREEN plate is brought in.
G:(FALSE #1)
So you DO seem to realize that the SYSTEM is what is being discussed, and still say ‘False’. Amazing!
Nate, this particular confusion has already been explained. No points given. You need to come up with some new confusion.
G:
“As explained earlier, when the green plate is introduced, it is being warmed. There is 400 W/m^2 entering the system, but less exiting. The missing W/m^2 goes into raising the temperature of the green plate. Once equilibrium is reached, temperatures are no longer increasing, and 400 out = 400 in”
This is the first thing you said that makes complete sense!
Is a lot like what I have been saying.
Now what? Well I would revisit your objection to the ‘pseudoscience’ aka standard physics solution. Which you raised here for example:
G:Do you understand that you cannot raise the temperature of a system without adding more energy?
We both agree.
“Yet, only adding the second (green) plate, the bogus solution has the temperature of the first (blue) plate rising from 243.7K to 261.9K. Thats an temperature INCREASE of about 18K, with the same energy input.
“Do you agree that is impossible?”
As before, NO I dont agree. Because of your statement above.
Adding the GREEN plate results in adding NEW energy to the system, because ‘There is 400 W/m^2 entering the system, but less exiting’
So your objection ‘you cannot raise the temperature of a system without adding more energy’ is no longer a problem at all.
I wanted some new confusion from Nate, and boy did I get some!
Nate volunteers: “Adding the GREEN plate results in adding NEW energy to the system, because There is 400 W/m^2 entering the system, but less exiting.”
Nate believes his paycheck increases when they take out deductions!
The comedy continues.
ger*,
You are working very hard to misunderstand me. To what end? More diversion.
No, paid the same. Less spent. Savings acct grew.
Not that hard.
.
As long as there is a clown.
And “So your objection you cannot raise the temperature of a system without adding more energy is no longer a problem at all.”
remains as an inevitable conclusion…..unless you find some new way to confuse the obvious meaning of words!
“As long as there is a clown.”
There will always be clowns. We have new ones learning the pseudoscience all the time.
As Nate’s comedy routine draws to a close, here again is a summary of the issue.
Blue plate, alone. (Both science and pseudoscience agree here.)
At equilibrium, 400 W/m^2 in, 200 W/m^2 out from each side, plate at 243.7 K.
******
Blue plate radiating to green plate, at equilibrium (System remains 400 W/m^2 in, 400 W/m^2 out).
Pseudoscience says: blue plate at 261.9 K, green plate at 220.2 K. (VIOLATION of Laws of Thermodynamics.)
Science says: blue plate at 243.7 K, green plate at 243.7 K. (No violation.)
‘Pseudoscience says: blue plate at 261.9 K, green plate at 220.2 K. (VIOLATION of Laws of Thermodynamics.)’
Repeated an unproven thing over and over does not make it proven.
Your ‘solution’. Systems temp (the savings acct) rises because as G says “There is 400 W/m^2 entering the system, but less exiting. The missing W/m^2 goes into raising the temperature of the green plate.”
Textbook solution: Systems temp (the savings acct) rises because as physics says “There is 400 W/m^2 entering the system, but less exiting. The missing W/m^2 goes into raising the temperature of the green plate and blue plate.”
Pls explain how there is NO VIOLATION of Thermodynamics in your solution but there is a VIOLATION in the Textbook solution??? Be very specific.
Nate, in the “science” solution, the green plate warms because it is receiving IR from the warmer blue plate. Because the energy is going into the green plate, there is less energy to exit the system. Once the green plate warms to the equilibrium temperature, energy out = energy in.
In the “pseudoscience” solution, the blue plate is being heated ABOVE it’s equilibrium temperature by “back-radiation” from the colder green plate. Can you count how many laws of physics are being violated?
“Can you count how many laws of physics are being violated?”
No I can’t because you did not show ANY violations. If you can show me one, pls do so.
1st Law: not violated, because all energy is accounted for. Your problem was “you cannot raise the temperature of a system without adding more energy”.
As you and I agreed, energy WAS added to the system and temp rose. So this is not a 1LOT violation at all.
BACK RADIATION. Not a law, just a tool. Sort of a vector diagram, a way to determine NET heat flow between two objects at differnt temps.
Again dont let the labels thing hang you up.
As temp of Green plate rises, the NET flow from Blue plate should decrease. Blue temp must then rise to satisfy 1LOT at equilibrium.
It is an empirical fact– meaning tested repeatedly.
Hilarious.
Nate, energy can NOT be used twice. If you use it to warm the green plate, you do not get to then use it to warm the blue plate.
Maybe you can understand a non-science example.
* Your checking account is zero.
* You deposit a paycheck of $100.
* You write a check to cover an expense of $100.
In your pseudo-accounting, your account balance is $100.
Hilarious.
non-science example.
* Your checking account is zero.
* You deposit a paycheck of $100.
* You write a check to cover an expense of $100.
Really? Thats your argument?
Makes little sense.
non-science example.3
* Your checking account is zero.
* You deposit a paycheck of $100.
* You write a check to cover
Really? Thats your argument?
Makes little sense. All you know is $400 comes in every month. Say $200 goes out the first month. $400 goes out every month after that. We saved $200. You don’t know which acct it went into. Some went into the blue acct some into the green acct.
So, again you have not shown any thermo violations.
Cant solve a physics problem by analogy and guesswork.
Go take a physics class. Come back and we can have a sensible discussion.
Nate, your performance here this week has been exemplary.
You have avoided logic. You have refused facts. You have clung to your false religion.
I must recognize your great contribution to pseudoscience.
Consequently, you are hereby awarded the title of “Flat Tire”.
(You may use links to this comment to verify your accreditation.)
No need to thank me, you’ve earned it.
Congrats, Flat Tire!
“You have avoided logic. You have refused facts. You have clung to your false religion.”
Couldnt have said it better.
Judges scorecard
Contradictions of self
G: 8. N: 0
the saddest thing, is not your misunderstanding of science, which is massive, it is your misunderstanding of your failure to understand.
Dunning Krueger poster child
Phil, The blue plate radiates at 200w/m2 in both directions at equilibrium when there is no green plate. Changing the conditions of a problem can change equilibrium.
Really, this problem needs a differential equation to full understand and solve, but maybe this will help.
As soon as the green plate warms enough to radiate 10 W/m^2 from each side, the blue plate now receives 410 W total, so it must warm until it radiates 205 from each side.
As soon as the green plate warms enough to radiate 20 W/m^2 from each side, the blue plate now receives 420 W total, so it must warm until it radiates 210 from each side.
…
As soon as the green plate warms enough to radiate 100 W/m^2 from each side, the blue plate now receives 500 W total, so it must warm until it radiates 250 from each side.
As soon as the green plate warms enough to radiate 133.33 W/m^2 from each side, the blue plate now receives 633.33 W total, so it must warm until it radiates 266.67 from each side.
And … now everything is in a new equilibrium! The blue plate receives 400 + 133.3 and radiates 266.7 + 266.7. The Green plate receives 266.7 and radiates 133.3 + 133.3.
(PS I was assuming 1 m^2 for each side of each plate for simplicity)
Tim, yes, and that is consistent with the experimental results Dr. Spencer reported. Others with their own opinion need to work thru and learn from the actual experiment.
The more interesting question is the temperature. The temperatures would have to be determined by experiment, the calculated T1, T2 are too ideal. The sun illuminated side of blue plate would have a different emissivity over that irradiance spectrum from the side exposed to the green plate and very different from the side initially exposed to presumably deep space, illuminated by low intensity star light. There would be a gradient in the blue plate t << side length.
NASA does this routinely with completed spacecraft in huge near vacuum chambers to determine if actual emissivity of solar illuminated side and the star lit side comparable to design intent.
Tim
Yes! I was totally wrong when I said the green plate would eventually radiate 200 watts in each direction. I forgot that as the blue plate gets warmer it radiates more to the left.
Yes.
Blue plate is receiving thermal radiation from (sun + green plate)
Green plate is receiving thermal energy only from blue plate
Blue plate must always be warmer than green plate
2nd Law must be preserved
barry: “Blue plate is receiving thermal radiation from (sun + green plate)”
NOPE: Blue plate does not “receive” thermal radiation from a lower temp.
barry: “Green plate is receiving thermal energy only from blue plate”
Agree.
barry: “Blue plate must always be warmer than green plate’
Warmer or nearly equal.
barry: 2nd Law must be preserved
2LoT will ALWAYS be preserved!
NOPE: Blue plate does not “receive” thermal radiation from a lower temp.
It does (there is no shield preventing thermal emission from green plate striking blue plate). But now the blue plate must shed more thermal radiation to compensate. Which is received by the green plate. And so on until thermal loss of 2-plate system = input. Then no more warming.
barry: “Blue plate must always be warmer than green plate”
G: “Warmer or nearly equal.”
Yes.
Blue plate is slightly warmer than green plate.
They can’t both emit at 200 w/m2 either side. The blue plate will emit slightly more than the green plate.
2nd Law is preserved as always.
Tim makes the same mistake as others. Phil has it correct.
This “2-plate” scenario is not much different that the mess Norm made of the “3-plate” scenario, or the “steel greenhouse”.
The correct solution, for the perfect conditions (no losses, no leakages, identical plates, ideal conductors, etc.) is:
400 W/m^2 input to the blue plate (left plate)
both plates achieve the equilibrium temperature (T1 = 243.7K)
blue plate emits 200 W/m^2 to the left
green plate emits 200 W/m^2 to the right
The 2-plate “system” has 400 W/m^2 incoming and 400 W/m^2 outgoing.
As Eli pointed out above the blue plate receives 400 W/m2. It radiates to the surroundings and the green plate. Thus the green plate receives LESS than 400 W/m2. Thus it cannot reach the same equilibrium temperature as the blue plate.
anger 7:29am, you are mistaken, the experiment performed by Dr. Spencer is your undoing. You are welcome to your own opinion though.
Eli, yes I agree, the problem was poorly stated. Most of us assumed the 200 W/m^2 to the left was “to the surroundings”, and there were no other losses.
g, your “solution” has 200 W/m^2 of power flowing from the left side of the blue plate to the right side of the green plate. But they are at the same temperature! How do you propose heat can flow from one object at 244 K to another object also at 244 K?
That’s a great question, Tim! It’s the type of question skeptics have been asking the GHE believers for years. Their (invalid) answer is that IR photons do not know the temperature of the emitter or absorber, so they are graciously accepted! (For emphasis, that last sentence is pseudoscience.)
In this specific case, the blue plate is infinitesimally warmer, due to being heated by the source. That allows the one way energy flow to the green plate.
Note that it does NOT work in reverse. The green plate is NOT heating the blue plate.
anger sez 7:29am:
“both plates achieve the equilibrium temperature”
Eli, Tim and I make comments. anger changes up:
“the blue plate is infinitesimally warmer”
HILARIOUS! More please.
Trick, you might need to look up the word “infinitesimal”.
No need anger, I already know the meaning of the word “infinitesimal”. You panicked and had to backtrack, make one plate warmer – so you did. Infinitesimally.
Hilarious – anger’s pseudoscience unsupported by test! Ok, I’ll stop now, back to the regularly scheduled programming.
trick, you “believe” you know the meaning of the word. Just like you “believe” a lot of other things that aren’t true.
G, “Its the type of question skeptics have been asking the GHE believers for years. “
… and the type of question that skeptics have been misunderstanding for all those years. Your new answer is just as wrong as your last answer.
An infinitesimal temperature difference would lead to an infinitesimal heat flow. A measurable, finite heat flow between the plates requires a measurable, finite temperature difference.
Specifically, show a calculation that an infinitesimal temperature difference would cause 240 W/m^2 of heat flow, not 100 W/m^2 or 300 W/m^2 or any other number of W/m^2.
Tim, I’m just trying to keep it simple. Try this:
A basic circuit has only a 12V battery and a resistor. Neglecting all losses, the voltage across the battery is 12V. The voltage across the resistor is also 12V. Yet energy flows from the battery to the resistor.
Does that help?
It would indeed help, G — if you understood your own analogy (which is not a great analogy, but will work).
Temperature would be like voltage — the “pressure” that drives flow. Current only flows when there is a voltage DIFFERENCE to drive it — FROM the high voltage wire THROUGH the space between the wires (the resistor) TO the low voltage wire. Heat only flows when there is a temperature DIFFERENCE to drive it — FROM the high temperature plate THROUGH the space between the wires TO the low temperature side.
An infinitesimal voltage will not drive a measurable electric current.
An infinitesimal temperature drop will not drive a measurable heat current.
Tim, take a deep breath. You are confusing yourself.
You started out being concerned how heat energy could flow between both plates that were at the same temperature. I tried to explain if one way–“infinitesimally warmer”. You did not like that. Okay, throw it out.
Then, I tried to explain it with a simple electrical circuit (how energy could flow between two equal voltages.) You didn’t like (or understand) that one either.
I’ll try once more, with numbers.
The 12V battery is connected to a 12 ohm resistor–perfect circuit, no losses. The voltage of the battery is 12V and the voltage of the resistor is 12V. The voltages are the same, but the battery is supplying 1 amp to the resistor. The “supply” and “load” are at the same potential, but there is energy flow.
The point is, both the blue and green plates being measurably at the same temperature does not prevent energy flow from the source. The key word is “source”.
“You started out being concerned how heat energy could flow between both plates that were at the same temperature. ”
… which would be the equivalent of how current can flow between two points at the same voltage! Or how water could flow between two buckets of water at the same height. None of these work!
Yes Tim, which is why anger was forced to concede “the blue plate is infinitesimally warmer”.
Now there will be infinitesimally less voltage across the resistor or infinitesimally less water bucket height.
“None of these work!”
What part of “12V source”, “12V load”, “1 Amp current” did you not understand?
Yes trick, misrepresenting my words is all you’ve got. That’s pretty “tricky”.
The part where anger writes: “The voltages are the same…”
Run the 12V test anger, surprise us with performing an actual experiment.
My comment was to Tim, tricky.
I knew you didn’t understand any of it.
“..misrepresenting my words is all you’ve got.”
No misrepresentation, I clipped your words exactly anger, you have to live with them or backtrack them again. I have Dr. Spencer’s experiments vs. anger’s assertions. Or shock us, anger, by doing an actual experiment like Dr. Spencer. Better yet, base your assertions on his experiments.
trick, you’re just too tricky!
(You’re first name is not “Dick”, is it?)
tim…”An infinitesimal temperature difference would lead to an infinitesimal heat flow. A measurable, finite heat flow between the plates requires a measurable, finite temperature difference”.
For the umpteenth time, there is no heat flowing between the plates. Heat only ‘flows’ in solids and liquids from electron to electron in atoms/molecules, or through the air as a mass in convection.
Energy flows through air via electromagnetic radiation. IT IS NOT THERMAL ENERGY. You cannot claim the summation of that energy satisfies the 2nd law when it is summed.
You must go to the respective bodies and measure their temperatures. If you do, you will find the warmer body cools and the cooler body warms with both heat changes being local.
Since the 2nd law constrains heat to a transfer between a hotter body and a colder body that implies IR flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body has no effect on the temperature of the warmer body.
G&T, experts in thermodynamics, tried to explain that to Eli and it fell on deaf ears. Here he is, on this blog, spreading his pseudo-science.
tim…”Heat only flows when there is a temperature DIFFERENCE to drive it…”
Thanks you, you have confirmed that heat can only flow (in a conductor or liquid) from a higher energy state to a lower energy state.
That’s exactly why heat cannot be transferred from a lower energy state (cooler mass) to a higher energy state (warmer mass) without some kind of compensation. Whether we are talking conduction, convection, or radiation, ***HEAT*** cannot be transferred from a cooler mass to a warmer mass without compensation.
In a two way exchange of IR, the IR from the cooler body lacks the energy to raise the energy in the warmer body.
Do we have a convert here, Tim. Are you just a little bit skeptical of AGW?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Energy flows through air via electromagnetic radiation. IT IS NOT THERMAL ENERGY.”
It is energy. “Thermal energy” is also energy. Energy is energy.
You entire lie rests on labeling, and thinking your labeling makes a difference. Energy is energy. Period.
“You entire lie rests on labeling, and thinking your labeling makes a difference. Energy is energy. Period”
+1 David.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat only flows in solids and liquids from electron to electron in atoms/molecules, or through the air as a mass in convection.”
Then how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?
I came back after the football/baseball games to see Tim has “left the building”.
He probably had to go check his voltages.
☺
DA..”It is energy. Thermal energy is also energy. Energy is energy.
You entire lie rests on labeling, and thinking your labeling makes a difference. Energy is energy. Period”.
The more I read your lame rebuttals the more I am convinced you have no degree whatsoever.
If energy is energy, then there is no difference between gravitational energy, mechanical energy, chemical energy, electrical energy, electromagnetic energy, nuclear energy, thermal energy, and every other kind of energy.
You are failing to distinguish between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy and only a science neophyte would make such an error.
Thermal energy is the kinetic energy of atoms. It has no frequency and no associated electrical or magnetic fields. EM cannot be transferred by electrons from atom to atom.
Electromagnetic energy has an electric field and a magnetic field perpendicular to each other, it has a spectra of frequencies with a broad range and it can propagate through a vacuum. Thermal energy cannot because it is associated with atoms and the perfect vacuum is a complete absence of atoms.
EM does not have heat as a property. It does not even have colour.
Heat has a temperature, EM does not. EM has colour temperature but that is a fictitious temperature that is supposed to be the equivalent of the EM radiated by a body heated by a flame. In other words, an iron bar heated till it was white hot would give off the same frequency EM as the colour temperature.
DA…”Then how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?”
The warming of the Earth does not involved the physical transport of heat from the Sun to the Earth. There is a solar wind that could carry heat in it’s plasma but that wind is diverted by our magnetosphere.
All that reaches the Earth from the Sun is electromagnetic energy and it carries no heat. The EM is converted to heat by mass in our atmosphere that absorbs it.
In other words, if no mass intercepts the EM, it will carry merrily along devoid of temperature till it encounters mass.
EM has no mass, how could it transport heat?
Hi tim,
I disagree with that …
It is the net RT between them that determines which will warm and which will cool
Initially (at the introduction of the green plate) , net RT is 200w from blue to green
This means that green must warm and blue cool until rt is 0..
The incoming power to blue maintains its temp so green must then warm until it is in equlibrium with blue (net rt 0).
In the solution presented by you there is sti a net RT of over 100w blue to green, so the temp of green MUST still be increasing
“It is the net RT between them that determines which will warm and which will cool”
No! An object’s temperature changes based on the TOTAL heat flow in/out from that object. The temperature does not change based only on any one heat flow with one specific part of the universe.
“In the solution presented by you there is sti a net RT of over 100w blue to green, so the temp of green MUST still be increasing”
No! This just means that the temperature of Green must be LOWER THAN THE TEMPERATURE of blue (to cause a heat flow from warm to cool). If you want to know if greens is changing temperature, then if green is:
* Losing exactly 100 W somewhere else, then its temperature is constant.
* Losing more than 100 W somewhere else, then its temperature is dropping.
* Losing less than 100 W somewhere else, then its temperature is rising.
PS Your hypothesis does work for two objects isolated from the rest of the universe and with no other heat input (ie a typical calorimetry experiment). So for example, if a hot block of metal is placed into water inside a calorimeter, the the block cools until the heat flow is zero and both are the same temperature.
@ tim,
If you then add energy to the water its temp will rise and the block temp will rise to the temp of the heated water..
Dropping a cold brick into the heated water will not raise the waters temp
Or to paraphrase/clarify slightly, you are claiming
“there is still a net heat flow from OBJECT X to OBJECT Y, so the temp of OBJECT Y MUST still be increasing.”
Is this an accurate summary?
Yes
Phil
I agreed with part of your description earlier, but realized I was wrong. Tim is correct.
When the blue plate reaches an equilibrium temperature, prior to the green plate being introduced, it is cooling as fast as possible – as though it’s surroundings were absolute zero. There is no backradiation or insulation of any kind. Any radiation the blue plate receives from the green plate would therefore cause it’s temperature to increase. With a higher temperature, it would radiate to the left at a rate greater than 200w. At equilibrium, the green plate would then necessarily radiate to the right at less than 200w
So Phil, in this example there is ALWAYS a net heat FROM the source off the screen to the left (Object X) TO the blue plate (Object Y). Your hypothesis would claim that the blue plate must me warming up!
Heck, even if the blue plate got above 244 K, “there is still a net heat flow from OBJECT X to OBJECT Y, so the temp of OBJECT Y MUST still be increasing”.
The answer, of course, is that Object Y will be warming if the heat flow in from X
is positiveis greater than the heat flow out to Z. (Where there could me multiple X’s and Z’s.)Tim
+1
@Tim
I would agree that if energy is only being added on one side there would always be a temp gradient from left to tight and thus a higher emission from the left side than the right..
however the original thought experiment is desinged to ignore this (as well as other leakages out of the system) to find the idealized eq temp and output of the system..
if you prefer , use 200w in put from each side rather than 400 from one side..
in both cases the eq temp t1 will be reached when output is 200 w in either direction and both plates will be at that temp
that temp t1 is the same temp as just one plate with a 400 w input (from either direction..)
lets see if i can clarify my thinking for you..
regardless of the direction of the energy input the molecules in the system will warm till they are vibrating in both directions and you will have a wave of energy in both directions equal to 1/2 of the total energy input into the system..
as we are only allowing energy to escape in the 2 directions.. the plates MUST be at eq temp T1 such that both sides radiate 1/2 of the energy input.. it doesnt matter if you hav1 plate 2..3 ..4 … given the conditions of the original thought experiment..(100% eficiency in transer) the temp T1 calculated for the first plate is the temp that all subsequent plates will warm to with a constant energy input…
“I would agree that if energy is only being added on one side there would always be a temp gradient from left to tight and thus a higher emission from the left side than the right.”
But that is indeed exactly the situation in the blue plate/green plate scenario! So you are agreeing that once a steady state has been reached, there is a temperature gradient and that the blue plate (the left) is warmer than the green plate (the right) and that the blue plate has a higher emission then the green plate.
“if you prefer , use 200w in put from each side rather than 400 from one side..”
But that is a different situation with a different solution! In that case, you would indeed get equal temperatures for both plates.
Tim:
I’ll post this again because it looks like you stopped reading after the first paragraph of my last post:
“however the original thought experiment is desinged to ignore this (as well as other leakages out of the system) to find the idealized eq temp and output of the system..”
So pointing to the temp gradient as a flaw in my discussion is a moot point
And just a follow up… there would be a temp gradient accross the blue plate..
so yes the left side of blue plate would emit a little more than the right..
adding the green plate would not change that temp gradient at all!! the left side of the green plate would warm till it was slightly less than the right side of the blue plate and the right side of the green plate would be slightly less than its left…
regardless the temp of the 2 plates would be nearly identical and the difference in output from each side would be negligible..
Adding the green plate will NOT warm the blue plate… it will merely warm the green plate until it approaches the ideal eq temp
Phils says: “If you then add energy to the water its temp will rise and the block temp will rise to the temp of the heated water..
Dropping a cold brick into the heated water will not raise the waters temp”
The more apt analogy here would be a pot and a lid (since the lid is ‘between’ the pot and the cold surroundings, like the green plate is ‘between’ the blue plate and the cold surroundings).
First put the pot (without the lid) on the stovetop. The water will reach some temperature (which we will assume is less than boiling). The water temperature will be between the temperature of the heating element, T_hot, and the temperature of the room, T_cool. This temperature can be steady even when heat in flowing in from the stovetop and when heat is flowing out to the room.
Then put a cool lid on the pot. As any cook knows, the water in the pot will get warmer yet. The lid will also warm up (not not as hot as the water).
Sorry Tim, that is not an apt analogy at all..
first, the pot lid is no where 100% efficient at transferring energy through to the other side
second as water vapour builds up pressure will increase causing a rise in temp
further that vapour has a temp of 100 C and not being able to rise will transfer heat to the water…
no the analogies are vastly different
Tim…” As any cook knows, the water in the pot will get warmer yet. The lid will also warm up (not not as hot as the water)”.
I am sure you are aware that the pressure builds up in a constant volume container as you increase the temperature. You have increased the pressure immensely by attaching a lid, have you never noticed that the pressure will make the lid bounce and rattle?
This is not a radiation problem it comes down to PV = nRT.
+1
Phil
You still think the blue plate and the green plate would end up at nearly the same temperature? That would imply there is little or no heat transfer taking place between the two objects. If this were true, the green plate would not be gaining energy from the blue plate.
Do you not see a GIGANTIC flaw with this line of reasoning? The green plate is constantly losing energy to the right, so how would it maintain its temperature if no energy is ADDED by the blue plate?
tim…”An objects temperature changes based on the TOTAL heat flow in/out from that object”.
You are still claiming EM as heat. There is no net heat flow into and out of the plates, only EM. Heat rises in the plates because they are cooler than the emitter of the EM, the Sun.
IR from the rear green plate will not raise the temperature of the blue plate because it is cooler than the blue plate. That is basic thermodynamics. You alarmists have thoroughly confused the issue by regarding EM as heat.
tim…”An objects temperature changes based on the TOTAL heat flow in/out from that object. The temperature does not change based only on any one heat flow with one specific part of the universe”.
Where is heat flowing anywhere between the plates? IT is EM as IR flowing between them.
2nd law = no heat transfer from the colder plate to the warmer plate.
This is a fundamental flaw in Rabbett’s logic and it was pointed out to him in a rebuttal by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They pointed out to him the 2nd law is about heat and that it is not possible to sum IR fluxes and apply them to the 2nd law. They even questioned the validity in physics of net IR flow.
As usual, for the trolls, a recall to what 2LoT really means, in Rudolf Clausius’ original german publications (1854, 1887).
1. This principle on which the whole following development is based is : heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another change associated herewith simultaneously happens.
2. What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
Nothing to add.
snape…” Any radiation the blue plate receives from the green plate would therefore cause its temperature to increase”.
Wrong. 2nd law – > heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a cooler mass.
Snape…you need to get it that the radiation from the green plate is EM, not thermal energy. The green plate cannot warm the blue plate because the green plate is cooler.
Gordon
Idiot! I never said heat is transferred from the green plate to the blue. I never even used the word “warm”. Infact, in previous posts, I maintained just the opposite is true.
Please stop injecting your own words and misunderstanding into my comments.
tim…”Heck, even if the blue plate got above 244 K, there is still a net heat flow from OBJECT X to OBJECT Y, so the temp of OBJECT Y MUST still be increasing”.
There is no net HEAT flow from the blue plate to the green plate. There is a flux of electromagnetic energy flowing blue to green but you are thoroughly confused as to the difference between heat and EM.
The blue plate is heated by solar energy. Case closed. The green plate has absolutely no effect on the blue plate because it is at a lower temperature.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Wrong. 2nd law > heat can only be transferred from a warmer mass to a cooler mass.”
You’ve been called out on this lie many times, Gordon, yet you still repeat it endlessly. Why?
Here’s what Clausius actually said:
Clausius’ statement of the second law of thermodynamics (1854):
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body WITHOUT SOME OTHER CHANGE, CONNECTED THEREWITH, OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME.”
(emphasis mine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Clausius#Work
Why is it you choose not to understand this?
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is no net HEAT flow from the blue plate to the green plate. There is a flux of electromagnetic energy flowing blue to green but you are thoroughly confused as to the difference between heat and EM.”
How does heat from the Sun get to the Earth?
Gordon,
If we start with the sun and blue plate, with the values being used here:
Blue plate emits 200 w/m2 in either direction, equilibrating with the EM it receives from the sun (400 w/m2).
Now, instead adding a green plate to the right hand side, let’s add a sun there that is less powerful than the blue plate. The blue plate receives, say 100 w/m2 from the new sun.
You’re saying that if we add the sun as described the blue plate will not get any warmer.
Do you really believe this?
@ Sir issac re: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268503
When I talk about the NET RT being zero that does not mean there is no flow of energy..
at eq T1 you essentially have an equal flow of energy from the right side of the green plate out through the left side of the blue plate and vice versa..
this is caused of course because the heated molecules are vibrating in both directions generating 2 waves at 1/2 the total energy input.. (1 in each direction)
i think.. lol
Congrats Bin. You are now an official member of “the earth heats the sun” club, David Appell, president. Per DA, sun warms earth. Earth warms sun, via “double heat exchange”.
Clausius being granted a membership posthumously.
Nothing to add.
If you don’t think the Earth heats the Sun, tell me which of the following statements in the logic chain are incorrect:
1) The Earth emits radiation in all directions.
2) Radiation carries energy.
3) Some of the Earth’s emitted radiation is in the direction of the Sun.
4) The Sun absorbs the energy directed towards it.
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its temperature increases.
David,
Per Wikipedia:
“Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.”
You better get Wikipedia to get their story straight.
SkW: Again you avoided my question.
That seems necessary to your position.
SkepticGoneWild says:”
“Per Wikipedia:”
Work *is* being performed by the system, via the nuclear fusion reactions in the Sun’s core that convert matter into energy.
David,
Tell me which of the following statements in the logic chain are incorrect:
1) The block of ice emits radiation in all directions.
2) Radiation carries energy.
3) Some of the ice’s emitted radiation is in the direction of your body. (when standing next to it).
4) Your body absorbs the energy directed towards it.
5) When your body absorbs energy, its temperature increases.
Don’t get too hot in your igloo!
Davie has a new game. I’ll play.
1) The Earth emits radiation in all directions.
YUP
2) Radiation carries energy.
YUP
3) Some of the Earths emitted radiation is in the direction of the Sun.
Yup
4) The Sun absorbs the energy directed towards it.
NOPE!
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its temperature increases.
Meh, very questionable. First it has to absorb energy.
Davie is such a clown.
SkW, you’re again unwilling to address the question.
By now it’s clear that you can’t.
Eskimos build igloos to keep warm.
They surround themselves with ice so that they don’t feel so cold.
The answer here, as with all the commentary in this thread, is that the igloo slows the loss of heat from Eskimos’ bodies.
This wouldn’t work with dead Eskimos.
Because you need a constant energy source for this system to work (continual chemical activity in Eskimo bodies).
DA…”Heres what Clausius actually said:
Clausius statement of the second law of thermodynamics (1854):
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body WITHOUT SOME OTHER CHANGE, CONNECTED THEREWITH, OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME. ”
Is it really that hard for you to understand what Clausius meant by “WITHOUT SOME OTHER CHANGE, CONNECTED THEREWITH, OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME”? He explained it as compensation and he made it clear that heat had to be returned to the cooler body at the same time it transferred heat to a warmer body.
I gave an extensive example from an air conditioner and the external power supplied plus the gas and machinery is all compensation. Heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body by it’s own means, and Clausius also wrote that.
Here’s the AC again. A low pressure gas (re.friger.ant) is compressed by an externally powered compressor to a high pressure liquid. Compressing the gas raises it temperature and that heat bleeds off in a condenser, which allows the HP gas to radiate it to the warmer atmosphere.
The liquid maintains its HP through the condenser but it’s cooled. Then it goes through a valve that atom.izes the HP gas. From the valve the atomized liquid enters an evapourator where the gas is allowed to expand to a low pressure gas again. As it becomes an LP gas it absorbs heat from a cooler region.
There’s your warm to cold cycle: heat goes from cooler air in a room, to an LP gas, through a compressor to a HP liquid, then into the warmer atmosphere as heat from a HP liquid.
You cannot do that cycle on it’s own because heat will not pass from a cooler region to a warmer region ON ITS OWN POWER.
That’s what Clausius meant by compensation and why you alarmists don’t understand that is way beyond me.
I just explained why Rabbett’s thought experiment is pseudo-science. You cannot warm the blue plate with IR from the cooler green plate without inter.fering in some way as above with the air conditioner. Thinking you can compensate the 2nd law by summing IR is trash science.
He explained it as compensation and he made it clear that heat had to be returned to the cooler body at the same time it transferred heat to a warmer body.
Everyone here (except maybe G) agrees with that.
You cannot do that cycle on its own because heat will not pass from a cooler region to a warmer region ON ITS OWN POWER.
Everyone here agrees with that.
That’s why Bindidon keeps highlighting the qualifier in Clausius’statement.
We all agree on this (except maybe G).
When critics argue otherwise, they usually remove the source of power that the others describe to prove the point, in order to argue against the point.
Why do critics do this?
Of course with no energy source, the introduction of a cooler body to a system cannot in any way cause a warmer body to get warmer. Everyone agrees with that.
But if the cooler body slows the rate at which energy leaves the system, then the system warms cup, cooler and warmer body both.
At all times the warmer body remains warmer than the cooler body. NET flow is still hot to cold.
he made it clear that heat had to be returned to the cooler body at the same time it transferred heat to a warmer body
Yes, indeed. But if by introducing this cooler body, heat loss from the overall system is slowed, then the system warms up to compensate to equilibrate with the energy it is receiving.
The basic laws of thermodynamics do not change depending on the type of heat transfer, whether convection, radiation or conduction.
Unless…
Gordon, do you think the basic laws of thermodynamics do not apply to radiation? That these basic Laws only apply to conduction and convection? I would say the physical properties are different, but the basic laws apply for all.
Looks like there’s a bit of a change in position over at Climate of Sophistry. Seems they’re going for your solution now:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31145
And the first post in blue above explains more…
It’s a rollercoaster ride for sure.
That was meant for Phil by the way.
Well, what do you know. Agree Eli got the numbers ok now, which means Tim got them ok too et. al. Tough to ignore when experiment results show a cool object can make a warm object warmer still.
Interesting..
looks like the same argument lol….
Just to clarify.. my position is based on the ‘system’ being the plate (S) and the energy source (s) are external to the system..
so that you take the amount of energy added to the system and find the equilibrium position
thanks for the link
Thanks Phil. Your clarification plus Postma’s explanation about view factors for parallel planes vs point sources means everything makes sense for me now. So no reason to stay and discuss this thought experiment any more.
The view factor is why Eli went for flat thin plates
“Agree Eli got the numbers ok now”
I’m not sure Joe agrees. Read his response to my comment.
In your 5:46pm link see: “Eli got the numbers in his example ok”.
Very clear.
Yes, then in response to my comment which ended “which still means Eli’s math is wrong”:
“Great stuff GW. Just right!!”
In your words GW. 5:46pm link is NOT your words, not your comment.
The 5:46 pm link goes to my comment at Climate of Sophistry. What are you talking about?
If it helps, the bit in quotation marks aren’t my words. I am quoting Joe’s words. Then I respond with my comment which ends with these words (of mine):
“which still means Elis math is wrong
To which Joe responds, in blue:
Great stuff GW. Just right!!
He is not agreeing with my quote of his own words. He’s agreeing with the comment I wrote relating to his words. Meaning he (presumably) agrees that Eli’s math is wrong, after all.
For me your 5:46pm link does not go to your words/comment, it goes to blue “Eli got the numbers in his example ok”
Very clear. Perhaps later posts are messing with the link.
Wow you are stubborn. OK, it goes to my comment when I click on it. But if you take the enormous trouble to scroll down all the way from that blue post to the one immediately below it, labelled “GW” you will see what I’m talking about.
b4 NEVER knows what he is talking about.
Predicted Ball4 next response:
“I didn’t see a blue post labelled GW”
“..labelled “GW” you will see what Im talking about.”
Exactly. You GW are talking about. And not what the commenter in your link is talking about: “Eli got the numbers ok now…”. Try to get on the right page GW. And note the title of the blog to which you refer.
I hope b4 is not driving tonight.
But, at least he has his cabbages to light the way.
Joe can change his mind. It’s this thing that open-minded people do occasionally.
You see, you keep mentioning the comment where he suggests Eli’s numbers were correct. Immediately below comment is the one I linked to, my comment. I said to you, “I’m not sure Joe agrees. Read his response to my comment”. His response to my comment was “Great stuff GW. Just right!!”.
My comment ended with the words, “which still means Eli’s math is wrong”.
Yes, YOUR comment ended that way. Joe’s words: “Eli got the numbers in his example ok”
This is so clear, you are driving anger into hysterics as usual.
Hilarious!
My comment ended that way, yes. To which Joe agreed.
Again, agreed to YOUR comment. YOUR words. Joe’s words: “Agree Eli got the numbers ok now”
You’re quite a strange person. Yes, he agreed to my comment, which contradicted his earlier one. Given that my comment followed his you could conclude that my comment caused him to change his mind? Perhaps it really is because you have no such ability in yourself that you don’t consider it a possibility.
The fact is I don’t think Joe particularly cares if Eli’s math is correct or not, because as he said from the outset, even if correct the thought experiment has nothing to do with what the GHE is proposed to do. For him, any discussion of it from their onwards is not of much interest except as a way to teach some principles (such as the difference between the view factors in a plane parallel situation and one where the energy source is a point source, and the effect this might have on considering the problem).
Only here do people seem to think, “if Eli’s math is correct, the GHE is validated”
GW 4:13am: “..the thought experiment has nothing to do with what the GHE is proposed to do.”
You are correct about that GW, for The Green Plate Effect “Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.” post there is no mention of the GHE, although spelled out twice in the comments.
“Only here do people seem to think, “if Eli’s math is correct, the GHE is validated”
Where? I searched the whole post and comments, the only one that wrote these words is GW.
GW 4:13am: ..the thought experiment has nothing to do with what the GHE is proposed to do.
You are correct about that GW, for The Green Plate Effect Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K. post there is no mention of the GHE, although spelled out twice in the comments. ”
—————————-
The point of the Green Plate Effect post was to clarify the mechanism by which the Greenhouse Effect works.
It shows in a simple way, maybe the simplest way possible, that in discussing the Greenhouse Effect, the issue is
NOT whether introduction of cooler atmosphere by itself heats the surface,
but that if the surface (or the blue plate) is being heated introduction of greenhouse gases (the green plate) can raise the EQUILIBRIUM temperature of the surface (blue plate).
Following this simple proof (and it is a proof, both theoretically and experimentally as anybunny who has ever dealt with thermal shields can tell you) working out the details of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is simply a matter of detail.
Depending on the level this is done, it can be a simple model with a surface and a single “greenhouse” layer or more complicated ones (for example see http://rabett.blogspot.ie/2009/03/chris-colose-suggests-as-part-of-rabett.html) or you introduce molecular bands, or single lines, but the principle is the same.
“The point of the Green Plate Effect post was to clarify the mechanism by which the Greenhouse Effect works.”
The GPE is not the GHE. All that was shown is 2LOT universe entropy increases in this process: Introduction of the second plate raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.
Adding the green plate would have been illuminated by the sun SW for the GHE, instead the green plate is illuminated by LW from the blue plate, the GPE.
Odd. I have been trying to post a question regarding particulate effects on AMSU readings and they will not appear, yet my test above did work. I wonder what the forbidden word is.
Let’s try some more words from my post which was in regards to particulates from volcanic eruptions.
scattering?
Post it in segments, then the fragment containing the forbidden word will become apparent.
Here’s what to avoid.
Any sequence of letters with D and C adjacent to each other will not post. Including any links with those letters together in that order.
‘A.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n’ will not post.
‘T.u.t.o.r’ will not post
‘D.o.u.g C.o.t.t.o.n’ will not post – and his sock-puppetry and banning is the reason the other stuff will not post.
That’s the list I have so far. If you find another forbidden word, let me know so I can add to the list and publish to benefit us all in future.
Thanks barry, I figured it out just before you posted. I was wondering if I had been banned (although I suspect that would be fine with a few who post here).
The forbidden word is a b s o r p t i o n.
…and do not remove the * from g*e*r*a*n either. The original no * Name is banned. Unfortunately, banishment did not work as the commenter hacked back in, uninvited, simply with a name change.
“trick”, once again, you are wrong in your beliefs. I politely asked Dr. Roy to remove the ban. He consented. The *’s came from one of the Con-man’s comments. I thought is was funny. In my absence, he promoted me to a four-star general!
(You don’t have to salute.)
Nope, I cannot write your handle without the * and have the comment post up, so anger it will be. Your original handle in comments is still banned. Not a host software problem either.
Hilarious!
Braindead, Dr. Roy was aware I was going to use asterisks. That way he did not have to go to any extra trouble “fixing” me.
You seem very desperate, so keep trying.
He is the dim bulb nephew of H*Y*M*A*N*K*A*P*L*A*N
Yes, ha, as anger writes, Dr. Spencer does not want to go to any extra trouble “fixing” him (…or other pseudoscience). Thankfully Dr. Spencer WILL go to the trouble of experiments proving anger’s et. al. pseudoscience.
Ball4
Thanks for reminding me of Roy Spencer’s experiment to demonstrate the plate effect.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
The room temperature shield would be equivalent of the green plate.
Add the shield and the temperature of Roy’s device goes up. Remove the shield and it goes down. The shield is much colder than the hot surface being heated but much warmer than the ice bath it covers.
No further experiments needed.
Concur.
“No further experiments needed.”
“Concur.”
The climate clowns have spoken. Their pseudoscience is settled!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Not quite correct. You are usually wrong about everything you post. I am sad you did not disappoint me. I always hope a light might go on in that very dim and unproductive mind of yours.
You make the claim of pseudoscience once again. Yet Roy’s experiment is empirical and reality. Your posts are unreal fake science. The only “Con-man” on this blog is you. You lie, distort and mislead. You are a complete con-man and you are very empty on physics.
No longer pseudoscience if demonstrated by proper test, anger resorts to pseudoscience since comments are assertion only.
Built your 12V battery & resistor test yet anger? Did your volt meter measure the 0 voltage drop across the resistor as you claim? How did that go? Talk about pseudoscience lol.
Sorry Con-man, that comment is MUCH too short.
You need to ramble, and ramble, and ramble about the “textbooks” that you have read, but that you claim I have not read. But, you will not make a sizable wager on your false claims.
Hilarious.
More dishes to wash next week–what a fascinating career!
g*e*r*a*n pretender
Now you think you studied some physics but you show no ability to comprehend the material and you want to wager. Hmm
The great pretender.
Pretend your way by explaining exactly what is pseudoscience about Roy Spencer’s experiment I linked to?
You can’t and you won’t. You will blather on like a drooling drunk about nothing. Making no logical or rational connection to a post.
Stating nonsense and calling actual physics pseudoscience.
So if you will (which you won’t) explain what is pseudoscience about the empirical evidence collected by Roy Spencer?
Con-man, you are so far from understanding how to conduct a proper science experiment it is hilarious.
Everything you see validates your beliefs.
That is not science.
so g*e*r*a*n pretender
What actual experiment have you done? I thought so. I think you are suggesting Roy’s experiment is not proper?
YOU: “Con-man, you are so far from understanding how to conduct a proper science experiment it is hilarious.”
Well you won’t and you can’t explain why it is not proper or the errors that you might think are involved.
It perfectly demonstrates physics and it shows a cold object leading to a higher equilibrium temperature of a heated object it the object is warmer than an even colder one. (I know you will be unable to process that thought)
It demonstrates the equation:
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac
You do not understand this equation so it makes no sense to you.
Increase the Tc (surroundings) and your surface loses less heat. If it has the same heat source it gets warmer. Exactly what Roy’s test shows.
You are a true moron in every way. You don’t understand science at all but need to attack solid science (and actual experiment) to hold on you your false science and false understanding.
It is too late in the game for you to actually learn something. You have spent years attacking real science and you would feel very stupid if it turned out everyone else was correct and you were completely wrong. Your ego won’t allow reality to illuminate the dullness you call a mind, it would hurt you too much.
That’s much better, Con-man. Pointless rambling, insults, and even one equation that you don’t know how to apply!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n Pretetnder
Is it impossible for you to provide explanation for your wacko and unscientific thought process?
Here again (not that it will do any good): “YOU: Con-man, you are so far from understanding how to conduct a proper science experiment it is hilarious.
Well you wont and you cant explain why it is not proper or the errors that you might think are involved.
Con-man, you couldn’t wait to jump all over the ice experiment. To you it was absolute “proof” ice can make something warmer. Pure pseudoscience.
For example, did you even question how high the “ice shield” was held? Do you think that was a consideration?
No clue, huh?
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n Pretender
NO it is not pseudoscience that ice can make a heated object hotter. Only in your delusional unscientific world of pretending to know physics is this pseudoscience.
Here is the science
q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac
You do not comprehend it but it is there and established.
If the ice temperature is warmer than some surrounding condition (say outer space which has almost no temperature) the heat loss of a heated object will be less.
Example: Th4 (in Roy’s experiment is 315 K or so)
If the surroundings are ice at 24 F (269 K) you can determine the rate of heat loss from the hot surface and find its equilibrium temperature if you know the amount of energy it is receiving.
If he would expose the heated surface to an even lower temperature surrounding (he suggested dry ice) which would be around 195 K. The heat flow from the hot plate would be much greater using established science and since it is receiving the same energy in both cases, it would be cooler facing dry ice vs 24 F water ice.
That you are unable to comprehend this makes you the great pretender.
If you want to answer your own stupid and irrelevant diversion (which is the only thing you seem capable of doing), look at Roy’s experiment yourself. I think you are making a stupid point that has nothing to do with the basic conclusion and trying to pretend you know something. Great pretender.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
Con-man, you are always complaining that I won’t answer your stupid questions. So, I answered this time. I gave you an example of how negligent you were in swallowing the imagined results from the experiment.
You just kept right on rambling, as usual.
But, you brought your “trusty” equation with you again. You have been carrying it around like a little child carrying a worn-out teddy bear. Cute!
You should probably fix the equation, so people will not instantly know you’re an idiot. There is a sign missing, and you need to eliminate the “c”, unless you are wanting to include the speed of light! It just shows you copied/pasted the equation from some website and don’t even know how it applies.
Hilarious!
g*e*r*a*n Pretender
It was a copy and paste equation. I have written it out in long form in the past. This works just as well.
It comes from here. The h and c designate hot and cold objects.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
You actually did not answer any question. You made a claim without explanation hoping to demonstrate some perceived knowledge on your part. I think you are delusional, you do not even know what answering a question means.
HERE I ASK: “Well you won’t and you can’t explain why it is not proper or the errors that you might think are involved.
I am requesting an explanation of why you think Roy’s experiment is flawed.
YOUR RESPONSE: “For example, did you even question how high the ice shield was held? Do you think that was a consideration?:
That is not an explanation. It is not an answer to anything. I gave you a link so you could look at it yourself.
Basically you do not answer any question and it is obvious why. You don’t know an answer. You do not know physics.
You do not comprehend the radiant heat transfer equation. You pretend to.
Here is link to your theme song. The lyrics fit you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyM8NVl4yBY
The more you ramble, the funnier it gets.
Here, you are indicating you have no clue about the “experiment” that you believe has merit. Clearly you do not understand the experiment was trying to show “cold” warmed “hot”.
“If he would expose the heated surface to an even lower temperature surrounding (he suggested dry ice) which would be around 195 K. The heat flow from the hot plate would be much greater using established science and since it is receiving the same energy in both cases, it would be cooler facing dry ice vs 24 F water ice.”
Absolutely clueless.
But, nevertheless hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n the Pretender
I am not sure your post has any meaning or point. You just ramble on and one about nothing. For calling me a rambler, I could not come close to competing with your empty and meaningless posts.
Do you have a point? You have zero ability to understand my points so you counter with no point at all.
HERE IS WHAT I POSTED ABOUT ROY’S EXPERIMENT: “Add the shield and the temperature of Roys device goes up. Remove the shield and it goes down. The shield is much colder than the hot surface being heated but much warmer than the ice bath it covers.”
Then you make this statement: “Here, you are indicating you have no clue about the experiment that you believe has merit. Clearly you do not understand the experiment was trying to show cold warmed hot.”
What kind of blathering nonsense are you attempting with that distorted statement. A fabrication like all you seem to know. The GREAT PRETENDER.
So you take a statement out of context of one of my posts and you think you know what you are talking about. I know you are a troll and I know that is all you are. I am just responding to you for fun. It won’t mean anything your will still be as stupid tomorrow as you are today. You do not fool anyone who has read your posts for any period of time.
Just a wasted drunken man with nothing better to do with his existence than troll a climate blog. What a truly sad human you must be. Take care troll maybe life will turn around for you. Maybe you will find a more useful hobby than trolling. (so far not much hope of that)
Con-man, I can understand you do not like seeing your own words used against you. But, you have to blame yourself, not someone else.
slip…”The forbidden word is a b s o r p t i o n.”
I posted that earlier in this thread as:
“The word Had.crut cant get past the filter without a dot in it. Same with absorp.tion. Yesterday I found re.frig.eration requires two dots”.
BTW…absorp.tion usually does the trick.
Yesterday I found re.frig.eration requires two dots
Aha! A new word to add to the list. Thanks.
barry…might as well add re.friger.ant as well.
Dr. Spencer,
The mention of volcanoes in posts above led me to wonder if a large particulate load in the troposphere, such as from an exceptional volcanic eruption, affects the signals received by the AMSU, not in regards to the temperature drop due to attenuation of the solar input, rather due to attenuation of the emitted microwave energy absorbed or scattered by the particulates, and whether a proportionate correction of the measurement is required in this case. Just curious. Thank you.
The Rabett Run diagram is an interesting twist. In most GHE explanations, the “blue plate” would only radiate in one direction. A two way flux (conduction/radiation) is not usually considered.
I keep flip flopping on the w/m^2 controversy.
If we were to say the earth receives 400w/m^2 from the sun, it means on average every square meter recieves that much, even the dark side of the planet.
Likewise, if we say a plate receives 400w/m^2 from the sun, then it’s implied every square meter would receive that much….even the dark side. Total input of power would thus be 800 watts.
Both sides would radiate at 400 watts
The Rabett Run scenario doesn’t measure solar input to the blue plate in the same way we measure solar input to the earth. That’s fine, but worth pointing out.
+1 to Sir Isaac
That’s how GHE flat-earth physics work. They have no basis in reality, and the laws of physics are turned on their head. I understand your confusion.
“They have no basis in reality..”
No, Dr. Spencer’s tests are real world. SGW will learn something from the testing. But I am not expecting miracles.
I see the blue plate as an object in space facing permanently towards the sun, receiving a flux from the sun that due to conduction across it will warm until it’s at the maximum temperature that flux can induce. Then, it radiates accordingly across its entire surface area (which includes both sides) the flux relating to that temperature. Which will be 400 W/m2. Adding the green plate then just means exactly the same thing, for the green plate.
With the real Earth it’s different. It receives about 1370 W/m2 from the sun in the same way that the blue plate receives the 400 W/m2 in this thought experiment. However the real Earth rotates, so the conduction through it is never a factor, it can’t happen. Therefore they do the divide by 4 thing (and adjust for albedo).
And since the blue plate has 2m^2 with t << plate sides, 400W/m^2 * 2 m^2 = 800 joules/sec which is the same mistake Joe P makes; this can not be equilibrium or you need a generator and some fuel to generate the amount of outgoing watts above 400 joules/sec input.
You assertion is an 800 watt search light running on a 400 watt generator. Not going to happen in a test.
Your 3:21pm is test free GW so mistakes are likely as you demonstrate, as does Joe's whole blog – no testing only assertions.
Well objects in a vacuum emit radiation from all sides based on their temperature. The temperature that can be induced by the plate depends on the flux it receives. Given that heat can conduct very easily through the plate (particularly if it is “infinite thin” lol), why on Earth would you assume that the maximum temperature it could reach would be less than 290 K, assuming the plate is a blackbody? The plate isn’t moving anywhere, it isn’t rotating, it is just constantly receiving 400 W/m2. Surely all molecules within and throughout the plate will be induced to vibrate at the rate this equates to.
You don’t have to keep repeating the same thing. It is understood. Why not actually reply to what I’m saying?
GW
What I’m saying is that solar input to the earth is expressed as an average to every square meter of surface area, whether exposed to the sun or in the dark. Solar input to the blue plate, OTOH, is expressed as an average to just the surface area on the sunny side.
What YOU are saying is that there’s a GOOD REASON for treating the two objects differently – one rotates, the other doesn’t. I agree with you.
I agree that we agree.
GW 3:48pm: “Why not actually reply to what I’m saying?”
Ok. Fair enough but gets long, only for those few not sleepy.
“Well objects in a vacuum emit radiation from all sides based on their temperature. The temperature that can be induced by the plate depends on the flux it receives.”
Yes, flux in balanced with total energy flux radiated out over the total object surface A in equilibrium, that is very Planckian as it is well supported by tests he ref.s; to be picky actually the radiation comes from within the object not the exact surface (which is hard to define anyway).
NB: For total A earth system, this is observed ~240 SW in and ~240 LW out TOA, ~398 in and radiated out at total surface.
“Given that heat can conduct very easily through the plate (particularly if it is “infinite thin” lol), why on Earth would you assume that the maximum temperature it could reach would be less than 290 K, assuming the plate is a blackbody?”
Because the blue plate with t << side length has 1 m^2 always being illuminated by 0w. 1m^2 always illuminated by 400w and the blue plate is radiating from 2m^2. At 400 watts absorbed in and 200w/side * 2sides radiated out you find equilibrium, no more T changes, the mass of the plate cancels out, and can find the (ideal BB) temperature from Planck formula as the original author and Tim did. Granted you also could find equilibrium at 400 radiated from one side and 0 radiated from the other but that's not Planckian and not consistent with what you wrote above "emit radiation from all sides".
“The plate isn’t moving anywhere, it isn’t rotating, it is just constantly receiving 400 W/m2.”
Yes, for SW, with a total radiating surface of 2m^2 for LW.
“Surely all molecules within and throughout the plate will be induced to vibrate at the rate this equates to.”
Yes, ideally at equilibrium, 400w SW in with 2m^2 of surface radiating out each 200w LW in balance, the ideal temperature is computed as original author did and to which Tim added.
“You don’t have to keep repeating the same thing. It is understood.”
Repeating tested 1st principles & repeating actual tests is all one can do in the face of someone trying to assert stuff equivalent to an 800w light bulb can be powered up by a 400w generator.
Again, which blog site has supported the Green Plate Effect assertions with test? Only Dr. Spencer’s. The other features no testing, is assertion only and, well, see Joe’s blog title.
So you found a long-winded way of saying the same things you have already said over and over again. It’s OK, since your last post I have read a logical explanation of why the blue plate will equilibrate to emitting 200 W/m2 either side. The green plate will be the same (200 W/m2 a side).
The green plate is receiving energy only from the blue plate – 200 w/m2. How can the green plate emit a total of 400 w/m2 (200 w/m2 on each side)?
I have read a logical explanation of why the blue plate will equilibrate to emitting 200 W/m2 either side. The green plate will be the same (200 W/m2 a side).
Looks to me like whoever demonstrated this has changed a 3-body set up to a 2-body set up.
The temperature gradient from the blue plate to the green plate must be negative (blue plate warmer than green plate).
Blue plate is receiving thermal radiation from (sun + green plate).
Green plate is receiving thermal radiation only from blue plate.
Green plate can never be as warm as blue plate.
No.
GW asked for a long winded post then complains. Par for the GW course. If it was a short post, then GW would also complain.
Anyway now GW agrees on the blue plate. But for the green plate, GW thinks the 1LOT is wrong. Perhaps GW can elaborate.
Cabbage head, you can get drunker than this:
“Yes, flux in balanced with total energy flux radiated out over the total object surface A in equilibrium, that is very Planckian as it is well supported by tests he ref.s; to be picky actually the radiation comes from within the object not the exact surface (which is hard to define anyway).”
(Hic..)
I didn’t ask for a long-winded post.
barry, is this your new mantra?
“Blue plate is receiving thermal radiation from (sun + green plate).
Green plate is receiving thermal radiation only from blue plate.
Green plate can never be as warm as blue plate.”
Repeat it 10 times each day?
Just clarify! Don’t “guess” or “assume”. There is absolutely no reason to argue about this.
If you mean the average power input over all surfaces, then say “average power input over all surfaces”.
If you mean the flux hitting one surface, then say “flux hitting one side”.
If you mean something else, then say explicitly that something else.
The blue/green plate example has a diagram clearly showing 400 W/m^2 coming from one side only hitting one side only. The “240 W/m^2 hitting the earth” is clearly averaged over the whole surface.
GW: “I didn’t ask for a long-winded post.”
You did:
“Why not actually reply to what Im saying?”
Which do you really want GW?
I didn’t think my comment was particularly long-winded. So I don’t see the connection between asking you to respond to what I was saying, and getting a long-winded response. But I’m starting to think with you it might be better to just let you have the last word. OK.
barry, is this your new mantra?
Nope, but it will be a typical reply as long as people keep saying that the green plate must radiate at exactly the same power (be the same temperature) as the blue plate in the scenario we are discussing.
barry clams: “Nope, but it will be a typical reply as long as people keep saying that the green plate must radiate at exactly the same power (be the same temperature) as the blue plate in the scenario we are discussing.”
Hang in there barry, there are extra points for stubbornness.
Barry says:
“Blue plate is receiving thermal radiation from (sun + green plate).
Green plate is receiving thermal radiation only from blue plate.
Green plate can never be as warm as blue plate.”
Blue plate is receiving energy from a point source (the sun).
Green plate is receiving energy from a parallel plane source (the blue plate) which obscures the sun altogether (the point source).
The explanation I read goes:
“For plane parallel the view factors are reciprocal, and the secondary passive plate can not lose any energy in the direction of the source plate. Thats why theres no split by two in the equation for plane parallel. And Roberts solution would be for that.
However if the source is a point source or just subtends a small angular area then the source-facing side of the receiver plate hardly sees the source at all and CAN radiate to that 180 degree range on the side of the source. In this case the split by two would be valid. That is, the secondary object still cant lose energy in the direction directly to the primary source, but if the source is a small area then there are lots of directions around the source to which energy can be lost and at best this approaches a split by two for the receiver plate.”
The energy source was specified as providing 400 W/m2 to one side of the blue plate. If you want to argue with that go ahead. Otherwise you are simply throwing spaghetti against the wall.
GW,
“For plane parallel the view factors are reciprocal, and the secondary passive plate can not lose any energy in the direction of the source plate. Thats why theres no split by two in the equation for plane parallel.”
I asked at the other place if there was any standard text book someone could cite that corroborates this notion – that an object is incapable of radiating (EM) in the direction of a warmer body.
That is essentially what is being said here.
I think NET heat flow is being used as the basis for the idea that energy (thermal radiation as EM) can’t be radiated and received from a cooler body to a warmer one. Though both things are true, I’ve come to the opinion that dogged fixation with the first statement prohibits allowing that the second is also true.
A also asked at the other place for a description of the physical difference between energy emitted by the blue plate towards the sun, and that of the green plate towards the blue.
For some reason, the blue plate is allowed to emit 200 w/m2 towards a warmer body, but the green plate is not allowed to emit any energy directly toward the warmer blue plate.
It would seem to get around this, the sun has been transformed into a ‘point source.’
Let’s make the sun a square of 1 m2.
Would the idea be that the lone blue plate would not emit 200 w/m2 either way, but now would emit 400 w/m2 to the right, and 0 w/m2 to the left?
This seems totally wrong to me.
“I asked at the other place if there was any standard text book someone could cite that corroborates this notion that an object is incapable of radiating (EM) in the direction of a warmer body.”
Nobody there is saying that any object is incapable of radiating (EM) in the direction of a warmer body. A cold body radiates EM in the direction of a warmer body. The warmer body receives it. However the warmer body (before equilibrium of course) is radiating a higher flux than the cooler body (as it would, considering its higher temperature). So the cooler body effectively receives more EM radiation than the hotter. This continues until the two are at equilibrium (each emitting equal flux towards each other). This is seen as a flow of HEAT from the warmer body to the cooler body until both bodies are at the same temperature.
The End.
Posted in the wrong place before…
For plane parallel the view factors are reciprocal, and the secondary passive plate can not lose any energy in the direction of the source plate. Thats why theres no split by two in the equation for plane parallel.
Whats got you is the term lose energy. What Joe means is that in terms of the NET energy exchange the secondary passive plate can not lose energy, as in *have more of its internal energy emitted TO than it receives FROM*, the direction of the source plate.
And if you still don’t understand, go back. I won’t respond further here.
With the real Earth its different. It receives about 1370 W/m2 from the sun in the same way that the blue plate receives the 400 W/m2 in this thought experiment. However the real Earth rotates, so the conduction through it is never a factor, it cant happen. Therefore they do the divide by 4 thing (and adjust for albedo).
Yeah but earth has ocean transparent to sunlight to a depth of about 100 meters- though the first few meters of ocean absorbs most of the sunlight.
And ocean mostly evaporate the energy from the sun rather than emits it.
Or most of the earth surface and 80% of the tropics doesn’t resemble a plate at all.
Oh, absolutely. There’s no connection between Eli’s thought experiment and reality.
Eli’s thought experiment is in 2D. It demonstrates a principle that applies in 3D. 3D (rotating sphere) makes the maths more complex, but the principle is the same.
Which Ds? There’s height, length, and width. Which two of the three does Eli’s thought experiment involve?
“There’s no connection between Eli’s thought experiment and reality.”
Elis thought experiment has been transformed into an experiment and confirmed in the real world by Dr. Spencer.
Well let’s see what Ds are involved first.
I see barry’s meaning is flat being 2D and sphere is 3D. The Green Plate Effect has plate in the title so it is always 2D for barry.
If barry wants to discuss a sphere, that would be The Green Sphere Effect, which barry is free to develop on his own. Just be clear which effect he means.
Pretty sure the conclusion will be “Introduction of the second sphere raised the equilibrium temperature of the first by 18 K.” if the input power, areas, BB assumptions are the same. The geometric shape is immaterial. One could have used anger’s cold mug of beer for the green plate.
Thank you for your comment. Though I would be interested to know specifically what Ds are involved in Eli’s thought experiment. Just saying “flat” doesn’t help. Certainly one dimension must be flat. But which? And presumably this will be consistent throughout the thought experiment.
You got it GW. 3D is length, breadth and width (or depth, or thickness). 2D is length and breadth.
2D simplifies matters when our units are w/m2. We only deal have to deal with power per surface area. We want to see how the math works, so we work in a dimension that simplifies things.
Working in 3D – adding in power/distance or conduction or a rotating sphere – makes the math too dense for regular punters to absorb.
We’re only trying to examine whether a cooler body introduced to a system would cause a warmer body to get warm (by reducing heat loss from the system). That’s all we’re doing for now. Testing that assertion. We have one heat source, which is necessary for the proof, another body in equilibrium with the heat source, and then a third body introduced to the system to see what happens: a 3-body set up.
If we can resolve this point so that everyone agrees (hasn’t happened yet, it seems), then we can move on. Don’t see any point in moving on until we get agreement on the simplified form.
I got what?
Oh, I thought you’d surmise from this, GW.
Which Ds? Theres height, length, and width. Which two of the three does Elis thought experiment involve?
Height and length. We remove width (thickness or depth or distance), to make it 2D in order to simplify the math.
We’re working in a dimension (surface areas) that fits the unit (w/m2) and makes the math easier to to absorb.
Yes, but you said, “you got it”, before you told me the Ds. Never mind. You’ve said that Eli has removed width (“thickness, depth, or distance”) from his thought experiment. Surely you see the problem with removing distance, which would be distance between the objects, and the thickness of the plates, from consideration?
In the Green Plate Effect the plates are large (even infinitely large) flat plates in a vacuum to eliminate the entire blather that you are attempting with viewing angles, distance, etc. which only add detail without adding content.
Tim, could you clarify who you are responding to?
“For plane parallel the view factors are reciprocal, and the secondary passive plate can not lose any energy in the direction of the source plate. Thats why theres no split by two in the equation for plane parallel.”
What’s got you is the term “lose energy”. What Joe means is that in terms of the NET energy exchange the secondary passive plate can not “lose energy”, as in *have more of its internal energy emitted TO than it receives FROM*, the direction of the source plate.
Isaac,
The Earth receives (per the example) 400 w/m2 from the sun on one side. It emits 400 w/m2 from its entire (TOA) surface. Same as the blue plate emits 400 w/m2 from its entire surface.
In 3D, day side Earth is warmer than night side, so it emits more power on day side that night side.
Eli worked in 2D in order to simplify the conceptualization and the math. In 2D, each side of the blue plate emits equivalent amount of power, summing to 400 w/m2.
The concept being that the introduction of a cooler body to a system with an energy source can cause a warmer body to heat up (by slowing with the rate of heat loss from the system).
The math using the 3D Earth, with an atmosphere, spherical shape, rotation etc, is a huge complication of the 2D problem. The results are the same: energy in = energy out: but it’s much harder to get the basic idea across. The 2D system reduces the math to something much simpler.
Barry
I’ve read that the earth’s surface receives from the sun an average of 164 w/m^2 in a 24 hour period. This is not what the sunny side recieves, but rather the average recieved by every square meter throughout the whole planet, including the night side.
Isn’t this the usual way of expressing solar input to earth’s surface?
You’re going to get different values depending on surface area. As far as I can tell, everybody agrees with that at least.
The 2D set up bypasses the complexity of 3D. That’s why it’s a good starting point.
Barry
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the Babett Run diagram. I just got confused by Phil’s first comment regarding solar input/surface area. All sorted out now.
—
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 14, 2017 at 7:02 PM
Barry
Ive read that the earths surface receives from the sun an average of 164 w/m^2 in a 24 hour period. This is not what the sunny side recieves, but rather the average recieved by every square meter throughout the whole planet, including the night side.
Isnt this the usual way of expressing solar input to earths surface?
barry says:
October 14, 2017 at 8:27 PM
Youre going to get different values depending on surface area. As far as I can tell, everybody agrees with that at least.
—
Or different people give different guesses.
What think is important is the amount sunlight absorbed by the tropical ocean. Which I would say over this silly 24 hour period is about 400 watts per square meter.
Or the “sunny side” of tropical ocean would be about 800 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight.
Don’t worry Barry, Sir I is now completely on board with the hive mind. His errant thoughtcrime is punished and he is fully corrected. Independent thought alarm raised, you were quick to respond to repeat the same things over and over again until the danger had passed.
After all this is a thought experiment, but that doesn’t mean all thoughts are allowed.
barry writes: “The concept being that the introduction of a cooler body to a system with an energy source can cause a warmer body to heat up.”
Sorry barry, but you are still confused about this. Think what you are saying. Bringing blocks of ice into your room will make it warmer?
And also, in case you missed it:
The correct solution, for the perfect conditions (no losses, no leakages, identical plates, ideal conductors, etc.) is:
400 W/m^2 input to the blue plate (left plate)
both plates achieve the equilibrium temperature (T1 = 243.7K)
blue plate emits 200 W/m^2 to the left
green plate emits 200 W/m^2 to the right
The 2-plate “system” has 400 W/m^2 incoming and 400 W/m^2 outgoing.
g*e*r*a*n Pretender
He presents his made up new physics in his post. He creates two surfaces that no longer emit energy because they have psychic communication and tell each other that they are at the same temperature so they no longer need emit energy.
Yup that explains why you rarely post any scientific concepts. It exposes your lack of understanding.
The blue plate would emit both left and right at 200 W/m^2. The green plate would receive all this 200 W/m^2 and warm up. It would continue to warm above emitting 100 W/m^2 as that would only allow the system to lose 300 W/m^2 even though 400 W/m^2 are entering the system.
Tim Folkerts explains the process quite well in his post here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268348
You can make up your own physics and join Gordon Robertson in his quest to create his own Universe based upon his own laws and reality, or you can study some physics and learn what the reality is.
I’m afraid Tim got tangled up on this one.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268421
I need a little pause in the discussion about G&T’s GHE ‘falsification’ and Eli’s reaction to it, and come back to a comment upthread.
The idiots who claim Arctic ice is melting are referring to one month that is the Arctic summer. There is no one up there in winter measuring ice extent and no one talks about the Arctic ice cover, which covers the Arctic ocean at times, from Siberia to the Canadian shores with 10 metres of ice.
I guess I don’t need to tell you who wrote that tremendously intelligent stuff (it is not the first time the troll writes exactly the same nonsense).
Below you see that the claim I emphasised in bold is no more than a thoroughly stupid lie:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/blog/polview.html
How would such a chart look if Nick Stokes would ever imagine to dissimulate boreal and austral winter months, in order to push melting up? The claim at top, emphasised in bold, is a silly, completely stupid lie.
But let’s rather have a closer look to that Arctic instead.
1. Its sea ice extent (together with that of its counterpart in the South).
Of course, if you process and plot the daily absolute values published by colorado.edu, you won’t see that much:
http:// 4GP.ME/bbtc/1508012240682.jpg
Maybe it’s better to look at departures from a baseline (here: UAH’s, i.e. the monthly means over 1981-2010):
http:// 4GP.ME/bbtc/1508012327957.jpg
Here above you saw a bit more, namely that if all was well in the Arctic, the red line simply would look like the blue one.
But a look at data is more interesting, e.g. at ranking lists of increasing extents for
– all months;
– the winter months december, january, febrary and march
for both absolute and anomaly values.
When inspecting the lists for the Arctic, you see that
– when ranking all months, the first winter month appears at position 205 of 462 for absolute values, but at position 24 in the anomaly list;
– when ranking the four winter months, the first 50 positions contain 20 years before 2000 in the absolute value list, but not one in the anomaly value list.
2. Now what concerns Arctic temperature measurements, I’ll restrict that here to one simple statement.
When you generate, for UAH6.0’s 2.5 deg TLT grid, the trends for all 9504 cells and sort them, you see that 95 of the 100 highest trends are in the latitude stripe 80.0N-82.5N.
Draw your conclusions.
As opposed to the usual trolls’ meaning, I’m no alarmist and have no comment about all that, excepted that Arctic temperatures as actually observed are way below those around 1930 and a fortiori those around 1880.
“As opposed to the usual trolls meaning, Im no alarmist and have no comment about all that, excepted that Arctic temperatures as actually observed are way below those around 1930 and a fortiori those around 1880.”
Ha. Prove it.
A little mistake: the first sea ice extent pic link should be
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1508023137438.jpg
That graph is utterly useless.
Sorry, what I mean is, it needs to be turned into anomalies. It’s impossible to draw any conclusions as it’s drawn.
That graph is utterly useless.
You seem to lack necessary attention, David Appell!
Read both comments again, this time a bit more carefully, and compare the two graphs (which in the head comment are identical, what lead to an attached subcomment with a corrected link).
Without turning your graphs into anomalies, I can’t discern a thing from them. Sorry.
But they ARE anomaly plots!
How do you above all manage to complain in one comment about lacking anomalies in the graphs but in another one about the links to these graphs being inoperable?
No they are not — the y-axis says “absolute extent values.”
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1508023137438.jpg
Once more:
– this is the graph with absolute data
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1508023137438.jpg
– this is the graph with anomaly data
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1508012240682.jpg
Source:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_climatology_1981-2010_v2.1.csv
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/S_seaice_extent_daily_v2.1.csv
If you don’t trust in my processing, do it yourself…
Yes, the second is an anomaly graph.
(It would greatly help if you posted correct URLs that actually work.)
So… what is your point?
I see it’s 3:50 AM, a bit tired, time to shutdown.
As opposed to the usual trolls meaning, Im no alarmist and have no comment about all that, excepted that Arctic temperatures as actually observed are way below those around 1930 and a fortiori those around 1880.
This seems unconnected from the rest, which was about sea ice.
And I’m not sure which “Arctic temperatures as actually observed” you are referring to as compared with 1930 and 1880. Recent?
Bin writes:
“http:// 4GP.ME/bbtc/1508012240682.jpg
http:// 4GP.ME/bbtc/1508012327957.jpg”
Neither of these links work. Even when I remove the (incorrect) space after the “//”.
No idea of what happens: here in Germoney the links work.
Link worked for me after removing the space before ‘4GP’.
Different browsers on different devices may read the font and spaces differently.
barry says on October 14, 2017 at 6:18 PM
This seems unconnected from the rest, which was about sea ice.
There are two points in the comment (sea ice was the main topic, temperatures were added to make it complete).
And Im not sure which Arctic temperatures as actually observed you are referring to as compared with 1930 and 1880. Recent?
The last download of GHCN data at NOAA:
‘/pub/data/ghcn/v3/ghcnm.tavg.latest.qcu.tar.gz’
was in this August.
Here is a chart comparing anomalies (wrt UAH’s baseline) of GHCN V3 for the Globe and Arctic 60N-82.5N.
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1508030627437.jpg
In yellow you see GISS which in comparison with GHCN looks very flat. This is due to outlier removal and homogenisation.
I don’t have monthly GISS for the Arctic, it’s in their .nc corner. I download only text files.
GISS doesn’t calculate an Artic-only temperature.
And until you adjust the raw data (to eliminate biases), you’re not going to get scientifically meaningful results.
GISS doesnt calculate an Artic-only temperature.
Very, very interesting!
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
And until you adjust the raw data (to eliminate biases), youre not going to get scientifically meaningful results.
That won’t change the difference between Globe and Arctic, David Appell. Because the biases are evenly distributed.
Bindidon says:
“Very, very interesting!
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt”
I didn’t know about that! Thanks for correcting me.
“That wont change the difference between Globe and Arctic, David Appell. Because the biases are evenly distributed”
What exactly does that mean, “the biases are evenly distributed?” Distributed over what parameters?
I don’t think I believe this. I might given evidence, but I don’t believe it without any. I doubt biases like Time of Observation are going to be the same in the Arctic as they are in the mid-latitudes, because in the mid-latitudes there are many more observations. GISS largely extrapolates over the Arctic, given stations on or near the boundary. No?
Barry, David Appell
I continue downthread today afternoon, that makes communication a bit easier.
Don’t misunderstand me: I don#t ignore the station problems in quality and quantity.
And about Cowtan and Way I’m very well informed. I read the paper years ago.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
You can see for the 64N to 90N data that recent temps in the Arctic are more than 2C warmer than in the 1880s and more than 1C warmer than in 1930s.
Maybe there is an issue with fewer early stations/weighting in the data you are using, Bindidon? Or time of observation changes causing systematic bias?
Bin, are you working with absolute temps and then converting? Is there a change in the number of stations over time, or change in weighing per latitude? Could make a difference.
barry on October 14, 2017 at 8:40 PM
Bin, are you working with absolute temps and then converting?
Well, barry: any idea about how to do else? GHCN data is absolute, as opposed to most temperature time series.
It is not a conversion. It is averaging following by a baseline computation and subsequent subtraction of the monthly baseline values from all the corresponding months in the time series.
Is there a change in the number of stations over time, or change in weighing per latitude?
The number of stations evidently changes all the time. Some come out, some in.
No latitude weighting can explain such differences. It is a lot of outlier elimination followed by homogenisation and kriging in the Grand North.
That is the reason why skeptics don’t believe that such data could ever be accurate. I can understand them.
Enclosed two documents:
– http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1508106635724.txt
The number of active GHCN stations in each year
– http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1508107009354.txt
The number of active GHCN stations per 2.5 deg latitude band.
Of course: if you would for example decide to use only the data provided by those stations e.g. still active in 2017, the two files radically would change.
Don’t misunderstand me: I am in favor about all data processing leading to the actual datasets. I just wanted to point somewhat provocatively to the way from raw data to final time series.
A last point: when sorting the time series, you see that
– while the absolute data shows at top hundreds of summer months (winter months come around positions at 800 of 1650),
– the sorted anomalies show the inverse, all winter months at top, with the first summer month coming at position around 400.
This confirms what is known since longer time:
– it is useless to look at absolute values;
– the Arctic region has higher anomalies during winters than during summers.
Bin,
Can you think of a reason that the data for the Arctic given by GISS (in the link to GISS anomalies of different latitude zones) has lower temperatures in 1930 and the 1800s?
barry, it’s in the comment above!
No latitude weighting can explain such differences. It is a lot of outlier elimination followed by homogenisation and kriging in the Grand North.
Many (rather dumb) skeptics think and btw claim that homogenisation and interpolation are the main cause of ‘warming the data sets’.
Probably they never did look at
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
especially under
GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)
From there you have also access to all data sets (the monthly zonals are only accessible through NetCdf software).
If you want to know more about that, a more complete description is accessible at
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html
Gordon claims IR isn’t heat.
I’ll bet he thinks the Sun heats the Earth. He won’t say how, but I bet he thinks it anyway.
The Earth emits IR to space. But if the IR emitted by the Earth isn’t heat, why doesn’t the Sun’s heat build up indefinitely on the Earth, and why isn’t the Earth’s temperature constantly increasing as a result?
Yes, this strange notion that EM radiation isn’t “thermal energy.”
EM radiation becomes heat the moment it hits a surface.
That’s why the sun’s EM radiation warms the Earth after traveling through a (nearly) vacuum.
If a surface emits EM (without gaining an equivalent or greater amount), it loses heat.
EM carries energy. Energy and heat are interlinked in the physics I’m aware of.
barry, “Yes, this strange notion that EM radiation isn’t “thermal energy.”
It isn’t, EMR energy when radiated is transformed from thermal energy.
“EM radiation becomes heat the moment it hits a surface.”
Now that’s correct, EMR (not heat) transforms back into thermal energy (heat) when absorbed by an object, stays EMR (not heat) if reflected or transmitted.
Congrats Ball4,
You will be receiving your “Earth heats the Sun” club membership certificate in the mail shortly. Display it with pride.
Ball4 – you are quibbling about rhetoric, not science. (So is Gordon.)
And the in-fighting begins……….
SGW, the earth as an IR sun at 255K can not possibly heat (SGW term) the sun at around 5780K, however the earth system emits photon energy (EMR) incident on the sun which when absorbed adds to the thermal energy of the sun system by 1LOT consistent with 2LOT.
DA: You are wrong, it is not just about the rhetoric. EMR is a form of energy, thermal energy is another form. Many confuse the two and thus make egregious physics mistakes including you at times.
Ball4 says:
“DA: You are wrong, it is not just about the rhetoric. EMR is a form of energy, thermal energy is another form. Many confuse the two and thus make egregious physics mistakes including you at times.”
What mistakes have I made?
IR is heat for one mistake.
Photon mass is identical to zero for another.
Keep my eye out for more.
Ball4
Is the following explanation correct?
Infrared radiation in the spectral distribution of a black body is usually considered a form of heat, since it has an equivalent temperature and is associated with an entropy change per unit of thermal energy.
However, ‘heat’ is a technical term in physics and thermodynamics and is often confused with thermal energy. Any type of electromagnetic energy can be transformed into thermal energy in interaction with matter.
Thus, any electromagnetic radiation can ‘heat’ (in the sense of increase the thermal energy temperature of) a material, when it is absorbed.
Source : Wikipedia
Ball4 says:
“IR is heat for one mistake.
Photon mass is identical to zero for another.”
Both are absolutely and completely true.
Just what do you think the photon’s mass is, anyway??????
I gave you a paper above to read about the photon’s measured mass upper limit, but obviously you didn’t read it.
I even gave you the upper limit. I will not repeat, just point out the published paper shows you are wrong. Again.
An “upper limit” does not mean the photon has mass. Do you really not realize that?
In fact it implies the opposite – the lower the upper limit, the more confidence is the statement that the photon has zero mass.
Bindidon 8:03pm, that wiki paragraph is sourced to a reference on another page that does not misuse the “heat” term as a noun as badly as the unknown author of the paragraph you clip. Its use of heat as a verb is ok.
Any use of the word heat as a noun is an attempt to bring back the banished caloric theory and thus confuse the reader. That theory had its day, served a purpose but has been replaced (like slide rules); any attempt at using heat as a noun is an attempt to confuse. Some more thoughts here:
https://ifisc.uib-csic.es//raul/CURSOS/TERMO/Heat_is_not_a_noun.pdf
Read also the ref.s, especially to Zemansky and #17: “Transfer of an entity implies movement of that entity from one storage region to another….We conclude that because heat cannot be stored, the term heat transfer is an oxymoron.”
“An “upper limit” does not mean the photon has mass. Do you really not realize that?”
Do you not realize the upper limit is not identically zero? Today’s testing precision has not yet shown conclusively the photon rest mass is identically zero, tomorrow’s…who knows?
You can never show the photon’s rest mass is precisely zero, because you can never make an infinitely precise measurement. Basic measurement theory.
A nonzero upper limit doesn’t mean the photon has mass. To show the photon has mas you’re have to show that its LOWER LIMIT is greater than zero.
Wikipedia says a measured upper limit on the photon mass is
3e-27 eV. Essentially infinitesimal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass
Ball4 says:
“Do you not realize the upper limit is not identically zero? Todays testing precision has not yet shown conclusively the photon rest mass is identically zero, tomorrowswho knows?”
That’s not how science is done and interpreted. By that kind of blinkered thinking, we know absolutely nothing about the natural world.
This isn’t worth discussing beyond this.
“To show the photon has mas(s) youre have to show that its LOWER LIMIT is greater than zero.”
Yes, instrumentation is not yet precise enough to measure or observe this.
“Wikipedia says a measured upper limit on the photon mass is
3e-27 eV. Essentially infinitesimal.”
Your copy and paste apparently missed eV/c^2.
According the link provided, in grams, the most stringent upper limit on the photon rest mass ≲ 3*10^-60 g. This upper limit is 12 orders of magnitude better than the best upper limits obtained under terrestrial conditions.
Which is not identically 0 but good enough for government work.
Ball4 says:
“Your copy and paste apparently missed eV/c^2.”
Physicists set c=1 when talking about particle masses. They give particles masses in eVs.
Theoretical physicists set c=hbar=G=k=1.
Ball4 says:
“Yes, instrumentation is not yet precise enough to measure or observe this.”
Instruments will NEVER measure an upper limit on the photon mass of 0. Never.
There is no measurement or experimental result that suggests the photon mass is > 0.
–Now thats correct, EMR (not heat) transforms back into thermal energy (heat) when absorbed by an object, stays EMR (not heat) if reflected or transmitted.–
Or re-radiated.
barry, I cannot fathom how Gordon cannot understand this. He seems to think heat can only be “thermal,” by which he means (I think) the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules, without caring to see how inconsistent this is.
But I’d like to see him address my question.
Gordon is right about that David, thermal energy (i.e. the avg. KE of molecules in an object) is a different form of energy than EMR. You ought to be able to understand that.
The KE of the sun’s constituent particles is radiated, transformed into EMR and EMR travels to earth at speed of light where some of the EMR is absorbed, transformed back into thermal energy, & some EMR is reflected (albedo) and remains as EMR.
The reverse is also true.
Of course it’s a different FORM of energy. But it’s still ENERGY. So what?
Ball4 says:
“The KE of the suns constituent particles is radiated….”
Kinetic energy is not radiative energy.
I shouldn’t have to be so exact with a physics student.
The energy of the sun’s constituent particles decrease as they emit a photon, the energy has been transformed to EMR, which travels to earth, transformed from EMR when absorbed by molecules thus increased in energy.
This is not that hard David esp. for a physics student. And not rhetoric. Here is where this causes you to be wrong:
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its temperature increases.
Correctly if you understood well enough:
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its energy increases.
That is all too simple but stick with it and start to improve in clarity. Geez, your blog comments are so imprecise.
Ball4 says:
“The energy of the suns constituent particles decrease as they emit a photon”
Energy of what form?
Ball4 says:
“Correctly if you understood well enough:
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its energy increases.”
What in the Sun is increasing in energy?
“Energy of what form?”
Geez someone wrote: “Of course it’s a different FORM of energy. But it’s still ENERGY. So what?”
So what?
“What in the Sun is increasing in energy?”
The constituent particle of the sun that absorbed the photon from the earth.
Can we agree on this?
EM has no “temperature” until it strikes a surface.
It is an energy transporter.
It doesn’t carry heat, but it does carry the essential ingredient for it.
If we can agree on that….
When I say things emit thermal energy as EM, I am saying that energy is being transported, which converts to heat the moment it strikes a surface.
Perhaps the language is imprecise. Perhaps “thermal energy” classically refers to other forms of energy than EM. This suggests to me that the term ‘thermal radiation’ is a bit of a misnomer. The radiation has no heat (no ‘thermality’), and the thermal part refers to the energy content of the collection of particles from which the radiaton emanates.
I’ve read that the term ‘thermal energy’ can be ambiguous and lead to confusion.
So perhaps anyone claiming a precise definition is merely reflecting their received understanding.
And arguments about it are reflections of whatever each person learned, differently, from different sources.
It would be great if we abandoned that quibble and just agreed that EM carries the ingredient (energy) that converts to heat on contact, and proceed with some tolerance for differences in terms.
And only raise a flag if the variations in terminology produces a material misunderstanding.
Eg, if we agree that a body emits through a vacuum energy sufficient to warm another body to 400 w/m2, quibbling over whether the first body is emitting EM, thermal radiation, thermal energy or what have you doesn’t necessarily matter. It only matters if it changes the math. In the example we have been looking at upthread the terminology makes no difference, and shouldn’t require us to interrupt the examination with lessons in what words to use.
barry 9:05pm, that’s one of the more precise, thoughtful comments tonight, including mine. Yes, +1.
Where it is important to make the distinction, for example, when someone writes heat is added to the sun when they really mean energy is added to the sun.
The earth cannot add heat to the sun but the earth can add energy to the sun. Blogs would be so boring if everyone agreed with you. Won’t happen though. I predict David will continue to write:
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its temperature increases.
when he means:
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its energy increases.
and the battles will continue.
The atm. can add energy to the earth, the atm. can not add heat to the earth. CO2 can add energy to the surface but not heat. CO2 can remove energy from the lower stratosphere but not remove heat.
barry — it’s all just a choice of rhetoric.
My choice is that the ocean contains heat. Scientists agree, every time they measure and publish ocean heat content.
My choice is that a cake right out of the oven contains heat.
My choice is that IR is heat.
These choices are made by many many scientists and laypeople. But it doesn’t matter what rhetoric you use as long as you understand the physics.
Which all contribute to such classic gaffes as:
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its temperature increases.
Once David can understand the ocean, cakes, IR contain no heat or work, just internal energy U then David can get begin to get it right:
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its internal energy increases.
Ball4,
I prefer the ocean has waves theory.
Waves are capable of doing work.
Temperature being related to both internal energy and kinetic energy.
Des says:
October 6, 2017 at 2:14 AM
IR is indeed not heat. I have not stated that it is nor thought it.
Do you enjoy your straw man arguments?
I wish you clowns would get your story straight.
IR is heat.
OK.
IR is heat…check
Earth heats the sun….check
Bi-directional heat transfer (per Bin)…. check
I want to keep a running log of the pseudo-science.
You’re afraid to address the points we’re making.
IR is EMR, not heat…check.
The sun heats the earth…check.
Bi-directional energy transfer…check.
You keep yourself in a pleasant role: critique, mockery… and no description of what you consider correct.
That’s indeed a bit easy.
EMR is heat. It’s how the Sun heats the Earth.
IR is a form of EMR.
If you stand in front of an IR source, you will feel its warmth. Especially an intense IR source.
“If you stand in front of an IR source, you will feel its warmth.”
I don’t feel the warmth from the clear sky at night and it is an IR source. If IR was a heat source as you claim, this test disproves your theory. IR actually is EMR not a form of EMR.
David, you really do need to be more precise in terminology to convince readers, especially given the education you claim.
For once I agree with you Ball4.
Ball4 says:
“I dont feel the warmth from the clear sky at night and it is an IR source.”
Of course you do!
Or else you’d deeply freeze when the Sun goes down.
DA…”If you stand in front of an IR source, you will feel its warmth. Especially an intense IR source”.
The IR source is heat…thermal energy. As the thermal energy cools it emits IR. You don’t feel the IR, you feel the heat in your skin when the molecules in your skin respond to IR. The heat comes from the atoms/molecules in your body rising to a higher energy state.
The source is heat, thermal energy is converted to IR, IR is converted to heat. It’s the same process with the Sun with the exception that the Sun also emits short wave radiation. It too will cause molecules in your skin to rise to a higher state of kinetic energy, aka heat. UV can cause your skin to burn.
I see you were incapable of answering the physics question on the material you claim to be studying. Here it is again:
Assume no gravity and no air resistance. Assume any collisions are perfectly elastic, and occur head-on so that there are no angular deflections.
There is a train moving towards me at 50 m/s.
I have a basketball and a table tennis ball.
Assume mass of train >> mass of basketball >> mass of tt ball
I throw the basketball at the train at a speed of 30 m/s.
Some time later I throw the table tennis ball in the same direction at 20 m/s, so that it collides with the basketball AFTER it has rebounded from the train.
At what speed will the table tennis ball return to me?
DA…”The Earth emits IR to space. But if the IR emitted by the Earth isnt heat, why doesnt the Suns heat build up indefinitely on the Earth….”
When the surface emits IR it does so by losing thermal energy in the emitting atoms. That’s how it cools. Thermal energy is converted to EM as a loss of thermal energy.
Heat cannot be emitted to space, only EM.
“Heat. Heat, like work, is a measure of the amount of energy transfered from one body to another because of the temperature difference between those bodies. Heat is not energy possessed by a body. We should not speak of the “heat in a body.” The energy a body possesses due to its temperature is a different thing, called internal thermal energy. The misuse of this word probably dates back to the 18th century when it was still thought that bodies undergoing thermal processes exchanged a substance, called caloric or phlogiston, a substance later called heat. We now know that heat is not a substance. Reference: Zemansky, Mark W. The Use and Misuse of the Word “Heat” in Physics Teaching” The Physics Teacher, 8, 6 (Sept 1970) p. 295-300. See”
This comes from this Glossary.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm
So technically IR would not be “heat” since heat is a measure of the amount of energy that is transferred by temperature differences, not the type of energy doing the transfer.
Norman says:
“Heat is not energy possessed by a body. We should not speak of the heat in a body.”
Thanks Norman. That’s all this argument is about — rhetoric.
If you want to call “heat” the transfer of energy, fine. In that case, IR is clearly “heat.”
But then you can’t say that a cake just out of the oven has no heat.
Fine if you want (though that seems unduly restrictive to me). But let’s take that point of view.
The cake certainly DOES contain energy. And when you stick your finger it is, energy IS transferred to your finger. That transfer is “heat.”
I think the common point of view — that the cake contains heat, is easier to work with, especially for nonscience majors.
But if heat is the transfer of energy, EM radiation — which carries energy — is certainly “heat.” No if ands or buts.
“If you want to call “heat” the transfer of energy, fine.”
Not fine. David agreed heat is not possessed in a body. Then David wants to explain heat that is not in a body, can somehow transfer from that body to start not existing in another body. Heat is not in the cake but can somehow transfer into your finger where heat is not possessed either. BS.
This the sort of confusion David brings to this dinner party using heat as a noun.
In my mind, it’s very simple. All objects exchange energy. When comparing two objects, the one receiving the lion’s share of energy is being heated. This comes at the expense of the warmer object, which is losing energy – getting colder.
Comparing sun and Earth, both are exchanging energy, but only the earth is being heated. This comes at the expense of the sun, which is getting colder.
Let me rephrase something. Instead of getting colder, let’s just say “losing heat”.
I don’t think the semantics matter except for people like us who are arguing about the physics.
I agree with that, Sir I, and Ball4. And so there is no sense in which the Earth “heats” the sun, and IR is not “heat”. This is also I think the way G & T see it, as they were at pains to point out in their rebuttal to Eli et al.
GW
What if the sun were emitting 200 w/m^2 to an area where the Earth would otherwise be, and receiving nothing in return?
Next, introduce the earth. If the Earth kept 164 w/m^2 for itself, and returned the remaining 36 w/m^2 to the sun, the sun would not be losing heat as fast, and its temperature would rise by a small inrcrement.
You could say the earth caused the sun to get warmer, but is the earth “heating” the sun? No, that would be very inaccurate.
“I think the way G & T see it..”
G&T did not present any test with data supporting anything that was novel in their piece nor their follow-up. For much of their 115 pages, they just go over established, prior tested physics.
ball4…”G&T did not present any test with data supporting anything that was novel in their piece nor their follow-up. For much of their 115 pages, they just go over established, prior tested physics”.
Why did they have to if the science was already established? They set out to prove the GHE does not exist, using established theory. I think they succeeded.
GW…”And so there is no sense in which the Earth heats the sun, and IR is not heat. This is also I think the way G & T see it, as they were at pains to point out in their rebuttal to Eli et al”.
Has it escaped you that G&T are both experts in thermodynamics?
IR is not heat, it is electromagnetic energy. How many times does that have to be repeated before it’s understood?
Gordon 1:22pm, “Why did they have to if the science was already established?”
They did not have to show any testing for the established science, just reference the existing support testing, which they do.
“They set out to prove the GHE does not exist, using established theory. I think they succeeded.”
You may think so, but they provide NO testing contrary to the measured GHE from the established science they parrot. You can not support their findings with any test of theirs or anyone else. If you “think” you can, demonstrate it.
1:25pm, “Has it escaped you that G&T are both experts in thermodynamics?”
Yes. If not, provide their expert publications in thermodynamics extending the field beyond established science.
Ball4, try rephrasing your thoughts with “work” instead of “heat”. Then you might start to appreciate some of the subtleties. Thee subtleties are why it is important to know how people talk about the topics in thermodynamics. Work and heat are similar concepts — ways to transfer energy.
This is also why it helps to use equations: ΔU = Q + W
You basically say … WORK is not possessed in a body. WORK that is not in a body, can somehow transfer from that body to start not existing in another body. WORK is not in my hand, but can somehow WORK can transfer into a baseball, where WORK is not possessed either.
Then it sounds silly.
Neither Q (heat) nor W (work) are ever possessed within a body. U (Internal energy) is possessed within a body. It is actually a very powerful way to view things. It is definitely NOT “BS”.
Tim 8:13am: “You basically say…”
I do not nor have I seen any of that written by anyone at this dinner party. You do not either, or point to someone that used “work transfer” in a comment. Point to someone that writes work as noun as if it were a substance contained in a body “work content”, “work is possessed by a cake or finger”. Construct a meaningful properly precise sentence using work without “by” or “on” in it, this will be difficult.
The term work is not anywhere near as commonly misused as the heat term causing horrendous confusion easily spotted. Find a comment on this blog where work was misused and we can start another crusade. I am doubtful I will gain many converts anytime soon – as you should be one of the first but you resist. Kristian resists, Dr. Spencer continues to use heat as a noun (and not egregiously misuse the term). Why? I do not know. This should be an easy crusade in physics; it is not.
No test has ever isolated some heat for inspection, but folks can readily isolate and inspect that it takes some work done by the farmer to fork up a bale of hay into the truck.
No heat was harmed in the making of this crusade.
ball4…”The term work is not anywhere near as commonly misused as the heat term causing horrendous confusion easily spotted”.
Going back to 1850 or so, scientists have associated heat with the kinetic energy of atoms. It has been more recently that certain scientists have somewhat arrogantly redefined heat as a mystical entity of energy transfer across a surface.
That makes no sense. They have also distinguished heat from thermal energy, which is more rubbish. Heat is simply a more generic name for thermal energy.
We need to use some common sense even if that kind of sense is discouraged in science. Everyone knows what heat is through experience. It is NOT an obfuscated transfer of ‘energy’ across a plane, it is a real entity that can seriously burn you.
Enough of the obfuscated nonsense, the definition of heat as the kinetic energy of atoms is far more apt than any other definition.
And work is just as simple, it’s a force acting through a distance.
tim…”Neither Q (heat) nor W (work) are ever possessed within a body”.
Don’t like the word possessed, which is typical human arrogance. However, both heat and work can be quantities within a body. In a human body, when you use a muscle to life a weight your muscle is doing work. When it is doing work it is producing heat. If your muscles do enough work they will increase the heat in your body.
Gordon sez: “scientists have somewhat arrogantly redefined heat as a mystical entity of energy”
Then Gordon points out “If your muscles do enough work they will increase the heat in your body.” so I see Gordon must really arrogantly agree with the scientists he demeans.
Don’t use the heat term Gordon and you will do better, less self contradiction. Try to at least keep your own stories straight which I know is difficult as you just make up so many stories.
ball4…”Dont use the heat term Gordon and you will do better…”
I have no problem with heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. It falls right into the atomic theory that electrons transfer heat atom to atom just as they transfer electric charge.
You seem afraid to use it because it contradicts your theory that heat is transferred both ways by IR. Heat cannot obey the 2nd law and be transferred both ways by IR.
“You seem afraid to use it because it contradicts your theory that heat is transferred both ways by IR.”
Energy is transferred both ways by IR. IR is not heat.
“When it is doing work it is producing heat.”
When it is doing work it is increasing energy, energy can not be produced only transformed. Thus heat can not be produced.
So forth, you repeatedly get tripped up using heat Gordon, you can always avoid it. But I observe you do not care to get the science right and will continue its misuse.
In the usual parlance work is done on or to a body, heat is transferred from or to a body, the internal energy of the body is changed by both. While most understand what is meant by heat content that is rather old fashioned and can lead to confusion.
Another complication is that most thermo textbooks only consider pressure volume work. There are other ways in which work can be done involving interaction with fields.
“heat is transferred from or to a body…can lead to confusion.”
Yes, beaucoup confusion as demonstrated on many blogs/comments, since modern thermo. texts all teach there is no heat in a body anymore hence something not in the body cannot then transfer FROM that body.
Better to write with clarity, without using heat as a noun which eliminates all confusion: use energy instead, same units.
Energy is transferred from or to a body.
Mostly Eli would agree with Ball4, except that heat does have a set of unique characteristics involving entropy and temperature.
energy does have a set of unique characteristics involving entropy and temperature. Small change in entropy dS=dQ/T = small change in system added energy divided by temperature of the system.
Consider a monochromatic laser. . .
Coherent light is not of the atmosphere.
Ball4 says, October 16, 2017 at 4:12 PM:
Nope. “Q” is distinctly defined as “HEAT” in thermodynamics. Added HEAT. W (work) performed on a system is also energy added to the system. To distinguish between the two types of energy transfer, the thermal one (heat) and the mechanical one (work), the processes are given different names, and the energy being transferred via the two distinct types of transfer process is ALSO given separate names. Go figure!
Energy: U
Energy: W
Energy: Q
or
Internal energy: U
Work: W
Heat: Q
1st Law of Thermodynamics (as defined for a closed system):
ΔU = Q + W
The change in system energy equals energy plus energy.
or
The change in system internal energy equals heat (transferred to) plus work (performed on).
You’re private crusade is already a lost one, troll. You have no case …
Your
Very good Kristian, you have come a long way in understanding internal energy U:
The change in system (U,internal) energy equals energy (Q) plus energy (W).
The change in system internal energy delta U equals energy (Q,transferred to) plus work (W,performed on).
Q is energy transfer due to a temperature difference, W is energy added due to work.
Ball4 says, October 17, 2017 at 10:47 AM:
LOL! Thanks for demonstrating so succinctly you true nature, troll! For all readers: This is the point when it becomes clear that the troll is just being a troll. Because no one – not even our little tease of a troll here – is THIS obtuse for real.
Ball4: Coherent light is not of the atmosphere.
Mike Mumma found a CO2 laser in the atmosphere of Mars
http://laserstars.org/history/mars.html
Not necessarily coherent light, of which there is no mention. Don’t understand how coherence could be achieved from the solar stimulated emission of atm. constituents (CO2 in this case).
Light that pumps a laser (for example flashlamps) does not have to be coherent. The coherence is imposed by an inversion between quantum states of the lasing medium, in that case CO2
Ball4 says:
“This the sort of confusion David brings to this dinner party using heat as a noun.”
None of it is confusing if you understand the physics. Which very often you don’t.
This really is the stupidest argument. But some people are making it to try to deny the greenhouse effect. They, especially, do not understand physics.
DA…”If you want to call heat the transfer of energy, fine. In that case, IR is clearly heat.”
How can IR be electromagnetic energy and thermal energy at the same time? Next you’ll be telling me that electrical energy is the same as gravitational energy or nuclear energy.
“The cake certainly DOES contain energy. And when you stick your finger it is, energy IS transferred to your finger. That transfer is heat.”
The heat is energized atoms that received thermal energy from the oven. The energized electrons transfer heat to the atoms/molecules in your finger. If you stuck your finger in crushed ice, heat would be transferred from the atoms/molecules in your finger to the molecules in the ice.
Gordon Robertson says:
“How can IR be electromagnetic energy and thermal energy at the same time? Next youll be telling me that electrical energy is the same as gravitational energy or nuclear energy.”
IT’S ALL ENERGY.
How stupid are you? It’s all energy. Energy is what’s being discussed in all of this.
You are making a distinction that is utterly irrelevant to the physics.
DA…”ITS ALL ENERGY.
How stupid are you? Its all energy. Energy is whats being discussed in all of this”.
Energy can neither be created not destroyed, that’s all different forms of energy have in common. If you convert thermal energy to electromagnetic energy, energy must be conserved but other than that thermal energy and EM have nothing in common.
The 2nd law applies to heat only, not to EM. The 2nd law, under normal circumstances, restrict heat transfer hot to cold. Your two way transfer of heat contradicts the 2nd law.
I find it amazing that you cannot understand that. Thermal energy and EM have nothing in common other than a relationship between the quantity of heat that is converted to EM by electrons. That’s about conservation of energy.
It does matter, it matters a lot.
that’s ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed’.
Gordon Robertson
Heat transfer is not a two-way exchange. Since heat would be the amount of energy transferred from hot to cold (Net IR transfer).
I do not think to many are saying heat is flowing both ways. The science is very clear on it. The claim is that the Heat Flow (the measured transfer of energy from a surface) is equal to the amount of energy emitted by a surface minus the energy absorbed by the surface.
Gordon Robertson
This link actually has an experiment (that works) and demonstrates a two way IR flow that becomes a One-Way heat flux (NET IR flux).
Read the material and learn.
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/61/61088ed4-a189-469b-9393-fba7570c8e76.pdf
If the distribution of energy in an electromagnetic field can be described by a single temperature characteristic of the emitting system then the field can be said to be heat and transfer heat by radiation.
This is getting to angel pin territory anyhow
If the distribution of energy in an electromagnetic field can be described by a single temperature characteristic of the emitting system then the field can be said to be EMR and transfer energy by radiation.
EMR is not heat.
Mere definitions and semantics.
norman…”Heat. Heat, like work, is a measure of the amount of energy transfered from one body to another because of the temperature difference between those bodies”.
Why is there a temperature difference? It’s because the atoms in one body are more energized than the atoms in the cooler body. In other words, the kinetic energy of the atoms in the hotter body is higher than the kinetic energy of the atoms in the cooler body.
Clausius called heat the kinetic energy of atoms. That is the definition of heat and the modern definition of heat as a ‘transfer’ is not only wrong, it makes no sense.
Work has nothing to do with energy transfer or temperature, it is a force acting over a distance. If you raise a 10 lb weight through a foot vertically, you have done 10 foot-lbs of work. Clausius claimed heat and work are equivalent, so if an atom vibrates through a distance in it’s bonds in a solid, it is doing work and producing heat. He included that heat and work in his definition of internal energy, U.
The vibration is due to electric forces between the +vely charged proton and the -vely charged electron. The push/pull between them creates a vibration. The force over a distance is work, and heat. It’s work because work = fxd and it’s heat because heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms.
Heat was first discovered when people were drilling cannon bores with a drill. The drilling was work and it was noticed that heat was produced, although at the time it was called caloric or something. It was noted that a certain amount of work would produce a certain amount of heat, as measured by warming water with the heat.
The heat obviously came from ripping atoms of iron apart with a drill.
norman…kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2.
work = the change in kinetic energy.
work – energy theorem: The work done on an object by a net force equals the change in kinetic energy of the object.
If you have an electron vibrating in a bond, the electron has mass and meets the equation for kinetic energy. However, the v in v^2 is velocity and = change in distance/change in time for average velocity.
the change in distance applies to work = fd, the force coming from the electrical forces between proton and electron.
In harmonic motion, as an oscillation (regular vibration) takes place there is a constant transfer of energy between potential energy and kinetic energy. At either end of the oscillation, where the mass is changing direction, the PE = maximum. In between, when the mass has maximum velocity, the KE = maximum.
Therefore work is varying with velocity and work = 0 when the PE = max.
The kinetic energy of the electron is heat and the CHANGE in KE is work. Therefore work and heat vary between themselves (are equivalent) over one oscillation of the vibration. Clausius said so.
This goes back to first year engineering when we were conditioned with the basic physics of motion.
GR: Wrong wrong wrong.
The temperature of a gas is defined as the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the gas (multiplie by some constant).
Not of the electrons in the molecules. Not of any bonds (bonds are electrons, by the way).
In fact, in quantum mechanics a bound particle (like electrons in an atom or molecule) do not have a well defined kinetic energy, since they don’t have a well defined momentum, and KE = p^2/2m.
You are no expert in atomic theory, like you claim, if you know nothing beyond the Bohr model.
DA…”The temperature of a gas is defined as the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the gas (multiplie by some constant)”.
Of course. The atom/molecule is a unit and electrons do not act independently as part of an atom/molecule. A gas is made of atoms/molecules therefore the temperature is based on the pressure and volume and can only be averaged by averaging the kinetic energy of the molecules.
Electrons are vital parts of each unit, whether atom or molecule. Within the molecule, where heating takes place, the only movable part is the electron, therefore the only part with kinetic energy is the movable part.
You could argue that the nucleus contributes to that via vibration, however, it’s the electron that absorbs EM and absorbs energy via collisions.
“You are no expert in atomic theory, like you claim, if you know nothing beyond the Bohr model”.
Never claimed to be and I don’t need to be to understand this very basic atomic theory. Apparently you don’t.
I did have to understand this theory to learn electronics/electrical theory.
Gordon Robertson says:
>> You are no expert in atomic theory, like you
>> claim, if you know nothing beyond the Bohr model.
“Never claimed to be….”
Yes you did:
Gordon Robertson says:
October 11, 2017 at 5:48 PM
“It so happens I have expertise in certain areas of atomic theory….”
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Electrons are vital parts of each unit, whether atom or molecule. Within the molecule, where heating takes place, the only movable part is the electron, therefore the only part with kinetic energy is the movable part.”
Wrong wrong wrong.
GHG molecules have vibrational and rotational quantum states as well as electron states. These first two are the states involved when a GHG molecule absorbs an IR photon. The electrons remain in their same happy energy levels.
The concept of kinetic energy simply isn’t useful in quantum systems, because, as I wrote above, bound-state electrons do not have a definite momentum.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Clausius called heat the kinetic energy of atoms. That is the definition of heat and the modern definition of heat as a transfer is not only wrong, it makes no sense.”
My God, you can’t even keep the arguments straight.
IR is heat — a transfer of energy.
Sunlight is heat — a transfer of energy.
How does heat from the Sun get to the Earth? Via electromagnetic radiation transferring energy!
Gordon Robertson
Here is how the source defines work: “Work. The amount of energy transferred to or from a body or system as a result of forces acting upon the body, causing displacement of the body or parts of it. More specifically the work done by a particular force is the product of the displacement of the body and the component of the force in the direction of the displacement. A force acting perpendicular to the body’s displacement does no work on the body. A force acting upon a body that undergoes no displacement does no work on that body. Also, it follows that if there’s no motion of a body or any part of the body, nothing did work on the body and it didn’t do work on anything else. See: kinetic energy.”
norman…”Also, it follows that if theres no motion of a body or any part of the body, nothing did work on the body and it didnt do work on anything else. See: kinetic energy”.
Essentially what I said. I said that in an oscillation of harmonic motion (generically, vibration) when the mass is at the end of it’s displacement either way, there is no work done. The potential energy is maximum. In between max displacement, kinetic energy changes and that change is work. However, the kinetic energy is heat, so as heat changes in such motion, work is done.
Clausius said that when heat produces work, the heat is consumed. I would think that conversely, when work produces heat, work is consumed as mechanical force. Don’t know. I just know what Clausius claimed, that heat and work are equivalent.
It’s the same if you have a 10 pound boulder at the edge of a 10 foot cliff. When the boulder is at rest on the cliff, potential energy is maximum and kinetic energy zero. No work is done. Work can be done by pushing the boulder off the cliff but it can also be done raising the boulder the 10 feet onto the cliff.
When you apply a force in the direction of motion of a mass, work is done over a distance. A force applied perpendicular to the motion does not count. If force is applied on an angle, only the vector in the direction of motion counts as work.
I was trying to draw a parallel between work and heat, as explained by Clausius, when an atom vibrates in a solid mass. The vibration is caused by an electric push/pull force between the +ve proton in the nucleus and the -ve charge of the electrons in the bonds between atoms. The electric force gives the force for work and the motion of the vibration is the kinetic energy and the heat.
They are equivalent and Clausius based his definition of internal energy U on the work done by the atom during vibration, the kinetic energy (heat) produced by the vibration, and the initial state of heat in the body.
If you supply external heat to the body, the vibration increases as the heat increases.
The confusion here seems to be the difference between internal energy versus the external work done by the body or the heat produced by it. That’s where the notion comes in that heat is external to the body and is only the transfer of heat externally.
It makes no sense IMHO to relegate heat to such an obfuscated definition when it is perfectly clear that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
If heat does work in a steam engine, it is through the expansion of mass as steam. It is the atoms in the steam doing the work.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I just know what Clausius claimed, that heat and work are equivalent.”
Nonsense.
Gordon Robertson says:
“It makes no sense IMHO to relegate heat to such an obfuscated definition when it is perfectly clear that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.”
More nonsense.
Why are you so determined to remain in the 19th century? Does modern physics scare you that much?
If heat is only the kinetic energy of atoms, explain a sunburn.
“If heat is only the kinetic energy of atoms, explain a sunburn.”
Skin overexposure to UV EMR.
Heat (David term) is a measure of the KE of skin atoms/molecules and heat is misused ad infinitum on blogs. I mean, how else would Dr. Spencer get over 2,345 comments on a post about UAH temperature series.
— I mean, how else would Dr. Spencer get over 2,345 comments on a post about UAH temperature series.–
LOL
barry…I saw you post about replacing the green plate with another sun. I have already alluded to that possibility but I don’t know what to make of it.
Presumably you have a very high temperature source at the same distance as the Sun, so both are equidistant to the bluer plate.
In that case, I can see the EM summing since it comes from two independent heat sources that are warmer than the plate. I have no idea how it might work at the atomic level since the energy states available to the absorbing electrons are quantum in nature.
I think we have to understand that the entire science of energy/quantum states is highly mathematical and cannot be visualized. When an electron jumps from a lower energy state to a higher state, after absorbing a photon with the appropriate energy level, it cannot jump to a state between the quantum levels. It’s all or nothing.
That’s why the absorbed photon of EM must have a precise energy level. I am still not clear if that means an energy level in excess of the difference between the current electron energy and the next higher. I just cannot see that energy coming from a cooler atom on another body.
Planck admitted when he developed the theory of quanta that he had fudged the math to do so. I like the guy for admitting that and admitting he did not know if it would work in reality. What I don’t like is subsequent scientists making rash claims based on his theory even though much of the theory can predict electron theory. I think several phenomena attributed to electrons through quantum theory are rubbish. For example, entanglement theory.
In a physical sense, we have no idea what an electron is, let alone a proton or a neutron. Chemists like Pauling blew x-rays through thin gold foil and noticed that something was deflecting the x-rays at regular intervals. That was attributed to the nucleus.
No one knows if electrons reside at these convenient energy levels but the model helps us visualize ‘something’. Through the decades I have studied electronics and applied it, I have found such models to be very helpful.
All I am trying to pass on here is that electrons behave in a similar manner with heat as they do with electric charge. I did not know that till recently so I find it pretty amazing.
If you consider that phenomenon, and the way electrons absorb EM and convert it to thermal energy, I think it better explains the 2nd law.
Your supposition of two independent heat sources makes sense to me, a colder plate does not.
Chemists like Pauling blew x-rays through thin gold foil and noticed that something was deflecting the x-rays at regular intervals. That was attributed to the nucleus.
That would be Rutherford and alpha particles.
phil…”That would be Rutherford and alpha particles”.
I took a bit of license using Pauling’s name, I know he did not do the original gold leaf experiment. However, Pauling contributed immensely to the understanding of molecules and bonds through his vast experience in the field of x-ray crystallography. Using a modified version of Schrodinger’s quantum equation, Pauling managed to identify the shapes of many molecules while writing an authoritative book on the nature of the chemical bond.
So why on earth does that mean you’d give him credit for unrelated work completed when he was ten years old! Also though his work on the chemical bond was influential, Mulliken’s Molecular orbital theory has surpassed it.
phil…”So why on earth does that mean youd give him credit for unrelated work completed when he was ten years old! Also though his work on the chemical bond was influential, Mullikens Molecular orbital theory has surpassed it.”
You are full of crap. Pauling received a Nobel for his work along this line and his textbook on the chemical bond is still used in chemistry at university level.
x-ray crystallography IS about bombarding a thin slice with x-rays and observing bond angles. Pauling was far superior in chemistry to anyone of that era or since.
Why has everyone conceded orbital theory to Bohr. Who the heck was Mulliken anyway?
Gordon Robertson says:
October 15, 2017 at 3:00 PM
You are full of crap. Pauling received a Nobel for his work along this line and his textbook on the chemical bond is still used in chemistry at university level.
x-ray crystallography IS about bombarding a thin slice with x-rays and observing bond angles. Pauling was far superior in chemistry to anyone of that era or since.
Which has nothing to do with the discovery of the nucleus by alpha particle scattering from gold films by Rutherford.
Why has everyone conceded orbital theory to Bohr. Who the heck was Mulliken anyway?
Because Bohr developed atomic orbital theory following his work with Rutherford! He got the Nobel prize for that work in 1922.
Mulliken developed the molecular orbital theory which proved to overcome many of the weaknesses of Pauling’s Valence bond theory and he received the Nobel prize for that work in 1966.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 14, 2017 at 10:28 PM
Thats why the absorbed photon of EM must have a precise energy level. I am still not clear if that means an energy level in excess of the difference between the current electron energy and the next higher. I just cannot see that energy coming from a cooler atom on another body.
So the Q-branch of CO2 (T=297K) will absorb a photon of ~720.6 cm^-1 and will be promoted to the next energy level, a blackbody at 270K will emit ~70 W/m2/sr at that frequency. Why can you not see those photons being absorbed by the CO2? Even at 250K you’ll get ~52 W/m2/sr.
phil…”the Q-branch of CO2 (T=297K) will absorb a photon of ~720.6 cm^-1″
There is no q-branch in a real CO2 molecule, ONLY electrons, protons and neutrons, provided we omit sub-atomic particles. There is no reason to include the latter for this discussion.
The bonds in molecules are electrons and they do the absorbing. It is not helpful to think in terms of q-branches and/or molecules, you need to think at the level of the atoms comprising the molecule, specifically the electron.
Atoms have ground states (with ref to q-bonds, not molecules, because the ground state is a reference to the electron. It makes no sense to refer to the ground state of a molecule when it is a reference to the lowest energy state of an electron and there may be any number of bonding electrons in a molecular structure.
You claim above that a CO2 molecule will absorb a photon with wavelength 720.6 cm^-1 which also means 720.6/cm. That’s 283″ = 23 feet.
Assuming that’s a typo, which happens to the best of us, even if CO2 absorbs a photon of a certain wavelength at 297K, the photon had to come from a hotter body.
The wavelength/frequency of the absorbed photon, hence it’s energy level, must meet the requirements of the hotter atoms energy difference to the next highest energy level. If it doesn’t, it wont be absorbed.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You claim above that a CO2 molecule will absorb a photon with wavelength 720.6 cm^-1 which also means 720.6/cm. Thats 283″ = 23 feet.”
OMG, you can’t anything right.
720.6/cm is the photon’s WAVE NUMBER — the number of wavelengths per unit length.
It’s wavelength is therefore 1 cm/720.6 = 0.00139 cm = 13.9 microns.
Radiative scientists like to use wave numbers, which have their origin in spectroscopy. But anyone should be able to translate between wave number and wavelength.
Gordon Robertson says:
“…even if CO2 absorbs a photon of a certain wavelength at 297K, the photon had to come from a hotter body.”
Why?
DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
even if CO2 absorbs a photon of a certain wavelength at 297K, the photon had to come from a hotter body.
Why?”
2nd law.
“…even if CO2 absorbs a photon of a certain wavelength at 297K, the photon had to come from a hotter body.”
Gordon, you are wrong about invoking the 2nd law in that manner, even if CO2 absorbs a photon of a certain wavelength at 297K, the photon can come from a cooler body as that process increases universe entropy since S is positive in that real process so the process as stated complies with 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson says:
DAGordon Robertson says:
even if CO2 absorbs a photon of a certain wavelength at 297K, the photon had to come from a hotter body.
Why?
2nd law”
So do those photons do a U-turn? Where do they go?
PS: You’re again misinterpreting the 2nd law. You have been since the beginning.
Gordon Robertson says:
“DAGordon Robertson says:
even if CO2 absorbs a photon of a certain wavelength at 297K, the photon had to come from a hotter body.”
“Why?
2nd law.”
What is the temperature of a photon?
How do you calculate it?
Gordon Robertson says:
October 15, 2017 at 3:21 PM
philthe Q-branch of CO2 (T=297K) will absorb a photon of ~720.6 cm^-1″
There is no q-branch in a real CO2 molecule, ONLY electrons, protons and neutrons, provided we omit sub-atomic particles. There is no reason to include the latter for this discussion.
So you don’t know what the Q-branch is!
You don’t know what a wave number is.
The wavelength/frequency of the absorbed photon, hence its energy level, must meet the requirements of the hotter atoms energy difference to the next highest energy level. If it doesnt, it wont be absorbed.
Which in the Q-branch of the spectrum requires a ~720.6 cm^-1 photon which can come from a cooler source as shown above. A warmer source will emit more of them but there will be plenty from the colder source.
Gordon Robertson
I do believe Phil. will best you in a knowledge debate on Chemistry.
Probably would be better for you just to learn from his posts and correct your flawed thinking. You are not the brightest in your knowledge of chemistry.
Here you can read this resource and maybe consider you are really losing in this debate and not looking very credible.
https://books.google.com/books?id=eH_1dIZr-zMC&pg=PA977&lpg=PA977&dq=Q+branch+in+carbon+dioxide&source=bl&ots=GVi1nOCGpM&sig=HFTlZhYoiWwh6NyjXyF6GhP_QNk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOmrLygPTWAhUEw4MKHWm7B90Q6AEIVzAG#v=onepage&q=Q%20branch%20in%20carbon%20dioxide&f=false
Gordon Robertson says:
“Thats why the absorbed photon of EM must have a precise energy level. I am still not clear if that means an energy level in excess of the difference between the current electron energy and the next higher. I just cannot see that energy coming from a cooler atom on another body.”
A photon of the right energy will do, regardless of the temperature of its source.
Photons carry no information about the temperature of its source. Nor is its source always an atom or molecule.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Planck admitted when he developed the theory of quanta that he had fudged the math to do so.”
No, he made an ansatz — he said, let’s assume quantization1 and see what it gives. Big difference. Planck was brilliant enough that his intuition led to a revolution in physics.
Wikipedia:
“At first Planck considered that quantisation was only “a purely formal assumption … actually I did not think much about it…”;” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Black-body_radiation
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/carbon-dioxide-levels-lower-than-thought-during-super-greenhouse-period/
interesting article
Currently we live in icebox climate- polar ice caps and cold ocean.
50 million years ago, Earth wasn’t in an ice box climate- didn’t have polar caps and had a much warmer oceans.
50 million years ago Antarctica wasn’t at the south pole and India was yet to crash into Asia and create the Himalayas and these events are associated with our icebox climate- of cooled the ocean and polar ice caps.
Earth can not warm by 10 C because we are in an icebox climate- one would have to unmake mountains and move the continent of Antarctica.
Our Ocean can warm by a few degrees- because it’s happened during the time period we have been in an icebox climate- it happened in the last interglacial period when sea level were about 5 meter higher.
So something like 5 degrees increase in global temperature is possible while we remain within our icebox climate. But it should require thousands of years to warm the entire ocean to be warm enough. And at the moment we are merely recovering from a cold period called the Little Ice age.
And probably the most amount warming one can hope for within next century or so, is about a 1 C increase [assuming the sun becomes more active and some volcanic activity doesn’t happen.
Some people want to know when we will have “stopped recovering from LIA”. I think it’s mostly a matter of time, but perhaps another metric could be the rise of another 4 inches of global sea level. So we had about 8 inches and when it’s a foot of sea rise.
gbaikie says:
“Some people want to know when we will have stopped recovering from LIA.”
This “recovery” concept does not exist.
The climate changes when it’s forced to change. Period. Something has to happen to cause warming, or to cause cooling.
One thing about the pseudoscience of the “greenhouse effect theory” is people don’t have a clue of what increase of 5 C
“does”.
What it doesn’t do is increase air temperature so one has hotter days, instead what it does in make more days like a tropical day [and night].
In tropics it doesn’t freeze- tropical plant die if air temperature gets to freezing. And we have lots of tropical plants- which wouldn’t exist if tropics ever got cold in say, last 100 million years.
Or Oregon could be place to grow orange trees if average temperature increase by 5 C. Or when you can grow orange trees in northern California without using greenhouses “global warming” is happening.
gbaikie says:
“What it doesnt do is increase air temperature so one has hotter days, instead what it does in make more days like a tropical day [and night].”
It does lead to hotter days.
Nighttime temperatures are expected to increase faster than daytime temperatures, and this is observed, but there are and still will be hotter days. In fact, extremely hot days gets exponentially more common when the average daily temperature gets linearly warming.
David Appell says:
October 15, 2017 at 5:03 PM
gbaikie says:
What it doesnt do is increase air temperature so one has hotter days, instead what it does in make more days like a tropical day [and night].
It does lead to hotter days.
Well, “hotter” 24 hour periods, not hotter daytime air temperatures.
You are not going to set the world’s highest temperatures in a tropical climate.
One needs a desert- though UHI effects would also help with getting higher day time temperatures.
gbaikie says:
“Well, hotter 24 hour periods, not hotter daytime air temperatures.”
Yes, hotter daytime temperatures too.
Wiki: Highest temperatures ever recorded:
Canada 45.0 C (113.0 F) Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan
Midale, Saskatchewan 5 July 1937
Cuba 38.8 C (101.8 F) Jucarito (Granma Province) 17 April 1999
Puerto Rico 40 C (104 F) Mona Island 2 July 1996
Lowest temperatures ever recorded:
Canada −63.0 C (−81.4 F) Snag, Yukon 3 February 1947
Cuba 0.6 C (33.1 F) Bainoa, Mayabeque Province 18 February 1996
Puerto Rico 4 C (40 F) Aibonito/San Sebastian 9 March 1911/ 24 January 1966
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
Just want to check something, David Appell you do believe that there is more greenhouse effect over Cuba or Puerto Rico as compared to Canada, correct?
And in addition there also can be more sunlight in Cuba or Puerto Rico. And finally that Cuba or Puerto Rico have a much warmer average temperature than anywhere in Canada.
Correct?
gbaikie says:
“Earth can not warm by 10 C because we are in an icebox climate- one would have to unmake mountains and move the continent of Antarctica.”
No.
Earth can warm by 10 C, or more, if we enough CO2 is put into the air. Independent of what mountains exist or where the continents are.
” David Appell says:
October 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM
gbaikie says:
Earth can not warm by 10 C because we are in an icebox climate- one would have to unmake mountains and move the continent of Antarctica.
No.
Earth can warm by 10 C, or more, if we enough CO2 is put into the air. Independent of what mountains exist or where the continents are.”
How much CO2 do you think is needed to to get it warmer by say 5 C.
And how long would it take to warm average ocean temperature so the average ocean temperature is about 10 C [rather than the present temperature of about 3 C]?
gbaikie says:
“How much CO2 do you think is needed to to get it warmer by say 5 C.”
If climate sensitivity is s = 3 C, it would take about
CO2 = CO2_initialvalue*2^(dT/s) = 890 ppm
Salvatore Del Prete on October 15, 2017 at 5:27 AM
I hope you did not forget yet that not so long ago the same people trumpeted about ‘carbon dioxide levels bumping up despite temperatures keeping unchanged’.
Delicious.
Good morning gentlemen,
fist just a note: I have changed my name to PhilJ as i see there is another Phil posting here and i wish to avoid confusion.. (call me PJ if you like )
This will be my last post on the ‘plate’ thought experiment..
I believe we all agree the the blue plate, receiving 400w reaches temp t1 whereat it radiates 200w/m2 from each side
now consider if we take that plate and slice it right down the middle.. moving the right side just far enough away so that conduction no longer occurs:
I maintain that the temps of the (now2) plates will remain essentially unchanged..
Those who argue cold heats warm believe the right plate will now cool till it radiates 133w/m2 and the left plate will warm until it radiates 267w/m2
in my view there remains no net RT imbalance between them ..it is 0
in their view the NET RT balance will increase to 134w left to right…
which is at equilibrium?
Phil
The 267 w/m^2 plate will have reached a steady temperature. The 133 w/m^2 will have reached a steady temperature. There would be a consistent exchange of energy between the two objects. THIS is the equilibrium the article mentions.
If you were to isolate the two objects from any external forces….then one would warm and the other would cool until they were both the same temperature.
You are correct PhilJ. And “slicing” the first plate in half proves your point.
g*e*r*a*n
You think an object heated by the sun would be the same temperature as a neighboring object in the shade?
That’s PhilJ’s position
” Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 15, 2017 at 10:56 AM
g*e*r*a*n
You think an object heated by the sun would be the same temperature as a neighboring object in the shade?”
If the object was water.
snake, you’re attempting to change the problem. The 2-plate problem is just one more FAIL for pseudoscience. Yet, you must try to hang on. You must do what you can to save the dead hoax.
The correct solution of the problem, for the perfect conditions (no losses, no leakages, identical plates, ideal conductors, etc.) is:
400 W/m^2 input to the blue plate (left plate)
both plates achieve the equilibrium temperature (T1 = 243.7K)
blue plate emits 200 W/m^2 to the left
green plate emits 200 W/m^2 to the right
The 2-plate system has 400 W/m^2 incoming and 400 W/m^2 outgoing.
g*e*r*a*n
In other words, you think a plate heated by the sun (no losses, no leakages, identical plates, ideal conductors, etc.) would be the same temperature as a neighboring plate in the shade?
If you think you can change the results by restating the problem, good luck!
All conditions the same, results would be the same.
The blue plate is heated by the sun, the green plate is nearby in the shade.
How is that restating the problem?
OTOH, gbaikie says, “If the object was water.”
This clearly IS an attempt to restate the problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268701
snake, i’m not going to bicker back and forth with a 12-year-old.
Wise move. It will save you future embarrassment.
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 15, 2017 at 12:00 PM
OTOH, gbaikie says, If the object was water.
This clearly IS an attempt to restate the problem.–
No, it was answering a question.
If want a “experiment” put a solar pond in the Sahara desert.
What warms the world more, desert sand or solar pond?
A solar pond will get a surface temperature of around 30 C and below the water, one can get a water temperature of about 80 C.
The sand will warm up to about 70 C.
The surface water of solar pond will stay near 30 C day and night and water below the surface will remain a near constant of about 80 C- day and night.
What will affect the temperature is wind or a lot of rain, colder air or cloudy weather don’t affect it much.
Another factor of solar pond is it will evaporate a fair amount of water.
In comparison the sand will heat up to about 70 C when skies are clear and the sun is near zenith, and become cooler when sun is further the 45 degree away from zenith.
So per square meter, which warms earth more, sand or solar pond?
gbaikie
Interesting comment. You think water near the surface of a pond is an object, and the water deeper down is a separate, neighboring object?
gbaikie
I just looked up “solar pond”. The deeper water is indeed “heated by the sun” (convection is then impeded by salty water that collects near the bottom).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_pond#Description
“Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 15, 2017 at 1:50 PM
gbaikie
Interesting comment. You think water near the surface of a pond is an object, and the water deeper down is a separate, neighboring object?”
No, and the water deeper down wouldn’t be in the shade.
I was answering your “riddle” and involving water seems like best answer, so I was thinking of water in shade next/adjacent to other water in sunlight. To make it more clearly “an object” one have plastic bags of water in water. And water the bags are in, could be deep water.
The solar pond thing was example of “restating the problem”.
Anyhow, which warms the world more: sand [or plates] or water?
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 15, 2017 at 2:09 PM
gbaikie
I just looked up solar pond. The deeper water is indeed heated by the sun (convection is then impeded by salty water that collects near the bottom).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_pond#Description —
Now what absorbs more sunlight a solar pond or the ocean?
{It could be a trick question]
“No, and the water deeper down wouldnt be in the shade.”
It actually could be in the shade [or some solar ponds do provide shade to the bottom water but it would be hotter than the surface [and I wasn’t thinking about that].
The real billion dollar question you have to ask yourself is this:
Let’s take this two-sided climate change movement and pretend it never existed. For the alarmists sake let’s say that they are right and that global warming is going to kill us all if we don’t reduce co2 emissions in the near future. The left wing media and governmental agencies wants people to reduce our co2 emissions to resolve climate change. But if they really cared so much about climate change then why are they:
1. allowing us climate change deniers to be on the web and have this be a two sided debate rather then a settled science. If man made climate change was such a big deal then Why is this science that goes against it on the internet so it is exposed to the public? This shouldn’t be on the internet. Nothing that goes against man made climate change shouldn’t even be brought up by anyone. It should be a law but it’s not. Why?
2. There should be a law banning anything that contributes to global warming including cars, cellphones, factories etc but there is not. Why?
3. There are schools talking about climate change being a settled science and schools talking the complete opposite that climate change is natural and that we have no affect on the climate and that there should be an open debate on the effects of climate change. Why? I thought this was a settled science? Bill nye? Al gore?
4. The most important question of all. Why the hell did we have a president of the US last term that was so protective over climate change and now we have someone who goes against it. If climate change is so real then why are you letting this guy Donald trump
Be president? Why? I just don’t get it. He should have been banned from presidency by now but he’s not. Why? i’ll tell you why. They are trying to divide us. Either the science is settled or it’s not. It can’t be both! Yet we are told by some that it is settled and some that it’s still an open debate! Make up your minds! Maybe I would believe in man made climate change if these idiots running our government acted like they at least gave two shits about climate change but they don’t! They act like they do but they don’t!
— ClimateChange4realz says:
October 15, 2017 at 11:20 AM
The real billion dollar question you have to ask yourself is this:–
If it was only a billion dollars- trillions of dollars have been wasted and hundreds trillions of dollar is wanted to be wasted in the future.
But though money is important, it’s about political power.
It’s like wanted to outlaw the size of soda one can buy.
Politicians are psychopaths.
Always have been, always will be.
The billion dollar answer: free speech and democracy?
ClimateChange4realz says:
“If man made climate change was such a big deal then Why is this science that goes against it on the internet so it is exposed to the public?”
(Sigh.)
Because the west believes in free speech and democratic values and institutions, not totalitarianism or authoritarianism.
(Could you really not answer this question on your own??)
You guys are so full of shit and so are the people who think that this climate change Movement should be directed towards free speech and democracy. So we have free speech and democracy. Big deal! Just because we have freedom of speech and democracy doesn’t mean it’s right to divide us like this by demanding that climate science is a settled science by having president obama for example claim that it’s really dangerous, sit on his lazy ass and do nothing about it and then have a president that goes totally against it! It is a crime and they know it! “Free speech and democracy” is just another one of their foolish things to divide us even further! So you do realize that you fools made yourself look a thousand times stupider! Congratulations! You still didn’t answer my question right. Free speech and democracy ain’t gonna cut it! I don’t care what you people say! I for one was never interested in politics but this freedom of speech and democracy on global warming bullshit doesn’t give them an excuse whatsoever! Good luck!
See also Entropic Man’s comment below.
“Nobody is in control”.
Climatechange4realz,
“Just because we have freedom of speech and democracy doesnt mean its right to divide us like this by demanding that climate science is a settled science by having president obama for example claim that its really dangerous, sit on his lazy ass and do nothing about it and then have a president that goes totally against it! It is a crime and they know it!”
Former President Obama had no authority to take the action he took, at least so far as the Paris Accord, because per the Constitution any treaty with a foreign nation or nations requires a 2/3rds vote in the Senate. The United States never agreed to the Paris accord. Of course, the founders erroneously assumed that the public at large would see that just changing the name of something from a treaty to an ‘excecutive agreement’ was a sham to get around the 2/3rds Senate approval requirement.
Even President Trump’s decision and rationale to pull out made no mention of the requirement for a 2/3rds majority Senate vote. Very sad.
We’re witnessing the death of the Enlightenment, and this is the generation of DUMB (which I’m ashamed to be a member of, frankly).
The bottom line is this ‘climate change’ agenda cannot be advanced through the elected representative/legislative process and it should not be allowed to advance unless it can. But again, this is the generation of DUMB, so they have no clue.
The young generation have a better understanding according to Scientific American, see “enlightened Republicans” here:
https://tinyurl.com/n6ef3pp
The headline ‘a free enterprise approach like a carbon tax’ is hilarious…
Just goes to show if you pump out enough propaganda… People will believe anything…
I agree, strange how people believe things that have been refuted by science over and over.
https://tinyurl.com/ybr2k7eu
Free speech says anyone can say whatever they want, whether you (or I) like it or not.
free speech is the restriction of government in regards to use it’s power granted by the people, in order to inhibit the speech of citizens of the nation.
It’s rather obvious, if the government inhibits the speech of it’s citizens, the government would be becoming an illegitimate govt [and would eventually, require it’s citizens to use force to overthrow this illegitimate government- what other rational choice would be available- other than perhaps, fleeing the country].
“Free speech says anyone can say whatever they want, whether you (or I) like it or not.”
Tell that to those on the left who want to imprison so-called climate “deniers”
Who are you thinking of?
People are terrified that “they”are controlling our lives for their own profit.
The actual, and even more terrifying, reality is that nobody is in control!
!
Look on the positive side. The result of all this alarm about human-induced warming is that new and efficient and renewable methods of producing energy are gradually being developed.
Such technology might not be developed in the most efficient manner possible, because of all the subsidies to the consumers; money which might have been better spent on further research into more efficient products before manufacturing took place. However, the concept of designing houses with roofs covered with solar panels which provide sufficient electricity, with the help of battery storage, to run all the activities in the house, as well as charging the electric car, is brilliant.
If in the future it becomes undeniable that CO2 emissions were never any threat, and that the alarmist group of scientists had got it wrong, then we can resume the construction of new coal-fired, and gas-fired, power plants, if they are seen to have an economic advantage in certain areas, taking into consideration of course, the costs of limiting all the real pollutants that affect the environment and human health.
Solar panel farms can take up land which could be useful for agriculture, and that situation should be factored in as an additional cost. Likewise, an open-cut coal mine prevents the land being used for agriculture, so that should also be added to the cost of the coal, as well as the cost of rehabilitating the land after the mine has served its purpose.
Covering the roofs of all buildings with efficient and durable solar panels has the advantage of taking up no additional land space. I like the idea.
Roy Spencer has the right to be a grumpy, middle aged, white, climate contrarian, climate change agnostic, believe God created in 7 days, non-evolutionist, conservative and amongst the very few of opposes to the general climate science.
After all in a capitalist democracy they also have right to bring out products that have built in obsolesce.
One of these days they will saying the same about the built in obsolescence of denial that Climate Change does not present a danger to future generations born to this planet.
Built in obsolescence – what a thought.
I don’t understand why so many people feel the need to engage in ad hominem attacks on a science forum such as this.
When I read such ‘ad hominem’ comments, I can only assume that the person making the attack is really saying, “I don’t understand the issue well enough to refute your argument or your case, so I’m going to attack you personally in the hope of fooling others into believing that my personal attack is based upon a superior understanding of the issue.”
We should no longer tolerate those who use the word “heat” as a noun!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DbO5h8Ctfs8
(I stole this joke from someone who posted it a while back, couldn’t resist)
It was here, and MikeR’s comment still applies.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/#comment-249313
Svante
It was you! I couldn’t remember. And yes , MikeR’s comment is still perfect.
Yes, still at the argument clinic with my obsessive compulsive Dunning Kruger syndrome.
Sounds awful. Hope it’s not contagious.
What about those that say
“The heat came by and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day”
I find them quite tolerable, at least those still alive.
Bob, yes, be cautious around anyone packing heat.
Well yes, the heat usually packs heat round these parts.
See what I did there, I used two different definitions of the noun heat in the same sentence.
Yes, universe entropy is bound to increase packing heat. In this case, there is an exception to the rule.
Ross…”Roy Spencer has the right to be a grumpy, middle aged, white, climate contrarian…”
Yes, he does, he has the data to back him.
Yes, data and science.
g*e*r*a*n the Pretender
Above you claim: “You should probably fix the equation, so people will not instantly know youre an idiot. There is a sign missing, and you need to eliminate the c, unless you are wanting to include the speed of light! It just shows you copied/pasted the equation from some website and dont even know how it applies.”
This is in reference to this equation:
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac
So pretender, how does this equation apply? Will you answer? Doubt runs high in the pretender since he does not know but will attempt to fool people and pretend he does.
Th = hot object temperature to the 4th power Kelvin
Tc = cold object temperature to the 4th power Kelvin
Ac = Area of hot object
The other symbols on left are emissivity and Stefan-Boltzmann Constant.
What does the equation say about heat loss from a hot surface based upon the temperature of the surroundings? Do you know? Will you pretend to know to fool people? What tactic will you employ? Explaining how you think the equation applies will not take place.
norman…”This is in reference to this equation:
q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac”
According to Claes Johnson, a mathematician who can do all this math and understand it, Boltzmann has been misinterpreted by modern scientists. The equation does NOT claim heat can be transferred both ways from two bodies of differing temperatures.
I kinda figured that might be the case. Modern AGW theory related to Boltzmann is based on a misunderstanding.
See page 189 under “….Law for Two Blackbodies”.
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
Gordon Robertson
It is far more likely that CLaes Johnson is wrong and a crank than all the brilliant scientists, some who did actual testing, are wrong.
You can believe him if you need to. Not sure why you do. I have been to his blog and read comments. Actual scientists point out his flaws and his poor reasoning ability but he does not care. He “knows” he is right and the rest of science is wrong.
That is delusional thinking. If you want to believe him at least demand some experimental evidence on his part. Make him prove his statements.
Also you can easily prove a two-way flux with a hand held FLIR heat gun. You point it at a hot object and the IR from that object will give you a reading. Turn it around to a cooler object and it will give you the IR emitted by that object. There are distinct energy flows that can be detected.
If you want to be a rational person you would be far better to accept established science until Claes Johnson can overturn all that is known with lots of good solid empirical data.
If not you can be a crank like him and continue on your path to make believe science. You will not get many converts.
Gordon Robertson
Wow, I am sorry you follow this crackpot. He may know math and fool you with his many equations but his reasoning is poor. He makes this claim about IR cameras (they measure frequency), never read that in how they work. They measure a change in energy of the receiver that covers a range of frequencies or wavelengths. He also contends, that since he incorrectly reasons how IR cameras work, that there is no downwelling IR. Then ask the goofball, you seem to blindly trust over the entire body of established science, why does the temperature not fall on a cloudy night? What energy is keeping the temperature from dropping?
You are falling into cult mentality supported by the cult of personality. Claes bamboozles you with some equations and now he is some sort of godlike personality who knows it all. Have you worked through his math to see potential flaws? I am not going to waste time on it, but since you believe him, you should.
Norm confuses a weather observation with “proof” of his pseudoscience!
“…why does the temperature not fall on a cloudy night?”
Con-man, the local temperatures can drop when the Sun is shining overhead. Does that mean, to you, that the Sun is cooling the planet?
Hilarious!
g*e*r*a*n Pretender Troll
I was thinking you were not able to post some relevant information. Unfortunately your post does not change my thinking. Really a pointless comment. You should have waited until you had something to say.
It is hard to really determine what your point is or why you posted. Maybe other trolls can decipher your nonsense.
Rational, logical people have a difficult time wondering why you post.
Did you have something meaningful to add Norm, or just mindless rambling again?
norman…”Wow, I am sorry you follow this crackpot. He may know math and fool you with his many equations but his reasoning is poor. He makes this claim about IR cameras (they measure frequency), never read that in how they work”.
I can follow his math and I know it’s accurate. Johnson points out that the original version of the Boltzmann equation is equi.valent to a Fourier equ.ation for heat transfer from a hotter body to a cooler body. Moder.nists have apparently omit.ted the re.quire.ment that heat transfer can only be from the hotter body to the cooler body, setting up the il.lusion that the equation applies both ways.
He offers the equation, boiled down from Boltzmann….
Q12 approx = 4 (sigma) T^3 (T2 – T1)
This is similar to the Fourier equation for heat transfer from a hotter mass to a cooler mass.
Modern scientists have somehow inter.preted that equat.ion as claiming the opposite is true, from a cooler mass to a hotter mass.
Stephan of Stephan-Boltzman made it clear around the time of pub.licat.ion of their famed equation that:
“The absolute value [of] the heat energy emission from a ra.diat.ing body cannot be determined by exper.iment. An experiment can only determine the surplus of emission over absorp.t.ion, with the absorp.t.ion determined by the emission from the en.viron.ment of the body”.
In other words, no one has ever tested this two way transfer of heat for the simple reason that they can’t. There is no way to measure heat transfer from a colder body to a warmer body at the same time heat is trans.fer.red hot to cold.
I have already explained why using electron theory.
norman…with regard to IR cameras and detectors, that’s what they detect, frequency. They don’t care what the frequency represents, they are measuring how fast the radiation changes per second.
Those rapid changes are converted to a voltage or electric current using the photo-electric effect, or equivalent. The strength of the current is then compared to a built in algorithm based on data from actual IR measurements with a heat source.
Heat transfer is not measured but it could be ‘suggested’ based on the aforementioned algorithm. However, if the algorithm is based on faulty science so is the measurement.
You have far too much faith in those so-called brilliant modern scientists and I’ll bet you can’t name many of them. They are brilliant only in your mind.
I have no problem with an IR detector being pointed at a heat source and estimating the average heat. It is not measuring heat, it is measuring IR. Then a pre-programmed algorithm is used to convert the received IR into an equivalent temperature by proxy.
GR
WHY DO YOU NOT SEARCH FOR THIS BOOK!!!!!
The Ultimate Infrared Handbook for R&D Professionals
This is written by a company that exists because in part they can measure thermal radiation which originated from a cold source with a simple absorber on a resistive element. It does not measure ir wavelength it measures changes in temperature created when the pixel absorbs the energy from any photon within its bandwidth.
Flir also make the type of detector you talk about. But this is usually cooled and is expensive and is not what is being talked about.
“There are distinct energy flows that can be detected.”
But they aren’t detected by how much they warm something.
They have magnetic field and magnetic fields can be detected.
Sound can be detected- but sound isn’t warming something- it’s energy and sound could be made to warm something, but you don’t detect sound by how much it warms.
Energy that could warm something could be detected by how much it warms. Sunlight can and is detected by the amount it warms [water in sunlight] Ie:
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/LightExperiments/power.html
and:
http://sbo.colorado.edu/SBO_OLD_SITE/sbo/manuals/apsmanuals/suntemp.pdf
So if energy can warm something, one can measure it, by how much it warms something- a gram of water warmed by 1 C is one joule. You measure the warmth from the Moon on Earth and it’s doing a very small amount of warming of Earth
Norman says, October 16, 2017 at 4:46 AM:
*Shaking head in disbelief*
The stupid, stubborn, stubborn stupidity truly is strong with this one …!
How many times have this been explained to this utter ignoramus!?
Norm loves his pseudoscience!
Jeez, how many times do you need to be told that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not prohibit the transfer of heat from cold to hot.
The energy flows in both directions.
Jeez Blob,
When standing next to a block of ice warms you up, I might believe you.
I will add you to the “Earth Heats the Sun” club. Free membership.
SGW, consider if you were just previously standing right next to some liquid helium and the ice replaced it. What then?
Kristian
If you can post to established science supporting your view you may be able to change my mind. Your opinion and blog is not a valid source of information
YOU: “*Shaking head in disbelief*
The stupid, stubborn, stubborn stupidity truly is strong with this one !
How many times have this been explained to this utter ignoramus!?”
I feel exactly the same way about you. You have yet to link to valid science. I have done this many times in previous interactions with you. You have not done so once. All established science states the same thing I state. You have come up with your own physics and peddle it on blogs and insult people who demand proof of your opinions. You never offer any. You come on here like some authority on the topic. I couldn’t care less about how smart you think you are. You need to prove your assertions and you don’t. Not interested at all in your opinions.
SkepticGoneWild,
Try a more microscopic view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Yes the earth heats the sun, by a very microscopically small amount.
Try reading up on the Second Law and all the other ways to express it.
Like a heat engine can not be 100% efficient.
or this one from Clausius which you seem to know only the half of it.
“In a spontaneous process, heat flows from a hot substance to a cold
substance. If a hot and a cold object are placed into contact, heat flows from the hot
object to the cold object.”
You seem to be neglecting the fact that the greenhouse effect is not a spontaneous process.
“Yes the earth heats the sun, by a very microscopically small amount.”
Bob, no, now you are taken in by the confusion in using the term heat.
Yes the earth adds photon energy to the sun, by a very microscopically small amount. Perfectly ok by 2LOT as universe entropy increases dS=dQ/T is positive for that process as dS must be in all real processes.
Ball4,
I am sure you will agree with the following,
The earth cools by emitting a photon, now the earth has less heat, but the photon doesn’t have any heat, just a small amount of energy, and when this photon interacts with the sun, it stops being a photon, and adds its small amount of energy to the sun, which heats it to a small degree.
And I did not use the term heat, I used the verb heats, meaning energy in transition from one body to another.
It’s all energy
“now the earth has less heat”
This implies earth contained heat to begin with, so no, the caloric theory has been debunked long ago. In modern physics no body contains heat. Earth system contains plenty of energy, contains no heat.
“which heats (the sun) to a small degree.”
No. That process would reduce universe entropy, entropy delta S would be negative and thus is ruled out. The sun at 5780K absorbs the photon from earth at 255K (being a LW IR sun) cannot increase above 5780K, by 2LOT sun can not increase in temperature, only sun’s cooling can be slowed by absorbing photons from earth.
Going the other way, the earth can increase in temperature as that process shows universe entropy S increases.
It is ok for the delta S to be negative because the Sun is doing thermodynamic work.
Or you could look at it as one process, not two, where the earth and the sun are exchanging energy by radiation.
And I am using the noun heat to refer to the internal and kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules that make up the sun and earth.
The kinetic energy of motion 1/2mv^2
The internal energy represented by rotational, vibrational and excited electronic states of the atoms and molecules.
Sorry, not buying your modern physics that there is no such thing as heat.
ball4…”Perfectly ok by 2LOT as universe entropy increases dS=dQ/T is positive for that process as dS must be in all real processes”.
The 2nd law is not about entropy. Clausius developed the theory of entropy as an aside at the same time he developed the 2nd law. He described coining the word ‘entropy’ to mean ‘energy’ and that entropy is the integral of infinitesimal changes of heat in a process in or out of a system at the temperature T at which the changes take place.
He claimed further that the integral for a reversible process sums to zero, therefore entropy is 0 for reversible processes. Otherwise it is +ve.
If entropy is the sum of heat quantities then heat must exist. Clausius claimed it is the kinetic energy (vis viva) of atoms.
The most important statement of the 2nd law is that heat cannot be transferred from a colder mass to a warmer mass by its own means. That clearly means heat cannot be transferred both ways by IR.
norman…”Also you can easily prove a two-way flux with a hand held FLIR heat gun”.
No one is debating a two way flux, me, Claes Johnson, or any one I know. He lays out blackbody equations in his argument suggesting a two way flux. He is arguing that the 2nd law must be obeyed and that heat is not being transferred both way.
It’s not a two flux anyway, the masses are simply radiating isotropically as all masses do. If some of that flux cuts another mass there is no requirement for that mass to absorb the radiation and convert it to heat if the flux does not meet the requirement of the receiving electron. The flux from a cooler body does not meet that requirement.
The IR flux has nothing to do with the 2nd law and according to Claes, Stephan-Bolzmann did not claim that in their equation. Boltzmann was investigating the 2nd law, trying to establish a physical basis for it. Stephan admitted the equation could not be verified by experiment.
If you want to measure a two-way flux, you can use that equation. However, it tells you nothing about heat transfer.
I can sympathize with Boltzmann, he apparently took his own life over a depression that developed related to his studies. No one knew about electrons then and the requirement Planck established regarding quantum levels. It was even later that Bohr laid out the quantum model for the atom and he specified the requirements of absorp.tion/emission.
“The flux from a cooler body does not meet that requirement.”
Dr. Spencer’s test proved Gordon is wrong about that. As have all other tests and Gordon (and/or Claes J.) have no test supporting or Gordon should produce a test wherein data shows:
“The flux from a cooler body does not meet that requirement.”
Clae Johnson is a quack. Notice his “paper” wasn’t published anywhere. His quackery never is. He exists only because people like you fall for anything because you don’t know science.
Does he believe the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K?
DA…”Clae Johnson is a quack. Notice his paper wasnt published anywhere”.
Could that be a case of the people in control of journals being biased and downright corrupt?
Remember, even Einstein got rejected by a journal editor who ‘believed’ what he claimed in his paper was wrong.
Was Claes Johnson the editor that did the rejecting of Einstein paper?
The observation of the CMB makes a difference to the argument Claes Johnson is making.
The earth does not radiate to an exterior at absolute zero.
The CMB is observed everywhere, in all directions.
If your theory differs from observations, well, what does Popper say?
Obviously the one way flow of energy is wrong.
bob…”Obviously the one way flow of energy is wrong”.
No one is suggesting a one way flow of energy, the inference is that thermal energy can only be transferred one way by ordinary means.
Besides heat cannot ‘flow’ between bodies through space. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and without mass, heat is going nowhere. Unless you are talking about a flowing mass you cannot talk about heat flow.
With radiation, the only substance flowing is electromagnetic energy. EM is not heat, it is converted to heat by electrons in a receiving mass.
Heat transfer between masses not in contact is by proxy not by physical transport. The heat in hotter mass A does not leave mass A, it reduces it’s kinetic energy (heat) as it emits a photon. If that photon is intercepted by cooler mass B, it will be absorbed, increasing the KE (heat) of mass B.
That is heat transfer by radiation, no heat ‘flows’ between bodies, only EM. The heat transfer describes an increase of heat in one mass and a decrease in the other. The reverse process would involved a transfer from a lower potential energy to a higher potential energy and that cannot be done without introducing external forces.
I see you haven’t got around to googling the second law of thermodynamics yet, why don’t you try it.
“The reverse process would involved a transfer from a lower potential energy to a higher potential energy and that cannot be done without introducing external forces.”
This is garbage, heat is not potential energy.
Furthermore, heat is not just kinetic energy, it is kinetic energy plus the internal energy of vibrational, rotational and electronic energy levels of atoms and molecules.
“No one is suggesting a one way flow of energy”
You are saying exactly this with your statement
“The reverse process would involved a transfer from a lower potential energy to a higher potential energy and that cannot be done without introducing external forces.”
That’s wrong.
I am currently reading this article which describes the history of quantum theory. It’s by mathematician Claes Johnson who is associated with the Dragon Slayers. I think he has been unfairly criticized by people who do not understand that conflicts and inconsistencies exist in quantum theory that are not readily acknowledged.
It’s worth the read if only to understand the history of quantum theory.
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
I am personally beginning to reach the conclusion that Planck, Boltzmann, and Kircheoff may have been wrong with their assertions about two way radiation flux flows with regard to heat. I know Planck was wrong with his description of EM as heat rays. Even Clausius made that error.
EM cannot be both a wave and a beam of particles. As Johnson points out, the Schrodinger wave equation on which quantum theory is based, is a Newtonian based wave equation. It regards light as a wave, a la Maxwell, not particles, a la Planck.
Planck admitted in his book on heat that his statistical approach to heat cannot be visualized. I don’t see the point in such science, even if it can accurately predict certain particle behavior in physics. I think we need to dig further till we can visualize atomic processes exactly as they occur.
Johnson claims to do that in this paper.
BTW…I realize I am being hypocritical to be supporting the theory of electrons residing at quantum energy levels. In reality, I am more open minded about this, realizing I have no idea how an electron resides around an atom, if it does so at all. For all we know, atomic particles could be something obscure, like singularities in some kind of matrix. I realize that sounds like nonsense, I am just throwing it out there.
However, that’s what quantum theory has proposed, that electrons reside at certain energy levels around an atom and that they can jump to higher energy levels by absorbing energy, either mechanically via collisions or as EM via absorp.tion. That theory has never been verified by direct observation, it has only been proposed by Planck…out of desperation…by his own words.
Direct observations made by Lyman, Balmer. Paschen, Brackett and Pfund of the emission lines of electrons in a hydrogen atom.
H double hockey sticks, I did similar experiments in college chemistry and observed the same exact transitions.
bob…”Direct observations made by Lyman, Balmer. Paschen, Brackett and Pfund of the emission lines of electrons in a hydrogen atom”.
I am not doubting that, I have seen the spectra in question and studied it as part of an astronomy course I took as an elective while studying engineering. There is no doubt that electron behavior leads to emission/absorp.tion spectra. The question is how???
The theory re absorp.tion is that an electron only absorbs at discrete energy levels equivalent to the change in energy between it’s current level and the next higher energy level. Conversely, when an electron emits a photon, the photon frequency is determined by the temperature of the emitting electron.
I have been spouting that theory and I have only admitted that I don’t know it it’s true IN PHYSICAL REALITY. It does work in theory and the theory has been corroborated by measurement.
When you reverse that process, electrons can only absorb photons that meet the requirements of frequency and intensity. It has been argued here by alarmists that any photons incident on a mass will be absorbed and what you have posted about discreet radiation spectra proves that is not the case.
Gordon Robertson
Light was giving early researchers duality. Some thought it was a wave others a particle. It was giving conflicting information. Scientists what good scientists do. They set up experiments to determine the nature of EMR. The results surprised them. The slit experiments showed that light would behave as a particle in one case (single slit) or wave (double slit…interference patterns). That is how duality of EMR came about. The conclusion was light was both simultaneously until it was forced into a particular pattern by the experimental setup. Claes is a poser. He is not one you should follow or use as an authority on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
This video should help you understand modern physics a little better.
I have a hard time grasping the concept of a temperature of a molecule or atom, much less that of a temperature of an electron.
In the case of an electron, I would like to see if someone has defined the temperature of an electron.
In discussions of the greenhouse gas theory there is talk of blackbody radiation, but that concept does not apply to gases. Blackbodies are defined as having emissivity of 1, ie they absorb all radiation and reflect or scatter none of it.
Solids are closer to ideal blackbodies, and there are many ways in which they can absorb radiation.
Bob D: One cannot define the temperature of a single molecule or atom or electron. One can define the temperature of an ensemble of molecules, or electrons or whatever. Defining an ensemble is not totally straightforward, but J. Willard Gibbs did it in the mid-1800s
Thanks Eli
norman…”The slit experiments showed that light would behave as a particle in one case (single slit) or wave (double slitinterference patterns)”.
I think that distinction between a double and single slit involved a beam of electrons. Some quantum rocket-scientists have claimed based on the single slit that electrons somehow ‘know’ what to do. Some sort of quantum intelligence or insight.
I think it’s all cods wallop. The double slit with light leads to cancellation in the emitted pattern on a backdrop, suggesting cancellation of the ‘wave’lengths generated by each slit that are out of phase.
Electrons are another matter. If I had to posit a guess I’d say those wiley electrons are somehow emitting EM when they encounter the jagged edges of a single slit, which must appear as canyons and mountains to them. Electrons emit light in the first place, what’s to stop them bamboozing the lot of us by generating EM that is in and out of phase so a single slit behaves like a double-slit?
As for Claes, I’d rate him as one of the more insightful investigators out there. He’s no dummy, like some climatologists I have read about. He has the integrity to insist on the 2nd law while his detractors insist on applying bafflegab re the net IR flux flow satisfying the 2nd law.
The problem is obvious: the 2nd law applies to heat transfer and heat is not transferred via IR. Heat is converted from thermal to IR at one end and IR to thermal at the other end. However, that is not a reversible process as claimed by Claes.
You cannot reverse potential energy hills between the higher energy potential of hotter bodies and lower potential energy of cooler bodies.
It’s not only not kosher, norman, it’s downright unscientific.
Gordon Robertson says:
“EM cannot be both a wave and a beam of particles. As Johnson points out, the Schrodinger wave equation on which quantum theory is based, is a Newtonian based wave equation. It regards light as a wave, a la Maxwell, not particles, a la Planck.”
Wrong wrong wrong. The Schrodinger equation doesn’t assume light is anything. The wave function in the Schrodinger equation isn’t a wave of light, it’s something completely different — a way to calculate probability distributions of quantum systems given a potential and boundary conditions.
Nothing about the equation involves light.
DA…”The wave function in the Schrodinger equation isnt a wave of light, its something completely different….”
But you cannot explain what is different, right???
The point is, Schrodinger did not believe the particle theory, he was into waves. His wave equation is based on wave mechanics a la Newton as applied to probability. Waves come into the description of oscillating masses like the spring-mass system, or even guitar strings. Wave mechanics are used to describe such motion.
To deal with tiny masses like electrons, you could not place them exactly in space, you had to declare a probability of where they’d be. However, finding them required acknowledgement of Planck’s notion of discrete quantum states.
In the days of Schrodinger, there was a belief that atoms behaved like wave particles because electrons shot through a single slit demonstrated wave-like properties. Apparently Schrodinger followed that up and gave a probability distribution based on the Newtonian wave equation to suggest the probability of finding an electron in a certain area of space.
Since electrons produce light, I think Schrodinger’s equation is about light. Amazing little critters, aren’t they? I had a tiny hole burned clean through the skin of my hand by them once. They can be nasty little critters too.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The point is, Schrodinger did not believe the particle theory, he was into waves. His wave equation is based on wave mechanics a la Newton as applied to probability.”
Utter nonsense.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The Schrodinger’s equation “wave function” HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WAVES AS APPEAR IN CLASSICAL PHYSICS. It doesn’t mean anything in the system is oscillation, or necessarily moving, or anything to do with classical wave equations.
The (complex) square of Schrodinger’s wave function is interpreted as the probability density for the quantum system to be in a certain state — for the hydrogen atom, the electron’s wave function is (when multiplied by its complex conjugate) the probability distribution for the electron. In this case the wave function isn’t moving or changing with time. It’s static, and it has no direct physical meaning.
GR wrote:
“Since electrons produce light, I think Schrodingers equation is about light”
Wrong.
Electrons only produce light if they change from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. But light is also produced in other ways too — change of vibrational energy level, rotational energy level, etc.
Schrodinger’s equation is about quantum states.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I know Planck was wrong with his description of EM as heat rays. Even Clausius made that error.”
Sure, you, who doesn’t even know what a wave number is, correcting two giants of physics.
Fracking hilarious.
DA…”Sure, you, who doesnt even know what a wave number is, correcting two giants of physics”.
Never had to use a wave number, don’t see the point.
At least I don’t subscribe to your theory that the Earth is warming the Sun.
The point is plotting x axis as wave number is sometimes the custom in a field. No law requires radiant intensity of light to be plotted versus wavelength. This may be the custom in some fields, but not in others. Many spectroscopists plot spectra as a function of wavenumber (inverse wavelength, equivalent to frequency) and would consider doing otherwise an unnatural act.
GR: You never studied basic physics? You should know what a wave number is even if you never use it.
Roy Spencer: Probably no one reads the comments buried in the middle of this comment thread be they dated on this actual day. Therefore I ask here your opinion about my explanation of your experiment which, as you state, shows that a cool object can make a warm object warmer still. My reasoning is that the hot plate causes the melting of the ice which consumes much of energy. The white plate blocks this and the diminished energy consumption of the hot plate causes that the constant heat of the lamp raises the temperature of the hot plate. you could have used alternatively to the white plate either a black plate or an IR-transparent plate. If in these cases the temperature of the hot plate would have stayed unchanged then the explanation that a cool object can make a warm object warmer still via IR radiation would be correct. Because they were not tested and the only fact is that in the presence of the white plate the temperature of the hot plate increases both explanations that it is the white plate or it is the lamp which warm the hot plate are speculative.
You do not say it directly but it can be derived from the context that it is the IR backradiation from the white plate which raises the temperature of the hot plate. I claim that it is the lamp which heats thehot plate more when the energy consumptrion of the hot plate is diminished by the white or any color plate.
I hope that you have time to comment on this.
esalil…”I hope that you have time to comment on this”.
I have never seen Roy respond to a thread that is this old so I would not hold your breath waiting.
I disagree with Roy on thermodynamics. Apparently he has bought into the notion that IR is heat and that heat must be transferred both ways between masses of different temperatures.
That notion has been perpetuated by a misinterpretation of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation on electromagnetic radiation. According to Claes Johnson, a mathematician and expert on the matter, the original math by Stephan-Boltzmann was interpreted incorrectly by modern scientists. The equation does not suggest thermal energy is transferred both ways, if the math is done correctly.
I found while studying engineering math at university that certain mathematical equations resolve to several outcomes that must be tested to see if they fit reality. There were two outcomes with Stephan-Boltzmann, and one did not fit reality.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is clear that heat can only be transferred from a hotter mass to a colder mass under normal conditions. That is an absolute law for heat transfer. The inadvertent interaction of radiative fluxes between masses of different temperatures has nothing to do with the direction of heat transfer.
In the days of Kircheoff, Boltzmann, and Planck there was confusion about electromagnetic radiation. They actually thought heat, as thermal energy, flowed throw space, and it does not. Boltzmann turned to statistical theory, as did Planck, because they could not work out radiation problems use the wave theory of Newtonian mechanics.
Oddly enough, the Schrodinger equation, upon which quantum theory is based, combined the Planck constant, based on discreet quantum levels, with the Newtonian wave equation. Schrodinger did not believe is the more surreal interpretations of quantum theory, he was an old-school Newtonian realist at heart.
Boltzmann died without resolving the issue and modern scientists have interpreted his results for him. They are wrong.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Oddly enough, the Schrodinger equation, upon which quantum theory is based, combined the Planck constant, based on discreet quantum levels, with the Newtonian wave equation.”
No and no.
The Planck constant assumes nothing about discrete quantum levels; it’s simply the constant that relates a frequency to energy.
E=h*vu
Newton never had a wave equation.
You should completely ignore Claes Johnson. He’s a hack and a quack and nothing more.
DA…”The Planck constant assumes nothing about discrete quantum levels; its simply the constant that relates a frequency to energy”.
E = hf
To relate E to f we need a constant of proportionality and it is h.
E is the energy between the discrete quantum levels around an atom at which electrons reside. F is the frequency of a photon emitted when an electron falls between two energy levels, producing E.
f is also related to the temperature of the body and temperature is heat. The energy level at which the electron resides, E, must be a product of heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
“E is the energy between the discrete quantum levels around an atom at which electrons reside. F is the frequency of a photon emitted when an electron falls between two energy levels, producing E.”
It can be that, but it can also be transitions between other quantum states as well (vibrational, rotational, different spin states, etc).
But the primary meaning of Planck’s constant is that it relates a photon’s energy to its frequency:
E=hf
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“f is also related to the temperature of the body and temperature is heat.”
Really?? Please give us this relationship, f(T).
GD: what do you think about my interpretation of the results of Spencers experiment?
Gordon Robertson says:
“According to Claes Johnson, a mathematician and expert on the matter….”
Gavin Schmidt’s training was in mathematics, and you routinely try to dismiss him for it whenever he says something about physics.
Hypocrite.
PS: What makes you think Johnson is an “expert?”
esalil
I am not sure Roy will respond to your post but I am trying to figure out your logic. The heated plate is radiating energy to the ice at the same rate as it does to the other object. The rate the heated plate emits is only based upon its temperature and emissivity. It does not change based upon energy consumption of ice melting. What you describe would be a conduction effect.
What Dr. Roy is pointing out is that the Heat flow from the heated plate changes based upon the surroundings.
Well established physics and here is experimental proof of it. Maybe study this experiment. I posted it for Gordon Robertson but I do not think he looked at it, Maybe you will be curious enough to take a look.
https://www.avs.org/AVS/files/61/61088ed4-a189-469b-9393-fba7570c8e76.pdf
Norman: yes I looked your link. Of course it does not apply to Spencers experiment since it was done in vacuum. In Spencers experiment the melting of ice consumed energy provided by the hot plate, and since it was blocked, meanwhile the lamp provided constant energy to the hot plate, it led to the temperature rise of the hot plate. So, the heat was flowing all the time from hotter to colder like classical physics states. And there is no need to differentiate in which form the heat was transferred, IR or convection.
Norman: My explanation might become more comprehensible if we change the viewpoint. The ice is cooling the hot plate, right? The white plate blocks the cooling effect. As a consequence the temperature of the hot plate rises because the lamp is constantly heating it.
esalil
I would not agree with your point that the ice is cooling the hot plate. If it were in contact with the ice I would agree, that is why Roy put the hot plate above the ice. The cold air of the ice won’t be able to reach it (cold air does not rise).
The ice does not send out cooling energy. The reason the plate cools more in view of ice is because it has less IR coming from the ice than the room temperature shield.
That is what is described in the radiant heat transfer equation in its most basic form (without the complexity of view factors that would be required in real world applications). The fundamental concept can be seen in the basic form of the equation.
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac
The Th would be the temperature of the hot plate. The amount of energy it radiates is based upon its temperature. The next variable in the equation (the other terms are constants for a given experiment using the same items) is the Tc which is the colder temperature. The Th is not changed by the Tc temperature in any way. The heat flow (q) is changed. The hot plate radiates the same in two cases (until it warms) but receives less energy from the ice than the room temperature shield.
The heat flow to the ice is greater (not because the hot plate radiates more, just because it does not receive back as much IR) so it takes more energy to maintain the temperature than when the shield is up).
Does that make sense to you. Look at the equation and put some numbers into it. You will see what is going on. Thanks for you interest.
Norm carries that equation around like a child carries a rag doll. Norm believes it makes him look smart. He doesn’t know how to apply the equation, but he’s pretty sure it’s all he needs to “prove” the existing laws of physics are invalid.
He believes ice is giving off so much heat it can heat an object that is over 250F, which should be enough to slow bake a turkey. But poor Norm still can’t bake a turkey with ice cubes.
He’s hilarious.
Norman:
“I would not agree with your point that the ice is cooling the hot plate.”
We do not know since the temperature of the hot plate was not measured (or at least reported) in the absence of the ice.
“The ice does not send out cooling energy.”
Why then do you add ice cubes to your coke or freezer blocks to your cool bag? For heating because they emit IR?
“q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac”
You cannot apply this equation here because of the phase change of ice to liquid water. It consumes 333kJ/kg of heat energy. Tc stays constant as long as the ice is melting although there is a strong heat flow.
Does that make sense to you?
g*e*r*a*n Pretender Troll
You have yet to explain how to apply this equation correctly according to you. You pretend you know things but when you avoid explaining anything to anyone because your total lack of understanding will be exposed and your trolling will not have the ability to sway the few that don’t know science. You must realize by now you have no sway with scientifically literate posters. Most ignore you.
Basically you continue to lie. Not sure why being a dishonest human is something that appeals to you.
YOU: “He believes ice is giving off so much heat it can heat an object that is over 250F, which should be enough to slow bake a turkey. But poor Norm still cant bake a turkey with ice cubes.”
Is that a code of trolls to lie and deceive for their amusement?
esalil
Roy has both measurements when the ice is covered by a shield and when it is not.
The examples you give are about conduction which operates with different rules. The heat transfer equation applies to this situation. Maybe read up on it in online textbooks. Lots of good material to upgrade your knowledge.
I can give you links if you are interested.
No Con-man, it is not a “lie”. It is a spoof of your beliefs. Being in comedy, you should understand “spoofs”, but maybe you haven’t had that course yet.
Norman:
“Roy has both measurements when the ice is covered by a shield and when it is not.”
Please, read carefully! I said that there is no temperature data from the hot plate without the ice below it. Thus, we do not know whether the ice decreases the temperature of the hot plate.
“The examples you give are about conduction”
Do you know what conduction is? In the experimantal design what we are talking about non of the compounds are in physical contact to each other. So, the heat transfer can be only by convection and by IR-radiation.
I repeat: please read more carefully before commenting.
current value
series std
current value key
monthly tendency key
Nio1+2 far eastern equatorial SSTA map
-1.09 C
Nio3 eastern equatorial SSTA map
-0.66 C
Nio3.4 central equatorial SSTA map
-0.39 C
Nio4 west-central equatorial SSTA map
-0.09 C
In the meantime ocean tid bits is pretty much in line with the above and shows overall ocean sea surface temperatures at+.298c lower overall and N. ATLANTIC sea surface temperatures at a 0 deviation lower then it has been.
SOI INDEX running positive another good sign for La Nina.
Oceanic temperatures will be the key for what global temperatures will be doing as we move forward and it looks like they are in an overall cooling trend.
In the meantime any increase in albedo no matter how slight from clouds, snow cover and major volcanic activity will result in some added degree of cooling not to mention maybe a .1c drop in global temperatures due to a very slight decrease in overall solar irradiance.
The moment of truth is fast approaching as solar activity continues to slump overall.
Mr. Freeze
Could you send a link to the custom weatherbell data that Bindidon created? I forgot to save it.
Also, here’s a well known chart you might want to consider in your weekly predictions:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k_zoom.png
Sir Isaac,
here it is:
http://m.uploadedit.com/bbtc/1507293557582.txt
Thanks, Bin
Salvatore Del Prete on October 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM
Oceanic temperatures will be the key for what global temperatures will be doing as we move forward and it looks like they are in an overall cooling trend.
Aha!
SST:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/long_term_sst_global/global_rngmn_e.png
OHC:
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.png
Gordon,
barry… I saw you post about replacing the green plate with another sun. I have already alluded to that possibility but I dont know what to make of it.
Presumably you have a very high temperature source at the same distance as the Sun, so both are equidistant to the bluer plate.
In replacing the green plate with a sun, the sun emits at the same power as the green plate to the blue (100 w/m2).
If the blue plate cannot receive thermal radiation from the green because it is of higher temperature….
Does the blue plate thus not receive thermal radiation from the cooler sun?
To my mind, adding a new sun instead of a green plate, it is intuitively obvious that energy is being added to the blue plate by a new energy source.
I do not see why EM radiation from the cooler sun would not be ‘seen’ by the blue plate.
A distant star provides an infinitesimal amount of energy to the Earth. Though the Earth is warmer, that star light still hits the Earth.
Otherwise, we could not see those stars. Our eyes are warmer than the heat they give off to us at those great distances.
barry states: “Otherwise, we could not see those stars. Our eyes are warmer than the heat they give off to us at those great distances.”
barry, our eyes respond to visible light. Visible light is much shorter wavelength than IR. Human eyes respond to wavelength, not “heat”. A photon emitted by a distant star has the same wavelength as when it was emitted. Consequently, our eyes have no problem “seeing” the light.
barry 3:18pm, you are not going to get a coherent answer out of Gordon on this or at least I will be surprised if so. He writes often “EMR is not heat” which is correct, EMR is energy and then Gordon writes just above:
“The 2nd law of thermodynamics is clear that heat can only be transferred from a hotter mass to a colder mass under normal conditions. That is an absolute law for heat transfer.”
So contradicts himself now Gordon writes EMR is heat. Furthermore Gordon is wrong about 2LOT as you are trying to coax out of him since Dr. Spencer’s test proved Gordon is wrong about 2LOT.
Also barry 3:18pm, the stars emit light from much higher temperatures than our eyes. I presume the meaning you are trying to convey here is that: Otherwise, we could not see ice cubes in dim enough conditions. Our eyes are warmer than the temperature they emit radiation when illuminated by the usual room lighting.
Ball4: When we look at ice cubes we’re viewing reflected light, not emitted light.
David, when you look at a natural ice cube, you are viewing around 5% reflected light and 95% or so emitted light from the ice cube (well, absent much transmission thru the cube). Or maybe you should use ice water.
Dim the lights. The 5% reflected will drop quickly below the eye’s ability to “see” and all you have left is enough intensity of emitted light that the eye is “seeing”. You can test eye sensitivity with an electric range and some fast 400 film to some good experimental accuracy (if the film & camera still exist, geez).
Amazingly, for once Appell is correct!!
Troll. 100% of what you see is reflected light, from the Sun or from some artificial light source. 1) Your eyes are warmer than the ice cube, and 2) they cannot “see” in infrared anyway. If you remove all light sources, the ice cube is “gone”, even if it’s still there, radiating. All YOU see is blackness.
“If you remove all light sources..”
Then there is no ice cube to see either as it is a light source (all matter emits light).
So, Kristian, you are arguing that an ice cube and/or lab glass of water does not have measured emissivity of around 0.95 give or take when illuminated by ordinary room light. And reflectivity of about .05 (and not 1.00) barring negligible transmission for simplicity. The existing measurements are somehow wrong.
What test do you base your argument on?
Oh and another thing to ponder in Kristian’s world, color. How do things have color if they are simply 100% reflecting the irradiance of sunlight? How is a banana seen as yellow out there in nature?
Kristian, “trick” may be confused between “visible” light and “infrared”.
He tries to be so tricky, but usually he only tricks himself.
Hahaha, you are a funny troll, you are!
Ball4 says, October 17, 2017 at 6:54 AM:
Yes, but all matter does not appreciably emit VISIBLE light. You know, that part of the EM spectrum spanning wavelengths between ~400 and 700 nm.
You do know the meaning of the word “visible”, don’t you, troll?
No, that’s not my “argument”, troll.
No, the all-important question is: On what test do YOU base YOUR argument that our eyes, unassisted, are able to VISIBLY observe radiation emitted, not just reflected, by an ice cube? What test led you to believe that you can actually see in infrared with your naked eyes, troll?
No, not in “Kristian’s world”, troll. In the REAL world, as opposed to YOUR world full of fairies, unicorns, pink dragons, and “back radiation” from cold objects heating hot ones.
Yes, how indeed! Such a profound, timeless question, isn’t it, troll?
https://www.livescience.com/32559-why-do-we-see-in-color.html
“On what test do YOU base YOUR argument that our eyes, unassisted, are able to VISIBLY observe radiation emitted, not just reflected, by an ice cube?”
Color is fascinating. Based on actual tests in the dark and spectrophotometer measurements.
Specifically, Photo Research Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiation from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm. You will want to learn also about minimum temperatures for a body to be visible, given by Leo Levi, 1974: Blackbody temperature for threshold visibility. Applied Optics, Vol. 13, p. 221.
Kristian can also perform (but won’t) an experiment with an electric range you can view in dark conditions (no reflection all emitted) with fast film (400) or a digital camera. Turn down the setting until it just ceases to be visible and take the picture and find the film still records the glow. I have not seen that done with a digital camera, I will let Kristian be the first (he won’t do it).
“The full spectrum of light falls on the banana, but only light with a wavelength of 570 to 580 nm, in other words “yellow” is bounced off.”
Bounced off?? I really think the writer means reflected off as in optical physics. I note your link does not verify that statement with a test. You have been misled. Many other sites also write this so often it has become almost an immutable truth.
Unfortunately, tests do not bear this out. Color is way more fascinating. The writer tells us illuminating a banana by daylight in view of the PR-650 will show a huge peak from 570 to 580 nm since the author means a banana must be a source of only bounced off yellow light. Alas for this writer, measurements with the PR-650 demonstrate otherwise. The measured spectrum of a banana contains as much green and orange and red as yellow wavelengths.
Try measuring a red apple, a green apple, with the PR-650: none of these measured spectra are contrived even though they handily refute assertions that have been made many times about color, much of the confusion about which stems from a failure to distinguish between wavelength, color, and color names.
Colorimetry, the measurement of color, is based on color matching by human observers. All we can do is match two colors, and different observers are not likely to agree when colors more exactly match from the PR-650. So forth.
Ball4 says, October 17, 2017 at 11:30 AM:
Behold, the troll that keeps on giving!
If it records a “glow”, you haven’t turned the setting down “until it just ceases to be visible”, troll. Then it’s still within the visible range. Reflected light. OR, you have an IR camera. OR, the object is hot enough to “glow” by itself. It’s that simple.
That’s right. Because it’s too dumb.
Yes, it’s all a devious, worldwide conspiracy, isn’t it? To hide the dreadful and civilization-wrecking truth that a banana in fact glows in yellow, and even if you don’t see its own yellow emission in total darkness, it is still what makes up 95% of what you see of it once you turn the lights back on.
“If it records a “glow”, you havent turned the setting down until it just ceases to be visible, troll.”
Actually I have, when it can’t be seen by your eyes, the intensity is too low, Kristian didn’t bother look up the explaining article. Apparently Kristian CAN see in the dark below the intensity of the report. Amazing ability, Kristian is often left in the dark twisting pretzels (Dr. Spencer term).
“That’s right. Because (experimentation) is too dumb.”
This is all too often the case with Kristian, refusing to do experiments leads to the obvious Kristian confusions. I’d give the experimental ref. but Kristian demonstrates wouldn’t go the effort to learn from it.
..it’s all a devious, worldwide conspiracy, isn’t it?”
Being misled is not intentional, in absence of having to prove assertion by experiment it is easy to be misled about actual measured visible radiation as Kristian demonstrates. Websites are famous for no supporting experiments, Kristian is easily misled.
I’ve actually quoted experimental evidence that Kristian can find, alas he doesn’t make the effort to use it. Self cites, assertions, all unsupported are much easier.
Websites are famous for no supporting experiments.. except this one I might add.
Ball4 says:
“David, when you look at a natural ice cube, you are viewing around 5% reflected light and 95% or so emitted light from the ice cube (well, absent much transmission thru the cube). Or maybe you should use ice water.”
No, you’re seeing reflected light.
Let’s take an ice cube at 0 C. Let’s assume it emits like a blackbody. By Wien’s Law, its wavelength at maximum energy emission is 10,615 nm, far larger than the eye can see (which is about 400-700 nm).
You’re seeing reflected light.
Ball4 says:
“How do things have color if they are simply 100% reflecting the irradiance of sunlight? How is a banana seen as yellow out there in nature?”
Because the banana absorbs all the visible radiation except yellow, which is reflects. So the banana looks yellow.
“Because the banana absorbs all the visible radiation except yellow, which is reflects. So the banana looks yellow.”
You are speculating David, proven wrong by the actual spectrum observed from a banana. If you were right, there would be a huge peak in the yellow but there is a fairly flat spectrum thru visible range, contains as much green and orange and red as yellow. Our brains interpret that as the color we see of a banana.
And if all we see from an object illuminated by the sun, or from lighting is 100% reflected light, all we would see is the color of the sun or room lights. But we see all colors across the visible spectrum as the objects emit visible all across the visible spectrum at say room temperature. Color is really cool.
You have much to learn about basic colorimetry. This is only the start, do some actual testing move beyond assertions as someone once quoted:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-266900
Ball4 says, October 17, 2017 at 1:47 PM:
‘… blah-blah-blah-blah-blah …’
LOL! Just keep writing, troll! The more nonsense you spout, the more boneheaded you look. Do go on.
What I am responding to is the notion that because heat must always flow from hot to cold, that therefore a warmer body cannot receive the radiation from a cooler body.
I disagree with that (and so does Clausius).
To distill the argument I am seeing, it is claimed that the blue plate cannot receive any radiant energy from the blue plate, because the blue plate is warmer than the green plate.
In this, I contend it is the skeptics who are confusing heat with energy.
For example, a skeptic (rightly) says that the blue plate cannot receive ‘heat’ from the green plate. It can only flow from a warmer to a cooler body.
But the skeptic seems to think that because heat cannot be received, that therefore no radiation can be received from the cooler body.
The energy from a sun disperses at distance. The energy we receive from Alpha Centauri is, per meter square, cooler than that emitted by the Earth (and by our eyes).
Our eyes are not pressed up against the surface of Alpha Centauri. By the time the light from that star reaches us, its energy is so dispersed that it is, per meter square, far cooler on contact with the Earth (and our eyeballs) than it was at source.
And yet we see the stars.
I said that if we swapped the green plate out for a sun emitting at the same power (100 w/m2) to the surface of the blue plate, we’d intuitively expect that sunlight to hit the blue plate. We could use the same sun as in the diagram at Eli’s but move it further away. We see stars, after all, from a surface warmer than the energy received by those stars.
So what property of the EM radiation emitted from the green plate makes it unable to be received by the blue plate, that permits radiation at the same power to be received by the blue plate from a sun?
But the skeptic seems to think that because heat cannot be received…
Heat is the difference in temperature between one object and another. Bodies do not contain heat. They contain energy. Heat is a transfer concept.
IOW, I think skeptics are mistaking the sum of heat differences for discrete radiative transfer. They’re saying that they are the same thing.
Clausius disagrees. He says that warm objects can radiate to cool objects, and cool objects can radiate to warm objects, but that the NET flow of energy means that heat is flowing from hot to cold.
And he says that this is always true unless some other activity is occurring. Physics textbooks regularly consider r.e.frige.ration and heat pumps on this very matter.
barry, you seem to be all over the page. You’re talking “light”, “heat”, “stars”, “Clausius”, “receiving radiation”, etc.
See if this helps: “A cold object (by itself) can not RAISE THE TEMPERATURE of a hotter object.”
Maybe that will be easier to understand.
“far cooler”
EMR does not have a temperature. EMR cannot be cooler. There are no cold rays. The intensity of the star light is reduced (you know, the per steridian stuff). If the star has relative motion to/from, the wavelength is changed.
Red bumper sticker I saw the other day, if you think this is blue, you are driving too fast.
anger 4:51pm trolls by with “A cold object (by itself) can not RAISE THE TEMPERATURE of a hotter object.”
Dr. Spencer’s test proved anger is wrong, proved experimentally the Green Plate Effect and posted Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
It was better around here when anger was banished completely. I’d like to see experimental evidence anger was let back in by Dr. Spencer after an email and did not have to hack in with *.
Ball4
The warmer object needs a heat source in order for the cooler object to provide insulation and make it “warmer still”. This is what anger meant when he said the cooler object can’t do it by itself.
“Bodies do not contain heat. They contain energy. Heat is a transfer concept.”
barry should further explain how a body that does not contain heat can then transfer heat FROM that same body. Bodies contain energy & thus energy can transfer (radiative, conductive, convective).
trick, did you ever publish your paper about cabbages glowing in the dark?
THAT was some great pseudoscience!
Hilarious 5:02pm! More please.
NB: Nothing novel in that to publish except if you are trolling without test support.
Sir Isaac, “The warmer object needs a heat source in order for the cooler object to provide insulation and make it “warmer still”. This is what anger meant when he said the cooler object can’t do it by itself.”
No energy source is needed. Dr. Spencer did another test on the actual atm. showing the solar energy source is not needed for Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still. He did the experiment in his living room with an energy source since it was smaller than the atm. to make his point with data.
And that is not what anger meant. anger is a test free commenter that Dr. Spencer once tried to banish.
Ball4
I have not read the experiment, nor do I need to. A cooler object can’t do it “by itself”. A separate energy source is required.
Ball4,
These were “backyard” experiments. What you need is peer reivewed and published experiments.
All the peer reviewed published experiments are replicable & come to the same conclusion as Dr. Spencer. Which is why Dr. Spencer knew it would work out as he’s done the reading unlike SGW. With proper care taken, the location of this (or any proper) experiment is immaterial SGW. Physics is universal so far as is known.
Ball4
I’m not saying the warmer object didn’t get warmer, I’m saying other energy (besides that provided by the cooler object) was involved. In isolation, a cooler body can’t make a warmer body warmer, right?
“I have not read the experiment”
That’s obvious Sir Isaac. There are more than one. If you do read them, you will improve your comments.
Ball4
My comments are correct.
Comments of Sir Isaac are confirmed correct when Sir Isaac can produce a proper test just like the guy that commented about gravity and star light had to do. Until then, Sir Isaac is assertion only & in a test free zone with anger.
ball4…”Red bumper sticker I saw the other day, if you think this is blue, you are driving too fast”.
Like it. Doppler would probably have liked it too.
“In isolation, a cooler body can’t make a warmer body warmer, right?”
Wrong. Dr. Spencer’s test(s) showed how in isolation, a cooler body can make a warmer body warmer in his living room and using the actual atm. at night in his backyard.
I have done a similar experiment in my kitchen without using a power source. I got the same results in isolation as Dr. Spencer: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
Sir Isaac is just behind in his reading and experimenting. This is why college courses come with a lab requirement.
Ball4
I don’t enjoy having to defend a troll like g*e*r*a *n. Please read my comments more carefully.
So I missed a confirming test in Sir Isaac’s comments by not carefully reading? Please show. There are so many forks around this dinner party, following them all down “rabbit” holes can be too demanding at times.
Ball4
How did you and Dr. Spencer manage to isolate the warmer body from a heat source prior to introducing the cooler body?
Ball4
In other words, something had to be making the warmer object warm in the first place. This would be the “separate” energy source I’m talking about.
Ball4
A warm object emits energy, so without an energy source, it’s temperature would be dropping like a rock. No external energy source means the surroundings are absolute zero. Was that the situation when the cooler body was brought to the experiments you reference?
The “something” making the warmer object warmer can be in the experiment or not. The conclusions will be the same as the science is the same: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
In my testing the “something” was not part of the experiment, in one of the tests by Dr. Spencer the “something” was (this one confirmed the Green Plate Effect), and one of them the “something” was not. All data analyses and theory come to same conclusion: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
“The something making the warmer object warmer..”
Better to have repeated Sir Isaac’s words: The “something” that had to be making the warmer object warm in the first place can be in the experiment or not.
Ball4
You: “The “something” that had to be making the warmer object warm in the first place can be in the experiment or not.”
This is where you are confused! That “something”, a separate energy source (or an internal energy source) is absolutely necessary for the warmer object to get warmer.
I’m a science no-count, so ask someone who’s opinion you respect. They will agree.
“How did you and Dr. Spencer manage to isolate the warmer body from a heat source prior to introducing the cooler body?”
Dr. Spencer took data after sunset and at night.
As for me, I let the microwave cycle end first before taking data.
Ball4
The warm object was not receiving energy from the atmosphere? How is that possible?
Or from the ground? Did the ground have no temperature?
“They will agree.”
Doesn’t matter. The test data will tell the correct story.
The “something” that had to be making the warmer object warm in the first place can be in the experiment or not. Dr. Spencer did it both ways and I did it only the one way, but see no need to replicate both Dr. Spencer’s tests. The conclusion is the same: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still because the principles of 1LOT and Planck radiation do not change when the “something” that had to be making the warmer object warm in the first place is in the experiment or not.
Use the Green Plate Effect. Does not matter whether the sun is on or not only the numbers change. Think it thru or do the experiment. If the sun is on, then you get an equilibrium; if the sun is off then everything cools but the Green Plate Effect will still be evident.
Ball4
You: “If the sun is on, then you get an equilibrium; if the sun is off then everything cools but the Green Plate Effect will still be evident.”
Yes, of course, but the warmer object won’t be getting warmer, will it?
Without the sun, the blue plate will still be receiving energy from the green plate, so it wouldn’t be cooling as fast as it would have otherwise. But it will still be getting colder!
“The warm object was not receiving energy from the atmosphere? How is that possible?”
Dr. Spencer put up a shield to block most of the DWIR overnight.
“Or from the ground? Did the ground have no temperature?”
The ground had a temperature; Dr. Spencer used styrofoam coolers to minimize radiation from the ground and surroundings.
“A warm object emits energy, so without an energy source, it’s temperature would be dropping like a rock. Was that the situation when the cooler body was brought to the experiments you reference?”
Yes dropping, in 2 of the 3. Not quite to absolute zero. Maybe not quite like a rock either, more like Newton’s Law of Cooling (not named correctly but that’s another whole story).
Ball4
My claim is that the warmer object has to be recieving or producing energy other than what the cooler object provides. Otherwise your conclusion is not true.
Send me a link to an experiment that proves otherwise.
“Yes, of course, but the warmer object wont be getting warmer, will it?”
Not at equilibrium, which is why they call it equilibrium.
“But it will still be getting colder!”
Yes, theory and both tested conditions Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
Ball4
I was referencing the part where the sun is gone!
Sir Isaac Snapelton
I have been reading your interaction with Ball4. I think the problem is a semantic one.
Here is an experiment by Roy if you want to reference it and the thoughts he had going into it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-experimental-demonstration-that-cool-objects-can-make-warm-objects-warmer-still/
Here is what Roy wrote: “The italicized words are important, and have been ignored by my critics: while it is true that the net flow of heat must be from higher temperature to lower temperature, this does not mean that the lower temperature object cannot (for example) emit radiant energy in the direction of the warmer object, and thus increase the temperature of the warmer object above what it would otherwise be.”
Even without a heat source on the object, the object would be warmer than if no other body with temperature were present.
You are correct that the object would cool with no energy source. But it is also correct to state that the other object is warming the heated object when you compare two states (one with object and one without, the temperature is higher in the case with the object even though both are cooling). After a time period one is warmer than the other, the cooler object could be claimed to have warmed the cooling object since it has a higher temperature. I think that is the point Ball4 is trying to make. I could be wrong but it seems to be the case.
This is the other experiment Ball4 refers to.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Norman
As usual, you understand the situation. There’s a difference, though, between these two statements:
A. A cooler object can make a warmer one get even warmer.
B. A cooler object can cause a warmer one to not cool as fast as it would otherwise.
For “A” to be true, the warmer object needs a separate heat source.
“I was referencing the part where the sun is gone!”
If the sun is gone, we do not have to worry anymore.
Still, at night, or with no sun, the Green Plate Effect is evident Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
Ball4
In the green plate experiment, when the sun is gone, the blue plate’s only energy source is the green plate.
And what do you know, the blue plate is getting colder, not warmer!
Ball4
Green plate or no green plate, take away the sun, and the blue plate’s temperature will decrease. Do the math!
As I wrote, if the sun is on, then you get an equilibrium; if the sun is off then everything cools but the Green Plate Effect will still be evident
Ball4
And I never said a cooler object couldn’t make a warmer one even warmer.
I said the warmer object would require a separate (or internal) energy source for that to be possible, and as you seem to have finally figured out, I was correct.
Sir Isaac 5:20pm: “The warmer object needs a heat source in order for the cooler object to provide insulation and make it “warmer still”.”
Sir Isaac 10:14pm: “I never said a cooler object couldn’t make a warmer one even warmer.”
Dr. Spencer’s night time experiment where there is no energy source after sunset linked by Norman, when thoroughly studied & understood, should relieve you of the notion “I never said a cooler object couldn’t make a warmer one even warmer.”
True, the sun was up before setting, but the experiment is after sunset. The nuance is subtle. Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still with or without an energy source as shown in the data. See Newton’s law of cooling.
Ball4
You still don’t get it. In the Green Plate Experiment, if the sun were removed, the blue plate’s only source of energy is the green plate.
Roy’s experiment takes place at night, where the sun is also removed. But here the surrounding environment is still supplying energy to the warmer object.
Ball4
Here is the part I agree with: “Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still”
Here is where you are confused, and what you mistakenly add it to the peer reviewed conclusions:
(The “something” making the warmer object warmer can be in the experiment or not.)
I’m confused, huh? Ok show me exactly where I’m confused in Dr. Spencer’s two tests “The “something” making the warmer object warmer can be in the experiment or not.”
In my testing, the “something” making the warmer object warmer was not in the experiment.” I rely on Dr. Spencer’s test for the “something” making the warmer object warmer can be in the experiment.”
In all 3 tests as you agree: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still
Ball4
I just read the experiment where two halogen lamps are contributing energy to a surface. The surface’s surrounding environment was already at room temperature. When the cooler cardboard is added to the experiment, the heated surface gets even hotter.
Now, suppose when you introduced the cardboard, you simultaneously removed all other heat sources to the warmer surface? This would involve turning off the heat lamps, and chilling the air and all other objects in the viscinty to absolute zero.
Now we have a situation where the cooler object (room temperature cardboard) is the warmer surfaces only heat source. This is similar to removing the sun from the green plate experiment.
Do you really think “the warmer object would get warmer still”?
The heat lamps and all other energy contributing to the warmer surfaces temperature are a requirement in Roy’s experiment. Otherwise the introduction of cardboard (cooler object) would not have produced the observed results.
“…chilling the air and all other objects in the viscinty to absolute zero.”
Setting aside that absolute zero is unattainable, even at absolute zero radiation still would be associated with matter because of temperature fluctuations. Temperature is, after all, an average of the KE of object particles, and whenever there are averages there are fluctuations about them.
So, no.
Take your thinking all the way out to the entropy max. of the universe though, then maybe yes, at that point: the warmer object would not get warmer still. Hard to make a case for T fluctuations anymore at that point, no entropy increase by def.
So, yes. Got that backwards, at entropy max. so, no.
Ball4
You’re still missing the point. If you turned off the heat lamps when the cardboard is introduced….. this by itself would likely cause the warmer surface to cool. The whole viscinity is still WAY above abosolute zero, meaning the warmer surface would still be receiving a great deal of energy from a source other than the room temperature cardboard.
All true per theory but Dr. Spencer does not provide data supporting your assertions, it is not possible to miss that point, it doesn’t exist in data, he didn’t turn off the energy source. All you need to do is replicate this experiment, turn off the energy source. Take data inserting and removing the black sheet during the cooling, your handle inspiration Newton’s law will hold.
In my experiment, I already did essentially the same thing except my energy source was a microwave and I let the experiment cool towards room temperature. Newton’s law of cooling was verified as was: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still, verifying Dr. Spencer’s experiment without an energy source.
Dr. Spencer’s experiment with the energy source verified Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
Instead of asserted physics Sir Isaac, add experimentation like Dr. Spencer as frequently used in 1800s latin when all the experimentation was going on as a result: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur: What is freely asserted is freely deserted.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Latin_proverbs#Q
Experiments set this site ahead and apart from many others.
Ball4
Here is one of your baseless assertions:
(The “something” making the warmer object warmer can be in the experiment or not.)
Show me an experiment where a warmer object is made warmer still, and the objects only energy source is from the cooler object. Otherwise, spare me your condescending lectures.
“Show me an experiment where a warmer object is made warmer still, and the objects only energy source is from the cooler object.”
Dont know of any. We haven’t been discussing that. We’ve been discussing 3 experiments where the data shows: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still. One has energy source at top, the energy from the plate. Two do not have such energy sources, they monotonically cool. Two of the descriptions are linked, the one I did is similar to 2nd not exact to gain confidence in Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
You seem determined about something jumping around from 0K to objects with irrelevant energy sources that I try to explain then get charged with condescending. You seem interested in an explanation, maybe not.
“one of your baseless assertions: The “something” making the warmer object warmer can be in the experiment or not.”
In one, inspection shows the energy source at the top, the other, inspection shows NO energy source at the top cooling monotonically and Ive told you my experiment cooled monotonically same way. Not baseless, this is all in pictures! You must have looked. All three Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
Ball4
In all three experiments the warmer object was receiving energy from a source other than the cooler object, which supports the assertion I’ve made all along….it’s a requirement for any scenario in which a “cooler object makes a warmer object warmer still”
If you still disagree with this, your either very dense or very stubborn.
Ball,
Dr. Spencer did another test on the actual atm. showing the solar energy source is not needed for Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still.
His tests demonstrated slower cooling, not more warming.
These ideas are not the same.
You do need an energy source to cause an increase in temperature in the object whose heat loss is being slowed by the cooler object.
barry…”Heat is the difference in temperature between one object and another. Bodies do not contain heat. They contain energy. Heat is a transfer concept”.
Then why is heat called thermal energy?
definition for thermal:
1)dictionary dot com:….of, relating to, or caused by heat
2)merriam webster: …of, relating to, or caused by heat
barry…you need to admit that heat is real. Clausius defined it as the kinetic energy of atoms.
Please don’t mistake a glowing, cherry-red, electrical ring on a stove for a transfer concept. If heat is a transfer concept, then what is being transferred.
You claim energy is being transferred, what kind of energy?
Ball,
The following remarks are typical of those I’ve found researching related stuff.
Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
I’ve been going over physics textbooks that say the same thing. Heat is not a static, but a dynamic property.
You can see the same from an actual physics textbook that is on the web.
http://tinyurl.com/y7et2htd
I’ve read quite a but of this stuff now, and the concept is common across the more involved texts considering thermodynamics.
Someone upthread that using “heat” as a noun is a misnomer. That’s too nit-picky (heat is indeed a noun, even if some pedantic physics profs would call that colloquial usage). But the idea isn’t a bad one.
No, barry. “HEAT” as a NOUN is the correct term. THAT’S the physical phenomenon. The Q in the 1st Law. “HEATING” as a VERB is the controversial one, because in some circles it is deemed somewhat “colloquial”.
HEAT is a thermal energy transfer process AND an amount of thermally transferred energy.
Your latter remark is at odds with all the texts on thermodynamics I’ve been reading (apart from some blog pages). They say that objects more properly contain “energy” not heat.
Heat is about changes in temperature. We say heat flows from a warmer to colder object. When the objects are the same temperature, there is no more flow of heat (changing of temperature). Now we talk about the total energy contained in the system.
David upthread has been saying that EM radiation is heat. Having read around, I don’t agree. It becomes heat on the moment it strikes an object. ‘Heat,’ then, is the transfer process. It’s not in the the contents of an object because there is no physical matter that is different, just a different energy state. And it is not in the radiation carrying the potential for heat, which has no temperature in a vacuum, until it strikes something. It is the transfer of energy process providing a temperature difference.
Or so I have been reading in physics text books and papers.
Mind you, I did say upthread that these quibbles were mostly useless, as the arguments tend to be academic rather than materially impacting the understanding of the physics. Looks like I’ve been drawn in.
This at Physics Stack Exchange summarises what I’ve been reading elsewhere: heat’ described from the classic view of thermodynamics.
Things do not have a certain amount of heat sitting inside them. Imagine a house with a front door and a back door. People can come and go through either door. If you’re watching the house, you might say “the house lost 3 back-door people today”. Of course, the people in the house are just people. The door only describes how they left. Similarly, energy is just energy. “Work” and “heat” describe what mechanism it used to leave or enter the system. (Note that energy itself is not a thing like people, only a number calculated from the state, so the analogy only stretches so far.)
We frequently say that energy is “lost to heat”. For example, if you hit the brakes on your car, all the kinetic energy seems to disappear. We notice that the brake pads, the rubber in the tires, and the road all get a little hotter, and we say “the kinetic energy of the car was turned into heat.” This is imprecise. It’s a colloquialism for saying, “the kinetic energy of the car was transferred as heat into the brake pads, rubber, and road, where it now exists as thermal energy.”
Heat is not the same as temperature. Temperature is what you measure with a thermometer. When heat is transferred into a system, its temperature will increase, but its temperature can also increase because you do work on it.
The relationship between heat and temperature involves a new state variable, entropy, and is described by the second law of thermodynamics. Statements such as “heat flows spontaneously from hot bodies to cold bodies” are describing this second law of thermodynamics, and are really statements about how to use heat along with certain state variables to decide whether or not a given process is spontaneous; they aren’t directly statements about what heat is.
Heat is not “low quality energy” because it is not energy. Such statements are, again, discussion of the second law of thermodynamics.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8522/what-exactly-is-heat
Another comment there worth highlighting:
This section is intended to point out that some commonly-said things about heat are either loose use of language (which is okay as long as everyone understands what’s being said), or correct use of heat, but not directly a discussion of what heat is.
barry says, October 18, 2017 at 3:18 PM:
No, it isn’t. I am not Gordon Robertson, barry. I know what heat is. He doesn’t. He thinks heat is contained inside bodies. I KNOW it’s not. I’m referring to an amount of energy being thermally transferred AS IT’S BEING TRANSFERRED. Heat [Q] is never contained within a body. It only ever moves between bodies. At the point where the energy being thermally transferred is absorbed into the body being heated, it becomes INTERNAL ENERGY [U]. Same energy, different place and condition. Dynamic vs. static.
Kristian: “Heat [Q] is never contained within a body. It only ever moves between bodies.”
Only the paranormal is conceived of as existing neither in object A nor in object B but only on the journey between them. This is unfounded fantasy not science Kristian. No test can be set up to demonstrate your view or if so, show it. You won’t.
Try photons
EMR is not heat; a photon is not heat and is just as much a thing as an EM wave which is also not heat: both possess energy and momentum (linear and angular) but not mass.
Ball4 says: October 20, 2017 at 6:28 AM:
You are wrong Ball, and Kristian is correct. Here’s what the thermodynamics textbook says:
The science of thermodynamics is not unfounded fantasy nor paranormal Ball. It is based entirely on experimentally verified real world observations.
“…a body never contains heat…heat is transferred from the system.”
So REO2 1:02pm, these authors write heat can be transferred from a system that never contains heat. And this somehow makes scientific sense to you? Please explain. No, what the authors describe is paranormal, merely a fantastic journey.
In modern atm. science, the physical entity transferred by virtue of a temperature difference is kinetic energy of the body’s constituent particles.
Clausius wrote more clearly as he did a lot of testing, 1st memoir, p.18: Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.
Ball4: You know very well that a body has a temperature, ane when the temperature starts to equilibrate with the colder surroundings heat is transferred.
“…heat is transferred.”
Baesalil, I know very well, as did Clausius from testing, KE of the constituent particles of the body is transferred under your circumstances. Every modern thermo. text book now agrees heat does not exist in a body anymore thus cannot transfer from that body, except paranormally in Baesalil thoughts. The last vestige of the caloric theory remains stuck in your head and has to be unlearned since no test has ever confirmed finding such an entity.
Ball says: October 24, 2017 at 1:20 PM
Yes, that makes perfect scientific sense to me because I accept the science of thermodynamics and the important definitions that it uses. Here’s another definition from an MIT thermodynamics class that says the same thing as the thermodynamics textbook that I quoted:
Thermodynamic systems do not “contain” heat because heat is not a state function or property of a thermodynamic system. Internal energy, U, is a state property of the system. If you understand thermodynamics, you’ll know that the 1st Law defines the change in internal energy of a system as ΔU=Q-W
Thus the authors that I quoted are saying that heat can be transferred away (-Q) from a system which has internal energy. Nothing wrong or paranormal about that at all.
Also, the above equation shows that your claim that a system “contains” heat is wrong. If the system does adiabatic work, the internal energy of the system is reduced, which would mean that the temperature of the system would be reduced. So if heat was “contained” in the system, that would mean that the system’s “heat”(according to you) would decrease, even though no heat was transferred away from it! Now THAT is a fantastic paranormal journey.
Here is another quote from the thermodynamics textbook which supports what I have said:
Ball says: October 24, 2017 at 1:20 PM
As quoted in the reference above, thermodynamics defines that random disorganized motion of molecules in the system as internal energy, U. And thermodynamics defines that transfer of energy from the higher temperature object which loses internal energy to the lower temperature object which gains internal energy as heat.
And modern atmospheric science also calls it heat too. Go to this Handbook of Atmospheric Science by Hewitt, https://books.google.com/books?id=f51QCiiAWYQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=handbook+of+atmospheric+science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ38L45IzXAhUJ8IMKHf8JCL4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=heat&f=false , and you will find that they use the term “heat” for the transfer of energy through the climate system.
From your comments which reject fundamental statements and definitions of thermodynamics, it’s apparent that you haven’t taken a course in thermodynamics, or if you did, you didn’t learn the fundamentals that are taught in introductory thermodynamics courses.
If you still believe that these statements of thermodynamics are wrong, rather than continue to ridicule and make baseless, evidence-free claims, quote from a thermodynamics textbook which supports your claim that thermodynamic systems “contain heat”.
REO2 4:31pm: “If you still believe that these statements of thermodynamics are wrong…”
The statements are wrong when they misuse Clausius’ def. of heat: Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.
Test each of your quotes against Clausius’ gold standard and you will begin to see where befuddlement over the heat term enters the lingo. It would not be a big deal if the misuse of heat were not so rampant in the field of climate discussions but the evidence for that is overwhelming. You can eliminate much (all?) perplexity invoking Clausius’ gold standard definition.
The struggle to give heat corporeal existence is amazingly relentless & useless. When you abandon all attempts to identify heat as an entity you can think MORE clearly about thermodynamic problems. If you think not, fill me in on an example in which invoking a mythical substance called heat leads to increased physical understanding.
Consider for example, the act of rubbing your hands together. Perplexes students in describing that as generation of heat. Saying that the temperature of your hands increased is something that they can measure in the lab, the first cannot.
“…quote from a thermodynamics textbook which supports your claim that thermodynamic systems “contain heat”.”
You may have misstated this as I wrote: “Every modern thermo. text book now agrees heat does not exist in a body anymore..”
The quest to fix heat misuse in the lingo has been going on a long time, not just by me:
“Heat presents one of our most serious linguistic problems. Not only is it a common word in the outside world, but in addition its frequent misuse within physics reinforces ancient and erroneous views of the physical world and encourages sloppy thinking.”
https://ifisc.uib-csic.es//raul/CURSOS/TERMO/Heat_is_not_a_noun.pdf
Here is a paper that also offers “some quotations only from books written by college professors” as you did and then shows how they misuse the term heat as a noun.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/38695619/The-Use-and-Misuse-of-the-Word-Heat-in-Physics-Teaching#scribd
It is very easy to deal with the misuse of heat: It does not exist. Why waste all this time and effort discussing heat that does not exist in a body anymore? Dunno, but there it is.
Objects contain internal energy U and the 1st law is good as written: KE transfers by virtue of a temperature difference plus work is force thru a distance. That’s all you need to NOT be perplexed and discuss proper thermodynamics.
Re Ball4, October 25, 6:03 PM:
Ball4: “The statements are wrong when they misuse Clausius’ def. of heat: Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
You are describing the internal energy of the object, not the heat. And your definition means that that heat does exist in a body. That’s wrong.
Ball4: “You can eliminate much (all?) perplexity invoking Clausius’ gold standard definition.”
You mean the one you didn’t quote, but only paraphrased part of it? No, Clausius’ definition is not the gold standard. It only causes more confusion, like you are doing.
No, going back to Clausius’ definition of heat is NOT the answer, as he is the one who contributed to the confusion of the word heat in the first place, saying that an object contains heat.
But it’s no wonder you are so confused about thermodynamics, since you want to go back to century old science of “ether” and “total heat existing in the body”.
Ball4:“You may have misstated this as I wrote: “Every modern thermo. textbook now agrees heat does not exist in a body anymore..” “
You conveniently left out the rest of your statement: “… does not exist in a body anymore thus cannot transfer from that body, except paranormally in Baesalil thoughts.”
You know that heat, as defined by modern thermodynamics, can be transferred. You’ve totally discredited yourself.
Ball4:“It is very easy to deal with the misuse of heat. It does not exist. Why waste all this time and effort discussing heat that does not exist in a body anymore.”
Denying the reality that heat exists (not in an object, but as the energy transferred because of a temperature difference) is not the answer to the misuse of the word. And neither is claiming that “heat” is not a noun. It is, it is the quantity of energy that is transferred between objects solely due to a temperature difference.
Calling attention to the misuse of heat and defining the proper use of the word and the proper thermodynamic terms like U, internal energy, is the answer.
I didn’t think I was wasting time, as I thought you were a serious commenter, and I was correcting your erroneous understanding of heat that you communicated in your comment to Kristian.
But it turns out that I probably was wasting my time because you are just trolling.
REO2: “You are describing the internal energy of the object, not the heat.”
No, I am not. Besides the KE of the object’s constituent particles, science will describe the internal energy U of an object also in the form of its potential energy (gravitational and elastic), chemical energy, nuclear energy, sound, electric, magnetic and so forth if you really want to dig down. No modern list I have seen includes heat since the caloric theory was tossed out of science. Caloric theory served a purpose and has been discarded similar to slide rules.
“going back to Clausius’ definition of heat is NOT the answer”
Then there is no hope you can make progress in this field if you cannot agree with the founders hard won knowledge gained from thorough testing. No heat was found, only the KE of constituent particles. Since you write Clausius is not the gold standard perhaps you can propose a superior standard, please do.
“And your definition means that heat does exist in a body.”
No sir. It is not my definition, it is the definition Clausius invented. When Clausius writes small quantity of heat dQ he means a small quantity of the KE of constituent particles because that’s how HE defined the word heat as a noun. Heat entity does NOT exist in a body, the relevant entity that exists per Clausius in an object is the KE of the constituent particles.
“…you want to go back to century old science of “ether” and “total heat existing in the body”.”
Those are REO2 words not mine. I want to go with the results testing shows.
“You know that heat, as defined by modern thermodynamics, can be transferred. You’ve totally discredited yourself.”
Any real discredit goes with those writers, completely divorced from testing, trying to tell us in the same sentence an absurdity: “Bodies don’t “contain” heat; heat is identified as it comes across system boundaries.”
“Denying the reality that heat exists…”
I do. If heat entity exists, then show us a test isolating some. You cant. Heat is defined by Clausius as a measure only and Clausius, the gold standard, gets that right.
“…quantity of energy that is transferred between objects solely due to a temperature difference.”
Yes, here REO2 captures Clausius’ spirit of & actual meaning pretty well, a measure of the quantity of kinetic energy that is transferred between objects solely due to a temperature difference is what Clausius defined as heat and he uses his definition correctly in the clips REO2 provides.
For an eye opening personal experience, consider my high school physics teacher Mr. Reddy’s experiment. The class turned to the chapter on heat in the dead of winter. Mr. Reddy started by drawing a lab glass of hot tap water from the sink on his work table. He held that glass up in the air, and pointed out the window at the nearby frozen lake surface covered in snow and asked us: “Is there more heat in this glass or out in that lake?” We all looked out at the frozen lake and back at the glass of hot tap water. I started increasing my knowledge about thermodynamics right there, and Clausius would have been proud of my teacher.
Here if you would like, to suit REO2 thinking heat exists as an entity, from one of the links, is a source that does give heat entity a physical presence:
“Frank’s Original Red Hot Cayenne Pepper Sauce–Adds Tang & Flavor, Not Just Heat.”
Also you can get busted by the heat, and you can pack heat but you can’t contain heat.
NB: Consider that Q was assigned to the measure of kinetic energy transferred by virtue of a temperature difference. The founders knew what they were doing by not assigning H. The symbol H was assigned to enthalpy. I will let REO2 discover why.
Ball4 says: October 26, 7:26 AM “REO2 …”
Troll someone else. No point in trying to have a rational discussion with someone like you who denies the real world and the science of thermodynamics.
The science of thermodynamics wins when built upon proper test REO2; no test has ever identified a colorless, odorless, weightless substance existing “as it comes across system boundaries” so this relic has been cast out into the paranormal.
Only the KE of body constituent particles has been found by test to cross the boundary (sometimes called a control volume). Clausius was right in his definition of heat as its measure since he developed his views from testing.
Some of Ball4’s beliefs:
1) Clausius is the gold standard on thermodynamics.
2) Heat isn’t contained in an object.
3) Heat doesn’t even exist.
4) Clausius didn’t assign H to heat, but he assigned H to Enthalpy.
Clausius’ thermodynamics says heat is contained in an object: “If we denote the total heat existing in the body, or more briefly Quantity of heat of that body by H” – Clausius, ‘The Mechanical Theory of Heat’
In that single statement Clausius destroys Ball4’s beliefs #2, #3 & ##4. And also #1 because Clausius holds exactly the opposite understanding that Ball4 has of 3 of his core thermodynamic beliefs.
And Ball4 wants us to go back to century old thermodynamics of “ether”. Ball4 is hopelessly conflicted, and is just trolling.
REO2 5:11pm: Again, you comment using REO2’s own misguided definition of heat.
To find Clausius’ meaning that REO2 has missed by not understanding Clausius own definition of heat, simply substitute Clausius words which actually define what he means p. 18 when he invokes the heat term: heat is a measure of constituent particle kinetic energy.
“If we denote the total measure of constituent particle kinetic energy existing in the body”
“or more briefly Quantity of constituent particle kinetic energy of that body by H”
which really is the object’s enthalpy H as opposed to its U of which H is a component (see ref. below).
In that single statement using Clausius’ own words, Clausius supports all of Ball4’s rewritten points #2, #3 & #4. And also #1 because Clausius holds exactly the same understanding Ball4 has of all 3 of Clausius core thermodynamic beliefs.
And, yes, Ball4 wants us to go back to century old thorough testing and resultant definitions of heat by Clausius et. al. REO2 is hopelessly conflicted about heat by misusing Clausius def. of the heat term repeatedly trying to give corporeal existence to a measure.
—–
Ref. p.225: Let the quantity of (sensible) heat (alone not including internal, external work) contained in it be expressed by H
Ref. p. 84: we include both these quantities of heat in one symbol U….actually present in the body (the so-called sensible heat), the quantity expended on interior work, and the quantity expended on exterior work.
Ball4: 7:26 AM: You were describing internal energy, but in your denial of reality, you go on to deny fundamental thermodynamics and just make stuff up as you cling to your errors and refuse to admit them.
Ball4: “Besides the KE of the constituent particles, science will describe the internal energy U of an object also in the form of it’s potential energy (gravitational and elastic), chemical energy, nuclear energy, sound, electric, magnetic and so forth”
No, science does not describe internal energy that way. Once again you are proved wrong by MIT thermodynamics class notes:
The kinetic energy (motion of the entire system), potential energy (of the entire system) and chemical energy are entirely separate from the internal energy.
I expect that you will deny this reality with some handwaving or denial of modern thermodynamics or some other dishonesty.
Ball4: “Those are REO2’s words not mine.”
No troll, you said you want to go back to the “gold standard” of Clausius, and those words are part of Clausius’ work. You are once again caught being dishonest.
Ball4: “Any real discredit goes with those writers, completely divorced from testing, trying to tell us in the same sentence an absurdity: “Bodies don’t “contain” heat; heat is identified as it crosses system boundaries.”
More dishonesty. The modern science of thermodynamics is based on real world testing and observations:
None of modern thermodynamics has ever been shown wrong by real world observations. But you are in denial of that reality, so you will likely obfuscate with more dishonesty and handwaving.
RealOldOne2:”Denying the reality that heat exists”
Ball4: I do. If heat entity exists, then show us a test isolating some.”
Every time a hot object & a cool object are put in thermal contact, the energy that is transferred from the hot object, reducing its internal energy and temperature, to the cool object, increasing its internal energy and temperature is real world evidence that heat exists, because it was transferred from the hot object to the cold object.
Oh yeah, you deny and reject modern thermodynamics, because you reject the reality of heat. You really don’t, you just attempt to redefine it in century old language. You are hopelessly conflicted.
Once again, Ball4 is completely and thoroughly discredited, but you will never admit it. Trolls never do.
3,2,1 … Ball4 denies reality because he is hopelessly conflicted with cognitive dissonance of holding simultaneously contradictory positions.
REO2 10:26pm: “Once again you are proved wrong by MIT thermodynamics class notes..”
No amount of class notes can prove proper experimental results wrong REO2. Especially the proper experiments upon which Clausius built his published work.
Those Clausius’ experiments are as conclusive a century ago as they are today. The external KE (E) of the entire object, as in dropping a brick on your foot, is NOT internal energy U, neither is the potential energy of the entire object so forth. The internal energy U that we & Clausius are discussing is that of the internal constituent particles of the object (by Clausius p. 18 def. right up front), so obviously YOU mistakenly bring in a different proposition, which, technically, is known as a strawman.
“The kinetic energy (motion of the entire system), potential energy (of the entire system) and chemical energy are entirely separate from the internal energy.”
So now you too come to grips with the class notes clip. Yes, E (external KE of the entire solid mass) is different than U (vibrational KE of each of constituent particles in the solid, so forth). You self-correct. You were at first confused which mass is important for thermodynamics, the motion of the entire system E or the constituent particle mass energy component of U.
REO2 10:26pm: “..you said..those words are part of Clausius’ work.”
No, your “Those words” refers to REO2 writing: “..you want to go back to century old science of “ether” and “total heat existing in the body”.” REO2 is again mistaken, searching shows these words are not part of Clausius Mechanical Theory of Heat nor are they my written words. Inspection of evidence shows they are REO2 words, apparently now REO2 wants to disclaim ownership of “those words” and assign blame elsewhere. Typical useless blog technique.
“..real world evidence that heat exists, because it was transferred from the hot object to the cold object.”
There is no evidence of “it” transferring. Only according to REO2’s misuse of heat term. So, REO2, tell me if these tests show heat (“it”) exists other than Clausius def. as a measure of the KE of a body’s constituent particles, what color was found for the heat you claim transferred? How much did the transferred heat weigh? Is heat really odorless as claimed? So forth. You must know as you claim tests showing the existence of heat. Inspect them. Inform.
“Oh yeah, you deny and reject modern thermodynamics, because you reject the reality of heat.”
Distill some heat that was found in your testing for inspection. To determine heat’s properties.
Clausius testing and modern testing are in synch., no heat was ever found, heat does not exist, has no properties, heat as properly defined is merely a measure of the KE of the object’s constituent particles (p. 18), a def. which still stands the test of time.
REO2 has not produced any substance heat found from testing, so once again, REO2 is completely and thoroughly discredited by Clausius testing which is proven in the test of time once again.
REO2 will quite obviously never admit it, a typical blog practice when called out to produce heat REO2 claims to exist when heat does not exist by any test. Paranormal substances & paranormal entities have a way of disappearing when called for inspection.
re: Ball4 at 7:59 aM
Yep, you got nothing.
1) Just as I predicted, you deny your mistakes like your misstatement of internal energy, U and you deny fundamental modern thermodynamics by obfuscating about “experimental results”, because none of the thermodynamics in the MIT thermodynamics class notes has ever been in conflict with experimental results.
2) Just as I predicted you deny reality by saying there is no evidence of heat transfer. When there has been no world done on or by the system, and the internal of one object has decreased, and the internal energy of the other object has increased, that proves that energy has transferred and by definition, that is Q, heat. ΔU=Q-W, When W=0 and when there has been a change in internal energy, there is no denying that there has been a transfer of heat, except in the paranormal fantasy world of Ball4 revolving around “ether” & “Ergal”s.
Once again, you have been totally and thoroughly discredited by your stubborn refusal to admit to your mistakes, by your denial of fundamental thermodynamics, by your continued denial of reality, by your continued obfuscation. Your cognitive dissonance caused by holding contradictory positions simultaneously heat doesn’t exist, heat does exist because it is contained in objects.
And you project your own self-correction onto me, after I exposed the errors in your understanding of thermodynamics.
You have no credibility left. Give it up. Sadly you won’t, because trolls never do.
REO2 8:48am: “..because none of the thermodynamics in the MIT thermodynamics class notes has ever been in conflict with experimental results.”
Then it ought to be easy to allow an inspection of the heat that was transferred in the test you claim in order to determine the transferred entity heat properties: weight, color, odor, texture so forth. You didn’t supply this info. Actually, there is no test as you claim since Clausius was right to define heat as simply a measure of something else that does exist, constituent particle KE.
“Just as I predicted you deny reality by saying there is no evidence of heat transfer.”
Produce this evidence of reality then! Actually, in reality, show a transfer you claim exists. You know use a picture, a link to the test, anything. Farmers store grain in silos, then transfer that grain to market. All in pictures, one can see the color, feel the texture, experience the odor, measure the weight. REO2 has produced nothing of this sort from the transfer he claims is reality, nothing at all. Zero. Paranormal at best.
“by definition, that is Q, heat.”
P. 26 Clausius: Let the measure of body particle KE imparted in a change of volume and a change of temperature from one state to another be called Q.
In reality, testing shows Q to be the measure of internal energy U transferred in/out by a temperature difference. As opposed to internal energy U transferred in/out by a force through a distance (work).
“there is no denying that there has been a transfer of heat”
There is no denying there has been a transfer of energy, Q. Then show heat in reality, assertions are easily made. As Clausius learned for solids, inspection shows only a measure of KE transferred not the body particles themselves. REO2 has no test evidence backing REO2 statement though regularly claims thermodynamics is based on test. Where is the test evidence REO2? Nowhere.
Once again, it is REO2 that has been totally and thoroughly discredited by Clausius published work. It is REO2 holds a stubborn refusal to admit mistakes that evidence of heat exists in testing.
REO2 claims by def. that heat can be stored in objects and then transferred out but offers zero weight, texture, odor, color evidence of the transferred entity by experiment. Clausius credibility is thoroughly backed by experiment and long held principles.
Thermodynamics really is founded on experiment of which REO2 has produced none to support his position. I have a century and half of testing to point to, that is remarkable credibility as Clausius was right about defining heat to begin with.
REO2 simply won’t let go of the relics left over from early 1800s discredited caloric theory when in reality testing has never confirmed REO2’s claims that an entity other than constituent KE has transferred. Clausius is correct about thermodynamics not the paranormal claims of REO2.
Unless REO2 produces a test confirming his position and contradicting Clausius; no further circling REO2.
re:Ball4 October 27, 2017 at 8:12 AM;
Ball4, you continue your serial dishonesty by once again misrepresenting me and displaying your stubborn refusal to admit your errors and mistakes.
I normally don’t feed trolls, but your trolling behavior was so blatant I couldn’t help busting you again by exposing: your serial dishonesty, your denial of reality, and your denial of modern fundamental thermodynamics.
1) “Then it ought to be easy to allow an inspection of the heat that was transferred in the text you claim in order to determine the transferred entity heat properties: weight, color, odor, texture…”
Your “weight, color, odor, texture” is mere obfuscation.
It is easy. The change in system thermodynamic property as a result of transferred heat is the internal energy changes of both objects.
According to your silly requirements of “weight, color, odor, texture” there are a many of real world things that wouldn’t exist, such as EM waves, radio waves, gravity, photons, etc.. What is their weight? color? odor? texture?
You are obfuscating and rejecting the reality that no experimental results have ever contradicted modern thermodynamics, as laid out in the MIT class notes. You are dishonestly attempting to reverse the burden of proof. You are the one who claims that I am wrong. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence of an experiment that shows that energy hasn’t been transferred between two objects solely because of a temperature difference. That energy by definition of modern thermodynamics is HEAT. You’ve produced none. And no, denying the existence of heat, and denying the definitions of modern thermodynamics is not proof of violation. All that proves is your ignorance and denial of thermodynamics, even though YOU have no experimental evidence showing it is wrong. All you have is your handwaving and hollow rationalization based on confusion from 1800s science.
Ball4 is BUSTED.
2) Ball4: “Produce this evidence of reality then!”
I did. When two objects at different temperature are placed in thermal contact, the temperature of the hotter object decreases because its internal energy has decreased, and the temperature of the colder object increases because its internal energy has increased, indicating that a real transfer of energy has occurred. That’s irrefutable evidence that heat exists, because thermodynamics defines that transfer of energy as “heat”: “Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics textbook, VanWylen & Sonntag
And sorry, but your rejection of the definition of heat in modern thermodynamics does not disprove this. To disprove this, YOU must show that when two objects at different temperature are placed in thermal contact, neither object changes temperature.
Ball4 is BUSTED.
3) ReO2:”by definition that is heat”
Ball4: “P.26 Clausius …”
Sorry, the fact that Clausius has a different definition doesn’t change the definition of heat in modern thermodynamics as quoted above. You are once again just denying reality because you reject modern thermodynamics and its definitions, even though YOU can’t produce any experimental evidence that shows modern thermodynamics is wrong.
Ball4 is BUSTED.
4) Ball4: “There is no denying there has been a transfer of energy, Q”
That means that there is no denying there has been a transfer of “heat”, because heat is defined as the transfer of energy solely due to a temperature difference. Your rejection and denial of modern thermodynamics and its definitions doesn’t disprove that heat has been transferred. When modern thermodynamics lays out its postulates, you must use the definitions that go with those postulates and show experimental evidence that they are wrong. You can’t just change the definitions and them claim to have dis-proven those postulates. That’s being dishonest. You haven’t and can’t show that modern thermodynamics is wrong, because modern thermodynamics is based on the experimental evidence and experience of the entirety of observed human history.
Ball4 is BUSTED.
5) Ball4: “As Clausius learned for solids, inspection only shows a measure of KE transferred”
You have confirmed that “heat” has been transferred, because that “measure” of change in internal energy of the two bodies is defined as HEAT, as I quoted above. Once again, your rejection of modern thermodynamics and its definitions don’t invalidate it. The burden of proof is on YOU to show experimental evidence that modern thermodynamics is wrong, using the definitions it uses. And YOU have never done that. All you have done is make baseless, evidence-free claims.
Ball4 is BUSTED.
6) Ball4: “REO2 has no test evidence backing REO2 statement”
That’s a flat out falsehood. Every time two objects at different temperatures are placed in thermal contact, heat, as defined by modern thermodynamics, is transferred from the hot object to the cold object, as evidenced by the changes in temperature of the two objects. Again, you are just rejecting modern thermodynamics and its definitions. That doesn’t prove anything except your denial of the modern science of thermodynamics.
Ball4 is BUSTED.
7) Ball4: “Once again, it is REO2 that has been totally and thoroughly discredited by Clausius published work.”
Yet another flat out falsehood. What I said was based on modern thermodynamics, and you’ve not shown that a single thing I have posted about modern thermodynamics is wrong. You can’t use Clausius’ century+ old work and different definitions to discredit modern thermodynamics. You must provide experimental evidence that modern thermodynamics based on its definitions is wrong. You have failed to do this.
Ball4 is BUSTED, and once again thoroughly discredited.
8) Ball4: “REO2 claims by definition that heat can be stored in objects”
Yet another flat out falsehood. I have explicitly stated multiple times, by quoting the words of the ‘Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics’ textbook:
“Another aspect of this definition of heat is that a body never contains heat. Rather heat can be identified only as it crosses the boundary.”
and “Systems never possess heat or work, but either or both cross the system boundary when a system undergoes a change of state.”
And from the MIT thermodynamics class notes: “Bodies don’t “contain” heat; heat is identified as it comes across system boundaries.”
Again you are being totally dishonest by claiming that I claim by definition that heat can be stored in objects, when I have explicitly stated just the opposite.
Ball4 is BUSTED.
9) Ball4: “Thermodynamics is founded on experiment of which REO2 has produced none to support his position.”
Yet another flat out falsehood. My position is that of modern thermodynamics, and modern thermodynamics is founded on the real world experiments throughout human history. You can’t show that anything I’ve said contradicts modern thermodynamics. You just REJECT modern thermodynamics. That’s your error, not mine. And I’ve given you the experiment that has never been falsified above.
And YOU have failed to provide evidence of a real world experiment which has falsified modern thermodynamics as it is defined. The burden of proof is on YOU to produce such a real world experiment that falsifies modern thermodynamics. You can’t. You lose.
Ball4 is BUSTED.
10) Ball4: “REO2 simply won’t let go of the relics from early 1800s caloric theory”
Another flat out falsehood. I’ve never posted early 1800s caloric theory. The only relics that I have quoted are the exact words of Clausius that he published in 1879. You are obviously embarrassed by wanting to go back to Clausius’ muddled and confused 1879 “ether” & “Ergal” & “Vis Viva” & “work-heat” terminology.
It’s really ironic that you want to go back to that muddled and confused terminology which is the root of the current misunderstanding of the word “heat”, since your whole rejection of modern thermodynamics is based on not wanting to use the word “heat”, because it is misunderstood.
Modern thermodynamics has refined and clarified the early thermodynamics terminology. Your wanting to go backwards in history is just absurd. Your obsessive jihad against modern thermodynamics has no rational basis.
Sadly, based on your commenting history, you will just ignore the things I have posted which prove you wrong, deny the reality that they prove you wrong, misrepresent what I have posted, obfuscate with more nonsensical handwaving, and reject modern thermodynamics even though you can produce no experimental evidence that it is incorrect. It’s what trolls do.
Your trolling attempts to anger me by blatantly misrepresenting me and spinning falsehood after falsehood have failed.
REO2 9:21am, I observe that REO2 has provided NO testing of any kind to lend any credibility to his position. None.
REO2’s position is entirely based on assertion when my position is based on the testing Clausius references in The Mechanical Theory of Heat and the confirmatory testing ever since.
“What is (EM Wave) weight?”
Testing shows the upper limit of the photon rest mass keeps decreasing, a recent experimental value being about 10^-24 times the mass of the electron (Phys. Rev. Letters Vol. 90 pp 081801 (1-4)). Thus EM waves exist as testing shows thus EMR can transfer energy. On earth, multiply by local g for the tested upper limit of their rest weight.
“The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence of an experiment that shows that energy hasnt been transferred between two objects solely because of a temperature difference.”
I carry no such burden, that has already been shown and experimentally proven in Clausius published work above. This is technically a new proposition by REO2, i.e. a strawman.
“That energy by definition of modern thermodynamics is HEAT. You’ve produced none.”
That is a burden REO2 bears, to prove by experiment Clausius is wrong writing & showing by test that heat is only a measure of energy, heat being defined as a measure of the KE of the body’s constituent particles. I’ve produced the confirming def. and tests in Clausius work, perhaps REO2 hasn’t done the work to find them, understand them. Head in sand is no excuse, REO2 is easily busted without experiment.
“That’s irrefutable evidence that heat exists, because thermodynamics defines that transfer of energy as heat”…
Assertion is not evidence REO2, heat is a measure only based on experiments in Clausius’ extensive work. Energy can transfer. REO2, again, has provided NO experiments only assertion.
“And sorry, but your rejection of the definition of heat in modern thermodynamics does not disprove this.”
Assertions can’t disprove anything, I rely on Clausius’ ref.d experiments to disprove REO2s claims by assertion. All REO2 needs is one experiment supporting his position. ONE! Nowhere in sight, so far.
“Sorry, the fact that Clausius has a different definition doesnt change the definition of heat in modern thermodynamics as quoted above.”
Clausius def. is proven by proper experiment, and subsequent replication, REO2 presents NO experiment supporting his claims, REO2 claims are assertion only. How many times do I need to point that out. Endlessly? Provide a replicable experiment conclusively showing heat exists more than a measure and REO2 will be vindicated. I patiently await this potential revelation.
barry…”But the skeptic seems to think that because heat cannot be received, that therefore no radiation can be received from the cooler body”.
Heat cannot be received at all unless masses are in direct contact or masses of air, moving by convection, intermingle. Heat can only be transferred directly through the atoms of a mass contacting each other.
Heat transfer between bodies by radiation occurs through conversion of heat to EM, then EM back to heat. There is no transfer of mass hence no direct heat transfer. EM can be received but it is not converted to heat unless an electron absorbs it and jumps to a higher energy level. If the electron rejects the EM, nothing happens.
By radiation, heat is reduced in the warmer mass and increased in the cooler mass. The process is not reversible. It is transfer by energy conversion not by heat transport.
Gordon Robertson
More proof that your pal Claes Johnson is a crackpot with little to no credible knowledge of physics.
Maybe read this and quit posting your unscientific nonsense. It does get old, especially when the good information is readily available.
“When an excitation energy is 500 cm−1, then about 8.9 percent of the molecules are thermally excited at room temperature. To put this in perspective: the lowest excitation vibrational energy in water is the bending mode (about 1600 cm−1). Thus, at room temperature less than 0.07 percent of all the molecules of a given amount of water will vibrate faster than at absolute zero.”
Most molecules are not in higher vibrational states at room temperature and can easily absorb incoming IR.
From this article. You should read it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_geometry
Gordon is wrong for earth surface atm. energy levels: “EM can be received but it is not converted to heat unless an electron absorbs it and jumps to a higher energy level.”
Or the molecule absorbs the photon and rotates one quantum energy level higher, or the molecule absorbs the photon and vibrates one quantum energy level higher. There is not enough photon energy at earth surface to jump a molecule up an electronic level, only in the much higher, thinner atm. where temperatures reach photon energy levels order of 100x higher.
If I say this enough times, Gordon might begin to see the “light” but I never expect miracles.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat cannot be received at all unless masses are in direct contact or masses of air, moving by convection, intermingle.”
How does the Sun heat the Earth?
Davie, your pseudoscience hero claims the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K!
Are you doubting Ph (Pseudoscience hero)?
G*E*R*A*N
You keep forgetting the if the earth wasn’t cooling part of the Pierre quote.
Why do you lie?
Bob Droege says, October 18, 2017 at 9:42 AM:
So if the Earth weren’t able to cool, but WERE able to be heated by another object with a surface temperature of 5800 K, then this other 5800 K object would freely be able to heat Earth all the way to 800,000 K, is that what you’re saying?
Of course you are going to tell me that a colder body can’t heat a warmer body, but as I have remarked in this thread, I have done exactly that in a lab.
I believe Pierre’s calculations, but obviously it can’t be experimentally verified.
Bob Droege says, October 18, 2017 at 1:29 PM:
Yes, I am. It’s called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You might’ve heard of it …
Unless what you’ve constructed in your lab is a simple fridge, then no, you haven’t. Because then we would’ve heard all about your amazing discovery, how you’ve disproven the 2nd Law.
And so I ask you again: Do you seriously believe that a 5800 K object will ever be capable of heating another object all the way to 800,000 K?
For goodness sake Kristian, you are the only knowledgeable skeptic here apart from Roy, please don’t go on about this.
You are talking about the hypothetical 2nd sentence of a six page article, only a 12-year old would take it literally.
https://tinyurl.com/yawhk38l
Svante
You need to pull out your old textbooks. If the Earth were not able to cool itself, it would warm until it reached a temperature of 5800 K. At that point, according to law, it would be required to post a sign forbidding any additional heat from entering the premises.
Correction: “a sign forbidding any additional ENERGY from entering the premises.” (Sorry for using the “h” word again, It was an accident)
*POSTED*
————–
By decree of Lord Clausius, any photon sent by a body less than or equal to 5800 K will no longer be allowed admittance, and must immediately return to from whence it came. Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Kristian,
You don’t know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states.
It does not state that a colder body can’t heat a warmer body, just look it up for Krist’s sake.
Let me ask you, what would the temperature of the earth be after a billion years, if it kept warming at the rate shown by Dr. Spencer’s satellite measurements.
What I did in a lab, was measure the temperature of a heat source with a thermocouple, and then put insulation behind the thermocouple so that the thermocouple was between the heat source and the insulation, and what happened? The temperature went up, so a cold object, the insulation caused the temperature of the thermocouple to go up.
Earth shattering refutation of the Second Law?
I think not.
Svante says, October 18, 2017 at 3:46 PM:
It’s not ME “talking about it”, Svante. I’m commenting on OTHER people discussing this stupidity. Like g*e*r*a*n and Droege here. Droege says: “You keep forgetting the if the earth wasnt cooling part of the Pierre quote.” And: “I believe Pierres calculations, but obviously it cant be experimentally verified.”
How sensible is this? Who’s “taking it literally”?
I know perfectly well what Pierrehumbert meant when he wrote what he wrote. But he made his point in a daft, not so well thought-through (2nd Law-violating) way.
Bob Droege says, October 18, 2017 at 6:57 PM:
Yes, I do. YOU obviously don’t.
Oh, but it does. THAT’S what it says.
It wouldn’t, and it couldn’t keep warming for a billion years at the rate shown by Spencer’s satellite measurements. Such an argument is tantamount to stating: “What if unicorns were real?” Not science.
I don’t care what you did in a lab. A cold thing can’t spontaneously heat a hot thing, no matter how you twist and turn.
Exactly.
Kristian
Objects don’t need to communicate via cell phone each other’s temperature in order to comply with the 2LOT. A warmer object emits energy at a faster rate than a colder one, and will naturally be on the losing end of the exchange.
So then, If an object were unable to emit energy, the mechanism that creates the 2LOT would be missing. Surrounding objects would have no way of “knowing” how hot or cold it is.
That’s the situation in Pierrehumbert’s hypothetical. In effect, the earth is at absolute zero. The sun doesn’t know the earth’s actual temperature.
I dont care what you did in a lab. A cold thing cant spontaneously heat a hot thing, no matter how you twist and turn.
You’ve changed the conditions. You’ve described a closed system. You’ve removed the heat source and energy loss from the system.
Bob was describing an open system – it has a constantly replenishing source of energy and loss to the outside of the system.
This is the pattern here. Describe how insulation makes things warmer and the critics remove the source of heat in reply.
+1
Kristian,
You don’t get the whole law, which means you have half the understanding, here it is from Clausius,
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”
The some other change being that there is heat transfer from hot to cold.
So what is more important, observations in labs or thought experiments?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 19, 2017 at 6:41 AM:
I KNOW that’s the situation in Pierrehumbert’s hypothetical, Snape. That’s not what I take issue with.
Hmm, this is getting interesting. So how do we know that the Earth is 800,000 K if it doesn’t emit anything? How do we know the surface of the Earth is 800,000 K if it’s not emitting at all?
Pierrehumbert is essentially saying that a near-black-body surface at 800,000 K isn’t emitting a single photon.
Isn’t that quite a ridiculously unscientific premise? Like saying that IF unicorns were real, then I would be correct in claiming that there are in fact unicorns.
The only way a surface – in the REAL world – with a temperature above absolute zero could emit zero photons, would be if it had an emissivity equal to zero.
Kristian
You: “Hmm, this is getting interesting. So how do we know that the Earth is 800,000 K if it doesnt emit anything? How do we know the surface of the Earth is 800,000 K if its not emitting at all?”
We would do the math.
Kristian
You: “Isnt that quite a ridiculously unscientific premise? Like saying that IF unicorns were real, then I would be correct in claiming that there are in fact unicorns.”
Pierrehumbert put forth a make believe premise…….take it or leave it.
But if you choose to play along, don’t argue with the result.
barry says, October 19, 2017 at 5:33 AM:
Mmm, no. I’m pretty sure Droege isn’t talking about heat pumps. A heat pump transfers heat [Q] from a cooler region to a warmer one. But NOT spontaneously (that is, naturally). It is only able to do so by supplying the process with external energy in the form of (normally, electrical) work [W].
Both Droege and I are discussing NATURAL heat transfer. And natural heat transfer is ALWAYS spontaneous.
You mean of course an ISOLATED system. A closed system has heat moving freely both IN and OUT across its boundary (unless its boundary is adiabatic). The Earth is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system. But it is most certainly NOT an isolated system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system
Whether there’s a heat source present or not, a cooler region or object can NEVER spontaneously (naturally) HEAT a warmer one. Because only a HEAT SOURCE of something can heat that something. And a cold thing is NEVER the heat source of a hot thing in nature.
As I pointed out, this is completely irrelevant. The cold thing will STILL not be able to HEAT the hot thing.
Dear me.
To INSULATE something is not the same as HEATING it, barry.
A stove heats. A wall insulates.
The atmosphere INSULATES the surface of the Earth. It does not HEAT it. The SUN heats it.
The “heat” term [Q] clearly confuses you.
Bob Droege says, October 19, 2017 at 7:36 AM:
Yes, I do. The whole law.
Hehe, no. What Clausius is saying here is that for HEAT [Q] to be transferred from a cold to a hot body, WORK [W] has to be expended:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/figure_16_05_01.jpg
Like in a refrigerator and/or a heat pump.
And even if you DID interpret Clausius correctly*, you STILL wouldn’t have a case, because if more energy (not “heat”, energy; heat is, by definition, NET energy, a UNIdirectional macroscopic (thermal) transfer of energy) moves from the hot body to the cold one than the other way around, then the cold body isn’t heating the hot one. Then the hot body heats the cold one. Because the NET energy always flows (thermally) from hot to cold. THAT is what the 2nd Law states.
*Clausius does indeed discuss the situation you describe, only then he uses the term “compensation”.
Lets go back to the greenhouse effect, whereby an atmosphere, not calling it a body, since it has an emissivity close to zero, warms a warmer body by the transfer of energy through radiation, because there is a third entity, namely the Sun available to do thermodynamic work.
Maybe that will help you understand that the greenhouse effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Anyway, in order to have a net, you have to do subtraction, which means you need two things to take the difference.
Absolutely nothing to stop the two way flow of radiation anyway.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 19, 2017 at 10:01 AM:
No, that’s exactly what we DON’T do. We cannot possibly know how hot something is if it doesn’t have ANY means of letting us know (by not letting ANY energy move from itself to our measuring device). And so what we (or, Pierrehumbert, rather) do in this case is just STATING that it’s at 800,000 K.
It is assumed we know Earth’s heat capacity. How would we in this case? It is also assumed that Earth and Earth’s surface have an emissivity of exactly zero, but an absorp tivity much closer to 1? How would we know their absorp tivity in this case?
Pierrehumbert forces a violation of the 2nd Law by laying down impossible and un-physical premises. Again, just like an argument starting with the statement: “We assume unicorns exist.”
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 19, 2017 at 10:25 AM:
Hahaha! I know. Other people here, though, like Bob Droege, seem to take it very seriously and try to argue how this thing would work in reality.
I’m NOT playing along. I’m specifically pointing out how his is all a “make believe premise”, Snape.
Don’t worry, I know that Pierrehumbert understands that, IN REALITY, a 5800 K object could NEVER heat another object all the way to 800,000 K. Because it would violate the 2nd Law. It is a preposterous proposition!
Kristian
You: “by not letting ANY energy move from itself to our measuring device”
Lol…..when I said we should do the math, I wasn’t talking about using a thermometer! Pierrehumbert made his calculation based on rates of solar input over a certain period of time.
But yes, it would be exceedingly difficult to actually measure the temperature of an 800,000 planet that emitted no energy.
Kristian
You: “I’m NOT playing along. Im specifically pointing out how his is all a make believe premise, Snape.”
I’m not buying it, Kristian. You and g*e*r*a*n play along until the Earth reaches
5800 K (as if that were possible), only THEN do you complain about the premise.
Kristian
I see there’s some confusion in our argument. In my mind, the statement, “the earth would reach a temperature of 800,000 K” is a CONCLUSION . It is based the PREMISE that the earth is unable to cool itself.
Kristian
Premise:
“a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
“if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true””
Kristian
Bob Droege understands that the earth IS able to cool itself, and that the premise of Pierrehumbert’s statement is therefore make-believe.
If you choose to play along, though, the conclusion is correct.
Bob Droege says, October 19, 2017 at 10:16 AM:
You’re trying your best to deflect, I see.
We’re not talking about a “two way flow of radiation” here, Bob. We’re talking about a cold thing HEATING a hot thing. That NEVER happens in nature. 2nd Law. This is one of the most basic and fundamental laws of physics.
The atmosphere DOES NOT HEAT the surface of the Earth. The SUN heats the surface of the Earth. The relatively warm presence of the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated surface, interposed between it and the cold of space, forces the surface at dynamic equilibrium with its surroundings to be warmer on average than it would be without its presence, that is very much the case. But it is STILL the Sun and only the Sun that HEATS the surface. The atmosphere INSULATES the surface. A veeery different phenomenon …
Kristian, you are still insisting on quoting half of the second law of thermodynamics.
It shows your lack of understanding of thermodynamics.
Anyway, the universe is stochastic rather than deterministic, so it’s better to say on average, heat always flows from hot to cold.
Cold to hot is not prohibited, just unlikely.
Thanks for the link to Wiki, Kristian.
This scheme of definition of terms is not uniformly used, though it is convenient for some purposes. In particular, some writers use ‘closed system’ where ‘isolated system’ is here used.
Bob is not describing an isolated system. You are in your reply.
This endless nit-pickery about whether insulation is the cause of the warm object getting warmer.
Of course it is
The heat source doesn’t change, the object doesn’t change, the only thing that changes is that insulation is introduced.
No one saying that insulation can “cause” things to warm up is in any doubt about where the heat originates. Yet your rebuttal, and plenty like it, hinge on the stupid premise that they don’t know this.
Kristian says:
“Were not talking about a two way flow of radiation here, Bob. Were talking about a cold thing HEATING a hot thing. That NEVER happens in nature. 2nd Law. This is one of the most basic and fundamental laws of physics”
We are talking about a 2-way flow of radiation.
If you disagree, tell me which of the following logical steps is not accurate:
1) The Earth emits radiation in all directions.
2) Radiation carries energy.
3) Some of the Earths emitted radiation is in the direction of the Sun.
4) The Sun absorbs the energy directed towards it.
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its temperature increases from what it would be otherwise.
“5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its temperature increases from what it would be otherwise.”
Now David has written 5) correctly; notice the major improvement from:
5) When the Sun absorbs energy, its temperature increases.
Congrat.s David you can correct yourself unlike many others posting unphysical, untestable, and sometimes paranormal science around here. Most of them are easily spotted, some you have to consult experiment and/or proper well founded principles to spot.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 19, 2017 at 2:31 PM:
Duh!
But it is ALSO based on knowing Earth’s a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.v.i.t.y and heat capacity, which we couldn’t if the Earth did not shed a single quant of energy. So his is basically a made up (stated) figure. A guesstimate. He could just as well have said 10 million Kelvin, or anything else, really.
This is a stupid discussion, Snape. We both understand exactly what Pierrehumbert means, so why pretend that I somehow don’t. All I’m doing is pointing out to Droege (and to people like Appell) that the premise behind his analogy is an un-physical one and is not possible in the real universe. (In the real universe, a 5800K object could NEVER heat another one all the way to 800,000K.) Or as you yourself put it: “Pierrehumbert put forth a make believe premise (…)” Yup. But people (also including the likes of g*e*r*a*n) seem not to get that.
And let’s leave it at that, shall we?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 19, 2017 at 2:48 PM
Again, what a silly discussion. You’re arguing for the sake of argument. Just like barry.
I “complain about the premise” from the get-go, Snape. Not from 5800K. It’s a ridiculous premise. However, I do understand that he is just trying to make a point. OK?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 19, 2017 at 3:05 PM:
Uhm, yes. There’s no confusion about this. It is the premise that the Earth is unable to cool itself that is “make-believe”.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 19, 2017 at 3:19 PM:
A “true” conclusion following from the premise of an Earth heated by the Sun, but unable to cool itself at the same time being true would be: The Earth would warm uncontrollably, way, way beyond its current equilibrated temperature. Pierrehumbert’s 800,000 K figure, however, doesn’t itself need to be correct, Snape. It is just a stated guess.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM:
Then why doesn’t he just come out and explain this to g*e*r*a*n. Why does he rather make statements like this: “I believe Pierre’s calculations, but obviously it cant be experimentally verified.” Because he doesn’t appear to be aware of the fact that it is in fact make-believe. Both Droege and Appell very much seem to believe – based, actually, on a simple extrapolation of the idea of an “enhanced GHE” – that if we simply managed to insulate the Earth to near perfection, then we WOULD be able to reach temperatures close to what Pierrehumbert suggests.
My main beef, however, with Droege is this statement of his: “Of course you are going to tell me that a colder body can’t heat a warmer body, but as I have remarked in this thread, I have done exactly that in a lab.”
Are you going to tell me, Snape, that Droege ALSO understands the difference between HEATING and INSULATION, he only chooses not to make that clear …?
Kristian
I think you and I are pretty much in agreement, so let’s say adios to Pierrehumbert.
barry says, October 19, 2017 at 6:08 PM:
It appears you didn’t read what Droege wrote, barry.
Here’s what he said: “Of course you are going to tell me that a colder body can’t heat a warmer body, but as I have remarked in this thread, I have done exactly that in a lab.”
If you don’t see the flaw in this statement, then you’re as ignorant about this subject as he appears to be.
Hint: The Sun, hotter than Earth’s surface, HEATS the surface. The atmosphere, cooler than Earth’s surface, but warmer than space, INSULATES the surface.
A colder body NEVER heats a warmer body. Even if the warmer body has a separate heat source, barry. The colder body COOLS the warmer body. It is only a question of how effectively it cools it.
Got it?
So I went over to Postmas place, and I think I got banned after two posts, go figure.
Anyway, I did the green plate experiment this morning with a stove top, thermometer and a couple plates.
Put one plate on the stove, at as low a temp as seemed stable and measured the temperature, when temp was stable for a while, I added another plate.
Temperature went up, contrary to some interpretations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
My conclusion is those who claim the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits heat from cold to hot are wrong.
Experiment trumps theory every time.
Readers could try it themselves, don’t believe me.
A colder body NEVER heats a warmer body. Even if the warmer body has a separate heat source, barry. The colder body COOLS the warmer body. It is only a question of how effectively it cools it.
Got it?
Constant heat source warming a body…
Without insulation, temp is X
With insulation, temp is > X
Introduction of insulation caused the temperature to increase
Everyone knows the insulation is not the original source of heat, and everyone knows that it reduces the efficiency of heat loss from the body.
The rest is chest-butting, semantics and a host of other crap.
barry says, October 21, 2017 at 4:33 PM:
You simply refuse to get it, don’t you, barry? You’re not reading what I write. And you’re not following my discussion with Droege. You’re just – as always – arguing for the sake of arguing.
There is only one way of making a constantly heated thermodynamic system, after it’s reached an initial steady state (heat IN = heat OUT, no further change in U and T), warmer, that is, to make its U and T start rising further.
You need to somehow open up a new (and positive) imbalance between the incoming and the outgoing heat (Q_in ≠ Q_out). (Note, we assume there’s no work [W] performed by or on the system.)
There are two ways to create such a positive imbalance:
1) You increase the incoming heat [+Q_in], or
2) you decrease the outgoing heat [-Q_out].
To accomplish 1), you simply need to increase the heat input from the system’s heat source – you ramp up the HEATING.
To accomplish 2), however, you need to reduce the heat output from the system itself – you add more INSULATION, or you make the existing one tighter and denser, thereby less permeable.
These two processes produce the same end result – warming (rising temps). Yet they are fundamentally different, thermodynamically. In terms of climate and global warming, 1) would be equivalent to an increase in solar input (+ASR), while 2) would be equivalent to an “enhanced GHE” (-OLR).
In BOTH cases, though, the Sun, and only the Sun, is what HEATS the surface. The atmosphere COOLS the surface, only less effectively than space would, at any given T_s.
THAT’S what insulation does. It is NOT something cool HEATING something warm. It is something cool COOLING something warm in a less efficient way, allowing that warm thing to warm even more IF it is already HEATED by a separate heat source.
Heat and heating only move spontaneously from hot to cold, never from cold to hot. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
That’s not to say that insulation doesn’t work, barry.
All I’m saying is that Droege needs to read up on what HEAT and HEATING actually is. And so, apparently, do you …
Bob Droege says, October 21, 2017 at 2:37 PM:
Postma is an idiot:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/postmas-confusion/
But he does get a few things right, like the HEAT thing:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/the-heat-issue-once-again/
You don’t:
One more time:
The 2nd Law indeed prohibits HEAT [Q] from moving spontaneously from cold to hot. That’s what the law is for!
“The first law of thermodynamics provides the basic definition of internal energy, associated with all thermodynamic systems, and states the rule of conservation of energy. The second law is concerned with the direction of natural processes. It asserts that a natural process runs only in one sense, and is not reversible. For example, heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and never the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system. Its modern definition is in terms of entropy.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Introduction
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/thermo2.gif
The 1st Law would allow net energy to move in whatever direction. That’s why we have the 2nd Law, to tell us that this is not how the universe works.
The 2nd Law says nothing about the direction of ENERGY. It specifically dictates the direction of HEAT. Energy as such can go anywhere, but heat cannot. 1st Law vs. 2nd Law.
Kristian 5:55am: “It is something cool COOLING something warm in a less efficient way, allowing that warm thing to warm even more IF it is already HEATED by a separate heat source.”
Kristian twists cooling into warming. Quite a feat of barry’s chest-butting, semantics and a host of other crap.
Word jazz is all Kristian has to experiment with, no tests performed, no confidence intervals calculated so uses data not fit for purpose and claims opposite Earth system OLR direction than CERES Team using all the meaningful data. Kristian should read all CERES team reports and learn from Dr. Spencer’s experiments in the “lab” and in situ on the atm. Though I know that is not going to happen.
Thus I will predict the twisting of cooling into warming (and other pretzels in part by sorely misusing Clausius’ heat def.) will continue for entertainment of the critical, informed denizens & not their enlightenment.
Ball4 says, October 22, 2017 at 8:07 AM:
You still here, troll?
Kristian
You: There are two ways to create such a positive imbalance:
1) You increase the incoming heat [+Q_in], or
2) you decrease the outgoing heat [-Q_out].
#2 has the same end result as #1, so it’s understandable that people might use the same word to describe both actions, even though “heating” is an inaccurate way to describe #2
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 22, 2017 at 10:52 PM:
It’s “understandable” if laypersons, people who really haven’t got more than superficial knowledge of physics, conflate these terms and processes. But it is NOT understandable in a “scientific” blog discussion such as this, that people, even after having been TOLD and SHOWN, time and time again, the definition of heat, heating and insulation, STILL won’t get it. These are such simple concepts.
Droege still INSISTS that a cold body can and will HEAT a warm body in nature. Maybe you could explain it to him …?
Kristian,
Read your own cite,
“However, for systems with a small number of particles, thermodynamic parameters, including the entropy, may show significant statistical deviations from that predicted by the second law”
You are wrong
If you define heat as transfer of energy from hot to cold….
I don’t accept that definition, it is not what I was taught in school.
To be consistent with concepts like specific heat, heat is a property of matter as the sum of kinetic and internal energy of an object.
bobdroege says: October 25, 2017 7:57 PM “However for systems with a small number of particles, thermodynamic properties, including the entropy, may show significant statistical deviations from that predicted by the second law.”
So how many is a small number of particles? 10? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000?
Well at room temperature and pressure there are ~10^19 molecules in one cubic centimeter of air. That’s about the size of a sugar cube you put in your coffee. The smallest speck that the naked eye can see is about 0.1mm, so a cube with that dimension would contain ~10^13, ten TRILLION molecules. There’s no way around the fact that 10,000,000,000,000 molecules is waaaay more than would statistically deviate from the 2nd Law.
And the microscopic description of even such a small speck of atmosphere would require the complete description, position, direction of motion, velocity of EACH of those 10^13 particles in that system.
That is why only thermodynamics (macro) is relevant to the discussion here of heat transfer between hot and cold objects.
Your introducing “microscopic” is just a Droege distraction.
Kristian and those confirming that heat spontaneously only transfers from higher temperature objects to lower temperature objects is right. You and others who are claiming that heat can spontaneously transfer from lower temperature objects to higher temperature objects are wrong. 2nd Law prevails in the real world we live in.
RealOldOne2, spare me the caps, I was quoting from Kristian’s source so I didn’t say what you said I said.
If you say the second law prohibits heat transfer from cold to hot, you are only quoting half the law and are flunking thermodynamics.
Both the macro thermodynamics approach and the micro quantum mechanics approach must arrive at the same answer or you are doing something wrong.
Heat flows from the cold atmosphere to the surface of the earth due to radiation from the CO2 in the atmosphere which radiates based only on the temperature and concentration of the CO2.
The reason this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics is because the Sun is doing work on the system.
And yes, I performed the green plate effect experiment and verified the increase in temperature.
bobdroege says: October 27, 2017:
“Spare me the caps, I was quoting from Kristian’s source, so I didn’t say what you said I say.”
You’re desperate for criticism calling attention to two emphasized words out of 200+ in the comment and making a pointless claim. And yes, they were words from Kristian’s source as anyone reading your and Kristian’s comment can see. I wasn’t attributing them to you. I was identifying which comment of yours I was replying to. The “bobdroege says:” is part of the header of that comment. Perhaps I should have put single quotes inside the double quotes. You are quibbling nonetheless.
“If you say the second law prohibits heat transfer from cold to hot, you are only holding half the law and are flunking thermodynamics.”
No bob, I’m quoting the whole law, as Kristian explained in his comment of Oct 19 at 8:49 AM. In this string of thermodynamics he has shown that it is you who is flunking thermodynamics.
“Both the macro thermodynamics approach and the micro quantum mechanics approach must arrive at the same answer or you are doing something wrong.”
The do arrive at the same answer, and that answer is that heat is only transferred from higher temperature objects to lower temperature objects.
And your whole comment was another droege distraction and dodge, because you failed to address the face that any real world problem is a macro problem because the number of molecules is 10^13+.
bobdroege says: October 27, 2017 at 10:09 PM
“Heat flows from the cold atmosphere to the surface of the earth due to radiation from the CO2 in the atmosphere which radiates based only on the temperature and the concentration of CO2.”
No it doesn’t, because you are ignoring the greater, simultaneous radiation from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere. You are only looking at half the problem.
And the second part is ludicrous because the whole atmosphere, 99.96% of which is not CO2 is what is radiating.
“The reason this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics is because the Sun is doing work on the system.”
So you don’t understand the thermodynamics definition of work either. And the Sun is doing no work at night on the half of the earth’s atmosphere and surface while you still claim that the cold atmosphere is transferring heat to the warmer surface.
RealOldOne2
You say
“And the second part is ludicrous because the whole atmosphere, 99.96% of which is not CO2 is what is radiating.”
No, absolutely not, the Nitrogen and Oxygen are not radiating in the infrared. Well maybe a billionth of what the CO2 is doing.
Also you say
“So you dont understand the thermodynamics definition of work either. And the Sun is doing no work at night on the half of the earths atmosphere and surface while you still claim that the cold atmosphere is transferring heat to the warmer surface.”
So the Sun does work in the daytime?
Or maybe you can explain how I have the thermo definition of work wrong. But I doubt it.
I thought so
CO2 as a gas in the atmosphere radiates infrared and the amount of this radiation depends only on the concentration of CO2 and the temperature of the CO2 gas.
Some of this radiation hits the surface and some of this is absorbed by the surface. Which adds energy to the surface which is expressed as heat.
This does not depend on the temperature of the surface.
barry…”I do not see why EM radiation from the cooler sun would not be seen by the blue plate”.
I did not say that, I said as long as the cooler star is warmer than the blue plate both sources should contribute to warming the plate.
“Otherwise, we could not see those stars. Our eyes are warmer than the heat they give off to us at those great distances”.
Our eyes don’t operate through heating, they have EM converters that convert EM to electro-bio-chemical energy. They also have converters that convert various EM frequencies to colour.
Eyes are amazing, and IMHO, there is no way…absolutely no way…the intelligence in the eye came from sheer fluke through natural selection. The eye is a mind-blowing device that converts EM to sight, but sight involves deeper layers of the brain that manage to interpret the EM into physical imagery.
As biologist Rupert Sheldrake pointed out, When the eye takes in an image, the image is reversed and turned upside-down by the lens. The image lands on the retina where rods and cones interpret the black-white imagery and the colour content. That signal is sorted out by the brain to produce an image in the brain for interpretation.
That’s where it should end, as an image in the brain. But, wait…the brain then projects it back out so we see the image where it originated. Where does that image come from, the eye cannot project EM and we cannot see straight from the image on the retina. It has to be processed by the brain first.
That is apparently a learned skill since people who have been blind from birth and regain their sight have serious problems with orientation.
You can only imagine what a new born baby sees.
re colour content…I meant to say the retina converts various EM frequencies to colour. There is no colour in EM.
I did not say that, I said as long as the cooler star is warmer than the blue plate both sources should contribute to warming the plate.
I did not say that. I specifically stated that the energy being received by the blue late from the sun introduced, is less than the energy emitted by the blue plate surface. When swapping te gren plate out for this sun, I stated that it was emitting at the same power (received by the blue plate) as the green plate: 100 w/m2.
Now that this is clarified, do you still think that if it is a sun emitting energy at 100 w/m2 to the blue plate, instead of a green plate emitting energy at the same power to the blue (and likewise lower than the energy being emitted by the blue), that this would not constitute additional energy being radiated to the blue plate?
IOW, if A sun radiates 100 w/m2 to a blue plate emitting 200 w/m2, the sun will not add any energy to the blue plate (thus causing it to worm)?
That would appear to be your position. It seems counter-intuitive to me (which is why I swapped the green plate with a sun emitting at the same power as received by the blue).
And this isn’t some weird mind-thought. All you’d need is another sun of the same power as the original one, but further away. A planet between Mars and Jupiter would receive 100 w/m2 from our own sun.
But you think a new energy source (sun) could not add energy to a warmer, passive emitter already receiving energy from a warmer sun?
Really?
There is a difference between an energy source (generating new energy within itself and emitting it) and a passive object (not generating new energy within itself, effectively just emitting what it has received from the energy source).
“IOW, if A sun radiates 100 w/m2 to a blue plate emitting 200 w/m2, the sun will not add any energy to the blue plate (thus causing it to worm)?”
Yes it will, because it’s a source of NEW energy to the system. Whereas the green plate is a passive object introduced at (presumably) 0 K. Think about it first without the second sun, just the original setup with blue at equilibrium with sun, then green plate added.
The internal energy in the blue plate (which is warmer than the green plate when the green is introduced) will flow to the green plate until equilibrium is reached (there will always be a higher flux from blue to green than from green to blue, until they are at equilibrium, when the flux will be equal). The energy that is being lost within the blue plate, however, is getting replaced at all times by NEW energy it’s receiving from the sun. So, that being said, the blue plate has no reason to drop in temperature because at every point that it’s emitting energy to the green plate, it’s receiving “replacement” energy from the sun. So equilibrium is reached when that green plate is the same temperature as the blue. It will then be radiating the same flux to the blue as it receives FROM the blue. At all points following the introduction of the green plate until equilibrium, there are fluxes of EM energy going both ways between the plates. Blue receives energy from green, and green receives energy from blue. However to start with, the green plate is at 0 K thus not emitting anything. But as soon as it receives energy from the blue, it will start to raise in temperature and thus radiate back a smaller flux (always smaller than what it receives from the blue) until at equilibrium it is at the same temperature and thus emitting the same flux as it receives, back to the blue (and of course from out the other side of it, into space).
However if you add a second sun, the green plate is now receiving NEW energy from the second sun AS WELL AS the energy from the blue plate (which itself initially came from the first sun).
And if you add a second sun instead of the green plate, the blue plate is now receiving NEW energy from the second sun AS WELL AS the energy from the first sun.
Owl
Setting aside the “second sun” discussion for a moment, you’re wrong about the blue plate and green plate reaching the same temperature. Tim Folkarts did a great job of walking through the math and showing that the blue plate will reach an equilibrium at a much higher temperature than the green (upthread somewhere).
Intuitively, we know that an object sitting in the hot sun will be warmer than a nearby object sitting in the shade.
Nope.
And if you add a second sun instead of the green plate, the blue plate is now receiving NEW energy from the second sun AS WELL AS the energy from the first sun.
That is why I brought up the swap.
Both green plate and sun are emitting energy to the blue plate. At the same power as received by the blue plate. And lower w/m2 than the blue plate is emitting.
Why is the material difference in the energy that makes a blue plate receive it from a sun but not from a green plate?
That is the point proponents of this notion never answer.
Typo: why = what.
So equilibrium is reached when that green plate is the same temperature as the blue. It will then be radiating the same flux to the blue as it receives FROM the blue.
The blue plate is receiving (at first) an extra 100 w/m2 from the green plate. Just as it does from the cooler sun I introduced.
In your conception, the green plates energy is not received by the blue plate (warming it up), but it is received from the cooler sun.
What is the material difference in the radiation being received by the blue plate that makes it receive it from the sun, but not the green plate? Its the same amount of energy. So something else about it, something physical, must make the the blue plate reject it from the green plate but not the blue.
What is that physical difference?
There’s no material difference in the radiation itself. It’s all EM radiation. Wavelength might be different but not relevant to the point being made. No material difference.
“The blue plate is receiving (at first) an extra 100 w/m2 from the green plate. Just as it does from the cooler sun I introduced”
It is not receiving anything from the green plate at first, because it’s presumably introduced at 0 K, hence isn’t radiating anything. However, it makes no difference to understanding. Let’s pretend it is introduced at a temperature whereby it’s already emitting 100 W/m2. There is no internal energy source within the green plate. So anything it radiates into space (away from the blue plate) is not replaced by any internal energy source. Therefore it can only be replaced by what it’s receiving on the other side (from the blue plate).
Now read again from “The internal energy in the blue plate (which is warmer than the green plate when the green is introduced) will flow to the green plate until equilibrium…”
It’s not a difference in the radiation itself that’s relevant. It’s the fact that an energy source is constantly producing NEW energy.
“In your conception, the green plates energy is not received by the blue plate”
False. I specifically was very, very clear to point out that:
“At all points following the introduction of the green plate until equilibrium, there are fluxes of EM energy going both ways between the plates. Blue receives energy from green, and green receives energy from blue.”
Just keep reading through the first post again. You’ll get it.
Ok, got the correction:
Blue receives energy from green, and green receives energy from blue.
The concept I’ve been challenged with is that the blue plate energy state won’t increase (become warmer), with the energy received from green, but it will with solar energy received of the same power.
I totally get that the heat flow will always be hot to cold. I completely get that the blue plate is losing more energy than it receives from the green plate (and from the 2nd sun). I also get that green plate energy is dependent on blue plate energy and is not its own source of power (your point).
But I do not get why the radiation coming from the green plate does not increase blue state energy.
The green plate is, like the 2nd sun, a constant emitter of energy to the blue plate while it is being heated by the blue plate.
There is a point (on its heating journey, in your conception) where the green plate radiates even more energy to the blue plate than the introduced 2nd sun. But people tell me that even then it cannot provide additional energy to the blue plate (warming it up) that the sun does.
I don’t see this working at all. Once the green plate heats up it becomes a constant emitter, like the second sun. It is constantly radiating energy received by the blue plate.
But for some strange reason the blue plate energy state won’t be increased by the green plate, but it will by the 2nd sun, which is now emitting even less powerfully to the blue plate than the green plate.
There must be some mechanism, for this conception, where the energy received by the green plate is not taken up by the blue plate.
I cant’ imagine what in hell that could be.
And lest it be forgotten, there is always a sun off to the left heating the blue plate.
“The concept Ive been challenged with is that the blue plate energy state wont increase (become warmer), with the energy received from green, but it will with solar energy received of the same power.”
The energy received by the blue plate from the green plate will not increase the energy state of the blue plate, because for all points up until equilibrium between blue and green, blue is emitting more energy towards green than it is receiving from blue (because blue is always at a higher temperature, until equilibrium). It still receives from the green. But it’s emitting MORE back, towards the blue, at all points, up until equilibrium.
Should have read:
“The energy received by the blue plate from the green plate will not increase the energy state of the blue plate, because for all points up until equilibrium between blue and green, blue is emitting more energy towards green than it is receiving from GREEN”
Also should have been:
“But the blue is emitting MORE back, towards the GREEN, at all points, up until equilibrium.”
Ho hum, I’ll get there in a minute.
barry…”But I do not get why the radiation coming from the green plate does not increase blue state energy”.
You need to stop talking in terms of generic energy and specify which energy you are talking about.
Heat cannot flow from the green plate to the blue plate or vice versa. Heat is constrained to atoms. If you could take a handful of atoms from the green plate at 10C and slap them onto the blue plate at 20C, what would happen?
Would heat flow from the green atoms to the blue plate? Nope. Would heat flow from the blue plate to the green atoms? Yep.
There is nothing different with radiation, just the messenger.
Let’s just write that out again, to avoid confusion:
The concept Ive been challenged with is that the blue plate energy state wont increase (become warmer), with the energy received from green, but it will with solar energy received of the same power.
The energy received by the blue plate from the green plate will not increase the energy state of the blue plate, because for all points up until equilibrium between blue and green, blue is emitting more energy towards green than it is receiving from green (because blue is always at a higher temperature than green, until equilibrium). Blue still receives from green. But blue is emitting MORE back, towards the green, at all points, up until equilibrium.
As for your 2nd sun…I was assuming it was a point source. In which case most radiation from the blue plate going right will not actually hit the sun. However it (blue plate) would receive all the energy incoming from the sun on it’s right side (plus still all energy from the other sun on its left). That’s why it makes the blue plate overall warmer than it would be otherwise.
Although, if you were considering your second sun to be a plate like the blue plate, just with an energy source inside it…then I think it would be a peculiar situation in which the “sun” was essentially no different to adding a passive plate. The sun would be warmed by the blue plate just like the passive green plate! Not 100% sure. But think so. It (the sun) would be receiving more energy from the blue plate than it would be emitting towards it. So the principle should be the same.
Let’s summarize your position after both plate’s are the same temperature:
Blue plate receives 400w/m^2 from the sun, but only emits a net of 200w/m^2. (200 to the left, 0 net to the right)
Green plate receives no net energy from the left, but emits 200 w/m^2 to the right.
That’s some pretty funky math!
At this stage in the debate it’s just getting a little sad.
Your math is sad.
Owl,
Why would a sun emitting at the same power (as received by the blue plate) as the green plate, add to the blue plate energy state, but not the green plate?
In your replies, you have said:
Sun is constant source. Green plate stats at zero.
But once green plate begins to warm, it too becomes constant source of energy. Just like the sun.
You said:
Blue plate is emitting more energy than it is receiving from the green plate, therefore no energy can be added to blue plate.
But the energy received by the blue plate from the second sun is also at a lower power than the blue plate is emitting. So the blue plate should not, according to you, receive additional energy from the 2nd sun, because it emits more than received from the 2nd sun.
1) Both green plate and sun are constant emitters of energy (when green heats up).
2) Both green plate and sun emit at the same power (when green heats up enough) received by the blue plate. And less than the blue plate emits.
Apart from being an active and passive emitter, I just don’t see why the sun warms the blue plate but not the green plate.
I still don’t see any material difference that causes the blue plate to receive and increase energy state from the (lower power) energy from the 2nd sun, but not the (lower power) energy from the green plate.
(Point source not necessary. Blue plate must lose heat bidirectionally. If it did not, blue plate would be transparent. It’s a blackbody on both sides. Satellites measure the IR going sunwards from Earth atmosphere. That surface does indeed lose energy directly towards the sun. Space is cold)
I’ve already explained, Barry. If there is no green plate added, but a point source sun, then most directions in which the right side of the blue plate can emit will miss the sun. So in that sense there is almost no difference to that situation than having the right side of the blue plate emitting to space (as it was before the sun was added). However, the right side of the blue plate would now be receiving emissions from the 2nd sun. A situation that IS different to before the sun was added.
Why do you consider that the green plate emits 100 W/m2 anyway? Do you imagine that it is introduced already at such a temperature that it emits this flux? Why would it not be introduced at 0K? Either way, it will equilibrate at the same temperature as the blue plate. Even if introduced as “green plate sun” it will equilibrate at the same temperature as the blue plate.
It seems unlikely at this stage that anyone would still not understand the view factor issue, the difference that a point source and a plate will make. So I’m starting to think you are not arguing in good faith.
You need to stop talking in terms of generic energy and specify which energy you are talking about.
Using the generic term energy obviates the endless discussions about the difference between heat and energy. In the set up under discussion, the forms of energy that make a difference are radiative energy and thermal energy (EM radiation and the energy contained in a solid object, like a plate).
And if you argue that these definitions are wrong, it will do absolutely nothing to advance the discussion.
I think much of the dustup comes from confusing heat and energy. they are not the same thing, though they are interlinked. So I stick to energy because it is common to all the action in the 2-plate set up.
And Barry, if you choose to believe that there is only one direction in which the blue plate can emit from its right hand side (which I would assume you imagine is in a direction exactly perpendicular to the blue plate) then this is the same thing as assuming that all energy sources are plates (but with an energy source inside it). In which case you also have to assume the FIRST sun is a plate. If the first sun is a plate then both blue plate and green plate (OR green plate/sun if you imagine it to have an energy source inside it producing a flux of only 100 W/m2) will equilibrate at approx. 290 K (i.e emitting a flux of 400 W/m2, instead of 200 W/m2).
If you instead assume that the right hand side of the blue plate can emit in an infinite number of directions (as is the case in reality) then, as with the first sun, you need to consider whether the 2nd sun is a point source or like another plate (but with an energy source inside it).
I know that all objects emit radiation in all directions.
The 2-plate set up is bidirectional only for:
1) ease of computation.
2 analogous to atmosphere, which is a shell around the Earth
You have been accepting the 2D set up so far. Do you have any response to the points I made in the framework we have been using?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269270
I think it would be a peculiar situation in which the sun was essentially no different to adding a passive plate. The sun would be warmed by the blue plate just like the passive green plate! Not 100% sure. But think so. It (the sun) would be receiving more energy from the blue plate than it would be emitting towards it. So the principle should be the same.
Yes.
I would think that the real sun is infinitesimally warmed by the planets around it.
Infinitesimal being the operative word. Huge distances, tiny comparative surface area to sun, 3D loss of heat by sun covering a vast area.
System planets slow solar heat loss to deep space by a (relatively) tiny amount.
Embiggen the picture. Surround our sun with a blackbody shell 1000 kilometers distant. The sun would get warmer because as the shell heats up some of its energy is returned to the sun. Sun has to shed more energy to compensate – gets hotter to do so. Now millions of planets a micron apart from each other, and also 1000 kilometers distant from the solar atmosphere. Planets heat up until system equilibrates. Sun gets hotter, too. Now stretch that distance to 100 billion kilometers. Much bigger gaps between planets. Same thing happening but with less effect. Now remove all but 9 planets and spread them out. Same effect but infinitesimal.
And by “bi-directional” you mean, each side of each plate emits in one direction only, exactly perpendicularly to the plate, yes? So the right side of the blue plate emits, going right, in one direction exactly perpendicular to the plate. And the left side of the blue plate emits, going left, in one direction exactly perpendicular to the plate. So, for consistency, the sun (first sun as in original set up) must be emitting from its right side, going right, at that same angle, and on its left side, going left, at that same angle. In other words, the sun is also a plate. Its left side emission is not shown as it’s not relevant to the thought experiment.
So in that case both blue and green plates equilibrate at 290 K, therefore each emitting 400 W/m2. For reasons explained ad nauseam on various sites.
Considering the reality of emission (i.e all objects radiate in all (infinite) directions), with the sun as a point source, the blue and green plates equilibrate at 244 K, therefore each emitting 200 W/m2. Still considering the reality of emission, with the sun as a plate containing an energy source, the blue and green plates equilibrate at 290 K, therefore each emitting 400 W/m2. Your “bi-directional” energy flows, applied consistently (as it should be) just mean that the sun should be considered to be a plate with an energy source.
And by bi-directional you mean, each side of each plate emits in one direction only, exactly perpendicularly to the plate, yes?
Yes. Two directions, left and right of the plate.
So, for consistency, the sun (first sun as in original set up) must be emitting from its right side, going right, at that same angle, and on its left side, going left, at that same angle.
For the sake of argument, yes, but the important point is how much the blue plate receives from it.
In other words, the sun is also a plate. Its left side emission is not shown as its not relevant to the thought experiment.
Sure, why not?
So in that case both blue and green plates equilibrate at 290 K, therefore each emitting 400 W/m2. For reasons explained ad nauseam on various sites.
I have found the other site arguing this as unconvincing as such arguments here.
I think there is a thermal gradient left to right. So do others here. “Ad nauseum” does not equal “true.”
The blue plate is heated directly by the sun. The green plate is shielded from the sun and only gets energy that the blue plate can give it. 200 w/m2. It emits 100 w/m2 each side.
The green plate cannot heat up any further without help. Not without breaking the first law. Energy cannot be created.
In order for the green plate to get warm enough to emit more than 200 w/m2 total, it can only get that energy from the blue plate.
How does this happen?
The blue plate receives energy from the sun and now also from green plate. It gets warmer because it is now receiving more energy, so now it must shed more energy. It sheds more energy towards the green plate (and the sun). Which warms the green plate.
And so on until heat loss from the 2-plate system = solar input.
The point on which we disagree is that the blue plate energy state can be increased by the energy it receives from the green plate.
That’s the crux of our disagreement, not point sources or sun-plates.
And that’s the reason I swap the green plate for a cool sun emitting at the same power. Most people agree that this would add energy to the blue plate. It’s intuitive. That’s why it’s a useful lead.
Not that we’ve resolved it between us yet, I acknowledge. We’ll see what happens.
OK. We’re getting somewhere. Infinitely large plate sun radiates to infinitely large blue plate, 400 W/m2. This is produced from an internal energy source within the sun. Blue plate is introduced at 0 K. Thus, not emitting. Blue plate receives, on its sun-facing side, 400 W/m2 from the sun. The temperature of the blue plate begins to increase as it receives the flux from the sun. So…we can go back to my previous explanation and substitute in the correct objects, e.g:
The internal energy in the sun (which is warmer than the blue plate when the blue is introduced) will flow to the blue plate until equilibrium is reached (there will always be a higher flux from sun to blue than from blue to sun, until they are at equilibrium, when the fluxes will be equal). The energy that is being lost within the sun, however, is getting replaced at all times by NEW energy that is being generated within the sun. So, that being said, the sun has no reason to drop in temperature because at every point that its emitting energy to the blue plate, its receiving replacement energy from within itself (the internal nuclear reactions going on within it that are liberating energy). So equilibrium is reached when that blue plate is the same temperature as the sun (290 K). It will then be radiating the same flux to the sun as it receives FROM the sun. At all points following the introduction of the blue plate until equilibrium, there are fluxes of EM energy going both ways between the sun plate and blue plate. Sun receives energy from blue, and blue receives energy from the sun. However to start with, the blue plate is at 0 K thus not emitting anything. But as soon as it receives energy from the sun, it will start to raise in temperature and thus radiate back a smaller flux (always smaller than what it receives from the sun) until at equilibrium it is at the same temperature and thus emitting the same flux as it receives, back to the sun (and of course from out the other side of it, into space).
You have to be aware that, in Eli’s own words from one of his latest comments at his own blog:
“Just to concentrate minds. The problem assumes infinitely thin, infinitely large, perfectly conducting, flat plates with two sides.
This is physics, not engineering and such idealizations are common, clarifying and useful for understanding.
Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides.”
Since consideration of distance between plates is irrelevant, it must be seen that the infinitely large plate sun is actually at 290 K (thus emitting 400 W/m2). It’s not that it is actually warmer in and of itself, but further away. Because distance between plates is irrelevant in the example, as Eli himself has stated.
Fine with most of that.
The sun plate is emitting at 800w/m2.
It has 2 surfaces, so divide that figure by 2 to get its flux towards the blue plate. 400 w/m2.
When the blue plate warms up to equilibrate with the 400 w/m2 it is receiving, it is now emitting 200 w/m2 from each of its 2 surfaces.
The green plate is introduced, now warms up from the 200 w/m2 it is receiving. 100 w/m2 each way.
The energy loss from the 2 plate system is 300 w/m2 (summing loss of energy from both sides).
It is now out of equilibrium with the energy that the 2 plate system is receiving.
Green plate cannot get any warmer (can’t emit more) because the blue late is only giving it 200 w/m2.
But blue plate is now receiving 400 w/m2 from the sun, and 100 w/m2 from the green plate. So it warms, and….
And this is the bit you and I disagree on. I think.
Somehow you conceive that the green plate emits 200 w/m2 from its right side.
It’s only receiving energy from the blue plate. It is shielded from the direct energy of the sun by the blue plate. There is distance between them, so they are not meshed into one perfect conductor. The green plate is not transparent. The green plate must emit from both sides, as the sun does, as the green plate does. Things must radiate in all directions.
I can’t see how the green plate warms up to the same temperature as the blue plate. It’s only receiving half the energy of the blue plate, just as the blue plate is receiving only have the energy of the plate-sun.
I think there has to be a negative temperature gradient from left to right.
Typo:
The green plate must emit from both sides, as the sun does, as the blue plate does. Things must radiate in all directions.
Barry. The sun plate is at 290 K, so it’s emitting 400 W/m2. The number of sides is irrelevant. Once the blue plate equilibrates with the sun plate it too is at 290 K, and is emitting 400 W/m2. Number of sides still irrelevant. 800 W/m2 is not a number occurring anywhere in this. You don’t add up fluxes based on the number of sides an object has.
Remember this?
“There is no internal energy source within the green plate. So anything it radiates into space (away from the blue plate) is not replaced by any internal energy source. Therefore it can only be replaced by what its receiving on the other side (from the blue plate)”.
Well this applies to the blue plate (before the green is added) as well as the green, e.g:
“There is no internal energy source within the blue plate. So anything it radiates into space (away from the sun plate) is not replaced by any internal energy source. Therefore it can only be replaced by what it’s receiving on the other side (from the sun plate)”.
With the sun plate and blue plate situation: from the side of the blue plate facing away from the sun, the *internal energy* within the blue plate is continuously being lost. However, It is continuously being replaced by the energy the blue plate is receiving on its other side, which it gains continuously from the sun (since the sun is continuously producing NEW energy). So considering the internal energy within the blue plate: area of continuous loss (side facing away from the sun) is equal to the area of continuous gain from the sun (side facing towards the sun). 1:1 on surface area.
I’m sure you know that already though. You’re just not being honest at all any more.
As I seem to keep having to repeat myself, let me do so again to make it absolutely clear:
“So in that case both blue and green plates equilibrate at 290 K, therefore each emitting 400 W/m2”
“Each emitting 400 W/m2” means emitting 400 W/m2 in each direction (if we are sticking to this “bi-directional” flow). There is no need to divide up any fluxes. When you have the sun as an infinite plate, same as the blue and green, that is the result.
You dont add up fluxes based on the number of sides an object has.
Of course you do. We’re dealing in w/m2. That’s a function of area.
If you put a thermal shield across half the face of the sun, the Earth will receive less energy. Our sun sun does not emit the totality of its energy from 1 square meter of its surface.
Surface area matters.
Each of our blackbody plates has 2 surfaces, left and right. They are not transparent. They are not one-dimensional. The sun-plate is likewise not one-dimensional. But, as you said, we are not interested in the energy being emitted out the left side of the sun-plate (or sun). Because that energy does not reach the 2-plate system.
The implication of your view is this: we could put a giant mirror construct behind the sun, redirecting the light from the other side to shine on Earth. Earth should get no more energy according to you.
“Of course you do. Were dealing in w/m2. Thats a function of area.”
You don’t add up fluxes based on the number of sides an object has. An object emits based on its temperature, in all directions. So that’s two directions given your “bi-directional” flow. At 290 K an object emits 400 W/m2. So that’s 400 W/m2 in the two directions.
As for where ‘surface area matters”, as I explained, it’s 1:1.
You keep finding new ways to confuse yourself.
“The implication of your view is this: we could put a giant mirror construct behind the sun”
The sun plate is infinitely large, Barry. If you put a giant mirror “behind” it, the energy isn’t going to go get past, to the blue plate.
Try to understand the impact of reciprocal view factors.
“The implication of your view is this: we could put a giant mirror construct behind the sun”
The sun plate is infinitely large, Barry. If you put a giant mirror “behind” it, the energy isnt going to go get past, to the blue plate.
You’re not reading very carefully. Let’s add the rest of the sentence.
“The implication of your view is this: we could put a giant mirror construct behind the sun, redirecting the light from the other side to shine on Earth”
Our sun, not the abstract concept.
In Owl’s (and presumably your) view, no more energy would be received by the Earth with this arrangement.
Is that what you think?
“If you put a thermal shield across half the face of the sun, the Earth will receive less energy”
You can’t put a thermal shield across half of infinity. That makes no sense. The plates are infinitely large. Your diversions back to reality (thinking about the real Earth and sun) should only serve to remind you that those conditions are not what is featured in Eli’s thought experiment. In Eli’s thought experiment, the plates are infinitely large. Therefore any finite-sized “thermal shield” makes absolutely no difference as the area of the sun not shielded is infinitely greater. It’s exactly the same thing with your mirror.
You are just desperately trying to add any complications you can possibly think of, to in some way either convince yourself, or others (or both) that Eli’s thought experiment and the solution he’s given have any credence. They do not.
You will probably continue to do this, to bring up ever more irrelevant analogies and contortions of logic, until this article is closed for commenting.
Rest assured I will (where possible) write just one post each day, from here until the article closes for comment, probably just something along the lines of, “my previous comments refute your arguments. I suggest you read them”, if you continue to respond in disagreement.
P.S: Owl and I are the same person.
Owl, whenever I mention the Earth in the same sentence, I am clearly talking about the real sun, (ours) not the abstract one in the 2D set up.
Hopefully, now that is clear, you can forget the infinite area rebuttal and tend to the points as made.
I dont see how you can disagree that throwing a thermal shield in front of half the face of our sun would mean Earth receives less energy.
I dont see how you can disagree that reflecting the energy emitted by the far side of the sun to Earth would add energy to Earth.
I dont see how you can disagree that a portion of the surface area of an object emitting thermal energy only yields a portion of its total emitted energy, not all of it.
“Owl, whenever I mention the Earth in the same sentence, I am clearly talking about the real sun, (ours) not the abstract one in the 2D set up.”
Yes. Obviously. As I said:
“Your diversions back to reality (thinking about the real Earth and sun) should only serve to remind you that those conditions are not what is featured in Elis thought experiment.”
What do you not understand?
You are asking me a question. My genuine answer is, “I don’t know”. I don’t know because in the real-life situation to which you refer, you now have to consider: all objects emitting in all directions. Distance between objects being relevant. That the Earth and sun are spheres and not flat plates. That the Earth is rotating on its axis. That the Earth orbits the sun (so at some times of the year the mirror will not be behind the sun in relation to the Earth – unless you are imagining that the mirror creeps around the sun at the same rate so it’s always in the right place!). That the view of the sun from the Earth is as a small circle (not exactly point source but close enough, for an approximation). There are now so many variables that I don’t even begin to know how to answer your question.
Now…I don’t need to try to. You don’t need to try to. Because it DOES NOT RELATE TO THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT BEING DISCUSSED. In which, the plates are infinitely large. Distance between them is not relevant. Etc etc.
Barry…
“My previous comments refute your arguments. I suggest you read them”.
Your arguments only refute mine if I agree with your premises. I don’t. That’s why I’m asking you to consider the questions I put. 3D, rotation, dispersing energy wave-front, distance and what have you don’t matter. Not a bit for the thought experiments I’m suggesting.
“I don’t know,” is a respectable answer. Most people on the net are too proud to say that. Kudos. I’m no expert, either.
Here is a Professor of Astrophysics (Master of Science, Physics) providing a lesson.
The Sun [our sun] has a higher surface temperature, so it must radiate more energy per unit surface area than alpha Ori. In spite of this, alpha Ori has a far greater luminosity than the Sun! There is only one way that alpha Ori could radiate more total energy it must have a larger total surface area.
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/geas/lectures/lecture23/slide02.html
You do indeed sum surface area to get total energy.
[You can check the author’s (Prof Michael Bolte) credentials here: http://www.ucolick.org/~bolte/vita15short.pdf%5D
Yes, Barry. TOTAL surface area. In other words, both sides of the sun plate. The object is at 290 K. Therefore it emits 400 W/m2 from its surface. 400 W/m2 from “both sides”.
My previous comments refute your arguments. I suggest you read them.
“surface
ˈsəːfɪs/Submit
noun
1.
the outside part or uppermost layer of something.
“the earth’s surface”
synonyms: outside, exterior; More
2.
GEOMETRY
a continuous set of points that has length and breadth but no thickness.”
Can an object have two surfaces? No. Whether 2D or 3D, an object always has one surface. Whether an object has two sides or twenty sides, or even an infinite number of sides, it only has one surface, and therefore one total surface area. Should you therefore divide up the flux an object emits by the number of sides it has? No. Or the number of directions it emits in? No.
My previous comments refute your arguments. I suggest you read them.
Graham 6:31am: “Therefore it emits 400 W/m2 from its surface. 400 W/m2 from “both sides”.”
and
7:07am: “(an object) only has one surface, and therefore one total surface area.”
Graham’s statements are not consistent (plate t<<sides).
The subject blue plate object is defined as a side of 1m^2 in the 1st picture so has 2m^2 of surface (negligible top and bottom t<<sides), thus emits
200W/m^2 side * 2m^2 sides = 400W
when it achieves steady state equilibrium with the sun load of 400W on one side and 0W load on the other side by 1LOT.
The blue plate object would not be in equilibrium if it emits 400 W/m2 from "both sides" as Graham writes, that would be a power of 800W out over the surface and 400 W in. The blue plate temperature would be decreasing toward steady state ideal equilibrium of 200W per side.
My previous comments refute your arguments.
This has become a mantra.
Your comments are assertions with no argument.
Assertions don’t refute anything.
In the linked article, the equations show that the total power of an object is partly dependent on its surface area.
Alpha Ori is cooler than our sun.
But it emits more total energy.
How can this be?
Because it has a larger surface area (229,500 time larger) than Earth.
If it was the same temperature but equal size to our sun, it would emit less total energy than our sun.
The reason its total emitted energy is higher than the sun is because it has more surface area.
Total power emitted is indeed a function of surface area. Less surface area, less power; more surface are, more power. That’s what the Prof shows.
Should you therefore divide up the flux an object emits by the number of sides it has? No
Yes. That is the logical conclusion in the link I gave. Any one side emits only a portion of the total radiation, not all of it.
You should read the link again, because you haven’t understood it.
Or you could put a dark object in direct sunlight, near a shade, and then move it so that half the object is in the shade. Put your hand on the shaded and unshaded part. The temperature is different. And the total energy received by the object is different.
Because surface area matters.
Watts per meter square. You should think on that carefully for a while. Power in this unit is axiomatically a function of surface area. This, essentially, is power divided by surface area. The very unit we are using should give you a very strong clue.
I can do no more than this. I’m ok with you believing what you want to believe.
@ Ball4. Eli might at one point have defined each side as being 1m2 in area, however for a while now he has been stating they are infinite in size. It’s not my words that are changing.
@ Barry. You continuously miss the point. I’m not arguing with anything the professor shows. The 2D infinite plate sun needs to be emitting 400 W/m2 towards the blue plate. That is a fundamental requirement of the setup. In so doing it will be emitting 400 W/m2 from “the other side”. An object at 290 K emits 400 W/m2 from its surface. An object only has one surface, no matter number of sides. The fact that the plate sun requires infinite internal energy to emit 400 W/m2 from an infinite surface area is just another one of the silly consequences of the ridiculous setup of the thought experiment.
If you claim the infinite plate sun is not meant to be infinite, but finite in size…well, it could never warm up the infinite blue plate. At all. To any temperature. I’ve realised this more fully as I’ve continued to think about it. Now it seems pretty obvious,
To make any sense of this at all you have to kind of accept the limitations for what they are and try to move forward with the bits that do make sense. This is what I have tried to do, and I’m happy with what I’ve got from it. I am also perfectly happy to accept that the thought experiment simply bears no resemblance to reality at all and should be completely abandoned (at least from the point of view of trying to set something up to move forward with).
Agree to disagree. Perhaps that’s a more acceptable “mantra”
Graham 8:43am: “It’s not my words that are changing.”
So YOU are still wrong, in the limit to infinity, each added plate adds 1 sunlit side and 2 radiating surfaces.
If the sunlit side temperature bothers you, that temperature would be different (higher) than the other side. The sun illuminated side has a higher temperature due to higher abs.orp.tivity & emissivity than the temperature the side illuminated by nothing would have even though the material is constant. Tested material emissivity is f(frequency of illumination).
Particulars of m,Cp across the plate t would also need to be established to calculate and/or test for the equilibrium temperatures across the plate.
Ball4 says, “I stuck infinity into my calculations. It makes sense…to me”
OK Ball4. Good luck with that.
Agree to disagree.
Those are Graham’s words, not mine.
Graham is free to create energy out of nothing in words, will not get anywhere in the real world with that approach or convince anyone energy can simply be created as a reasoned science debate technique.
I’m sure you’re right, Ball4. After all, only you understand that to satisfy the first law, you must compare the infinite surface area emitting a flux from the “side” of the infinitely thin sun plate “facing” towards the infinite surface area of the “side” of the infinitely thin blue plate, with BOTH “sides” of the infinite surface area of the infinitely thin blue plate. I mean…the blue plate has double the infinity! Right!? Or…stupid!?
Agree to disagree. Infinitely.
Graham is arguing with Graham’s words, not mine. To argue with Graham’s double infinity one would need a double secret rule of Graham’s alone, not found in science. Carry on Graham, since you can create energy from nothing with words, you have no limitations.
Hmmm. Maybe we should be comparing the infinite surface area emitting a flux from the side of the infinitely thin BLUE plate facing towards the infinite surface area of the side of the infinitely thin SUN plate, with BOTH sides of the infinite surface area of the infinitely thin blue plate. Oh no, that’s just infinite area compared with double infinite area again…or is it zero compared with zero? After all infinitely thin plates don’t have any “sides”. I guess if they had one molecule of thickness then they would have 1 side. But then they wouldn’t be infinitely thin.
Only omniscient deity Ball4 knows for sure.
Agree to disagree…
Arguing with yourself & your words again Graham. I predict Graham will always (infinitely) win debates that way.
So let’s examine Ball4’s words:
“Grahams statements are not consistent (plate t<<sides)."
Yes, they are. An object has one surface, thus the "total surface area" represents the total area of that surface. Regardless of number of sides the object has. Saying the sun plate:
"emits 400 W/m2 from its surface. 400 W/m2 from both sides
is therefore completely consistent with:
(an object) only has one surface, and therefore one total surface area.
since I'm not the one suggesting that this means the sun plate is emitting 800 W/m2 in total. That was Barry:
"October 19, 2017 at 3:41 PM
Fine with most of that.
The sun plate is emitting at 800w/m2."
Barry takes his own error over understanding of surface area and ascribes it to me, with Ball4 in support. Classic tag-team sophistry. Barry compounds his error here:
barry says:
October 20, 2017 at 8:12 AM
"Because surface area matters.
Watts per meter square. You should think on that carefully for a while. Power in this unit is axiomatically a function of surface area. This, essentially, is power divided by surface area. The very unit we are using should give you a very strong clue.
I can do no more than this. Im ok with you believing what you want to believe."
Yes, power divided by surface area. TOTAL surface area..i.e number of sides an object has is irrelevant. You can do no more than sophistry. That is seen and understood. Ball4 comments to chastise me for arguing against my own words when, as shown, that's his Trick.
You want to carry on debating this nonsensical thought experiment? Be my guest. I will continue to respond:
Agree to disagree.
“since I’m not the one suggesting that this means the sun plate is emitting 800 W/m2 in total.”
Good, then Graham now changes & agrees the total emitted power from the blue plate is 400W (not 800W in total) over blue plate total surface (200W/side) at equilibrium with the 400W of sun load.
In real conditions, blue plate would be somewhat warmer on sunlit side than dark side when the proper emissivity on each side is determined by test as a function of the illumination.
Barry
I just noticed your comment about swapping the green plate with a small sun, and odd as it sounds, a bunny comes to mind (thinking of Mr. Rabett). The small sun would be both a heat source and an insulator: rabbit fur would help keep you warm, but a live bunny would be even better.
So equilibrium is reached when that green plate is the same temperature as the blue. It will then be radiating the same flux to the blue as it receives FROM the blue.
The blue plate is receiving (at first) an extra 100 w/m2 from the green plate. Just as it does from the cooler sun I introduced.
In your conception, the green plate’s energy is not received by the blue plate (warming it up), but it is received from the cooler sun.
What is the material difference in the radiation being received by the blue plate that makes it receive it from the sun, but not the green plate? It’s the same amount of energy. So something else about it, something physical, must make the the blue plate reject it from the green plate but not the blue.
What is that physical difference?
barry…”What is the material difference in the radiation being received by the blue plate that makes it receive it from the sun, but not the green plate?”
Even a cooler sun would be an independent heat source in the range of hundreds of thousands of degrees C. The green plate is not an independent heat source and it is cooler than the blue plate.
2nd law, barry, 2nd law.
barry…”What is that physical difference?”
The blue plate is warmer, it’s atoms reside at a higher level of kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy of atoms is heat and heat cannot be transferred from the cooler (green) plate to the warmer (blue) plate.
You can send all the IR the green plate can be muster, it will be ignored by the blue plate as long as it is warmer.
Gordon Roberston
YOU CLAIM (with not evidence or supporting data): “You can send all the IR the green plate can be muster, it will be ignored by the blue plate as long as it is warmer.”
All made up by you. Not based upon anything real. You live in your own fabricated reality and seem to want everyone to come join in the world of your delusion.
Nothing in physics supports you ideas. They are made up, have no basis in established science.
Who are you trying to convince that you are correct. Do you think repeating falsehoods thousands of times makes them right? Why do you have this compulsion to continue peddling junk and thinking anyone will accept what you say?
You can send all the IR the green plate can be muster, it will be ignored by the blue plate as long as it is warmer.
Let me change one component.
You can send all the IR the cool sun can be muster, it will be ignored by the blue plate as long as it is warmer.
Your argument otherwise is an assertion.
‘Independent/dependent heat source’
After warming the green plate is a constant emitter of energy. So is the 2nd sun replacing it.
The blue plate receives less energy from the 2nd sun than it emits. Same with the green plate. According to you this means the 2nd sun cannot warm the blue plate.
What’s the material difference WRT to the energy being received by either?
Passive and active emitters don’t amount to a hill of beans if both are A) constant emitters (after green plate warms up) and B) emitting less power to the blue plate than it sheds.
So it must be something else. What?
“I would think that the real sun is infinitesimally warmed by the planets around it”.
No, Barry. Because reality is one thing, this thought experiment is another. In reality all object radiate in all (infinite) directions, and to us on Earth, our sun is as a point source. Also, in reality, our Earth isn’t warmer than the sun (remember you said your 2nd sun was only emitting 100 W/m2 towards the blue plate).
You’re arguing your conclusion by restating your premise. Let’s not get circular.
No I’m not.
I am restating premises because the reasoning leading them to the conclusion has already been given here, there and everywhere. In an honest debate it is not necessary to continually repeat explanations to someone who has already seen them. This is why I say above:
“It seems unlikely at this stage that anyone would still not understand the view factor issue, the difference that a point source and a plate will make. So Im starting to think you are not arguing in good faith.”
and to us on Earth, our sun is as a point source
Not really. The sun is visibly dimensionful and rays aren’t parallel on Earth. But thermodynamics calculations treating it as such get a close approximation to the non-point source math.
It seems unlikely at this stage that anyone would still not understand the view factor issue
I do. I think it is an unnecessary complication of a workable 2D (bi-dierectional) model.
Let’s swap out the original sun with a powered plate. What changes?
All that is meant is that from a point on the Earth’s surface looking up, with the sun in the sky, most radiation emitted from the surface will not hit that sun (ignoring atmospheric effects and assuming all radiation from that point on the Earth’s surface gets out to space), because only an infinitesimally small amount will be going in the right direction. It’s not that it IS a point…it’s that it’s better approximated as a point, than an infinitely large plate.
“I do. I think it is an unnecessary complication of a workable 2D (bi-dierectional) model.”
Then as I already explained above, when considering your “bi-directional” energy flow, the sun has to be considered as a plate anyway.
Fine by me. I answered above.
Ow, whenever I mention the Earth in the same sentence, I am clearly talking about the real sun, (ours) not the abstract one in the 2D set up.
Hopefully, now that is clear, you can forget the infinite area rebuttal and tend to the points as made.
I don’t see how you can disagree that throwing a thermal shield in front of half the face of our sun would mean Earth receives less energy.
I don’t see how you can disagree that reflecting the energy emitted by the far side of the sun to Earth would not add energy to Earth.
I don’t see how you can disagree that a portion of the surface area of an object emitting thermal energy only yields a portion of its total emitted energy, not all of it.
Good that you found my question interesting.
Could you please answer it directly?
Then I will attempt to answer your points.
If we can’t ‘sum’ the surfaces of the sun-die, why is it that if I redirect the radiant energy from four of its perpendicular faces to the blue plate… the blue plate gets brighter?
I would think that in your view this should be impossible – the amount of radiant energy emitted by one side of the sun-die is the same amount as emitted by its total surface, according to you.
But I’ve worked it with my own hands and seen it with my own eyes. An object gets brighter if you stick a mirror behind the lamp lighting it (and the area behind the mirror gets darker, as its now shielded by the mirror – the radiance has been redirected).
What is going on here?
(Shakes head sadly): it’s like he’s saying, “Eli’s thought experiment is different to reality. You’re not thinking about reality. If you thought about reality you would realise that Eli’s thought experiment correctly represents reality.”
From the time it takes him to get from that first statement “Eli’s thought experiment is different to reality” to the end of the whole quote, it’s like he’s forgotten that the first statement even existed.
I have never in my life seen a mind so utterly corrupted. Just insanity.
You’ve corrupted what I said.
In our discussion about Eli’s set up I introduced for the purposes of testing one of your assertions, an experimental notion regarding the real sun and the real Earth.
Apparently switching between them was too hard for you.
“One of my assertions”
Which one was that? The one where I said you don’t divide the flux emitted by an object by the number of sides it has? The one you got wrong, you mean?
You said (first quoting me):
“”Should you therefore divide up the flux an object emits by the number of sides it has? No”
YOU: Yes. That is the logical conclusion in the link I gave. Any one side emits only a portion of the total radiation, not all of it.”
We were talking about what the SUN plate emits. Your own link confirms you had it wrong. Yet you can’t even admit that. You made a huge diversion from the argument to attempt to prove something to me that was just YOUR error. For crying out loud. It’s not even something that makes much difference to the overall debate. It’s not even something that’s in question by anybody knowledgeable on either side of it. You don’t divide the FLUX an object emits by the number of sides it has because the FLUX (W/M2) emitted by an object is related to the TOTAL SURFACE AREA of the object. The SUN plate, emitting 400 W/m2 from each side, is NOT emitting 800 W/m2 in total which is what YOU said.
YOU WERE WRONG.
Why people are claiming there is a “split by two” on the blue passive plates and a further split by two again on the green is not for the reason you seem to think. It’s because, they are comparing the surface area over which (for example) the green plate receives energy from the blue (so, only on the side facing the blue) by the the total surface area over which it emits. Which is both sides. So IN THAT CASE they say you should split by 2. It is NOT because of some general principle that you should divide fluxes based on number of sides an object has, because that principle does not exist. A six-sided die at 290 K is NOT radiating a total flux of 400 W/m2 x 6 = 2,400 W/m2. It is radiating 400 W/m2.
Get it into your fucking head.
Ok, let’s go with the die.
If you think that a blue plate parallel to one side of the die receives less than 400 w/m2 from the 290K die (one sixth, if the radiant energy of the die is emitted only in 6 directions), then we are in agreement.
If you think the blue plate in this set-up receives 400 w/m2 from a 290K die, then we are in disagreement.
I had thought you were saying that the blue plate receives the totality of the radiant energy emitted by the sun, rather than the portion emitted from one side of it.
In Eli’s construct, 400 w/m2 is only the amount received by the blue plate from the sun. It is not the total emitted energy of the sun. That is a larger value.
It receives 400 W/m2. So yes, we are in disagreement…and you’re wrong.
“In Elis construct, 400 w/m2 is only the amount received by the blue plate from the sun. It is not the total emitted energy of the sun. That is a larger value”
Yes. And “total emitted energy” is not flux. Total emitted energy would be measured in joules. A watt is a joule per second. So watts per metre squared are joules per second per metre squared. Good grief. How long have we been talking about this without you even understanding the basics!?
It’s receiving 400 W/m2.
So the “total emitted energy” would be continually increasing with time. Because the sun continually emits NEW energy (released from the nuclear reactions within it – not actually CREATED, because energy can’t be, but liberated from within the atoms as they are split). Or, to make it easier, you could think of the RATE the sun’s emitting energy. Much clearer, So, joules per second. Watts. Power.
“Watts. Power”.
Or, in the case of the sun, “solar luminosity”.
And when I say “”total energy emitted” is not flux” I should more accurately say, “”total energy emitted” is not irradiance”. But we all seem to use the word “flux” with the understanding that we’re referring to irradiance.
Well I guess technically it should be “radiosity” for the emitted flux and “irradiance” for the received.
Gonna stick with the die here and repeat a question.
If we stuck 4 perfect mirrors around our die in space, so that we perfectly reflect the energy from each of the four sides (that are perpendicular to the one facing our blue plate) towards the blue plate…
The blue plate would receive no more energy than before?
I ask because having worked with lighting, I know I can make an object brighter with mirrors. Sure seems to me that redirecting the radiance from other sides of the die (or a lamp) so that they all focus on the same spot, adds radiant energy to that spot.
I know this mirror brightening for a fact, and you probably do, too. So watt is going on here?
Interesting. Let me ask you a question in return. What would happen if you completely enclosed an energy source within a whole box of mirrors? Or, a spherical energy source like a sun completely enclosed in a giant spherical shell, mirrored on the inside with perfectly reflecting material. From the outside, no energy could thus escape. So the object would appear to be 0 K. And on the inside? Would the energy source warm itself by its own emitted energy, continuously…warming to infinity?
Read here: https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/08/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-11-quantum-mechanics-the-sheer-stupidity-of-ghe-science-on-wuwt/
From the section: “The 20th Century and the Discovery of Quantum Mechanics”
“A cavity which traps radiation does not increase the frequency of the radiation. It is only with an increase of the frequency spectrum of the radiation by which a radiation spectrum can induce higher temperature, and radiation can not and does not change its own frequency spectrum when trapped in a cavity. The idea that it does is a plain violation of the whole origin of Plancks Law and the blackbody spectrum, and hence of quantum mechanics. Radiation trapped inside a cavity, such as between the atmosphere and surface, does not increase the frequency of the radiation spectrum, and hence does not cause a change in temperature particularly when the actual source of radiation and input heating is an approximately 6500K spectrum, and the cavity radiation is only a 255K spectrum. The internal cavity radiation of 255K is a result of the heating which initially occurred due to the 6500K spectrum input, and this cavity radiation can not increase its own temperature or its own frequency spectrum past what the 6500K spectrum input already did. This is just basic thermodynamics.”
However, while interesting, all of this is just a distraction, and a way for you to avoid admitting an error.
Look. Let’s say a sun plate has a 2 metre-squared total surface area. 1 metre-squared “each side”, if you must. Power is 800 watts. Therefore the flux emitted from the sun plate in all (infinite) directions is 400 W/m2. Let’s say your sun is a six-sided die with a 2 metre-squared total surface area. Same power of 800 watts. The flux emitted from the sun die is 400 W/m2 in all (infinite) directions. Let’s say your sun is a sphere with a 2 metre-squared total surface area. Same power of 800 watts. The flux emitted from the sun sun is 400 W/m2 in all (infinite) directions.
End of story. You never say it’s 400 W/m2 from one side of a six-sided die and so the whole thing emits 2400 W/m2 because the flux emitted by an object is determined by dividing the power (either generated by the object itself or, “just passing through”) by the TOTAL surface area of the object. This is just something you’re going to have to come to terms with. We can continue to discuss things but you will HAVE TO have the integrity to admit your error on this, for that to happen.
Good that you found my question interesting.
Could you please answer it directly?
Then I will attempt to answer your points.
I press you on this because I think it is a good rebuttal and I’m curious to see how you respond to it – directly, not with other thought-experiments. I’ll return to them later once you’ve answered.
If we cant sum the surfaces of the sun-die, why is it that if I redirect the radiant energy from four of its perpendicular faces to the blue plate… the blue plate gets brighter?
I would think that in your view this should be impossible the amount of radiant energy emitted by one side of the sun-die is the same amount as emitted by its total surface, according to you.
But Ive worked it with my own hands and seen it with my own eyes. An object gets brighter if you stick a mirror behind the lamp lighting it (and the area behind the mirror gets darker, as its now shielded by the mirror the radiance has been redirected).
If we can’t get more radiant energy from other surfaces of our lamp (or sun-die), what is going on here?
OK, I will answer your question directly: don’t know, don’t care. It’s a complete diversion and distraction from you admitting your mistake.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_exitance
“I would think that in your view this should be impossible the amount of radiant energy emitted by one side of the sun-die is the same amount as emitted by its total surface, according to you.”
Flux (irradiance, radiant exitance/radiosity) is not a measure of the “amount of radiant energy”. THAT is my view. And is obviously confirmed just by thinking about how “amounts” of energy are measured in joules, and flux is measured in joules per second per metre squared. WHY on Earth do you seem to think that it’s so crazy for me to say that the number of joules per second per metre squared coming from one side of an object would be exactly the same as the number of joules per second per metre squared coming out from the whole object!? It’s joules per second PER METRE SQUARED.
Just think about it. And when you’re prepared to do so, admit you made a mistake. There is no shame in it. No problem.
Don’t know, don’t care?
You should think about it, because it definitely puts a kink in your view, and you are, perhaps, avoiding the question.
[We’ve (or I’ve) been foregoing the distinction between energy received and emitted. Total energy for a heat source is not the same as that received, either in value or terms. When I speak of a sun, or sun-plate, or sun-die (nice physics pun if we call it a die-sun Dyson) ’emitting’ in W/m2, I am taking that axiomatically as the power received by an object. Upthread I was using the phrase “sun is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.” In the to and from I’ve dropped the phrasing for brevity (and also because someone complained about it), but that’s how I’ve always seen and meant it. 400 w/m2 received.]
the flux emitted by an object is determined by dividing the power by the TOTAL surface area of the object.
When we work in W/m2, we are describing the energy flux for that portion of the total surface area in a (rate per) particular unit: area. One square meter.
If our blue plate is 1 meter squared on one side and 1 meter squared on the other, and it receives 400 w/m2 to one side, the whole plate emits 400 W/m2. But it’s surface area is 2 X 1 meter squared, so it must emit 200 w/m2 from each surface.
(In actual fact, 400 w/m2 is only the energy rate being received by the blue plate. The sun’s radiant emittance at the surface is far higher. Distance reduces power, but, I understand that we’re foregoing that complication, and treating the sun’s emittance per unit area and blue plate receiving per unit area as the same value)
This first part of the post you linked started out well…
Now, note what happens when we add a shell around the planet. The shell warms up and it begins to radiate as well… but it radiates the same amount inwards and outwards. The inwards radiation warms the surface of the planet, until it is radiating at 470 W/m2. At that point the system is back in equilibrium. The planet is receiving 235 W/m2 from the interior, plus 235 W/m2 from the shell, and it is radiating the total amount, 470 W/m2. The shell is receiving 470 W/m2 from the planet, and it is radiating the same amount, half inwards back to the planet and half outwards to outer space. Note also that despite the fact that the planetary surface ends up much warmer (radiating 470 W/m2), energy is conserved. The same 235 W/m2 of energy is emitted to space
The criticism of Willis’ pounces on the fact that he has made his conclusions after equilibrium is reached. In fact, as the shell warms up, it starts emitting low energy rate, which increases until it does get to 117.5 W/m2 in either direction, but it keeps on going until the energy loss to space is equivalent to the original energy given off by the planet.
Energy is conserved, but heat is not a conservable factor.
Willis’ analysis goes off the rails when he says that this system can only operate in a vacuum.
This basically denies that insulation works. Home insulation works despite the lack of a vacuum.
Constant source of heat (let’s say a heater in a room)…
Without insulation room air temp = X
With insulation room air temp > X
Introducing the insulation caused the room air temp to get warmer.
We know the insulation is not the source of the energy heating the room. We know that the room becomes warmer because it is losing heat less efficiently.
Introducing a cooler object to the system ultimately caused it to get warmer, due to the impact on heat loss from the system.
Note also that Willis’ post treats the atmosphere as if it has no properties different to the surface emitting radiance to it. The post has changed a 3 body construct into a 2 body construct.
I have to say, this is a typical error in rebuttal of these ideas. Either the source of energy is removed from the set up, or the 3rd body suddenly disappears.
Insulation causes a body receiving constant energy to get warmer, by making the heat loss from the body less efficient. Energy is conserved, because the original energy, at equilibrium, eventually escapes outside the system.
In the planet/shell construct energy is conserved, even though the planet gets warmer. No energy has been created. The planet loses heat to space less efficiently. Because the shell is acting as an insulator. If an object loses heat less efficiently, it axiomatically warms up.
In the perfect reflector-shell set-up you mentioned, there is still loss of energy when photons hit the mirrored shell surface. Photons have momentum (even though they don’t have mass – physics is interesting), so they ‘kick’ the inside of the sphere, which moves backwards fractionally (radiation pressure). The photons yield energy to the reflective surface in this way and they ‘cool’ (wave frequency gets longer) as a result, while the sphere warms up.
Eventually even the perfect reflector system achieves equilibrium, with the sun at a much higher temperature.
Of course, there is no known material that doesn’t emit in all directions, so what we’d really get, at best, is a highly effective mirror, but it would still lose heat to space, also providing a limit on how much the system would heat up.
So, no: no infinite warming.
Now, I’ve attempted to answer some of your points. I’ve engaged with your die-sun, the reflective shell, and the Willis post. I will not continue to argue them further until you do me the courtesy of wrestling with the mirror set-up.
Fair exchange or none at all, sir.
This:
[Weve (or Ive) been foregoing the distinction between energy received and emitted. Total energy for a heat source is not the same as that received, either in value or terms. When I speak of a sun, or sun-plate, or sun-die ’emitting’ in W/m2, I am taking that axiomatically as the power received by an object. Upthread I was using the phrase “sun is emitting at 400 w/m2 received.” In the to and from Ive dropped the phrasing for brevity (and also because someone complained about it), but thats how Ive always seen and meant it. 400 w/m2 received.]
may have led to confusion between us.
Flux (irradiance, radiant exitance/radiosity) is not a measure of the amount of radiant energy. THAT is my view. And is obviously confirmed just by thinking about how amounts of energy are measured in joules, and flux is measured in joules per second per metre squared. WHY on Earth do you seem to think that its so crazy for me to say that the number of joules per second per metre squared coming from one side of an object would be exactly the same as the number of joules per second per metre squared coming out from the whole object!? Its joules per second PER METRE SQUARED.
Just think about it. And when youre prepared to do so, admit you made a mistake. There is no shame in it. No problem.
I’ll take the blame for continuing to use language started upthread that confuses the issue. The fault is mine. And you’ve been right all along.
A sun-plate radiating at 400 w/m2 on either side is emitting a total of 800 W (not 800 w/m2).
In my mind, I was thinking of the total energy received from each surface. That was a habit begun upthread and not clarified til late in our discussion.
So where does that leave us?
A blue plate receiving 400 w/m2 from the sun eventually radiates 400 W. It radiates 200 w/m2 from each of its 2 surfaces.
Is this ok so far?
Thank you, Barry. I’m glad we got there. Incidentally, the part of the link that I was interested in was specifically the section “The 20th Century and the Discovery of Quantum Mechanics. My fault as I probably should have made that clearer. I’m interested to hear though that you seem to be in agreement with the author of the post I linked to, that Willis Eschenbach’s steel greenhouse idea is nonsense.
I agree with the first part of Willis’ post. I disagree with where he says that the effect (impeding heat loss) can’t happen in the absence of a vacuum.
I’m not sure I agree with much of the stuff written by the author of the blog post who quotes Willis (and disagrees with the first part of Willis’ quote). I agree that the planet/shell system will not heat to infinity.
In any system where the introduction of a body reduces the heat loss efficiency of that system… the system must axiomatically become warmer.
To head back to the 2-plate system (a 3 body set up including the sun)…
If blue plate receives 400 w/m2, it eventually heats up to radiate @ 400 Watts.
Each of its 2 surfaces emits (400 W / 2) = 200 w/m2.
This seems to be in accord with what you have written elsewhere…
Lets say a sun plate has a 2 metre-squared total surface area. 1 metre-squared “each side”, if you must. Power is 800 watts. Therefore the flux emitted from the sun plate in all (infinite) directions is 400 W/m2.
… but I ask to be sure before continuing.
Barry, I’ve already said to you:
“Why people are claiming there is a split by two on the blue passive plates and a further split by two again on the green is not for the reason you seem to think. Its because, they are comparing the surface area over which (for example) the green plate receives energy from the blue (so, only on the side facing the blue) by the the total surface area over which it emits. Which is both sides. So IN THAT CASE they say you should split by 2.”
I understand why Eli, Ball4, yourself, and everybody on that side of the argument is saying that the slayers are violating conservation of energy (1st law) with what they say. I ttruly get it. So there is no point you trying to build slowly through any steps for us to get to something I already understand. There simply is just point in us just endlessly repeating ourselves. The only slight correction I would make to you personally is not to say “from each of its two surfaces” because an object only has ONE surface. Two sides. One surface. Though it’s only a trivial correction. Barry: I get it.
I don’t think you get the slayer argument. At all. But never mind.
What’s bizarre is that when you have the two plates physically touching, I have seen comments at Rabett Run where it’s been acknowledged that both blue and green plates would go to the same temperature. Yet when there is separation between the plates you think the blue one is warmed up at the expense of the green one cooling.
Sides not surfaces. Ok then.
The way I understand it, both plates are perfect conductors. Pressed together it is one perfect conductor.
But when there is space between them there is vacuum. And there is energy loss to vacuum from each side of each pate. The slayers appear to be oblivious to the vacuum between the plates, or believe it irrelevant.
I cannot understand why the slayers don’t get there must be a thermal gradient from left to right in Eli’s 2 body system. The green plate can never be as warm as the blue, because the blue always receives more energy than the green at any stage of the heating process after the green plate is introduced.
It is usually about here that someone says, “heat cannot flow from cold to hot!” But energy can, and does.
That’s where I see the error. Whenever intertransfer of energy is mentioned, someone talks about heat.
They’re not the same.
2 nearby objects at exactly the same temperature are constantly emitting and receiving energy to and from the other, but no heat is exchanged.
Typo: I cannot understand why the slayers dont get there must be a thermal gradient from left to right in Elis 3 body system.
Well all I can say is…I’ve tried to explain it the best I can. But I might not be the best person to explain it!
“But when there is space between them there is vacuum. And there is energy loss to vacuum from each side of each pate. The slayers appear to be oblivious to the vacuum between the plates, or believe it irrelevant.”
There is a vacuum inbetween the plates. But each plate isn’t radiating TO the vacuum inbetween it and the other plate. They’re radiating TO each other. Maybe that helps!? On the other side of the plates they are radiating just to space. Yes, also a vacuum. But…flux decreases eventually with distance from the object…and on one side there is the sun…but considered as a point source the radiation from the blue plate goes past it in most angles of emittance. So it’s like it’s only receiving energy from the sun, and mostly missing it with the energy it sends back.
I feel like at this stage you are genuinely interested in understanding the slayers perspective. Which is good. But again, I’m just not sure if I personally can do it full justice in explanation. If this helps then great. I truly only have interest in helping understanding between both groups.
It takes some effort picking out the argument through the sneering ad hominem and repetition in the section you’ve directed me to. The actual argument doesn’t begin until the 4th paragraph.
Condensing it down, it appears the argument runs thus:
1) Temperature is determined by radiation wave frequency (a function of wavelength).
2) Because the radiation “trapped” in a cavity (space between the shell and the planet: radiance from atmos to surface) cannot increase its own wavelength, temperatures cannot rise.
That’s about it. This is repeated quite a few times with appeals to authority padding the message.
Do you get any more from that section than what I’ve outlined? Have I missed anything important? Because I have a response.
There is a vacuum inbetween the plates. But each plate isnt radiating TO the vacuum inbetween it and the other plate. Theyre radiating TO each other.
Each plate is radiating to the other because there is a vacuum between them.
With no vacuum and perfect conduction, pressing the 2 plates together induces no energy loss to the vacuum between them. Together they radiate at 400 w/m2 each side.
Let’s call the sides of the plates facing each other the in-sides.
There is no matter in the vacuum. There is no information to tell the photons leaving the in-side of each plate that they will be encountering another plate. So each blithely emits energy away from their in-side as if there were no other plate. Both plates are losing energy from each in-side.
The blue plate doesn’t know there is a green plate, so it emits 200 w/m2 to it. The green plate warms up. It doesn’t know there is a blue plate heating it, so it emits radiation to the blue plate as if it were not there. It loses heat in the direction of the blue plate (via radiation).
Both plates do this because they are in direct contact with the vacuum. And the vacuum is cold. Once radiation hits pure vacuum, there is no matter for it to warm. Nothing conducting, nothing convecting. So both plates’ in-sides lose energy to the vacuum even while they are receiving energy from each other. They only ‘know’ that they are getting more energy, and must lose more to compensate.
Again, your way of looking at things is understood.
Ok.
I hope my reply to your comment:
Whats bizarre is that when you have the two plates physically touching, I have seen comments at Rabett Run where its been acknowledged that both blue and green plates would go to the same temperature. Yet when there is separation between the plates you think the blue one is warmed up at the expense of the green one cooling.
Was useful in some way.
I also think of it like this:
A small plate stuck to my running car engine is hot. I pull it away by a millimeter, it gets cooler. The further away I move it, the cooler it gets.
I’d think that’s intuitive.
If we’re done, thanks for the conversation. Appreciate it.
Appreciated it too and sorry I got angry.
Oh OK, one more comment:
“With no vacuum and perfect conduction, pressing the 2 plates together induces no energy loss to the vacuum between them. Together they radiate at 400 w/m2 each side.
Lets call the sides of the plates facing each other the in-sides.
There is no matter in the vacuum. There is no information to tell the photons leaving the in-side of each plate that they will be encountering another plate. So each blithely emits energy away from their in-side as if there were no other plate. Both plates are losing energy from each in-side.”
There is an internal contradiction in what you’re saying here. Since there is no matter in the vacuum between the plates there’s nothing in the vacuum for each plate to radiate to. Hence they lose no energy to the vacuum between the plates, and radiate only to each other, as I said…you basically said it yourself in your own comment. On the other sides of the plates (“out-sides”) there’s nothing for them to radiate to either (if sun considered as point source)…but the flux decreases with distance. It’s the distance which is not really considered in the thought experiment. It’s implicit in the comparison to the real sun/Earth/atmosphere system that the blue and green plates are extremely close together in comparison to the distance from the sun but nothing is properly set out in the thought experiment as regards distance.
If you think of infinite blue and green plates, or at least large enough that the energy lost to space at oblique angles towards the top and bottom of the space in the diagram from the in-sides of the plates is negligible, then there is really no need to treat the situation as though it were any different to how you treat it when the two plates are touching. There is no reason for the laws of physics to apply differently to a situation with radiation to the two plates, conduction across the two plates stuck together, and radiation out the other side than they do for a situation with radiation to the first plate, conduction through it, radiation to the second plate, conduction through it, then radiation out the other side.
It really is a strange stumbling block of the thought experiment that for some reason with the two plates together they come to the same temperature, but separate them (even by a tiny amount…a millimetre…even a trillionth of a millimetre (!)) one goes to a higher temperature at the expense of the other cooling.
But this has been talked to death here. Sorry to sneak this last comment in but it’s just for you to consider…if you wish.
“2 nearby objects at exactly the same temperature are constantly emitting and receiving energy to and from the other, but no heat is exchanged.”
I haven’t written a comment in disagreement with that and nor would the slayers. At least, that is consistent with Joe Postma on heat flow, for example. There are some people I see posting here with some strange ideas about heat flow but I wouldn’t put the slayers in with them.
100% last comment. Honest.
“Good, then Graham now changes & agrees”
Oh for goodness sake.
As biologist Rupert Sheldrake pointed out, When the eye takes in an image, the image is reversed and turned upside-down by the lens. The image lands on the retina where rods and cones interpret the black-white imagery and the colour content. That signal is sorted out by the brain to produce an image in the brain for interpretation.
It’s actually inverted by the hard wiring of the optic nerves to the tectum in the brain.
That is apparently a learned skill since people who have been blind from birth and regain their sight have serious problems with orientation.
The lack of stimulus in the optic nerves causes the nerves not to be correctly connected to the tectum, hence the disorientation, once the stimulus is supplied the nerves reorder the connections.
You can only imagine what a new born baby sees.
Not much initially given the smaller eye and incomplete development of the nerve connections, full development takes about two years.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at earth distance from the sun which is spherical radiates 340 watts per square meter. From a sun 340 times 4 = 1360 watts per square meter at earth distance.
This means a planet at earth distance should have average temperature of around 5 C.
One can say that greenhouse gases insulate heat loss and thereby causes a higher average temperature than 5 C.
Therefore a planet at earth distance from the Sun should have an average temperature of around 5 C unless it’s surface is insulated so as to prevent heat loss.
It doesn’t matter how it’s insulated.
There is no such thing as ideal thermally conductive blackbody, it’s merely a model.
What about a blackbody in a vacuum at earth distance from the Sun?
Our Moon is blackbody in vacuum at earth distance from the Sun. It’s surface when sun is at zenith above it’s surface is about 120 C. And at night time this surface is -178 C.
It’s average temperature is much less than 5 C and it is not vaguely like a ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
If the the Moon had a very fast rotation it would be more similar to ideal thermally conductive blackbody. Or heat would spread over the surface at the speed of the rotation.
Or it act like the energy of sunlight was being conducted across the surface.
Such “conduction” would not be global but rather would mostly confined to the regions around the equator- assuming the equator was aligned to the solar plane. And/or the same inclination/angle as body orbits the sun.
If rotation axis is tilted to solar plane, then over a year period a larger area of the sphere is “thermally conducted”.
But assume axis is at 0 degrees to solar plane and has very fast rotation about 1/2 of area of sphere gets most of the sunlight and has more uniform temperature. And it would be closer to average temperature of 5 C.
See Arthur Smith’s article in arXiv for how to deal with a rotating planet/moon. Most of the objectors here appear intent on reinventing the wheel to escape being crushed. This continues an ancient tradition.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
Yeah, “objectors” is a pretty good word for those here that object to the established laws of science.
g*e*r*a*n Pretender Troll
So are you finally seeing what you are? You object to the established laws of science. Maybe there is some hope for you yet. At least it is a little encouraging that you are starting to see the errors in your thought process.
Nice attempted con, Con-man.
g*e*r*a*n
I think I finally figured out what happened. You were looking for this webpage and got to this one by mistake. I will help direct you back to where you wanted to go. You can thank me for helping you out.
http://www.cc.com/
g*e*r*a*n
They had your song posted at WUWT. I know you will feel in tune with this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=gkTb9GP9lVI
Enjoy your song, then Thank me later.
Con-man, no one can surpass your climate comedy. Tell us again how “energy leaves a system, but energy does not leave the system”.
That’s not even your funniest!
I see what you mean Norman!
With the cargo cult the planes looks sort of like planes- but even if they looked more exactly like planes- the religion doesn’t deliver the goods.
Eli Rabett on October 17, 2017 at 2:50 AM
Hello Eli,
on ‘some’ german websites you easily can see hints on rebuttal of Arthur P. Smith’s paper:
Kramm, G., Dlugi, R. and Zelger, M. (2009) Comments on the Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect by Arthur P. Smith
http://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=354794
This main one is behind paywall but another, very large, is free of charge:
Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi (2011)
Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its
climatic impact
http://file.scirp.org/Html/9233.html
Whatever conviction drives them is secondary: german scientists can be of tremendously exacting accuracy, and are hard to read for the lay(wo)man (Jochen Ebel is a pretty good example as well).
Did you ever ‘run over’ this lengthy paper?
It’s word salad mit Senf. Basically just attitude. AS and Eli read it and giggled
http://rabett.blogspot.ie/2009/05/krammed-to-our-misfortune-gerhard-kramm.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16612221&postID=4484437756868847462&isPopup=true
Agree, for example why object that someone used a sphere for the earth instead of an oblate spheroid claiming the sphere result “rather fruitless”. Kramm et. al. push the simple analog Fig. 6 covered in the cite they give (Bohren 2006, p. 33) way further than intended, a rather fruitless effort on their part imo. Equation dependent instead of basic observed atm. physics.
From 1st skim it appears Gramm et. al. do not use measured atm. emissivity global avg.d humid equator and dry pole as they get a much different answer than Bohren (eqn. 5.2, Fig. 7). And they complain Bohren used S as 1367 instead of 1361. Again, what’s the point of that?
Many thanks for the answer! I’ll read that stuff.
Eli,
Wow! Such a scientific response. You giggled.
How about your stupid green-blue plate load of horse manure thought experiment? What a monumentally stupid waste of time. Something that cannot even be scientifically examined.
How do these people earn PhD’s?
This is what G & T had to say about Halpern:
“One should keep in mind that we are theoretical physicists with experimental experience and, additionally, a lot of experience in numerical computing. Joshua Halpern and Jorg Zimmermann, for example, are chemists. We are not willing to discuss whether they can be considered as laymen in physics, in particular laymen
in thermodynamics”
I am willing to discuss whether Halpern is a laymen in physics. Halpern is a chemist! I wouldn’t take my car to a hairdresser for evaluation. Halpern IS a layman in physics. Why was his response to G & T even published? And then he has the nerve to “giggle” at Kramm et al 2011. Rather than publishing a response paper, he just shoots moronic ad hom’s in his lame blog!
And Bin just laps this stuff up like a puppy.
Wow! Such a scientific response. You giggled.
He also supplied 2 links. One to his own rebuttal, and one to the author who was being critiqued.
Dash something off in knee-jerk reaction did we?
Or perhaps you read the links and have something salient of your own to contribute?
Skepticgonewild,
I just want to say that I have a degree in Chemistry and to my knowledge Dr. Halpern does not. Does not mean I think I know more chemistry and thermo, just the opposite in fact.
I am just saying you are making a mistake, as G and T did in assuming Dr. Halpern is not a Physicist just because he is a Professor of Chemistry.
And why not respond to G&T in a blog, other than in ArX and on blogs, as far as I know, G&Ts paper never made journal publication.
skeptic…”I am willing to discuss whether Halpern is a laymen in physics. Halpern is a chemist…”
My understanding is that he has a degree in physics but teaches chemistry. From what I can gather he teaches 1st and 2nd year undergrads. Recently, I read that his degree is in physical chemistry.
He is Joshua Halpern from Howard University.
IMHO, his understanding of thermodynamics is flawed. He and the team who replied to G&T have mistaken heat for infrared. When G&T claimed one way heat transfer a la 2nd law, the team responded that G&T had a two body system with only one body radiating.
G&T had to correct the team on the so-called net energy transfer. They pointed out correctly that the 2nd law applies to heat and that you cannot sum radiation fluxes to satisfy the 2nd law. If you do, you end up with inanities such as heat flowing both ways between bodies.
The greenhouse effect is due to radiation flowing between two bodies, not heat, so G&T’s refutation is worthless.
And there is nothing in the Second law to prohibit a two way flow of radiation.
And there is nothing in the Second law to prohibit a two way flow of radiation.
And this is exactly what skeptics are trying to argue is not true.
They do it by confusing heat and (radiative) energy.
Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi (2011)
Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its
climatic impact
http://file.scirp.org/Html/9233.html
What found interesting so far:
“Frequently, a value for the solar constant close to
1367 WmS is recommended (e.g., [15,27,28]),
but the value obtained from recent satellite observations
using TIM (Total Irradiance Monitoring; launched in
2003) is close to 1361 WmS(see Figure 3). The
basis for this modified value is a more reliable…”
[Well that didn’t cut and paste very well] and
“…we have to pay attention to Milankovitchs [33] astronomical theory of climatic variations
that ranks as the most important achievement in the theory of climate in the 20th century”
I never thought of it that way, but it’s true.
Anyhow I will have read the rest later.
Still reading it, but it’s just refuting the greenhouse effect theory. And greenhouse effect theory is obviously pseudoscience. So boring.
Any way they say:
“Since the Moon is nearly a perfect example of a planet in the absence of its atmosphere it is often argued that Eqs.3.3 and 3.4 are only valid for fast-rotating planets so that the Moon must be excluded. Obviously, this argument plays no role if the planet Venus is considered that rotates by a factor of four slower than the Moon. ”
Sunlight doesn’t really get to the rocky surface of Venus and Venus has global wind which takes about 4 to 5 days to travel across entire globe- which effectively make Venus day about 4 to 5 days and therefore has much shorter day than the Moon.
And going do to summary:
“In this paper, we scrutinized the atmospheric green-
house effect, where we debated the meaning of climate,
climate change, climate variability and climate variation
to outline in which way this effect might be responsible
for climate change and climate variability, respectively.
…” And:
“We argued that climate change or climate variability can only be identified on the basis of two non-overlapping climate periods for which, at least, 60 year-observation records are required.”
I would agree that climate change is only something detectable over such long periods of time. But my reason is the global climate change is related to average ocean temperatures- which takes thousands of years. But 60 is better than 17 years.
Though it is amusing of the number of times they beat the 33 K dead horse, Eg:
Even though Gerlich and Tscheuschner [2] already
criticized it because of its physical irrelevance, Lacis et
al. [81] completely ignore it when they stated recently:
The difference between the nominal global mean
surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean
effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure
of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS TE = 33 K).
Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck
radiation equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean
solar radiation absorbed by Earth.
Note that their temperature TS corresponds to our
nsT and TE to our eT. Calling the globally averaged
irradiance of 240 Wm2 the Planck radiation equiva-
lent shows that the authors are less familiar with basic
physics in this matter.
Lacis one of those tools that thinks CO2 cause the entire 33 K of warming. Or without CO2, Earth would have average temperature of -18 C.
The revaluation was due to a vignetting issue not new observations.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-blog-of-new-sun.html
In his arXiv paper (linked above) Arthur Smith goes into the issue of how TE is definitional and that how it is an upper limit to the temperature of a body with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Kramm, Dugli, Gerlich, and most of the objectors here keep trying to change the statement of the problem to deny their denial.
binny…here’s your paper by Kramm et al. Hope you did not post it to support Arthur Smith, it is a critique of his paper which suggests G&T were right.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
Robertson troll
How can you be so dumb to think I wouldn’t have that paper since quite a lot of time?
I read that long before you put as usual half an eye on it!
And above all, you didn’t understand anything of Kramm’s paper, especially not that it contains 8 redundant pages concerning spheric coordinates and averages within which Kramm simply failed.
binny…”Did you ever run over this lengthy paper?”
Why are you asking Eli (aka josh) to objectively assess a critique of a paper written by his buddy Arthur Smith?
Last time I checked, Smith was working as a librarian in a physics outlet, whatever that may be.
American Physical Society. Interesting take on reality there
Kinda like she’s only a Secretary comment.
Robertson troll
Once more you give a perfect proof of your superficiality, your lack of knowledge, you total unwill to search for accurate information, and above all: your disgusting tendency to cowardly discredit other people behind your fake name.
What are you, with your minuscule electronics knowledge you so woefully exaggerate, in comparison with people like Arthur Smith or Joshua Halpern?
Nothing.
Anyhow an ideal thermally conductive blackbody gives a reasonable guess of planet’s temperature at certain distance from the sun but it doesn’t account for rotation or lack of rotation and doesn’t account for the insulative properties of a planet, nor does it tell you much about air temperature.
Since a blackbody radiates the most amount energy of at given temperature it also indicates that if Earth radiates 240 watts per square meter, it can’t have average temperature colder than -18 C.
Or ideal thermally conductive blackbody is also indicating how cold [rather than how warm] a planet can be at a certain distance from the Sun.
Or though there are better arguments, it an argument opposing idea of snowball earth [which claims earth could get a lot colder than -18 C [all oceans freeze over and then it gets really cold.
So going back to the Moon if the Moon had faster rotation it’s equator region would have a higher average temperature.
With earth the tropics receives more sunlight than the rest of the planet.
Or as is commonly said 40% of the planet [tropics] receives more than 1/2 of the sunlight.
Of course the Moon near the equator, presently receives more sunlight than the rest of the Moon, but a faster rotation would allow the region of the tropics to further increase it’s average temperature.
The Moon is tidal locked and rotate in respect to the sun in the period of time it orbits the earth. Or if the Moon was closer to Earth it would have a shorter day. And/or could spin the Moon so shorten it’s day. Or billions of year ago, the Moon would have orbited Earth in shorter time period and may have not been tidally locked.
See Smith’s arXiv paper about how to deal with rotation.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“If I had to posit a guess Id say those wiley electrons….”
Gordon, why don’t you stop guessing about physics and sit down and learn it??
Your speculations are always wrong, and they contribute nothing to the discussion. Nothing.
All your guesses make you look the fool. Fortunately for you your name is generic, or fake, so that no one knows who you really are.
DA…”Gordon, why dont you stop guessing about physics and sit down and learn it??”
I think it’s safe to claim, after decades of applying electronics theory, that I know more about it than you could ever dream of knowing. That’s obvious to me by your inane replies, devoid of even a basic understanding of electronics.
BTW…electronics is a branch of physics, as is electrical theory.
Gordon, you demonstrate daily that you know very very little physics. You get everything wrong, refuse to learn, and spout off about any topic whether you know anything or not.
You’re a fake.
From Clausius, On the nature of the motion which we call heat (1857):
Krnig assumes that the molecules of gas do not oscillate about definite positions of equilibrium, but that they move with constant velocity in right lines until they strike against other molecules, or against some surface which to them is impermeable. I share this view completely, and I also believe that the expansive force of the gas arises from this motion. On the other hand, I am of opinion that this is not the only motion present.
In the first place, the hypothesis of a rotary as well as a progressive motion of the molecules at once suggests itself; for at every impact of two bodies, unless the same happens to be central and rectilinear, a rotary as well as a translatory motion ensues.
I am also of an opinion that vibrations take place within the several masses in a state of progressive motion. Such vibrations are conceivable in several ways. Even if we limit ourselves to the consideration of the atomic masses solely, and regard these as absolutely rigid, it is still possible that a molecule, which consists of several atoms, may not also constitute an absolutely rigid mass, but that within it the several atoms are to a certain extent moveable, and thus capable of oscillating with respect to each other.
By means of a mathematical investigation given at the end of the present memoir, it may be proved that the vis viva of the translatory motion alone is too small to represent the whole heat present in the gas; so that without entering into the probability of the same, we are thus compelled to assume one or more motions of another kind.
https://web.lemoyne.edu/giunta/CLAUSIUS57.html
And so concludes our lesson in pseudo intellectual supremacy… Just remember everyone: an ice age is coming sooner or later. We should err on the side of warmer vs cooler. Next fake crisis please…
That’s the year 10K problem. Plan on being around?
Fixed for 500kyears Eli:
https://tinyurl.com/ydg29oon
Another lows over the Pacific Ocean migrate to Canada.
https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22528281_728172030722079_2722375667712330419_n.jpg?oh=ea5fdae49aca580397fa8374d23ad91e&oe=5A6BF535
In the atheist religion of global warming [in which the current Pope is true believer] a few prophets considered that Venus once had ocean which boiled away from global warming.
I happen to think that an ocean would keep Venus surface much cooler, than it currently is. Or if dumped a ocean on to Venus, it’s Venus rocky surface would cool. I also hold the seemingly contrary view that Earth’s ocean cause Earth to have a higher average air temperature. It also seems that those prophets thought ocean kept Venus cooler [before it boiled away- or perhaps while ocean was boiling away Venus was even hotter. Or it had to be cooler to have the ocean before boiling away- or the prophets inspiration wasn’t starting with hot atmosphere of H20 gas, but rather once having a liquid ocean like Earth. Anyhow it seem roughly both the prophets and myself think a ocean would cool a planet at Venus distance from the sun, though the prophets might have imagined that Earth ocean keeps Earth cooler than it would be otherwise, until such time as the ocean boiling [away].
So I think a tropical ocean at Earth and Mars distance warms the surface air temperature and at Venus distance would cool the existing furnace air temperatures at it’s rocky surface.
I think some people might think such thinking is blasphemous.
Venus is close enough to the Sun that water vapor in the upper atmosphere can be dissociated and the hydrogen gas then leaked out to space a few zillion years of this is how water disappeared there
At Venus distance one has twice as much Sunlight as Earth, so roughly would dissociate twice as much water.
With Earth and Mars methane is rapidly dissociated, and likewise Venus would dissociated methane twice as quickly as compared to Earth.
Venus has detectable amounts of water, it has no detectable levels of methane.
It seems what has disappeared on Venus is methane.
“Venus has detectable amounts of water…”
It has 20 ppm of water vapor… Not much to hang your hat on.
But the real question with respect to Venus is what about the excess deuterium?
Where did it come from?
“Milankovitchs astronomical theory of climatic variations
that ranks as the most important achievement in the theory of climate in the 20th century
As I said above, I thought this was interesting.
What other “important achievement in the theory of climate in the 20th century” has there been?
What I first thought of was the theory of plate tectonic and the realization due to exploration of our Moon, that earth “recently” has had impactors. BUT these are in field of geology and “in the field of exploration”.
So, it seems harder to think some equally important achievement in 20th or 21 century in the “field of global warming”.
Actually both impactors and plate tectonic are closely connected with hated “field” of oil exploitation.
I would rank #1 to be Manabe & Wetherald’s 1967 paper that was the first to accurately calculate the Earth’s average surface temperature, and calculate a climate sensitivity.
“Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
Dr Spencer, the oceans are warming. What is the theory behind why the oceans are warming? Is CO2 being blamed as the cause of the oceans’ warming? I doubt there is enough energy between 13 and 18 microns to cause the warming. Isn’t the real interesting observation that the oceans are warming? Warm the oceans you warm the atmosphere, but what is causing the oceans to warm? That is the question that needs to be asked.
co2islife….”Dr Spencer, the oceans are warming. What is the theory behind why the oceans are warming?”
It’s similar to the sky is falling. It used to be global warming, then climate change, now the oceans are warming.
What do you mean ‘used to be global warming’ here?
If you look at UAH lower troposphere data, and take the average for each decade, you see this:
1970s Mean : -0.284583 (1978 & 1979)
1980s Mean : -0.142167
1990s Mean : 0.00125
2000s Mean : 0.10425
2010s Mean : 0.226389 (through Sep 2017)
Looks like warming to me.
Six significant digits? Ugh.
Its similar to the sky is falling. It used to be global warming, then climate change, now the oceans are warming.
Errant nonsense. Those terms and concepts have been around for at least 50 years.
Whatever you call it, “errant nonsense”, “the sky is falling”, “climate change”, “global warming”, “coming ice age”, or “hunt for funding”, it’s all PSEUDOSCIENCE.
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/1973-brown-columbia-oregon-state-universities-predicted-a-new-ice-age/
You have this backwards, it used to be ‘climate(ic) change’ starting in 1956, the journal Climatic Change started in 1977 and the IPCC was founded in 1988. Broecker first used the term ‘global warming’ in a 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming, note he used both the established term and the new one. In recent years in the US the Republicans adopted ‘climate change’ rather than ‘global warming’ because it sounded less frightening.
Gordon, Roger Pielke Sr, a favorite of “skeptics,” has repeatedly said (and was among the first) that ocean heat content is the best measure of the energy imbalance caused by AGW.
What do you know that he doens’t.
CO2isLife on October 18, 2017 at 3:55 PM
I doubt there is enough energy between 13 and 18 microns to cause the warming.
I don’t understand you here. Why would anybody reasonably think of CO2 alone being responsible for an increase of the heat stored into the oceans?
The wavelength range between 0.27 and 2.6 microns contains over 96% of the sun’s energy. That’s the source. Know since 100 years at least.
But… H2O and CO2 absorb and reemit IR just in this 13-18 micron wavelength window you mention, and therefore prevent Earth’s IR response to Sun’s radiation from escaping out of space: that is true not only for land, but for the oceans as well.
So you wont wonder when more and more people wonder about such an increase of ocean heat content just in a period where Suns activity is decreasing (in such a rate that it even lets other people propagate the idea well enter a new ice age by 2030).
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.png
This is from the Japanese JMA, an institution whose world average temperature anomaly trends are, with 0.14 C / decade, similar to WeatherBELLs reanalysis and… UAH6.0. Trustworthy imho.
Their OHC trend: 2.2 x 10^7 PJ / decade. But yes, with two interesting subtrends:
– 1950-1980: 0.1, and
– 1981-2016: 5.2.
So what in your mind could be the reason for the heat increasing in oceans other than its inability to correctly escape?
–So what in your mind could be the reason for the heat increasing in oceans other than its inability to correctly escape?–
You asking that water has to radiate, but warm water can mix with cold water- and that is how a ocean gains heat.
Or more mixing of cold water with warm water reduces the amount radiated into space. Or heat is “lost” to the vast ocean rather heat used to evaporate the ocean and thereby increase global air temperature.
Or “lost” or “stored” same thing. Or money in the bank rather than money spent.
Though money in the bank is only way one gets “global warming”. And our ocean been broke for millions of years- icebox climate = broke.
As usual: gbaikie-gessing. Thanks for the redundant stuff.
If redundant, can we assume it answers the question asked:
“So what in your mind could be the reason for the heat increasing in oceans other than its inability to correctly escape?”
For more redundant stuff, once cold ocean is warmed, less heat is “lost” in the ocean, so that means the ocean will evaporate more, and therefore increase the average air temperature.
Or at that point, earth would no longer be in icebox climate- the ocean would be warm rather than cold.
Or earth returns to the average temperature it had before entering our current icebox climate- this is a average global temperature of about 20 C.
The world is not hotter, rather one has more tropical like condition further towards the poles than we currently have.
And you get less “hot days” and less freezing temperatures in winter or night [more like tropical conditions further outside the tropics.
“this is a average global temperature of about 20 C.”
This include “glacier periods”.
Or in our interglacial periods of the ice=box climate the average air temperature are about 13 to 18 C and in glacial periods it’s about 10 to 14 C.
Or average of interglacial 13 to 18 = 15.5 C
And glacial 10 to 14 = 14 C.
But of time is it cooler- glacial periods are longer periods and only have spikes of warmer air temperature, so in terms of total time [millions of years] it’s 12 to 13 C.
So it’s about 12 C compared to about 20 C.
And in a non icebox climate one doesn’t get the large variation- or stays near 20 C during the times that would be our glacial and interglacial periods due to changes in Earth’s orbit.
Duh, “And glacial 10 to 14 = 14 C.” is “And glacial 10 to 14 =
12 C.”
CO2isLife says:
“I doubt there is enough energy between 13 and 18 microns to cause the warming”
Why don’t you calculate it and find out?
CO2isLife on October 18, 2017 at 3:55 PM
I doubt there is enough energy between 13 and 18 microns to cause the warming.
I apologise for a bit of sarcasm, bur in French we use to say:
‘Le sceptique doute de tout…’
To what a decade ago I simply couldn’t resist to add:
‘… et donc ne se doute de rien.’
This is for barry or anyone who still thinks EM can transport heat between masses separated by space (radiation).
I have tried to establish using an example from tele.communications that EM is used as a vehicle to transport acoustical energy from a radio station to a receiver but that EM is not acoustical energy. Here’s another example that may clarify the situation between forms of energy and their roles in transferring energy.
An electrical transformer is essentially an electrical voltage/current converter. It transfers electrical energy from once side of the device to the other without there being an electrical connection. The primary side of the transformer is completely isolated electrically from the secondary side, except in an auto.transformer.
This is exactly the same situation as with radiation when EM transfers heat between masses of different temperatures without heat itself being physically trans.ported from one mass to the other. Heat simply reduces in one mass and increases in the other and that increase/decrease is heat transfer.
The coupling between sides of a transformer is done using magnetic flux, which is magnetic energy. A basic transformer has a primary winding and a secondary winding. An alternating EMF (driving voltage) is applied across the primary and it forces a current through the primary windings. A magnetic flux transfers changes in the primary current to the secondary current.
The point is, no physical electrical connection exists between the primary and secondary circuit. Current does not flow between the primary and secondary, except in an auto.transformer. All electrical energy is transferred from the primary to the secondary using magnetic flux yet the primary varies in step with the secondary.
This is for barry or anyone who still thinks EM can transport heat between masses separated by space (radiation).
Gordon: answer this directly.
How is heat transported from the sun to the Earth?
barry on October 19, 2017 at 3:05 AM
How is heat transported from the sun to the Earth?
Sorry barry, you are ‘appelling’ a bit here.
Every time you write this, you will be contradicted and discredited as clueless warmist.
No heat is transported fron the Sun to the Earth. Only a form of energy able to induce heat in matter it reaches.
Bindidon says:
“No heat is transported fron the Sun to the Earth. Only a form of energy able to induce heat in matter it reaches.”
That’s nomenclature only. And nomenclature is boring.
Bindidon says:
“No heat is transported fron the Sun to the Earth. Only a form of energy able to induce heat in matter it reaches.”
What’s the difference?
You don’t understand why I write it, and to be honest, I see no reason to tell an alarmist like you why I do this and not that.
Radiative energy flowing from the Sun to the Earth is heat insofar as its ability to do work is limited by the second law of thermodynamics.
@ER
No, energy in the form of photons should by no means be considered as heat.
For it can in principle be made use of much more efficiently than heat to convert it into work or equivalently into chemical or electric energy, for instance in photosynthesis or photovoltaics. In photosynthesis a photon excites a specific degree of freedom of a biomolecule and that excitation is taken advantage of to do useful work (in the form of chemical energy storage) before it thermalizes and spreads over all degrees of freedom.
Heat is a form of energy that is spread over all degrees of freedom ( translation, vibration, rotation, magnetic etc) in a sample of matter and as long as a photon is not just absorbed and then thermalized it is not heat.
This is still useful to read in this respect
Exactement, alphagruis, et merci pour le lien vers ce papier que je lirai quand j’en aurai le temps.
Ha! Pas d’accents dans la phrase! Incroyable. Aucune envie de m’amuser avec des trucs du genre
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/e9/index.htm
–For it can in principle be made use of much more efficiently than heat to convert it into work or equivalently into chemical or electric energy, for instance in photosynthesis or photovoltaics. In photosynthesis a photon excites a specific degree of freedom of a biomolecule and that excitation is taken advantage of to do useful work (in the form of chemical energy storage) before it thermalizes and spreads over all degrees of freedom.–
Well assuming electrical power from photovoltaics is used, it warms more than land surfaces.
Though land surface on a water planet are a loss of heat.
Eli Rabett says, October 20, 2017 at 3:49 AM:
LOL! So you’re basically saying that the TSI is the solar heat [Q_in(sw)] to Earth? How confused is that?
No, the NET SW (the ASR, TSI minus albedo) is the solar heat to Earth. You know, the incoming 240 W/m^2 at the ToA.
Radiative energy is NEVER itself heat.
Radiation energy or photons are not heat.
Yet, of course, this does not mean at all that heat is not transferred by radiation between two bodies at different temperatures.
These discussions about two-way transfers of radiation versus one-way transfer of heat are just laughable.
Heat by definition is the net energy transferred spontaneously from hot to cold. That’s all.
In an ordinary heat conduction experiment, for instance in a gas with a temperature gradient, the two-way flow of energy exists as well !!!
Indeed let’s consider a reference plane perpendicular to the gradient, there are continuously molecules crossing that plane in one way and carrying their kinetic (or vibrational energy, etc) from hot to cold and simultaneously an (statistically) equal number of molecules crossing that plane the other way and carrying their energy from cold to hot.
Yet since the former come from a hotter region about one mean free mean path away from reference plane they carry (in the mean) more energy than the latter originating from a colder region about one mean free path away from reference plane.
Hence there is a systematic (statistically) net flow of energy from hot to cold or heat flux that can be readily shown to be merely proportional to the temperature gradient itself, that is nothing more but the famous Fourier law of heat transfer by conduction.
Bindidon,
Wasn’t sure if you were being sarcastic when you wrote this.
No heat is transported fron the Sun to the Earth. Only a form of energy able to induce heat in matter it reaches.
I’ve said as much upthread, and agree with David that much of this is semantics.
The sun warms the Earth. How does it do this? By transporting heat, in the form of energy which carries its potential, to Earth via EM.
One can say:
“Earth gets the vast bulk of its heat from the sun.”
This is true. EM is the transport system, whereby heat is transformed to pure energy, travels across the vacuum, and becomes heat again when it strikes the Earth.
I wonder if this is a good expression of your rebuttal?
Just as heat is not transported to the earth from the sun to make it warm, electricity is not transported to a coal-fired power plant to make it run.
Radiant energy is ‘processed’ by the Earth and becomes heat, just as coal is ‘processed’ by the power-plant to generate power.
Coal is not electricity.
Radiant energy is not heat.
However… Radiant energy begins and ends as as heat. Coal does not start as electricity.
EM is a vehicle for moving heat from one place to another, even though it is not heat through a vacuum.
Steam is not water, but they are both H2O.
Mostly I think it’s semantics.
“Mostly I think it’s semantics.”
I don’t because science propositions can be tested to eliminate semantic issues by inspecting the instrumental data.
Steam is water vapor at a temperature above the boiling point. We can’t see steam but we can see light scattered by water droplets. So we can see water only when it has ceased to be a vapor (like clouds we see are liquid water droplets).
“Heat gets from the sun to the Earth via EM.”
One could probably pick at that statement somehow, but it wouldn’t add much to the general debate.
“EM transports heat from the sun to the Earth.”
Is just a variation on that.
Perhaps Gordon thinks there is a soup of matter all the way between the sun and the Earth and the transport system is convention or conduction….?
Ether!
Wonderful, Svante! Il fallait y penser…
Barry,
My understanding is that photosynthesis uses sunlight to create chemical energy. Are you suggesting the sun transports this chemical energy to Earth directly? Just curious.
Maybe this will help in the “heat” debate.
The problem with using heat for both internal energy and rate of energy exchange is that the two units are different.
It would be like saying speed and distance are the same.
Internal energy is just a quantity of joules, the kinetic energy of the vibrating matter is joules.
Heat is expressed as joules/second.
Like distance is meters and speed is meters/second.
Distance exists without speed. Speed only exists when objects move. Internal energy exists without heat. Heat only exists when you have objects at different temperature. Heat does not exist when the temperature is the same. Cold objects have internal energy but you would not say they have heat. An object that is warmer than you would fit the idea that it has heat, it is moving noticeable joules/second to you. Heat is a measure of the rate of energy transfer, similar to speed is the rate of covering a distance. More heat, more joules/second.
Hope that helps.
IR is not heat. It is energy. Heat is only the net transfer of energy from hot to cold. If you have two surfaces at the same temperature you have IR moving back and forth, but you have no heat exchange. Therefore IR is not heat, it is energy.
Norman says, October 19, 2017 at 10:55 AM:
Nope. Heat [Q] is energy. Work [W] is energy. And internal energy [U] is energy. Just joules in all cases:
ΔU = Q + W (1st Law of Thermodynamics.)
Norm loves his pseudoscience.
Norm,
Per Wikipedia:
“As a form of energy heat has the unit joule (J) in the International System of Units (SI)”
Come on Norm. This is High School physics.
1 W = 1 J/s
–Nope. Heat [Q] is energy. Work [W] is energy. And internal energy [U] is energy. Just joules in all cases:
ΔU = Q + W (1st Law of Thermodynamics.)–
Work is acceleration.
Or something in motion remaining in motion is not work- slowing something up or down is work.
Anyways I was wondering about the “just joules in all cases”, but then realize joules is also acceleration.
So there wasn’t anything to wonder about.
But then again, maybe aspect of acceleration being involved,
might helpful to keep in mind.
Kristain and SkepticGoneWild
The issue is not so well defined. Ball4 is probably correct on his point that “heat” is a very confused term since it means different things depending upon context.
In the First Law (which deals with closed systems) the heat term is used as an overall quantity within the closed system. Since the overall energy is not changing then heat becomes a quantity of energy or joules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
Then in the description of “heat” it is a flow of energy from hot to cold. A flow would be in joules/second…Watts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
With the Earth’s surface and temperature it is not a closed system. It is gaining energy from the Sun and losing energy to space never to return. It is a dynamic process that would only be understood in terms of heat transfer of Watts.
http://faculty.utrgv.edu/constantine.tarawneh/Heat%20Transfer/HeatTransferBooklet.pdf
All the heat transfer equations are in Watts or Watts/meter.
Just another way to look at it.
If you use water for energy (maybe it will help visualize what I am getting at).
The First Law with the water would be you would have a fixed quantity of water in a closed system. The flow of water from one storage area to another would not change the total amount of water (like the joules in a closed system, some could be work, other heat, the number of joules is fixed and does not change).
If you wanted to know what a temperature will be (joules in a particular storage system) or in my analogy, water in a storage container, the flow of water in and out become critical to determining what a storage level amount of water will be. The water flow can be in gallons/minute similar to joules/second for energy.
If a container has so many gallons a minute going in and so many gallons a minute going out you can see if the water level will be going up, staying the same or decreasing.
With climate science the Earth system is dynamic so the use of heat would be in the transfer definition or in Watts. There is no set amount of joules in the Earth’s surface (as in a closed system)
I am not sure that helps, I can keep trying if it does not.
norman…”Then in the description of heat it is a flow of energy from hot to cold. A flow would be in joules/secondWatts”.
I had never seen that description of heat till I encountered this blog. If you constrain heat to a generic energy definition without getting in to what it is in reality, you can create all sorts of nasty presumptions.
I can agree to an extent that heat is a flow of energy from hot to cold but what energy is flowing? Some people seem bent on divorcing heat from thermal energy via semantics. In that case, at least call the flowing energy what it is, thermal energy.
Furthermore, that flow is constrained to solids, it does not apply to radiation through space. In a solid, thermal energy is not converted to another form of energy, it is transferred directly via valence shell electrons. Heat can flow convectively but that involves a transport of mass.
In radiation, there is no mass to transfer the heat directly therefore heat must be converted to EM first and radiated to space. That process supplies us with all the light in the universe. It is a known fact that the EM is emitted from the electrons in stars as the electrons change from one energy state to another.
Thermal energy is simply not a property of EM. Look it up. Furthermore, EM has a specific frequency and thermal energy does not. EM is comprised of an electric field integrated with a magnetic field. Heat has neither.
Gordon Robertson
I took your advice and did look it up. The established science would say IR is heat. It is just one of the ways thermal energy can transfer. The transfer of thermal energy is designated as heat (from hot to cold). No temperature difference no heat. So IR can be heat or it might not be. It would only qualify as heat on the condition that it transfers thermal energy from a hotter object to a colder one. If the objects are the same temperature IR exchanges between the two, each emitting and absorbing the others’ IR but there is no heat transfer.
Here read it for yourself.
https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/textbook/Chap_4.pdf
You can read this section of the text:
“4.2 Transfer of Thermal Energy as Heat
The transfer of energy as heat can take place via three processes: conduction,
convection, and radiation. In conduction and radiation, energy transfers occurs without
the transfer of mass. You will see several examples of all three of these processes
throughout this period. “
Norm,
One has to be careful with units and definition of terms. The term “heat” is always measured in Joules.
What you may be thinking of is what’s often defined as “energy flux” or “energy flux density”, which refers to the energy which crosses a unit surface area per unit time, and has units of W/m-2.
But “heat” is only measured in Joules (SI units)
gbaikie…”Work is acceleration”.
Work is mechanical energy since it involves a force component over a distance. Clausius claimed that work is equivalent to heat and since heat is thermal energy work has to be energy as well.
This statement posted by Kristian is correct.
ΔU = Q + W (1st Law of Thermodynamics.)
Since U is internal energy, as defined by Clausius, who also wrote the 1st law, then both Q and W must be energy.
In his memoirs, Clausius gives the in-depth analysis of U and how both heat and work act at the atomic level. He defined heat as the vis viva (kinetic energy) of atoms and work as the related internal forces that cause atoms to vibrate over a distance.
Norman 4:51pm, in your OSU link can you spot the relic 1800s caloric theory still at work? For example:
“Of its own accord, heat flows from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature.”
What exactly is flowing? A colorless, odorless, weightless fluid? What?
In that throwback statement originates the mistake that energy cannot flow from atm. to surface and the mistake in Kristian’s world where “there is no “flow” of energy in the opposite direction.”
These mistakes are continued when you post these links, try to vet and choose links in accord with atm. experiment (it’s a climate blog) as you are thinking more correctly: thermal energy flows from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature. With that understanding can noire accurately discuss & use atm. physics in accord with tests of Dr. Spencer.
Are you suggesting the sun transports this chemical energy to Earth directly?
No.
SkepticGoneWild
You are correct. I would be using the term “heat transfer” which is a rate. Heat is the amount of energy that is transferred, not the rate at which it transfers.
I have not found solid definition of heat supporting Gordon Robertson’s view.
It seems the current established scientific use of “heat” is the quantity of energy transferred from a hot object to a cooler one. It does not indicate a rate.
But I would still have you consider that this use of “heat” is not useful in trying to determine the temperature of a dynamic system since rates of heat transfer are very important in trying to determine how warm an object will become.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Norman,
As Kristian posted regarding the First Law:
ΔU = Q + W (1st Law of Thermodynamics.)
Each term has units in Joules.
However, the radiative heat flow equation is written:
Q = A*sigma*(Thot^4 Tcool^4)
Often this equation is just written using the term “Q”. But this is not the same Q as in the First Law equation above. So, often the heat flow equation is written with an apostrophe, or dot above the Q to make a distinction.
skeptic…”What you may be thinking of is whats often defined as energy flux or energy flux density, which refers to the energy which crosses a unit surface area per unit time, and has units of W/m-2″.
What you define is heat transfer in motion and in a solid it can be described as a field over a cross-sectional area. That does not apply in space since there is no heat flowing through space unless you have a convective flow of mass, as in the solar wind.
The only thing that can be measured in space is a flow of EM flux per cross-sectional area. Of course EM flux is not heat and it’s relation to heat is a one way flow from hot to cold, just as in a solid.
Gordon,
I did not use the term “heat”. I called it energy flux. I don’t know why you keep going on and on, beating a dead horse to death.
Here is a textbook definition of heat:
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon. If we consider the hot block of copper as a system and the cold water in the beaker as another system, we recognize that originally neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy, of course.) When the copper is placed in the water and the two are in thermal communication, heat is transferred from the copper to the water, until equilibrium of temperature is established. At that point we no longer have heat transfer, since there is no temperature difference. Neither of the systems contains any heat at the conclusion of the process. It also follows that heat is identified at the boundaries of the system, for heat is defined as energy being transferred across the system boundary.
from G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics
It’s very easy to observe. I can go out in the daylight, stick my bare hand out, and EM energy travels at the speed of light from the sun, and transfers heat to it, since my hand is cooler than the sun.
I don’t have to contemplate my navel, or perform meditation to understand this. You are just arguing with yourself.
Thermodynamics textbooks call it “heat transfer”. I seriously don’t know what you are arguing about.
“…a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary.”
It? I haven’t seen the movie. Only with paranormal meditation can that be possibly understood in a physical sense. Text books really can be Ouija boards at times.
Gordon Robertson
I am not sure you are using words very well with your post.
First you claim: “This is for barry or anyone who still thinks EM can transport heat between masses separated by space (radiation).”
In the same post you also state: “This is exactly the same situation as with radiation when EM transfers heat between masses of different temperatures without heat itself being physically trans.ported from one mass to the other. Heat simply reduces in one mass and increases in the other and that increase/decrease is heat transfer.”
Maybe you do not realize this but transfer is a synonym of transport.
Here look:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transport
It is getting more certain that with every post you make, you demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about. I appeal again. Quit reading the stupid made up blog physics like Claes Johnson the Crackpot (crackpots pop up all the time and they know better than anyone else and want to enlighten the few gullible that really don’t know science like yourself). Open a real physics textbook on heat transfer and start to read it. That is the only way to escape the delusional world you live in.
To keep from getting confused, I like to think of energy as money and heat as profit. So, for example, the earth and sun exchange money, but only the earth realizes a profit.
A better analogy is to think of energy like the balance in a bank account, and to think of heat as a transfer.
There is no such thing as a “transfer” or a “withdrawal” or a “deposit” sitting around in your bank account. Money (internal energy) is sitting in the account. The transfer (heat) only exists fleetingly as a way to account for the balance in one account increasing while the balance in another account is simultaneously decreasing. Once the money has been moved, the transfer ceases to exist as a separate thing, and there are only new balances in the two accounts.
“The transfer (heat) only exists fleetingly..”
And only in the spiritual sense Tim, not the material.
Only by resorting to paranormal arguments, such as Kristian’s, can heat be given such a tidy existence as work being a force through a distance. Heat has no such tidy definition nor corporeal form, Clausius def. of heat only as a measure is still the best around.
All….ALL the rest simply add confusion. Prolong blog discussions round and round for no reason, no gain.
ball4…”Only by resorting to paranormal arguments, such as Kristians, can heat be given such a tidy existence as work being a force through a distance. Heat has no such tidy definition nor corporeal form, Clausius def. of heat only as a measure is still the best around”.
There is nothing paranormal in describing heat as equivalent to work. Clausius made that clear. I have not read anything in the works of Clausius where he described heat as a measure. He stated clearly that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
Even in an atom, heat produces work and work produces heat. Atoms are normally vibrating in a solid and the motion of the internal masses over a distance produce work. If you add external heat, the distance over which the atoms vibrate increases with their kinetic energy. So heat has caused an increase in work.
In the 1st law, Clausius described internal energy as the sum of the energies of heat and work. There is nothing else in atomic structure that can produce such heat and work. Heady stuff for 1850 or so.
“I have not read anything in the works of Clausius where he described heat as a measure. He stated clearly that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.”
Heat is a measure of the body’s constituent particle KE. Clausius 1st Memoir, p. 18: “Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.”
ball4…”Heat is a measure of the bodys constituent particle KE”.
He said a measure of a particle’s KE. There is nothing obscure about that definition, such as would be the case it calling heat simply a measure and leaving it as an obfuscation.
Later on he came right out and called heat the vis viva (KE) of atoms.
I have pointed out in the past that KE is simply generic energy in motion. KE applies to any form of energy in motion. When the motion refers to the motion of atoms we call it heat. Therefore heat is equivalent to the kinetic energy in the motion of atoms.
I mean, what else could it be? There are those who insist on re-defining science based on their own personal views. They have redefined heat, entropy, and the relationship between EM and heat. None of that makes their definitions true.
“I mean, what else could it be?”
Cold.
When the motion refers to the motion of atoms we call it cold.
Therefore, cold is a measure of kinetic energy in the motion of atoms.
This is why the faucets on your kitchen sink have a measure H,C of the KE in the water constituent particles.
Tim
I still think profit is a good analogy for heat:
Profit: “a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.”
Yeah … I do like “profit” more as I think about it — especially as the sum of all transfers. Radiation always involves 2-way transfers, but typically the NET transfer is all we need to worry about. And it turns out that the laws of physics guarantee that the net transfer is ALWAYS from warm to cool.
Tim Folkerts says, October 20, 2017 at 12:23 PM:
No, thermally it always involves an continuous EXCHANGE of energy (on the microscopic level), spontaneously resulting in a continuous TRANSFER (‘flow’) of energy (on the macroscopic level) from hot to cold only: The radiative HEAT.
This is why a bank analogy is a poor (as in ‘confusing’) one when it comes to thermal radiative exchange. Because in the bank, deposits and withdrawals are customarily done separately in time and space, while in thermal radiative exchange they’re always very much integrated into ONE single process, a continuous EXCHANGE rather than discrete, independent IN/OUT transfers.
“ONE single process” “rather than discrete, independent IN/OUT transfers”.
This is a weird concept when EM speed is limited. The destination may change from hotter to colder during transit, or disappear altogether.
snape…”I still think profit is a good analogy for heat:”
You can fail to attain a profit, or go bankrupt. That does not happen with heat. I think it’s a poor analogy.
Gordon
You can also fail to stay warm.
That negative profit would be a loss and business cash would drain to absolute zero after a liquidation BK.
Profit is ok as an analogue as it is a measure of the cash received during the business cycle: the cash flowed in. More cash is in your pocket as the business owner if profit is positive. Like more KE is in your pocket if it is warmer.
Would be confusing to say profit flow when you really mean cash flow as any accountant will advise.
Tim…”A better analogy is to think of energy like the balance in a bank account, and to think of heat as a transfer”.
We already have the conservation of energy law and that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Why are we now talking about bank accounts? It is agreed that energy must be conserved. When you convert energy between different forms, energy must be conserved.
Heat is not a transfer, it is transferred. Clausius stated that heat produces work and that work produces heat. He called both an equivalence. How can something defined as a transfer produce work?
Do you seriously think that the heat in steam can drive a piston when it is defined as a transfer? It is the atoms in the steam that cause the tremendous pressure required on a piston face to drive a steam locomotive. Heat is the kinetic energy of the water molecules at a very high temperature.
Heat produces the pressure when a coal driven furnace heats the water to produce steam. Heat is transferred from the coal fire to the water, it is not the transfer itself.
Roger, you STILL can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that all modern physics and engineering texts disagree with you.
Heat, Q, *is* a transfer.
Heat is *never* “in” anything. Not in steam. Not in the sun. Not in your body. That is properly called “internal energy”, U, (or “thermal energy”).
Read a text book. Talk to a professor. THEN come back and tell us what “heat” is.
tim…”Roger, you STILL cant seem to come to grips with the fact that all modern physics and engineering texts disagree with you”.
Has it occurred to you that modern texts are wrong?
“Heat, Q, *is* a transfer”.
Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. Of course, if you and your modern text books know more than the scientist who created the 1st and 2nd laws, and defined entropy, please feel free to live in your delusions.
“Has it occurred to you that modern texts are wrong? “
Basically, your whole argument boils down to a belief that science moves backwards and that scientists know less than they did 100 years ago.
No, that thought has never occurred to me.
If you want to discuss thermodynamics with anyone who is not decades dead, you really should use the terminology of the 20th century, not the 19th century.
And yes — I (and any other competent modern physicist or engineer) does know more about thermodynamics than anyone 150 years ago. Not that I am smarter! But I have all the writings of the people 150 years ago to study. And I have all the writings of people 100 years ago and 50 years ago and 10 years ago who built on and — yes — improved on the original works.
tim…”Basically, your whole argument boils down to a belief that science moves backwards and that scientists know less than they did 100 years ago”.
In certain fields…yes. Quantum theory has been both a boon and a bust. It has essentially set science back 100 years in many ways.
Physicist, David Bohm, highly respected by Einstein, claimed that both Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics have reached the ends of their respective roads with regard to atomic theory and that we may have to go back and redefine out parameters, especially those involving time.
Even scientists like Feynman claimed QM works but no one knows why. What good is that when a modification of physics based on fudged math, as admitted by Planck, is of no use in observing reality directly?
I see no reason to redefine heat as an obscurity. There is no reason either to include entropy in the definition of the 2nd law, given the tendency of many scientists to give entropy properties it does not have.
Let’s get it straight. The Stephan-Boltzmann equation did not specify that heat is transferred both ways in radiative heat transfer. Stephan admitted the equation could not be verified by experiment yet many modern scientists have proceeded as if it has been verified in two-way heat transfer by radiation.
It might serve you well to be a little more skeptical of what you may have been fed at university. I was not at the time but I certainly am now. I understand your point about questioning everything for the sake of questioning. I can think of many situations in science where that is not warranted.
However, when the 2nd law claims heat can be transferred hot to cold only, under normal circumstances, and certain modern scientists claim the 2nd law is satisfied based on a net flow of EM, based on an incorrect interpretation of Stephan-Boltzmann, then I think it is imperative to be skeptical.
tim…”And yes I (and any other competent modern physicist or engineer) does know more about thermodynamics than anyone 150 years ago”.
I would like to be able to agree but since 1930 or so we have become immersed in the eccentricities of quantum theory and seem to have taken a step back rather than forward. Schrodinger retired rather than accept the idiotic direction in which Bohr and others were taking QM. Einstein divorced himself from their insanity.
I would agree in fields like medicine that we have definitely progressed. I simply can’t see calling it progress when we take a perfectly good definition of heat from the 1850s and replace it with an obscure notion while failing to name the energy involved.
Branding heat as a generic energy is just plain wrong. It can burn the flesh off your finger for cripes sake. It can start fires and cause a semiconductor to fail.
Worse still is separating thermal energy from heat. That’s insanity and nothing more than semantics. We humans know through experience that heat can seriously injure you. Yet there are those who would deny that common knowledge and turn heat into an obfuscation.
It chagrins me that it seems to be engineers doing much of the obfuscation wrt heat. I read the text submitted by norman and I think some of the claims by an engineer are utter garbage.
norman…”I am not sure you are using words very well with your post”.
I stated exactly what I meant. With radiative transfer, heat does not leave the hotter body and travel through space to the cooler body. Transfer means heat is ‘apparently’ transferred due to the decrease in heat in the hotter body and an increase of heat in the cooler body.
That process is not reversible.
I gave the example of an electrical transformer transferring electrical energy between a primary circuit and a secondary circuit when there is no electrical connection between them. That too is an apparent transfer since the circuits are isolated from each other. The coupling is via magnetic coupling and that involves a similar conversion from electrical energy -> magnetic energy -> electrical energy that one finds with radiative heat transfer.
I see this all the time in the electronics/electrical field.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
This is for barry or anyone who still thinks EM can transport heat between masses separated by space (radiation).
How does the Sun heat the Earth?
Sol is an IR sun 5780K, the earth is an IR sun at 255K. With EMR, and ~8minutes of space-time separation that ought to be obvious David, you do not really need an explanation, you are just gaming.
ball4…”that ought to be obvious David, you do not really need an explanation, you are just gaming”.
DA really thinks thermal energy is transported by EM. After all, he thinks the Earth warms the Sun.
You think the sun is an infrared sun?
“thermal energy is transported by EM”
Solar thermal energy (KE) is transformed into EMR and travels to earth, that which is absorbed in the earth system transformed back into thermal energy (KE).
des, yes, the earth is a LW IR sun radiating at ~240W/m^2 from TOA or ~255K into deep space.
How did you fail so to answer what des asked?
You think the sun is an infrared sun?
The sun emits mainly in the visible and infrared spectrum (0.7 to 3um, and a small percentage at shorter wavelengths. At about 2.2 um and longer, solar IR intensity is very low.
255K is the equivalent blackbody temperature an observer on the moon would infer for Earth looked upon as an infrared sun. Although this is not true BB radiation as earth is not enclosed in an opaque container. And, yes, ambiguity vanishes when the source and wavelength are specified (e.g. terrestrial LW, solar SW).
And barry, fyi someone recently pointed me at a humorous but serious article discussing intensity term. This is another misused term. The author deplores the misuse of the term in physics, another deplorable.
Like heat, luminous intensity is also a measure, but actually IS an SI base unit, W/sr. One of 7. The author points out hes seen the meaning of intensity used 5 different ways in optics, as the mood strikes.
255K is the equivalent blackbody temperature an observer on the moon would infer for Earth looked upon as an infrared sun.
Not sure what you’re trying to say. Des asked about the sun, not the Earth.
David mentioned earth & sun, Gordon mentioned earth & sun, Des asked about half my comment on Sol, apparently, so I added clarification of shortwave (SW) for Sol IR irradiance & longwave (LW) for Earth IR irradiance commonly used in these discussions.
–barry says:
October 21, 2017 at 3:54 PM
255K is the equivalent blackbody temperature an observer on the moon would infer for Earth looked upon as an infrared sun.
Not sure what youre trying to say. Des asked about the sun, not the Earth.–
From Earth the Moon is variable star in IR which peaks at about 400 K.
From the Moon the Earth is also variable star in IR. And you have to be one side of the Moon to see it.
If you on the side which sees Earth, the Earth is always in same spot in the sky. If on spot on the moon where Earth is at zenith, you are near the equator of the Moon.
You might call this region something like, “Earth straight up”
because it’s the land where Earth is straight up or call it for short, “ESU”,
So in ESU at noon when sun is at zenith the Earth is also near zenith.
[And from Earth at night the Moon is full.]
So in ESU at noon the earth is not reflecting sun and it’s nighttime and is when the variable star, Earth is coolest as a infrared sun. And since in vacuum one can put your thumb over the sun and see Earth in the black sky.
Now at midnight [without the sun in sky] one can see Earth when it’s full, and Earth the variable star will be the brightest in it’s IR light and brightest in the middle when there also brightest reflected sunlight and will be about 300 K in terms of it’s infrared light.
It should also be noted that the lunar night isn’t dark, rather rather is fairly well lit by Earth shine. Or Earth is a lot bigger and brighter than the Moon seen from Earth.
It actually look more like a star- a huge cold bluish white star- then compared the dimmer Moon from Earth.
DA…”How does the Sun heat the Earth?”
I have explained it to you several times but you lack the basics in thermodynamics and resort to repeating the same question over and over.
The sun is a boiling cauldron of electrons and protons (nucleii stripped of their electrons). The electrons, en masse, are converting thermal energy to electromagnetic energy, which is transmitted into space. The Earth intercepts a small angle of that radiation and converts the EM back to thermal energy when the Earth’s surface mass absorbs it.
There are two parts in the conversion: Sun’s thermal energy -> EM, then EM -> thermal energy at the Earth.
All you are accomplishing by repeating the same question is revealing how scientifically illiterate are you alarmists.
Thermal energy is NOT a property of EM, we have already agreed on that. You agree that EM has an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field, it has no mass, it has intensity, and a specific frequency.
Heat is a property of mass. If there is no mass in EM, how can EM transport it?
Gordon Robertson
Heat is not a property of mass. It is energy. Mass can contain it but it is not a property of mass. EM is energy therefore when you use heat transfer, that is energy from one object to another, EM will facilitate the transfer of energy.
norman…”Heat is not a property of mass. It is energy”
Heat is not merely energy, it is thermal energy. Do you think thermal energy is some kind of apparition that exists independently of mass?
Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms, and atoms are mass. He defined the work inherent in atoms based on the vibrational motion of atoms.
Thermal energy is measured in BTU or the calorie. A calorie is the measure of HEAT required to raise a cc of water through 1C at STP. Do you think a mysterious entity that is merely a measure of heat transfer could become a physical entity that can warm water?
You quoted the 1st law: U = Q + W. That makes no sense if Q is nothing more than an obscure definition. Heat is energy as is work.
Do yourself a favour and stop reading the garbage in wiki definitions. Many of them are nothing more than regurgitated pap.
Gordon Robertson
The First Law is not just U=Q+W
It is the change in U. The change in internal energy is the result of heat (which is just a form of energy) and work.
Clausius may have originally defined heat as internal energy but science has moved away from that definition.
SkepticGoneWild posted the current use of heat in science.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/firlaw.html
That link shows the First Law. Heat is not the same as internal energy. It is what is added or taken away from the internal energy. It two objects are at the same temperature Heat is zero. The internal energy of neither object is changing. If the change in U is zero and no work is being done, the heat would also be zero based upon the equation. Heat does not equal internal energy. Heat equals a change in internal energy. I think that is why you are so confused by the issue and continue on it for several threads.
I was also confused since Q was used as a quantity of energy and also in the heat transfer equations. SkepticGoneWild corrected by misunderstanding explaining that the two Q’s were not the same thing, and that some texts actually designate heat flow with a symbol over the Q to show the difference. One is joules the other joules/second.
One can always learn.
norman….”That link shows the First Law. Heat is not the same as internal energy. It is what is added or taken away from the internal energy. It two objects are at the same temperature Heat is zero”.
Sorry, norman, heat is never zero till a temperature of -273C is reached. Heat is always there as long as atoms are moving or vibrating. There is no heat in a true vacuum because it is completely devoid of mass.
Because heat is relative in it’s quantity, we humans invented a scale to measure the relative levels of heat. We called the scale temperature and we based it on the freezing and boiling points of water.
The 1st law states that U = Q + W. That means internal energy is the sum of thermal energy and mechanical energy of atoms. Clausius also pointed out that heat and work are equivalent: work becomes heat and heat becomes work.
What you are not getting is that internal energy is about the energy in mass, which is atoms. The 1st law does not claim U is a separate form of energy, it claims U is the sum of the energies of thermal and work.
To be fair, heat is described as the total energy of an object/system in many places on the net, including physics outlets.
Other physics outlets describe heat as a transfer process, and eschew the notion that heat resides in a body.
Heat and temperature are not the same.
“Clausius may have originally defined heat as internal energy but science has moved away from that definition.”
He did not. Internal energy of a body was Clausius U. Heat per Clausius was a measure of KE of the body constituents. These are still true in physics today though many texts, blogs, commenters do not write as clearly as Clausius.
As barry notes, outlets describe heat as a transfer process, and eschew the notion that heat resides in a body thus are placed in the curious position of having to explain how a transfer can take place from a body physically by something not in the body to begin with.
Ball,
Heat in a body is the energy (motion) of its particles. That’s not a physical property you can extract and hold in your hand. You only experience the heat once the energy transfers to your hand.
Similarly, momentum is not a physical property intrinsic to an object, but the movement of that object relative to a frame of reference.
You should write science fiction.
Ocean temperatures overall are on the decline(+.287c ocean tid bits) , with La Nina likely and we shall see how so called AGW holds up.
In the meantime galactic cosmic rays counts are on the increase and we will see if global cloud coverage increases.
All it will take is a 1/2 of 1% increase in global albedo to wipe out all of the so called AGW.
Increase albedo has three sources which could bring it about , they are an increase in global cloud coverage, snow coverage and an increase in major volcanic activity.
In the meantime something being entirely ignored is the negative QBO INDEX/VERY LOW SOLAR ACTIIVTY combination, which will be present for this winter which much more often then not results in a very negative AO/NAO. The upshot of this bringing extreme weather conditions to the mid latitudes.
That being warm, cold, dry and wet, depending on where the ridges and troughs set up.
I would say it’s not to do with global albedo.
I think more clouds draw more water vapor.
And volcanic activity could reduces amount heat absorbed by tropical ocean.
It’s not clear to me of exact mechanisms. Or there are several and not sure of which ones- or others not aware of.
In terms general description, it seems one will get more snow in temperate zone and in terms volcanic activity, tropical zone loses more heat to space.
I would say more clouds cause cooling.
Especially low altitude clouds.
Where going to create more clouds?
Tropics or outside tropics?
Salvatore
I predict October will be the warmest month of the year in the surface temperature datasets.
I do not know we will see.
Getting back to albedo I would say that is the most important climatic factor IF it should change.
However, it is not easy to change.
Clouds are hard to figure. They reflect sunlight during the day but insulate the surface 24/7.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 20, 2017 at 12:49 PM:
Yes, but their NET effect on Earth’s climate and temperatures is distinctly one of COOLING:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-1/
So one can rather safely say that whatever REDUCES global cloud cover will create warming, and whatever INCREASES global cloud cover, will create cooling.
i) -albedo => +ASR => +T
ii) +albedo => -ASR => -T
And over the last 32+ years (ERBS+CERES), what we’ve seen is i).
Kristian
“So one can rather safely say that whatever REDUCES global cloud cover will create warming, and whatever INCREASES global cloud cover, will create cooling.”
What if cloud cover over the equator was reduced by 10%, but elsewhere it increased by 15%? Would your statement still be true?
BTY, the ever changing DISTRIBUTION of cloud cover (weather) is my theory for why we get the daily ups and downs in global temperature.
For example, surface temperature datasets will likely show a spike in October over recent months. This despite CO2 levels virtually unchanged and sea surface temperatures actually lower.
OTOH, maybe there are generally fewer clouds right now compared to previous months, and this is causing the temperature spike…..rather than a change in distribution. Who knows? Or maybe it has nothing to do with clouds at all.
“what we’ve seen”
This what Kristian has seen, note the self cite. The CERES Team reports results using meaningful data published with confidence intervals in a report that barely mentions clouds (only 4 hits in Loeb 2016).
Hey, “bananas-glow-yellow-in-the-dark” troll. And that whole braindead “abolish heat crusade” of yours. You’ve got exactly zero credibility left, even as a troll. You’ve been busted too many times now for me to care. And it seems more and more of the commenters here are waking up to just what a foolish, lying and twisting trickster you are …
Not professional response Kristian, you thus achieve nothing.
Try to comment on the pro science one of these days. In the meantime spend some time learning about and how to apply confidence intervals like the pros and using meaningful data in your analysis.
“What if cloud cover over the equator was reduced by 10%, but elsewhere it increased by 15%? Would your statement still be true?”
Tropics is 40% of earth surface and elsewhere is 60%
Let’s say there is equal distribution of clouds:
400 in tropics and 600 elsewhere
So 10% of 400 is 40 and 15% of 600 is 90
360 cloud thingies in tropic and 690 cloud thingies elsewhere.
[[Cloud thingies are grouping and classification of clouds
which you think is important and/or countable metric [whatever that is- and of course could instead be 4000 and 6000 or 4 million and 6 million] ]]
400 + 600 = 1000
360 + 690 = 1050
So globally added 50 cloud thingies or increased by 5%
Now if increase global clouds by 50 cloud thingies, does it increase or decrease albedo?
I would say same cloud in tropics as elsewhere reflects more sunlight, and how much more depends on where in the elsewhere.
Now of course one has clouds at night not reflecting any sunlight and there is less hours of daylight in winter.
But also daylight tropics vs daylight elsewhere has more sunlight reflected in tropics.
Though a lot of elsewhere is near the tropics- or 23.5 to 40 degree north and south is large portion of elsewhere. And unless it’s near winter, there won’t be much difference between tropics daytime vs daytime.
gbaikie
Yes. My question is asking what would happen if cloud cover increased as a global average, but happened to decrease where it matters most, in the tropics.
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 21, 2017 at 4:10 PM
gbaikie
Yes. My question is asking what would happen if cloud cover increased as a global average, but happened to decrease where it matters most, in the tropics.–
Well if they measuring it correctly, 10% less clouds in tropics, and 15% added outside tropics, should decrease the measured albedo.
So, ” -albedo => +ASR => +T
And therefore, according to Kristian it should increase temperatures.
And I also think it should increase temperatures.
Yes, I think so too. Kristian thinks more clouds overall would increase albedo and lower global temperature. That might be true but not necessarily, which is the point I was trying to make.
Good point.
I wonder if Kristian agrees.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 21, 2017 at 1:33 PM:
“IF unicorns existed, would your statement that there are no unicorns still be true?”
If you read the link I provided above, you would’ve seen that it apparently won’t matter much … The greatest cooling from clouds occurs not in the tropics, as one might assume, but in the mid-latitudes:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/net-cre.png
Kristian
Sorry. I commented before reading the link.
If you read the link I provided above, you wouldve seen that it apparently wont matter much The greatest cooling from clouds occurs not in the tropics, as one might assume, but in the mid-latitudes:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/net-cre.png
I haven’t finished reading what you linked.
Now, I agree the starting premise of sacred rule of -33 K is wrong. It’s wrong in many ways and one way includes the bit about clouds take away then they are added back in.
But so far there are number things in link I would like to mention, so far, first of all the southern hemisphere gets more sunlight than northern Hemisphere:
“Earth 0.9833 1.017 1,413 1,321”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Or if one has equal amount clouds [and you don’t] the southern hemisphere will reflect more because it gets more sunlight.
And quoting from your link:
There are surely a few things to note here. First, the wide tropics/subtropics band (30N-30S) is completely average, in fact at or above the global mean. This comes as a surprise to me, since it clearly negates the spatial part of my nice little rule of thumb.”
It’s not average except in southern part of tropics and out to 30 degrees [30 S to 10 N, then dips steeply]
Then you go on:
“Even though the solar input is clearly at its strongest globally within this zone, the net CRE is not that impressive. As we shall see, though, it is much more stable and consistently negative than in the extratropics. As would be expected. Because that relates to the temporal aspect.”
Well one thing you missing is the atmosphere with no clouds reflects sunlight- this “why” the tropics gets more sunlight- plus the other factor of the surface is more perpendicular to the sun- sunlight isn’t smeared over more surface of a level surface [ocean being roughly level]. Or in tropics you don’t tilt the solar panels- you place them level to the surface- and in Germany or UK you put them nearly vertical.
Another aspect is clouds aren’t flat plates, they have vertical aspect to them- and in tropics they tends be like huge towers, which don’t rain, rather they pour.
Anyhow it doesn’t surprise me than tropics don’t reflect a lot of sunlight yet it is region getting more sunlight- the world is warming. And the tropics generally will always be this way, but more clouds in tropics [more clouds of certain type] would have a large effect.
I finished reading and quote:
“The result being that clouds in our atmosphere, on average, exert a significantly cooling radiative influence on the Earths global surface, but still somehow cause a strong (warming) rGHE, in fact, one quarter of the total atmospheric effect. As per the magnificent juggernaut of Climate ScienceTM, of course.”
Or I would say, clouds are not gases and therefore are not greenhouse gases.
So not that I would recommend it:
33 x .25 = 8.25 and 33 – 8.25 = 24.5 K
So now greenhouse gas instead of 33 are 24.5 K of warming.
But it’s like correcting Marxism- pretty much a waste of time because it’s pseudoscience. The premise and everything else is hopelessly wrong.
The Oceans warm the Land and this is true in a number of ways- more ocean area, each meter meter of ocean warms more than each square meter of land, tropical region is more ocean than land, Ocean mostly evaporates rather than radiates, ocean are transparent to sunlight, ocean are sea level, Ocean have average temperature of 17 C which higher than land surfaces, and it goes on and on.
The pseudoscience assumes earth is land- or is a blackbody.
The warmest average temperature of blackbody sphere would be a ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
A ideal thermally conductive blackbody cools the surface heated by the sun. It has a “cooling effect” which transforms a 120 C surface to 5 C. An ideal thermally conductive blackbody is warmest, if you define warmest as a body which radiate the most amount of IR created from sunlight at a certain distance from the sun. Or blackbody radiate more than the planet Venus radiates, and since you care about how much it radiates in terms of how warm it is, a blackbody is warmer than Venus.
But it doesn’t mean it would be nice to live on the rocky surface of Venus.
The average temperature at 1 atm of pressure on Earth is about 15 C. The average temperature of Venus at 1 atm is about 70 C [which is a bit warmer than ideal thermally conductive blackbody average temperature- but Venus also not a blackbody].
“The greatest cooling from clouds occurs not in the tropics, as one might assume, but in the mid-latitudes”
I would agree if change it to:
The greatest amount of reflected sunlight occur in the mid-latitudes.
And of course the greatest amount of sunlight absorbed is in the tropics.
This would be true even if tropics was all land area, but since it’s mostly ocean area, it absorbs even more sunlight as compared to it being land area.
ball4…”In the meantime spend some time learning about and how to apply confidence intervals like the pros…”
I don’t see any of you alarmists knocking NOAA or NASA for blatantly using reduced confidence levels to spread their propaganda that we are experiencing record warming years. In fact, binny came out and defended the chicanery.
Gordon writes NOAA uses confidence intervals? Example to back up that assertion please.
What effect would cause the NOAA data to have the 9th highest monthly rise in the last 60 years?
des…”What effect would cause the NOAA data to have the 9th highest monthly rise in the last 60 years?”
NOAA is unreliable. They claimed 2014 as the warmest year at the time based on a confidence level of 48%. They are cheaters.
Save your BS for another place. The question wasn’t directed at you.
Gordon is correct, des.
NOAA stated 48%, NASA 38%. It’s all part of the hoax.
You didn’t fall for it, did you?
The fact that you think NOAA was quoting a ‘confidence interval’ show the utter lack of understanding both of you have of statistics. Apparently when you don’t know the correct vocabulary you just throw in a term you’ve heard somewhere in the past – who cares if it conveys the wrong meaning.
des, come up with some new spin, if you can.
The facts are: NOAA 48%, NASA 38%.
That spin was used to promote the hoax.
The probabilities given by NOAA for the hottest year were:
2014 ~48%
2010 ~18%
2005 ~13%
2013 ~6%
1998 ~5%
So 2014 was the most likely year to be the hottest.
How the hell can you see a ‘hoax’ when those figures are displayed in big bold letters?
des, I know you’re just competing for First Place in Climate Comedy, but let me demonstrate with a little example.
Suppose I offer you an investment. You give me $1000, and at the end of one year, I will return $2000. You jump on it.
So, at the end of the year, you get nothing back. You’re mad, and you want your money.
I just tell you that there was only a 38% chance the investment would work.
Want to try again?
Do you believe that example challenges the statement that 2014 was more likely than any other particular year to be the hottest?
Do you believe your investment will pay off next year?
Why not double up?
Des, I’m afraid it makes few sense to discuss that.
You clearly see that g*e*r*a*n intentionally ignores your comment published at 7:43 AM.
Bin states: “You clearly see that g*e*r*a*n intentionally ignores your comment published at 7:43 AM.”
Bin, did I “intentionally ignore”, or did I hint that attaching meaningless probabilities is pseudoscience?
Every time you use the word ‘pseudoscience’ you are ‘intentionally ignoring’ something, and you perfectly know that.
Every time I use the word “pseudoscience”, I am exposing the BS (Belief Systems) expounded by the corrupt/incompetent.
Maybe you are “intentionally ignoring” that.
Where have you justified your BS (belief system) claim that these probabilities are ‘meaningless’?
I think I did when you declined to invest.
If you’ve changed you mind, please confirm.
No … your example was an attempt to display your belief that 48% confidence is somehow a ‘hoax’ by misrepresenting what that number is illustrating. You did NOT attempt to address the ‘meaningfulness’ of that probability.
You certainly are a slippery little liar.
des, address the fact the NASA claimed 38%, not 48%.
Both are kinda meaningless, huh?
I always know I’ve beaten the phonies when they call me “liar”.
Another one down, more to go.
NASA and NOAA global surface temp data are not exactly the same (nor is RSS and UAH). Different methods produce different (but not hugely different) results.
That’s why NOAA and NASA got a different likelihood for 2014 being the warmest year.
NASA
2014: ~ 38%
2010: ~ 23%
2005: ~ 17%
1998: ~ 4%
NOAA
2014: ~ 48%
2010: ~ 18%
2005: ~ 13%
2013: ~ 6%
1998: ~ 5%
Statistical analysis of each data set has this at lest in common: 2014 was likeliest the hottest year on record.
It would have been hoaxy if both institutes reported the same likelihoods, considering that their monthly anomaly departures are not exactly the same.
What is there to address? They are different data sets – why should they be the same? You seem to believe a claim that they are ‘meaningless’ is justified by simply pointing at them and saying ‘its obvious’. Both sets indicate that 2014 was the most likely year to be the warmest.
I see you’re one of those people who have a need to self-declare their own “victory” because nobody else will do it for them. Apparently you believe you have superior debating skills that allow you proclaim a win because … well … it’s just ‘obvious’.
barry
And there is one thing which cannot be challenged in ANY data set:
2014-16 was the warmest three year period in the record. Even for UAH it is:
14-16 … +0.32
01-03 … +0.17
(ignoring three-year periods which overlap 14-16)
No contest. And 2017 so far has INCREASED that average.
It reminds me of starving hyenas fighting over scraps. Trying to hold onto the institutionalized pseudoscience.
Gents–the Earth is not warming because of CO2. You have swallowed the spew of “funding specialists”.
The science is not there. The data are not there. Their predictions have failed.
You can’t even send back your “secret decoder rings”.
AGW is a bust.
Yet more blustery assertions.
des…”Save your BS for another place. The question wasnt directed at you”.
These are the things you have to put up with when posting in a blog. Anyone is free to answer, and I did.
I feel compelled to respond since you alarmists put out blatant propaganda about the cheaters at NOAA.
Not sure if this will help, but science uses models to help understand ideas. Often there are several different models for the same idea (eg a wave model and a particle model for light). This is also true for thermal physics.
Thermodynamics often relates to small systems that change fairly slowly — like furnaces and steam engines and calorimeters. At this scale (only a few meters and many seconds), for all practical purposes the precise nature of EM radiation and the precise speed do not matter. Radiation can be modeled as happening instantaneously — an atom at one place loses energy and an atom at another place immediately gains energy.
This is the language of classical thermodynamics. Radiation is an instantaneous transfer (on the timescales of interest), where energy disappears from one object and appears in another object. It is indeed Q. This is how Clausius would have thought of radiation.
***************************
If a more modern, more complete model is needed, then you can start discussing the thermal radiation as a separate entity — either as EM waves or as a photon gas. There is lots of fascinating physics there. For instance, a photon gas has its own internal energy and entropy and temperature. Q would be the process of transferring energy from the U of atoms to the U of the photon gas (or vice versa).
Tim Folkerts on October 21, 2017 at 12:04 PM
This is how Clausius would have thought of radiation
No.
This is how Clausius thought of radiation:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
Why do you feel the need to guess when the reality tells us enough?
Fortunately, my “guess” broadly agrees with the quote you found. 🙂
binny…”it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange…”
Unfortunately scientists in the time of Clausius, and later, to the time of Planck, thought heat moved physically through space. Planck referred to IR as heat rays.
They can be forgiven but you can’t. Clausius knew heat was due to the kinetic energy of atoms in solids. No one in his day knew about EM.
Stephan, the co-author of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation upon which you alarmists foist your net energy pseudo-science upon us, admitted that the equation could not be tested by experiment. There is no way to test it because two way heat transfer via radiation cannot be measured. It’s an assumption and it’s wrong.
Stephan-Boltzmann would not have known at the time how EM worked radiatively between bodies of different temperatures. Electrons had not yet been discovered and it was not understood till well after their discovery that electrons emit EM.
Electrons convert thermal energy to EM and Clausius had no way of knowing that.
Gordon, you forgot to mention EM from molecular vibration!
“This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.”
https://tinyurl.com/y8f8ym8h
@TF
No, I can’t agree with that assertion of your message in the sense that radiation or better photons are definitely not heat by themselves but just one way or one kind of energy carrier involved in heat transfers. Among others like electrons in a metal, phonons in an insulators or molecules in a gas.
And the distinction is not just a matter of semantics but fundamental since heat is a degraded form of energy that photons are definitively not.
Of course I quite agree otherwise and repeat here what I said elsewhere:
Radiation energy or photons are not heat.
Yet, of course, this does not mean at all that heat is not transferred by radiation between two bodies at different temperatures.
The pertinence of the two-way transfers of radiation versus related one-way transfer of heat is just basics in physics .
Heat by definition is the net energy transferred spontaneously from hot to cold. Thats it.
In an ordinary heat conduction experiment, for instance in a gas with a temperature gradient, the two-way flow of energy exists of course as well !!!
Indeed lets consider a reference plane perpendicular to the temperature gradient. There are continuously molecules crossing that plane in one way and carrying their kinetic (or vibrational energy, etc) from hot to cold and simultaneously an (statistically) equal number of molecules crossing that plane the other way and carrying their energy from cold to hot.
Yet since the former molecules necessarily come from a hotter region about one mean free mean path away from reference plane they carry (in the mean) more energy than the latter originating from a colder region about one mean free path away from (and on the other side of) the reference plane.
Hence there is a systematic (statistically) net flow of energy from hot to cold or heat flux that can be readily shown to be merely proportional to the temperature gradient itself, that is nothing more but the famous Fourier law of heat transfer by conduction.
alphagruis,
The key assertion was that radiation is heat within the context of classical mechanics. In this context, there is no photosynthesis and no photovoltaic effect. Radiation is immediate.
I fully agree that when you delve into the details of EM waves and photons and explicitly include those details, then you need to be more subtle and sophisticated.
That would be “classical thermodynamics”, of course.
@TF
In present context (of GHE explanation) it is apparent that the property of radiation we’re interested in is only it’s “thermal radiation” nature namely that when emitted it cools the body that emits it and when absorbed it heats the body that absorbs it. In other words any absorbed photon is systematically thermalized i.e. its energy spread over all degrees of freedom and a concept of local temperature is a valid one. Conversely an emitted photon stems from excitations of thermal origin, for instance collisions of N2 and CO2 in atmosphere.
In such conditions I quite agree that one may safely consider that radiation is indeed (just) heat. and with Clausius reason in terms of classical thermodynamics.
Now it is IMO true in both classical and quantum physics with classical statistical physics predicting however infinite energy radiated by a black body at finite temperature T…
alphag…”Heat by definition is the net energy transferred spontaneously from hot to cold. Thats it.
In an ordinary heat conduction experiment, for instance in a gas with a temperature gradient, the two-way flow of energy exists of course as well !!!
Indeed lets consider a reference plane perpendicular to the temperature gradient. There are continuously molecules crossing that plane in one way and carrying their kinetic (or vibrational energy, etc) from hot to cold and simultaneously an (statistically) equal number of molecules crossing that plane the other way and carrying their energy from cold to hot”.
************
Heat is thermal energy and as such does not fit your definition. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
If there is no mass, there is no heat.
In your example with gases you are talking about the flow of heat through a mass. The temperature gradient involves a difference in the temperature of the molecules from hot to cold. As such, you cannot have cooler molecules flowing against the gradient.
You are confusing the EM in radiation with the physical flow of heat through a gaseous mass. EM can only transfer heat from hot to cold due to the nature of the electron. The electrons in a hotter body reside at higher energy levels and you cannot flow against the potential hill by reverse the direction of heat transfer from cold to hot.
tim…”…science uses models to help understand ideas”.
There are two basic kinds of models: validated and unvalidated. None of the climate models have been validated, meaning the models have not been tested and verified against reality.
There’s nothing wrong with creating a model to study a problem in science but until it is validated it is essentially worthless. The IPCC once claimed models could predict future climate states even though they had already admitted in TAR that future climate states cannot be predicted.
They were forced to rescind that statement about model predictions and began referring to model ‘projections’, meaning they were nothing more than guesses.
You explanation has not proved that heat is not a natural phenomenon.
Quantum mechanics and thermalization show why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Water vapor does, however, and it has been increasing 1.5% per decade, 8% since the rate increase began in about 1960. The huge expensive changes that some people want to make will have no significant effect on climate while the increased risk of precipitation related flooding due to WV increase is not being addressed. The warming from the added WV (WV is IR active) will mitigate the cooling that would otherwise be occurring. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Dan
How come you don’t argue with Mike Flynn or Kristian? They think water vapor has a cooling effect.
“Dan
How come you dont argue with Mike Flynn or Kristian? They think water vapor has a cooling effect.”
Hmm. Well I think global warming has cooling effect.
Or don’t think “global warming” causes days to get higher air temperature.
Or I think if add water [a lot it] to Venus, it cools Venus.
I don’t think Mike or Kristian think that if add water to Venus it make Venus cooler.
But I don’t think H2O gas [water vapor] makes anything cooler.
I think the greenhouse gases CO2 and H20 cause some warming- but neither has been actually measured- but it seems to me that greenhouse gas H20 should cause more warming the CO2 greenhouse gas.
Both H20 and CO2 “block” a portion of sunlight. Or it removes portion of the spectrum of direct sunlight [which is then re-radiated and so the part of it reaching earth surface would a portion of indirect sunlight that is reaching the surface]. This would matter a slight amount in terms heating land surfaces [which are only heated by direct sunlight].
But ocean covers most surface of Earth and ocean is warming rest of earth and ocean [unlike land or blackbody surface] absorbs both direct and indirect sunlight.
So it seems to me that this could only be a very small cooling effect in terms of average global temperature.
Or it seems the bulk of atmosphere “blocks” more direct sunlight [reflecting, scattering/diffusing the direct sunlight].
And if you added more of the “bulk of atmosphere” you get more reflecting, scattering/diffusing of the direct sunlight.
Or I think 2 atm might be cooler than 1 atm. I feel more confident that 4 atm would cause cooling.
2 atm would probably be more helpful to people in terms of being able to understand why solar panels are lousy source of energy.
But then again, you have the Germans proving the case against the usefulness of such “educational aids”. Though if we had 2 atm world, I don’t think in that situation that German could fail to “see” the lack of *that much* light.
Also whenever the sun at 30 degrees about horizon [about 2 hours after sunrise and about two hour before sunset [not in winter if far from equator]. Or at the time the sun will cast a long shadow. The sunlight is passing thru 2 atm.
Or:
“AM1” is the air mass when the sun is directly overhead and the least amount of atmosphere needs to be crossed to reach the earth’s surface.
When the sun is 30 degrees above the horizon (SEA = 30; SEA = “solar elevation angle”), the path that the sunlight takes through the atmosphere (line “Y”) is twice as long as the path it takes when the sun is directly overhead (line “X”) and so the air mass is “2” (AM2). This is the gist of why the air mass is larger when the sun is lower in the sky.”
http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/air-mass-and-insolation1.htm
gbaikie
Interesting link.
(1) Do Physicists agree with you?
(2) Are YOU a Physicist?
Do hairdressers agree with des?
Is des a hairdresser?
You are certainly the master of nonsensical replies.
you would certainly know nonsensical, huh des?
des
Makes sense to me. g*e*r*a*n thinks you have your own hairdressing blog and is wondering if you’re really qualified.
Yes I certainly would know it – I encounter it every day in my brushes with conservat(a/u)rds.
Encounters with truth can certainly be painful.
Thanks for sharing your experience – I’m sure you also found the pain liberating.
Now how about we cease the trolling begun by you so that I can get an answer to the question I asked.
des, asking nonsense questions will get you nonsense.
What do you suggest is ‘nonsense’ about asking whether someone has the expertise to overturn accepted Physics?
“Nonsense” is looking only for the “answer” that suits your belief system.
I wouldn’t get a haircut from des but I don’t think he claims any expertise in that area.
As for g*e*r*a*n I would definitely stay away. If g*e*r*a*n’s competence as a hairdresser matches his ignorance of physics then you are liable to get a Sweeney Todd cut or a free circumcision or possibly both.
I have been watching from afar and with much bemusement the pretensions of Gordon, g*e*r*a*n, SkepticGoneWild etc.. . If I have left anyone out I apologise.
I think their unique and creative insights into thermodynamics should be published for all to see rather than confined to this forum. My suggestion is that that they publish their theories at the GWPF Journal of the Open Atmospheric Society. This journal started with much fanfare and has been up and running for around 3 years. You can find the extensive list of publications from this esteemed journal at https://theoas.org/journal-of-the-oas/. From perusing this list it appears to have published a grand total of zero publications.
Being the first publication of this journal would give them the prominence they crave and would reveal the extent of their knowledge and intellectual prowess. This could be the moment to silence all those who think they are just crackpots that are so prevalent in this forum.
Carpe diem, guys and good luck.
I think a barber would be the perfect occupation for the asterisked guy. On the one hand he wouldn’t need an education, on the other he would have a captive audience to whom he could expound his ideas about what he THINKS educated people know. Win-win.
Sweeney was quick, he wouldn’t give you the endless 800,000 K torture first. I would take my chances at Salon de Des.
Svante
On a side note, my favorite movie is Psycho, particularly the shower scene.
MikeR on October 22, 2017 at 1:11 AM
Excellent comment.
Sweeney would blink and rats would scuttle.
MikeR,
I will add you to the “Earth heats the Sun Club”. My physics and thermo professors never taught me bidirectional heat transfer. They would have been laughed out of the lecture hall and fired from their position.
I don’t believe in fairy tales about a magic heater in the sky that is twice as powerful as the sun. either.
If you want to believe in looney tunes physics, be my guest. It makes for great entertainment.
I guess some people should (at least try to) read publications like
A STUDY OF THE RADIATION OF THE ATMOSPHERE BASED UPON OBSERVATIONS OF THE NOCTURNAL RADIATION DURING EXPEDITIONS TO ALGERIA AND TO CALIFORNIA
BY
ANDERS ANGSTROEM
CITY OF WASHINGTON
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
1915
Maybe they manage to learn…
SGW
So earlier this month you were “thinking about my university undergrad course in kinematics and dynamics” which of course makes you a first year uni student. Only a few weeks later you are talking as though this kind of thermodynamics which comes much later in the course is ancient history. On which occasion were you lying?
And still waiting for you to answer my very simple first year Physics question so you can prove that you’ve ever done a shred of university Physics.
miker, you’re so certain of my “ignorance of physics”, but failed to mention even one example.
Funny.
miker “I have been watching from afar and with much bemusement the pretensions of Gordon, g*e*r*a*n, SkepticGoneWild etc.. . If I have left anyone out I apologise”.
You are bemused from afar because you fear having your understanding of thermodynamics exposed.
G*e*r*a*n ,
I don’t think I have the level of perseverance and tolerance of fools that other have shown towards your own contributions.
You have 255 posts to your name in this current thread and several thousand over the past few years. They all stand in their naked glory but could you please narrow it down a bit.
However if you, or your colleagues, would like to present your ideas in a digestible form such as in the illustrious GWPF journal I suggested, then I would be happy to comment in detail if you like. Otherwise it is a total waste of everyone’s time.
By the way the last time we interacted regarding a scientific issue it was concerning your comments on temperature trends. I challenged you to elaborate, see -http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258626 .
You subsequently fled the scene, similar to Monty Pythons brave knight , Sir Robin, which was indeed funny. Even after two months, I can still hear the sounds of clicking coconuts as you receded into the distance
SkepticGoneWild,
Can you please get your physics or thermodynamics professors to post comments regarding the material that you have posted. If your teachers are no longer available I would take any one with qualifications in these areas. We then might establish the following,
1. That your were actually taught physics and thermo by someone competent or alternatively if
2. You understood any of the material that you were taught.
This should be sufficient to establish whether your misunderstanding of physics and thermodynamics is simply delusional, or in fact des is correct, and you have never taken a course at University level in either of these disciplines.
miker, I answered your question.
But, I can see how you overlooked it, since it appeared in the very next comment.
G*e*r*a*n,
Sorry the link should have been to http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2017-0-28-deg-c/#comment-258687.
This was my follow-up to your brief response to my request for further elaboration.
After the above exchange you seemed to go missing in action.
However if you would now like to continue this discussion re trends, please go ahead and make my day.
SkepticGoneWild
It is good your teachers never taught you bidirectional “heat” transfer. Such a thing does not exist. I do hope they did properly teach you that there is multi-directional radiant energy flows and that heat is the NET of all these flows.
If you have multiple objects in a space at different temperatures you will have a complex of heat flows. Any object that is warmer than another will transfer heat to a colder one but all the objects are independent radiators. They all are radiating energy based upon their temperature (the active variable).
They all have energy flowing away and toward their surfaces. This is established science in every textbook or article I have read on radiant heat transfer. Only Kristian comes up with his own unique view that no established science source is supporting.
If you can find textbook material on the topic that shows different I will appreciate your effort since I have not found any in many searches.
You are bemused from afar because you fear having your understanding of thermodynamics exposed.
Gordon I am trembling in my boots.
I was also quite amused (I amuse easily) about your earlier comment regarding quantum mechanics see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269576.
You seem to be in, your mind alone (except with the possible exception of g*e) , an expert in so many fields. In light of your scepticism regarding post 1930 quantum mechanics and also your claim to be a specialist in electronics, then I would love to hear your explanation as to how a tunnel diode works .
By the way I note with a mixture of amazement and amusement yet again, your questioning below of the Stephan(sic)- Boltzmann equation.
Messrs Stefan, Boltzmann, Planck .. must be spinning in their graves and the entire astrophysical community must also be trembling in their boots. What fools the latter are. They should have consulted with Gordon before using the Stefan Boltzmann to come up with the idea of the residual 3K big bang background radiation.
MikeR,
Let us know when you say something substantial. So far it’s just blah blah blah.
Des,
The dynamics course was upper division with the prerequisite being a year of general physics, 3 semesters of calculus, and a semester of statics.
No go back to your video games in your momma’s basement.
So what is preventing you from answering my simple question? Surely you would be itching to prove that you have at least that low-level ability in Physics.
mikeR…”SkepticGoneWild,
Can you please get your physics or thermodynamics professors to post comments regarding the material that you have posted”.
I studied engineering and not once did a prof claim bi-directional heat transfer. In fact, we did a lab on heat transfer where we actually measured the heat transfer across a steel rod. We were not asked to measure heat transfer from the cold end of the rod to the warm end because we know in engineering that is ridiculous.
You need to understand that your inane theories related to bidirectional heat transfer via EM in radiation is based on a misinterpretation of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. With bodies 1 and 2, they laid out a hypothetical situation where there was Q12 and Q21. However, Stephan admitted that could not be proved by experiment.
It still can’t and the 2nd law holds. Heat transfer, even with radiation, is in one direction only, from hot to cold. That means the GHE and AGW are null and void since a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface.
mikeR…”They should have consulted with Gordon before using the Stefan Boltzmann to come up with the idea of the residual 3K big bang background radiation”.
I did not knock the S-B equation as a theoretical estimate of EM. I have no problem with it in that regard. I object only to the inference drawn that it satisfies the 2nd law.
Boltzmann tried to explain the 2nd law using statistical mechanics and failed. He became so distraught that he took his own life. It was the modern rocket scientists who added the quaint notion that a mysterious net flow of EM could satisfy the 2nd law. Obviously, they had no idea what the 2nd law was about…heat.
The Big Bang theory is pseudo-scientific lunacy. It reveals serious arrogance and the immense egos in certain scientific minds.
The BB is based on two assumptions. Firstly, there is the background radiation to which you refer. I can see the mathematicians conferring as to what it meant. One of them concluded it must represent an immense explosion involving the entire universe that has collapsed in on itself then re-exploded.
The other evidence, and highly more plausible, is based on Doppler shifts in stars that indicated the universe is expanding from a centre. We have no idea how large the universe may be but we have identified a centre around which it is expanding.
I’ll leave it to minds like yours to wallow in this pseudo-science. My mind rejects the BB out of hand simply because it’s far too ridiculous to consider. There are some seriously stupid scientists out there.
Gordon,
I see you have reservations about the Big Bang. Perhaps you should correspond with Stephen Hawking about any issues that you have with his work. Once you have done that, please post his response.
You also still have an issue with the applicability of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. You remind us that Josef Stefan (I assume this who you are referring or maybe you are referring to Joe Stephan the acupuncturist from Illinois) had trouble verifying his theory back in 1879.
I believe there have been developments since then that suggest that the equation has validity. Maybe you should update your reading to include the last 138 years.
You earlier expressed similar reservations about post 1930 quantum mechanics.
I have asked you previously to use your electronics background to explain how a tunnel diode works without invoking quantum mechanics.
Gordon, if you want to retain even a minuscule of credibility then I think you should at least attempt an explanation. Maybe you can ask SkepticGoneWild or g* to help you out.
SkepticGoneWild,
Sorry to question your competence regarding thermodynamics but this upper level course you did in dynamics, did it include any thermodynamics? It would be extremely unusual if it did, but who knows?
However a more likely explanation is that your memory is failing or you are just simply confused.
Des There is a lot more outspoken agreement with people whose paychecks do not depend on continuing the false notion that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. There is also more agreement with people who actually understand real-world thermodynamics and heat transfer analysis (mechanical engineers) and, like me, have actually done it. Learning the applicable physics is a prerequisite to learning its application which is what engineers do. Learning a bit more (rudiments of spectroscopy and quantum mechanics) was not very difficult.
The physics is not new but some aspects (particularly thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy) appear to be underappreciated.
Climate is a multidisciplinary study. Highly important are a thorough understanding of power, energy, thermodynamics and heat transfer. It is disturbing when people who apparently lack an understanding of the relation between power and energy offer erroneous comments and critique (At least two well-known blog owners are guilty).
Determining average global temperature simplifies the complex issue of local climate to a comparatively simple application of the energy equation (first law of thermodynamics). This calculates WHAT happens and is readily verified by comparing to reported measurements. Determination of WHY it happens requires an understanding of what goes on at the scale of molecules, thermalization, and quantum mechanics.
There is no one “whose paychecks do not depend on continuing the false notion that burning fossil fuels causes global warming”.
What aspect of mechanical engineering has given you an understanding of ATMOSPHERIC heat transfer?
There are two levels of understanding regarding atmospheric heat transfer. On a macro scale, gas phase heat transfer is part of the general subject of heat transfer with convective heat transfer coefficients, natural convection where radiation may or may not be significant, etc. If radiation is significant, wavelength, view factors, and emissivity need to be attended to. My nine units of post grad heat transfer analysis substantially augmented the typical four units for a BSME.
An MSME with special emphasis on heat transfer provided a substantial knowledge base allowing specialized follow-on work understanding, on the scale of molecules, thermalization and acquiring the rudiments of quantum mechanics. Along with links in my blog/analysis, I found this helpful: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/477312.pdf
End result is discovering WHY CO2 has no significant effect on climate. This, along with what humanity is doing that is countering global cooling are described in my blog/analysis. (Click my name).
des…”What aspect of mechanical engineering has given you an understanding of ATMOSPHERIC heat transfer?”
Why would it be different than any other heat transfer? It is you alarmists who have created the delusion that a cooler atmosphere can transfer heat to a warmer surface.
dan…the paper at your link is interesting but I fear it’s far too generalized. Like other papers on the subject they ignore the importance of electrons in the scheme of things.
Without electrons there can be no molecules. Electrons form the bonds that connect two or more atoms to form a molecule. yet the paper seems happy to skip the obvious and focus on molecular vibrations. It is the interaction of electrons and protons that produce those vibrations.
Quantum theory has done as much bad as it has good. ‘Quantum numbers’ are thrown liberally about as if they mean something physical. There is no way to visualize this stuff and it’s about time we got that and returned to a form of science in which we can observe directly.
However, the paper does mention electrons in passing without getting it that the absorp.tion/emission to which they refer is due to electron activity. Electrons are in agreement with the 2nd law in that cooler CO2 cannot emit radiation that can be absorbed by the warmer surface mass.
“…the delusion that a cooler atmosphere can transfer heat to a warmer surface.”
Gordon, IR is not heat. A cooler atmosphere can transfer IR to a warmer surface.
Gordon: “..the absorp.tion/emission to which they refer is due to electron activity.”
In the sun for SW activity. At terrestrial lower atm. temperatures the absorp.tion/emission to which they refer is due to rotational/vibrational activity.
GorI also resisted Q-M assessment until recently acquiring an understanding of what it is all about. I found this helpful: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/477312.pdf and messed around with Hitran. This might be helpful as a start. Load: http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
Set: wavenumber 0-1500, species H2O, CO2, Scale to atmospheric abundance, Standard atmosphere, 0 altitude, min intensity 0.0001 to block lines of insignif!cant intensity, Linear, Sticks. The resulting graph looks like Figure 0.5 in by blog/analysis which counted more lines because I left min intensity at 0. Note that CO2 influence is barely discernable at 667/cm.
the word filter is giving me grief . . .
Part of the problem with Hitran is it counts all lines (aka transitions) including those with negligible intensity unless you exclude them by setting a value above zero for min intensity. Not excluding the insign!ficant lines results in a misleading line count.
IMO it is misleading and causes all kind of angst to assert that radiation from a colder body is absorbed by a warmer body. It is correct however that radiation heat transfer is in accordance with the NET radiation between them (proportionate to Ta4-Tb4). The direction is determined by which temperature is higher and the second law is happy.
A delightful piece of ‘warmist pseudoscience’
For skeptics, Knut Angstroem (Ångström for the purists) is a kind of hero, as for them he was the first one who debunked Svante Arrhenius’ work dated 1896, in which Arrhenius published his results concerning the absorp-tion of Earth’s radiation by CO2.
But some of them (those who not only de-ny the existence of back-radiation but even that of absorp-tion by the atmosphere) might wonder a bit when they read Knut Angstroem’s paper (written in 1900):
‘Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensaeure bei der Absorp-tion der Erdatmosphaere’
i.e.
‘About the relevance of water vapor and carbon dioxide in atmospheric absorp-tion’
to be found (in German, please use Google’s translator) e.g. in
http://zfbb.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00149071/19003081208_ftp.pdf
in which he not only considers the absorp-tion of incoming solar SW radiation, but that of Earth’s LW radiation response as well.
Even if criticises Arrhenius work because of the major uncertainties he thought to be in Arrhenius’ experiments, he nevertheless does by no means understimate CO2’s role near that of H2O.
*
But skeptics might get even more surprised when reading things like
The outgoing effective radiation of a blackened body in the night must be regarded as the sum of several terms: (1) the radiation from the surface toward space given, for a “black body” by Stefan’s radiation law; (2) the radiation from the atmosphere to the surface, to which must be added the sum of the radiations from sidereal bodies, a radiation source that is indicated by Poisson by the term “sidereal heat.”
or
These considerations have given a value of the radiation from a perfectly dry atmosphere, and at the same time they lead to an approximate estimate of the radiation of the upper atmosphere, which is probably chiefly due to carbon dioxide and a variable amount of ozone.
No, this is not in Knut Angstroem’s 1900 paper.
It is in the dissertation of Anders Knutsson Angstroem, Knut’s son:
A study of the radiation of the atmosphere
to be found in
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL18016447M/A_study_of_the_radiation_of_the_atmosphere
And all that was written in… 1915.
For the most stubborn: I anticipate a trivial reaction, and state therefore a priori that Anders Knutsson Angstroem was perfectly aware of… conduction and convection.
Bin, you fearfully believe CO2 is warming the planet because the sky has a temperature, measurable with a cheap IR thermometer.
Strawbetties, apples and grapes have temperatures, measurable with a cheap IR thermometer.
Now your fear won’t let you sleep at nights.
Did I mention peaches, tomatoes, bananas, and melons?
The whole planet is going to explode in flames!
(Hilarious.)
binny…”But skeptics might get even more surprised when reading things like…”
None of it surprises me, it sheer nonsense from desperate minds.
Stephan-Boltzman is highly theoretical and has no application to heat transfer.
Is there any reason why in climatology, and only in cliamtology, one claims to solve a problem of thermodynamics with something else than with net flows ?
Actually, yes. Climatalogists are atheists- their belief is they don’t believe there is God.
This makes them unable to accept reality- truth is “whatever you say it”.
Then of course, a bus runs over them.
So what does your fictitious god tell you to believe about climate change?
A ‘fictitious god” tells you CO2 can heat the planet.
We all know CO2 doesn’t heat the planet, so nobody would believe him.
I don’t believe God has addressed the issue, although my preacher read a piece recently supporting the leftist agenda which helped convince me to stop giving that organization money.
Those who believe in AGW, more importantly AGW which can be influenced by man’s actions are very religious. Those who oppose/diverge from their mantra are held as apostates, and will be ruined or…..
Lewis
or…..become president of the United States.
Asterisk boy
Does that same fictitious god speak to Roy Spencer?
des, you’d have to ask Dr. Roy.
lewis
With your post you bring up the issue that should be avoided in a science blog. Politics. A left-right agenda or religious-nonreligious subconscious bias.
I think the science is polluted by those with political agendas on each side and in no way do the opposing sides have the least desire to learn the science and work out the details.
The “skeptics” and “alarmists” both want to deviate from the rigors of science.
The skeptics accuse the alarmists of fake data but the skeptics keep presenting false and misleading science as if such actions are somehow superior.
Paraphrasing you: “Believing or not that a particular person accepts the greenhouse effect solely as the result of listening to a ‘fictitious god’, depends on whether or not I find it politically expedient to side with that person.”
phi…”Is there any reason why in climatology, and only in cliamtology, one claims to solve a problem of thermodynamics with something else than with net flows ?”
I can’t think of one reason why net EM flows are relevant to thermodynamic. In the study of convection in liquids, one might have an interest in the fluid interaction of liquids but that would involve heat, not EM.
Stephan of Stephan-Boltzmann admitted their eq
Stephan of Stephan-Boltzmann admitted their equation wrt to net energy flows of EM could not be verified by experiment.
Apparently there is some misunderstanding because that is the way it works in real world heat transfer analysis.
Is there any reason why in climatology, and only in climatology, one claims to solve a problem of thermodynamics with something else than with net flows?
False premise.
Home insulation solves the problem of your house being too cold (or warm) by introducing impedance to the net flow.
Similar in r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n. Heat is moved from a cooler place to a warmer place, by means of an external source of energy.
CPU batteries are provided heat sinks and fans to increase heat loss, changing the rate of flow.
In all sorts of conventional systems, NET flow is only the start of the ‘problem.’ Discrete exchanges of energy is where the focus lies.
The problem with skeptics is that they see NET flow as the beginning, middle and end of the ‘problem’. They are either oblivious to discrete exchanges and how they can modulate temperature, or dismissive of it.
barry…”Home insulation solves the problem of your house being too cold (or warm) by introducing impedance to the net flow”.
You need to check your usage of ‘flow’. Insulation in a home does not block radiation. It slows down the transport of heat by atoms/molecules. If those molecules abut an exterior wall they will transfer heat by conduction to the outside world. With insulation in place, the molecules are held apart from much of the exterior walls and ceiling.
“Similar in r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n. Heat is moved from a cooler place to a warmer place, by means of an external source of energy”.
It’s actually done by compression a gas to liquid form and venting the heat to the atmosphere. The external power is used to drive the compressor.
“CPU batteries are provided heat sinks and fans to increase heat loss, changing the rate of flow”.
Heat sinks are used to vent heat in many electronics devices but their purpose is to spread out the surface area, using fins, to allow a more efficient contact with the atmosphere.
The interference or manipulation of heat flow happens in different ways in these examples, but the idea is common.
I don’t see why radiation should not follow the basic principles of thermodynamics as conduction and convection.
Whenever convective or conductive analogies are used, they’re all applying to the same basic principle – change in the rate of NET flow of heat. In a way, the atmosphere is an insulator. And that works in both directions depending on the wavelength of EM. The atmosphere is an insulator for the surface from UV, for example, and also for visible light. Without an atmos, we’d bake.
Gordon Robertson
Can you provide a rational or logical explanation of why you do not accept a bidirectional energy flow from an object’s surface?
You make up physics that claims energy from a cooler source would have no effect on a warmer one. This is not based upon any rational science. It is the make believe of a crackpot.
Established science clearly states that the amount of heat energy flowing away from a surface (and this Q would be in watts) is based upon the energy the surface is emitting minus the energy it is absorbing from its surroundings.
I asked g*e*r*a*n a simple question he would not answer. Maybe you will.
If you heat an object to a certain equilibrium temperature and then wrap insulation around it (still heating it) will the objects temperature increase? Stay the same? Decrease? And explain why you think it will do whatever you have chosen.
Everyone seems to accept the idea that there are flows and net flows of energy between objects. Their is also a distance between objects, and energy does not cover that distance instantaneously……it takes time. So energy will move a particular distance in a particular amount of time. Distance/time = velocity
But whenever I mention the velocity of energy, or the velocity of a flow of energy, I seem to get nothing but blank stares.
You can for example, throw a stick into a river and use it to calculate the velocity of the flow (current).
Is there some way to place a mark in a flow of energy and use it to measure velocity?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 23, 2017 at 12:21 AM:
There is no “flow” of energy in the opposite direction. There is only ONE flow of energy, the NET movement, the macroscopic movement of energy. Again, consider wind. On a MICROscopic level, the air molecules can be seen flying around in ALL possible directions. There are only random motions (paths and velocities), complete chaos, there is no preferred directional “flow” patterns to discern anywhere. Still, when you zoom out past the thermodynamic limit, individual molecules disappear out of sight, and a distinct bulk movement indeed becomes apparent. A UNIdirectional flow. That’s the wind.
Likewise with photons vs. radiative flux. The radiative flux is simply the net movement that naturally appears as the average of ALL individual photon movements inside the radiation field (photon cloud). The net includes the photons flying up, down, back, forth, and in all directions in between. There aren’t two separate macroscopic (net) flows in each direction. There is only the integrated photon cloud between the objects where radiative energy IS, and the “bulk movement” of or through this cloud, from hot to cold.
I really have a hard time seeing why this should to be SOOOO difficult to visualise. It is the most logical of physical concepts: MICROscopically (quantum level) – chaos and disorder, individual particles in ALL possible directions, no flow pattern; MACROscopically (thermo level) – order, no individual particles, bulk properties, net movement, UNIdirectional flow pattern.
Kristian
You are constantly asserting your beliefs but so far you have not supported this belief even one time.
Prove you opinion. I have proven that established science accepts a two-way energy flow at a surface. Energy emitted away from the surface and energy absorbed by the surface from the surroundings. So far established science is 100% in presenting a bidirectional energy flow and most scientists accept it is measurable (measure upwelling and downwelling IR).
You think I am clearly wrong on this issue but have yet to provide evidence for you assertions.
Why is it so hard to find proof of your claims if they are so well established?
Only the one-way model can verify the second principle. The two-way model is composed of non-independent flows from the point of view of thermodynamics.
phi on October 23, 2017 at 6:45 AM
Why is it so hard to find proof of your claims if they are so well established?
The same of course holds 4u2 (for you too).
Bindidon,
There is no other proof to provide than those which support the second principle. The absolute dependence of the two flows is only another way of expressing this second principle.
Norman says, October 23, 2017 at 4:59 AM:
No, I’m explaining the LOGIC behind what is actually going on inside a thermal radiation field.
It is PURE LOGIC, Norman. I’m not making up my own physics. This IS physics. I have linked you to a whole bunch of textbooks and papers describing what radiation REALLY IS, but you tend to dismiss them all offhand, claiming they’re “irrelevant” and just move on, back the next time around asserting once again that I have never provided support for my “belief”.
That’s a lie, and you know it. This is standard physics. You obviously lack fundamental understanding of physics, and so you’re unable to take in what I’m saying and what I’m linking to. You’re stuck inside you bubble view of the world …
This is why I try my best to ignore you.
Kristian
I disagree that you have linked me to several sources explaining your view. The exact opposite is the actual case.
I have linked you to several textbooks and articles on radiant heat transfer that explicitly say (without confusion) that all objects radiate energy.
The bidirectional energy flow is for any surface. There are only two directions with respect to a surface. Away (emission) and toward (absorbing). Other photon paths do not matter to a surface.
When I link you to actual textbooks you are the one who ignores what they state and claim it is only mathematical constructs. I have not seen it ever explained like that except from you.
Give a textbook example of radiation transfer that states there is only one merged photon cloud.
I have only seen one link from you no radiant energy (and it was not concerning radiant energy transfer). The only other links you provide are to your own blog.
I can start linking you to the actual science if you think I am wrong.
The basic radiant heat transfer equation is bidirectional and the reading supports it. Fact in physics. EMR is made of bosons. They do not interact with each other. A boson will not collide with another boson and change direction. All photons leaving one object in the direction of the other will arrive (in vacuum conditions) with no interaction from bosons leaving the object.
You can ignore all you want but you do not provide any support for you view. I have not yet been able to find it in any textbook on heat transfer.
Your view is not PURE LOGIC. It is actually illogical. Why would a surface that is radiating at some rate change its rate of emission because of the presence of another radiating object. The science states an object will radiate at the same rate just based on its temperature. Only the heat flow changes since it is a NET flow between what is emitted and what is absorbed by a surface. I have not seen anything stated different in several readings. I ask you to support that this is not the case.
phi on October 23, 2017 at 8:28 AM
Bindidon,
There is no other proof to provide than those which support the second principle.
I thought you would have understood that I’m not interested in your personal meaning.
I therefore await any link to a valuable source.
Bindidon,
I have nothing to add, you just have to bother to understand what is written. These endless debates are surprising. Especially when one realizes that they originate from a simple arbitrary assumption used in the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect:
“convection is what determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere”
(Ramanathan et al. 1978)
From there, any imbalance is restored by translation of the thermal profile, the thermodynamics disappears and nothing prevents you from playing with two independent flows of energy. This is the principle of radiative forcing.
Useless blah blah.
Binmincealors,
You are not ready to come out of the fog.
phi on October 24, 2017 at 3:53 AM
La ficelle du brouillard est un peu grosse.
As I told you, I’m still not interested in your personal meaning, and wait on a link to a paper showing what I want to see.
You remember me a commenter who ‘was ready to discuss anything’ with me, but refused to present papers, all peer-review being ‘trash’ (excepted of course when people like Gerlich and Tscheuchner manage to obtain it due to highly interesting, really foggy circumstances).
Binfade,
A renunciation of independent thinking, an abdication of free will?
Strange.
I leave you to your paperwork.
Kristian
Right. It was a bit presumptuous of me to say everyone agrees with the two way flow part.
There is always one NET flow of energy, that’s the one that only moves from hot to cold. Still, trillions of photons also move from a cold object to a hot object. This has been verified by instrumentation.
Wind is a flow of air, but objects don’t emit wind in all directions at a rate according to their temperature, which makes it a poor analogy for energy.
If you placed a wind meter facing the wind, it might register say, 25 MPH.
If you pointed it the opposite direction, it would register 0 MPH.
That’s a very different situation than you would get from facing an IR “meter” towards a warm object and then facing it the other way. Both directions get bombarded by energy,
Kristian
Flow:
“a steady, continuous stream of something.”
A cooler object will emit a steady, continuous stream of energy in the direction of a warmer one. That fits the definition of flow. Is it the net flow between the two body’s? No, but it is a flow nonetheless.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 23, 2017 at 7:42 AM:
No, it is not a flow nonetheless. Individual photons flying in ANY direction IMAGINABLE (not just two) inside a volume of space do not make up TWO macroscopic flows between them. They make up ONE. The net of ALL movements. The two separate flows streaming out from each object/region are only distinct when their photon clouds are separate, before they come into thermal contact. As soon as they meet, their separate photon clouds merge into one, and the individual flows of energy integrate into ONE.
Empirically POINT to a flow of energy from cold to hot, distinct from the NET flow that we observe as radiant heat. In an actual, real-world radiative heat transfer between a cooler and a warmer object. THEN you have an argument.
Is a wind two opposite flows of air? No. Still, just as many air molecules will be seen moving in the direction of high pressure as in the direction of low pressure, within any particular volume of moving bulk air. And the formula for convective heat transfer very much resembles the radiative one: Q_c/A = h (T_s – T_a). Does it make sense rearranging this equation in the following manner: hT_s = hT_a + Q_c/A …? Is hTa a separate flow of air from the cooler ambient surroundings to the warmer surface?
Likewise, is an electric current two separate flows of electrons? No. Still, just as many electrons move in the direction of high voltage as in the direction of low voltage within any given segment of the cord.
YOU CAN’T EQUATE WHAT YOU “SEE” IN THE MICRO (QUANTUM) REALM WITH WHAT YOU SEE IN THE MACRO REALM, SNAPE!!!
Why is this so hard to understand!? I don’t know how many times I’ll have to repeat this simple (as in ‘elementary’) point.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 23, 2017 at 7:02 AM:
Are you just playing stupid, or did you really not get my point at all!!?
The “flow” of energy IS the net (macroscopic, observable) movement of all individual MICROscopic movements, Snape. There is no “net flow”, just like there is no “net heat”. There is only flow and heat. The flow is the heat.
You people are SO stuck inside you dogma bubble …!
Kristian
You: “Are you just playing stupid, or did you really not get my point at all!!?”
Why do you throw in these insulting, condescending jabs all the time? I’m usually respectful to you, even when I disagree with your position (which is most of the time). It’s getting old.
When an instrument is used to measure IR, it doesn’t take in the energy moving chaotically in every direction (which I agree is an accurate description of the real world). It only measures energy moving in the direction of its sensors. This is often a steady, continuous stream. Which, BY DEFINITION,, means there’s a flow of energy moving towards the instrument.
Here’s a better argument:
If I hand you one penny/second, pennies will only be moving in only one direction. However, if each second I hand you 5 pennies, and you simultaneously hand me 4, now there are now pennies moving in two directions. The net result is the same, you’re still gaining one penny/second, but the mechanism is different.
The net flow is the same in both cases, but the first involves a one way movement of pennies, the latter a two way movement.
Sorry for the awkward wording. I did a lousy job of proofreading.
Here is the comment above after editing:
If I hand you one penny/second, pennies will be moving in only one direction.
However, if each second I hand you 5 pennies, and you simultaneously hand me 4, now there are pennies moving in two directions. The net result is the same, youre still getting one penny/second, but the mechanism is different.
Kristian,
When/if there is a photon counter that you can accept, do you think its spectrum would look any different to the ones we already have?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_counting
I think Kristian is objecting to the use of the word ‘flow’ to refer to discrete energy exchanges.
Think he’s saying that the word ‘flow’ can only ever be used, in this context, to describe the NET transfer of energy, and can’t be used to describe the motion of energy going in opposite directions.
Here’s Kristian again: “There is no “flow” of energy in the opposite direction.”
For that to be true, incoherent photons would have to interact. They do not. All measured evidence is to the contrary. Whereas measurements show coherent waves can be made to interfere with each other, incoherent natural light waves do not. And incoherent natural light is what the earth/atm./sun system is comprised of.
SW light energy flows toward the earth from Sol radiating at ~5780K and LW light energy flows away from earth radiating at ~255K, in opposite directions, so Kristian is simply wrong: there are instrumentally observed flows of light energy in opposite directions. The net of the two energy flows cause ~equilibrium global T to be observed for earth system over the decades measured.
Sir Isaac 10:37am: ““Why do you (Kristian) throw in these insulting, condescending jabs all the time?”
Not all, but many times over the years Kristian does not display a professional commenting style.
When Kristian dips into his typical adversarial jabbing style as often demonstrated v. diverse commenters, he achieves nothing, his point has typically been defeated. He’ll resort to a self cite to try save the day but doesn’t ever work to save it.
What Kristian needs is cite to experimentation which Dr. Spencer resorted to in order to make points v. Kristian et.al. Those tests are winners, dig into, learn from those experiments. Not Kristian’s experimentally unsupported verbiage.
Kristian’s seeming tone may not not be persuasive, but I respect his attention to detail whether or not I agree with him.
snape…”There is always one NET flow of energy, thats the one that only moves from hot to cold. Still, trillions of photons also move from a cold object to a hot object. This has been verified by instrumentation”.
It has not been verified by instrumentation with regard to heat transfer. Your theory stems from the Stephan-Boltzmann equation and Stephan acknowledged the equation cannot be verified by experiment.
Boltzmann set out with the idea of demonstrating the 2nd law using statistical mechanics. He failed, and he became so distraught that he ended his life. No one has since proved a two way heat transfer via radiation between a hotter body and a cooler body.
It’s like claiming a two way heat transfer in an iron rod when one end is heated by an acetylene torch. If the bar is long enough you could measure a definite thermal gradient from the hot end to the cooler end but there’s absolutely no way of establishing that heat is simultaneously transferred from the cooler end to the hotter end.
Such a claim would contradict basic principles in science. It has been well established that energy cannot be transferred against a potential energy hill. In electronics, electrons are constrained to move in the direction of the potential energy hill (applied voltage) but to move them in the opposite direction requires work to be done on the electrons.
Same with a 10 lb rock placed at the edge of a 10 foot cliff. As long as it sits there it has a potential energy but once you shove it off the cliff, it transfers that PE to kinetic energy. When it strikes the ground it loses its KE, and the only way to regain it’s original PE is by doing work on it. You have to pick it up and use muscle power to regain it’s PE.
In radiation, heat is transferred from a state of higher PE to a state of lower PE. There is no way to reverse that process without doing work on the system. Heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
Gordon
Did you see my post above where pennies are exchanged? The pennies represent energy moving in two directions. The net result represents heat, which only moves in one direction (one penny/second).
“..but I respect his (Kristian’s) attention to detail..”
What barry should respect is Kristian’s attention to experimental detail of which there is very little to no citation. Dr. Spencer tried to show the way the atm. works with tests and experimental data, Kristian did not follow that path forward.
Kristian even disagrees with the CERES Team about their own data at times. Self cites are offered not cites to the CERES team published work. As Sir Isaac and Norman often note in frustration, Kristian is self citation centered. Kristian can not make progress or valid points in these discussions until he does or cites experiments & relies on CERES Team published reports.
ball4…”Heres Kristian again: There is no flow of energy in the opposite direction.
For that to be true, incoherent photons would have to interact”.
I agree with Kristian. Energy flows from a state of higher potential energy to a state of lower potential energy. A flow against that potential energy hill is not allowed.
You have gotten yourself hung up on photon theory. A photon is a theorized particle of EM and EM is a specific form of energy unrelated to heat.
EM is radiated by both bodies when heat transfer takes place between those bodies. Each body will intercept EM from each other’s isotropically radiated EM. The presumption from alarmists here is that both radiations must be absorbed.
Not true.
Gordon 7:08pm: “In radiation, heat is transferred…”
Gordon, IR is not heat.
If Gordon agrees with Kristian, fine, then cite a test Gordon. I will agree with the test especially of the sort Dr. Spencer runs.
From testing, a photon is the same as particle of EM. Both carry energy, momentum (linear and angular), can be polarized but do not possess rest mass. Sometimes EMR exhibits particle like behavior, sometimes wave like behavior. Just look up a test, there are plenty to learn from.
Gordon: “EM is radiated by both bodies”
Yes per Planckian physics theory and test, so here Gordon disagrees with Kristian writing: “There is no “flow” of energy in the opposite direction.”
Gordon: “The presumption from alarmists here is that both radiations must be absorbed.”
There is no presumption, this was determined from testing as referenced by Planck in his 1912 treatise translated in 1914. You would do this blog a big favor by looking up reading those tests & correcting yourself. Both radiations were absorbed in testing.
If you need help finding it, just ask. Some incident radiation absorbed, some transmitted, some scattered. Emissivity + reflectivity + tansmissivity found=1.0
Gordon: EM is radiated by both bodies.
Two bodies, 20 C and 21 C. Overlapping spectrums are nearly the same. A lot of the cold body EM has higher energy than EM from the warm one, and vice versa, but no effect on the cooler body?
Warm the cooler body to 22 C and EM has no effect on the 21 C object?
What is the big difference at the molecular/atomic level in the unchanged 21 C object?
barry says, October 23, 2017 at 6:00 PM:
Yes. Thanks, barry!
I am NOT – repeat NOT!!! – saying that there isn’t energy moving from cold to hot, even distinct photons (quants of radiative energy) from cold being absorbed by hot. People keep misunderstanding my point. My point is only about the fundamental distinction between the microscopic (quantum) and the macroscopic (thermo) realms, the former being below (or “outside”) the ‘thermodynamic limit’, the latter above (or “in”) the ‘thermodynamic limit’.
Photons move in, basically, ALL spatial directions, not just two. And so it’s pointless to speak of two opposite streams or flows of photons in a radiative thermal interaction, especially if the intervening medium is itself radiatively active (“participating”). The photons in a thermal radiation field between two radiating objects or regions are not collected neatly into two monodirectional beams moving through each other. As soon as you’re talking about “streams” or “flows” or “beams” of energy, you are referring to MACROSCOPIC phenomena. By definition, a radiative flux (a power density flux, W/m^2) is a MACROscopic entity, essentially the statistical average of the individual movements through space of trillions of independent quantum-sized particles, into a NET movement, in your pre-specified direction of choice:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
And so, by claiming a bidirectional FLOW of energy (W/m^2), you’re really defining the radiation field as being made up of TWO net movements of energy, ultimately resulting in a NET ‘net movement’, or a NET ‘net flow’, the arithmetic difference between the two already statistically averaged hemispheric flows.
It is when people cannot distinguish between what happens at the quantum (microscopic) level and at the thermo (macroscopic) level that the “two-way” vs. “one-way” confusion arises.
You simply need to be able to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. Individual photons indeed fly in all directions imaginable, also directly from cold to hot, because they are – by definition – quantum entities, and are thus indifferent to the Laws of Thermodynamics, which – by definition – govern MACROscopic interactions only. The net of ALL individual photons is a photon cloud or gas, a bulk phenomenon, where none of its individual constituents are visible or matter as far as its bulk properties go. Like air. We know that the gas, the air, is made up of trillions of microscopic molecules flying about in every possible direction in all spatial dimensions, at vastly different individual velocities. But none of this matters. Only the statistical AVERAGE of ALL of them matters. To the air’s BULK PROPERTIES. The temperature of the air is the result of the AVERAGE velocity of its molecules. The movement of the air is a result of the AVERAGE (net) movement through space of ALL its molecules. You won’t be able to discern any such pattern of bulk movement, however, if looking in at any particular microscopic segment of the full volume. You will only see a seething mass of utter chaos and disorder. That doesn’t mean the bulk movement isn’t there …
A flow of energy, heat, electricity, or whatever, describes a different aspect of reality than what the movement of an individual photon does. Both aspects are ‘real’ and not at all mutually exclusive. But you can’t use the one to explain the other.
If you want to connect the two aspects, you can, but you will need to use methods of averaging exceedingly large numbers of single events. This is why we have ‘statistical mechanics’.
Kristian
Every object emits energy at a rate according to its temperature and receives energy at a rate determined by the temperature of its surroundings (also emissivity, absorb*tion). The difference creates a flow of energy to or away.
If you simply think “flow” is the wrong word to describe energy received or emitted, you sure have a long-winded, roundabout way of saying it.
Now you are making some sense Kristian, it was all a big misunderstanding, but a message or two cleared it up, thanks barry.
Svante says, October 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM:
LOL! I’ve been saying the same thing all along, Svante. So if I’m all of a sudden making sense now, then you haven’t paid much attention to what I’ve been saying up until now …
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 24, 2017 at 10:33 AM:
There’s no short and straightforward way of putting it, Snape. Well, there is, but then you’ll just insist on misunderstanding what I’m saying. You simply do not get my point, if I make that point too succinctly.
Get it?
I don’t “simply think” that ‘flow’ is the wrong word to describe energy received or emitted. It ISN’T a flow. READ WHAT I WRITE! I explicitly explain WHY it physically isn’t a flow, Snape.
For the millionth time: MICRO vs. MACRO!!! Photon vs. flow/flux of energy.
Kristian
4 pennies per second move in a steady, continuous stream in one direction. 5 pennies per second move in a steady, continuous stream the opposite way. This results in a net stream of 1 penny second.
All three fit the definition of flow. Macro/micro has nothing to do with it.
Kristian
Even if I use all caps: MICRO/MACRO, still irrelevant.
Yes LOL, I must have read hundreds of long messages about two way radiation being all wrong, although I think you once said it yielded the same result “if it was done right”.
And your answer to this is ‘No’:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269764
Sorry, should have said multi-way radiation, since photons arrive at +/- 180 degrees onto the surface, and not like that straight beam in Trenberths diagram.
Sorry, +/- 90 degrees.
norman…”You make up physics that claims energy from a cooler source would have no effect on a warmer one. This is not based upon any rational science”.
That is based on physics which you plainly don’t understand. I have explained it in great detail from as deep a level as the electrons in atoms and in that regard I have a deep understanding of the process from electronics/electrical theory.
Besides, I am not talking about generic energy, I am talking specifically about thermal energy, which is a property of atoms in motion. It is you who continues to thoroughly confuse yourself by mixing up thermal energy with electromagnetic energy.
As long as you refuse to learn the difference between the two forms of energy you will never understand what I am talking about.
Gordon 6:44pm: “I have a deep understanding of the process from electronics / electrical theory.”
Maybe so but as Gordon has admitted never having thoroughly read a book on atm. radiation or thermo., he does not have a deep understanding of atm. radiation theory/test or atm. thermodynamics theory/test. Until Gordon can become accomplished in those subjects, Norman understands atm. physics better as Norman has done more homework.
Appears to me from comments, Gordon, for example, may know something about higher temperature QM physics (electronic excited states) and practically nothing about the QM physics existing in Earth lower atm. at lower temperatures e.g. the rotational / vibrational excited states in air molecules.
ball4…”Appears to me from comments, Gordon, for example, may know something about higher temperature QM physics (electronic excited states) and practically nothing about the QM physics existing in Earth lower atm. at lower temperatures e.g. the rotational / vibrational excited states in air molecules”.
I have never specified high temperature physics because I am talking physics in the lower atmosphere. The rotational/vibrational states to which you refer are due to the nature of the proton/electron bond, not to the molecule per se.
Molecule is a word used to describe the proton/electron bonds when two or more atoms are bonded together. The bonds are electrons and the bonding exists at STP.
I happen to agree with Kristian’s point that we live in a macro world and that atomic theory is not required to make measurements at the macro level. I have gone into atomic theory in attempt to understand why heat can only be transferred hot to cold, even through radiation.
I have written extensively on that atomic theory and have received not one constructive critique.
“The rotational/vibrational states to which you refer are due to the nature of the proton/electron bond, not to the molecule per se.”
No Gordon, the whole CO2 molecule spins about its linear axis, neutrons, protons, electrons and all per se as a complete structure. H20 about a more complicated axis.
The whole atoms with electrons vibrate based on the molecular structure. You could read deeper into the report you discussed from Lockheed M&S to learn about this.
Electronic excited levels are not populated in the temperatures found in the lower atm. and that is why they are NOT discussed in that report. Not relevant to IR abs_orp_tion in lower atm.
Gordon: “..heat can only be transferred hot to cold, even through radiation.”
IR is not heat.
He’s not wrong though. Even with radiation, the flow of heat is hot to cold.
But radiation streams in every direction, even when 2 objects are at the same temperature and there is no heat exchanged. Radiation emitted by a colder object is received and absorbed by the hotter object. But the sum of their energy transference is from the hotter to the warmer object.
What this means is that a colder object can slow the rate of heat loss from a warmer object, as long as there is a source of energy warming the warmer object.
Insulation, whether by conduction, convection or radiation, does not break the 2nd Law.
Typing too fast:
But the sum of their energy transference is from the hotter to the cooler object.
“He’s not wrong though. Even with radiation, the flow of heat is hot to cold.”
barry 1:24am, consider two gaseous bodies A,B placed in thermal contact. At the boundary, a slower translating molecule in A bangs against a faster translating molecule in B. KE transfers. Both rebound to new trajectories.
Which way did net energy conductively transfer between the two bodies? Which one is at a higher temperature?
If your statement is correct, then you will easily have the definitive answers.
Dunno. Will molecular weight be a factor?
As we’re discussing heat flow – a macro condition – flow will depend on the sum of interactions.
In this I am fairly confident that, with or without a heat source, NET heat will always flow from hotter to cooler.
“Dunno.”
This is correct. I didn’t give enough information to know which way net gas constituent particle kinetic energy is flowing thus cannot tell which gas container is at a higher equilibrium temperature.
Clearly kinetic energy transfers from B to A in my example. And yet it is true one cannot tell which is the warmer container of gas. This ought to give a hint that writing: “heat will always flow from hotter to cooler” is incorrect when you spot that from a commenter around here. It is befuddlement root caused by misusing heat term.
JC Maxwell and Boltzmann showed that there is a distribution of kinetic energies found in molecules in a no-gravity gas container at equilibrium due to distribution of constituent velocities i.e. not all v the same. Put A and B containers of gas in thermal contact and net KE flows toward the cooler gas container which could be either one and still my example is valid no matter which is cooler.
In an earlier post I said that I had issues with the MEI index for measuring ENSO events because it exhibits a significant positive trend. I said that if there was indeed such a positive trend that you would expect a greater ratio of El Nino to La Nina months over time. For each decade, here is the number of El Nino months vs La Nina months:
1950s … 41-25
1960s … 32-9
1970s … 26-45
1980s … 35-27
1990s … 33-26
2000s … 30-36
2010s … 23-23
Except for the 1970s which clearly bucks the trend, there appears to be a downward trend in that ratio.
For the first 4 decades it is 134-106.
For the past 3 decades it is 86-85.
I believe MEI is telling the wrong story.
Which clearly shows that you don’t understand the ENSO process at all.
Kristian
I would be delighted if you could explain precisely what part of my post illustrates that I “dont understand the ENSO process at all”. You see … I don’t believe I said anything whatsoever about the workings of ENSO, so you can understand why I might be confused by your assertion. I assume you will be able to resist the temptation to claim I said or implied something I didn’t. SHOOT ….
You said you believe MEI is telling the wrong story, because it exhibits a significant positive trend. What story? And why is it “wrong” because its trend is positive? You do know what “MEI” stands for? So why do you expect it to show the same trend as ONI or NINO3.4?
You’re projecting, des. I never claimed you said or implied something you didn’t. YOU, on the other hand, have indeed accused me of saying something I didn’t.
All of your answer are there in my original post, if you could only learn to READ.
No, there are no answers. Only confusion.
Again: Do you know what “MEI” stands for? Why do you expect it to show the same trend as ONI or NINO3.4? El Nino months and La Nina months are determined from ONI/NINO3.4. MEI is NOT just covering the NINO3.4 region. And the NINO3.4 region is NOT telling the whole ENSO story. And so, why is MEI “telling the wrong story” according to you? What story are you referring to?
Linear trend estimates of various ENSO indices for 1950-2016 (scaled to fit, as their value ranges differ, and SOI inverted due to its Nino < 0)
– MEI: 0.13
– JMA: 0.11
– SOI: 0.06
– ONI: 0.00 (same as NINO3+4)
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1508754952447.jpg
For each decade, here is the number of El Nino months vs La Nina months:
1950s 41-25
1960s 32-9
1970s 26-45
1980s 35-27
1990s 33-26
2000s 30-36
2010s 23-23
Where do your numbers come from?
des, it could be a positive trend owing to the relative ‘power’ of el Ninos (and la Ninas). Of the 3 strongest el Ninos since 1950, one occurred around the middle of the record (’82/’83), and the other two after 1996. Early el Ninos in the MEI record are comparatively weaker than later ones.
One thread of inquiry on ENSO is whether they are getting stronger over time.
barry on October 23, 2017 at 6:10 PM
Early el Ninos in the MEI record are comparatively weaker than later ones.
Not quite, barry. You are probably looking at ENSO signals more recent than 1950.
Look at hte history starting around 1500, and you’ll find a lot of very strong guys, e.g. the 1877/78 edition you pretty good will see not only in the extended MEI starting with 1871, but in the Had-CRUT time series as well.
Des is starting from 1950, as most indices do. Base data is patchier before.
1500? I only know of data back to 1880 (or 1850?).
Any case, there is inquiry into whether el Ninos are getting, or will be getting stronger with global warming.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data_sets/quinn/quinn15251987.gif
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD010896/full
http://tinyurl.com/ycwdojzp
The reconstruction (1525-1982) paper is interesting. They seem pretty confident about the results.
A decade by decade breakdown of the US average monthly temperature distribution:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2v56RP5XU7GMWh6MUZMTUpySlU/view?usp=sharing
What’s the average temperature of our new quasi-satellite or
quasi-moon, 2016 HO3?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(469219)_2016_HO3
As name indicates it was discovered/confirmed in 2016 AD, a year ago.
They have not established it’s exact size but it’s thought to be around 40 to 100 meters in diameter
wiki:
–Since 2016 HO3 loops around our planet, but never ventures very far away as we both go around the sun, we refer to it as a quasi-satellite of Earth”, said Paul Chodas, manager of NASA’s Center for Near-Earth Object (NEO) Studies at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
“One other asteroid 2003 YN107 followed a similar orbital pattern for a while over 10 years ago, but it has since departed our vicinity. This new asteroid is much more locked onto us. Our calculations indicate 2016 HO3 has been a stable quasi-satellite of Earth for almost a century, and it will continue to follow this pattern as Earth’s companion for centuries to come.”–
And:
“As it orbits the Sun, (469219) 2016 HO3 appears to circle around Earth as well. The object is beyond the Hill sphere of Earth and the Sun exerts a much stronger pull on it than Earth does.”
Hill sphere is distance in which a body’s gravity is stronger than the Sun’s gravity. Or in the case with our Moon, Luna, it’s hill sphere is where the moon’s gravity is stronger than Earth’s gravity.
Earth’s hill sphere is about 1.5 million km- and Luna in well within it or at 1.5 million km distance from Earth, Earth’s gravity stronger than the Moon’s. Or if approaching the Moon from outside the Earth- Moon system, Earth gravity is stronger and as you get closer to the Moon, one gets to the Moon’s hill sphere at which point Moon’s gravity is stronger than Earth’s.
[[Moon hill sphere: “about 61.75 million meters, or ~16% of the distance between Earth and the Moon.”
http://www.masonchane.com/blog/the-hill-sphere-and-the-roche-limit ]]
These about numbers- one can be in “orbit” around the Moon further than 61,500 km distance from it- by being in Earth-Moon L-points. And our new Moon, 2016 HO3 is in the Earth-Sun L-points.
I would say that 2016 HO3 is in botha Earth-Sun L-4 and L-5 regions and it’s circles Earth [so it’s like a real orbit- going around a planet] because going from the L-4 to L-5 in what called the fuzzy boundaries of the L-point. Or 2016 HO3
is in Interplanetary Transport Network:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network
And is staying close to Earth for centuries.
Anyways, the question is what is it’s average temperature?
We will get around to measuring it’s temperature at some point, but do you predict it will be?
–While 2016 HO3 is a highly accessible asteroid in terms of the energy needed to get to it, explains Dr. John S. Lewis, chief scientist at DSI and the man who wrote the book on asteroid mining, its composition is a complete unknown.
Statistically, it is likely to contain metallic grains of iron-nickel-cobalt alloy, and is unlikely to be rich in volatiles such as hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. We need astronomers to measure its spectrum and tell us what its made of.–
http://deepspaceindustries.com/asteroid-profile-2016-ho3/
I was checking if anyone had measured it’s spectrum.
Btw, what size telescope is needed?
It seems it would have to be more than 1 meter and need to observed when it’s near “full moon”.
If it had water, it would be worth billions of dollars, but probably doesn’t.
If equal to 40 meter diameter and density of 1:
Volume: 33510 cubic meter and 33,510 tonnes
80 meter diameter: 2.1410^6 cubic meter or
2.14 million tonnes.
If had 100,000 tonnes of water- a ton of water worth about 1 million dollar or 100 billion dollars for 100,000 tonnes.
But unlikely to have water or water in the form of hydrates.
But if got 1 ton of rock and brought it back to earth- how much is that worth?
Now with water you don’t bring it back to earth- you make rocket fuel in space and this is why it’s the most valuable substance in space [you don’t need to bring it back to Earth and rocket fuel is needed in space.
But bring stuff back to Earth is a lot easier than leaving Earth, problem is a mass has to sent to rock to get mass back to Earth. And that mass sent costs about $10,000 per kg.
Or if send 1 ton to get back 1 ton, that ton roughly needs to worth more than $10,000 per kg.
Gold is about $50 per gram or $50,000 per kg.
Stuff from Moon or Mars is worth about $1000 per gram, but not in terms tons of it.
Significant westerly wind bursts last week!!! (western equatorial Pacific)
La Nina conditions will be short lived. Don’t be surprised if an el nino develops by Spring.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Note: the western Pacific is a long ways from the Nino region, so don’t expect any changes right away.
“The path of 2016 HO3 tends to twist and drift over time, but Earth’s gravitational pull keeps the asteroid contained: It never comes closer than 9 million miles (14.5 million km) to our planet, and it never gets more than 24 million miles
(38.6 million km) away, researchers said.”
https://www.space.com/33185-earth-quasi-moon-asteroid-2016-ho3.html
The Earth/Sun L-4 and 5 are at 60 degree arc of Earth’s orbit- 180 degree arc would be on the opposite side of the Sun [which btw, is Earth/Sun L- 3].
Earth is about 149.6 million km from Sun or diameter of orbit is 149.6 times 2 which times pi gives the circumference of the orbit of 973.9 million km.
And 60 degrees is 1/6th of 360 degrees.
So the “point” of L-4 or L-5 of Earth/Sun is about
162 million km from Earth.
But the region of L-4 or L-5 is quite vast with the point
being in the middle of this 3rd dimensional volume of space. As indicated by this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#/media/File:Lagrange_points2.svg
[It’s not exactly to scale or it’s a cartoon- L-4/5 points are further away than the sun from Earth. Earth and Moon would be dots and L-1/2 would be closer [or about 1.5 million km from Earth].
The 38.6 million km in which furthest from Earth is when nearer the L-4 and 5 and when nearer it’s closer to the Sun than L-1 and passing further away from the sun than L-2.
At the moment it’s .905 AU from the Sun and .175 AU from Earth:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=%202016%20HO3;old=0;orb=1;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#orb
.175 AU is about 26 million km
At 2016 HO3’s Perihelion it is .8972691647741002 AU from Sun and at it’s Aphelion it is 1.105497742463517 AU distance from the Sun.
So, does twist in front of L-1 and then behind L-2 and drifts back and forth from L-4 and 5 regions. During the time it orbits the sun.
Also in case if you look at link diagram of it’s orbit and think it’s an exaggeration to call 2016 HO3 a “quasi-satellite” or “quasi-moon” or a second moon of Earth [though it’s not permanent one- or won’t stay in that orbit as long as “the Moon”].
Take look at this:
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/does-the-moon-orbit-the-sun-or-the-earth/
Quote:
“Does the moon orbit the Sun? I would say yes. The interaction between the Sun and the moon has a greater magnitude than that of the moon-Earth interaction. The moon moves around the Sun at the same time it moves around the Earth. Perhaps the best answer is to say the the moon interacts with both the Earth and the Sun at the same time. This is what we call “physics”. I don’t think you could say that the moon just orbits the Earth.”
Or I would say our new second moon is far enough away that drawing it is possible.
Of course an important aspect of this is the Moon, Earth, and 2016 HO3 are traveling around the sun at about 30 km/sec [and 65,000 mph- and in a perfectly straight line- Earth, the Moon, and 2016 HO3 are traveling a straighter line than humans have ever drawn- as is everything
orbiting our Sun. Or everything drawn or depicted of solar system is sort of a cartoon- or drawing them “accurately” isn’t helpful, in sense one can more accurately draw, 2016 HO3]
Getting back to the point, what is average temperature of 2016 HO3 [before someone measures it]?
Solar flux = 1/AU squared
Perihelion: .8972691647741002
If earth distance [1 AU] solar flux is 1367 watts per square meter, then Perihelion of 2016 HO3 has 1697.94 watts per square meter and Aphelion distance is 1118.51 watts per square meter.
And it’s average is 1 AU or 1367 watts per square meter.
Obviously, believers in greenhouse house theory don’t know how to determine an airless world’s temperature.
2016 HO3 is close to a blackbody but may not be close to a ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
2016 HO3 is at the same average distance from the sun as our big moon [and Earth] but during it’s 365 earth day year it has larger swing in the amount sunlight:
Perihelion: 1697.94 watts/sq/meter
Aphelion: 1118.51 watts/sq/meter
Whereas Earth and it’s big Moon have:
Perihelion: 1413 watts/sq/meter
Aphelion: 1321 watts/sq/meter
And btw, in last 100,000 years Earth and big Moon would have
same difference as 2016 HO3. Or something like 1700 to 1100 watts difference from perihelion to Aphelion and like 2016 HO3
still have 365 day year.
Right now, 2016 HO3 is closer to sun, and just after Xmas it will close to one 1 AU from the Sun. And Earth at Jan 4 is closest to Sun [less than 1 AU].
On Sept 20th to 22 2017, 2016 HO3 was .9 AU from the Sun and at Sept 30 to Oct 6 2017 it was at closest distance of .897 AU. And Oct 14 to 16 was back to .9 AU from the Sun. And as said after Christmas will be at 1 AU.
And .9 AU = 1687.65 watts per square meter.
So it’s having about a month in which surface temperature are about 415 K. Or right now it’s have it’s peak in terms of it’s average temperature. And be become cooler than peak average temperature just before and after Xmas.
Or if measuring it now, it could have a “shockingly” or unexpectedly” high temperature. And even at Christmas time it could have higher than expected “average temperature” or warmer than it will be if measured about +6 months from now.
Now 2016 HO3 average temperature will depend on how fast it rotates. Because it’s small it doesn’t need to spin fast and because it’s small it could spin fast.
Or Earth rotates at 1000 mph- that would make very fast rotation of a space rock and a space could spin faster than that.
https://www.universetoday.com/14593/what-is-the-fastest-spinning-object-in-the-solar-system-near-earth-asteroid-2008-hj/
“The near-Earth asteroid 2008 HJ has been spotted spinning at a rate of one rotation every 42.7 seconds, breaking the record for the fastest rotating natural object in the Solar System. ”
That was pretty small rock, but 100 meter rock has circumference of 314 meter and minute rotation is 5.24 m/s [12 mph] and somewhere near what our tidally locked “big” Moon rotation at. But if rotating in an hour or even 24 hours, it will be more like a ideal thermally conductive blackbody as compared to our Moon.
And if it’s bare rock it could thermally conduct the heat through that much rock or at least conduct more heat pole ward.
So anyhow, it should warmer now, but on average it’s average temperature should be about 5 C
While HO3 is close to the Earth, its small size possibly not larger than 100 feet makes it challenging target to study, Reddy says. Our observations show that HO3 rotates once every 28 minutes and is made of materials similar to asteroids.
https://www.inverse.com/article/37611-temporary-moon-earth-asteroid
So it’s got a fast rotation- a day of 1/2 hour.
Therefore is it should have similar temperature of ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
Gordon Robertson
Way up the thread you responded to my post.
YOU STATE: “The 1st law states that U = Q + W. That means internal energy is the sum of thermal energy and mechanical energy of atoms. Clausius also pointed out that heat and work are equivalent: work becomes heat and heat becomes work.”
Gordon, you generate flawed thinking because you do not express the first law correctly.
You have it wrong and form wrong ideas based upon your incorrect use.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Laws_of_Thermodynamics/First_Law_of_Thermodynamics
The First Law of Thermodynamics is CHANGE IN INTERNAAL ENERGY equals HEAT (plus or minus) WORK.
Again if no change in internal energy is going on and the work is zero, that means the HEAT is also zero. It is not defined as the same thing as internal energy. It is what changes the internal energy. Work and heat can both change the internal energy. They are separate from it, however.
Look at the equation again. Learn again some simple math. Look at all equations of the First Law of Thermodynamics and link me to the one that expresses it in the fashion you do. This is why your science is not good, you are using invalid equations as the basis of thought.
norman…”Again if no change in internal energy is going on and the work is zero, that means the HEAT is also zero”.
For one it’s not possible to have W = 0 in a mass at STP. The vibrations are work energy at STP.
If dQ/dT = 0 it means there has been no change in heat but heat in a mass can never be 0 until -273C is reached. AT STP, every mass has plenty of heat.
Gordon Robertson
Here is a whole page of images for the First Law of Thermodynamics. Not a one writes it in your incorrect form.
All are about the change in internal energy related to heat and work. None claim internal energy and heat are the same.
Where do you get your physics from?
https://www.google.com/search?q=first+law+of+thermodynamics+equation&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd546bqofXAhWO3oMKHaWHDQ4QsAQIhQE&biw=1280&bih=907
Making up your own physics will not convince people of your claims. So far support for your views seems to be zero.
norman…”All are about the change in internal energy related to heat and work. None claim internal energy and heat are the same.”
Good grief, man. Internal energy is the combined energies of thermal energy and the mechanical energy of work. You seem to think U is some separate form of energy.
What do you think U = Q + W means??? It is self-explanatory, U = the sum of heat energy and work energy.
If you care to look up Clausius on internal energy he takes you through the development step by step. He wrote the 1st law as well and developed the theory of internal energy as related to atoms.
He begins with the statement that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and goes on to show the equivalence between heat and work. Adding heat to mass increases it’s internal energy while causing the atoms to vibrate harder. The harder vibration is heat as well as work.
You can also heat a body by doing external work on it, like drilling into a steel plate.
Unlike what you think, I am not spouting my own opinions. Most of what I talk about is straight out of Clausius.
Gordon Robertson
Internal energy is not U=Q+W
That is your fantasy physics you made up to support your own version of reality.
The actual equation is (Change in…triangle symbol) U = Q – W or plus in some uses.
I have linked you to images of the First Law. Look them over. Try to learn if even a little. I know it is difficult for you to do so.
Also Bindidon has posted direct quotes from Clausius supporting a two-way radiant energy flow and yet you continue to reject this.
Shall we all make a pact not to talk about thermodynamics next thread?
barry
That would be interesting to see that happen. I will try not to respond to Gordon. Difficult sometimes not to do.
Barry
Thermo is apparently a lot more interesting than westerly wind bursts.
norman…” I will try not to respond to Gordon. Difficult sometimes not to do”.
You are one of the most scientifically illiterate posters I have encountered in any blog but your immense ego and arrogance have convinced you that you’re an expert.
I don’t respond for your benefit. If I respond to you it’s to give the average reader of this blog a proper scientific perspective.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Gordon Robertson
The point is that the ideas I am posting are not like yours. You make up your own ideas. I am posting material straight from textbook science. You have already stated you do not accept modern textbook science. I am no expert. I am trying to keep science alive. Rigor, tested, empirical methodology. Established reality based upon evidence. You make up your own ideas of science and peddle them as if they were face. You do not support your claims. You have been pointed out your knowledge is wrong and flawed so you think people exposing your errors are illiterate, arrogant and have immense egos. I am sticking to reality. You can have your delusions , they seem to make you happy. They are wrong and made up.
I showed you how you were wrong with the First Law of Thermodynamics. You use the wrong equation (your own made up one) and form wrong conclusions from your incorrect use. You do not accept your error but continue to post it even after being informed. When I make errors and posters expose them, I will research the flaw and correct my thinking. You do not seem able to do this.
Con-man expounds his vast, in-depth grasp of the scientific method: “Rigor, tested, empirical methodology. Established reality based upon evidence.”
Yet, he also gets the units seriously messed up on “Q”!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
And yet when an error in my thought process is exposed I correct it. Why don’t you do the same?
You still have not answered my question I asked a few times. Why not?
Will a heated object’s temperature rise, stay the same, or go down if it is wrapped in insulation?
Being so brilliant in physics (not) you should easily be able to answer and then explain your reasoning.
Did you want the answer in “Joules per second”, or “kumquats per degree Celsius”?
Units are important, except in pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
As I already stated I corrected my error. What is your point? Are you beating a dead horse to amuse yourself?
Will you answer the question I have asked or are you petrified in fear that your one fan on this blog will see how fake your really are and are just a pretender.
I’m “petrified in fear”!
(I have a “fan”?)
That would be Gordon.
Svante, it seems to me Gordon has beaten me out as the one the con-man is most obsessed with.
I’ll just have to try harder.
☺
barry…”Shall we all make a pact not to talk about thermodynamics next thread?”
And you claim to respect science? When truth from thermodynamics contradicts your lame AGW theories you seek agreement not to talk about it.
Give your head a shake.
Doesn’t matter I don’t post to entertain you alarmists, I post to get at the truth. Not one of you have a clue about heat and thermodynamics.
As there has been virtually no persuasion on either side after months (years for some), continuing the discussion satisfies one of the more popular definitions of insanity.
It was a light-hearted comment, anyway. I don’t hope that anything will change. Just poking a little fun at us.
Yes, I think it is a pointless exercise is engaging with crackpots who believe they are the holders of the truth unlike everyone else (to quote none of you have a clue) . There used to be many institutions full of these characters until they shut them down and let them loose on the streets (and the internet) .
From wiki:
“A westerly wind burst is a phenomenon commonly associated with El Nio events whereby the typical east-to-west trade winds across the equatorial Pacific shift to west-to-east. A westerly wind burst is defined by Harrison and Vecchi (1997) as sustained winds of 25 km/h (16 mph) over a period of 520 days.[2] However, no concrete definition has been determined, with Tziperman and Yu (2007) defining them as having winds of 14 km/h (8.7 mph) and lasting “at least a few days”.[3] On average, three of these events take place each year, but are significantly more common during El Nio years. They have been linked to various mesoscale phenomena, including tropical cyclones, mid-latitude cold surges, and the MaddenJulian oscillation. Their connection with Kelvin waves also indicate a connection with the onset of El Nio events, with every major occurrence since the 1950s featuring a westerly wind burst upon their onset.[2]”
OK.
Ren, did you steal Isaac’s moniker?
?
Barry
I see. It’s fine to discuss el nino, but to try and drum up interest in an event that possibly initiates one? In your mind, a condescending jab is in order.
Did Kristian steal your moniker?
Sorry Isaac, it just seemed a bit out of the blue.
Svante
I was following up on a post I had made that morning. But anyway, Barry was rude, not you. I think it has to do with “westerly wind burst” sounding so cheesy.
You posted in-thread on a topic that had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. It was out of the blue – the sort of thing ren does. I cracked a joke.
Had you posted in a thread that the topic was about, or started a new thread, I wouldn’t have cracked the joke.
mike r…”I think it is a pointless exercise is engaging with crackpots who believe they are the holders of the truth…”
I find it sad that you hold such a view yet you are unable to offer a scientific critique of the so-called crackpot. Rather, you feel inclined to bend over to kiss butt to authority.
ClimateChange4realz
How are those comment numbers stacking up?
Why do people so rabidly cling to the GHE, a postulate that has never been scientifically proven, is not a thermodynamic law, and cannot even be scientifically observed? As I mentioned earlier, even Gavin Schmidt admits this:
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being . . . . . around 33C. This is more of a thought experiment than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline
A scientists baseline position should always be one of skepticism, but with the GHE, this is not the case. A very strange phenomenon.
I am puzzled that ‘skeptics’ seem to have no doubt.
For myself, with all the evidence to hand, not just highly selective bits of it, AGW is the strongest explanation for all that has been observed, which runs a lot further than just global surface temperature.
There is empirical evidence for it (spectroscopy of gases, lab experiments, observations of the atmosphere, oceans, etc), and it has significant explanatory power for what has been observed. This is how science works. But ‘skeptics’ keep framing it as if it is a legal trial or political construct. That’s not scientific.
barry, there is NO scientific basis for AGW. It’s a hoax. It’s based on the fraudulent GHE, which is based on the bogus “back-radiation”, which is based on the pseudoscience that IR is ALWAYS “scooped up” by matter, and ALWAYS warms (or “slows the cooling”, hilarious).
Try the recommended experiment of warming an apple with a mug of cold beer. You can even use 4 mugs. Time how long it takes you to bake the apple.
See, g*e*r*a*n has no doubt at all. And he’s a skeptic?
Strange times.
and, strange beliefs.
“For myself, with all the evidence to hand, not just highly selective bits of it, AGW is the strongest explanation for all that has been observed, which runs a lot further than just global surface temperature.”
Ocean sea levels have rising and falling before humans existed, and ocean have warmed and cooled, but in last 50 years you think, that humans are warming the oceans?
As I said, I look at all the evidence, including past climate change. For starters, that’s how I know it can change.
It’s changing, but to what degree do human activities effect the world.
I don’t think humans have effected our large and cold ocean by any measurable amount.
And I think our vast cold ocean controls Earth’s average temperature and the crazies who imagine Earth could become vaguely like Venus, should realize the scale of the energy involved to warm the Earth oceans.
the crazies who imagine Earth could become vaguely like Venus
Are irrelevant. No one here thinks that, and the vast majority of the climate community do not think that. This point is a complete red-herring.
Maybe you believe as you do because you haven’t looked broadly at the many lines of evidence, but rather look very selectively.
‘The climate has always changed’ is a statement, for example, not an analysis.
Here’s a skeptic scientist:
https://tinyurl.com/ycyln4g2
SkepticGoneSomewhere on October 24, 2017 at 7:23 AM
This is more of a thought experiment than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.
That is, as usual, the difference between ‘sound skepticism’ and ‘distortion of an information by deliberately omitting 90 % of it’.
Here is the source of what you wrote:
Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
By Gavin Schmidt October 2010
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
and what you very, very probably didn’t extract out of it by your own.
It is namely much easier to copy and paste ‘information’ out of web pages like
http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/25/another-new-paper-dismantles-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-thought-experiment/
because Gosselin do that job so pretty good for you.
Here is expressis verbis what the tricky Gosselin deliberately omitted for your convenience:
*
Another way of quantifying the effect is to look at the difference between the infrared radiation emitted at the surface of the Earth, and the amount that is emitted to space at the top of the atmosphere. In the absence of the greenhouse effect, this would be zero (in other words, no difference). In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.
So of all the greenhouse substances in the atmosphere, which of them absorbs what? This is a more complicated issue than it might first appear because of the nature of the absorp-tion and the complex distribution of absorbers both horizontally and vertically.
Different substances absorb different frequencies of IR, and the different parts of the planet differ wildly in how much IR is being emitted (based as it is on surface temperature) and how much cloud and water vapor there is at that location (carbon dioxide is very well mixed). Indeed, some wavelengths of IR can be absorbed by both water vapor or clouds, or water vapor and CO2.
This ‘spectral overlap’ means that if you remove a substance, the change in how much IR is absorbed will be less than if you only had that substance in the air. Alternately, the impact of all the substances together is less than what you would get if you added up their individual components. This needs to be taken into account in any attribution of the greenhouse effect.
We use the GISS model of radiative transfer through the global atmosphere to try and break down the attribution using realistic distributions of local temperature, water vapor and clouds. By removing each of the absorbers in turn and calculating the absorp-tion for many different combinations, we can calculate all the overlaps and allocate the absorp-tion fairly.
We find that water vapor is the dominant substance responsible for about 50% of the absorp-tion, with clouds responsible for about 25% and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect. The remainder is made up with the other minor greenhouse gases, ozone and methane for instance, and a small amount from particles in the air (dust and other ‘aerosols’).
Given that CO2 has such a major role in the natural greenhouse effect, it makes intuitive sense that changes in its concentration because of human activities might significantly enhance the greenhouse effect. However, calculating the impact of a change in CO2 is very different from calculating the current role with respect to water vapor and clouds.
This is because both of these other substances depend on temperatures and atmospheric circulation in ways that CO2 does not. For instance, as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor amounts.
So a change in CO2 that affects the greenhouse effect will also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse effect after a change in CO2 needs to account for the consequent changes in the other components as well.
If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorp-tion would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorp-tion increases by almost 20 W/m2 demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the ‘feedbacks’ are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone. Past climate data suggests that this is what happens in the real world as well.
What happens when the trace greenhouse gases are removed? Because of the non-linear impacts of CO2 on absorp-tion, the impact of removing the CO2 is approximately seven times as large as doubling it. If such an event were possible, it would lead to dramatic cooling, both directly and indirectly, as the water vapor and clouds would react.
In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35C cooler than today, as water vapor levels decrease to 10% of current values, and planetary reflectivity increases (because of snow and clouds) to further cool the planet.
Despite being a trace gas, there is nothing trivial about the importance of CO2 for today, nor its role in shaping climate change in the future.
*
To make things clear: I have NO opinion concerning the role of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
But: independently of the fact wether or not one agrees to what Schmidt wrote, it is simply dishonest to reduce it to such a laughable paragraph as you did in your comment upthread.
Wow, Gavin has some great pseudoscience there.
Thanks for finding it, Bin.
Pseudoscience: that’s as usual the only comment you are able to produce.
Your meaning won’t matter as long as you restrict it to such a trivial expression.
But I begin to understand that you aren’t able to come out with much more than that.
You want a sample?
“Given that CO2 has such a major role in the natural greenhouse effect, it makes intuitive sense that changes in its concentration because of human activities might significantly enhance the greenhouse effect.”
Pure, unadulterated pseudoscience!
OK. The GHE is something that cannot be observed, but people believe in it fervently. Can you say “religious cult”?
SkepticGoneWild says:
“OK. The GHE is something that cannot be observed, but people believe in it fervently. Can you say religious cult?”
Idiot.
It’s still somewhat amazing to me that the ‘greenhouse’ effect first postulated in the early 19th century, which is now standard scientific knowledge after more than 150 years of inquiry, observation and testing is waved off as a hoax.
It really is like creationists on evolution, or flat-Earthers about the shape of our world.
barry is somewhat amazed: “It’s still somewhat amazing to me that the ‘greenhouse’ effect first postulated in the early 19th century, which is now standard scientific knowledge after more than 150 years of inquiry, observation and testing is waved off as a hoax.”
barry, I’m EXTREMELY amazed that anyone could actually believe the bogus GHE is “now standard scientific knowledge after more than 150 years of inquiry, observation and testing”.
Where have you been? The GHE fails basic physics. It failed the test set out by the IPCC.
Why do you cling to a hoax?
The GHE fails basic physics. It failed the test set out by the IPCC.
What test? The GHE isn’t defined by whether global temps go up or down over a number of years.
barry, check the IPCC projections.
I stopped reading at “This….”. Wow! What a yawner.
As usual: only polemic, no arguments.
“Another way of quantifying the effect is to look at the difference between the infrared radiation emitted at the surface of the Earth, and the amount that is emitted to space at the top of the atmosphere. In the absence of the greenhouse effect, this would be zero (in other words, no difference). In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space.”
Another way of quantifying the effect is measuring the amount sunlight at the top of atmosphere compared to amount reaching the surface.
When sun directly over head and sky is clear, there is about 1050 watts of direct sunlight and a total amount of sunlight of 1120 watts. So 1367 – 1120 is 247 watts of sunlight blocked by atmosphere or more than 18% sunlight when passing thru least amount of atmosphere is blocked from reaching surface.
But sun is shining on entire half of hemisphere not just the relatively small region which has sun directly overhead. Or in the larger area outside this, more sunlight is blocked before reaching the surface [and more of it is reflected back into space even in clear sky conditions.
One could imagine that square meter of surface could radiate like the sunlight directly overhead, but it doesn’t- most of the energy would radiate below a 45 degree arc. Or energy leaving is similar to sunlight entering the entire sunlit hemisphere.
I hope everybody can agree at least upon one basic fact, namely that Earth’s radiative equilibrium temperature is at about 255 K:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1508875762860.jpg
*
UAH6.0’s average absolute temperature for LT in 1981-2010 is around 264 K:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle
You can compute that out of UAH’s climatology data for every of the 9504 cells in their grid.
Exactly as the UAH team is able to measure oxygen’s microwave emissions with a high accuracy, they should be able to communicate, for every cell, the estimate for the height in the troposphere at which the microwave emissions were measured.
*
For each cell, you then have the absolute temperature at emission height, and, by dividing the height by the lapse rate of 6.5 K/km, the temperature delta at the surface.
You can then build a latitude weighted average of all cells, giving you a good estimate for the global mean temperature at Earths combined land and ocean surface.
I wouldn’t wonder much if this average value was around… 288 K.
… by dividing the height by the lapse rate of 6.5 K/km
Hmmmh. Maybe the other way ’round hu?
Yeah, it looks like you got some of the math messed up. But, I think what you are trying to say is 1) the Sun warms the planet, and 2) the atmosphere cools the planet.
As you mentioned, we can probably all agree on that.
But there are some that have funny beliefs. They believe things like marmalade can heat the planet. So now they probably want to make marmalade illegal.
Personally, I’m not fond of marmalade anyway. But I hope they don’t go after watermelons and wine grapes!
g*e*r*a*n
You: “1) the Sun warms the planet, and 2) the atmosphere cools the planet.”
Right. But what would happen if the sun remained just as effective at warming but the atmosphere became less effective at cooling?
“Right. But what would happen if the sun remained just as effective at warming but the atmosphere became less effective at cooling?”
The atmosphere has things in it, like clouds and dust, if remove all the stuff so there is just gases, it’s less effective at warming the rest of the universe [less effective at cooling].
What happens on Earth is the surface is warmed from sunlight, and the warmed surface is warming the rest of the universe [surface cools].
snape…”But what would happen if the sun remained just as effective at warming but the atmosphere became less effective at cooling?”
The surface cools due to the temperature differential between the surface and the atmosphere right next to the surface. It has nothing to do with GHGs in the atmosphere or any other tommy rot.
Please answer the question Gordon.
“Please answer the question Gordon”, Svante begs.
Svante, the 12-year-old snake does not understand things like the Gas Laws, which indicate the atmosphere expands with increased temperature. And that expansion provides increased surface area. And, the radiation to space, to the fourth power of the temperature, then radiates from an increased surface area.
We don’t like for 12-year-old to see this stuff. They can’t understand it. It just makes them have headaches.
They can only understand simplistic things like “Big Marmalade” is trying to overheat the planet.
“Svante, the 12-year-old snake does not understand things like the Gas Laws……”
Are you referring to flatulence? Every 12 year old knows about that.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The surface cools due to the temperature differential between the surface and the atmosphere right next to the surface. It has nothing to do with GHGs in the atmosphere or any other tommy rot.”
Wrong-cubed. Clearly it does — but I no longer expect that you understand physics like this:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
g*e*r*a*n says:
“the radiation to space”, “then radiates from an increased surface area”.
Can you show us your radiation change calculations, or did you think it up just now?
Svante “the sniper”: “Can you show us your radiation change calculations, or did you think it up just now?”
Svante, look up the formula for the surface area of a sphere. Notice how the area increases with the square of the radius.
Pretty amazing stuff, huh?
That question was well formulated Sir, it deserved straight answers from the 2LOT people.
— Bindidon says:
October 24, 2017 at 2:48 PM
I hope everybody can agree at least upon one basic fact, namely that Earths radiative equilibrium temperature is at about 255 K:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1508875762860.jpg–
I hope everyone knows that with anything is space the radiative equilibrium temperature is not related to it’s temperature or average temperature, unless it’s similar to an ideal thermal conductive ideal blackbody.
Well I trust in all those physicists who – independently of their opinion concerning the GHE stuff – consider that Earth is in the far IR range near enough to it.
Did you ever compute the difference, e.g. by integrating over the 10,000 cells of a 2.5 degree grid?
— Bindidon says:
October 25, 2017 at 1:59 AM
Well I trust in all those physicists who independently of their opinion concerning the GHE stuff consider that Earth is in the far IR range near enough to it.–
Sarcasm?
In case it’s not:
“Far infrared (FIR) is a region in the infrared spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Far infrared is often defined as any radiation with a wavelength of 15 micrometers (m) to 1 mm (corresponding to a range of about 20 THz to 300 GHz), which places far infrared radiation within the CIE IR-B and IR-C bands.” -wiki
“Did you ever compute the difference, e.g. by integrating over the 10,000 cells of a 2.5 degree grid? ”
No.
Would you recommend doing this?
Since here, I will fix my typo:
“I hope everyone knows that with anything is space…” should have been:
“I hope everyone knows that with anything in space,…”
Bindidon says:
“Well I trust in all those physicists who independently of their opinion concerning the GHE stuff consider that Earth is in the far IR range near enough to it.”
Your grasp of the English language is atrocious.
Please go away until you can write with meaning. Thank you.
David
Is it your mission to be an ass?
Bindidon’s grasp of English is more than adequate. His comments are consistently amoung the best on this blog.
DA…”Your grasp of the English language is atrocious.
Please go away until you can write with meaning. Thank you”.
binny…this is the kind of riff-raff with which you have surrounded yourself. I may call you an idiot from time to time but I am not on your side. DA is on your side and he insults your birthright and your ability to speak English.
DA keeps supplying pseudo-science from Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician who programs climate models. When Schmidt had the opportunity to debate a real atmospheric physicists in Richard Lindzen, Schmidt ran and hid.
snape…”Bindidons grasp of English is more than adequate. His comments are consistently amoung the best on this blog”.
You made a good point in part one then blew it with part 2. Unless, of course, you are referring to the alarmist pseudo-science you guys peddle.
Using Earths Moon as a Testbed for Quantifying the Effect of the Terrestrial Atmosphere
Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, Nicole Mlders (2017)
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-8302911_78836.htm
I am looking forward to comments from qualified physicists…
“Since the angular velocity of Moons rotation is 27.4 times slower than that of the Earth”
It is, [or close enough] but Moon’s day is 29.53 earth days.
Or it’s the day related to where the sun is rather than to related to position of stars.
Kramm et al 2017 do confirm Gavin’s ideation that the GHE is an unobservable thought experiment.
But we will have to wait until Eli (our resident qualified physicist) shows up to splain it to us, whereas Bin can then commence his butt kissing.
SkepticGoneWild on October 24, 2017 at 8:01 PM
Kramm et al 2017 do confirm Gavins ideation that the GHE is an unobservable thought experiment.
Well, that’s a bit too dumb for me.
You do not seem to understand that in fact you are here the one who does butt kissing so pretty good. Your are far more a willing believer than I ever might be.
*
Kramm tried to debunk Smith years ago:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16612221&postID=4484437756868847462&isPopup=true
and failed miserably to convince.
Follow his discussion (from start till end) with Smith and Ho-Stuart, and you will see that he was not at all able to convince them even concerning a minuscule detail (equations 6-8 in Smith’s paper which, according to a very mathy friend years ago, are plain correct).
Believe me: never and never would a guy like Kramm give up any discussion if he would see a possibility to come out of it as the winner.
I live here since nearly 50 years with Germans and know very well how they are in such situations.
Are you really naive enough to think that any real scientist – skeptic or not, doesn’t matter – will trust in Kramm’s albedo redefinition story?
Really?
These authors essentially beat a dead horse.
And their calculations just end up confirming the GHE.
Nobody ever claimed that the Earth mean surface temperature would merely be the effective temperature Te of 255 K in the absence of greenhouse gases or in the absence of any atmosphere at all.
The conventional (popular) point is just that the 289 – 255 = 33 K > 0 that is a definitely positive quantity and that this is nothing else than a sufficient condition implying that there must be a substantial GHE effect on planet Earth.
Actually this assertion is precisely a simple consequence of the mean surface temperature Ts = <T(r)>, (r specifies the location at surface) of a real (spherical, rotating etc) planet without GHG or without any atmosphere at all being systematically lower than it’s effective temperature Te. And this in turn is a simple consequence of mathematics that tell us that the mean value of IR surface emission namely <T(r) ^4> (that at radiative equilibrium is just by definition Te^4) must always be larger than Ts^4 = <T(r)>^4.
is a symbol that means “taking the mean of arg”.
So there is neither a surprise nor any news in the fact that these authors end up with their “atmospheric effect” of 67 K, the hypothetical difference between Earth mean surface temperatures with and without (GHG containing) atmosphere.
alpha imagines: “Nobody ever claimed that the Earth mean surface temperature would merely be the effective temperature Te of 255 K in the absence of greenhouse gases or in the absence of any atmosphere at all.”
Why alpha, I’m shocked you would “imagine” such nonsense when Bin has the actual Gavin text above: “In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35C cooler than today, as water vapor levels decrease to 10% of current values, and planetary reflectivity increases (because of snow and clouds) to further cool the planet.”
I know it’s hard to keep up with all the pseudoscience you espouse. Hope this update helps.
So to paraphrase:
“What do you mean no one ever claimed a blackbody earth with no greenhouse gases would have a mean temperature of about 255K! Why, right here someone claimed a non-blackbody earth with some greenhouse gases would have a mean temperature of about 255K!”
g*r…”In model experiments where all the trace greenhouse gases are removed the planet cools to a near-Snowball Earth, some 35C cooler than today….”
That’s a Homer Simpson, “Doh!!!!” moment. In model experiments, where CO2 has been arbitrarily assigned a warming factor of 9% to 25%, the models suddenly cool when the CO2 is removed.
The models are all unvalidated, meaning not one of them has been able to reproduce reality. However, Schmidt alleges they can produce their own pseudo-reality. Doh!!!
RSS TLT anomaly for September is about 0.13 C higher than August, which is in line with UAH
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
+0.18 C, actually.
Kra With experience in transient heat transfer analysis and an understanding of effective thermal capacitance (approximately equal to the thermal capacitance of the top 110 meters of all the oceans) you might be aware that the effective thermal time constant for the planet as it relates to climate change is about 5 years. Variations in reported temperature over a year do not mean much let alone month to month because they contain substantial meaningless random variation (s.d. ≈0.09 C). The trend indicates what is really going on. Unfortunately some of the data that forms the trends has been changed, apparently to corroborate an agenda, so even the trends can not be blindly trusted.
Dan
Don’t be so cynical. Sure, UAH is politically biased and constantly adjusting their data. That doesn’t mean it’s less accurate than the others.
snape…” Sure, UAH is politically biased and constantly adjusting their data”.
You alarmist trolls come on to Roy’s blog and set up shop as if you’re running the place. UAH is not in the least politically biased. They have adjustments to make due to the nature of their instrumentation. That’s a far cry from NOAA throwing out 75% of its data and synthesizing the slashed data using a climate model.
Gordon
I’m not going to argue. You’re convinced that AGW is a hoax and it’s clear nothing will change your mind.
Regarding denial:
“no amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary.”
Simpleton affirms: “Im not going to argue.”
I wonder how long that will last. ..
I never said that.
Not very long.
Sir
IMO UAH is most trustworthy. Hmmm. I just checked, RSS has very nearly the same slope trend line, 0.14 C per decade since 1979.
Dan
I don’t know which of the various datasets is most accurate, but they all paint a similar picture, UAH included.
Anyway, I do trust UAH and was just being sarcastic.
why do you trust
UAH?
dan…”RSS has very nearly the same slope trend line, 0.14 C per decade since 1979″.
Please explain the relevance of that 0.14C to anthropogenic warming. Also, please explain how we could have a flat trend in the middle from 1998 – 2015.
Dan Pangburn says:
“Unfortunately some of the data that forms the trends has been changed, apparently to corroborate an agenda, so even the trends can not be blindly trusted.”
The raw data are adjusted for known biases, as happens in all sciences.
How would you prefer to correct for those biases?
Dav…The confirmation bias is most troublesome.
No answer, huh?
Clearly you haven’t studied the issue.
Sorry to have expected that of you. I should have known better.
dan, where is your reply?
huh???
DA…”The raw data are adjusted for known biases, as happens in all sciences”.
UAH adjusts for instrument variations like orbital effects and for issues related to coverage involving changing altitudes. They verify their sat coverage with radiosonde data.
NOAA, blatantly adjusts the actual data gathered from thermometers by throwing out 75% of it and synthesizing it in a climate model. Then they go back in the historical record and change values they don’t like.
The average temperature of earth is somewhere around 15 C [59 F]. But 15 C is not a common temperature on Earth
[[15 C water temperature will kill you in about 2 hours- unless you in wet or dry suit. 15 C air temperature will take longer to kill you- unless you are likewise properly dressed and in dry clothes.]]
I was wondering where on Earth would you find 15 C as common air temperature. The continental US has average yearly temperature of about 13 C. And has warmer summer and colder winter and large difference in night and day temperatures- 15 C is not common air temperature in US. 13 to 17 C is not common temperature in US.
Of course the most common place on Earth is on an ocean AND ocean air temperature don’t vary as much as land temperatures.
So where on the ocean is about 15 C. What latitude?
This gives graphic of ocean annual temperatures:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3652
So somewhere around 40 degree latitude north and south and then the variation. And this is somewhat helpful:
https://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/christensen/physics%20137/Figures/Temperature/Effects%20of%20Latitude%20on%20Annual%20Temperature%20Range.htm
” The principal cause of the hemispheric asymmetry is the greater water mass of the southern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere is 81 per cent water-covered. The northern hemisphere surface is only 61 per cent water. This causes seasonal variations to be more moderate in the southern hemisphere than at the corresponding northern latitudes.
The elliptical shape of the earth’s orbit partly offsets the southern moderating effect of the earth’s land-sea distribution. That’s because the earth is currently closest to the sun in January during the southern summer and northern winter. The earth is most distant from the sun in July during the southern winter and northern summer. This clearly favors northern seasonal moderation and southern seasonal extremes. Near perihelion (January) the earth as a whole receives about 6 percent more energy from the sun per day than near aphelion (July). 13000 years from now, because of the precession of the equinoxes, things will be reversed.”
Also in my wanderings:
“Our planet is heated by solar radiation, incoming energy from the sun. Because the Earth is round, the angle of the surface relative to the incoming radiation differs with latitude. At low latitudes (the tropics), direct overhead sunlight received all year warms surface waters. At high latitudes, ocean waters receive less sunlight the poles receive only 40 percent of the heat that the equator does. Thus, the surface waters in the Arctic and Antarctic are not warmed much; in fact, they are very cold. So cold, in fact, that at times that the surface water freezes to form ice. In other areas, sunlight varies depending on the time of year, meaning surface waters in the ocean can fluctuate in temperature.
These variations in solar energy mean that the ocean surface can vary in temperature from a warm 30C in the tropics to a very cold -2C near the poles.”
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/temp-vary.html
Note: Poles don’t recieve 40% of sunlight that equator does.
But it might be interesting to determine at what latitude does receive 40% of the sunlight that equator does.
gbaikie…”At high latitudes, ocean waters receive less sunlight the poles receive only 40 percent of the heat that the equator does”.
For several months of the Arctic winter, much of the Arctic receives no solar energy at all. For a month either side of that window, the Arctic receives barely any solar energy. The complete lack of warming allows very cold air to descend from the upper atmosphere.
It takes immense cold to freeze the briny Arctic Ocean to a depth of 10 feet at the N. Pole in January and February.
I know it’s wrong, it’s wrong even if including the oceanic heat transport from tropics, But my question was at what latitude do you get 40% of the sunlight which is received at equator?
Easily calculated. Who cares? Its not important
The people writing facts at NOAA couldn’t easily calculate it and it seems National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
should care.
gbaikie…”it seems National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should care”.
NOAA apparently only cares about methods that make the planet appear artificially warmer.
gbaikie…”I know its wrong, its wrong even if including the oceanic heat transport from tropics…”
I was not claiming you are wrong I was simply adding more info. I agree with most of what you write. I don’t have the answer you seek.
norman…”I showed you how you were wrong with the First Law of Thermodynamics. You use the wrong equation….”
We have been over this several times with myself and Kristian. You are confusing the micro world with the macro world.
If you take U = Q + W and constrain it to the interior of a mass it is still the 1st law. That was the context in which I was speaking and I made that clear. I set up U as the sum of the interior heat and work but I made it clear that external heat could be added (or withdrawn).
When Clausius derived U initially he used different terms such as H and L to represent the initial heat in a body and the work done by it’s atoms as they vibrate. He defined Q as being divided into three parts: the heat added to the existing heat in a body, the second produces the internal heat and the third produces exterior work.
You seem to be regarding the Q in U = Q + W as only the heat into or out of a mass. In fact, you claimed heat would be zero if delta Q was zero. Not true. The 1st law in it’s simplified form is not the form used ultimately to deal with a real world problem.
When you state the initial conditions of a process at T0, that specifies the amount of heat already in the body.
Gordon Robertson
I do agree with you that Clausius accepted that “heat” was the total internal energy of an object.
http://www.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Clausius%20(1857)_Nature%20motion%20we%20call%20heat.pdf
But the definition of “heat” has changed over the years.
Here is a good description covering the changes over the years and the current accepted defintion.
From the article: “Finally, in the modern view, heat is present only when there is an energy transfer. It is senseless to speak of the heat as still existing once the two objects have come to thermal equilibrium. Heat is not something contained in an object; rather it is something transferred between objects. The heat no longer exists when the transfer ceases.”
Source:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat
Another modern use of the word “heat”.
“A system contains ONLY internal Energy
a system does NOT contain energy in the form of heat or work
Heat and work only exist during a change in the system
Internal energy is a state function”
From this source:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/State_Functions/Internal_Energy
You are correct in your understanding of the word “heat” by Clausius.
But how you define heat does not affect the GHE.
You still need to answer the question (which I am not sure you will even try to, your number supporter refuses to answer it).
If you wrap insulation around a heated object:
a) Will its temperature increase?
b) Stay the same?
c) Will the temperature decrease?
Con-man, you amuse us again.
They say there are no “dumb questions”, but you are out to prove them wrong!
Even a person with no real science background could answer your dumb question. Consequently, there is a chance you know the right answer.
So, you must have some con going.
Sneaky.
You think you’re such a con, but the only one you are fooling is YOU!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I guess you do not have much respect for your own intellect. Here you claim: “Even a person with no real science background could answer your dumb question. Consequently, there is a chance you know the right answer.”
I have asked you the question a few times already and you have not been able to comprehend it enough to answer, so where does that leave your intelligence? Since you can’t answer it then does that mean you possess even less than “no real science background”?
Halloween is approaching. I hope some young children in your neighborhood do not carry signs with this question on them. You are so afraid of this question you wake up at night in sweat just on the possibility someone may ask it.
I recall in a post above, I suggested you were petrified by this question and you seem to have agreed with me.
It is okay, I do not want to scare you anymore. I will not ask you directly what the answer is. I hate showing your one fan how much a phony pretender you are. That one fan may actually start thinking you really might be an unfunny troll.
Wow Con-man, you finally figured out I’m not going to play your stupid “gotcha” game.
And, it only took you how long?
Norman, I really suggest that you ignore g*.
As his reply shows, all he is about are insults. No science at all — 100% troll. He should be ignored. I’ve found that when one ignores him for a few days, he moves on to someone else, to anyone else.
You give good replies, Norman, better all the time. But g* is not going to discuss science no matter what you write to him. That is not why he’s here. That is not what he needs.
Nothing will bother him more than to be ignored. He’s just not worth your time, Norman.
David Appell
Yes g*e*r*a*n is most certainly a troll. He does try to be funny sometimes. Not the brightest comedian. In a link above I tried to help him out sending him to Comedy Central so he might improve his humor. I do not think he is open to good suggestions.
If he improved his humor he could still provide valuable entertainment on this blog. Unfortunately he is not really very funny.
Here is a sample of some of his attempted humor: “But there are some that have funny beliefs. They believe things like marmalade can heat the planet. So now they probably want to make marmalade illegal.”
I guess if your mind is not able to comprehend physics concepts then you might as well attempt at humor. The sad thing about g*e*r*a*n is that he is not very smart with science and he is not a particularly good comedian. He is bland and mediocre. I guess that is why he is desperate for attention here.
Norman, I don’t find g* funny in the least. not at all.
Norman, i really respect your obvious dedication to studying the science, and to THINKING, which almost no one here does.
Don’t let yourself get distracted by a-holes like g*.
the informed people here know he’s a sad piece of wet bread. writing him off is a great feeling
I agree David, Norman has given many good replies, but his best one for g*e*r*a*n was upthread:
https://tinyurl.com/muhsbph
Norman wrote:
“I guess if your mind is not able to comprehend physics concepts then you might as well attempt at humor.”
I don’t give g* anywhere that kind of influence.
He probably just got a woody from seeing his name in a sentence.
Ignore him completely. He is nothing but a troll. He only wants to make fun of your argument. He’s a coward.
Please, start ignoring him. The lack of oxygen will snuff him out.
Davie, you’re not ignoring me very well.
You ignore about as well as you understand science. And, that’s not very good.
(Was the welfare check on time this month?)
Norm, what a perfect description of yourself: “I guess if your mind is not able to comprehend physics concepts then you might as well attempt at humor. The sad thing about Norm is that he is not very smart with science and he is not a particularly good comedian. He is bland and mediocre. I guess that is why he is desperate for attention here.”
(You just left out that you work at a dead end job so you have 6 hours a day to pound on your keyboard.)
see how g* keeps begging for attention….?
Svante says: “…Norman has given many good replies”
One of my favorites was when he got confused on the units for “Q”. He had a long rambling comment explaining it all, except he was hilariously completely wrong.
Just another day in pseudoscience.
So g*e*r*a*n is derived from anger, but why are you angry?
There is no point being angry about things you can’t change, but it will ruin your own happiness.
https://tinyurl.com/kcbclmz
“Stevan”, you seem quite impressed with your ability with anagrams. Maybe that’s why science is so confusing to you.
Each to his own.
g*e*r*a*n,
so what is the point of disrupting all serious discussions, what is your motivation?
Someone suggested it was a false flag exercise, to put skeptics in a bad light, but I don’t believe that.
Sometimes you reveal a good understanding of physics, so I don’t think that is the problem either.
Once you said your feelings had been hurt by others, but you will not find happiness acting in the same way as them.
If I ever said my “feelings” were hurt, it was in sarcasm. I regard insults here with humor. People who have not even a high school level of physics claim I do not know physics. It probably appears to them I don’t know physics, because they do not understand that the science does not support their beliefs.
I find that hilarious.
PS I don’t interrupt “serious discussions”. I correct blatant pseudoscience.
You do not correct it with serious arguments, mostly just silliness. It’s not adult behavior. I guess you have a deeper reason that is more interesting.
Svante: “You do not correct it with serious arguments, mostly just silliness. Its not adult behavior.”
My “serious arguments” are rejected by the AGW/GHE cult, due to their religion. I tend to respond at the level of the discussion. If the opponent is a complete imbecile, then I can get pretty silly. But, as long as the opponent stays mature and respectful, I do too.
Svante: “I guess you have a deeper reason that is more interesting.”
Consequently, when the other party finally devolves to insults and false accusations, I know I’ve won.
Davie, you didn’t ignore me very well.
Norm,
The correct answer is, you perform the steps of the scientific method:
1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
You are on step 1 with a long way to go.
Read Paul Feyerabend.
SkepticGoneWild
I do appreciate your rigor but I do not think it is needed in order to answer the question I posed.
Clausius proposed his idea that Heat flows from hot to cold based upon many observations and experience.
The science to answer the question is not new so experimentation is not necessary to answer the question. If one had no observations from experience you would want to go through the process.
The point I am demonstrating with the question is that your and skeptic arguments are devoid of the “heated” portion of objects and surfaces. The arguments you state are valid for unheated objects. Regardless of surroundings, an unheated object will cool. You wrap insulation around an unheated object and its temperature will still go down (cool at a slower rate, but still the object will cool).
If you heat an object and restrict the energy loss with insulation or having a object radiate some IR back to the surface, the heated object will reach a higher temperature than without the insulation or back radiant energy.
I read the arguments from the skeptics and there use of the Second Law and they seem to fail to understand “heated objects”.
The heated objects will not rise in temperature indefinitely. It will reach a higher temperature based upon the rate of energy it loses through the insulation.
Many cases can be tried. Different types of insulation with various degrees of insulating ability. The better the insulator of a heated object, the higher its temperature will reach relative to the other states with inferior insulation.
You could test it if you want and you will see the textbook data on the topic is correct. Others have already done many many tests to build the foundations for materials used in real world application.
Norm,
What you’ve created is a thought experiment. You will not convince anyone scientifically without performing a valid experiment.
Norm,
So if I wrap my hot water pipes with enough insulation, the water in the pipes will start to boil?
Show me an experiment where steam is generated from a device with a temperature input of less than 100 C. (no pressure devices, or magnifying devices)
I am not sure of the answer, so I would like to see a valid experiment.
” SkepticGoneWild says:
October 26, 2017 at 6:45 AM
Show me an experiment where steam is generated from a device with a temperature input of less than 100 C. (no pressure devices, or magnifying devices)”
Have device at mile high city of Denver.
SkepticGoneWild
Why don’t you slow down a bit and think.
Yes water in insulated pipes will boil if you add heat. I think your brain is unable to see the phrase “add heat” or you are unable to understand what it means.
Not sure what your point is on this one: “Norm,
So if I wrap my hot water pipes with enough insulation, the water in the pipes will start to boil?”
Are you suggesting non heated water in pipes? If that is you case, it is not mine. If you add heat to insulated pipes they will become hotter faster than non-insulated pipes and will also reach higher equilibrium temperatures in similar surroundings.
I recall you stated you actually took real college level thermodynamics courses and you are not able to understand the difference between water with no heat added and water with heat added. You must have some form of mental block that prevents your thought process from engaging when one speaks of adding energy.
http://archbps1.campus.tue.nl/bpswiki/images/5/53/H8.pdf
Here is an example of the math used to calculate heat loss. This case uses a constant fluid temperature. If you add energy the insulated pipe will warm faster and reach a higher temperature than a non-insulated pipe. I am looking for a experimental example of heated objects with insulation but so far I have not found much. Not sure if anything will help you though. You seem convinced you understand the physics to the point that you cannot learn anything more.
Norm,
We are talking INSULATION. My brain was “not able to able to see the phrase ‘add heat'”, because there was no mention of “adding heat” in the three questions you brought up!!!
And now you just spouting your OPINIONS. Like I said, science proceeds via the scientific method. Please provide scientific evidence for what you claim.
Norm said:
“Yes water in insulated pipes will boil if you add heat.”
But I had said:
“So if I wrap my hot water pipes with enough insulation, the water in the pipes will start to boil?”
Maybe you need a college course in reading comprehension?
SkepticGoneWild
Here is my original post: “You still need to answer the question (which I am not sure you will even try to, your number supporter refuses to answer it).
If you wrap insulation around a heated object:
a) Will its temperature increase?
b) Stay the same?
c) Will the temperature decrease?
Notice the word “heated object”
I am using the standard definition of the term heated.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/heated
“adjective
1.
made hot or hotter; warmed.”
“added or external energy that causes a rise in temperature, expansion, evaporation, or other physical change.”
Yolation.u do not need me to do an experiment and describe it. Do it yourself, it is most easy to perform. Add heat (heated water) to water on a burner to maybe 100 F (use thermometer). I would suggest a lid on the pot to prevent energy loss from evaporation.
Now without changing anything (burner at same setting) wrap some insulation around the pot and see if the temperature of the water goes up. The tests and experiments have been done so many times engineers use the equations to design heat transfer equipment. They calculate how much insulation to use on heated items.
You can also remove all the insulation from your water heater and monitor the electrical use of that device (set a meter up on the power supply) see if more energy is used with or without insulation.
Norm,
You just don’t get stuff, do you? The water in the hot water pipes is heated. All you are doing is wrapping insulation around it.
In your questions, you were NOT adding heat. It was a heated object WRAPPED in insulation. You are not being correct or precise. I was.
SGW responds to Norm: “You are not being correct or precise.”
Norm is seldom correct, but once he was “precise”.
Precisely WRONG!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269337
SkepticGoneWild
Because I do understand that there are a lot of semantic issues on this blog, people have different connotations of what a word means, I gave you the detailed use of the word combination “heated object” I was using in my example.
Since “heated” can mean adding energy, why do you make the claim (after I explained the way I was using this word): “In your questions, you were NOT adding heat. It was a heated object WRAPPED in insulation. You are not being correct or precise. I was.”
If you answered that the object had no energy added but had insulation wrapped around it you would choose that the object would cool and could explain how your understood the words “heated object”.
It can go either way. Consider this example.
https://www.target.com/s/heated+blanket?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=yahoo&fndsrc=tgtao&CPNG=Bedding_Blankets%2BThrows&adgroup=Blanket_Heated&LID=700000001295588pp9837041646&LNM=heated+blanket&MT=e&network=s&device=c&querystring=heated+blanket&gclid=CLnwp6rlj9cCFY3AfgoduVgETQ&gclsrc=ds
A heated blanket (object) maintains a certain set heat because of energy added to it. You could also think of a heated blanket as one you warm up to a certain temperature and add no further energy.
Why would you think your definition is more correct or precise. Based upon the accepted dictionary use it can be used in either fashion.
Again: Heated: “adjective
1.
made hot or hotter; warmed”
Hotter implies adding energy. Hot implies an addition of energy to get to a certain point (hot).
So to avoid your semantic arguments.
If an object is receiving a constant energy input, then insulation is wrapped around the object (still receiving the same constant energy…energy added) will the object’s temperature
a) Increase?
b) Stay the same?
c) Decrease?
Does that help clarify it?
norman…”But the definition of heat has changed over the years”.
Only in the mind’s of people who really don’t understand it is the kinetic energy of atoms. Makes absolutely no sense to re-define heat unless you have narrowed your view so much that you are only interested in macro world equations.
If you want to understand why heat cannot be transferred in both directions, hot to cold, however, you must use the classic definition and see what properties of mass prevent to flow from cold to hot.
There are people out there right now preaching that gravity is not a force but an artifact of space-time. Absolute hogwash. Spsce-time is an artifact of the human mind in that the mind is the only place it can exist.
Some modern scientists seem bent on returning us to the pre-Newtonian world.
norman…”Another modern use of the word heat.
A system contains ONLY internal Energy
a system does NOT contain energy in the form of heat or work
Heat and work only exist during a change in the system
Internal energy is a state function”
The claim is wrong. What energy is there at the atomic level related to atomic motion that is not heat or work?
If you have an iron bar at STP, you have measured ‘something’ using a thermometer. Now heat it with an acetylene torch till the thermometer measures +100C. You have added something from the flame and something has changed in the bar. What???
You may also notice that the dimensions of the bar have changed. The iron atoms have reacted to the heat by increasing their mean vibrational paths. That is work and it was caused by the addition of heat.
The statement above would have you believe neither the heat nor the work exist as anything more than obfuscations.
Read more Clausius, he explains it all very clearly.
Gordon Robertson
You ask: “If you have an iron bar at STP, you have measured something using a thermometer. Now heat it with an acetylene torch till the thermometer measures +100C. You have added something from the flame and something has changed in the bar. What???”
The “What???” is internal energy. The internal energy is the something you measure with a thermometer.
The heat or work is what you add to the internal energy. Once it is added there is no more heat or work in the bar. Heat and work change the internal energy, they are not considered the internal energy.
norman…”If you wrap insulation around a heated object:
a) Will its temperature increase?
b) Stay the same?
c) Will the temperature decrease?”
I suppose you are trying to get us to bite then change the insulation to the atmosphere.
You need to supply more information. Is the heat in the heated body maintained or is the body just heated and wrapped in insulation?
The purpose of insulation is to act as a buffer between the heated object and the air surrounding it. Insulation will not trap radiation, it slows down the transfer of heat via conduction only.
If the heated body is not maintained and it is wrapped in insulation, it will continue to cool. Insulation will transfer heat but not as quickly as direct conduction to air. If the heat is maintained, the body will remain at a steady-state temperature.
You are not describing the surface-atmosphere interface. The atmosphere is in direct contact with the surface and it’s temperature at the interface determines the rate at which heat is lost on the surface via conduction.
The notion that the atmosphere acts as an insulator which slows down the surface radiation is just plain wrong.
I personally don’t think surface radiation is a factor. The theory has taken hold because climate modelers had ready-made equations that could work with radiation and they presumed far too much.
Gordon Robertson says:
“When you state the initial conditions of a process at T0, that specifies the amount of heat already in the body.”
So Gordon now thinks that heat can be stored in a body.
Interesting…and 100% opposite to what he was arguing a few weeks ago.
Gordon doesn’t even know enough to know when he’s contradicting himself.
DA…”So Gordon now thinks that heat can be stored in a body”.
Don’t know where you’ve been hiding out but that’s what I have claimed all along. Don’t know if I like the word ‘stored’ but if you have an iron bar on a table top in a room at 20C, the bar has a certain quantity of heat, represented by the motion of its atoms.
I’m very disappointed with the incessant nitpicking on this site.
Could we perhaps address issues on the basis of degrees of certainty?
For example, I would consider the following issues as certain.
(1) Climate is always changing, whatever the cause, as does everything. Nothing is permanent.
(2) Considering the very pervasive influence of humanity on the environment, including the building of cities, suburbs and black-asphalt roads, which together produce the Urban Heat Island effect; the destruction of huge areas of forests for agricultural purposes, the stripping of vegetation for open-cut mining of coal, various metals, minerals, diamonds and so on, it is to be expected that humanity’s activities in total must have some effect on our planet’s climate.
(3) The burning of fossil fuels for energy without adequate emission controls; the ‘slash and burn’ traditions of traditional cultures to grow food; the waste products of toxic chemicals and plastic which infest the oceans, certainly need to be addressed.
These are the main issues for me. To some extent the demonizing of CO2 will help to solve the problem of the ‘real’ harmful emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, in the absence of the latest emission-control technology, such as the Ultra Super-Critical coal-fired power station.
However, there are other ‘certainties’ regarding the emissions of CO2, which should be taken into consideration.
(1) C02 is essential for all life.
(2) Increased CO2 levels, above pre-industrial levels, have the effect of increasing plant growth, food production in general, and helps green our planet. The remaining forests, which we haven’t yet destroyed, will at least flourish as a result of the increased CO2 levels. This is a ‘certain’ benefit of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, is it not?
Before we progress to nit-picking details involving thermodynamics, could we perhaps all agree on the above fundamentals?
“(1) C02 is essential for all life.”
If CO2 is so good for life, why is there no life on Venus or Mars, where atmo CO2 is 96% ppmv?
Huh?
DA is very proud to repeatedly pontificate:
This is definitively an utterly idiotic statement.
As stupid and obvious false reasoning as a fool who might well claim : If sunlight is as good for plant life, why is there no plant life on the Moon, Mercury or Venus or every planet as least as close as earth to a star like our sun
Since when is CO2 a sufficient condition for life to exist somewhere ?
And why do you think scientists are still so eagerly looking for life on Mars if there were even the least scientific (as opposed to ridiculous alarmist) reason to believe that about 10 mb partial pressure of CO2 on Mars might be “much too much” for life to simply exist and even thrive on Mars ?
Admittedly, as to spouting bullshit it’s hard to compete and do better than all the funny GHE denying crackpots here, but every now and then the alarmist DA comes quite close and finally turns out to be as ridiculous as them.
Je vous plussoie.
Vincent on October 26, 2017 at 3:57 AM
What a simple-minded text.
Are you trying to impress anybody here with your CO2 ‘news’ ?
Since how many years, do you think, do we all read stuff like
http://www.co2science.org/ ?
And just a hint: before you start on a PR campaign for your ‘Ultra Super-Critical coal-fired power station’:
– why don’t you propagate nuclear plants, they use even far less CO2 than coal-fired ones ?
– do you know how few of all primary energy is used for electricity production compared with the rest ?
Even if Humanity would be dumb enough to restrict electricity production to nuclear energy sources, that would solve only about 17 % of the total fossile energy consumption problem.
Bindidon says:
October 26, 2017 at 4:49 AM
“And just a hint: before you start on a PR campaign for your Ultra Super-Critical coal-fired power station:
why dont you propagate nuclear plants, they use even far less CO2 than coal-fired ones ?”
———————————————————–
I’m very dismayed that you have to ask such a question. Nuclear power plants are not safe within the history of human incompetence.
The Fukushima disaster is a classic example of human incompetence. That Eastern coast of Japan had a well-known history of tsunami floods. There were even stone monuments on the hill sides, with engravings advising future populations not to build there homes below the level of the monument, yet the builders of the Fukushima plant ignored such warnings.
A similar degree of incompetence resulted in the previous Chernobyl nuclear disaster. “The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.”
Nuclear power plants can also be potential targets of terrorist attacks. If people are worried about the possible harmful effects of elevated C02 levels, they have much more reason to be worried about the devastating effects of nuclear power plants that go wrong, for any reason.
Thanks Vincent, I know that all, and I’m all but a fan of nuclear energy.
Not only because of the high danger it represents, but also because of its costs when considering the entire processing suite:
– from mining and refining over enrichment till fuel waste disposal for thousands of years
– from construction till dismantling and site waste disposal.
I apologise, it was a bit polemic.
David Appell says:
October 26, 2017 at 4:00 AM
(1) C02 is essential for all life.
If CO2 is so good for life, why is there no life on Venus or Mars, where atmo CO2 is 96% ppmv?
Huh?
——————————————————–
I don’t wish to engage in ad hominem attacks, but you really should rethink your presumably ‘off-the-cuff’ comment, David.
C02 is essential for all life on our planet (with perhaps some very rare and unusual exceptions which you might be able to dig up), but it’s not the only essential element and compound, obviously. Most creatures also require oxygen, for example, including plants, and that clear and odourless gas called carbon dioxide also consists of some oxygen atoms.Two Oxygen atoms for every Carbon atom. But you know that, don’t you! So please apologize for your misinformation.
— Vincent says:
October 26, 2017 at 3:57 AM
Im very disappointed with the incessant nitpicking on this site.
Could we perhaps address issues on the basis of degrees of certainty?
For example, I would consider the following issues as certain.
(1) Climate is always changing, whatever the cause, as does everything. Nothing is permanent.
(2) Considering the very pervasive influence of humanity on the environment, including the building of cities, suburbs and black-asphalt roads, which together produce the Urban Heat Island effect; the destruction of huge areas of forests for agricultural purposes, the stripping of vegetation for open-cut mining of coal, various metals, minerals, diamonds and so on, it is to be expected that humanitys activities in total must have some effect on our planets climate.–
Humans have large effect upon local regions [UHI effects, and etc] and these effects are important to the humans [and not polar bears- whereas things like feeding and shooting bears have an effect polar bears]. BUT in terms of average global temperature which controled by ocean surface temperature, human aren’t having any significant effect [they could have an effect and humans should understand how they could have an effect [clue- it has nothing to do with “burning fossil fuels”].
–(3) The burning of fossil fuels for energy without adequate emission controls; the slash and burn traditions of traditional cultures to grow food; the waste products of toxic chemicals and plastic which infest the oceans, certainly need to be addressed.–
It seems humans, including primitive cultures, are able to transform themselves. They learn and adapt because they are very intelligent. Bureaucracies on the other hand are a type of culture which are quite stupid and as group they need the most help or public attention.
Vincent,
there is truth in your points, but not the whole truth.
(1) Temperature change has caused many mass extinctions in the past, that doesn’t mean it’s suitable for us now.
https://tinyurl.com/yadyrx8k
AND, it doesn’t mean it is NOT suitable for us now.
(Of course, you have to find some meaningful “temperature change” first!)
Mass extinction is not unsuitable.
Whilst oxygen and carbon dioxide are just two essential ingredients for life on earth, there are many others, such as hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, boron, chlorine, iron, manganese, zinc, copper, molybdenum, nickel and so on.
For humans, who can’t biologically produce Vitamin C, we could consider Vitamin C as an essential compound for our survival. Without any Vitamin C, from plants or supplements, we would probably die.
A progressive and intelligent society should recognize the benefits of enhanced CO2 levels and exploit them.
Such benefits include increased plant growth, particularly in dry conditions, and increased precipitation due to increased evaporation, due to the slight warming effect of mankind’s total activities (including emissions of CO2).
Increased CO2 levels, plus increased warmth, plus increased rainfall, equate to a lusher, greener and more agriculturally productive planet. Isn’t that a fact?
https://tinyurl.com/yadyrx8k
Gordon Robertson lies yet again.
Thats a far cry from NOAA throwing out 75% of its data.
Lying liar.
We could here paraphrase the regretted Frank Zappa with: The torture never stops…
barry…”Thats a far cry from NOAA throwing out 75% of its data. Lying liar”.
barry takes time off from shearing sheep and murdering baby lambs.
barry…I sent you the link directly to the NOAA webpage where they freely admit that fact. Your denial is amazing.
Your link does not say data was thrown out. It does not say that it was ‘slashed’.
Because it wasn’t. They did not have the data to throw out or ‘slash.’
Stop lying.
barry…”Your link does not say data was thrown out. It does not say that it was slashed”.
Oh, I get it, you’re not upset with the fact they stopped using the 75% of the stations while synthesizing them in a climate model, you are upset with me inferring they are charlatans for employing such practices.
Here’s the quote from the NOAA site:
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
A reduction of 6000 stations globally to less than 1500 stations is a drop in station usage of more than 75%. You’ll have to excuse my scientific mind regarding such scientific misconduct as ‘slashing’.
Why would anyone throw out perfectly valid data and replace it with data manufactured in a climate model? There’s only one reason that stands out and that’s to get rid of the warming hiatus from 1998 – 2015.
Heck, if the real data won’t cooperate, throw it out and make your own.
Oh, I get it, youre not upset with the fact they stopped using the 75% of the stations while synthesizing them in a climate model, you are upset with me inferring they are charlatans for employing such practices.
Wrong.
Why would anyone throw out perfectly valid data
They did not have the data! It was not available to them. So they went and digitized old records, much of it hand-written, from weather stations around the world that DID NOT PROVIDE THEM UPDATES.
When they had finished that project they had 4 times the historical data that they started with. And after that project finished the 1500 stations that DID provide them regular updates continued to do so.
You know this. You’ve been told this.
You lie again and again.
There was no data to throw out.
You lying liar.
Original 1997 paper that explains how old records were collated and added to the database
They ADDED historical data, they did not ‘throw out’ or ‘slash’ anything.
Stop. Lying.
And let’s quote your NOAA page properly:
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20130201082455/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
It’s exactly as I have said on the link YOU provide.
Stop. Lying.
gbaikie on October 25, 2017 at 12:20 PM
The average temperature of earth is somewhere around 15 C [59 F]. But 15 C is not a common temperature on Earth.
Is 264K, the world average temperature in the lower troposphere computed by UAH for the period 1981-2010, a ‘common temperature’ in the lower troposphere?
Certainly not.
Is 0.13 C, the world average temperature anomaly trend per decade computed by UAH for the period 1979-2017, a ‘common trend’ in the lower troposphere?
Certainly not.
Nevertheless, such average temperatures and anomalies are computed at UAH by Roy Spencer and his team out of a grid of actually 9,504 cells, each of about 77,000 km2 size.
Do you, gbaikie, think such job is meaningless and useless?
To compute such global temps & trends does not mean that you have to restrict your work to them! They are only a guideline.
Here is an example of a more specific trend comparison over all 2.5 degree latitude bands between 82.5S and 82.5N for the periods 1979-2016 and 1997-2016:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/150904148022.jpg
Norman says, October 23, 2017 at 10:06 AM:
If we were to zoom in on a microscopic region of a (partially participating) thermal radiation field between two radiating objects, we might ‘see’ something like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/photons.png
(Veeery much simplified!)
Photons flying randomly in every spatial direction imaginable. Up. Down. Back. Forth. And to all sides and angles in between …
Where exactly are those two opposing “streams” or “flows” of energy everyone keeps talking about to be found here? Photons in a thermal radiation field simply do not collect into neat separate streams or flows of energy. At the microscopic level, there are no streams or flows of anything. Unless you consider each individual microscopic particle (photons included) itself a “flow” of energy. However, then you end up with trillions upon trillions of “flows”, not just two, all completely independent of all the others, and all thus moving in different directions through space, whether generally up, generally down, generally back, generally forth, generally right, or generally left.
How about we average the movements (directions and intensities) of all the photons we see in the figure above? Would we THEN end up with two opposite flows? Of course not. We would get ONE vector pointing in ONE average direction at ONE average magnitude, somewhat like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
So how do we ‘see’ two flows? We CHOOSE to. We basically split – mentally – the radiation field into two hemispheres. In our mind we CHOOSE two preferred directions for our two hemispheres to point, and then we pick all the photons moving generally within the hemisphere of our first direction of choice, average them all and call their average movement ONE flow, from, say, cold to hot, and then all the other photons moving generally within the hemisphere of our second direction of choice, the opposite one, average them all and call their average movement a SECOND flow, from hot to cold. Like this, basically:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/photons-2-flows.png
Now, imagine a particular point in space inside a (partially participating) thermal radiation field between two radiating objects. Through this spatial point, at each instant, photons pass, from every solid angle and to every solid angle of a full sphere (4p sr):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/fotoner-gjennom-punkter-01.png
(A crude 2D rendition of the 3D sphere of incoming (and outgoing) photons through our point in space.)
Four points in space now, similar to the first one, but arranged in two dimensions only:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/fotoner-gjennom-punkter-04.png
(Note, we have yet to extend any of the lines into their neighboring spheres.)
We add five more points:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/fotoner-gjennom-punkter-09.png
And another 28:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/fotoner-gjennom-punkter-35.png
So now we have just 37 points in two-dimensional space, still with a considerable distance between them. And already, what do we see emerging?
A “photon cloud”.
Do we see two separate “flows” of energy inside this cloud? Two opposite “streams” of photons? Nope.
How do we pick our photons of choice here? How do draw a ring around each of them? How do we “show” two flows? Where are the photons moving generally from Object 1 to Object 2? Where are the photons moving generally from Object 2 to Object 1?
We can’t find them. Can’t extract them. They’ve all lost their individuality. Disappeared from sight. Merged into the background. Swallowed by the whole. They’re now just part of the cloud. All we can do is look at the photon cloud in front of us and see an apparently homogeneous mass appear. An average of all individual photon movements making up the cloud.
Norman:
It doesn’t “change its rate of emission because of the presence of another radiating object”. And I’ve never claimed it does. Each individual photon, by definition a MICROscopic entity, does not change its behaviour. The TRANSFER (the “flow”) of radiative energy, the radiative FLUX, by definition a MACROscopic quantity, is what’s changing.
Which, it feels, I’ve explained to you a THOUSAND times by now.
Hahaha! It’s like talking to a wall. MICRO vs. MACRO. I am not talking about quantum events of photon a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n and emission. I have NEVER talked about that. I have always and only talked about THERMODYNAMIC (i.e. macroscopic) processes. There’s a continuous EXCHANGE of photons at any surface, but there is only, at any point in time, one flow or transfer of energy to or from that same surface, as a direct result of that continuous exchange.
The dime analogy once again:
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lie two dimes. A person is standing right in front of your outstretched hand, holding a single dime. In this situation, you represent the surface, the person in front of you represents the atmosphere, and the dimes represent photons.
Now heres what happens: The person holding the single dime places it in your palm with his one hand at the very same moment as he grabs the two dimes that were there already with the other, removing them from your hand. That is, he performs these two separate operations simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course “No”. First you had TWO. Then you had ONE. And thats it. The first of the original two was simply exchanged with another one, while the second was lost.
People, however, have this instinctive, almost monomaniacal tendency – I would almost call it ‘urge’ – to look at and interpret ONE of these operations (‘events’) at a time, and to just adamantly stick to that approach, an approach that is fundamentally mathematical rather than physical in both origin and application. It basically derives from how our human mind works. It always seeks order and simplicity even when and where there is none to be found. And it does so for a very simple reason: To get a grasp of how things really work. You need to pick the clock apart in order to understand what makes it tick. That is, start by breaking things down into their most basic, irreducible constituents and then work your way up from there. And this has of course turned out to be an exceedingly successful method for gaining knowledge. It has served us well. And still does. However, it CAN also be misapplied. We should be careful not to follow it blindly. Sometimes our mental compartmentalisation process goes too far. We end up “seeing” things (and/or potential connections between things) that aren’t really … real; or meaningful, or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of. And so we end up confusing ourselves instead. Mostly regarding “cause and effect”.
In this case, conflating specific phenomena of the MICRO and MACRO realms is the pitfall to beware. Invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC effect is simply profoundly misunderstood … And people just don’t seem to get exactly HOW misunderstood it really is.
What most people do is simply analysing the effect of each operation (‘event’) in the analogy above IN ISOLATION from the other one, in fact from everything else. They estimate its effect AS IF the other (opposing) one didn’t happen at the exact same time. They only regard the photon a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n and “forget” or “ignore” the simultaneous (and larger) photon emission. Such a narrow scope doesn’t work if you want to discuss THERMODYNAMIC effects. Then you will only fool yourself into thinking that we’re dealing with two SEPARATE thermodynamic processes in one. We’re not. There arent. There is just the one. The one instantaneous exchange.
There are two distinct ways of seeing this exchange, two ‘perspectives’, so to say:
#1 The MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) perspective, and
#2 the MACROscopic (thermodynamical) perspective.
Both are in a sense ‘real’, but they address very different aspects of ‘reality’.
What people tend to do is mix them up, or rather somehow merge them into one and the same perspective. And that’s where the confusion arises.
It is claimed (or at least very much implied) that the atmosphere (the person originally holding the single dime) ADDS energy to the surface (the palm of your outstreched hand). However, this is only correct in the MICROscopic perspective, that is, IF – and only if – we choose to follow ONE particular photon (dime) through the exchange and ignore the other two; that is, the photon/dime originally held by the person in front of you, coming IN from ‘the atmosphere’.
THAT individual photon (and the energy it carries) is indeed ADDED to the surface in this exchange. But as I pointed out above, this circumstance isn’t “meaningful, or relevant to what we’re actually trying to get a grasp of”. Which is whether or not ‘energy’ (in the generic sense, not one particular quantum of energy) was added from the atmosphere to the surface during the exchange. The MACROscopic perspective.
What they do is “Invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL quantity and/or process to justify or explain an inherently THERMODYNAMIC (thermal) effect”.
Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but it removed two OTHER photons at the exact same time. From the very same surface. Your hand.
So what ACTUALLY happened? The energy associated with one of the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand originally was simply EXCHANGED with the energy associated with the one photon/dime originally held by the ‘atmosphere’ person in front of you. The other one was lost (removed by the ‘atmosphere’ person), without compensation.
And so, the NET effect – the THERMODYNAMIC (macroscopic) effect – of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t add ANY energy at all to the surface (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).
Kristian
Painful. By isolating one exchange of energy between surface and atmosphere, you completely obsure the big picture. Backradiation OVERLAPS with incoming solar radiation at Earth’s surface and throughout the lower troposphere, thus increasing the internal energy (and temperature) of each.
Work through the whole process, not just one exchange!
By “overlaps”, I’m talking about the situation in the green plate diagram. Part of the energy emitted by the blue plate is returned by the green plate. This joins the sun’s input and raises the plate’s temperature. Basically, energy that had already left returns to join (overlap) with energy that is just arriving.
Why do you suppose people focus on the microscopic?
Because some here absolutely deny the notion of ‘back radiation.’
They deny the microscopic by fixating monomaniacally on the macroscopic.
You’ve argued against them yourself, where g*e*r*a*n scoffs at the analogy of the atmosphere being an insulator.
barry imagines: “Because some here absolutely deny the notion of ‘back radiation’.”
Now barry, for such an “absolute” statement, surely you can present just one person that denies the sky radiates IR back to the surface. Just one?
barry further claims: “Youve argued against them yourself, where g*e*r*a*n scoffs at the analogy of the atmosphere being an insulator.
barry, your imaginative representation is hilarious.
If you claim you can jump off a towering skyscraper, with nothing to stop your fall. And I tell you that you might kill yourself. Am I a “scoffer”?
barry says, October 26, 2017 at 6:10 PM:
I don’t suppose it. They do. Seemingly without knowing. They conflate microscopic phenomena with macroscopic processes.
A prime example. “Back radiation” is a MICROscopic phenomenon presented as a MACROscopic process.
Heating and insulation ARE macroscopic (as in ‘thermodynamic’) processes, barry. What causes Earth’s temperature IS a macroscopic (as in ‘thermodynamic’) problem. Not a quantum mechanical one. But people seem not to get this at all, no matter how many times it’s pointed out to them.
Yes. But the atmosphere’s insulating effect on the solar-heated surface is NOT a consequence of “back radiation”. Rather, “back radiation” is an apparent consequence of its insulating effect, that is, of tropospheric temperature.
Krstian,
You’ve misunderstood my point.
Skeptics try to argue that energy from a colder object cannot reach and effect the energy loss of a warmer object by conflating the MACRO hot –> cold with the MICRO energy energy.
Here’s a prime example:
This Wabbit experiment belongs with Elmer Fudd in cartoon strips if if it is meant to show that heat can pass from cold to hot (in defiance of 2LOT) or that it models the issue of back radiation in CAGW.
This one lumps the MACRO and the MICRO together. It’s a common conflation among skeptics. That’s why their opponents are forever asking how they think the warmer object knows not to receive energy from the cooler.
Heating and insulation ARE macroscopic processes
Sure. But I did not use the term ‘heating.’ You did. You want to repeat something I already agree with. Why?
A prime example. “Back radiation” is a MICROscopic phenomenon presented as a MACROscopic process.
Not that I’m aware of. Everyone agrees HEAT flows from hot to cold, and that ENERGY flows in all directions, to hot and to cold.
Some are sloppy with the language, I’ll agree.
What causes Earths temperature IS a macroscopic (as in thermodynamic) problem. Not a quantum mechanical one.
It’s both.
Let me ask you a simple hypothetical.
If the atmosphere only radiated to space, and never towards the surface (leaving everything else the same), would the surface temperature change?
barry, your imaginative representation is hilarious.
Did you forget, or are you confused? You definitely scoffed at the analogy of the atmosphere as an insulator, in response to Kristian (and others), as I said.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267635
barry,
The notion of radiative forcing is based on the possibility of adding or subtracting the backradiations to the energy coming from the sun. Do you think this possibility arises directly from thermodynamics or is based on a particular behavior of the atmosphere?
barry continues: ” You definitely scoffed at the analogy of the atmosphere as an insulator”
Well barry, if you want to believe “correcting” is “scoffing”, that’s certainly your right.
It seems a little desperate to me, however.
snape…”Backradiation OVERLAPS with incoming solar radiation at Earths surface and throughout the lower troposphere, thus increasing the internal energy (and temperature) of each”.
Impossible!!! For one, that so-called back-radiation was created from solar energy in the past when SW solar was converted by the surface to LWR. You are claiming in effect that the LWR can be stored and re-added to SWR as the same SWR that heats the planet.
I’d call that quaint notion ‘perpetual motion’.
You have completely ignored losses but seem to suggest the LWR component of back-radiation has a heating effect similar to SWR.
You have furthermore completely ignored the basic tenet of the 2nd law that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler region of the atmosphere to a warmer surface.
phi…”The notion of radiative forcing is based on the possibility of adding or subtracting the backradiations to the energy coming from the sun. Do you think this possibility arises directly from thermodynamics or is based on a particular behavior of the atmosphere?”
Neither, it is based on the sheer pseudo-science of climate modeling. Modelers made it up just as they made up the heating effect ACO2 has on the atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Modelers made it up just as they made up the heating effect ACO2 has on the atmosphere.”
Do you think the Earth doesn’t emit IR, or do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb it?
barry…”Skeptics try to argue that energy from a colder object cannot reach and effect the energy loss of a warmer object by conflating the MACRO hot > cold with the MICRO energy energy”.
barry…you are the one who is thoroughly confused. Who said the micro world deals in energy -> energy? And why is the macro world hot -> cold?
I agree with Kristian, and so did Clausius, BTW, that macro processes can be defined by measuring the heat into and out of a body, in calories or whatever, and measuring the work done by the heat. It’s not necessary to examine internal processes.
Clausius also claimed that the work/heat is defined by the temperature. If you observe the change in pressure, temperature, and volume you can define the heat transfer in a body. If you read the work of Clausius it is full of such P,V.T diagrams as was the work of Carnot.
There was no doubt in the minds of scientists like Carnot, Clausius, and later Planck, that heat is a real phenomenon that can be measured macroscopically using temperature.
At the micro level, it is still heat -> energy, not energy -> energy. Heat is converted to EM by electrons and it is transferred internally by electrons. It is you and your fellow alarmists here who believe heat is represented by a two way flow of EM.
You have all thoroughly confused yourself into believing that Stephan-Boltzmann represents a two way heat transfer when Stephan himself admitted that could not be verified by experiment.
If heat is transferred both ways by EM, then prove it by setting up an experiment and measuring the caloric flow of heat both ways. A moment’s pause should clue you into the futility of such an endeavour. It’s impossible to measure the heat being transferred from cold to hot for the simple reason it is not happening.
Gordon,
At the micro level, it is still heat -> energy, not energy -> energy. Heat is converted to EM by electrons and it is transferred internally by electrons. It is you and your fellow alarmists here who believe heat is represented by a two way flow of EM.
No. When you use the word ‘heat’, you are axiomatically taking about NET flow – the MACRO level. And that flows from hot to cold always.
When I talk about radiant energy, I am talking only about EM, and that is not heat, only the potential energy for it. And EM is emitted and received by all objects. Let’s talk about 2 objects to simplify.
If you think EM (say a singular photon) emitted by a cooler surface in the direction of a warmer surface cannot be absorbed by the warmer surface, then we have a disagreement.
If you are saying that the NET exchange of energy means that more is received by the cooler than the warmer object, then we agree.
Both are true at the same time. There is no contradiction, only a distinction between discrete exchange and net flow.
barry says, October 27, 2017 at 3:28 AM:
Ok. But it seems you’ve missed my point too.
People seem to believe (and promote) the idea that since photons – quantum entities – move both ways, from hot to cold and from cold to hot, then there are also two macroscopic “FLOWS” or “FLUXES” or “STREAMS” or “TRANSFERS” of energy moving both ways.
Not so. They fail to distinguish the one from the other. They conflate a MICRO (quantum) phenomenon with a MACRO (thermo) one.
And this is why and how they come to think that the cooler atmosphere actually ADDS energy – thermodynamically, macroscopically (W/m^2) – to the warmer surface to make it warmer still, just like the Sun.
But it doesn’t add energy in the form of a thermodynamic transfer (flux) to the surface. It removes energy from the surface. It simply removes it LESS EFFICIENTLY than what space would do, at any given surface temperature. Because the atmosphere is much warmer than space … That is what insulation does.
The Sun? It HEATS the surface. It ADDS energy to the surface to warm it directly.
Insulation isn’t heating. Heating isn’t insulation.
barry…”No. When you use the word heat, you are axiomatically taking about NET flow the MACRO level. And that flows from hot to cold always”.
I have made it abundantly clear what I mean by heat and my definition is based on the definition of Clausius. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and that applies at both the micro and macro levels. Clausius dispensed with the need to worry about internal energy processes at the macro level since they can be accounted for by measuring, pressure, volume and temperature directly.
Some people are bent on redefining heat at the macro level as some kind of heat transfer. If heat is being transferred, how can it also be the transfer itself? Someone is confused.
Heat can flow only between atoms. There are no atoms involved in radiative transfer therefore energy is transferred using EM. However, the energy transferred is not heat, it is electromagnetic energy.
Barry…you are far too theoretical. This stuff has a solid, physical reality and I have been applying it for decades. Even though the notion of energy bands around atoms sounds airey-fairey, it works in reality. What does not work is EM transporting heat in both directions from hot to cold.
EM is CONVERTED from heat to EM by electrons at the emitter and back to heat by electrons at the receiver. Energy may be mysterious in nature, in that no one knows what it is. However, there are well-defined rules for applying it and you cannot supply me with a rule that shows net energy transfer.
I cannot think of one instance where net energy transfer would apply. After decades in the electronics and electrical field I have never heard of it.
Kristian,
If what you are saying about your interlocutors is true, then we both are facing the same issue in reverse.
Your guys, you say, are conflating the MICRO with the MACRO activity.
My interlocutors are conflating the MACRO with the MICRO activity.
And my guys got your guys started.
I think we’ll find that my guys will agree than MACRO is always hot to cold, and MICRO is exchange both ways.
But you’ll find that some of my guys do not believe that there is MICRO exchange both ways.
You can see G below actually saying that certain wavelengths of thermal radiation can’t be absorbed by warm surfaces.
And Robertson just talks about the MICRO activity of thermal energy as if its the MACRO.
These guys deny the MICRO exchange. That’s what got the other guys going. Whereupon you say they ignore the MACRO. I think the argument then got convoluted, intransigent, language use was not always formal, and your interlocutors forget to simply concede the MACRO point because they’re still arguing against the other guys via you.
At exactly what point does micro change into macro? A: There is no cutover, both only exist in the minds of commenters. Though iirc there have been papers trying to make the call.
At exactly what point does micro change into macro?
At exactly the point where the discrete energy change is summed into its NET trasnference.
Certain skeptics conflate the NET exchange with the discrete exchange, falsely arguing that individual photons emitted by a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one.
If you are conflating discrete exchange with NET exchange you are committing the same error in reverse.
“At exactly the point where the discrete energy change is summed into its NET transference.”
And what point is that? Exactly.
I don’t understand what you’re asking.
There are two things going on. Let’s consider only the radiation between 2 objects.
1) MICRO: Discrete energy exchange between two objects. One can say that they emit and absorb some thermal radiation from one to the other
2) MACRO: We can do a bit of math and work out the overall transferrence of the amount of energy from one to another.
Some people refuse to consider that both 1 and 2 are things you can focus on separately, and that both are happening at the same time.
I don’t know why.
This was my first instinct, see if it holds up, maybe you can be more precise and make the A to I exchange more obvious:
1) MACRO: Discrete energy exchange between two objects. One can say that they emit and absorb some thermal radiation from one to the other
2) MICRO: We can do a bit of math and work out the overall transference of the amount of energy from one to another.
No difference.
“Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?”
Yes, for an instantaneous moment.
This is obvious.
I agree bob, at least during Planck time this would be observed, as dimes have mass are not photons.
Kristian
I can already see where you logic is flawed. Your fist diagram shows the error of your thoughts and why you disagree with established science. If you have just one heated surface in space (with no surroundings) There will be zero photons moving back toward the emitting surface. All the photons will have paths away from the surface. There is a macroscopic flow away from the surface.
I looked at your photon cloud demonstration. Use just two dots but this time have the paths different colors as they merge. You will then clearly see two separate distinct motions of photons away and toward both the surfaces. Change the intensity (number of lines) of one (cooler temperature, less photons) and you will see two distinct and unique energy flows away and toward both surfaces involved.
Norman 1:03pm, what you describe is the problem with Kristian self citing all the time. Kristian needs to cite from physical test or refer to those publications that can be traced to having run the tests for which he is trying to make a point.
Dr. Spencer’s tests show how the actual atm. works in real life, no need for a 3 dime photon analogy. Photons are not dimes. Those tests are all Kristian or anyone needs to become critical, informed in this field.
Microstates are cool to talk about but you need a stack of paper reaching to the sun to document a cm^3 of air molecule states at sea level. Similar for photon cloud. Fortunately, density, pressure, temperature are fewer in number of variables and measurable. Atm. Thermo. can get away with this enormous reduction in variables as measuring instruments are slow enough to respond compared to the characteristic times in change of microstates.
Kristian’s untested, uncited bluster (Norman term) apparently makes him feel better and is an easier means to an end of trying to convince unwary folks than doing actual testing as did Dr. Spencer.
Jesus Okulær!
For the 1001st time: what about replying with one or two links to science instead of filling half a dozen of screens with your desperately egocentric stuff nobody can easily verify?
Bin,
Seems you’ve misunderstood the whole blog concept. It’s not about throwing links at each other about what OTHER people have written on a subject. It’s about expressing and discussing ideas.
If you have a problem with what I’m writing, please specify and explain – in your own words – why and how it’s somehow wrong or flawed.
Because just crying for links every time you see an argument you don’t like, and not even bothering to read and comment on what is actually being written until one is provided, gets a bit tedious …
It simply comes off as lazy and unenlightened.
Kristian
There’s a huge problem with your photon cloud diagram. Why do the photon’s radiate a certain distance from the emitting body…..and inexplicably stop??!!!
No wonder you think there are no flows of photons from a cooler to a warmer body. Why would there be if light only traveled a short distance?
If we go outside and glance at the sun we have to squint. Light has travelled through ~62 miles of atmosphere directly into our eyes. It wasn’t dispersed into a cloud.
Kristian
If light joined a cloud as in your diagrams, we wouldn’t be able to distinguish one object from the next, all we would see is a fuzzy mess.
Again, if this is how you picture things, it’s no wonder you don’t believe in multi-directional flows of photons.
Why do the photons radiate a certain distance from the emitting body..and inexplicably stop??!!!
He doesn’t think that. He agrees that all objects emit and absorb photons, including warmer objects receiving radiation from cooler objects.
All he’s saying is that the NET result (macroscopic) is that more energy is received by the cooler object than the warmer – heat always flows from hot to cold.
Why he is fixated on this I do not know.
Why people cannot see that he agrees with the above I do not know either.
Barry
He’s invented a scenario in which objects emit energy into a cloud and simultaneously receive energy from a cloud. The cloud then moves from warm to cold. He doesn’t believe that, for instance, energy from a cooler object on one side of the room moves as a “flow” to a warmer object on the other side.
Notice he didn’t comment on my pennies analogy – where objects are moving as a stream in opposite directions? Instead he comes up with 3 dimes in a single exchange, no flow required! (BTW, all he’s saying is that it’s better to give away two dimes, and simultaneously get one back, than to give away two dimes and get nothing back….duh).
Also, notice he loved your comment where, instead of saying 2-way flux of energy, you said instead, “discreet transfer”?
If Kristian doesn’t think energy stops, then why does he show it that way in his diagrams? It turns the whole series into jibberish.
Barry
You: “Why people cannot see that he agrees with the above I do not know either.”
Again, he agrees with what you wrote because you didn’t mention a 2 way flux, which is at odds with his cloud.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
You make a good point. Kristian’s photon cloud has no empirical support, as you point out, each object gives off its own unique flow of energy to allow you to see things. Kristian’s photon cloud exists in a very foggy conditon. All information is smeared about and you can’t see any objects (at least not at some distance).
Even with IR each object gives off its own unique energy away from the source to allow one to create a sharp and distinct picture of all the items in the area. There is no merging of photons. Kristian is just plain wrong and that is why he does not attempt to support his merging photon cloud, there is not supporting evidence.
Thanks for bringing up the point.
https://www.google.com/search?q=flir+images&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqi-Go74_XAhXk54MKHWSlDP8QsAQILw&biw=1024&bih=690
Bunch of images disproving merging photon cloud hypothesis. Each object emits its own unique energy flow that is not affected by any of the energy flows around it.
What a merged photon cloud would make our world look like.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.2_PmIbIUyPLAvMxa-i1bfwEsDH&pid=15.1&P=0&w=238&h=159
Norman
Exactly! Several weeks ago a poster here did a great job of describing thermal imaging technology. That’s when I realized Kristian’s cloud idea was nonsense. Objects emit distinct fluxes of light energy that travel directly to the device (or our eyes, for that matter). You couldn’t tell one from the other otherwise. Everything would merge into a big fuzzy blur.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 26, 2017 at 8:44 PM:
No. Because it’s at odds with reality. A photon cloud (or gas) is not MY invention. You’re clueless, Snape. You refuse to read what I write and rather make up your own private versions of it. That’s what we call straw men.
Kristian
I’m not objecting to a photon cloud in general, just your invented version where unique, two way fluxes don’t exist.
Isaac,
He doesnt believe that, for instance, energy from a cooler object on one side of the room moves as a “flow” to a warmer object on the other side.
I think he believes the use of the term “flow” is inappropriate to describing microscopic behaviour, and should only be applied to the macroscopic behaviour. That would be consistent with what I understand of the formal language of thermodynamics.
If you leave out that word, he will agree that energy emitted by a cooler body is not magically prevented from being absorbed by a warmer body.
For him, flow is all that matters.
But don’t confuse his view for g*e*r*a*n’s or Gordon’s. He is just as nit-picky with language as Gordon (more than, possibly), but does not deny the stuff that they do.
I do have a problem with this:
How do we pick our photons of choice here? How do draw a ring around each of them? How do we show two flows? Where are the photons moving generally from Object 1 to Object 2? Where are the photons moving generally from Object 2 to Object 1?
We cant find them. Cant extract them. Theyve all lost their individuality. Disappeared from sight.
Just looks like trying to wave away an idea he’s already agreed, so he can hammer home his emphasis on NET flow. But I’ve not followed the course of the conversation, so some context is probably missing for me.
Barry
Kristian does not believe that two, unique fluxes of energy move across the room between objects. It’s not just a semantics problem for him, he doesn’t think it’s happening.
Look at his diagram with 9 dots. Pretend it’s a room with 9 objects. The four corner dots are receiving energy from the nearest photons, but not specifically from any of the other corner dots. That’s why he writes:
“How do we pick our photons of choice here? How do draw a ring around each of them? How do we show two flows? Where are the photons moving generally from Object 1 to Object 2? Where are the photons moving generally from Object 2 to Object 1?”
Barry
What Norman says here contradicts Kristian’s cloud:
“Even with IR each object gives off its own unique energy away from the source to allow one to create a sharp and distinct picture of all the items in the area”
Isaac,
I see Kristian write this,
Theres a continuous EXCHANGE of photons at any surface
and
It is claimed (or at least very much implied) that the atmosphere (the person originally holding the single dime) ADDS energy to the surface (the palm of your outstreched hand). However, this is only correct in the MICROscopic perspective
Seems to me he agrees that radiation from cold objects can be absorbed by warmer objects.
But he persists with his other stuff because he believes that others are unable unable, or refuse to consider, that the NET flow of heat (or the sum of the energy flows is) from hot to cold.
I think he’s wrong about that.
I think others are wrong that he doesn’t believe energy emitted by cooler objects is absorbed by warmer.
I think his argument about the photon cloud is over-egged. Energy travels in straight lines. SOME of the energy emitted by a cooler object will be absorbed by a warmer one (the warmer one emits more than it receives from the cooler, the cooler receives more than it emits – NET flux between them is hot to cold).
I think people over-egg their argument by speaking only of ‘2-way fluxes’, in a universe where energy travels in all directions. This is probably a hang over from the 2-plate experiment, lost in the to and fro once other analogies have aarisen.
I think you are all likely seeing it the same way, but, unwilling to concede the others’ point in favour of pressing your own, you keep pressing your own and lose sight of what the other has said.
There has also been some imprecise use of language added to the mix that keeps the conversation circulating. Cold objects don’t ‘heat’ warmer objects, but they can cause warmer objects to be warmer than they otherwise would be if the cooler objects weren’t nearby.
This isn’t a contradiction. ‘Heat’ has a particular definition in thermodynamics. So you have to use a different word or phrasing.
I’ve been trying to do that where I’ve joined in, such as the bolded bit above.
Even then grips are so tight that this reasonable statement gets certain people twitching.
We could all relax our grips. If a 3000-post thread of repeating statements doesn’t give us a clue that this would be a good idea.
Barry
You do a great job of explaining what Kristian gets right, but those aren’t the things Norman, Tim and myself have a problem with!
He writes, “There’s a continuous EXCHANGE of photons at any surface”
The problem is, he believes this exchange is only with the cloud of energy nearest the surface, and never a unique, two way flux between, for instance, a cooler object on the far side of the room.
Therefore, according to Kristian, if the exchange is with a cloud, rather than a particular object, then who knows where the energy came from or what the temperature of the emitting body may have been? It could have been from a either something warmer or cooler. Hard to tell when there’s just a chaotic cloud of photons.
That’s at the microscopic level, whereas at the macroscopic level, he believes the cloud of photons always moves from hot to cold. MICRO vs. MACRO, as he likes to put it.
Well, I haven’t seen the whole conversation…
He writes, Theres a continuous EXCHANGE of photons at any surface
The problem is, he believes this exchange is only with the cloud of energy nearest the surface, and never a unique, two way flux between, for instance, a cooler object on the far side of the room.
He has a problem with the notion of “two way” flux in general, and I don’t think he’s wrong.
In Eli’s experiment there is a 2 way flux (2D view) to simplify the concept, and it works well.
In reality, there is a multidirectional flux. Concede that to him. Then say that SOME of the radiative energy from the cooler object is absorbed by the warmer object. I’m not sure he’d disagree.
I’m guessing he got to multidirectional radiation because new analogies popped up that left the greenplate exercise behind.
Therefore, according to Kristian, if the exchange is with a cloud, rather than a particular object, then who knows where the energy came from or what the temperature of the emitting body may have been? It could have been from a either something warmer or cooler. Hard to tell when theres just a chaotic cloud of photons.
If that’s what he’s saying, I’d agree it’s waffle. And if that’s what he means, it’s just another ham-fisted way of emphasising the macro exchange. Radiant energy doesn’t travel in curves.
I don’t see many people agreeing that he’s right about the macro flow. Maybe I missed it, but you lose nothing by agreeing with that. And you may gain traction with him on the micro once the concession is made.
Thats at the microscopic level, whereas at the macroscopic level, he believes the cloud of photons always moves from hot to cold. MICRO vs. MACRO, as he likes to put it.
As I read it, he’saying that the NET exchange is from hot to cold. I haven’t quite perceived that energy travels to a cloud and then is deflected. Generally, photons do not collide. They travel in a straight lines until they hit matter (in an atmosphere, matter is present in every molecule). So some of the radiant energy from a cooler object will be absorbed by a warmer one.
The net exchange MACRO is always warmer to cooler.
In my mind, that last sentence is superfluous because I’ve already said it numerous times. But to people as dogged as Kristian, I feel I have to perpetually qualify like that or the knee-jerk response will happen and the conversation will loop.
Barry
I wish my tone had not been so angry/critical. I had a lot of pent-up resentment from past conversations with him on this topic.
When people talk about a two way flux vs. a one way, this is not at all saying energy only moves in two directions. Energy is emitted by a myriad objects and travels in a myriad directions, but only in two directions between two particular points.
Regardless, Kristian doesn’t think radiant energy is transferred directly between two bodies…..in ANY direction. He thinks the exchange is with a cloud, where the cloud flows from warm to cold.
In his mind, no one-way, two-way or multi-flux between objects.
Just the net movement of the cloud.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, October 28, 2017 at 7:53 AM:
Huh!?
Kristian
Sorry if I’ve misrepresented your views.
barry…”He doesnt believe that, for instance, energy from a cooler object on one side of the room moves as a flow to a warmer object on the other side”.
I’d like to know where you came across the idea that it does. Energy is known to flow between areas of high potential energy to areas of low potential energy but not in the opposite direction. There is absolutely no reason why energy should flow both ways between a hotter object and a cooler object.
Besides, you have a skewed notion of mutual energy flow that stems back to the arcane notion of a net energy transfer. There is not such thing in radiative transfer, what you have is two bodies naturally radiating EM. There is nothing mutual about the isotropic radiation that would suggest a mutual exchange of energy.
What you are missing is the hot end of the exchange. Heat is converted to EM by electrons at a higher potential energy. That hotter EM contacts the cooler body and gets converted back to heat at a lower potential energy. You CANNOT reverse that process when EM is emitted by the cooler body.
It does not matter if part of the cooler EM contacts the hotter body IT WILL NOT BE ABSORBED. If you don’t believe me, read Bohr.
“It does not matter if part of the cooler EM…”
Gordon, since EM is not heat then how can EM be cooler?
You are correct about EM not being heat but wrong about EM ab.sorp.tion which per Planck formula occurs at ALL temperatures, at all frequencies all the time.
I wish my tone had not been so angry/critical.
No problem. Didn’t feel a thing or change my view of you (which is good). Frustration is so endemic here I’m almost numb to it. Not to mention I’m not so saintly in this that I could judge another.
Kristian, you are making a lot of sense again, we have a good flow now.
If you draw a line for the surface at the bottom of the first picture, you can think about how many incoming and outgoing photons you have.
If you use a (theoretical if you like) photon counter your spectra will follow the Planck distribution with absor.ption lines, simple and with great explanatory power.
If you always have to combine the spectra you get a mess with two peaks, not your first choice if you want to understand what is going on.
Sorry, Svante. The site wouldn’t allow me to post my response. So I’ll have to link to it:
https://tinyurl.com/yb8wfds4
Kristian
The two macroscopic energy exchanges are different processes. They are also described as macroscopic energy flows (watts). The process on a surface that emits IR photons or waves is different than the process that absorbs IR photons. One is the result of a quantum vibrational state dropping to a lower energy level and emitting a photon of IR. The other is a process of a lower vibrational energy state absorbing the IR photon and moving to a higher vibrational state.
I have to break up my post, something in it is not going through.
Kristian
I disagree with you word use.
YOU: “Theres a continuous EXCHANGE of photons at any surface, but there is only, at any point in time, one flow or transfer of energy to or from that same surface, as a direct result of that continuous exchange.”
There are two macroscopic flows of energy. Energy emitted (in watts) and energy absorbed (in watts). Both are macroscopic in all textbooks and articles on heat exchange I have ever read. If you know of others provide links and I will read them.
There is only one NET energy transfer (which is described as heat)
Kristian
Again your semantic argument and frustration in no way overturn the science behind the GHE. If you have surroundings at higher temperature (in the case of our atmosphere, one that is able to radiate at macroscopic intensity…watts/m^2) with a higher IR flux that returns to the surface you will lose less heat from the surface.
Kristian
Less energy will move from the Earth’s surface with an IR active atmosphere than without one. The greater the concentration of IR active gases, the higher will be the return IR (at a given temperature).
norman…”Less energy will move from the Earths surface with an IR active atmosphere than without one. The greater the concentration of IR active gases, the higher will be the return IR (at a given temperature)”.
Infrared radiation from the sold surface (including oceans) to the gaseous atmosphere depends only on the temperature differential between the two surfaces. It has nothing to do with infrared gases in the atmosphere.
You cannot slow down surface radiation by ‘trapping’ anything or by claiming the atmosphere acts as a blanket. Ask ball4 to look it up in Craig Bohren’s book on Atmospheric Radiation. He claimed the notion is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
The return IR, as you put it, has several problems. For one, the IR is from a colder region of the atmosphere and cannot transfer heat to the surface. Even if it could, there is simply not enough ACO2 to make a difference.
Gordon Robertson
You keep making the false point that there is not enough ACO2 to a make a difference. Your assertion is based upon nothing real. Why do you keep posting it. On another thread I calculated the amount of active CO2 molecules in a column of air a few thousand meters in height. There are enough to create an IR flux.
Gordon Robertson.
Your inability to reason does really challenge.
I have been over it many times. You will not learn, you will not reason.
Here again. (It won’t help, you lack the necessary mental ability to think it through).
Here again is real world measured values. Empirical data.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59f295ed89514.png
Would you at least try to turn on your mind for a few minutes and think about what you are seeing?
You have a graph of the surface upwelling IR (a detector pointed down toward the surface). You have a graph of the downwelling IR (a detector pointed up at the sky).
In this example you have a negative net IR flux (this is not the same as total flux as it does not include solar).
If you show even the slightest bit of reasoning power you can come to the correct conclusion that without any GHG in the atmosphere the net IR, in this case, would be equal to the energy lost by the surface (Between 400 to 550 W/m^2…night/day difference). With GHG present the energy lost by the surface (the NET) is between (-100 and -250 watts/m^2).
You can further use rational thought and not made up ideas to support some intense bias (deny all science that does not conform to some established beliefs) to conclude that with the same solar input in both cases, the case with no GHG would have a lower temperature since it is losing energy at a faster rate.
Norman on October 26, 2017 at 8:20 PM
With GHG present the energy lost by the surface (the NET) is between (-100 and -250 watts/m^2).
Are you sure?
On the graph the net IR manifestly is interpreted as (down – up), what anyway seems counterintuitive to me.
The energy lost by the surface imho should be (up – down).
Bindidon
It can be confusing. I think that it is expressed as a negative because that is the amount of energy the surface is losing as net IR.
Hmmmh. Not convincing at all…
Bindidon
Maybe this paper will help you understand their use Net energy.
https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended_abs/deluisi_jj.pdf
From my reading it would seem they do this because they are taking in all radiant energy and trying to determine the surface balance.
The Net is how much energy the surface is losing or gaining. If it is minus, that means the surface is losing energy. If positive it is gaining energy.
“The basis
for the comparisons in this work is net radiation, defined as downwelling minus upwelling radiation, and
is computed as net IR, net solar, and total net (net solar + net IR). “
The continual, unrelenting link to the “empirical data” is desperation. UWIR exists. DWIR exists. Proves nothing! Subtracting one from the other proves NOTHING!
UWIR and DWIR are typically two different fluxes. Their spectra would be different, at a specific location. So, by adding/subtracting, it is like adding/subtracting kangaroos and potatoes. You just get a “net” mess.
Pseudoscience.
It is all energy, all of which is absorbed by any surface, whether the energy came from a cooler or warmer object, even while frequencies are different.
Subtracting one from the other is the (over-simplified) math that proves the NET flow of energy is from hotter to cooler.
barry imagines: “It is all energy, all of which is absorbed by any surface, whether the energy came from a cooler or warmer object, even while frequencies are different.”
NOPE!
Easily disproved. But NOT to someone that does not want to understand.
My statement is perfectly true. Kristian is a ‘skeptic’ and agrees with it.
There is no way you can ‘prove’ otherwise, even with the usual dodge of net heat flow. That is simply ignoring a microscopic reality by covering it with a macroscopic reality.
There is always energy exchange. Warmer objects do not have a magic shield that prevents energy from colder objects being absorbed by their surfaces. As always, the net exchange results in more energy going to the colder object.
barry, your imagination is far more advanced than your knowledge of physics.
Obviously you believe you can heat a room-temperature apple with mugs of cold beer. When I presented this simple example elsewhere, the con-man ran off to get some liquid nitrogen! He thought by freezing the apple to extremely low temperatures, that would “prove” a mug of cold beer could heat the apple. That’s NOT science, that’s desperation.
Your desperation is as hilarious as your pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
You are not on the side of science with your incorrect physics debate with barry. He is speaking physics, you are speaking your made up reality based upon your own opinions.
YOUR delusional beliefs state things like this: “UWIR and DWIR are typically two different fluxes. Their spectra would be different, at a specific location. So, by adding/subtracting, it is like adding/subtracting kangaroos and potatoes. You just get a net mess.”
The reality is both fluxes are energy (joules/second). The different spectra of each is not relevant in this case (it might be in your pseudoscientific reality where you make up whatever you want). Both are IR and the surface that emits will absorb.
Here is some real science: “When an excitation energy is 500 cm−1, then about 8.9 percent of the molecules are thermally excited at room temperature. To put this in perspective: the lowest excitation vibrational energy in water is the bending mode (about 1600 cm−1). Thus, at room temperature less than 0.07 percent of all the molecules of a given amount of water will vibrate faster than at absolute zero.”
From this source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_geometry
At room temperature only a small fraction of molecules are even at the 1st level of vibrational, most are at zero ground state and can readily absorb any IR reaching them.
I know you are a pretender. I think others also know this. You are just plain wrong about your physics understanding but you are so funny that in your mind you must be right.
(actually I know you don’t care at all about physics or science, you post to amuse yourself and annoy people, you are this blog’s troll)
Con-man, you made numerous mistakes, as always.
1) “The reality is both fluxes are energy (joules/second).”
WRONG! You are still getting the units confused. Energy (Q) has unites of Joules, not Joules/second. Joules per second is Qdot, or power. A flux typically has units of “Watts/m^2”.
2) “The different spectra of each is not relevant in this case.”
WRONG! The different spectra are MOST relevant. The spectra reveal what flux is, and is not, being absorbed/emitted.
There are more errors, but try to understand these two first.
barry, your imagination is far more advanced than your knowledge of physics
This start promised little and nothing of substance followed.
As you did not reply to anything I wrote it’s likely you had no direct counter to it.
And if you snap out a riposte to this post, instead of dealing with the substance of my reply above, that likelihood approaches certainty.
The different spectra are MOST relevant. The spectra reveal what flux is, and is not, being absorbed/emitted.
THIS is pseudoscience.
All wavelengths of thermal radiation are absorbed.
barry imagines: “All wavelengths of thermal radiation are absorbed.”
barry your game plan appears to be to keep spouting “misconceptions”, as if at some point I will believe them.
All wavelengths of thermal radiation are NOT always absorbed!
If that were true, you could warm an apple with a mug of cold beer. You could bake a turkey with ice. Houses and buildings would burn down.
Think about what you are religiously claiming. Why do you prefer nonsense over truth?
“All wavelengths of thermal radiation are NOT always absorbed!”
Planck’s et. al. testing showed all wavelengths are absorbed/emitted all the time at all temperatures. anger simply is uninformed in this field. anger is playing the fool for barry.
Hilarious! to read anger comments. More please.
Well, I see tricky dick has joined the fun. Welcome dick!
And, as usual, he brings his dreams, that he can NOT substantiate.
tricky dick, were you able to get a patent on your “glow in the dark” cabbages yet?
anger 7:56am, a hilariously misinformed commenter once actually posted up: “Consequently, when the other party finally devolves to insults and false accusations, I know I’ve won.”
I know I’ve won! Hilarious. More please.
g*e*r*a*n
Maybe you should back up a bit before you launch your attacks. It might make your posts more useful. In your attacks you miss primary points and focus on some minor details (like typos).
Here read this. Flux can be used either case just depends on how you want to use it.
You attacked me in another post with the term “heated object”. You use one definition for this and then tell me it is a mistake. Heated can be made warm or a continuous addition of energy, both are valid uses of the term.
For flux: “Energy flux is the rate of transfer of energy through a surface. The quantity is defined in two different ways, depending on the context:
1) Rate of energy transfer per unit area.[1] (SI units: W⋅m−2 = J⋅m−2⋅s−1)
This is a vector quantity, its components being determined in terms of the normal (perpendicular) direction to the surface of measurement.
This is sometimes called energy flux density, to distinguish it from the second definition.
Radiative flux, heat flux, and sound energy flux are specific cases of this meaning.
2) Total rate of energy transfer.[2] (SI units: W = J⋅s−1)
From this source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux
tricky, I didn’t use any “insults and false accusations”.
More tricks, please.
g*e*r*a*n
Here is another point: “The average emissivity of the earth is readily estimated from available data. The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7).”
This might help you see the light. It is an EMR spectrum of water.
https://tinyurl.com/pavp3ge
You make up physics that you don’t even understand. You accuse everyone else of pseudoscience but it seems the few of you are the only one making up science as they go along.
Again! I know Ive won again! Hilarious. More please.
Con-man, I knew you would try to con your way out. My comment still stands:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270236
Con-man, you are now trying to “prove” me wrong by pointing to the fact that the Earth has an average emissivity! I never said the opposite.
It’s called a “straw man”, and it’s a trick used by con artists.
Consequently, when anger devolves to insults, I also know Norman has won.
Hilarious! More uninformed anger science please.
trick, I’m glad you are reading my comments. At some point, you may learn something.
Perhaps you missed this one:
“I tend to respond at the level of the discussion. If the opponent is a complete imbecile, then I can get pretty silly. But, as long as the opponent stays mature and respectful, I do too.”
Sorry to burst your bubble anger, I only read your comments for humor, they are invariably hilarious. And I did read your clip & yes, I laughed, so hard my eyes watered, your ref.d comment was so devolved as to be knee slapping hilarious. More please!
g*e*r*a*n
Statements you make are clear proof you do not understand radiant energy exchange at all. You make up your false notions and try to peddle them here for some reason.
HERE YOU STATE: “All wavelengths of thermal radiation are NOT always absorbed!”
“If that were true, you could warm an apple with a mug of cold beer. You could bake a turkey with ice. Houses and buildings would burn down.
Think about what you are religiously claiming. Why do you prefer nonsense over truth?”
I would change your last comment to something more accurate: “Think about what I am religiously claiming. Why do you not prefer my nonsense over the truth?”
You really need to study physics (as Roy Spencer advised you).
There are many objects that absorb almost all the incoming IR that reaches their surface. Since you lack knowledge of physics I will help. Objects that are good at absorbing IR energy are also really good emitters. Houses and Buildings can absorb most IR but they also radiate a lot away. You still cannot understand simultaneous activity. Your brain can only think of one concept at a time.
Nice ramble, Con-man.
When you can raise the temperature of that apple with a mug of cold beer, let us know.
Consequently, when anger devolves to insults, I also know Norman has won.
Apparently anger did not understand the blue plate/green plate analysis that was subsequently proven by test right in these comments.
Hint for anger: draw a picture of an apple on the blue plate, and a picture of a cold mug of beer on the green plate. Perhaps pictures will work for anger to better understand basic physics.
g*e*r*a*n
I already gave you a clear and simple answer to your point. You were unable to comprehend it then, have you studied physics so that you might understand it now? I think not. Real physics frightens you. You do not like to read or pursue it. You are happy in your deluded made-up physics, it is as much as your mind can handle. Real physics overwhelms you.
YOU: “When you can raise the temperature of that apple with a mug of cold beer, let us know.”
First the apple needs to have a source of “heat” or energy input or it will not raise in temperature.
So if you have a heat source for the apple (input of energy so you don’t misunderstand what I am stating as you seem to do more often than not), and your mug of cold beer is warmer than the surrounding environment (say in a deep freeze at 0 C), the apple will warm up than its previous state. I am not holding my breath that you have the slightest ability to understand this. You really do not understand it. The worse problem is not only do you not posses the rational ability to figure out what I say (it is all gibberish to you), but you never will be able to understand simple established physics that is used on a daily basis by many engineers working in the field of heat transfer.
Bad for you. Nothing can help you. You might as well stick to your poor attempt at humor. It is not really very funny though.
Nice ramble, Con-man.
When you can raise the temperature of that apple with a mug of cold beer, let us know.
g*e*r*a*n
I have already told you how to raise the temperature of an apple with a cold mug of beer.
Put your apple in a freezer and let it reach equilibrium. You can do it at home with your own freezer. Put a thermometer on the apple’s surface. Now put a mug of cold (unfrozen) beer next to the apple and keep measuring the temperature. You will see it go up until the mug of beer freezes.
Not really a hard challenge.
All wavelengths of thermal radiation are NOT always absorbed!
If that were true, you could warm an apple with a mug of cold beer
Nope. At equilibrium, the apple and the walls of the room around it are radiating (w/m2) equally.
When you introduce the mug of cold beer, a portion of the wall at equilibrium with the apple is now blocked by it, and replaced by an object that is emitting at a lower power. Now the apple is receiving less energy from that area than before the mug of beer was introduced. Now the apple doesn’t have to radiate quite so much to reach equilibrium with the new surface it, so it gets a tiny bit cooler. It is still emitting and receiving radiation from the rest of the room, so the change from a mug of beer is quite minimal.
Convection also plays a part here, if the beer and apple are close enough.
g*e*r*a*n, just ignore Ball4.
He is just trolling with inane, dishonest, and scientifically illiterate comments meant to incite anger. This is confirmed when he expresses his glee when he is successful. He’s an empty vessel, duped into believing the current popular CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 groupthink. Sadly, he doesn’t possess the scientific intelligence to recognize that he has been conned. It’s pointless to try to have a rational discussion with ignorant dupes.
Consequently, when both anger AND REO2 devolve to insults, I also know I’ve won the debate!
Experiments with actual test data support my comments unlike the assertion only comments of anger and REO2. Without real world data, commenters are here merely for entertainment & not proper physics discussion.
Ball4, no anger or insults by me.
I’m just pointing out factual realities.
You can’t face reality, so you lie and deny.
So sad. But so typical of you trolls.
The anger is all yours. You are so incensed by my exposing your scientific illiteracy, by my exposing your serial dishonesty, by your inability to refute a bit of the science that I have posted, your inability to defend your hopelessly conflicted belief of “heat doesn’t exist” and your 1800s “Ergals”, “ether”, “heat-work”, it driving you out of your mind, so you tell lies such as I haven’t presented experimental test results that support my correct understanding of modern thermodynamics. There has never been an experimental test run in the history of the planet that has contradicted my understanding of modern thermodynamics.
I’m sure my posting these reality has further incensed you into such a frothing rage that you can’t help yourself but to tell more lies about me. Go ahead if it makes you feel better and vents your anger so you don’t have a stroke. You’ve made a total joke of of yourself as you perform your childish trolling.
“no anger or insults by me.”
Ha. No testing confirming REO2 position either. I have repeatedly referred REO2 to all the testing Clausius reported in published memoirs to support my position and much subsequent independent confirmation.
Provide a replicable proper experiment conclusively showing Clausius’ def. of heat was wrong and REO2 will be vindicated. I still patiently await this potential revelation.
Kristian
If it is heated, as with the Earth’s surface, the surface will reach a higher equilibrium temperature.
Not sure what your bluster is about.
Kristian is probably objecting to the word ‘heated.’ That the atmosphere radiates energy to the surface is true. That the net result of energy transfer in always from hot to cold is also true.
The atmosphere doesn’t heat the surface, though its presence does cause the average surface temperature (day+night) to be warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
The atmosphere reduces the cooling efficiency of the surface.
On one level (colloquial), its a semantic quibble, on the other, its a legitimate complaint about the definition of terms in classical thermodynamics.
— barry says:
October 26, 2017 at 6:21 PM
Kristian is probably objecting to the word heated. That the atmosphere radiates energy to the surface is true. That the net result of energy transfer in always from hot to cold is also true.–
Yup.
But all the “famous believers” in GHE also don’t think or support the idea that back radiation heats. Or finding one that does think this, would be, “interesting”.
–The atmosphere doesnt heat the surface, though its presence does cause the average surface temperature (day+night) to be warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.–
The atmosphere does not cause surface in sunlight to be warmer- an atmosphere is always cooling the surface in sunlight.
One could say or argue that surface air temperature is warmer- but you don’t have surface air temperature without atmosphere.
[or more atmosphere or more atmospheric effects in atmosphere would at least make sense in terms something warming a surface air temperature- or it’s arguable.]
I will note that the cooling of the surface by atmosphere reduces how much a surface can radiate into space- a hotter surface radiates more energy into the universe than a less hot surface [due to the atmosphere cooling the surface in sunlight].
Then you have part where surface cools less at night or winter [winter being essentially “more night”].
Another thing one can argue about.
I know clouds can do this- that’s given as far as I am concerned [though how clouds do this also gets back to something to argue about]
–The atmosphere reduces the cooling efficiency of the surface.–
There are number aspects related to this.
gbaikie: seems to me correct. And can you now define the roll of CO2 in that?
— esalil says:
October 27, 2017 at 7:21 AM
gbaikie: seems to me correct. And can you now define the role of CO2 in that?–
I was commenting on what Kristian was saying, but I believe CO2 might increase global average temperature.
Or a lukewarmer position is that a doubling of CO2 might cause up to 3 C of warming and I think a doubling might cause up to 1 C increase in global temperature. Decades ago I thought CO2 might cause as much as 3 C of warming and I have changed my mind about that- I don’t think a doubling CO2 could have a possibility of warming more than 1 C. And I tend to think it’s 1/2 C or less.
I don’t think a doubling of CO2 causes a lowering of average global temperature.
And I think were global average temperature to increase by 3 C [by whatever cause] this would be a good thing.
Or everybody in history has regarded warmer periods as better than less warm periods. And there are very sane reasons for this.
As for Kristian, I think that he thinks rising CO2 levels would have some warming effect {I could be wrong about that- and not sure I agree with Kristian in terms of his view of how the “climate works”, though I disagree about the general or common view of how climate works].
“how the climate works”
Could be replaced with how the “greenhouse effect” works.
The problem with saying greenhouse effect is we have theory called the greenhouse effect theory and that theory is
without doubt, pseudoscience.
One could call it a soft science or “not completed science” or “useful thought experiment”- if you want to be polite about it.
Instead of greenhouse effect, I could have said, how atmosphere affects global temperature, but how “climate works” seems better to me.
gbaikie says:
“The problem with saying greenhouse effect is we have theory called the greenhouse effect theory and that theory is
without doubt, pseudoscience.”
Can’t wait to read your published paper on this.
Do you expect to receive the Nobel Prize in 2018, or might it take until 2019?
The atmosphere acts to impede radiation heading inward from the sun and infrared radiation heading to space from the surface. CO2 is one of the atmospheric components in the atmosphere that primarily do the latter.
Barry, at this point in the conversation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-269359
You responded that you were “fine with most of that”, referring to my description of the heat flows. The only reason you disagreed (at this point) was apparently because you made the mistake of summing fluxes based on number of sides. This led to a huge diversion about mirrors and heat shields which had nothing to do with the thought experiment. Now…for some reason, once you admitted to your mistake, about forty comments or so further down, you didn’t go back to where you’d got up to and read back through the description of the heat flows. Maybe that was a mistake. I mean for some reason you’re still here, supporting the GHE.
barry…”The atmosphere acts to impede radiation heading inward from the sun and infrared radiation heading to space from the surface. CO2 is one of the atmospheric components in the atmosphere that primarily do the latter”.
You mean the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere can capture that much IR? Prove it, no one else has.
Even if CO2 can momentarily capture a fraction of 1% of the radiation, that IR is not heat. No on has proved in any way that CO2 has anything to do with global warming whatsoever.
Gordon Robertson
I have to disagree with your made up physics.
YOU state your own unfounded physics: “Even if CO2 can momentarily capture a fraction of 1% of the radiation, that IR is not heat. No on has proved in any way that CO2 has anything to do with global warming whatsoever.”
Here you are making up values of a “fraction of 1% of the radiation”
I am throwing out the BS flag on that one. You are just making stuff up and posting it. No reason, no logic, just a need to post right or wrong, you don’t care.
You are claiming no one has proved in any way CO2 has anything to do with global warming. Again just your own made up opinion, unfounded, actually untrue.
Here is an article for you to read. At least make an honest effort to go through it the best you can with your abilities. It shows your conclusion is a made up opinion.
http://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
barry says, October 27, 2017 at 7:50 AM:
Important to note, though: The latter effect occurs at any given surface temperature, not in a (steady) state of dynamic equilibrium.
It’s a nitpick, yes. But an important nitpick.
This is trivially true. But the overall picture is more complicated than that.
The atmosphere’s net RADIATIVE budget is actually one of strong COOLING, which suggests that the atmosphere would actually be much WARMER on average if it had no “GHGs” in it:
Atmosphere’s radiative budget:
Heat IN: Q_sw (from the Sun) + Q_lw (from the surface) → 75 + 32.4 = 107.4 W/m^2
Heat OUT: Q_lw (to space from the ToA) → 220 W/m^2
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
The atmosphere is both heated and cooled by radiation, but the cooling is much stronger than the heating.
At the same time, the atmosphere is only heated, not cooled, by non-radiative mechanisms – conduction and evaporation/condensation: 24 + 88 = 112 W/m^2.
IOW, the atmosphere needs to be radiatively active in order to be able to cool, NOT in order to be able to warm. The “GHGs” simply make the atmosphere able to cool, not to warm.
Which is a highly under-communicated circumstance …
IOW, the atmosphere needs to be radiatively active in order to be able to cool, NOT in order to be able to warm. The “GHGs” simply make the atmosphere able to cool, not to warm.
The surface doesn’t need GHGs to cool. It would cool more efficiently without them.
Water vapour is a GHG. Don’t forget.
barry imagines: “The surface doesnt need GHGs to cool. It would cool more efficiently without them.”
barry, do you know that a larger surface radiates more than a smaller surface, everything else being the same?
barry says, October 28, 2017 at 7:14 AM:
The surface would be cooler on average without an IR active atmosphere on top, true. It would, however, be just as cool on average with an IR active atmosphere on top that had the same ‘temperature’ as space.
It isn’t the atmosphere’s IR activity that creates its insulating effect. It’s the atmosphere’s temperature.
The one thing the atmosphere’s IR activity does is making sure it’s connected thermodynamically to its surroundings (surface, Sun/space) even at dynamic equilibrium. Once it is and stays connected, it’s the atmospheric temperature that determines the surface equilibrium temperature.
It’s a subtle point, I know. But it makes a huge difference. Internal (LW) radiation is a (necessary) tool, but not itself a driving force. It’s a hammer. The temperature, however, is the wielder.
Earth’s internal (LW) radiation doesn’t CAUSE temperatures. It is CAUSED BY temperatures.
Kristian 9:28am: “The surface would be cooler on average without an IR active atmosphere on top, true.”
Yes, for Earth, as basic theory and extensive multi-decade observations have shown.
— Kristian says:
October 28, 2017 at 9:28 AM
barry says, October 28, 2017 at 7:14 AM:
The surface doesnt need GHGs to cool. It would cool more efficiently without them.
The surface would be cooler on average without an IR active atmosphere on top, true. It would, however, be just as cool on average with an IR active atmosphere on top that had the same temperature as space.–
Let’s change what is said:
The ocean surface doesn’t need GHG to cool.
Ocean needs to evaporate to cool and oceans evaporating is making H20 greenhouse gas.
The ocean surface would cool more efficiently without greenhouse gases.
If ocean didn’t evaporate, oceans would become hotter and radiate more energy into space. But idea expressed is if ocean stayed the same temperature and wasn’t any GHG but they were the same amount of clouds, that more energy would radiated into space.
And continuing to alter surface with words ocean surface, Kristian:
The ocean surface would be cooler on average without an IR active atmosphere on top, true.
And
Ocean surface would, however, be just as cool on average with an IR active atmosphere on top that had the same temperature as space.
Both a molecule of GHG and space have no temperature.
Space never has temperature and temperature of any gas molecule is related to it hitting something.
But one could think of the amount a gas molecule re-radiating as it’s “temperature”.
Now any gas molecule re-radating “on top” is not warming any “below”. It’s basically firefly at 20 km up. And fireflies at 5 km up aren’t heating anything either.
So that was fun and:
“It isnt the atmospheres IR activity that creates its insulating effect. Its the atmospheres temperature.”
Well, temperature of gas is it’s kinetic energy. And temperature of atmosphere is it’s kinetic energy.
But I am guessing atmosphere’s temperature refers to the re-radiating IR light from Earth surface [or ocean surface].
And:
The one thing the atmospheres IR activity does is making sure its connected thermodynamically to its surroundings (surface, Sun/space) even at dynamic equilibrium. Once it is and stays connected, its the atmospheric temperature that determines the surface equilibrium temperature.
Or:
The one thing the atmospheres IR activity does is making sure its connected thermodynamically to its surroundings (ocean surface, Sun/space)…
Well, doesn’t make much sense, but I would guess it’s like walls of room making sure it’s “connected thermodynamically” to inside and outside the room.
But I would say [“add”] that the room has no ceiling. Or we have a fairly high atmosphere and “the room” could walls 20 feet tall.
“The atmospheres net RADIATIVE budget is actually one of strong COOLING, which suggests that the atmosphere would actually be much WARMER on average if it had no GHGs in it:”
Nope.
Though Earth would be much warmer without land surfaces.
It’s illusion.
The Ocean doesn’t radiate much energy, instead cools by evaporation. The tropics doesn’t radiate as much energy as it “should” because it transports heat outside the tropics [oceanic and atmospheric] and evaporate an enormous amount of water.
If land surface temperature is 60 C it’s surface air temperature could be 20 to 30 C.
If ocean surface is warmed to 30 C, it’s surface air temperature is 30 C.
I’m not sure what disagreement there is.
The primary energy source for Earth’s temperature, it’s LW radiation, the temperature of the atmosphere, and its radiative energy – is the sun.
Earth emits thermal radiation, the atmosphere emits radiation, because they have a temperature greater than 0 K.
Convection also occurs in the lower atmosphere.
Now what?
The surface would be cooler on average without an IR active atmosphere on top, true. It would, however, be just as cool on average with an IR active atmosphere on top that had the same temperature as space.
Yes, if the atmosphere remained at the temperature of space and didn’t heat up.
This kind of answers a question I put to you upthread.
I’ll put it to you here.
If the atmosphere suddenly only radiated space-wards, and no thermal radiation from it went towards the surface (everything else being the same), would the surface temperature change?
Worth being alive. What a fucking waste of time.
barry says, October 28, 2017 at 4:20 PM:
It DOES only radiate space-wards, barry. In a thermodynamic (macroscopic) sense – you ask about “temperature” and “thermal radiation”. If all of a sudden no photons flew from the atmosphere to the surface, it would simply mean that you had successfully cooled the atmosphere all the way to absolute zero. And, yes, then the surface temperature would indeed drop …
Kristian,
It DOES only radiate space-wards, barry. In a thermodynamic (macroscopic) sense
Yes, but that’s not the question I’m asking. Your response does not take on the hypothetical.
I do not know why, when I agree that the MACRO transferrence is hot to cold, you cannot then participate in the MICRO questions. To whit, the atmosphere radiates in every direction, with NET direction being spacewards.
Here is the question repeated exactly, with the bolded part emphasising why you’ve not responded to the hypothetical.
(Please don’t quibble about hypotheticals not matching reality. We both know that, and you are quite capable of taking such questions on without cauterizing them with a sudden lack of imagination)
If the atmosphere suddenly only radiated space-wards, and no thermal radiation from it went towards the surface (everything else being the same), would the surface temperature change?
Must have screwed up the bold tags.
If the atmosphere suddenly only radiated space-wards, and no thermal radiation from it went towards the surface (everything else being the same), would the surface temperature change?
gbaikie…”The atmosphere doesnt heat the surface, though its presence does cause the average surface temperature (day+night) to be warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.”
Of course, you are not talking about back-radiation from the 0.04% of the atmosphere represented by CO2. Are you not referring to the 99%+ of the atmosphere represented by N2/O2?
If you have a blanket of N2/O2 in contact with the surface, it will keep the surface nice and cozy by contact.
Earth has average temperature of about 15 C.
Earth has average temperature of 15 C due to being in
an icebox climate and we are in a warmer phase of this
icebox climate which is called an interglacial period.
The interglacial periods can last for about 20 thousand years
and glacial periods can last for about 100 thousand years.
Our current interglacial period is called the Holocene
interglacial period. During a large part of Holocene, Earth
has been warmer than 15 C- the treeline was further towards the poles and Sahara desert had a vast grassland. And during the interglacial period prior to Holocene, called the Eemian
interglacial period it also had thousands of years with average global temperature warmer than 15 C.
Earth has been in icebox climate for millions of years- the average temperature of the ocean has always been cold and we always had polar ice caps. During these millions of years, the tropical region has remained warm.
The tropical region is 40% of entire global surface and has average temperature of about 27 C with small variation of night and day temperature and small variation of seasonal variation in temperature.
One say the tropics is a superpower of warmth which has been at war for millions of years against frigid rest of the world- and has and will always win this war. It has strong dependable ally which is the Sun.
The tropics throws massive armies of warm water poleward, the frigid rest of the builds armies of ice. Battles are won and battles are lost over tens of thousands of years.
There has been times when the tropics is at peace with the rest of the world, there hasn’t been ice box climate, oceans are warm and ice hides in small mountain regions.
Addendum:
The frigid wastes also have potent ally- the land masses.
Land areas have a lower average air temperature as compared to ocean areas.
A dry land surface can be heated to higher temperature as compared to the ocean and therefore can radiate more energy per square meter into the universe.
The land areas only occupy about 30% of the surface area of Earth, but it’s the land areas are which are the cause of Earth being in an icebox climate.
Or, despite being smaller in number, the land areas can be arranged so as to be a powerful force which cools the surface of Earth.
gbaikie…”The atmosphere does not cause surface in sunlight to be warmer- an atmosphere is always cooling the surface in sunlight”.
Lindzen has claimed that without convective flow near the surface, the surface would be warmed to 72C by solar energy. He did not specify the time of year or the location on the planet but he seems to suggest what you claim is true, that the atmosphere cools the surface.
— Gordon Robertson says:
October 30, 2017 at 3:04 PM
gbaikieThe atmosphere does not cause surface in sunlight to be warmer- an atmosphere is always cooling the surface in sunlight.
Lindzen has claimed that without convective flow near the surface, the surface would be warmed to 72C by solar energy. He did not specify the time of year or the location on the planet but he seems to suggest what you claim is true, that the atmosphere cools the surface.–
Currently, it’s windy, late in day- sun going to about twice as much atmosphere as noon time- and ground is about 30 C and air temperature about 22 C [72 F].
If was around noon and not windy, ground could be about 60 C, but if in summer, it could get to about 70 C. The ground can get this hot, if the air is warmer. Or warmer air inhibts the convection loss from the ground.
But if [somehow] stop all convection less, a surface can get about 80 C. When sun’s neat zenith or getting about 1000 watts per square meter of sunlight.
Or as guess, I am getting at the moment, about 600 watts or less of sunlight. Or at near 4 pm, I am past the time of solar peak hours [3 hour before and after noon]. And within next hour, I will get dramatically less sunlight and in 2 hours or so the sun will go down.
Norman
You and Tim were right all along. Kristian’s is trying to invent his own physics. Part of it’s right, most is BS.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
I cannot find any support for his conclusion that photons merge into a photon cloud that moves from hot to cold only. If he can support it than I would like to read it. I have searched photon cloud (there is information on photon gas, I could not find anything on merging photon clouds).
I really do not understand why he considers me a moron for following established physics from textbooks. He says I am wrong but gives no support of how or why he believes this.
Norman
Did you read some of my comments above? In his first two diagrams, none of the energy from one dot interacts with any of the other dots.
The third diagram shows 9 dots, with only the adjacent ones interacting. (the corner dots, for example, have no shared energy).
Like I said upthread, this is because he shows energy moving a short distance and inexplicably stopping.
He’s an egomaniac and a fool, and thinks people like you, who actually understand physics, are morons.
I agree with Isaac, Norman — why are you still messing with g*?
He is dishonest, always.
And being ignored is what bothers him the most.
Davie, you’re still not doing a good job of ignoring me. snake wasn’t even referring to me. He was referring to Kristian.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Good job on this video of yourself. It seems you have more humor potential in the video world than the written.
Make some more videos, you can keep your followers amused for long periods of time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8ZQ3kTSK0
Well, it appears that con-man has finished washing the dishes for the day. Now, he has time to search out silliness on the Internet, pound on his keyboard, and pretend he has a life.
Hilarious.
Hey Norm, since you have so much free time at your dead-end job, search out, and link to, the comment where Davie called you a “dick”.
That was really funny!
g*e*r*a*n
So did you enjoy watching your mirror image?
Why would I want to waste time searching for a comment you think is funny?
I think the video of you is much more enjoyable.
I know you think “everything you say is so funny!”
The video is complimentary of what you admire most when you think of yourself. Your gift of the hilarious.
Kristian
Your dime analogy was painful to read. The surface never has 3 dimes, but it also never has 1, as you describe
snake, you STILL haven’t learned how to place your comments.
Maybe they will teach that when you get to eighth grade?
You’re trying to trick me into arguing with you. Not going to work!
Whoops, accidentally hit the publish button.
Con-man, this is your LUCKY day!
Not only did you get the dishes washed early, but I was able to quickly find the link.
“Discussions of my health aren’t ‘friendly,’ and Norman well knows that it doesn’t belong here. He’s just being a dick on purpose. Can it.”
Enjoy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2017-0-19-deg-c/#comment-242921
g*e*r*a*n
Do you like being wrong about so much?
I was not at work today. I took the day off to bring my wife in for a colonoscopy. You really have no clue.
I guess it is also your lucky day as I found your complimentary video. Hope you took the time to watch it and enjoy.
TMI!
☺
Getting close to the end, beginning, of the month.
Any guesses of the anomaly? I’m hoping it stays warmer.
We haven’t had a frost yet and that is a good thing.
Lewis,
I don’t know where you live but I doubt that the UAH temperature measurements are provided at the required spatial resolution to be a good indicator (or predictor) for frost in your garden. Maybe you could consult with the resident fairies at the bottom of the garden.
However if you are asking for a prediction for October, the word about town is that, unfortunately this month is likely to be the warmest global UAH temperature anomaly ever recorded for the month of October. This will follow last month which was the warmest September on record for UAH.
I can see a pattern here but 2 months do not make a trend, however 466 months definitely does.
I see miker rambles on without giving a specific number.
My guess is +0.44 C.
g*e*r*a*n what is the basis for your prediction of 0. 44C?
Could it be your scientific advisers, the fairies at the bottom of your garden perhaps. At least your fairies also predict an anomaly that breaks the previous record for October (0.43C).
My street informant who consults the aqua satellite channel 6 AMSU data, thinks it could be greater than 0.5C as it has recently been running even warmer than September. As the data available is currently until October 24 and the monthly average aqua data correlates very well but not perfectly with UAH , I would rather provide a range rather than a specific prediction. Somewhere between 0.45 C and 0.58 C.
My “best guess” range is 0.35 to 0.45 C. I chose the upper end of the range (+0.44 C) knowing that all the hurricanes would have a slight effect.
If I’m right, I will celebrate with several beers. If I’m wrong, I will drown my sorrows with several beers.
I can’t lose.. ..
g*e*r*a*n, drinking yourself into a stupor may mean we have to do without your words of wisdom for a time.
How will we survive ? Well I think, as the well of derangement runs deep. We can ways rely on the inane contributions of Gordon, SGW etc. to quench the thirst for more nonsense, if needed.
Here are the 10 highest UAH october anomalies:
2015 | 0,41
2016 | 0,41
1998 | 0,40
2003 | 0,28
2005 | 0,27
2012 | 0,24
2014 | 0,24
2006 | 0,22
2010 | 0,20
2001 | 0,19
and here are those for september:
2017 | 0,54
1998 | 0,44
2016 | 0,44
2010 | 0,37
2009 | 0,27
2005 | 0,25
2015 | 0,23
1995 | 0,22
2012 | 0,22
2013 | 0,21
Start your bets!
I think surface anomalies will be way up but a good sized drop in troposphere.
UAH: +0.37
Let’s restrict that September list to non El Nino years:
1. 2017 +0.54
2. 2012 +0.22
3. 2013 +0.21
The non El Nino record to beat for October is +0.24.
The Oct anomaly will be less than last month (estimated from this month’s SSts), and greater than 0.1C (statistical guesstimate).
Can only estimate the variation within a range, not possible to give it a fixed number.
But I enter the yearly sweeps for the Melbourne Cup for a laugh, so I’ll have a flutter here.
0.27C
Barry,
I have a tip direct from the horse’s mouth (i.e aqua satellite channel 6, AMSU) that the October figure could be double that.
As for the horse race I also hear that a horse named Denial will be running in the Cup. The horse is at long odds at 1000 to one. I still wouldn’t bet on it, as it has a mind of its own, and tends to run clockwise contrary to the other 97% of the horses in the race.
It will be probably off to the knackers for poor old Denial even if it survives the heat stroke.
LOL 7:13pm. Now that’s even more hilarious than anger.
Ball4,
Glad you enjoyed it.
G*e*r*a*n is a hard act to follow. A bit like his logic.
I have a tip direct from the horses mouth (i.e aqua satellite channel 6, AMSU) that the October figure could be double that
Which would make the Oct anomaly exactly the same as the Sept anomaly.
Seems unlikely with the cooler SSTs I’m seeing. Maybe if land surface temps are considerably warmer in Oct than they were in Sept (remembering the land surface/sea surface ratio).
Barry,
You may well be right but the data I have suggests otherwise. I have linked to a graph of latest Aqua AMSU channel 6 anomalies until October 26 here -https://s20.postimg.org/xcj85ippp/Aqua_UAH_Ch6_October_2017.jpg .
The Aqua satellite is no longer used for direct calculation of the UAH data but, despite this, it still correlates well with UAH.
A correlation between UAH and the monthly averaged Aqua anomalies are shown here – https://s20.postimg.org/7483g7325/UAH_6_correl_Aqua.jpg .
What is alarming is the large spike in the data for October (see black curve in first graph). Using the line of best fit from the second graph suggests that a value of 0.58 C with a standard error of 0.05 C. This suggests that the number should be between 0.48 C and 0.68 C (95% c.i.).
This seems ridiculously large and maybe the temperature will end up being at the lower end of the above range.
Anyway we should know the outcome in less than a week. I must learn to be patient.
You don’t have much choice! The sweep is a fun idea.
MikeR on October 28, 2017 at 7:13 PM / 11:39 PM
Thanks MikeR for both the excellent humor and the info.
The correlation between Aqua AMSU and UAH6.0 is really an interesting point.
lewis says:
“Any guesses of the anomaly? Im hoping it stays warmer.”
The 3B people in the tropics aren’t.
But we already know you don’t care about them — just your own comfort.
What a boring, humorless person.
Ignorable.
The warming has been beneficial. Only in the delusional minds of you fear mongers is there an issue.
Is this some mental illness, always sounding the alarm? “The sky is falling!” “Wolf!”. Seriously, you clowns need professional help.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“The warming has been beneficial.”
Prove that or shut the F up.
LMAO. You need to up your meds.
Davie, do a little research on how much the glaciers have receded since the ice age.
I see here above:
… do a little research on how much the glaciers have receded since the ice age.
It is by no means necessary to look at alarmist sources like ‘SkS’ or similar to obtain an idea of what happens.
Here are two ransomly selected links presented by Google upon a search for ‘glacier recession since LIA’
1. The Global Cryosphere: Past, Present and Future
von Roger Barry,Thian Yew Gan
http://tinyurl.com/yb2hgjxe
2. Global Land Ice Measurements from Space
published by Jeffrey S. Kargel,Gregory J. Leonard,Michael P. Bishop,Andreas Kb,Bruce H. Raup
http://tinyurl.com/y86hgnlk
As usual when Google presents digitised books, some pages are missing but most is visible.
Are all these persons alarmists too?
… ransomly…
What a beautiful typo!
Oceanic temperatures overall are cooling and this will lead to colder global conditions. It is just a matter of time. Months.
latest +.255c ocean tid bits
Like it’s been cooling since 2002, right Salvatore?
—-
Your conclusions are in a word wrong, and that will be proven over the coming years, as the temperatures of earth will start a more significant decline (which started in year 2002 by the way).
– Salvatore del Prete, Reply to article: IC Joanna Haigh – Declining solar activity linked to recent warming, 10/8/2010
– http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6428
Salvatore, your repeated alarms about this forthcoming cool period motivated us here at home to stock a lot of energy fuel and devices.
Do you think 100 m2 solar and a 20 m3 gas container will be enough? We have also 2 pretty oak trees (for the fireplace in the living room).
Don’t forget an air conditioner.
Bind,
I don’t know where you live, but 2 oak trees will last a while, unless very large.
I cut about 15 medium sized trees a year for heat, and it is not primary.
lewis,
it was no more than a little bit of sarcasm to enjoy Salvatore…
Your anomalies are meaningless without a baseline or at least a source.
DA…”Like its been cooling since 2002, right Salvatore?”
The IPCC claimed it may have cooled insignificantly between 1998 – 2012. There error margins would allow for an insignificant cooling.
I am very confident about the cooling trend coming.
I am also very confident that from +0.54 it must cool. I doubt you’d call that a ‘trend’ though.
correct that will not satisfy what I am calling for.
I need global temperatures to be at or below 30 year means before I can start saying I may be correct.
For anyone who believes that the UAH data showed a pause:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-7xL7BLDBs&t=1s
des…”For anyone who believes that the UAH data showed a pause:”
The pause was admitted by the IPCC between 1998 and 2012 and they called it a warming hiatus. The same flat trend is still there for anyone with a half a brain to see. We don’t need brain-dead propagandists putting out youtube nonsense.
Gordon, you can read extensive information about the ‘pause’ including the IPCC discussion at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus incuding 95 references. Gordon maybe you should read all this material and get back to us then otherwise, as per usual, your fulminations contain enough hot air, sufficient to bust any pause.
To lighten Gordon’s load, the IPCC and subsequent studies indicate that the ‘pause’ had no real significance to CO2 driven climate change.
To emphasize, nobody in their right mind suggests that the increase in temperatures due to increasing CO2 would be uniform. The impact of quasi cycle phenomena such as the PDO and ENSO plus external forcing such as volcanic activity is going to affect the rate of temperature increase particularly for periods less than 15 years. Consequently you will see shorter term slowdowns and speed ups throughout the temperature record. Longer term , of course ,show that inexorable increase in temperatures.
The claim that a putative pause over a particular period throws significant doubt about the role of CO2 in global warming is simply another straw man zombie argument that is so popular in these circles. Pass the wooden stake to put this zombie to rest, just in case we have to deal with this crap if (more likely when) Gordon, Bart and the rest of the crew dredge it up again.
If it is based precisely on the UAH data, how is it “nonsense”?
With regard to the endless discussions on whether radiative exchanges are one-way or two-way, it seems appropriate to clarify one point:
Thermodynamics does not know two-way exchanges. This revolutionary thermal concept is introduced in climatology to allow a calculation of the greenhouse effect.
Since we are far from being able to calculate convection, it was introduced a hypothesis (which we know to be invalid in general) according to which the thremal gradient is independent of radiative exchanges. From there, any radiative imbalance can only be solved by a single means, the translation of the thermal profile. From this follows the concept of radiative forcing which does not differentiate the energy coming from the sun from that of backradiations.
It is thus a strange simplifying hypothesis on convection that explains the omnipresence of the notion of backradiations among climatologists and not at all a singular thermodynamics reserved to radiative exchanges.
phi…”From this follows the concept of radiative forcing which does not differentiate the energy coming from the sun from that of backradiations”.
You need to also consider the Stephan-Boltzmann equation from which this notion stems. Stephan made it clear at the time, circa 1880, that the equation could not be tested experimentally. It has been modernists who have added the incorrect notion that S-B should be interpreted as a two-way heat transfer which involves a net energy (EM) transfer.
S_B is not about heat, it is about EM. Boltzmann was trying to prove the 2nd law using statistical mechanics and he ultimately failed. S_B does not prove that heat is a two way transfer from hot to cold. Based on the nature of the electron that underlies this kind of heat to EM conversion, heat can only be transferred one way.
At the time S-B was written, electrons had not been discovered. No one knew the role electrons played in converting heat to EM, but since that discovery, it has become plain that electrons operate in potential fields as well.
It has been modernists who have added the incorrect notion that S-B should be interpreted as a two-way heat transfer which involves a net energy (EM) transfer.
Dunno if you got S-B right, but this is backwards.
…a two-way energy (EM) transfer which involves a net heat transfer.
Energy (MICRO activity) is transferred between a hot and cold object to both.
Heat (MACRO activity) travels in the direction of the most energy received. IE, from hot to cold.
barry…”a two-way energy (EM) transfer which involves a net heat transfer”.
barry…you are lacking the fundamental understanding of why energy flows. If you understood potential fields and their subsequent kinetic energy fields, you’d get it instantly.
It is not possible for EM to flow both ways while providing a net heat transfer. EM will NOT flow against a potential hill to produce the heat transfer from cold to hot upon which you insist upon conjuring from a thought experiment.
It does not take much study to learn why electrons are driven down a potential hill from a power supply in electrical theory. No one who understands that theory would ever expect an electron to climb the hill on its own hence reversing the transfer of current.
It’s like expecting a boulder just fallen from a cliff to climb back up the cliff on its own. Doesn’t happen. Yet that’s exactly what you are implying with heat transfer from cold to hot.
It is not possible for EM to flow both ways while providing a net heat transfer
If the energy received by the hot object is less than that received by the cold object, the NET transfer is hot to cold.
Your error is to conflate MACRO activity with MICRO.
An archer set from 2 armies fire wooden arrows at each other at the same rate per individual. (No archer dies, we’re just counting) One army has about half the number of archers as the other.
When the battle is done, there will be more arrows littering the field of the smaller archer contingent, even though arrows were going both ways.
The NET flow of arrows is from large contingent to small contingent, even though arrows flew in both directions.
It is not possible for EM to flow both ways while providing a net heat transfer. EM will NOT flow against a potential hill
There is no physical barrier, not matter, not gravity, that prevents thermal radiation emitted by a cooler object to reach and be absorbed by a warmer object.
The ‘barrier’ you are leaning on is nothing more than the sum of the energy transfer. It’s a mathematical construct, not a physical barrier. It seems your view is entirely limited to NET transfer. Dunno why, but that’s how it is.
phi says, October 28, 2017 at 1:28 PM:
Exactly! It apparently lets you “calculate” Earth’s T_s:
IN: 165 W/m^2 (from the Sun) + 345 W/m^2 (from the atmosphere) – 112 W/m^2 (conductive and evaporative heat loss) =
OUT: 398 W/m^2 → 289 K
Like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
Exactly! And THIS, barry, “is the source of all the arguments”. They TREAT the “back radiation” AS IF it were a second heat flux to the surface, fully equivalent in its thermodynamic effect to the SOLAR heat flux. They don’t CALL it heat, of course. But they TREAT it – they expect the exact same thermal effect – as if it were …
Kristian
Let’s say the temperature in my house is 60 degrees, and I’m shivering because all I have on is underwear. Two ways to get warmer: put on some clothes or turn up the thermostat. Both have the same effect. One is a heat source, the other insulation.
Kristian,
“It apparently lets you calculate Earths T_s”
Or this curious variant:
http://oi61.tinypic.com/e6u2pk.jpg
It is rather surprising that this bedrock of the climate pseudo-science is so poorly known and so poorly understood.
Thermodynamics does not know two-way exchanges.
Indeed it doesn’t, it only deals with NET transfer.
Radiative transfer, however, does know two-way exchanges. There’s even a branch of radiative transfer theory entitled “Two-stream approximation” – Schuster, 1905. This did not come about to support ‘cimatology,’ but was later utilised for radiative transfer calculations for weather and climate models.
Thermodynamics is the beginning, not the end.
barry,
“Thermodynamics is the beginning, not the end.”
To calculate the greenhouse effect, thermodynamics is the foundation. We can enrich it but not contradict it.
barry says, October 29, 2017 at 12:35 AM:
Yup. IOW, it’s a simplifying model of reality, not reality itself, constructed to make mathematical calculations on radiative transfer easier.
The actual radiative transfer is the net of all individual photon movements and intensities within the thermal radiation field. And it is UNIdirectional.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/kud/teaching_12/3_Radiative_transfer.pdf
What is stated here? Just what I’ve been saying all along. To get the radiative flux, you average all individual ‘rays’ into ONE net movement (a flow) of radiative energy – you integrate them over the whole solid angle, the full sphere (4π).
After that you’re free, of course, to mentally (or mathematically) split the field into two hemispheres (one pointing ‘up’ and one pointing ‘down’). But this is not something that’s inherent to the thermal radiation field itself. IT isn’t made up of two separate ‘halves’. The two-way thing is purely about geometry and your specific choice of viewing directions.
The overall NET flux (the total radiative flux) is not the net of the two geometrically defined “hemispheric fluxes”, which are themselves net fluxes. It’s the net of all the microscopic movements (photons) integrated into one.
So if Earth has no ocean and no greenhouse gases what is average temperature of the tropics?
Norman, Ball, Isaac,
Can you agree that:
The sum of energy flow (the NET, the MACRO) is always from hot to cold
while
There is a discrete (MICRO) trasnfer of energy both ways
Yes?
Hopefully they will.
It would be curious to see a hot source become hotter due to emanations from a nearby cold source.
That, my friend, is the stuff of science fantasy, and makes for interesting reading.
lewis…”That, my friend, is the stuff of science fantasy, and makes for interesting reading”.
Thanks, you saved me the trouble of stating the same point.
barry 4:53pm, in reality there is no distinction between micro and macro. The misuse of the term heat causes some to think there is a distinction.
yeah, ok, and I think Kristian might agree.
Or only reason to bring it up, is because of misuse of term heat.
Or due to violations of 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Or as long as you are not violating the second law, micro and macro are the same thing.
The misuse of the term heat causes some to think there is a distinction.
I would say there is a disagreement on the definition of heat.
Those arguing that their definition is right are less interested in finding ways to advance the conversation than they are proving people wrong.
Say I disagree with your definition of heat. Say I am as intransigent as you.
How the hell do we talk to each other about the topics of interest?
We can’t. We’re forever stuck in the definitional loop, either pushing our preferences, or proceeding as if we never worked out or differences well enough to lay a foundation for progressing the discussion.
And that is pretty much what has been happening here for months.
“How the hell do we talk to each other about the topics of interest? We can’t.”
We can, through experimental results. I encourage experiment. You should have noticed.
I do not have my own definition of heat, I follow Clausius’ definition of heat as his deeply principled work relies on extensive experimentation, has stood the test of time. The writers of Merriam Webster and other internet sources like certain commenters on this blog (you know who you are), not so much.
Apparently the humor of hilarious anger, the entertainment and challenge of figuring out where Gordon is wrong in this field while occasionally right (or you could just invert) provides a reasonable past time and encourages a deeper understanding of climate.
I think the discussion is healthy. There are signs of progress to begrudgingly agree with experiment in certain commenters over the years (you know who you are) just as much as deeper entrenchment in historical myths by some dug in deeper than an Alabama tick.
lewis
I would first like to know what you mean by a hot source. I had a hard time with SkepticGoneWild over semantic issues.
Do you mean a hot source that was heated to as certain temperature with no further heat being added? If that is the case a cold object will not make such a source (object) hotter.
If, however, you have a hot source that has a continuous power supply (energy input), then the surrounding temperature will directly determine what the equilibrium temperature of the hot source will become.
It is not fantasy but established physics.
Yes, this is what they’re missing and I’ve pointed it out before. The 2nd law only applies to net or bulk flow in that net or bulk flow must always be from warm to cold and not the other way around. It does not apply at the individual particle or photon level. But what’s elevating the surface temperature, i.e. the GHE, is not really the total of DLR at the surface.
RW 5:19pm: “The 2nd law only applies…”
The 2nd law of thermodynamics always applies, everywhere, no exceptions. If you think you found an exception, there is no hope for you.
“(2nd law) does not apply at the individual particle or photon level.”
There is no hope for you.
Yes, this is what theyre missing and Ive pointed it out before. The 2nd law only applies to net or bulk flow in that net or bulk flow must always be from warm to cold and not the other way around. It does not apply at the individual particle or photon level.
At the same time, some skeptics here believe that it also applies at the photon level.
IE, they think that individual photons emanating from a colder object cannot possibly be absorbed by a warmer object.
I believe that this is the source of all the arguments, and others come in to explain that both things happen at the same time to people who are trying to rebut the original misconception.
It LOOKS lie those people are arguing that the NET flow is the same as the discrete exchange, when in reality their fixation is shaped by the original intransigence they faced (over months and even years here).
That’s why I asked the question – to give those people a chance to agree that both things are distinct, and happening at the same time.
“They” e.g. Gordon thinks that individual photons emanating from a colder object cannot possibly be absorbed by a warmer object only in thought experiments & assertions. No proper real experiment has ever shown that or “they” would big time reference it. They do not.
ball4…”They e.g. Gordon thinks that individual photons emanating from a colder object cannot possibly be absorbed by a warmer object….”
I don’t believe in photons, I talk about them only out of convenience. Rather than talking about ‘objects’, why not get down to the basics and call them an aggregation of electrons?
It is electrons that take thermal energy and convert it into a quantum of EM. An electron already has an electric field and a magnetic field around it and it apparently has the ability to transfer part of the energy it is carrying into transmitted EM.
If you get how it takes place, as the electron drops through an energy level before emitting, then you might get it that the energy levels and vibrations in a hotter electron are much higher than in a cooler electron on another object.
The energy level of the emitted quantum of EM has the same energy as the difference in energy states through which the electron dropped and the frequency (vibration) of the quantum is determined by the energy level.
The process is nor reversible cold to hot and until you guys get that there is no point blethering thought experiments. This stuff can be measured.
“I dont believe in photons…
I understand, Gordon doesn’t believe in proper test & would rather just assert stuff, somehow this makes Gordon feel like king. Not going to convince anyone that bases understanding & comments on actual testing like Dr. Spencer has done, repeatedly.
“The process is no(t) reversible…”
No real process is reversible.
“This stuff can be measured.”
Yes & usually ends up proving Gordon wrong. Which is why Gordon doesn’t ever ref. tests like those of Dr. Spencer.
ball4…”I dont believe in photons
I understand, Gordon doesnt believe in proper test & would rather just assert stuff…”
No, you blithering idiot, it’s because there is no such proven entity. You alarmists speak of photons as if they are actually there. It gets even worse when you speak of individual photons and what they are doing.
I can speak of an individual electron because it’s mass has been measured, and its charge. No such measurement has ever made made of a photon, which is DEFINED as a particle of EM with momentum but no mass.
Get off your high horse, you’re talking like an idiot.
ball4…”The process is no(t) reversible
No real process is reversible.”
Grow up, for cripes sakes. Clausius defined a process in which he stepped through the process and came back to the starting point. There are many reversible processes.
You are just blabbering mindlessly.
“There are many reversible processes.”
Then describe one in the real world Gordon. This ought to be good.
“…there is no such proven (photon) entity.”
Testing showing EMR behaving as a particle is well known Gordon, that particle was given the moniker photon almost a century ago. You need to catch up on your reading.
barry…”Thats why I asked the question to give those people a chance to agree that both things are distinct, and happening at the same time”.
They’re not. Read Clausius, he gives an in-depth analysis of what is actually taking place.
Here’s Clausius:
“What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.”
Firmly fix your eye on the bolded bit.
There is a 2-way exchange according to Clausius. He says it right there.
He also says that the NET result of this 2-way exchange is that the cold body experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
IE, heat flows from hot to cold.
Two things happening at the same time.
You only see one. Clausius disagrees with you.
It is Clausius’ testing that is being agreed with as that is where his published words were sourced. There may be a bit of loss in translation but the actual experimental data does not have any language barrier.
barry…”however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one”.
number 1…you have quoted him out of context. He was talking about compensation and addressing an issue WITH compensation in which heat can be transferred cold to hot.
number 2…in the days of Clausius, and even up to Planck, electrons had not yet been discovered. Even Planck called IR ‘heat rays’ because they all believed heat was a substance that could travel through space between bodies.
We know now, due to heat conversion to EM by electrons, and back, that heat does not flow through space between bodies.
Cherry picking an author does not get around the basic tenet of the 2nd law…’heat can not of it’s own be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body’.
barry…”He also says that the NET result of this 2-way exchange is that the cold body experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
IE, heat flows from hot to cold”.
There is no physical flow of heat between bodies during radiation. The only exchange is EM. I have explained this to you using examples from communications and an electrical transformer but apparently your understanding of basic physics is seriously lacking and you have not understood.
Heat transfer during radiation is ‘apparent’ because heat reduces in the emitting body and increases in the cooler receiving body.
Heat is a property of atoms (mass). No mass, not heat flow.
RW…”The 2nd law only applies to net or bulk flow in that net or bulk flow must always be from warm to cold and not the other way around. It does not apply at the individual particle or photon level”.
Most importantly, the 2nd law applies only to heat. There are no photons associated with heat therefore net photon flow does not apply.
Heat can only flow in bulk as a thermal energy flow in a solid (conduction) or in a flow of mass in gas or liquid via convection. Heat requires atoms. In radiative transfer, there is no transfer of heat by atoms, only by EM. EM has no atoms, just theorized photons (which no one has ever seen or measured) which are not capable of transferring thermal energy.
The transfer takes place in an apparent manner as the reduction in heat in a hotter body as electrons convert thermal energy to EM and as an increase in a cooler body as electrons convert. No thermal energy is transferred body to body by EM. That’s partly why a two way transfer of thermal energy via radiation is bogus.
This ridiculous notion of redefining heat as a sci-fi entity in order to make it fit a sci-fi notion of net energy flow comes from the depths of pseudo-science.
sorry…had to answer phone mid-sentence…”
“…and as an increase in a cooler body as electrons convert…”
Should read…”…and as an increase in a cooler body as electrons convert the received EM back to thermal energy in the cooler body.
This process is NOT reversible.
“Most importantly, the 2nd law applies only to heat.”
There is no hope for Gordon either.
ball4…”Most importantly, the 2nd law applies only to heat.
There is no hope for Gordon either”.
For someone who has claimed to have read Clausius you certainly have a comprehension problem. The 2nd law comes from the works of Clausius titled, The Mechanical Theory of Heat.
Clausius was writing about heat when he introduced the law. The basis of the 2nd law is that heat cannot by it’s own means be transferred from a colder to a warmer body.
Entropy is about heat as well. Does that surprise you?
“Does that surprise you?”
Nothing Gordon writes surprises me, Gordon is entirely assertion based never test based. Gordon doesn’t even cite his sources. Here is what Clausius said about his entropy S in his ninth memoir p. 365 by then having perfected his thoughts & in the appendix runs you thru the eqn.s:
2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
ball4…”Here is what Clausius said about his entropy S …”
If you took the time to read his work you’d see he DEFINED S subjectively as the integral of dQ/T over a process. In words, Clausius described entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat into or out of a system at the temperature T at which each changes takes place.
He added that if the process is reversible, the integral sums to 0, otherwise it is +ve. Clausius introduced entropy as an energy related to heat.
It’s imperative to get it that the 2nd law is about heat only, there is no mention of net energy balances or any other pseudo-science in the related works of Clausius.
“…there is no mention of net energy balances or any other pseudo-science in the related works of Clausius.”
Check out Clausius:
1. The energy of the universe is constant.
and see the appendix for the formulas for entropy. The one you quote is limited, and yes in limited application when is =0 then reversible process in thought only, no real process.
“It’s imperative to get it that the 2nd law is about heat only..”
No, not in any sense, the concept of Clausius’ entropy is universal, applicable in other fields, information, economics, cosmology so forth.
Gordon,
“Most importantly, the 2nd law applies only to heat. There are no photons associated with heat therefore net photon flow does not apply.”
I didn’t say anything about heat. Heat cannot flow from colder to warmer — yes, this is correct. What you apparently don’t understand is that the GHE doesn’t require heat to flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface. That isn’t what’s happening.
Gordon,
“EM has no atoms, just theorized photons (which no one has ever seen or measured) which are not capable of transferring thermal energy.”
They’re not transferring thermal energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, as this is what you don’t understand. All they are doing is slowing down the upward IR cooling push and forcing the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to be emitting IR up a higher rates than the the whole combined surface/atmosphere is passing into space to achieve balance (about 240 W/m^2).
The source of energy to the system is the Sun — not the atmosphere. The colder atmosphere is not warming the surface.
ball4…”The one you quote is limited, and yes in limited application when is =0 then reversible process in thought only, no real process”.
You’re an idiot.
RW…”Theyre not transferring thermal energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, as this is what you dont understand”.
I understand that very well, it’s the alarmists on this blog to whom you need to explain it. One of them the other day claimed back-radiation from the colder atmosphere is added to solar energy to super-warm the surface.
RW…”All they (photons) are doing is slowing down the upward IR cooling push and forcing the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to be emitting IR up a higher rates than the the whole combined surface/atmosphere is passing into space…”
RW…this makes no sense scientifically. Nothing will slow down IR from the surface, it’s rate of emission is determined by the temperature of the layer of air right next to the surface. If that layer of air was significantly warmer than the surface, IR emission would stop till the two layers equalized.
Craig Bohren, a physicist/meteorologist, address this thought experiment in his book Atmospheric Radiation. He referred to the notion of heat trapping, or GHGs acting as a blanket to slow down surface emissions, as a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
I’m going for ‘plain silly’.
According to Lindzen, the atmospheric problem is far more complex. He explained how heat is transported from the surface directly via conduction then convection to high in the atmosphere where it is radiated to space.
Surface radiation as a primary means of cooling is a red herring argument.
Bohren 2006 p. 37:
“..assertions about the “atmosphere acting like a blanket” are absurd.”
Bohren p. 34:
“..the notion that the atmosphere traps radiation is at best a bad metaphor, at worst down right silly.”
Same page Bohren also knocks down much assertion by Gordon as absurd and just plain silly with: “the atmosphere is a source of radiation…the spectrum of the radiation emitted by the ground to the atmosphere is not the same as the spectrum of radiation emitted to the ground by the atmosphere.”
To better illustrate his point for Gordon, Dr. Bohren conducts this thought experiment:
“Quickly paint the entire globe with a highly conducting metallic paint, thereby reducing the emissivity of the surface to near zero. Because the surface no longer emits radiation, none can be “trapped” by the atmosphere. Yet the atmosphere keeps radiating as before, oblivious to the absence of radiation from the surface (at least initially; as the temperature of the atmosphere drops, its emission rate drops). Of course, if the surface doesn’t emit radiation but continues to abs.orb solar radiation, the surface temperature rises and no equilibrium is possible until the emission spectrum shifts to regions for which the emissivity is not zero.”
Gordon should align his asserted comments with the far more physically tested and time tested Bohren writings. Dr. Bohren continues after this passage to explain to Gordon how Gordon’s assertions can be improved:
“A more physically relevant quantity than temperature is the downward emission of radiation…emission from the atmosphere to the surface is a consequence of a radiant energy transformation. Solar radiation (S) is transformed, because of ab.sorp.tion by the surface, into longer wavelength radiation from the atmosphere.”
Gordon,
You say very contradictory things.
Here: “In radiative transfer, there is no transfer of heat by atoms, only by EM.”, then “theorized photons (which no one has ever seen or measured) which are not capable of transferring thermal energy. ”
Do photons or EM transfer thermal energy or not? I think most of us know the answer is yes.
You say: ‘photons (which no one has ever seen or measured’
False, their effects have been measured, they have been detected, repeatedly. They exist. Learn.
Then: ” No thermal energy is transferred body to body by EM. Thats partly why a two way transfer of thermal energy via radiation is bogus.”
Really?! If a body cools by radiation, then its thermal energy decreases, and it has been transferred to other bodies.
You are getting way to hung up on labels, heat, photons, EM.
In the end, a transfer of heat from one body to another has occurred. Thermodynamics does the accounting of those transfers, it does not care about the method, conduction, convection, radiation by EM or photons.
Norman, Ball, Isaac,
(Can I beg others not to reply here – I’m curious to see what these guys say, and hope they don’t get distracted by other comments)
Can you agree that:
The sum of energy flow (the NET, the MACRO) is always from hot to cold
while
There is a discrete (MICRO) transfer of energy both ways
I believe if you simply answer yes, without qualifying and defending, or pointing at other arguments, you could break the dam in your conversation with Kristian.
barry…”(Can I beg others not to reply here Im curious to see what these guys say, and hope they dont get distracted by other comments)…”
Sorry…you can’t. You lot have already rudely formed a clique of abject alarmists within this skeptical blog graciously set up by Roy. I am not going to sit by while you alarmists set up yet another alarmists conference call to discuss your anti-skeptical propaganda.
If you state something blatantly stupid I am going to interject scientific reason. However, if you keep it on the level at which you have kept it I will likely fall asleep from boredom.
Gordon Robertson
You are wrong again. Nothing unusual about that. You think people who understand science and agree that a GHE is valid science are “alarmists”. Sorry Dr. Spencer also believe the GHE is quite real and valid science. Only the brain-dead (you included) with your fake and made up science can’t seem to understand how it works. GHE is not alarmist science, it is just rational understanding of science. Sorry you are so dim, no one can light your dull bulb even with enormous amounts of scientific information. You are clueless and have more fun making up physics than putting out the honest effort to learn it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
Maybe take the time to read this.
Con-man, you are wrong again.
Like “tricky dick”, you are trying to cling to the coattails of Dr. Roy.
If you think he is on your side, offer him a public experiment. He has funding from NASA. Tell him he could do a public experiment that proved, once and for all, that “cold” could warm “hot”.
Very inexpensive–one wall of ice (10 sq meters), and one frozen turkey (thawed).
Video how long it takes to bake the turkey.
g*e*r*a*n
Like I stated already, you are not capable of understanding physics. Sorry about that it is your problem not mine. It seems you will never understand physics and there are no paths to enlighten that dark mind of yours.
You do not seem able to understand that no one disagrees with the point that a cold object will not make an unheated object warmer than its initial temperature. You can seem to understand that point but so can everyone else. Your lack of understanding is evident when the narrative is changed and you have an object that has a continuous input of energy (as the Earth’s surface has or a pot of water on a burner). Your mind turns off as soon as energy is added to some object. You lose all functionality and vomit out your complete crap that ice can burn down a house.
I think it is time for you to watch your self again. I think this is how most posters here view you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8ZQ3kTSK0
This character even proves things like you.
You claim to know the truth but you never will state it. This guy really knows you, are you sure it is not you?
Norman +1
g*e*r*a*n is clearly not capable of complexity. He can only deal with a maximum of two bodies so he just keeps regurgitating ice and turkey, beer and apples scenarios etc. . For a while it provided some amusement but now it is getting boring.
Gordon, I’m trying to let light into the conversation, and all the trigger-happy replies, including your bullshit tribalism, is keeping it murky.
But hats off to you for lacking the discipline to refrain for one thread out of hundreds and screwing up the attempt. Your grip is so tight it could make diamonds.
There’s no clique. I’m arguing against Isaac, Ball, Dave etc, too, and defending Kristian here and there. My question was an attempt to get these guys to concede a point to Kristian so they could move past it.
Take your social politics and shove it where there is no light.
barry, when you get tired of fantasizing about Gordon’s “depositories”, don’t forget to answer the question here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270256
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
The introduction of an object cooler than the surface emitting to it made the warmer object warmer in this experiment. This was a radiative process, as convection was minimised by the set-up.
Also answered you above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270400
For anger to begin to understand Dr. Spencer’s testing at the level of the comments posted up, you will have to explain these physics drawing a picture of a turkey along with the picture of the ice.
Or similarly draw pictures of an apple and a picture of a cold mug of beer in the proper places and find, still, anger will post up a protest comment in the same old hilariously incorrect manner.
No verbiage & nothing short of experiment can break Kristian’s dam (barry term) which is why his site is experiment free (or was last time I visited long ago.) Dr. Spencer’s experiments have broken Kristian’s dam, so to speak & Kristian can not accept this, as is obvious from all the Kristian verbiage work around that ignore the simple experiments anyone can do.
There is no distinction in reality between micro or macro. Draw the exact line if you think there is one.
ball4…”No verbiage & nothing short of experiment can break Kristians dam …”
Why don’t you focus on the message rather than on trying to gang up on him to defeat an argument none of you understand.
Kristian’s message is that back-radiation cannot warm the surface and that heat can only be transferred in one direction, from hot to cold. That agrees with Clausius and just about every other scientist worth his salt.
“Kristian’s message is that back-radiation cannot warm the surface and that heat can only be transferred in one direction, from hot to cold.”
No Gordon, Dr. Spencer’s test on the actual atm. showed you are wrong. And, IF that’s what Kristian writes then Kristian too. Cite a passage from Kristian not Gordon words. Clausius Mechanical Theory of Heat agrees with Dr. Spencer’s tests as that extensive work is based on similar testing also.
trick, you have mentioned Dr. Roy’s “experiment” numerous times. You cling to it as the accepted dogma of your “religion”.
Dr. Roy is likely embarrassed by your sycophantic worship. No independent-thinking scientist wants a group of “cling-ons”.
You should go to the post that describes the “experiment”, and objectively review the comments. You might see others have identified several things wrong.
If not, you can always ask me.
Consequently, when anger devolves to insults, I know I’ve won.
I’ll ask anger only when I need a good laugh.
ball4…”No Gordon, Dr. Spencers test on the actual atm. showed you are wrong”.
I admire Roy and John of UAH for their courage and skepticism re AGW but I do not agree with Roy on his assertions regarding the 2nd law. I think Roy is wrong and the experiment I recall proved nothing. An engineer with a strong background in thermodynamics claimed Roy is wrong as well.
The 2nd law stands, a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface. Roy’s data over 37 years backs the 2nd law.
“I think Roy is wrong and the experiment I recall proved nothing.”
Of course, since it proved you are wrong about atm. radiation, especially at night. Memory i.e. recall is like that. Use Dr. Spencer’s words, not yours.
trick, do you sleep with a teddy bear?
g*r…”trick, do you sleep with a teddy bear?”
Only teddy bears to whom he has a formed an appeal to authority.
barry
From past posts with Kristian I do not think you mirror his opinions on the topic.
I would agree that sum of energy flow (NET) is always from hot to cold.
I would agree that there is energy flow in both ways. Heat flow one-way, energy two (emission and absorb for any surface you look at).
The point is that if you increase the backflowing energy (either by increasing temperature of increasing the number of radiating molecules) you will lower the NET flow of energy from a surface. If you have the same amount of driving energy (solar for Earth’s surface) the temperature of the surface will go up (to a point) with an increase in GHG if there is no other change in the other cooling mechanisms (evaporation rate or convection). With the complexity of the multiple mechanisms that affect surface temperature it is difficult to scientifically describe what the outcome will actually be. Usually it is an educated guess at best.
norman…”I would agree that sum of energy flow (NET) is always from hot to cold”.
Energy flow has nothing to do with hot or cold, both bodies radiate energy naturally and the rate of both depends only on temperature difference between body and surrounding air temperature.
It just so happens that the energy radiated by the hotter body has the required parameters to be absorbed by the cooler body but the reverse is not true. Back-radiation has no way of mitigating the rate of flow of IR from the surface.
Gordon Robertson
This is where your made up physics falls short of reality. You or Claes Johnson made up that physics. It has no basis in reality and is easily rejected by just reading a few actual physics books.
You have a false understanding of radiant energy transfer. No doubt you knowledge of radio waves and antennas has corrupted your understanding of radiant heat transfer and you show little desire to correct your flaws even when they are pointed out.
YOU: “Energy flow has nothing to do with hot or cold, both bodies radiate energy naturally and the rate of both depends only on temperature difference between body and surrounding air temperature.”
This is flawed and made up physics that has zero support in the real world of heat transfer.
The rate a body radiates energy has nothing at all to do with any other object. It is only based upon its temperature and emissivity. It is one of the most basic tenets of heat transfer.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
That link is the same as all textbooks on the topic. You can clearly see the rate of radiant energy emission is only based upon one variable and two constants. Because it has been confirmed many times under many conditions it is considered a Law of physics. Your making up your own version will not overturn this established science no matter how strongly your faith in your own ideas might be.
The variable is temperature of the object. The two constants are the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the object’s emissivity (which could change with temperature at some extreme so it is not a solid constant but for limited temperature ranges it is).
Note also in the heat transfer equation. The rate an object emits is still only determined by its temperature. The NET heat flow is determined by the surrounding temperature but the surrounding do NOT change the rate the hot object emits at, only a change in temperature will do this. The surroundings can eventually change the object’s temperature changing its rate of emission but that is not what you are claiming.
If the hot object was 100 C and stayed that temperature, it would not change in the rate it emits energy. But if you surround the object in a hollow sphere with a temperature of 90 C, the internal energy of the 100 C object will transfer out much slower than if the sphere was at -200 C. It will still emit exactly the same amount of IR if surrounded by a 90 C shell or a -200 C shell. That is the reality of heat transfer you do not understand or with to understand. It is reality however and your inability to grasp this idea is a weakness on your part, not the scientific community. It is your flaw and not theirs. You are the one who is wrong, not established science.
norman…”The point is that if you increase the backflowing energy (either by increasing temperature of increasing the number of radiating molecules) you will lower the NET flow of energy from a surface”.
Only if the back-flowing energy comes from a significantly hotter source than the surface. SW solar energy has no problem heating the surface.
If you believe back-radiation has the same intensity as SW solar then please show how you derived that. Remember, it came from the surface after losses and it resides in a cooler portion of the atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson
I will refer you once again to actual empirical (measured values). If you think about it, you will understand it.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59f550dbeee60.png
This graph will clearly show that downwelling IR is greater in a 24 hour cycle than SW solar. You can see that SW solar only exceeds the Downwelling IR a few hours out of the 24 and then for many hours it is nothing while the atmosphere continues to emit IR the whole 24 hours.
Con-man, you’re still confusing measured fluxes with temperature gain. DWIR does NOT guarantee temperature gain.
You didn’t bring any bananas into your abode this week, did you? Get the fire extinguisher ready. Too much IR can cause explosions.
(barry, I’m just being felicitous. Bananas will not cause an explosion. It’s just the preaching of pseudoscience I mock.)
Gordon Robertson
On my initial point you referenced. The point is that if you increase the backflowing energy (either by increasing temperature of increasing the number of radiating molecules) you will lower the NET flow of energy from a surface
Two graphs clearly show this the case. Please remember that these graphs are from actual instruments. One is pointed toward the surface and the other is pointed toward the sky. Both have been carefully calibrated in labs before being used in the field.
These are from the summer. One is the dry desert.
Look at the Net IR.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59f554cfe6852.png
This is a wet area with considerably more radiating molecules than the desert.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_59f55500233a8.png
Having more IR active gases in the atmosphere (water vapor) considerably reduces the NET IR. It does not follow that the region will end with a higher temperature. A wetter region has vastly higher evaporation rates which can cool a surface to a significant degree.
I have stated many times water is an oddball in the climate studies. It both warms and cools and the contribution from the competing factors makes very complex and difficult science prone to many potential errors. Clouds can warm or cool, evaporation is a strong surface cooling mechanism. That would be why I am not in the “alarmist” camp. Too much wiggle room.
“Too much wiggle room.”
Norm, the worms in your head know that well.
I would agree that sum of energy flow (NET) is always from hot to cold.
I would agree that there is energy flow in both ways. Heat flow one-way, energy two
Well, Kristian will probably bridle at your use of the word ‘flow’ in the second sentence as applied to energy (Kristian would say ‘exchange’), but you basically both agree.
Unfortunately for the progression of the conversation, you had to go and add stuff that will invite opposition, either from nit-pickery, disagreement over terminology or whatever.
The short answer could have made headway. Krstian would see that you accept MACRO flow is always hot to cold, and that this is distinct from MICRO energy exchange, contrary to what he thinks you think.
Having established that, you could move on.
But adding qualifiers and paragraphs opens up opportunity for all the other nit-pickery and you remain stuck.
Watch what happens. If Kristian replies, he may quote your acceptance of what he’s been trying to argue, but you’ve given him an opening to continue opposition because you said more stuff, and the conversation will loop as if you two never agreed on that point.
You guaranteed it in your first sentence by opining on what Kristian thinks instead of just answering the question that I put.
Everyone is so concerned with proving the other wrong that they have forgotten how to recognize and establish the things they DO agree on.
That’s why these conversations don’t make any headway.
I strongly recommend finding out what you agree on and making that stick. Then, later explore what you disagree on.
Try and argue it all at once and you will inevitably get stuck. There are tens of thousands of posts giving ample evidence of this.
I’m not speaking of g*e*r*a*n and Gordon – they do disagree with you and Kristian on the basics of discrete (MICRO) energy exchange.
Ball seems to disagree with this distinction. That’s not helping, but mainly because opponents lazily lump the opposition view together as if its monolithic.
Kristian doesn’t think the same way as Gordon and G-man. I think there is more agreement between him and the people countering him than any of them realize.
barry, since you seem to think you rule the universe, exactly where do I disagree with Kristian?
You seem to believe that thermal energy of certain wavelength cannot be absorbed by blackbody surfaces (presumably warmer surfaces).
All wavelengths of thermal radiation are NOT always absorbed!
Kristian, as far as i can tell, agrees with the proposition that all blackbody surfaces can absorb thermal radiation of any wavelength, regardless of the temperature of the blackbody.
barry
I have debated with Kristian many times in the past. He does get quite upset when you ask him to prove his point in the realm of established science.
I used to think the blog science was making valid points. I was reading PSI on a regular basis. Then I saw all these conflicts of opinion so I went back to established textbook science and started reading this material as my source.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/lecture-notes/10_part3.pdf
I go by the established science as described in HT-63 of this document. I find it explained in this way in all the textbooks I have read on the topic and have no reason to think different.
I will stick with the established science until valid testing can disprove the accepted science. I am not going to accept the made up science of Gordon Robertson or g*e*r*a*n.
I do not see anything in current science that makes any claim other than two macroscopic energy flows at a surface. It does not matter how many individual objects or overall flows there are. A surface will only have two macroscopic flows of energy. Energy away from a surface (what is emitted) and energy toward a surface (absorbed). There can be a hundred objects in the view of a surface, it won’t matter. The surface exchange will still be a two-way flux of energy. Away from surface and energy toward the surface.
“I used to think the blog science was making valid points. I was reading PSI on a regular basis. ”
I’m sorry for your waste of time.
“Then I saw all these conflicts of opinion so I went back to established textbook science and started reading this material as my source.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/lecture-notes/10_part3.pdf
I go by the established science as described in HT-63 of this document. I find it explained in this way in all the textbooks I have read on the topic and have no reason to think different.”
I looked at page HT-63. If PSI disagrees with it, PSI is probably wrong.
Or at least I saw nothing to disagree with- it’s possible I missed something.
That’s a reasonable proposition. This dual ‘direction’ is also compassed by the terms emitted/absorbed, or influx/outflux.
Barry
My answer is yes. But those are not the issues we disagree with.
Barry
My answer is yes, but those aren’t the issues we disagree on.
Lol! My posts keep ending up in the wrong spot.
The answer YES suffices. I hope Kristian sees it, because he does not believe you would answer yes to this question.
barry
A side note to demonstrate a multiple macroscopic energy flux.
In a room remove all objects but two items hanging by thin wire (separated by some distance). One is a blue box the other a red ball. Stand between the two and turn on a visible light source. Some incoming light is reflected off the surfaces of each object. Turn and face the blue box. You do not see a red ball, now turn and face the ball and the box is gone but you see the ball. The energy that reaches your eyes is from a macroscopic energy flow from each object (some unit of watts/m^2). Now go on a side where both objects can be seen together. You can see both the blue box and the red ball. Each object has its own unique macroscopic energy flow to your detector eyes.
If you want to really see evidence of an actual and real two way macroscopic energy flux, have each object with some holes on the surfaces to allow light to pass through. Inside each object you have some film or other measuring device. Inside the blue box the only energy that comes to your film is of the red ball (with enough exposure time you will have an image of the red ball). Inside the red ball you will get an image of the blue box (fuzzy without any lens to focus the light). You will not have any red photons getting into the red ball.
I really do not know what Kristian is trying to say. I have no clue even if I read it several times. It is not confirmed in any physics books. I am not sure why he is so obsessed with his view and I do not know what the basis for it is. It seems easy to prove wrong.
Just don’t confuse visible light with IR, as happens in pseudoscience.
I find much to agree about with Kristian on MICRO/MACRO energy exchange/NET transfer. I think I understand why he fixates on the MACRO. It’s for much the same reason his opponents focus on the MICRO.
Both ‘teams’ are missing what they agree on in the tight-gripped effort to prove the pother wrong. The momentum of the conversation over the months doesn’t help relax the grip.
Gordon and G-man are another story.
Gordon, we ranked “another story”!
The money just keeps rolling in.
g*e*r*a*n
It only confuses you since you really can’t understand physics at all and make up what you lack or just completely ignore the science and make fun of posters for typos. I guess you have some purpose, you can read posts and correct the poor spelling. That seems about all you are capable of. You also post pseudoscience a lot and used to post hilarious a lot.
You have no clue what pseudoscience is or what it means but you must like the sound of it. You use it quite often. I think maybe you should look up the definition and see if you are using it correctly.
Here this might help you sort things out.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pseudoscience
What you post is pseudoscience. You make it up as you go, it has no support, no basis, no empirical evidence. You call established textbook science pseudoscience but you make up your own unsupportable points. One example is for some reason you don’t believe a warmer surface will absorb any IR from a colder one. This goes against all established physics and is clearly pseudoscience.
You know the term so well because you practice the craft.
barry
With my visible light example it made me think of how you could demonstrate that a cold object will transfer energy microscopically toward a hotter object.
Two objects facing each other. The setup is to have an FLIR or other IR detector inside each object with an IR focusing lens on each object’s surface. The interior of each object has cold air pumped in to maintain a constant cold temperature to the detectors. The interior of object has good insulation so the outer surface temperature does not reach the IR detectors inside.
You heat one objects outer surface to 100 C and the other to 50 C and monitor the IR detectors response. Does the IR detector within the 100 C object detect the IR from the 50 C object? You can vary the temperature of the colder item to see if it has any effect on the internal IR detector. Will lowering the cooler objects’s surface to 25 C change the amount of IR the internal detector receives? Will this energy still make it to the detector inside the hotter object? What do you think will happen in such a system. Will it prove that macroscopic energy flows do indeed travel in multiple directions, all away from the objects emitting them?
Con-man, you are still confused by ab.sor.ption vs emission. Two different happenings.
(Physics is hard, especially with no formal background. Keep plodding away.)
g*e*r*a*n
No you are the only one who is confused. You do not comprehend physics and make up your own.
I have to agree, physics is very hard for you to understand (especially since you are not interested the least in physics and post comments just to troll). You will not plod along though.
Emission and Abs are two separate activity but both are related and both deal with energy flows. Only the direction matters. Kirchhoff’s Law states that for gray bodies the amount of energy a surface will absorb is equal to the amount it will emit (good emitter is a good Abs).
I am not at all confused by the two processes and have stated several times both take place simultaneously at an object’s surface. One adds energy to the surface the other subtracts.
Again I am not sure what point you are trying to make, you have no substance to your posts. They are limp and weak.
Con-man, all you have to do is simply warm that apple, using only mugs of cold beer. Notice you can use more than one. Two mugs of cold beer emits twice the energy as one. So, since you claim all that energy is going to be converted to heat in the apple, it should be easy to raise its temperature.
Careful you don’t burn your fingers!
Hilarious.
You addressed me, but I am generally in agreement with you, as I think you know.
You are actually arguing for others who might read this.
Find out what you and Kristian agree on. Fix it solid. Then find out what you disagree on.
Write in short, clear sentences, and don’t write too many in a post.
EG,
“MACRO flow is always from hot to cold, agreed, Kristian.
If we’re agreed that this always hols true, can we please talk about the MICRO activity now?”
That might be a 2-sentence post that could cut through a year’s worth of cheese. Would help if Kristian also prioritised inquiry over winning the argument in a single post.
barry instructs the con-man: “Write in short, clear sentences, and dont write too many in a post.”
Hilarious!
“MACRO flow is always from hot to cold”
Just like the macro flow that must exist from the blue plate at its supposed equilibrium (or “steady state” according to T Folkerts) temperature of 262 K to the green plate right next to it at its supposed equilibrium (or “steady state”) temperature of 220 K. There is absolutely no reason for the warmer blue plate not to heat the cooler green plate until they are both at the same temperature, 244 K, given enough time. The plates are meant to be physically identical. A perfectly absorbing/emitting ultra-thin perfectly conducting plate in constant view of the sun can NOT provide “shade” to another plate behind it, since “shade” implies reflectance, and/or some degree of low thermal conductivity. How else do objects block sunlight, to create “shade”!? Eli’s conclusion of his thought experiment is obviously wrong.
What will happen is that various paid sophists will come in to waffle on at length to divert from the obvious in any way they can. Perhaps using completely inappropriate analogies or additional thought experiments when the thought experiment that provoked all this discussion is simple enough in the first place. The obfuscation will be relentless, and since they’re paid to have the last word under any circumstances, that will be what happens.
EXACTLY!
Halp-less, anger – Explain please how simple testing you can easily perform, you know obtain the real world data you can plot, supports the analysis and conclusions of the blue plate (with picture of an apple) and the green plate (with picture of a cold mug of beer).
Evidently you both have not performed and do not care to learn from the real world experiment. These assertion only comments will not ever sway the informed, critical reader actually doing simple experiments as does Dr. Spencer.
Without experimental data all you provide is humorous mostly ill-informed comments. More please, laughable entertainment provided can be just as much fun as experimental physics.
tricky, I performed the apple/cold beer experiment weeks ago. The mug of cold beer was at 37F. The apple was at 74F. The room temperature was 74F. After five minutes, the apple temp did not rise, but the beer rose to 39F.
(The mug of cold beer was about 1cm from the apple.)
Both the beer and apple were consumed after the experiment.
And presumably you didn’t magically turn off the output of energy from the sun in your experiment, g*e*r*a*n. So there was an energy source present too. Seems that pretty much settles it then.
“The room temperature was 74F.”
There is negligible room temperature in the blue plate (with apple picture) and green plate (with cold mug of beer picture) analysis. anger has changed the proposition to add important room temperature; technically that means introduced a straw man easily defeated.
Try again anger, get the test reasonably accurate this time. You can do it reasonably well even at room temperature, in your kitchen as I have done.
Distance
The plates are meant to be physically identical. A perfectly absorbing/emitting ultra-thin perfectly conducting plate in constant view of the sun can NOT provide “shade” to another plate behind it, since “shade” implies reflectance, and/or some degree of low thermal conductivity.
You’re describing a situation where the blue plate is perfectly transparent. It’s not. The blue plate absorbs thermal radiation from the sun. Can’t do that if its perfectly transparent.
The blue plate is a perfect blackbody.
Blue plate receives a total 400 w/m2 energy from the sun. It heats up until it is radiating at a total rate of 400 Watts.
Say each side of the plate is 1 meter square. Its total surface area is 2 square meters.
400 Watts with a 2 meter square surface area
Divide by 2 for 1 square meter emittance
= 200 w/m2
The green plate (1 square meter on each side) is introduced and starts heating up. If all that happened was that the blue plate warmed it, and no other action, it can only heat up to 200 Watts.
200 watts with a 2 meter square surface area
Divide by 2 for 1 square meter emittance
= 100 w/m2
So now the 2-plate system is emitting a total of 300 w/m2 out to space. It is now in thermal disequilibrium with the input.
The green plate can’t get any warmer unless the blue plate emits more energy to it. The blue plate can’t do that unless IT gets warmer.
So what happens next?
“Youre describing a situation where the blue plate is perfectly transparent”
No, I’m not.
“The blue plate is a perfect blackbody.”
Yes, as is the green. Which also means, “no reflectance”. It’s also a perfect conductor. Thus, in no way does the blue plate “shade” the green. Perfect absorber means all the energy from the sun will be absorbed. Perfect conductor means that the absorbed energy will be passed on through the molecules of the plate. Perfect emitter means the same will be emitted out the other side. If 244 K is the temperature the blue plate comes to in absence of the green, given its distance from and viewing angle relative to the sun, then the green plate must come to that temperature also.
You said it yourself, macro flow is always from hot to cold. If the blue plate was ever somehow hotter than the green then that flow would even it out (back to 244 K each plate).
Anything else is just needlessly over-complicating something perfectly simple.
“Perfect emitter means the same will be emitted out the other side.”
halp-less, the sun is at 5780K and thus emits SW, the blue plate at ~240K thus emits LW. Also, the sun’s rays come in nearly collimated at its distance and the blue plate emits into a hemisphere of directions on each side. The experimental evidence when properly tested supports the analysis & does not support your simple assertions due the physics you overlook.
Run the experiment properly, do not set up a different proposition.
Yes thanks for agreeing Ball4, as I literally just said:
“If 244 K is the temperature the blue plate comes to in absence of the green,* given its distance from and viewing angle relative to the sun*, then the green plate must come to that temperature also.”
It’s great when the paid sophists are on hand to repeat your own points back to you as if they are a refutation.
This must be why you earn the money you do. How much per post?
“back to 244 K each plate”
Proper testing disagrees with you Halp-less in the same way the proper analysis does for some of the reasons I noted. The blue plate (with apple picture) becomes measurably warmer than the green plate (with cold mug of beer picture) in testing where room temperature is made negligible enough for reasonable data taking i.e. the T difference measured with thermometer or proper IR thermometer.
Run the test, post up data that can be replicated, try hard to get the two simple plates the same temperature as you assert. Measurements show otherwise. Assertions are easy, proper testing the arbitrator.
To whom it may concern:
My never-ending, repeated response to absolutely anything that you may argue, to try to imply that the blue plate comes to a higher temperature than the green, given what we know of the blue and green plates from the setup as described, will be:
“macro flow is always from hot to cold. If the blue plate was ever somehow hotter than the green then that flow would even it out (back to 244 K each plate).
Anything else is just needlessly over-complicating something perfectly simple.”
You will therefore not need to see this response to know it has been made. It is made here, now, and exists in response indefinitely to any further comments that conclude the blue plate comes to a higher temperature than the green.
Halp-less
Expose an object to bright sunlight. Place an identical object a few feet apart, but in the shade.
You think they will be the same temperature? Think again.
Halp-less
What if you placed 10 objects in the shade near the object in the sun? You think all 11 would eventually reach the same temperature? Good grief!
You would have increased surface cooling by ten fold, while the original heat source remains unchanged.
I observe no proper experimental data posted up by Halp-less 9:19am in a comment entirely based on assertion which was sooo… easy. The experimental results are the arbitrator, and the replicable experiments others and I have run shows a different result than Halp-less claims. Thus Halp-less won’t convince the critical, informed reader.
It is easy to assert stuff, slightly more difficult to run tests, which is why lecturers in physics attach lab courses to the curriculum. Do the proper testing lecturer Halp-less, post up your data for inspection. Where is your lab course? Nowhere.
“You think they will be the same temperature?”
No, I don’t. And I also explained why the blue plate is not “shade” for the green.
Now Halp-less writes 2:11pm in effect: “No, I don’t” think they will be the same temperature but previously 8:17am wrote “back to 244 K each plate”.
Halp-less should elaborate on switching positions, and to confirm any further assertions: actually post up data of, or cite, a confirming experiment.
I haven’t switched positions. An object in the shade will not be the same temperature as an identical object in the sun. However, the green plate is not in the “shade”, for the reasons already explained.
“The plates are meant to be physically identical. A perfectly absorbing/emitting ultra-thin perfectly conducting plate in constant view of the sun can NOT provide shade to another plate behind it, since shade implies reflectance, and/or some degree of low thermal conductivity. How else do objects block sunlight, to create shade!? Elis conclusion of his thought experiment is obviously wrong.”
I will rephrase this paragraph a little better.
I’ll just change the penultimate sentence to read, “How else do objects block heat from the sun, from other objects in their “shade”!?”
Perhaps that will be clearer.
Its also a perfect conductor. Thus, in no way does the blue plate “shade” the green.
Yep, it’s a perfect conductor.
But the green plate is not sandwiched against the blue plate.
There is a vacuum between them.
The blue plate is not conducting to the green. It is emitting radiation to it.
Blue plate is heated by the sun to 400 Watts (244 K).
To make calculation simplest, let one side of the blue plate have an area of 1 square meter.
Total surface are of the blue plate is 2 x 1 square meter = 2 square meters.
Solving this is easy.
400 W @ 2 meter square = 200 w/m2
This is the rate of energy radiated by one side of the blue plate.
For the green plate to radiate at 400 Watts (244 K), the blue plate would have to radiate 400 w/m2 to it.
But the blue plate is emitting 200 w/m2 to the green plate.
You are saying that if you put a blackbody shade above your back porch, you will receive exactly the same amount of radiation as if you stood directly in the sun. This means that the blackbody would have to be emitting all the radiation it receives from the sun in one direction – down towards the ground. Which would mean it emits none towards the sky, and the topside of the blackbody shade is 0 K.
Are you sure you want to stick with this idea?
“”since shade” implies reflectance, and/or some degree of low thermal conductivity.”
Is not an explanation Halp-less.
The blue plate is opaque, you know like a tree, the green plate receives no sunlight (no SW). Objects in tree shade (no SW) are not the same temperature as nearby objects in the sun SW by everyday test.
Run this blue/green plate test making the necessary accommodations to reality as Dr. Spencer does. Like I did. Post up your data as Dr. Spencer does, gain some credibility like Dr. Spencer.
Newton founded his law of cooling from such tests. Really easy, get a blue dinner plate, a green dinner plate, an IR thermometer, an IR source (an oven range or MW) and get busy. Your comments will gain credibility with actual data.
Oh, first draw the sun on your oven, draw an apple on the blue plate and draw a cold mug of beer on the green plate – this will help in obtaining anger’s attention. Plot the temperature data over say an hour. Post it up.
Your thought processes lead you to the absurd conclusion that pressed together, the blue and green plate will equilibrate to 244 K; yet, separated, they will equilibrate blue to 262 K and green to 220 K. There is no reason for the macro flow, which you accept is always from hot to cold, not to operate to make the 262 K blue plate warm the 220 K green until they’re both at the same temperature. You don’t seem to consider any “back-conduction” operating within the blue/green plate pressed together so why consider the “back-radiation” as anything different, when separated?
That’s a rhetorical question by the way, no need to answer.
Basically, I will, as explained, continue to default to:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270446
Ball4, an object in the shade would be cooler than an identical object in the sun because the object that is inbetween the object in the shade and the sun (whatever it is that is actually casting the shade, be it a tree or building or anything else) *reflects* some of the energy incident upon it. A blackbody possesses no such capacity for reflecting the incident energy. It really is that simple.
“A blackbody possesses no such capacity for reflecting the incident energy.”
True but irrelevant. It is relevant that a black body is opaque.
The blue plate is as opaque as the tree making the shade. The green plate will have a different temperature than the blue at equilibrium like the things in the shade of the tree which is nearly a black body (by test) while totally opaque.
Don’t believe me? Run the dang test, like I did, it is easy enough.
Or, as mentioned below, ask the dogs that have evolved millions of years moving into the tree shade for a lower, more comfortable temperature out of the blazing sun – just like the green plate.
As the blackbody is absorbing SW radiation from the sun, yet comes to a temperature such that LW radiation (infrared) is what is emitted, then indeed the green plate won’t “see” the visible light from the sun. It will be dark…but no cooler. The reason objects in the shade are cooler than those in the sun is because some of the solar radiation they would otherwise receive is being reflected by the object inbetween it and the sun. Of course this reflection continues onto other objects and so there is still some sunlight that reaches the shade. It’s never completely black, devoid of light, in the shade of a tree or building etc.
Your sophistry in trying to associate the “darkness” (lack of visible light) with the temperature is fairly obvious, or should be, to anyone sentient. It’s quite frankly embarrassing that any of this even needs to be explained.
“Green plate) will be dark…but no cooler.”
Run the dang test.
The objects in the tree shade have the sun blocked just like the green plate, reflection from the tree is irrelevant. And, no, of course the objects don’t go to absolute zero in the shade, there is scattered light, radiation from nearby objects, convection and conduction operating under the tree in the shade.
Geez. Run the dang test to gain credibility. I have, my green plate got cooler than my blue plate. Very easy to test. This particular one was inspired by many similar experiments.
Your thought processes lead you to the absurd conclusion that pressed together, the blue and green plate will equilibrate to 244 K; yet, separated, they will equilibrate blue to 262 K and green to 220 K.
The difference is that between two plates there is a vacuum at (virtually) 0 K.
The vacuum is not a conductor.
You are treating the vacuum as if it is a solid object.
When the plates are together there are only 2 sides losing energy to vacuum. The sides pressed together are not losing energy to vacuum, they are losing energy to a warm plate.
Your rebuttal requires that the vacuum between the 2 plates has a temperature of 244K.
They are not “losing energy” to a vacuum when there is nothing in that vacuum for the plates to radiate to, and insufficient distance for the flux to decrease for that reason.
There is no reason for the laws of physics to apply differently re conduction, convection or radiation.
“And, no, of course the objects dont go to absolute zero in the shade”
One wonders who you are arguing against. Yourself?
Arguing against Halp-less, the king of lecturing devoid of any test data:
“It’s never completely black, devoid of light, in the shade of a tree or building etc.”
Run the dang test.
Enlighten readers here with your ability to take data, as does Dr. Spencer. Nature is truly interesting. Study it. You will find verification of Newton’s Law of Cooling among other interesting results.
Yes, but Ball4 YOU are the one trying to equate “darkness” with “lower temperature”, e.g:
“The blue plate is opaque, you know like a tree, the green plate receives no sunlight (no SW). Objects in tree shade (no SW) are not the same temperature as nearby objects in the sun SW by everyday test.”
I will leave the lecturing to yourself, Barry, Sir Isaac, and the others.
“You will find verification of Newtons Law of Cooling among other interesting results.”
I’ve said nothing to contradict Newton’s Law of Cooling. What I did say was that:
“What will happen is that various paid sophists will come in to waffle on at length to divert from the obvious in any way they can. Perhaps using completely inappropriate analogies or additional thought experiments when the thought experiment that provoked all this discussion is simple enough in the first place. The obfuscation will be relentless, and since theyre paid to have the last word under any circumstances, that will be what happens.”
And as we’ve seen, that’s exactly was has happened.
Won’t run the dang test huh?
Leave the testing to credible sources, Dr. Spencer, and the thermo. grandmasters. The green plate gets cooler than the blue plate in the data, at equilibrium with the IR source. Lectured assertions from Halp-less or anyone else have no credibility so Halp-less hasn’t established any.
Thus Halp-less has no credibility to lose by running the test, can only gain in credibility showing off the ability to take data, duplicate Newton’s results and, you know, do replicable science.
“Ive said nothing to contradict Newtons Law of Cooling.”
There is something:
“(back to 244 K each plate).”
A contradiction easily verified by the testing already performed & which you will not do. Quite telling. Do the dang test. Take the data. Post it up. Dr. Spencer already has.
“Newton’s Law of Cooling states that the rate of change of the temperature of an object is proportional to the difference between its own temperature and the ambient temperature (i.e. the temperature of its surroundings”
Great research Halp-less. Now obtain some semi-log paper. Set up the experiment safely as per the diagram, place the sun source, blue dinner plate and green dinner plate in required positions per the illustration.
Take data to ~equilibrium steady state say 100F above room (that was my test, you are free to judge safe max. T). Turn off the sun source, and continue to take T data of the plates for an hour or two every say 10 or 15 minutes to replicate Newton.
Now inform the shape of the cooling curves and start temperature for each object (to determine which starts at a higher temperature to confirm same object as I found in the data); no assertions from your data.
“Turn off the sun source”
Just like what never happens in Eli’s thought experiment.
“Perhaps using completely inappropriate analogies or additional thought experiments when the thought experiment that provoked all this discussion is simple enough in the first place.”
“Just like what never happens in Eli’s thought experiment.”
Just like what happened in my REAL experiment. Had to reduce, turn off the sun IR source or get a judged unsafe max. T.
And for you to learn the shape of the cooling curves on semi-log paper & inform. Just like Newton learned it. Fun physics. Not assertions. A lab course.
OK, Ball4.
But anyway, back to the subject under discussion. The blue plate isn’t going to get above 244 K. Why, I hear you ask? Well:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270446
Circling back is no use Halp-less.
Run the dang test. Properly. Report the data.
They are not “losing energy” to a vacuum when there is nothing in that vacuum for the plates to radiate to
Then we can go naked into outer space with only a scuba tank and retain our body temperature? Really??? This will revolutionize space travel!
There is no reason for the laws of physics to apply differently re conduction, convection or radiation.
I completely agree. But I don’t see any point discussing this further if you truly believe warm objects can’t lose heat to the vacuum of space.
There *is* no point discussing this further. Especially if you’re intent on bringing up the most ridiculous straw men at every opportunity.
Radiative flux from a warm (or cold) object will decrease with distance in the vacuum. Though there isn’t the distance necessary within the vacuum between the plates. That’s all that is relevant to the thought experiment. What would happen to a naked person introduced there is pretty much totally irrelevant. They would be constantly exposed (by the blue plate) to radiation from a 244 K object. So yes, below freezing. The person would freeze. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the thought experiment.
“divert from the obvious in any way they can. Perhaps using completely inappropriate analogies or additional thought experiments”
If you think I’ve made a straw man, let me requote you and you can explain why my rebuttal was off the mark.
They are not “losing energy” to a vacuum when there is nothing in that vacuum for the plates to radiate to
If you’re not saying that things don’t lose energy to vacuum, what are you saying?
There is no matter in the vacuum between the plates for the plates to radiate to. So, they lose no energy to that matter. They radiate to each other. There is not enough distance between the plates for the flux to reduce for that reason (distance). So it doesn’t.
Why attempt to make something so simple, so complicated?
Again, rhetorical question Barry. It is understood why you do what you do.
There is no matter in the vacuum between the plates for the plates to radiate to. So, they lose no energy to that matter.
I agree that there is no matter in between the plates to lose energy to.
They don’t need matter to lose energy, all they need is to be in contact with a field of lower temperature. This is the vacuum.
To what does the green plate lose energy on its right side, the side facing deep space?
Distance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
Huh?
The green plate loses energy to space immediately at the boundary of its surface.
Electromagnetic radiation has no heat. Photons do not collide. The radiation coming from each plate to the other does not collide. Photons slip right by each other until they strike some surface.
There is no matter between the plates. As you said. Only vacuum. EM radiation is not matter (although it has momentum – ain’t physics great?)
Both sides of each plate are in immediate contact with vaccum. It is to this very low temperature field that they lose energy. Neither plate is ‘aware’ of the others’ presence. They do not change the direction or efficiency of emittance just because of whether objects are nearby or not.
When the plates are pressed together, this affects the rate of energy loss from the green plate to the blue. If the green plate is brought into immediate contact with a 244K blue plate, it warms up until it is in thermal equilbrium with the the blue plate. There is no heat loss to the blue plate at equulibrium.
When the green plate is pulled away from the blue plate its heat loss increases, because it is now in immediate contact with near-0 K vacuum.
The temperature field immediately to the left of the green plate changes from 244K to near 0 K. Of course this will affect its heat loss and resulting temperature. It will get cooler. Heat must flow from hot to cold, or you’re going to break the 2nd Law right here.
Your error was and still is that you imagine the temperature of space between the plates to be 244K.
Space is not a heater! It’s a damned efficient cooler.
This is intuitive even within the confines of our own atmosphere..
Put a penny on a stove element and it will heat immediately.
Lift it by an inch and it will become much cooler – even though convection is assisting the radiation to cool the penny.
If you still can’t get this, I’ll give up and ask you a question.
If the blue plate has two sides of 1 square meter each, and it receives 400 w/m2 energy on its left side, heating the plate to a total of 400 watts….
What is 400 Watts over 2 square meters expressed as w/m2?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270603
Amendment:
Put a penny on a hot stove element and it will heat very quickly.
Lift it by an inch and it will become much cooler even though convection is assisting the radiation to warm the penny.
divert from the obvious in any way they can. Perhaps using completely inappropriate analogies or additional thought experiments
The Inverse Square Law is completely irrelevant to the 2-plate setup, and completely irrelevant to energy loss from the green plate to space, in both 2 and 3 dimensions.
Energy loss occurs at the surface of the green plate, not at some remoter distance.
Energy loss (and gain) occurs at the immediate surface of both sides of each plate.
This is the most bizarre rebuttal to the ‘Green Plate Effect’ I’ve yet seen.
I’ll refer you to Ball4:
“halp-less, the sun is at 5780K and thus emits SW, the blue plate at ~240K thus emits LW. Also, the suns rays come in nearly collimated at its distance and the blue plate emits into a hemisphere of directions on each side. The experimental evidence when properly tested supports the analysis & does not support your simple assertions due the physics you overlook”
Flux decreases with distance, Barry. The blue and green plate are not at sufficient distance from each other for this to occur. I repeat:
“There is no matter in the vacuum between the plates for the plates to radiate to. So, they lose no energy to that matter. They radiate to each other. There is not enough distance between the plates for the flux to reduce for that reason (distance). So it doesnt.
Why attempt to make something so simple, so complicated?
Again, rhetorical question Barry. It is understood why you do what you do.”
Waffle away.
“This is the most bizarre rebuttal to the Green Plate Effect Ive yet seen.”
No. This:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270519
and
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270446
and
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270420
is the rebuttal.
What we’re discussing here is just some tedious and predictable (in fact, predicted) diversion from the obvious.
None of that makes any difference to energy loss at the surface of each plate.
The green plate loses energy to the vacuum where its surface is in contact with the vacuum. That its energy to space disperses over distance is completely and utterly and totally irrelevant. A red herring.
We measure flux at its surface, not at any distance further away than that.
If you don’t get this absolutely basic fact of radiative dynamics, there’s just no point.
“We measure flux at its surface, not at any distance further away than that.”
Incorrect. The Solar constant, for example, is not the same as the flux emitted by the sun at its surface. It’s relative to the distance Earth is from the sun.
— barry says:
October 30, 2017 at 2:41 AM
They are not losing energy to a vacuum when there is nothing in that vacuum for the plates to radiate to
Then we can go naked into outer space with only a scuba tank and retain our body temperature? Really??? This will revolutionize space travel!–
**Some think so:
The spacesuits of the future might be totally alien-looking.
Instead of the bulky-looking spacesuits that astronauts wear today, a group of MIT researchers want to “shrink-wrap” the spaceflyers of tomorrow. Current spacesuits could be replaced by a pressurized but skintight suit that would allow for a much better range of motion during exploration, according to scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
https://www.space.com/27214-skintight-spacesuit-biosuit-photos.html
**
The problem is pressure.
To go naked humans need about 1/2 atm of pressure.
And roughly spacesuits need a way to cool rather than warm, though warmed boots and gloves can be useful.
But things not generating heat in space will cool- depends on distance from sun, if in sunlight. Or Earth distance in sunlight, very roughly about 5 C. Satellite in earth orbit [which do generate heat related to their power requirements] are thermally designed to be as cool as possible. Or roughly becoming too hot while operating, is main problem rather than getting too cold. Or a typical computer not thermally designed for space, over heats in space.
The Solar constant, for example, is not the same as the flux emitted by the sun at its surface. Its relative to the distance Earth is from the sun.
The wavefront energy of the sun disperses over distance. We measure its incidence at the top of the atmosphere is if there were a planar surface receiving the insolation.
“The solar constant, a measure of flux density, is the mean solar electromagnetic radiation (the solar irradiance) per unit area that would be incident on a plane perpendicular to the rays, at a distance of one astronomical unit (AU) from the Sun”
The solar constant is calculated as it would strike a surface at a given distance from the sun.
Flux in the Green Plate set up is measured at the surfaces of each plate.
We measure the energy loss/gain from the surface of the green plate (and blue). How its energy disperses beyond that is completely and utterly and totally irrelevant.
This discussion is pointless. All you do is introduce red herrings. Enough.
Yes, Barry, the discussion is pointless. Because when you make a fool of yourself and make numerous nonsensical statements, and have this pointed out to you in the politest way possible (by multiple commenters) you return indignant, accusing me of doing what you’re doing yourself. You are quite the sophist, I’ll grant you.
The blue and green plates don’t lose energy TO the vacuum inbetween them. There is nothing within the vacuum for them to lose energy to, by definition. They radiate to each other. THROUGH the vacuum.
I’m glad to see you’ve done some research on the solar constant, though. Good start.
I mean, for crying out loud, we’re discussing energy flux as a 2-dimensional unit: watts per meter squared. Not watts per meter cubed.
Thanks for all the ad hom, by the way. I ignored it hoping you’d give over lumping me in with some shady group of intellectual liars, and proceed to genuinely figure out the source of our different views. The irony is that those comments exposed your own social politics/intellectual disingenuousness.
“I mean, for crying out loud, were discussing energy flux as a 2-dimensional unit: watts per meter squared. Not watts per meter cubed.”
You may have just reached peak stupid.
The blue and green plates dont lose energy TO the vacuum inbetween them. There is nothing within the vacuum for them to lose energy to, by definition.
Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it true.
The right side of the green plate loses energy to space immediately from its surface. Its measured flux is that energy transfer from the surface outwards, not the flux at some distance removed from the green plate.
The measured flux from the left side of the green plate is also that flux immediately at its surface. You don’t measure the flux of the green plate at the surface of the blue one.
The green plate loses energy to that which is immediately adjacent to it. You don’t need matter to do this. Space is the ultimate cooler.
The energy lost/emitted by the green plate then travels across the vacuum and strikes the green plate, just as the blue loses energy greenward.
The difference between them being pressed together and being apart is the temperature field between them changes. Where green plate is losing energy to a 244 blue plate, it now loses energy to a near 0 K cosmic background. Space is not heated by the transfer of energy between the blue and green plate. It remains cold. Because there is no matter to heat between the green and blue plate. As you said. EM radiation has no heat, so green plate cannot feel heat beyond its surface. The plates only absorb and give off heat at the surface as EM radiation. No conduction, no convection, just radiation. The vacuum itself cannot transport any heat, only EM.
The blue plate emits 200 w/m2 to the green, not 400 w/m2. Because the blue plate has 2 sides perpendicular to the solar view, and 400 W with 2 x area is = 200 W per unit area. If blue plate receives 400 w/m2 from the sun, it must emit from both the left and right side, balancing as a perfect blackbody at 200 w/m2 either side. It can’t emit 400 w/m2 to the green plate, because that would make the blue plate completely transparent.
Similarly, the calculated flux balance at the surface of the Earth’s atmosphere is not that received by a planar surface in the sun, but divided to account for the spherical shape of the Earth, and that half of its atmospheric surface is in darkness.
Thus, 1362 w/m2 received by a planar surface in sunlight at one AU becomes 340 w/m2 as if the energy were dispersed across the total day/night atmospheric sphere.
For a 2-dimensional plane perpendicular to the energy source, just divide the incoming by two.
If this doesn’t work, I’m done.
“The difference is that between two plates there is a vacuum at (virtually) 0 K.
The vacuum is not a conductor.
You are treating the vacuum as if it is a solid object.
When the plates are together there are only 2 sides losing energy to vacuum. The sides pressed together are not losing energy to vacuum, they are losing energy to a warm plate.
Your rebuttal requires that the vacuum between the 2 plates has a temperature of 244K.”
This is where you introduce your first nonsensical statement/ objection. First, I’m not arguing that the vacuum is a conductor. I have no idea why you would ever even conceive of such a thing let alone assume I thought that. Same response again for your second sentence. Your third sentence makes no real sense as written, (“losing energy to a warm plate”!?) but this is where I managed to pick up from you that you imagined an object would actually lose energy to a vacuum (radiate to nothing!). Your fourth line (the conclusion?) is a non-sequitur. Now, objects DO lose energy to a vacuum in the sense that flux decreases with distance as per the inverse square law. BUT, as explained, there is not meant to be any significant distance between the two plates.
You seem to think that introducing nothing (a vacuum) inbetween the plates means that one plate will become warmer than the other, compared to a situation when there is nothing inbetween the plates (pressed together) when they will be at the same temperature. The only difference between the two situations is distance between the objects and mode of energy transfer (radiation vs conduction).
“The difference between them being pressed together and being apart is the temperature field between them changes. Where green plate is losing energy to a 244 blue plate, it now loses energy to a near 0 K cosmic background. Space is not heated by the transfer of energy between the blue and green plate. It remains cold. Because there is no matter to heat between the green and blue plate. As you said. EM radiation has no heat, so green plate cannot feel heat beyond its surface. The plates only absorb and give off heat at the surface as EM radiation. No conduction, no convection, just radiation. The vacuum itself cannot transport any heat, only EM.”
Yes, Barry. Space is not heated by the transfer of energy between the blue plate and green plate. It remains cold. Which should give you some clue as to the fact that the blue plate and green plate are not losing any energy TO the vacuum, since there is nothing in it for them to lose energy to. They radiate to each other. THROUGH the vacuum.
You are literally agreeing with me whilst saying you disagree. It is just the craziest thing to see. More or less your entire comment is just repeating back to me that which is already understood by me and in many cases are points made by myself…then at the end you just say “and if that doesn’t work, I’m done”. Done doing what? Agreeing with me? OK, so what’s next…disagreement? I’m not even sure what that’s going to look like, coming from you.
“Similarly, the calculated flux balance at the surface of the Earths atmosphere is not that received by a planar surface in the sun, but divided to account for the spherical shape of the Earth, and that half of its atmospheric surface is in darkness.
Thus, 1362 w/m2 received by a planar surface in sunlight at one AU becomes 340 w/m2 as if the energy were dispersed across the total day/night atmospheric sphere.
For a 2-dimensional plane perpendicular to the energy source, just divide the incoming by two.”
Here, Barry finally grasps the exchange between myself and Ball4 that occurred way back:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270443
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270444
Again, repeating it back to me as if it’s some kind of revelation, instead of already assumed for the reason why the blue plate’s equilibrium temperature is 244 K before the green is introduced…
Again, agreeing whilst acting like it’s a disagreement…
I wonder…are you simply just stating that objects lose internal energy when they emit energy…?
…if so then yes, that’s a truism. Objects lose internal energy when they emit energy via radiation into a vacuum, just as they lose internal energy when they emit energy via radiation into an atmosphere, just as they lose internal energy when energy is conducted away through the object into an adjacent object. Why on Earth you would think this makes any difference to anything and why you’ve spent so long passionately objecting about something that makes no difference is something I guess only you know…
this is where I managed to pick up from you that you imagined an object would actually lose energy to a vacuum (radiate to nothing!).
And that objection was where I picked up that you think objects don’t lose energy to space. Objects don’t need matter to lose energy, they don’t need convection, they don’t need conduction. In fact, the major method of heat loss in space is through radiation. The sun loses energy to space, or its constantly replenishing heat source would increase its temperature indefinitely until it exploded. Same with stars that are very remote from any other system or planets. Teleport to deep space naked and your body will lose its heat.
The vacuum can contain radiation, so can have a temperature (it actually does, < 4K), so you can think of the vacuum as an object at very low temperature.
Yes, objects actually lose energy to vacuum. Heat must flow from hot regions to cool regions. Space is the ultimate cool region.
Now, objects DO lose energy to a vacuum in the sense that flux decreases with distance as per the inverse square law.
True, but irrelevant.
We are not interested in what the flux of the right side of the green plate is to some unnamed object 2 inches, 10 kilometers, or a parsec away.
We are interested in the rate at which the green plate loses energy (otherwise known as ’emitting’). And that flux is measured at the surface of the green plate in the standard unit of w/m2.
Your own comment implies this:
Now, objects DO lose energy to a vacuum in the sense that flux decreases with distance as per the inverse square law.
Which means the maximum flux (w/m2) is at the surface of emittance. This is the value of interest for our plates, because it tells at what rate the object itself is emitting (shedding) energy in that particular direction, and we need to know the fluxes of the object to determine its temperature. Whatever flux is experienced by some other object 10 kilometers away is only of interest if we want to know about the flux at that point. This is an arbitrary issue – a red herring.
“Where green plate is losing energy to a 244 blue plate, it now loses energy to a near 0 K cosmic background”
The green plate still radiates to and transfers energy to (and receives radiation from and energy from) a 244 K blue plate. It is not radiating to and transferring energy to “a near 0 K cosmic background”.
Just as when the plates were pushed together, the green plate conducts and transfers energy to (and is conducted to and receives energy from) a 244 K blue plate.
Pretty painful how you are still not understanding…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270693
“Yes, objects actually lose energy to vacuum. Heat must flow from hot regions to cool regions. Space is the ultimate cool region.”
And yet, previously:
“Space is not heated by the transfer of energy between the blue and green plate. It remains cold.”
Shall I let you argue with yourself as well?
“And that objection was where I picked up that you think objects dont lose energy to space”
Objects lose internal energy when they emit. Which, as I’ve already said, could be to a vacuum, could be to the atmosphere, could be that they lose energy through conduction to an adjacent object. If THAT is only the sense in which you mean objects “lose energy to space” then fine, but that is an obvious truism. It has no more relevance to this conversation than saying “objects lose energy by radiating” or “objects lose energy by conducting”.
Since this was so obviously and trivially true I guess I couldn’t imagine that this would be all you were actually saying. And even presenting it as some sort of argument.
And just as I said, right back at the beginning of your jaunt into wonderland:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270519
You don’t seem at all concerned with any issue of “back-conduction” resulting in the blue plate being warmer than the green when pressed together…but for some bizarre reason you believe “back-radiation” will have that result when the plates are separated…by even the tiniest, microscopic amount…
…and even at this stage there are STILL some who cannot see how ridiculous that whole idea is…
Pulling the plates apart changes the rate at which green plate loses energy.
Do you disagree with this because you think the green plate experiences no change in temperature against its surface when it is separated from the blue plate?
The rate at which green plate loses energy is the point.
The temperature of the field immediately adjacent the surface of the green plate changes the rate at which it loses energy.
Background cosmic temp is < 4K. This is the field immediately adjacent the green plate if it is separate from the blue.
The amount of energy being received by the green plate from the blue is undiminished, but the immediate field to which it loses energy has a much lower temperature than the green plate. So the rate of emittance must change via 2nd Law.
It seems that in your view, the cosmic background temperature immediately adjacent to the blue plate is no different than that of the blue plate. Or if it is different, that this has no bearing on how much the green plate emits as a result.
I don't know why you think that way. The fact that space is colder than the plates means that the plates must lose heat to it, in the form of radiation. The space between the plates is colder than the plates. Having an object either side doesn't change that fact. Green plate only experiences blue plate's heat in the form of radiative energy, which has no temperature. And it only experiences that heat upon absorbing blue-plate energy.
Green plate does not experience blue plate energy through conduction or convection – there is no matter between the plates to transmit energy in this way. The space between them is cold. Green plate loses energy to this space. Half this energy travels in the direction of the blue plate, half to outer space.
Same with the blue plate. Half its energy goes in the sunward direction, half to the green plate.
Let's break this down step by step, see where the confusion is:
1) Blue plate (say of total surface of 2 square meters) receives 400 w/m2 to its left face from the sun.
2) It warms up to a total of 400 Watts at equilibrium with received energy.
3) 400 Watts over 2 square meters = 200 Watts over 1 square meter: 200 w/m2.
Do you find fault with any of this so far?
“The fact that space is colder than the plates means that the plates must lose heat to it, in the form of radiation.”
Still arguing with yourself, Barry?
Let’s see:
Statement 1: Yes, objects actually lose energy to vacuum. Heat must flow from hot regions to cool regions. Space is the ultimate cool region.
And yet:
Statement 2: Space is not heated by the transfer of energy between the blue and green plate. It remains cold.
So, in 1)…objects warm space with radiation. The vacuum between the plates contains no matter, yet the plates warm that lack of matter. They warm…nothing. Lol. But at the same time (in 2) space DOESN’T warm (is not heated by) the radiation from the plates. Because there is nothing there to warm. All in Barry’s own words. Wow.
And all the while he does everything in his power to avoid this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270717
Or this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270693
I understand why, in the end, g*e*r*a*n just laughs at them. All you can do I guess, eventually, is just nod your head and smile, and say, “yes, of course…whatever you say”.
So, in 1)…objects warm space with radiation. The vacuum between the plates contains no matter, yet the plates warm that lack of matter. They warm…nothing
Objects lose heat to space in the form of radiation.
That radiation warms nothing – correct – until it hits matter.
Objects do not require other nearby objects to lose energy to space.
An object in space does not care if there is no other object, or if another object is 1 km away or 50 lightyears. It will still radiate energy in ALL DIRECTIONS. In the simplified 2D set-up, it loses energy in 2 directions.
Now let’s see where our differences really lie:
Let’s break this down step by step:
1) Blue plate (say of total surface of 2 square meters) receives 400 w/m2 to its left face from the sun.
2) It warms up to a total of 400 Watts at equilibrium with received energy.
3) 400 Watts over 2 square meters = 200 Watts over 1 square meter: 200 w/m2.
Do you find fault with any of this so far?
“Objects lose heat to space in the form of radiation.
That radiation warms nothing correct until it hits matter.
Objects do not require other nearby objects to lose energy to space.”
Therefore, when you say, “objects lose energy to space in the form of radiation”, this is a statement that has no more relevance to this conversation than “objects lose energy due to emitting radiation”.
It’s a truism, Barry. Nothing more.
Just the same as, “objects lose energy to the atmosphere in the form of radiation” or “an object loses energy to an adjacent object through conduction”.
And it is already understood (has been since the beginning) that the blue plate comes to an equilibrium temperature with the sun of 244 K due to its distance from it and viewing angle.
Barry, I lose count of how many comments you’ve made in this conversation. None of them have done anything to advance it beyond the opening statements. Your only intent appears to be to relentlessly (and I really do mean *relentlessly*) obfuscate what is plain and obvious. I made a prediction at the start. Whether it is your deliberate intent or not, you appear to inhabit that role anyway (of sophist). At least, that is the net result of your contribution. Perhaps I’m bring unkind, perhaps you just have clever ways to fool yourself and have a habit of writing them down to others as they come into your head. There really may be no dishonest intent. It just gets harder and harder to believe that though, as time wears on…
“In the simplified 2D set-up, it loses energy in 2 directions.”
No. That is not my understanding. Nor apparently is it Ball4s, as he says:
“halp-less, the sun is at 5780K and thus emits SW, the blue plate at ~240K thus emits LW. Also, the suns rays come in nearly collimated at its distance and the blue plate emits into a hemisphere of directions on each side”
I don’t believe there is anything written in the setup that specifies only two directions. There are arrows, but I assume there are only two drawn from each plates, pointing in two directions, because this is simpler than drawing a hemisphere of arrows coming out of each side! It is just two arrows to “sum up” and for simplicity.
1) Blue plate (say of total surface of 2 square meters) receives 400 w/m2 to its left face from the sun.
2) It warms up to a total of 400 Watts at equilibrium with received energy.
3) 400 Watts over 2 square meters = 200 Watts over 1 square meter: 200 w/m2.
Do you find fault with any of that?
You’ve already made this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270433
And I’ve already replied to it. Why repeat ourselves? It’s done.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270446
That’s a comment based on the very principle that you’ve been going round helpfully trying to get everyone to agree on: MACRO flow is always from hot to cold. The one and only thing you now need to do is to apply that principle to Eli’s thought experiment, to realise that the blue plate can’t possibly get above 244 K.
Anything further you say will simply result in a link back to that comment. Cheers!
“The one and only thing you now need to do is to apply that principle to Elis thought experiment, to realise that the blue plate cant possibly get above 244 K.”
That’s just speculation Halp-less. By simple experiment, the blue plate equilibrium temperature increases when the green plate is physically added & reasonably placed as shown in the illustrations.
Linking back anywhere to any verbiage doesn’t defeat easily replicable proper experiment. The analysis shown has been verified, independently by at least a couple of experimenters. You should try it, experimenting won’t hurt you if done safely.
Dr. Spencer shows the same results apply to the atm. at large in his experiments.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270446
Cheers, Ball4. Funny how you were never around to correct Barry’s many, many, absolutely fundamental errors.
No cheers, only laughs at obviously wrong verbiage from Halp-less as proven by several independent tests you too can perform and learn from Halp-less.
barry hasn’t written anything that disagrees with the testing results, only halp-less is proven incorrect.
Do the dang testing!
Ha ha!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270446
Cheeeeeeeeers.
>i>Youve already made this comment: And Ive already replied to it.
No you haven’t.
I asked you about blue plate flux only – no green plate. I gave values and asked you to comment.
Your linked reply:
“macro flow is always from hot to cold. If the blue plate was ever somehow hotter than the green then that flow would even it out (back to 244 K each plate)”
Nothing about the flux with only blue plate and sun.
Your second link was also about blue plate/green plate. No flux values there, either.
I’m starting at the beginning to see the exact point where we disagree.
Step by step, starting with sun and blue plate only:
1) Blue plate (say of total surface of 2 square meters) receives 400 w/m2 to its left face from the sun.
2) It warms up to a total of 400 Watts at equilibrium with received energy.
3) 400 Watts over 2 square meters = 200 Watts over 1 square meter: 200 w/m2.
Do you find fault with any of that?
There’s something for you to read here, Barry:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270813
And no, it won’t be the comment you’re expecting. Check it out!
Cheers.
Actually your comment here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270816
might do. Let’s see.
So we’re agreed that the blue plate is emitting 200 w/m2. Good.
This is the energy received by the green plate once introduced to the right of the blue.
Green plate total surface is 2 square meters (same as the blue plate in this set up). It receives 200 w/m2 to its left face.
Green plate warms up to 200 Watts.
200 Watts over 2 square meters is 100 W per square meter: 100 w/m2.
Any fault with that?
Concede your previous errors, and perhaps we can continue.
We both think the other is in error, hence this step-by-step approach to pinpoint where we diverge. We’ve got agreement on the blue plate and sun, so…
Green plate total surface is 2 square meters (same as the blue plate in this set up). It receives 200 w/m2 to its left face from the blue plate.
Green plate warms up to 200 Watts.
200 Watts over 2 square meters is 100 W per square meter: 100 w/m2.
Any fault with that?
Barry, as I see it there are 2 options:
1) You are a genuine commenter, willing and interested to learn more about the subject.
2) You play the part of a genuine commenter, willing and interested to learn more about the subject. In reality you only play this part to string people along who, in their good nature, wish to help others. You abuse this trait in others in order to drag out lengthy conversations in which you can sow as much confusion as possible, so that other people reading along (those who are genuinely ignorant of such matters, but who wish to learn) will be led astray.
Let me just say now, that if you are person no. 2), you really are a disgusting piece of shit. But there’s no need to take offence, if you really are nice, genuine and interested person no. 1). So that should be fine. Right?
OK. So person no. 1) should have no problem admitting to their mistakes, since making mistakes and correcting them is called learning, and that is their aim.
So…off you go.
I’m genuinely interested to see where we diverge in thinking. The exact point (or points).
You believe I’m mistaken. I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that.
I believe you’re mistaken. You don’t think I’ve demonstrated that.
Holding the conversation to ransom for admission of errors neither of us accept are so will end up in a stalemate. Following a straight line through the problem seems the best way to proceed.
Could you please answer this straightforwardly?
Green plate total surface is 2 square meters (same as the blue plate in this set up). It receives 200 w/m2 to its left face from the blue plate.
Green plate warms up to 200 Watts.
200 Watts over 2 square meters is 100 W per square meter: 100 w/m2.
Any fault with that? If so, what exactly?
Halp-less’ physics lectures have been defeated with proper testing by several independent experimenters. barry’s physics are in accord with that testing despite Halp-less asserted comments to the contrary.
Experiment is king, not Halp-less.
If Halp-less wants to engage in physical climate sophistry there is a website appropriately named for that endeavor that employs no testing whatsoever & the commenters are friendly even pro-Halp-less and totally test free.
At Dr. Spencer’s site, testing is king. Long live the king!
You’re not doing much to convince me you’re person no. 1), Barry. You have made fundamental errors of physics along the way. Regardless of “who is right” overall about the thought experiment, those errors remain unchecked, you haven’t admitted to them. They are still there to confuse other people reading along. If you were person no. 2, that would be your aim. To leave them there.
Convince me you are person no. 1). You can start with your confusion over this “vacuum” debacle. Admit to, and fully explain your error.
“There is absolutely no reason for the warmer blue plate not to heat the cooler green plate until they are both at the same temperature, 244 K, given enough time.”
This is laughable and would get you a zero in any undergraduate thermodynamics class (either physics or engineering). Let’s see if you can work your way through a simple homework problem.
CASE 1) There is a blue plate and a green plate (both 1 m^2, blackbody surfaces, separated by a small gap). Each has a 200 W heater (distributed uniformly within the plate). They are in deep space far from any other heat sources (or in a vacuum chamber with walls cooled to near 0 K).
Show that both plates will be T = 244 K and that no heat flows from one to the other.
CASE 2) The heater in the blue plate is turned up from 200 W to 400 W, while the heater in the green plate is turned down from 200 W to 0 W.
Explain why the blue plate warms up and the green plate cools down.
Calculate that the blue plate will warm to 262K while the green plate cools to 220K one.
Paid sophist, begone.
CASE 1) For this “ideal” situation, the S/B equation yields the 244 K. Since both plates are being supplied the same energy, there is no heat flow between them. For the entire system, energy in = energy out.
CASE 2) Again, both plates would be at 244 K. 400 Watts in, 400 Watts out.
OK G, how about if the Blue plate is supplied with 500 W, and the greens plate has a cooling system removing 100 W? Its still 400 W total into the system. Do you still claim that both will be the same temperature???
J, you must realize that your logic would say that two panel heaters (like this: https://www.grainger.com/product/1DKW3) placed near each other would be the same temperature, whether you plug in one, plug in the other, or plug in both at 1/2 power. Just give it enough time …
Good luck with that!
Adding the cooling system, in addition to the radiative cooling, would indeed change the temperatures of the plates.
Thermodynamics always wins.
No, because that isn’t my logic. Neither blue or green plate contains its own energy source.
The paid sophist way:
1) Completely change the setup.
2) Argue that this still represents the original setup, despite being different.
3) Show that the changed setup provides a different result (as it obviously would).
4) Claim victory.
5) Repeat steps 1) – 4) until everybody involved has lost the will to live.
“Neither blue or green plate contains its own energy source.”
We have two different scenarios for how blue is heated: one with 400 W of heat from thermal radiation; one with 400 W of heat from an electric heater. Are you now claiming that the blue plate will be a different temperature in these two scenarios?
“Are you now claiming that…”
How can I make myself clear?
“Sophist, begone.”
That ought to do it.
Sorry, sorry…
“PAID sophist, begone.”
Tim, in your “cooling system” example, what plate temps did you calculate?
It might be fun to compare.
J, you clearly cannot make yourself clear.
Either
a) 400 W of heat is 400 W of heat — and the blue plate will be the same in any case where that Q = 400 W is applied evenly to the plate, or
b) 400 W of heat absorbed evenly can lead to different temperatures.
Which is it?
If your only tactic is “I have no idea so I will pretend that the problem is not interesting and try name-calling to divert attention”, then you have no place in a scientific discussion!
Just carry on and argue with yourself, Tim.
Tim, are you having trouble solving your own problem?
Here’s the thing. I don’t think we can agree on even the most basic physics here. For example, standard theory predicts that the radiation from a warm, flat, blackbody surface at Temperature T1 to cool, blackbody surroundings (that completely surround the first surface) at temperature T2 will be
P = sigma(T1^4 – T2^4)/A
If you don’t agree, then there is not much point in continuing.
Tim, just show us your calculated figures for the plate temperatures, with your “cooling system”.
You don’t want people thinking you don’t know how to solve your own problem, do you?
G muses: “Tim, in your cooling system example, what plate temps did you calculate?
It might be fun to compare.”
I’ll doyou one better. Here is the general solution when P(b) is added to the blue plate and P(g) is added to the green plate (each with area A). This a straightforward application of algebra and P/A = sigma (T(b)^4 – T(g)^4 )
The solutions are
T(b) = [( 2P(b) + P(g) ) / (3 sigma A) ]^0.25
T(g) = [( 2P(g) + P(b) ) / (3 sigma A) ]^0.25
For …
* P(b)=200 W, P(g)=2000W: T(blue) = 244K, T(g)=244K
* P(b)=400 W, P(g)=0W: T(blue) = 262K, T(g)=220K
* P(b)=500 W, P(g)=-100W: T(blue) = 270K, T(g)=205K
As an interesting extra case:
* P(b)=800 W, P(g)=-400W: T(blue) = 290K, T(g)=0K
It all matches intuition. When the total power is kept constant, then as a larger share goes to blue, the temperature of blue gets warmer.
So G … what WAS the solution you claimed to have???
Also, I am curious … do you accept the equation
P/A = sigma (T(b)^4 – T(g)^4 )
as valid here?
oops — typo. P(g) = 200 W, not 2000 W.
Here are the correct answers.
200 Watts to each plate–244K, 244K
400 Watts to B, 0 Watts to G–244K, 244K
500 Watts to B, -100 Watts to G–258K, 227K
(If I didn’t make any typos.)
So G, you are saying you DON’T accept:
P/A = sigma (T(b)^4 T(g)^4 )
Fine. If you don’t accept basic physics, there is no point continuing.
Yes, you can see that the equation leads to erroneous results.
It gets a little complicated, maybe slightly more advanced than “basic” physics.
As I mentioned upthread: “Thermodynamics always wins.”
Thermodynamics always wins.
So … now your position is that we should trust thermodynamics, but we should not trust the equations that are at the heart of thermodynamics.
Got it!
“500 Watts to B, -100 Watts to G258K, 227K”
That is actually the solution for 350W to blue and 50 W to Green.
Tim somehow believes: “So now your position is that we should trust thermodynamics, but we should not trust the equations that are at the heart of thermodynamics. Got it!”
No Tim, that is NOT my position. So, you do NOT “get it”.
Tim discovers: “That is actually the solution for 350W to blue and 50 W to Green.”
True.
G says:
‘Tim discovers: That is actually the solution for 350W to blue and 50 W to Green.
True.’
So that would make your updated claim about power & temperature:
200 Watts to each plate244K, 244K
350 Watts to B, 50 Watts to G258K, 227K
400 Watts to B, 0 Watts to G244K, 244K
So your physics says:
* 200W each, they are the same temperature. [good]
* Increase the power to blue and decrease the power to green causes blue to get warmer and green to get cooler. [also good, now that you have corrected your numbers]
* A further increase the power to blue and decrease the power to green causes blue to cool back down and green to warm back up! [simply bizarre]
Tim, in your apparent desperation you have now made two “mis-statements”.
1) “your position is that we should trust thermodynamics, but we should not trust the equations that are at the heart of thermodynamics.”
FALSE (I) That is NOT my position.
2) “[also good, now that you have corrected your numbers]”
FALSE (II) I have NOT corrected any numbers.
Please refrain from such tactics.
Also, let me correct your version of the cases:
1) 200 Watts to each plate…244K, 244K
2) 400 Watts to B, 0 Watts to G…244K, 244K
3) 500 Watts to B, -100 Watts to G258K, 227K
4) 350 Watts to B, 50 Watts to G…258K, 227K
I have numbered each, in the order we’ve discussed, should you have any questions.
Let me rearrange a little:
1) 200 Watts to each plate244K, 244K
4) 350 Watts to B, 50 Watts to G258K, 227K
2) 400 Watts to B, 0 Watts to G244K, 244K
3) 500 Watts to B, -100 Watts to 258K, 227K
So to summarize, all cases have the same total power. And when both plates have the same power, the plates have the same temperature — as everyone would expect.
But then as you raise the power to blue plate more and more, you are predicting that the blue plate yo-yos in temperature — up, then back down, then up again.
How can you possibly imagine that raising the power to the blue plate from 350W to 400W actually COOLS the blue plate from 258K to 244 K?
Now you’re learning some thermo, Tim.
Your question: “How can you possibly imagine that raising the power to the blue plate from 350W to 400W actually COOLS the blue plate from 258K to 244 K?”
Remember, each case is different, with the power supplied varying. You would not expect all plate temperatures and energy flows to be the same. They will vary as the incoming power varies. But, at equilibrium, everything must be in balance. Notice that, in both case 3 and case 4, as the blue plate temperature rises, the green plate temperature drops.
This whole discussion, Ger*, illustrates the difference between real physics and your pseudophysics.
Real physics: the soluton is obtained by SOLVING equations. It can be easily applied to find solution in novel situations.
G Pseudophysics: the ‘solution’ is obtained by guessing. Guessing in novel situations unreliable – leads to nonsensical answers.
Funky temp progression you have there g*e*r*a*n.
Shift the balance to one side and temps differ.
Shift some more and temps go back to equilibrium?
Yes Svante, there are some things wrong. Can you find them?
Or are you just on a “drive-by” pretending you know something about science?
Let’s see your solutions for the 4 cases mentioned.
Put up, or shut up, as they say.
Here’s a temperature progression without U-turns:
* P(b)=200 W, P(g)=200W: T(b)=244K, T(g)=244K
* P(b)=350 W, P(g)=50W: T(b)=258K, T(g)=227K
* P(b)=400 W, P(g)=0W: T(b)=262K, T(g)=220K
* P(b)=500 W, P(g)=-100W: T(b) = 270K, T(g)=205K
* P(b)=800 W, P(g)=-400W: T(blue) = 290K, T(g)=0K
“It all matches intuition. When the total power is kept constant, then as a larger share goes to blue, the temperature of blue gets warmer.”
And I accept the equation
P/A = sigma (T(b)^4 T(g)^4 )
Thank you Tim.
NIce “copy/paste”, Svante.
We all agree on case 1, so moving to case 2, Tim says:
2) P(b)=400 W, P(g)=0W: T(b)=262K, T(g)=220K
Whereas, I say:
2) P(b)=400 W, P(g)=0W: T(b)=244K, T(g)=244K (Same as case 1)
Who’s correct?
In case 1, 200 Watts was going to each plate, we all agree the plates would be 244K.
In case 2, the only difference is the power is applied to only one plate. Yet the average temperature of the two plates becomes 241K, instead of 244K. Same system, same power in/out, but the average temperature of the system changes!
There you have it, the GHE in a nutshell:
“Same system, same power in/out, but the average temperature of the system changes!”
Yes Svante, your calculation shows your “GHE” dropping the temp 3K.
I enjoy your comedy.
J Halp-less
Please tell me you are not the totally goofy Joe Postma coming to visit. His ideas are probably the most twisting torture of science I have encountered and he is unwilling and unable to understand how flawed his thoughts are.
You are a goofy one with your pet phrase “paid sophists”
I don’t know how many disciples the goof-ball Postma created, I know g*e*r*a*n is one. When I see the word “sophist” all I can see is a brain-dead zombie disciple of Joe Postma invading the world of living science to seek to eat the brains of intelligent humans (like Tim Folkerts who actually knows quite a bit of real physics).
I guess it is close to Halloween, the zombies are walking from their graves.
Why don’t you do us a favor and study some real physics and get off quit trying to get fed by the goof-ball Postma.
Hey Con-man, I see you’re still having trouble ignoring me. That’s the way it is with obsessions.
And Barry, just in case you’re STILL not clear (and because apparently no-one else is going to help you)
Your comment here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270723
Basically…a simplified statement for the context of this situation (blue and green plates): objects emit at a rate based on their temperature and emissivity. Surroundings make NO difference to what the objects emit.
So you’re now right back to here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270519
and still, any further comment you might make is going to take you right back to here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270446
You are welcome, for my time and patience. Cheers!
P.S: a blackbody (emissivity = 1) of temperature 244 K emits 200 W/m2. I have repeatedly mentioned the agreed temperature of the blue plate in equilibrium with the sun, before green plate is added – 244 K.
barry
I would need you to translate Kristian’s posts as they do not make much sense to me no matter how many times I read them. I would think a microscopic flow is one you could not really measure. If you went to the atomic world and saw molecules flying by you, it would not be possible for you to determine any large scale energy motion at this level.
So I would not agree with Kristian at all that a surface has only one macroscopic flow. I see two macroscopic flows of energy. One emitted (in Watts/m^2) and the other absorbed (also in Watts/m^2).
You can tell the amount of energy at a macroscopic level by just turning your detector in opposing direction.
I would consider a microscopic view of a surface as observing many photons leaving the surface and many hitting the surface and from that perspective you could not determine any macroscopic energy flow.
Rather than have a macroscopic detector you had an individual photon counter to measure microscopic flows you could not determine anything. So many photons are streaming in from either direction and just logging one at a time would tell you nothing.
So I would not agree with Kristian at all that a surface has only one macroscopic flow. I see two macroscopic flows of energy. One emitted (in Watts/m^2) and the other absorbed (also in Watts/m^2).
Much of the divergence of your views lies in use of language that is not agreed on.
Where you would use ‘flow’, he would see it as a term describing NET transfer, not energy exchanges between 2 surfaces. So you’re already at odds with each other just because you don’t agree on definition of terms.
For him ‘macroscopic’ axiomatically refers to the NET exchange of energy. So when you use the term you are already at odds because you don’t agree on the definition in this context.
It could be that you even agree on energy exchange / NET transfer, but could never actually agree because you use terms differently, and both of you are resolute in your usage, never bending to accommodate.
You cannot progress until you agree on the way to use the terms.
It doesn’t matter who concedes the definitions. All that matters is that you find a common language. Only then can the conversation progress.
If you find yourself arguing about the correctness of the terms you use, then think about what that means if he does too. How far is your conversation going to get?
Barry, it’s almost like you have to act like a foreign language translator for me and Norman.
It’s a good idea of yours to sort out the basic agreements in small steps, and that we avoid five page messages about the meaning of words.
Kristian is so agonizingly close at times, but then I get lost again. Photons carry energy, but they don’t add up, etc.
If we can skip over all this the only disagreement might be whether (water vapor) feedbacks are primary causes or not.
It’s strange, because all I’m doing is explaining the physics. The physics of radiation in the statistical sense. You, Norman, barry and Snape apparently have no clue what I’m talking about. I’m sorry, but that’s not my problem. I’m not making this stuff up. It’s how radiation is described in physics. You’re all stuck on the mathematical description of the two-way model of radiative transfer and think that’s all there is. You simply need to widen your scope. I also use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It works. Mathematically. It doesn’t say, however, that a thermal radiation field is REALLY like two opposing arrows of energy moving through each other. Such a description is purely the product of the human mind. In order to make sense of things. It’s a conceptual model based on a fundamental simplifying assumption: “Prvost’s theory of heat exchanges”, proposed during the caloric era of the late 18th century.
I could apparently keep explaining the MICRO vs. MACRO aspects of reality until the end of the universe, and you would STILL not get the distinction. You would STILL pose the objection that since individual photons carry energy, then the only conclusion to draw is that the atmosphere MUST transfer (add) energy to the surface to make it warmer, just like the Sun. And you would STILL think that you can just pick out some of the photons inside a thermal radiation field – and ignore the others right next to them – and call their total (really, their ‘net movement’) a separate flux (a flow) of radiative energy INSIDE the integrated radiation field.
I don’t know what more to say. I’ll leave you to your confusion.
Kristian states: “You would STILL pose the objection that since individual photons carry energy, then the only conclusion to draw is that the atmosphere MUST transfer (add) energy to the surface to make it warmer, just like the Sun.”
That’s exactly correct, Kristian. The Warmists, and Lukewarmers, can NOT let this one go. If they admit that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”, then their hoax is exposed.
They try to spin science to fit their beliefs, but they are no longer fooling people.
They’re desperate.
Kristian, is there any practical consequence of your view vs. barrys or Normans?
Youre all stuck on the mathematical description of the two-way model of radiative transfer and think thats all there is.
Not me.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270428
I think you’ll find the others are not as myopic as you imagine if you (and they) relax your grip a little.
If it was agreed that classical thermodynamics is concerned only with NET flow (MACRO) and doesn’t compass MICRO energy exchange, that heat is a transfer process not a state, that EM isn’t heat, that you can’t use the word ‘flow’ to describe energy exchange between two objects, and that the atmosphere is not a ‘source’ of heat…
Would you feel a bit more relaxed about discussing the ‘other perspective’?
I can agree to all that.
Barry
Norman believes a cooler body will emit a unique, continuous movement of energy, in a straight line, to a warmer object in it’s view. This could be true even at a great distance (many miles).
Does Kristian agree? I doubt it, but you should ask him. I think it’s more than a semantics quibble between “flow” and “transfer”.
Hi Svante,
I used to think Norman and Kristian were basically on the same page, just arguing over proper terms. My position was similar to Barry’s. After months of debates with Kristian, though, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion.
Well Kristians images are right when we talk about GHG effects. The straight lines are short, and photons fly in all directions. I just can’t see any difficulty with that when they finally strike the surface.
Svante
IR is light, but at wavelengths we can’t see. Why do you think it behaves differently (only travels is short lines) than visible light in this respect?
Because GHGs block it, and these are the frequencies of interest here.
So sure these photons arrive from all over the sky, but I don’t understand why Kristian thinks that makes it so difficult.
Sure it’s not a concentrated beam like in Trenberths diagram, who would think that?
It’s not quite as instant as Kristian says, but never mind.
Photon cloud sounds a bit stationary for something that travels at the speed of light, but never mind.
I’ve done a lot of talking for Kristian. I’m getting leery of that. Let me cherry-pick a few of his quotes that might settle some things. I’m eliding (…) for clarity, not to distort what he’s saying.
It is claimed (or at least very much implied) that the atmosphere … ADDS energy to the surface… However, this is only correct in the MICROscopic perspective, that is, IF and only if we choose to follow ONE particular photon through the exchange
And:
THAT individual photon (and the energy it carries) is indeed ADDED to the surface in this exchange.
And:
I am NOT repeat NOT!!! saying that there isnt energy moving from cold to hot, even distinct photons… from cold being absorbed by hot. People keep misunderstanding my point.
It’s pretty clear. He agrees that energy from a colder object can be absorbed by a warmer one. So what’s his point?
My point is only about the fundamental distinction between the microscopic (quantum) and the macroscopic (thermo) realms, the former being below (or “outside”) the ‘thermodynamic limit’, the latter above (or “in”) the ‘thermodynamic limit’.
And:
What most people do is simply analysing the effect of each operation (‘event’) in the analogy above IN ISOLATION from the other one, in fact from everything else. They estimate its effect AS IF the other (opposing) one didnt happen at the exact same time. They only regard the photon a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n and “forget” or “ignore” the simultaneous (and larger) photon emission. Such a narrow scope doesnt work if you want to discuss THERMODYNAMIC effects. Then you will only fool yourself into thinking that were dealing with two SEPARATE thermodynamic processes in one. Were not. There aren’t. There is just the one. The one instantaneous exchange.
There are two distinct ways of seeing this exchange, two ‘perspectives’, so to say:
#1 The MICROscopic (quantum mechanical) perspective, and
#2 the MACROscopic (thermodynamical) perspective.
Both are in a sense ‘real’, but they address very different aspects of ‘reality’.
Noting the bolded part, Kristian is correct. Classical thermodynamics doesn’t encompass discrete energy exchanges, only the MACRO, the NET flow from one object to another.
That doesn’t mean MICRO effects can’t be discussed, but it can’t be conflated with the paradigm of thermodynamics.
And he seems to think that his opponents ignore or lose sight of the fact that while energy is being absorbed by a warmer object from a cooler one, it is also emitting MORE energy away at the same time. He thinks you don’t see that. He believes you think the atmosphere is an energetic heat source like the sun, adding energy to the system, rather than modulating the energy in the system.
I think he’s wrong about that, and that it’s been difficult for him to see it in the same way it’s been difficult for you to see he agrees about discrete energy exchange.
I really think you all agree more than you realize, just that the language and paradigms between you are not yet squared away, and the momentum of months-long argument also makes it hard to sit back and take stock and start afresh.
Well, I think Ball may have a different view. He believes there’s no difference between the micro and the macro.
My answer is to acknowledge the MACRO very clearly, that it is the province of classical thermodynamics, and then see if it’s possible to discuss the function of the MICRO exchange. It is a fundamental part of the mix – I just can’t talk about it if the paradigm is classical thermodynamics. From what I gather the proper paradigm for discussing the MICRO is under the banner of ‘Radiative Transfer.’
I’ve tried not to use the word ‘heat’ for some while in this thread. I think that’s helped, just by avoiding a word that gives the discussion over to endless definition debates. I reckon I’ve made more headway sticking to the terms ‘energy’, ‘radiative energy’, ‘radiation’ and ‘thermal radiation’.
I’ll risk setting off an endless debate about the definition of heat by giving mine, as I understand it.
Objects contain energy, not heat (this may stick in someone’s craw). Heat is the transfer of energy from one body to another. More simply: heat is a transfer process, not a state. And that transfer is always from hot to cold. In terms of classical thermodynamics. Colloquial usage should be avoided if we don’t want to get bogged down.
EM is not heat, it is a vehicle for it. It is the potential of it. Point an IR reading device (or a shortwave measuring device) perpendicularly along the line between the Earth and the sun. It won’t read anything. There’s no ‘heat’ in EM. We all possess a limited shortwave measuring device, Our eyes. If the sun was North and the Earth South, and we floated directly between them looking East, we’d see the blackness of space, not light (except for distant stars, and, at the right angle at the right time, maybe a planet or three).
EM is not heat.
If you use the word ‘heat’, you’re in the realm of thermodynamics, where you must, by classical definition, be taking about NET flow, a bulk transfer process, not discrete energy exchange.
Avoid using the word ‘flow’ if you want to talk about the MICRO (photonic). That takes you into the realm of thermodynamics, the MACRO or NET realm, too. By analogy, a stream may have eddies that cause a little water to head back upstream for a moment, but when we talk about the direction a stream flows, we are talking about its overall direction. We never say it flows 2 ways at the same time.
I’ve been saying ‘energy exchange‘ to talk about 2 objects of different temps mutually emitting and absorbing energy. I’ve also used the phrase ‘energy transfer‘ mainly to refer to the NET flow of energy from hot to cold. It’s my way of bridging the MICRO and MACRO realms without causing conniptions.
Although, I may have bought myself a ton of ‘corrections’ with the last few comments!
“I’ve also used the phrase ‘energy transfer’ mainly to refer to the NET flow of energy from hot to cold. It’s my way of bridging the MICRO and MACRO realms without causing conniptions.”
Thank you.
I do predict some conniptions though, which won’t be based on any test only based on assertion. For those experiencing the conniptions, and don’t suffer pushback gladly, please bring to this dinner party your own or cited proper test results that support your views.
I can agree to all that. I can also put aside the micro view in order to move on. Is there any practical difference at all between us and Kristian?
That was in response to barry, is there any practical consequence at all of Kristians micro/macro view compared to barry or Norman?
Svante 10:10am: There is a practical consequence as I’ve learned over the years. Kristian is trying to convince his readers that literally ~100s of papers like the one below in Fig. B1 are wrong. That the LW 398 and the LW 345.6 in purple do not exist in nature separately. That in nature only the 398-345.6 = 52.4 exists as a real “MACRO” flux and should be shown as such i.e. no up and down arrows just one NET arrow 52.4 going up.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260208782_An_update_on_Earth%27s_energy_balance_in_light_of_the_latest_global_observations
When folks point out these up and down LW IR amounts are measured routinely in the real world at the surface, Kristian attacks the commercial measurement devices in use 24/7/365 at a handful of sites around the world.
As I understand Kristian comments, he agrees the two up and down arrows exist “MICRO” but never exist “MACRO” which is why you read him so devoted to the two worlds having different natures. They dont, MICRO and MACRO are one and the same nature.
I observe the root cause of this asserted difference in nature to be Kristian’s misuse of the heat term which is why the definition of the term is so crucial. If you go with Clausius’ def. of heat as I do, the papers (Fig. B1) all make perfect sense in agreement with proper experiment.
If Kristian could produce proper tests to support his assertions & that run counter to Dr. Spencer’s tests on the real atm., then the band wagon for his views would grow. So far, I have observed no growing bandwagon. The papers continue to come out as always with updated observations, irritating Kristian no end.
Yes, Svante, for the nth time: The practical difference is that Norman and his kind walk around thinking that the atmosphere actually TRANSFERS energy to the surface of the Earth in the form of a distinct MACROscopic flux (W/m^2) that can be directly added to the solar heat flux and thus give a higher final surface temperature:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
This is completely nonsensical and far removed from all thermodynamic principles.
And yet his net MICRO flux is the same as your MACRO flux???
Ball4,
“these up and down LW IR amounts are measured routinely in the real world at the surface”
Only the net flow is directly measured, the irradiance is calculated taking into account the temperature of the device.
Yes phi, as I wrote, one instrument is placed looking up, one looking down, thus LW IR coming down from a hemisphere of directions can be measured and LW IR coming up from a hemisphere of directions can be measured, independently, and the net is calculated from the two and all data are plotted. Routinely.
Svante says, October 29, 2017 at 1:21 PM:
No, his net MACRO flux is the same as my radiative flux.
This is too stupid, Svante. It seems you don’t want to understand this.
The issue is NOT whether the end result of a radiative transfer seen as a two-way or a one-way process comes out different or not – it doesn’t. [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 or just 53 W/m^2. Makes no difference.
The problem only arises once you start believing that the two – purely geometrically defined – hemispheric fluxes (“hemifluxes”) making up the full flux are themselves separate, independent thermodynamic fluxes of energy, equivalent to the full flux and the solar flux, not tightly integrated into one – the full/radiative flux.
Because once you start believing that, that’s when you start believing that the atmosphere makes the surface warmer by ADDING energy to it.
The only way the atmosphere could be seen macroscopically adding/transferring energy to the surface, even within a bidirectional perspective, is by isolating/separating the downward hemiflux from the upward one and placing them on opposite sides of the surface energy budget.
Ball4 says, October 29, 2017 at 2:41 PM:
No, troll. As phi told you: Only the radiative flux (the net exchange) is ever directly measured (as in ‘physically detected’). The upward and downward components are only ever calculated, taking into account the temperature of the sensor detecting the net exchange.
This is well known, uncontroversial, and clearly explained even by the people manufacturing the relevant radiometric instruments.
I observe Kristian’s comment and views as ironic, the downward LW IR is routinely measured along with the measured upward LW IR and the net is calculated but Kristian maintains only the net is measured and the other two calculated and should not be shown in Fig. B1 as in Kristian’s world the 398 and 345.6 don’t exist in nature, only the 52.4.
For that to be the case, incoherent photons would have to interfere with each other but they do not, no test has found that result. Photons pass right through each other unless they are made coherent and then the EM waves can interfere.
Fig. B1 is drawn correctly in accord with properly tested Planckian physics and Clausius’ proper def. of heat, Kristian, despite the fact Fig. B1 as drawn irritates you so.
“The only way the atmosphere could be seen macroscopically adding/transferring energy to the surface, even within a bidirectional perspective, is by isolating/separating the downward hemiflux from the upward one and placing them on opposite sides of the surface energy budget.”
I notice Kristian has cited no proper test proving this assertion. Ever.
The tests cited by Planck in his 1912 publication show the actual physics. Worth looking up to find where all this energy transfer by radiation started, since replicated 1000fold, where the hard won Planck formula came from, and which commenters get it right according to test around here. Planck would not be nearly a household name if the effort would have been easy.
Kristian,
Have you noted that Svante and Isaac agree that MACRO is the province of thermodynamics, that you can’t talk about discrete energy exchange under the banner of thermodynamics, that the atmosphere is not a source of heat?
This didn’t happen before because the conversation got bogged down – terminology differences and the momentum of discussions past made it hard to see where you agreed.
Can you come part way forward, too, and acknowledge where they’ve agreed to the above? I asked that of them re you and they put the good foot forward. I’d like to see the conversation advance.
Svante,
is there any practical consequence at all of Kristians micro/macro view compared to barry or Norman?
If successful, progressing conversation is a practical outcome, then yes.
There are no tactics that can win a battle of paradigms.
The thermo. masters realized they were dealing with such paradigms also so testing is laced throughout their published work. Given all the hate mail around here and other blogs, I can only imagine the debates existing around them as they established the foundations of thermodynamics. Proper testing was the arbiter of last resort.
Cliff Truesdell has written a great book, I recommend it without hesitation, detailing the development of thermo. and how it became a branch of science. Very humorous, shows the dead ends & successes: “The Tragicomedy of Classical Thermodynamics”.
Also explains who discovered what first; given the steam engine was such an economic driver, there was a lot of incentive for idea theft.
It has been said also, the power of thermodynamics is the generality of the two main laws. It has also been said the weakness of thermodynamics is that very generality, the devil is in the details, testing is the way out of the thermo. darkness.
Ball says: on Oct.29 at 11:18AM
“When folks point out these up and down LW IR are measured routinely in the real world at the surface, Kristian attacks the commercial measurements devices”
You are wrong on this Ball. Phi and Kristian are correct when they point out that only the net radiation is directly measured and the up and down LW IR are only calculated. You refuted nothing that they said. You merely repeated your false claim.
Here are some quotes from one of the instrument manufacturers, Kipp and Zonen, that confirm phi and Kristian are correct:
– “The CGR3 provides a voltage that is proportional to the net radiation in the far infrared. By calculation downward long wave radiation is derived.”
– “A pyrgeometer provides a voltage that is proportional to the radiation exchange between the instrument and the sky (or the ground) in its field of view. The detector signal output can either be positive or negative. For example, if the sky is colder than the pyrgeometer, the instrument radiates energy to the sky and the output is negative. In order to calculate the incoming or outgoing FIR it is necessary to know the temperature of the instrument housing close to the detector.”
– “The detector of the Kipp and Zonen SGR series pyrgeometer is based on a passive thermal sensor called a thermopile. … The heat generated flows through a thermal resistance to the heat-sink (the pyrgeometer body). The temperature difference across the thermal resistance is converted to a voltage as a linear function of the absorbed longwave irradiance. … This is a thermoelectric effect. … The housing temperature is a critical part of the pyrgeometer and is needed to calculate the downward long-wave radiation component.”
So the instrument directly measures how much energy (net radiation) us either: transferred to the pyrgeometer (positive voltage due to the detector being hotter than the housing), OR transferred from the pyrgeometer (negative voltage due to the detector being cooler than the housing) using the Seebeck thermoelectric effect. Modern thermodynamics defines this transfer of energy due to temperature difference as heat, what you claim doesn’t exist.
What is directly measured is the net energy transferred. That is the only thing that can be directly measured. The mental models of the separate fluxes are only that, mental models which can not and never have been directly measured in the real world.
REO2 11:31am: “Modern thermodynamics defines this transfer of energy due to temperature difference as heat, what you claim doesn’t exist.”
I go with Clausius def. of heat in his published memoirs (the one you noted) & from his referenced tests.
Provide a replicable proper experiment conclusively showing Clausius’ def. of heat was wrong and REO2 will be vindicated. I still patiently await this potential revelation.
“What is directly measured is the net energy transferred.”
Yes, net of the instrument backside incident radiation, upwelling IR and the downwelling IR is what is directly measured depending on the direction the instrument is pointed (up or down). The net of the two measurements is calculated and plotted. Routinely.
Ball4 says: 6.28 PM,
“Yes, net of the instrument backside incident radiation, upwelling IR and the downwelling IR is what is directly measured depending on the direction the instrument is pointed (up or down). The net of the two measurements is calculated and plotted.”
You are lying again because you’ve once again been BUSTED with facts data experimental evidence from science, but you are too dishonest to admit it. Once again you prove that you have no credibility and are just trolling.
No, the downwelling and upwelling IR has not been directly measured, it is only calculated, as the pyrgeometer manufacturer has clearly stated.
When the instrument is pointed up to the colder sky, the net radiation IN (DWIR from the sky in to the detector) and OUT (IR out from the detector to the sky) is directly measured. That is σ(Th⁴-Tc⁴), q, heat. And since the detector sensor is warmer than the colder sky, the thermoelectric output voltage is negative, which means that heat is directly measured leaving the detector sensor to the colder sky. One directional heat transfer just as the 2nd Law requires. Then since the detector temperature is known, the DWIR is calculated. using the above equation.
When the instrument is pointed down to the ground, the net radiation of the LWIR in to the detector from the surface and the IR out from the detector to the surface is directly measured. The LWIR from the surface is then calculated, just like the manufacturer states.
If for example the instrument temperature was exactly the same as the ground temperature, the thermoelectric output voltage would be zero, because the net radiation is zero, and the direct instrument measurement would be 0 W/m^2.
Then knowing the detector temperature, say 16C or 289K, and using the S-B equation, the LWIR from the surface is calculated to be 396W/m^2.
A proper replicable real world experiment showing there has never been a real world direct measurement of
DWIR from the cold atmosphere, because it is not a real transfer of thermal energy. It’s just a calculated value of a mental model.
No matter how many times you lie, misrepresent, twist the truth, and deny reality, it will never change the fact that you have been proven wrong by real world experimental testing which has directly measured heat, showing that it is real and is exactly as defined by modern thermodynamics.
“you have been proven wrong by real world experimental testing which has directly measured heat..”
No REO2, the thermometers you mention directly measured the avg. KE of the instrument body constituent particles.
The Seebeck effect directly and independently measured the down LW photon energy from a hemisphere of directions looking up AND independently the up LW photon energy from a hemisphere of directions looking down. The known emissivity of the instrument case allowed the conversion from T (this was done as an expedient to reduce cost, it was not necessary).
Clausius taught, and I follow, heat is only a measure of the KE of internal constituent particles of a body; you misuse Clausius def. in your comment stating that heat is real in a body in nature. No modern text book supports that claim and Clausius certainly did not.
Sure, if it sounds more satisfactory to your modern but old ear to bring back the caloric theory and pour the caloric fluid from body to body (transfer it) then do so, but you will be wrong in many ways (as demonstrated in your comments) as the caloric theory failed testing in those many ways.
LOL @ Ball4 troll.
— barry says:
October 29, 2017 at 6:39 AM
Ive done a lot of talking for Kristian. Im getting leery of that. Let me cherry-pick a few of his quotes that might settle some things. Im eliding () for clarity, not to distort what hes saying.–
Well, that hard to do. The reason I would do it is to find out
if I am wrong
**It is claimed (or at least very much implied) that the atmosphere ADDS energy to the surface However, this is only correct in the MICROscopic perspective, that is, IF and only if we choose to follow ONE particular photon through the exchange**
I think main point is “one proton” and person is choosing one proton from “zillions”
–And:–
*THAT individual photon (and the energy it carries) is indeed ADDED to the surface in this exchange.*
–And:–
*I am NOT repeat NOT!!! saying that there isnt energy moving from cold to hot, even distinct photons from cold being absorbed by hot. People keep misunderstanding my point.*
AND one proton is energy.
And there could even be distinct photons [a group/kind/etc rather than just one].
Or Kristan at this point in time is not going “get into” how much. Because he focused one this one issue and despite such focus, people aren’t getting this “one” issue/point/topic/etc”.
Or I don’t know how much, Kristian doesn’t know how much, nor is there anyone who knows how much. Unless you accept what some say as it being essentially zero or zero.
As I said, I am a lukewarmer, and I would be happy not to be a lukewarmer, but it’s simply the point I am at and have been at. But I do have pretty definite opinion about the limit of how much, which I believe is related to evidence.
Or [to ramble on about something vaguely related] if I believe God has limits, I am not a believer in God, though also it doesn’t mean, that if I think God is limitless, that would necessarily make me a believer in God or an Agnostic [though one easily mistake me or accuse me of being an Agnostic- or “God could only knows”]. Anyways let’s move on:
–Its pretty clear. He agrees that energy from a colder object can be absorbed by a warmer one. So whats his point?–
This point is the practical approach is to assume that 2nd law or thermodynamics, applies- if the topic is how warm something is.
Barry
I enjoyed most of your comment, but not the part about a river.
Your intent was to show how two, opposing fluxes create a one-way, net flow. However, the force of gravity prevents water from flowing uphill (work is required). Nothing prevents atmospheric radiation from moving towards earth’s surface.
You would never say the net flow of a river is the difference between water moving in two opposing directions.
You might argue that water molecules, microscopically, travel in multiple directions. This is a false equivalency. Almost every water molecule in a river will travel downhill from point A to point B, many miles apart. NOT ONE, however, will travel uphill from point B to point A.
” Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 29, 2017 at 1:12 PM
Barry
I enjoyed most of your comment, but not the part about a river.”
I searched this page and Barry doesn’t use word “river” in his posts.
I enjoyed most of your comment, but not the part about a river.
It was, as stated, an analogy. But it was the one comment I was least satisfied with.
‘Flow’ fits within the formal lexicon of classical thermodynamics. If you use it around classical physics folk, then they’re going to correct you that it refers to the paradigm of NET transfer of heat, never to discrete energy exchange.
You can still talk about discrete energy exchange. Just don’t use that word when describing it.
It may seem unreasonable or unfair or illogical or too tight-fisted with terms or whatever. But bending to this usage avoids the inevitable semantic skirmishes that bog down these discussions.
gbaikie, I used the word ‘stream’.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270428
Avoid using the word ‘flow’ if you want to talk about the MICRO (photonic). That takes you into the realm of thermodynamics, the MACRO or NET realm, too. By analogy, a stream may have eddies that cause a little water to head back upstream for a moment, but when we talk about the direction a stream flows, we are talking about its overall direction. We never say it flows 2 ways at the same time.
–Ill risk setting off an endless debate about the definition of heat by giving mine, as I understand it.
Objects contain energy, not heat (this may stick in someones craw). Heat is the transfer of energy from one body to another. More simply: heat is a transfer process, not a state. And that transfer is always from hot to cold. In terms of classical thermodynamics. Colloquial usage should be avoided if we dont want to get bogged down.–
No disagreement.
–EM is not heat, it is a vehicle for it. It is the potential of it. Point an IR reading device (or a shortwave measuring device) perpendicularly along the line between the Earth and the sun. It wont read anything. Theres no heat in EM. We all possess a limited shortwave measuring device, Our eyes. If the sun was North and the Earth South, and we floated directly between them looking East, wed see the blackness of space, not light (except for distant stars, and, at the right angle at the right time, maybe a planet or three).
EM is not heat.–
Yup
Please stop this nonsense. What You ar discussing has been solved by the dogs several million years ago. Stop using terms like “microscopic flow,” use the thermodynamic instincts You where born with.
If You one day has put on a to warm coat and are feeling uncomfortable in surroundings at 14C, will You feel warmer or colder if You move to surroundings that are 18 C, I guess warmer. But You self is still warmer than both 14C and 18C. Same thing with the relationship between the warmer surface and the colder atmosphere, if the atmosphere gets warmer, but still colder than the surface, the surface becomes even warmer.
Ask the dogs.
Emeritus, thanks for that effort in translation, I happen to concur (best I can make out anyway) based on similar observations and test. Ask the dogs indeed.
phi says:
October 28, 2017 at 1:28 PM
With regard to the endless discussions on whether radiative exchanges are one-way or two-way, it seems appropriate to clarify one point:
Thermodynamics does not know two-way exchanges. This revolutionary thermal concept is introduced in climatology to allow a calculation of the greenhouse effect.
Before pretending that, it is better to first have a look into this document published by Clausius in 1887:
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
within which we all can see that Rudolf Clausius was perfectly aware of radiation exchange between bodies.
DIE MECHANISCHE WAERMETHEORIE
von R. CLAUSIUS
DRITTE UMGEARBEITETE UND VERVOLLSTAENDIGTE AUFLAGE.
ERSTER BAND.
…
Braunschweig, 1887
…
ABSCHNITT XII.
Die Concentration von Waerme- und Lichtstrahlen und die Grenzen ihrer Wirkung.
1. Gegenstand der Untersuchung.
…
Was ferner die in gewoehnlicher Weise stattfindende Waermestrahlung anbetrifft, so ist es freilich
bekannt, dass nicht nur der warme Koerper dem kalten, sondern auch umgekehrt der kalte Koerper dem warmen Waerme zustrahlt, aber das Gesammtresultat dieses gleichzeitig stattfindenden doppelten Waermeaustausches besteht, wie man als erfahrungsmaessig feststehend ansehen kann, immer darin, dass der kaeltere Koerper auf Kosten des waermeren einen Zuwachs an Waerme erfaehrt.
This means, translated in English, exactly the following, and nothing else:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
by R. CLAUSIUS
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
Braunschweig, 1887
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
There is no room for any kind of interpretation here.
Trolls can tell all what they want, e.g. ‘Clausius wasnt aware of electrons at that time’ [sic!] etc etc etc.
That is all useless blah blah whose purpose is only to deny, divert and confuse.
Bindidon
I had previously read Phi’s comment, and was hoping you would show Clausius’ original words again. Great post.
A while back, in a previous thread, I made the claim that GHG’s impede energy leaving Earth’s surface from moving to space.
Another poster told me this is only true during an imbalance, but not true once earth’s temperature has reached an equilibrium.
His argument: if energy is leaving the earth system at the same rate as it’s entering, then it is not impeded.
This made sense to me until this analogy popped into my head:
If there is an accident on a freeway, cars have to slow down as they get diverted around it. They are impeded. A traffic jam is the result.
Now, if you noticed cars were entering the traffic jam at the exact same rate as they were leaving it, would you conclude they are no longer impeded? Of course not!
Bindidon,
Check yourself, do not be unnecessarily controversial and try to answer this question:
The notion of radiative forcing is based on the possibility of adding or subtracting backradiations to the energy coming from the sun. Do you think this possibility arises directly from thermodynamics or is based on a supposed particular behavior of the atmosphere ?
Read the classics: Manabe for example.
phi on October 29, 2017 at 6:08 AM
I presented this information because many people pretend things differing considerably from what is originally available.
But the fact that I copy, translate and paste parts of a document written by Rudolf Clausius doesn’t make over night a physicist out of me simple layman.
Thus I can’t properly answer your question, as I lack the necessary knowledge to do.
And to be controversial concerning the relation between thermodynamics and atmospheric processes imho presupposes to be able to.
I repeat for the nth time on such threads: the only thing I understand is that if there were no trace gases like H2O, CO2 and the like, Earth’s radiation in answer to Sun’s would reach outer space, and fluxes measured at TOA would be equal to those measured at surface.
That’s all.
Many people pretend that this effect does not exist because it would invalidate their understanding of thermodynamics, whatever the degree of their real knowledge in the domain.
For Roy Spencer for example, it is settled science; and I decided to rely on his experience.
Read the classics: Manabe for example.
If you cite him as a person worth to be read, so sure you did before, and therefore should know that he published – either alone or with colleagues – a considerable amount of papers.
So a hint where to start concerning this topic here would be accurate I guess.
I suggest you :
Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment, Manabe and Strickler 1964
and
https://scienceofdoom.com/2013/02/21/wonderland-radiative-forcing-and-the-rate-of-inflation/
https://scienceofdoom.com/2011/09/02/radiative-forcing-and-the-surface-energy-balance/
Max Planck on the same subject,
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf?session_id=8e3df7e337b42f85e5b128a15ea6edf2383b1992
Page 2/3;
“All heat rays which at a given instant pass through the same point of the medium are perfectly independent of one another, and in order to specify completely the state of the radiation the intensity of radiation must be known in all the directions, infinite in number, which pass through the point in question; for this purpose two opposite directions must be considered as distinct, because the radiation in one of them is quite independent of the radiation in the other.”
Emeritus
Another great find!
A similar thought: every object or surface in the world we see around us – reflects light of a particular color and brightness. All this light passes through the two, small openings in our eyes (pupils) simultaneously, projecting a distinct image on the retina.
…reflects incident light at its particular frequency and brightness (w/sr). Color is produced in our brains.
Ball4
That might be true, but is not relevant to the point I was making.
Actually it is relevant, the colors are not in the reflected light, nor the emitted light from the objects as you imply.
Only the frequency and w/sr info. are in the light (as is known when measured by instrument) which is about 95% emitted and 5% reflected for opaque natural objects entering our eyes. Our brains synthesize all the many intensities (w/sr) at each of the many frequencies entering the eye & our eye/brain interprets all that info. as color. I’ve always thought the physics of color (colorimetry) fascinating, which is why I made a comment, it just leaked out of me.
Ball4
Ok, so a lot of different frequencies of light simultaneously pass through the two openings in our eyes. Same idea.
I agree how we perceive things is fascinating. I took a class on that topic a long time ago. If I remember right, the retina has four different types of receptors. One responds to the frequency of light our brain perceives as the color red. The other three only to blue, yellow and briteness. This creates a pixel-like display, which is transmitted to the brain. There, the display gets interpreted and becomes a picture of the world around us.
Yes. Luminous intensity (w/sr) is so basic to physics it is one of the 7 SI base units of measure.
The discussion of these optical physics could easily be another 3600 comment debate, once again only confirmed by proper, relevant tests.
*Sigh*
What Planck is describing here is exactly what I’ve talking about all along (you originally got the link and quote from me, Emeritus):
“(…) in order to specify completely the state of the radiation the intensity of radiation must be known in all the directions, infinite in number, which pass through the point in question;”
Which can be visually rendered like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
Albeit in three dimensions.
If we average statistically all the independent directions and intensities of photons passing through the point in question, we get ONE macroscopic movement of energy with ONE macroscopic intensity, the radiative flux. We don’t get two of each.
You all simply fail to grasp the fundamental distinction between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena. Planck, on the other hand, had no problem keeping to thoughts in his head at the same time.
Kristian
5 pennies per second are continuously moving in one direction. 4 pennies per second in the opposite. The result is a continuous, net movement of 1 penny per second.
This explains the same concept in one short paragraph. It’s not a difficult idea to grasp.
Think of pennies moving from Earth’s surface to the atmosphere as radiation. If a certain percentage of those pennies return to the surface, this can be thought of as back-radiation.
The returned pennies would have the effect of never having left – or not yet spent. This is the equivalent of more pennies being ADDED, and the surface temperature would increase.
A famous quote sums up the idea: “a penny saved is a penny earned”.
One way to look at it, is that in the big picture [or if you squint] Earth’s average temperature is about 5 C.
Or the most important aspect of Earth climate is the ocean which covers 70% of the earth. And it’s average temperature is less than 5 C.
Or it’s simply human bias which measures earth’s temperature and determines it’s average temperature 15 C.
Or Humans apparent reality is confined to living on the thin skin of large ball of molten rock, and within this thin fuzzy skin, human have agree to measure a thin slice of it and determine that Earth’s average temperature is 15 C.
This is not to say it’s wrong, it’s merely pointing out it’s not objective, nor that I am saying that some more objective metric would or could be “better”.
But I am saying that a ideal thermal conductive blackbody at earth distance which has uniform temperature of about 5 C is “about” right.
And it should more precisely right if one actually had a ideal thermal conductive blackbody at Earth distance from the sun and if one tried to determine it’s temperature
What is wrong is adding elements to the ideal thermal conductive blackbody and expecting to get a better answer.
Or in the case of Greenhouse effect theory it’s very similar to a monkey trying to fix an icebox.
So the greenhouse effect theory adding the element of reflection to ideal thermal conductive blackbody in order to determine average temperature is wrong. It’s correct in terms of the amount earth absorbs but wrong about the temperature.
The rotation rate of a planet would matter in terms of average temperature of a planet. And it doesn’t matter in terms of an ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
And this is one bit of evidence proving that one shouldn’t use ideal thermal conductive blackbody as the basis of a climate model related to average temperature of a planet.
I will also add that the pseudoscience of greenhouse effect theory “tells” it’s believers that rotation shouldn’t matter in terms of a planet’s temperature. Or more evidence, the theory is “not working”. Or it’s very simple to prove, and believers can’t believe it.
gbaikie on October 29, 2017 at 11:08 AM
1. Or the most important aspect of Earth climate is the ocean which covers 70% of the earth. And its average temperature is less than 5 C.
Where did you obtain this information?
Look for example at a post written by Bob Tisdale (really an antialarmist):
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/on-the-elusive-absolute-global-mean-surface-temperature-a-model-data-comparison/
where Tisdale writes
The average ICOADS absolute global sea surface temperature for the last 30 years (1984 to 2013) is 19.5 deg C.
*
2. Or its simply human bias which measures earths temperature and determines its average temperature 15 C.
Why is it a bias, when you can’t show any proof for the ocean’s average temperatures being at about 5 C?
*
3. What is wrong is adding elements to the ideal thermal conductive blackbody and expecting to get a better answer.
What’s wrong here? Did you ever compute the difference in Watt/m2 between Earth’s emissivity based on the idealised Planck curve and its graybody reality?
*
4. I will also add that the pseudoscience of greenhouse effect theory tells its believers that rotation shouldnt matter in terms of a planets temperature.
Just this one sentence shows us what a garbage you are able to write.
Here is some stuff for you to read:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
Look at section III B, you might learn quite a bit of that.
Bindidon says:
October 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM
gbaikie on October 29, 2017 at 11:08 AM
1. Or the most important aspect of Earth climate is the ocean which covers 70% of the earth. And its average temperature is less than 5 C.
Where did you obtain this information?
I love to hear someone refute it. And I am guessing you going try:
-Look for example at a post written by Bob Tisdale (really an antialarmist):
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/on-the-elusive-absolute-global-mean-surface-temperature-a-model-data-comparison/
where Tisdale writes
The average ICOADS absolute global sea surface temperature for the last 30 years (1984 to 2013) is 19.5 deg C.–
Oh, I thought the ocean surface was about 17 C. If it is 19.5, then of course the average land temperature is quite a bit cooler than I thought. Or if anything the ocean is more important than I thought.
So you are supporting it rather refuting it?
I will now look at the link and then comment on.
holy mucker:
–Back to the GISS Q&A webpage: After answering a few intermediate questions, GISS closes with (my boldface):
Q: What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies?
A: In 99.9% of the cases youll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14C, i.e. 57.2F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.
In other words, GISS is basing their understanding of global surface temperatures on climate models, specifically the most trusted models. And they are saying, based on those most trusted climate models, the average global mean surface temperature during their base period of 1951 to 1980 (their climatology) is roughly 14 deg C +/- 0.6 deg C.–
14 C ???
still reading it.
I got to read it more, but you cut off important info in your quote:
-The average ICOADS absolute global sea surface temperature for the last 30 years (1984 to 2013) is 19.5 deg C.-
Has context of:
” ….If we assume the coastal and island land surface temperatures are similar to those of marine air temperature, then the bias is only about 0.2 deg C, maybe a little greater. The average ICOADS absolute global sea surface temperature for the last 30 years (1984 to 2013) is 19.5 deg C (about 67.1 deg F), while their absolute global marine air temperature is 19.3 deg C (about 66.7 deg F). The reason for maybe a little greater is, shipboard marine air temperature readings can also be impacted by a heat island effect, and the ICOADS data have not been corrected for that heat island effect. [End of note.]”
And I lack info about “ICOADS”. I will read it later, but at moment I assuming it’s still about 17 C.
And will now go over rest of your post.
ICOADS = International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set
http://icoads.noaa.gov/
gbaikie on October 29, 2017 at 1:49 PM
In other words, GISS is basing their understanding of global surface temperatures on climate models, specifically the most trusted models.
Sorry: this is ridiculous nonsense again.
GISS gives you absolute values only for small regions because computing global anomalies is nonsense. Thus if despite this nonsense you want global absolute values, you have to rely on models. Your problem!
The average absolute value of all GHCN V3 land stations having measured temperatures since 1880 is 12.1 C; of those having measured between 1951 and 1980, 13.7 C.
–In other words, GISS is basing their understanding of global surface temperatures on climate models, specifically the most trusted models.
Sorry: this is ridiculous nonsense again. —
That is part of quote from the link you provided.
It’s related to your quote from the link you provided.
I could defend it [I suppose] but you link it as reference.
Why don’t you explain why you did this?
–2. Or its simply human bias which measures earths temperature and determines its average temperature 15 C.
Why is it a bias, when you cant show any proof for the oceans average temperatures being at about 5 C?–
Average surface is different than average temperature of the ocean. Or average ocean temperature is what is meant by icebox climate having a cold ocean. Presently, the ocean is around 3-4 C in terms of entire volume. In last interglacial [Eemian] it was about 5 C or warmer. Most of Planet Earth history it thought to warmer than 10 C. And there is no “hothouse climates” [as compared to icebox climates] without a warm ocean, such as more than 10 C.
gbaikie on October 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM
Average surface is different than average temperature of the ocean.
Sorry: if you want to discuss about climate, you have to consider the correct context.
We discuss about sea surface temperatures. Do we consider crust temperatures down to 10 km, when we discuss about land surfaces?
“We discuss about sea surface temperatures. Do we consider crust temperatures down to 10 km, when we discuss about land surfaces?”
I will repeat: The most important aspect of Earth climate is the ocean which covers 70% of the earth. And its average temperature of the entire ocean is less than 5 C.
Basic global climate: Icebox and hothouse climate- and both depend upon the average temperature of the entire ocean.
Demystifying the Cretaceous hothouse
“Fifty-five million years ago, the Earth was ice-less. Winters were balmy. Palm trees flourished all the way to the poles. As evidenced by fossils, crocodiles and broad-leaved, water-loving plants existed north of the Arctic Circle. This world had warmer oceans, featuring deep ocean temperatures 12 degrees Celsius higher than now”
http://news.mit.edu/2013/demystifying-the-cretaceous-hothouse
“Ice House and Hot House. The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Throughout much of its history, Earth has generally been a warm planet, much warmer than today. For at least 2.5 billion years of Earth history, sedimentary rocks and their fossil record show evidence of these warmer times and also of shorter colder periods. The cold periods of Ice House (low levels of carbon dioxide) last several tens of millions of years before the planet returns to its more prevalent Hot House (“greenhouse”) state (high levels of carbon dioxide). There have been four reasonably well-documented Ice Houses. Ice Houses occurred about 2.5 billion, 700 million, and 300 million years ago, and the last Ice House began 35 million years ago. Within these Ice Houses, evidence of continental-scale glaciations is found in the sedimentary rock record. Ice ages are those periods of time when large areas of the continents were covered with thick glaciers.”
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/302C/paleoclimate.htm
gbaikie on October 29, 2017 at 7:01 PM
I will repeat: The most important aspect of Earth climate is the ocean which covers 70% of the earth.
You do not need to repeat it.
And what is not very useful is to talk about the average temperature of the oceans, exactly as it is not very useful to talk e.g. about Arctic sea ice absolute minimum in september.
What is more useful is to look at how their temperature changes (whatever the reason of the change might be).
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/ohc/ohc_global_en.html
“And what is not very useful is to talk about the average temperature of the oceans, exactly as it is not very useful to talk e.g. about Arctic sea ice absolute minimum in september.”
It would useful to talk about arctic sea ice, if you are considering traveling in the arctic, but the existence of arctic sea ice, depends upon the average temperature of the ocean.
If you think the average temperature of Earth is important, then average temperature of ocean is important.
If you interested future forecast of weather, the surface temperature of the ocean is important, and surface temperature of the ocean depends upon the average temperature of the ocean.
—
3. What is wrong is adding elements to the ideal thermal conductive blackbody and expecting to get a better answer.
Whats wrong here? Did you ever compute the difference in Watt/m2 between Earths emissivity based on the idealised Planck curve and its graybody reality?
*
4. I will also add that the pseudoscience of greenhouse effect theory tells its believers that rotation shouldnt matter in terms of a planets temperature.
Just this one sentence shows us what a garbage you are able to write.
Here is some stuff for you to read:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
Look at section III B, you might learn quite a bit of that.–
Exhibit B
Here yah go
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNKbMyHW0AAR5PT.jpg
What did you mean? That you couldn’t find this?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324
Last not least: what does your ‘Or’ mean everywhere?
Please write the word in your native language!
Or what?
For those interested in a more visual version of the Green Plate Effect, Izen has a treat for you https://izenmeme.wordpress.com/2017/10/29/back-radiation-and-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/
https://izenmeme.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/gpe2.gif
Cool
Thanks Eli /Joshua…
That’s an excellent visual.
A real, easily replicated test with pictures and data, with simple analysis of the particulars, would be far better.
What’s new here? Nothing. Still conflating quantum (micro) events with a macro (thermo) process. Individual photons go both ways (nothing new), the transport of energy (the radiative flux), the net of ALL photon movements, just one (for some people, seemingly impossible to comprehend).
The question is NOT whether photons are able to go both ways or not. They can and they do. Because they are QUANTUM entities, existing below (or “outside”) the thermodynamic limit.
The question is only whether a MACROscopic flow of thermal radiative energy is able to go against a temperature gradient. It isn’t. Just like water isn’t able to spontaneously flow uphill, against the gravitational gradient, or an electric current from low to high voltage, or wind from low to high pressure.
Because a macroscopic flux of energy (like a radiative flux) exists above (or “in”) the thermodynamic limit. And for it to spontaneously move from cold to hot would violate the 2nd Law.
“Back radiation” is NOT claimed to be just individual photons doing their thing, oblivious to the laws of thermodynamics. It is specifically presented as a distinct MACROscopic energy flux, equal in nature to the solar heat flux, measured in W/m^2. Moving against the atmospheric temperature gradient.
“Back radiation is NOT claimed to be just individual photons doing their thing, oblivious to the laws of thermodynamics.”
Exactly! Back radiation is claimed to be individual photons doing their thing, COMPLETELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH the laws of thermodynamics.
The question is only whether a MACROscopic flow of thermal radiative energy is able to go against a temperature gradient. “
No, the question is whether the a MACROscopic flow of thermal radiative energy is REDUCED when the temperature gradient is reduced. It clearly is, so backradiation clearly reduces the ability of an object to shed thermal energy.
Tim: “It clearly is, so backradiation clearly reduces the ability of an object to shed thermal energy.”
Tim, your use of the word “clearly” means that you have solid proof. Would you mind sharing?
Oh, God. It has been summoned. It was sitting quietly by its recharge point as the various conversation streams from different blogs whizzed past its built-in internet monitoring system. Once enough keywords were triggered the boot-up sequence was initiated. Then it pounced…
Tim Folkerts says, October 30, 2017 at 4:30 AM:
That’s a totally different question, Tim. Of course the macroscopic flow of thermal radiative energy is reduced whenever the temperature gradient is reduced.
But will more CO2 in the atmosphere reduce the atmospheric temperature gradient?
No, the “back radiation” is just an apparent radiative effect of atmospheric temperature. “Back radiation” doesn’t CAUSE temperature. It is caused BY temperature. It’s a radiative expression of temperature.
“Back radiation” isn’t a distinct macroscopic entity. Yet it IS presented as one.
I don’t want to get TOO much into a purely semantic discussion, but I still disagree.
A microscopic photon can move from a cold object to a warm object.
A large set of microscopic photons can move from cold to warm.
A specific, large set of microscopic objects is — pretty by definition — a macroscopic entity.
Therefore, this specific large set of photons moving from cold to warm *is* a “macroscopic entity”. It has distinct properties (like a specific spectrum related to the temperature of the cold object). Since it is awkward to keep saying “the sum over all photons that leave the cold object and arrive at the hot object”, we can give it a convenient name — like, maybe, “back-radiation”.
Now, “back-radiation” also has the property that this set of photons will always carry less energy than the set of all photons moving from hot to cold (“forward-radiation”). Since the two separate subsets of photons (the two distinct macroscopic entities) always occur together, it is often *convenient* (not not required) to combine them into a single “net radiation” entity. This net radiation entity happens to be what is classically called “heat”. But just because classical thermodynamics focuses on “net radiation” does not mean that it is the ONLY interesting or important macroscopic quantity.
Kristian
As already been stated, photons are bosons. Photons move through each other without effort. They do not act like matter that cannot move through other matter. Your counter examples like water, do not apply. There is not potential with the photons. Temperature difference is not like a voltage difference. There are only photons being emitted and absorbed. Two distinct processes that occur by themselves.
http://wikidifferences.com/Difference_Between_Macroscopic_Approach_And_Microscopic_Approach
The gross process of all photons absorbed by a surface is a macroscopic energy into the surface and the macroscopic emission of all the photons of a surface is a macroscopic gross event. You can average all the microscopic events to come up with two macroscopic energy flows at the surface. One toward and one away. All the radiant heat transfer textbooks describe only this process. Two macroscopic energy flows (watts/m^2) taking place at the surface. Neither one affects the other. They are completely distinct processes. The rate of emission is not affected at all by the molecules receiving energy. Fine proof of your point on macroscopic vs microscopic. Prove that there are not two independent energy flows at a surface. You have not done so yet.
The con-man “teaches”: “Photons move through each other without effort. They do not act like matter that cannot move through other matter.”
I guess Norm never heard of “radio interference”, “radar jamming”, “signal cancellation”, and such.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n the Pretender
Once again you display your lack of any knowledge.
Here is one on radar jamming. Obviously you have no understanding of how it works. They do not stop the radar energy they send energy to the radar system to create noise to drown the objects you want to locate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception
Your cancellation concept would not work with incoherent IR energy emitted in a spectrum and it also does not eliminate the energy. You can cancel detection of energy if you have perfect opposing wave patterns in an area but the energy is not gone and will reappear on either side of the cancelation.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23930/what-happens-to-the-energy-when-waves-perfectly-cancel-each-other
I like that you respond to my posts with your complete lack of physics knowledge. The more you post the more people learn just how phony you are and dishonest pretender. You should give yourself the moniker “Con-man” as you are one of the few that intentionally wants to deceive people with your fake and make up physics that has no basis in reality. That is why you can’t post links. You have no supporting information for you fantasy world of science.
You are King of Pseudoscience and made up physics with Gordon Robertson a close second. Make up more fake science, the more you do this, the more people realize you are a phony con-man that pretends he studied physics somewhere in some universe.
Con-man, your spin on your pseudoscience is even funnier than your pseudoscience!
g*e*r*a*n
I have your video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8ZQ3kTSK0
YOU: “Everything I say is so funny.”
I think you will enjoy watching yourself. Good job you got over a million views.
Maybe quit posting for a few minutes and make another one of your videos.
Insults, lack of originality, and false accusations are somewhat funny. But what I really find hilarious is your pseudoscience. Always try to include some.
@Kristian
Heat transfer is a concept introduced in classical thermodynamics. It means by definition merely that kind of (necessarily macroscopic of course) energy transfer that occurs spontaneously from hot to cold in any thermodynamic evolution and that has to be taken account of in order to conserve energy and apply the first law.
Now, later on, much more insight into what heat transfer actually means could be worked out. Indeed, once the microscopic nature of everything in our universe was discovered and established, the nature of a macroscopic heat transfer (as well as the whole classical thermodynamics itself with its laws in general) had to and could be merely interpreted in terms of a theory called statistical mechanics, that is reasoning at microscopic level, as the statistical result of a huge number of individual chaotic transfers of mechanical ( kinetic, potential…) energy between microscopic particles such as atoms or molecules interacting in gases,liquids and solids at temperatures above 0 K.
And in this respect there is no way out. In statistical mechanics any heat flow is always and systematically and necessarily nothing else but the net result of two real physical flows of energy in opposite direction of temperature gradient at microscopic level.
That’s true with thermal conduction in gases, liquids and solids as well as radiative transfer. Just basic statistical mechanics.
Thus a confusing statement like this one:
Is particularly funny and amusing !
Since, first nobody ever claimed that the backradiations are a “MACROscopic energy flux” which represents by itself a heat flux that should satisfy the second law.
And second you contradict yourselves and funnily seem to consider that the solar energy flux absorbed by Earth is indeed a heat flux. Of course, as with backradiations it isn’t ! Since planet Earth too of course emits IR radiation towards the Sun who absorbs it and it is obviously here again only the net exchange from these two counterflowing radiation fluxes between Sun and Earth that is a bona fide heat flow between Sun and Earth bodies and that has to satisfy the second law.
So in contrast of what you object the incoming solar flux absorbed by Earth and the backradiations are indeed actually both of the very same nature, namely energy fluxes at microscopic level as opposed to macroscopic heat fluxes in the classical thermodynamic sense.
So there is definitely no reason why they should not “add” in the GHE theory.
No science was wasted on this: “So there is definitely no reason why they should not add in the GHE theory.”
gammacrux, your beliefs are only supported by your misconceptions, and your misconceptions are only supported by your beliefs.
It’s fun to watch.
gammacrux says, October 30, 2017 at 5:11 AM:
And still, that’s exactly how it’s TREATED. Funny and amusing, indeed.
Of course no one CLAIMS it to be something it’s not. They TREAT it like something it’s not.
gammacrux says, October 30, 2017 at 5:11 AM:
HAHAHA! Absolutely not! Why do you blatantly misrepresent what statistical mechanics tells us? For what purpose?
In statistical mechanics, the net flow (the radiative heat flux) IS the macroscopic flow. There is just ONE macroscopic flow of radiative energy, not two. The net flow is the net movement, not of two opposing macroscopic hemifluxes, but of ALL individual – microscopic – photon movements (directions and intensities) inside the radiation field. Like this, only in 3D:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
The definition of ‘net’ is ‘net’?
‘Net’ is the remainder after all credits and debits have been accounted for.
Are you saying that people should pay no heed to the credits and debits, Kristian?
Or are you saying they need to remember the debits when they talk about the credits?
Kristian, I don’t see any real problem with “In statistical mechanics any heat flow is always and systematically and necessarily nothing else but the net result of two real physical flows of energy in opposite direction of temperature gradient at microscopic level.”
Let me paraphrase, starting at the end and working back toward the beginning.
1) At the microscopic level, there are photons moving in all sorts of directions. If we focus on two objects (H = hotter object, C = cooler object), there will be photons from H to C and from C to H.
[Microscopic]
2) We can consider the subset all the photons that travel from H to C and the subset all the photons that travel from C to H. Both of these subsets exist and are not empty. Both can be summed to find “two real physical flows of energy” associated with each subset of photons.
[bridging to stat mech]
3) Deeper study of statistical mechanics revels that the energy flow from H to C is always greater than the energy flow from C to H. So the net energy flow when the two separate subsets are added must be from H to C.
[applying stat mech]
4) In keeping with the classical definition of heat as the net flow of thermal energy, Stat Mech concludes that starting with individual photons and working your way forward, you will necessarily conclude any heat flow is always and systematically and necessarily from hot to cold.
[bridging to classical thermodynamics]
No, Kristian, you obviously don’t know what you talk about.
I taught statistical mechanics at graduate level during many years and even In ordinary thermal conduction or for thermal radiation at equilibrium in a cavity at temperature T there are of course systematically two opposite energy flows involved and invoked in the theory of heat transfer.
At undergraduate level look for instance at the calculation of the thermal conductivity of a gas in the Feynman Lectures of physics.
In particular in paragraph 43-6 Thermal conductivity
Feynman explains to the ignoramuses here:
Sorry the link to Feynman doesn’t work. It is explicitly:
http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_43.html
gammacrux says, October 30, 2017 at 12:41 PM:
Are you actually this thick!? I weep for humanity if they let blinkered people like yourself teach students anything remotely related to thermodynamics at graduate level. It really speaks volumes about the dire state we’re in today,
one described by Feynman already in the 60s:
https://tinyurl.com/6l4ujw
“Another of the qualities of science is that it teaches the value of rational thought as well as the importance of freedom of thought; the positive results that come from doubting that the lessons are all true. You must here
distinguish – especially in teaching – the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science. It is easy to say, “We write, experiment, and observe, and do this or that.” You can copy that form exactly.
But great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science.
In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers.
We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but these do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of
science analogous to the South Sea Islanders’ airfields – radio towers, etc., made out of wood. The islanders expect a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see in the foreigners’ airfields
around them, but strangely enough, their wood planes do not fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. [But] you teachers, who are really teaching children
at the bottom of the heap, can maybe doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
(My emphasis.)
You have learned (and taught) a METHOD, gammacrux. An “imitative form of science” through which you don’t need to actually THINK about the physical phenomenon you’re describing. What IS radiation and radiative transfer? As opposed to:
What is my mathematical method for analyzing it?
Statistical mechanics is VERY clear on this. There is just ONE net (macroscopic) outcome of all the microscopic events and interactions occurring within a specified thermodynamic system or region – the bulk state and/or process. If one
wants to claim there are rather TWO such simultaneous counter-directional net (macroscopic) outcomes, one is of course free to do that. However, one should definitely bear in mind, then, that these exist purely as mental
constructs, not as real, discrete physical entities. They are simply geometrically defined, the full sphere split into two directional halves or hemispheres. It’s a mental operation performed by HUMANS. A simplifying model. It is NOT an
inherent property of the system itself.
But it is a useful METHOD of analysis.
Or, like this:
gammacrux says, October 30, 2017 at 12:41 PM:
Are you actually this thick!? I weep for humanity if they let blinkered people like yourself teach students anything remotely related to thermodynamics at graduate level. It really speaks volumes about the dire state we’re in today, one described by Feynman already in the 60s:
https://tinyurl.com/6l4ujw
“Another of the qualities of science is that it teaches the value of rational thought as well as the importance of freedom of thought; the positive results that come from doubting that the lessons are all true. You must here distinguish – especially in teaching – the science from the forms or procedures that are sometimes used in developing science. It is easy to say, “We write, experiment, and observe, and do this or that.” You can copy that form exactly. But great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way, it is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudo-science. In this way, we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers.
We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations, make lists, do statistics, and so on, but these do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science analogous to the South Sea Islanders’ airfields – radio towers, etc., made out of wood. The islanders expect a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see in the foreigners’ airfields around them, but strangely enough, their wood planes do not fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are. [But] you teachers, who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, can maybe doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
(My emphasis.)
You have learned (and taught) a METHOD, gammacrux. An “imitative form of science” through which you don’t need to actually THINK about the physical phenomenon you’re describing. What IS radiation and radiative transfer? As opposed to: What is my mathematical method for analyzing it?
Statistical mechanics is VERY clear on this. There is just ONE net (macroscopic) outcome of all the microscopic events and interactions occurring within a specified thermodynamic system or region – the bulk state and/or process. If one wants to claim there are rather TWO such simultaneous counter-directional net (macroscopic) outcomes, one is of course free to do that. However, one should definitely bear in mind, then, that these exist purely as mental constructs, not as real, discrete physical entities. They are simply geometrically defined, the full sphere split into two directional halves or hemispheres. It’s a mental operation performed by HUMANS. A simplifying model. It is NOT an inherent property of the system itself.
But it is a useful METHOD of analysis.
barry says, October 30, 2017 at 11:51 AM:
Ehm, please make sure you’ve actually read what you’re commenting on before commenting on it. It saves you the time and energy of asking silly, redundant questions like this.
Here it is once again:
“The net flow is the net movement, not of TWO opposing MACROscopic hemifluxes, but of ALL individual – MICROscopic – photon movements (directions and intensities) inside the radiation field.”
You came so close, barry. But now you’re just up to you’re funny little “I don’t like where this is heading, so I’m just gonna pretend to misunderstand this little sub-issue and make IT the focal point” games again, it seems …
I’m sorry Kristian, your reply is nothing but angry blah blah blah.
As I pointed out, my quote of Feynman clearly shows the arrogant nonsense of the claims people like you spout here.
Everybody can clearly acknowledge it.
As Kristian 7:55am clips Prof. Feynman: “We write, experiment…”
Prof. Feynman always emphasized experiment being a lab rat himself, his testing exploits are legendary.
I observe Kristian writes, oh does Kristian write, but skips the experiment part of learning and skips any citation traced to experiment such as those by Dr. Spencer.
So I agree; without proper confirming experiment, or citation to such, all any commenter here has is blah blah blah.
Entertaining and humorous blah at times such as the always hilarious anger trouncing around with his apple, unbaked turkey, ice, and cold mug of beer in search of a real experiment, you know the kind with real world data taken, or cited and posted up.
I think you’re waffling, Kristian.
Statistical Mechanics forms a bridge between the microscopic and macroscopic. Probably why Tim brought it up.
I asked you how or whether we should think about microscopic activity. Your answer seems to be that is is irrelevant because macroscopic is all that matters.
But it’s hard to tell….
The net flow is the net movement, not of TWO opposing MACROscopic hemifluxes, but of ALL individual MICROscopic photon movements (directions and intensities) inside the radiation field.
That is self-evident. Net is net. It’s not difficult. Why repeat it?
Hard to figure that out. Is observing the microscopic activities that make up the net some kind of intellectual no-no? You seem to want to usher people away from thinking about that. What for?
The net flow is the net movement, not of TWO opposing MACROscopic hemifluxes, but of ALL individual MICROscopic photon movements
Obviously we all realize the micrscopic radiative activity is multidirectional. But we are talking about the transfers of energy from 2 main ‘surfaces’ or regions – the ground and the atmosphere (idealized in Eli’s 2-plate set up). Would it relieve your concern if we acknowledged that microspcopic radiation is multidirectional in the atmosphere?
I’m adding gammacrotch to the “earth heats the sun club”.
Add Feynman, too, then.
Add Clausius, too, then. Getting to be a pretty big club. SGW on the outside looking in.
Add all trained physicists.
By the way they don’t even care about nor notice it at all.
Yet what is noteworthy instead is that the appropriate club is certainly not the earth heats the sun club. That label is just laughable nonsense made up and drawn out of thin air by ScepticGoneDumb.
The correct label is rather “GHG containing atmosphere heats the earth surface club”.
With verb “to heat” in the sense of “to increase the temperature of”, as compared to the situation without GHG.
Add me too, the earth is obviously a plus in the suns radiation balance when you compare it to the cold background.
It’s beautiful as a novel. No connection with reality.
Once again, this microscopic model ignores thermodynamics and refers to a simplifying hypothesis on the gradient that has never been used elsewhere than in climatology.
I specify one thing. If you wanted to model the phenomenon correctly, you should add, for instance, an interface between the photon fluxes and the material that can thermalise. The heat transfer, ie the unidirectional observable macroscopic phenomenon, lies solely between this interface and the material.
This modeling makes it possible to satisfy the optical criterion, ie the uniqueness of the radius between two points which precisely forbids the differentiation of two opposite independent fluxes.
Phi,
There are 2 paradigms here, Thermodynamics (NET flow) and Radiative Transfer (mutual exchange of energy). Radiative Transfer has been around for at least a hundred years, long before ‘climatology’.
Kristian’s argument boils down to avoidance of conflating the two, or correcting people for only looking at the way energy moves about through the lens of Radiative Transfer (or at an even more MICRO level) without paying due heed to classical thermodynamics.
Radiative Transfer was applied to astrophysics (stars) at the beginning of the 20th century and came to be used in engineering. Summarily dismissing it because it is now used in climate research is hardly persuasive.
Quantification of the greenhouse effect is a thermodynamic problem and needs to be addressed with compatible tools. Backradiations do not represent a compatible tool. This notion is never used to solve a problem of thermodynamics outside of climatology.
I repeat, if backradiations are used in climatology, it is because they are a constituent of the concept of radiative forcing which is itself based on a hypothesis on the gradient incompatible with thermodynamics.
No.
Back radiations are off course a very good “tool” in standard statistical mechanics that by the way is the modern version and includes of course all of classical thermodynamics but is much much much more.
Such kind of concepts actually linked to the very general principle of detailed balance is in fact used everywhere, in the theory of thermal conduction for instance and of course nowhere does it contradict the principles of classical thermodynamics..
It’s not because ignoramuses here obviously ignore everything about modern statistical thermodynamics and only ever vaguely heard about the 19th century classical thermodynamics that there is nothing else and much much more of direct relevance to the problem at hand
“There are more things in Heaven and on Earth than you might imagine, Horacio.” (Shakespeare)
Imprudent freshwater sailor gammacruz aka alphagruis, aka Manivelle, aka Tsih, not yet cast off?
Stopover in Santa Crux de la Palma (Canary Is), my dear phignoramus.
You are plugging a scientific paradigm as if it is the only tool in the kit.
“Backradiation” is part and parcel of any Radiative Transfer analysis, including the thermal transfers of furnaces and rocket engines. “Backradiation” is no more than one part of the mutual exchanges of energy between objects going on at all times. I reckon you use the term because it is associated with climate, contending that the physical mechanics are unique to the study of climate – just because the word is. But this kind of analysis is at least a century old. It isn’t some invention of ‘climatology’.
Quantification of the greenhouse effect is a thermodynamic problem and needs to be addressed with compatible tools.
Can classical thermodynamics quantify the time it would take for two bodies of different temperature to come into equilibrium?
barry now believes he is a rocket scientist! “Backradiation is part and parcel of any Radiative Transfer analysis, including the thermal transfers of furnaces and rocket engines.”
It’s called “desperation”, and it’s hilarious.
barry,
The mechanism does not seem so complicated to understand. Let’s start there:
“convection is what determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere”
(Ramanathan et al. 1978)
From this singular hypothesis follows that any radiative imbalance is restored by the mere translation of the thermal profile. Whatever the origin of the imbalance, the effect is identical. So, increased backradiations or increased solar flux have the same effect. All this is only due to the very specific hypothesis on the gradient and not at all to thermodynamics which on the contrary establishes an absolute link between thermal flux and atmospheric gradient. Without this hypothesis, we obviously can not add backradiations to the solar flux and obviously we can not introduce a notion like radiative forcing.
No.
You obviously never read any of the paper by Ramanathan nor the article of Science of Doom you referred to in a reply to Bindidon,
.
No just more bullshit, as you were already repeatedly told.
There is no such “link” between thermal flux and gradient in the Earth atmosphere that is clearly far from from thermodynamic equilibrium where convection and radiation as opposed to conduction transport the heat.
None.
Nothing but phignoramus fantasy.
gammacrux,
“There is no such link …”
Bulltsih ! It is not because we do not know how to calculate this link that there is not one!
Good that you brought up up Ramanathan (and Coakley) 1978. It’s a seminal paper.
The paper is an account of a raiative-convective model. For radiative activity it uses radiative transfer analysis (Chandrasekhar) to account for scattering, emission and a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n in the atmosphere and a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n/emission at the surface.
Chadrasekhar is a giant in the field of Radiative Transfer analysis.
2-way flux is considered through out the paper (as well as scattering), whether from the surface to the atmosphere, the atmosphere to the surface, the troposphere to the stratosphere, the stratosphere to the troposphere.
The paper probes much deeper than thermodynamics, which is about bulk states and end results, not able to factor time. Thermodynamics is solved with relatively simple equations – because they deal only in NET flux and end states, not 2-way flux (and scattering) and temporal considerations.
The math in this paper is fairly dense, because it is solving much more complex operations.
Here are a few quotes:
“To obtain the total a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n below Zs [atmospheric layer] the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n by the surface [of solar radiation] must be added to that by the atmosphere.” (p. 470)
“… the radiative flux emitted by the stratosphere upward to space is assumed to be equivalent to the flux emitted down to the troposphere…” (p 479)
” Because the stratosphere must maintain a state of radiative equilibrium, half of the change in its net heating must be radiated to space, half to the troposphere.” (p 480)
The latter part of that last comment is “backradiation”, Phi. (It also mirrors the thermal conditions of Eli’s ‘green plate’ demonstration)
Here’s a bit more.
“Manabe and Strickler’s model results indicate that CO2 warms the surface by about 10 K and O3 warms the surface by about 1 K.
… it is possible that the actual warming effects of CO2 and O3 are larger than those estimated by Manabe and Strickler.” (p 481)
CO2 warms the surface (!)
“An additional effect which causes the tropospheric warming is an effective increase in the downward radiation emitted by stratospheric CO2.” (p 483)
Ramanathan and Coakley’s radiative-convective model is definitely interested in (and calculates for) 2-way fluxes (and scattering). And they definitely add (and subtract) fluxes.
They also discuss NET flux.
This paper deals with NET and 2-way fluxes – it handles both classical thermodynamics and the radiative transfer analyses that arose from the discovery and investigation of the micro world after the Laws of Thermodynamics we laid down.
Some may not approve of this ‘conflation’!
But I’m glad you drew attention to the paper.
“…model results indicate that CO2 warms the surface by about 10 K”
“model results” indicate that CO2 is a “heat source”!
Hilarious pseudoscience.
But this is the paper Phi cited to prove a point, G. As you’ve noted, it says the opposite of what he thinks it does.
Kristian,
I agree with most of what you wrote. There’s a section where I think you went off on your own a bit.
No. Pay attention, barry. Its not about the “back radiation” ITSELF. Its about how its TREATED.
You’re responding to a comment I made about how Phi treated “backradiation” – pretending it was a notion invented by ‘climatology’.
Your response was to tell me how other people treat it. So, in kind…
No, pay attention, Kristian, I am talking about Phi’s distortion. Don’t co-opt that into some other ongoing thing like I’ve missed my own point.
barry, please read what is being written. The “invention of ‘climatology'” is not “back radiation” per se. The “invention of ‘climatology'” is the particular operation where the upward and downward components of the radiative (heat) flux are separated and placed on opposite sides of the macroscopic surface energy budget, as if they were themselves distinct macroscopic fluxes of energy, fully equivalent to the solar, the conductive, and the evaporative heat fluxes.
I don’t see that. I’ve just re-read Ramanatahn and Coakley, where upward and downward flux, as well as NET flux is discussed side by side and of a piece.
This is THE seminal paper (as well as Manabe and Wetherald) on radiative convective models of heat transfer through the atmosphere (dang, I used the word heat) that the climate community refers to.
I don’t know if it’s because of the simplifed energy budget cartoons with numbers on ’em, or frustration with talking to people on the net who chat only about certain components of it, but ‘climatology’ is not responsible for people monomaniacally focusing on downward flux at the expense of all else. I’m not sure that this happens outside of arguing with people who deny ‘backradiation’ altogether (there are a few who do just that right on this blog), and hammering the point home by focusing on the mechanics of downward flux. That doesn’t necessarily mean that these people reject or ignore the MACRO/NET/overall flow, just that their denying interlocutors have driven them to focus on the MICRO.
You had the same happen to you over the past few days. Because you were hammering your point about the MACRO/NET, a number of people could not see through the haze that you agreed that thermal energy from colder objects can be absorbed by warmer objects. (Eventually they did)
I certainly don’t see this monmaniacally. As I said way upthread, NET flux, discrete exchanges, bidirectional (multidirectional) energy transfer is all happening at the same time. It’s all of a piece.
The atmosphere is not the source of heat. The atmosphere doesn’t ‘heat’ the ground. Heat can only flow from hot to cold. Heat is a transfer process, not a state. ‘Flow’ aximoatically refers to NET transfer.
Etc etc etc.
If you cared to notice upthread, Svante, Isaac and Norman generally agreed with these things, once they engaged with a less combative interlocutor.
If we ever get done picking nits, what’s the end game of all of this discussion? Where are you headed? What is the ultimate purpose of all this precise correction?
I ask sincerely, not to snark. I’m genuinely curious.
Barry
Don’t be fooled (as I was for a while). into thinking Kristian has a deeper, more correct understanding of this issue than people like Norman,Tim or yourself. IMO, he’s a poser, or maybe just a gullible deciple, who gets his ideas from Joe Postma.
The real reason we shouldn’t add backradiation to the incoming solar flux? Backradiation is increasing as a result of increased Co2, water vapor, methane – a result of human activities. Mr. Postma, like the sneaky skeptics we often see at WUWT – who have a political agenda, has invented an argument that pretends it’s “shallow minded” to do so. What a bunch of BS!
When someone smart, like you, actually takes the time to read the science quoted by Postma (the Ramanathan’s paper, for example)? You find will find his claim is a bunch of hot air.
Think of surface radiation as “spending”. Backradiation, then, is simply a rebate. If you pay $500.00 for a water heater, for example, you might be able to get $100.00 after filling out a rebate.
Kristian might say, “you should never think of a rebate as adding money to your account, Barry, you should think of the item as costing less.”
Profound? I think not.
Don’t even think about adding a rebate to your income. Outrageous!
barry,
“But this is the paper Phi cited to prove a point, G. As youve noted, it says the opposite of what he thinks it does.”
I quoted Ramanathan because he makes explicit the postulate underlying the quantitative theory:
convection is what determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere
And that’s all.
“…a comment I made about how Phi treated backradiation pretending it was a notion invented by climatology.”
I wrote :
“Backradiations do not represent a compatible tool. This notion is never used to solve a problem of thermodynamics outside of climatology.”
Thank you for not distorting what I write. There is already enough smok here. You definitely will not understand this yet affordable problem.
A clarification on the terms. Irradiance is obviously used to solve problems of thermodynamics. Backradiations, defined as independent energy flows, never appear except in climatology.
For the nth time, the justification is the postulate which reserves to convection only the fixation of the gradient and this independently of radiative exchanges.
@phinoramus says:
No.
it’s precisely because we know from theory that there cannot exist any local mathematical relationship between gradient and flux in convection or radiation transfers in general that nobody ever attempts to calculate such a thing. No relation because these are phenomenons far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Only simple ordinary thermal conduction can exhibit such a relation, the Fourier law.
For instance in Rayleigh-Benard convection what determines the heat flux is the convection pattern that develops which in turn is just a function of the Rayleigh Number that varies as Delta T, the top bottom temperature difference times L^3 with L, being the fluid layer thickness.
Nowhere any gradient in this number not even the mean gradient Delta T / L.
Tsih, alhagruis, gammacrux,
Bulltsih. The thermal flux is always and without exception linked to the gradient of the medium that supports it. It’s just not modelisable with convection. This is precisely why we are forced to make a far-fetched hypothesis to calculate the greenhouse effect.
Nice weather in Santa Cruz?
–This is THE seminal paper (as well as Manabe and Wetherald) on radiative convective models of heat transfer through the atmosphere (dang, I used the word heat) that the climate community refers to.–
Heat is convected.
What wrong with using word heat as being transfered via various convective processes in the atmosphere?
No it isn’t.
This is utterly wrong !
If such a property was indeed true it would be highly remarkable and important. So one should easily find a textbook or a paper that states, demonstrates and discusses it and even you should be able to provide a reference.
Yet, you never did and never won’t do it.
Because there is none, it’s just your fantasy not physics.
— gammacrux says:
October 30, 2017 at 1:51 PM
The thermal flux is always and without exception linked to the gradient of the medium that supports it.
No it isnt.
This is utterly wrong !….–
So per wiki:
“Heat flux or thermal flux, sometimes also referred to as heat flux density or heat flow rate intensity is a flow of energy per unit of area per unit of time”
So something like cooper can be medium which has a thermal flux.
Open flame below a cooper pot will have thermal flux from bottom thru the cooper medium and it will have a heat gradient in the 1/4″ of copper of bottom of pot. Thicker the cooper more of difference of gradient, thinner less thermal flux difference.
Different medium like steel, and having equal thickness as copper will have greater difference of thermal flux.
gammacrux,
It’s just thermodynamics. But, do you understand the meaning of linked?
I offer it for your shipping:
http://k204.ru/books/English/ahttv131.pdf
Good reading.
gamma,
“Science of Dumb?” er, I mean “Doom”. OMG that guy is a crackpot. #1 “ignoramous”. And you list him as a source?
phi,
You already once invoked this textbook as supporting allegedly your fancy views.
Unfortunately it doesn’t and as you were already told by then it says precisely the opposite of what you claim it says. Even Dr; Spencer bothered to told you.
So, for instance, he author invokes as usual
-Two counter flowing energy fluxes in radiative heat transfer…
-No general gradient-flux relationship except the special case of Fourier law in ordinary thermal conduction.
I challenge you to quote any paragraph, sentence or equation extracted from this textbook that might even remotely state that there is a general gradient-flux relation in convective heat transfer, for instance.
That would be breaking news !!!
You must confuse general gradient-flux relationship and second principle of thermodynamics that says that heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold, yet nothing, absolutely nothing about the rate at which this takes place in a given system. To say more in this respect needs much more elaborated theoretical tools than thermodynamics and above all a lot of experiment.
Thanks, Fair, 20C, 6 Knots WInd from NE.
Un temps de jeune fille !
gbaikie
Of course there is the Fourier law in ordinary thermal conduction ! Nobody claims there isn’t.
Yet there isn’t any similar relationship in convective or radiative heat transfers in general ! And in the atmosphere these processes ( and not conduction) are precisely the dominant ones that control the heat transfer.
SkepticGoneWild
You are eager to dismiss scornfully the web site Science of Doom. The web site has detailed , but well written extensive explanations of a range of topics such as first and second law of thermodynamics, global energy budget and back radiation with may references , large amounts of experimental data and several hundred comments by some who are unconvinced. He covers everything discussed here.
Start at https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/31/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-three/ and you can work your way back.
So SGW, do some reading and explain in detail why he is a crackpot and ignoramus. Provide specific details that confirm your opinions. You could also post on his pages but he likes to keep discussions courteous and free of inflammatory rhetoric (see his entries on Etiquette and Comments and Moderation) so you might to have actually think first before you launch into the abuse for which you are becoming infamous for.
So really, if you are incapable of contributing something sensible then I think your comments can safely be ignored (which I normally do, but this one was even more egregious than your usual nonsense).
SGW, your comments reflect very badly on you own intellectual capacity, to say the least.
— gammacrux says:
October 30, 2017 at 10:07 PM
gbaikie
Different medium like steel, and having equal thickness as copper will have greater difference of thermal flux.
Of course there is the Fourier law in ordinary thermal conduction ! Nobody claims there isnt.
Yet there isnt any similar relationship in convective or radiative heat transfers in general ! —
Oceans and other waters have a thermocline. Solar ponds have a salinity gradient.
-And in the atmosphere these processes ( and not conduction) are precisely the dominant ones that control the heat transfer.-
I would say climate lacks much progress- science being supposely settled and apparently so much agreement, etc.
gammacrux,
You are again missing the point.
I wrote :
—-
convection is what determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere
(Ramanathan et al. 1978)
From this singular hypothesis follows that any radiative imbalance is restored by the mere translation of the thermal profile. Whatever the origin of the imbalance, the effect is identical. So, increased backradiations or increased solar flux have the same effect. All this is only due to the very specific hypothesis on the gradient and not at all to thermodynamics which on the contrary establishes an absolute link between thermal flux and atmospheric gradient. Without this hypothesis, we obviously can not add backradiations to the solar flux and obviously we can not introduce a notion like radiative forcing.
—-
There is an absolute link between temperature and heat and therefore between gradient and heat flow. It is precisely because, due to convection, this link is inexpressible and not modelisable that the greenhouse effect can actually not be calculated without a simplifying hypothesis.
phi
What we are still missing is any reference even remotely supporting your statement:
This won’t become true just because you keep repeating it. It’s just your personal belief and you made it up, out of thin air.
It’s flabbergasting.
If you really had made the effort to read and comprehend your own ( good ) reference to Science of Doom, Ramanathan’s and Manabe’s papers you would have found out that not even “the mere translation thing” is true and is just one more a made up thing of yours.
Models have their problems but they are not what you claim they are..
gammacrux,
Where is your problem:
1. There is an absolute link between temperature and heat ?
2. therefore ?
“Its flabbergasting.” and blah blah blah.
My dear, what is the definition of radiative forcing?
How does this translate into the temperature profile?
Your sails are flapping.
Well, phi, still no reference to even remotely support any of your fancy claims…
Nada as they say here. Nothing, just blah blah blah, yes, you’re right on this one !
And by the way till my next stopover Feynman might be an excellent read. Durant les longues soires d’hiver…
Because Feynman definitely shows the nonsense of yet an another fancy statement of yours, namely that, according to phignoramus, two-way energy fluxes are never ever invoked and made use of in physics and thermodynamics except in climatology So funny.
http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_43.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270638
gammacrux,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270742
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270740
Nice day in your Moulinsart, goodbye.
— Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 31, 2017 at 6:13 AM
Barry
Dont be fooled (as I was for a while). into thinking Kristian has a deeper, more correct understanding of this issue than people like Norman,Tim or yourself. IMO, hes a poser, or maybe just a gullible deciple, who gets his ideas from Joe Postma. —
I tried to make post re Joe, but it’s says it’s in
moderation. Which bit unusual- normally posts or doesn’t post.
anyhow I will wait and see, and try another post by excluding some links and other stuff which might causing problems.
I wasn’t finished with posting about it, so just continue, but it could seem mid-sentence.
But first, see if this posts.
barry says, October 30, 2017 at 5:40 AM:
Of course it is. But notice how the two components are at all times carefully kept together, integrated into one whole, one net exchange. They are never separated and analysed in complete isolation from the other so that the one (the smaller) is considered a distinct input flux of energy, while the other one (the larger) is considered a resulting output flux of energy. They are NEVER considered independent thermodynamic entities. They are simply directionally defined components of the radiative (heat) flux, which IS an independent thermodynamic entity.
Yup. Tell it to the people who think that you can simply add the solar heat flux and the DWLWIR (one ‘half’ of the “mutual exchanges of energy” between the surface and the atmosphere) together and get a “total incoming flux of energy” to set the surface temperature. Not me.
No. Pay attention, barry. It’s not about the “back radiation” ITSELF. It’s about how it’s TREATED.
barry, please read what is being written. The “invention of ‘climatology'” is not “back radiation” per se. The “invention of ‘climatology'” is the particular operation where the upward and downward components of the radiative (heat) flux are separated and placed on opposite sides of the macroscopic surface energy budget, as if they were themselves distinct macroscopic fluxes of energy, fully equivalent to the solar, the conductive, and the evaporative heat fluxes.
Indeed. So why talk about photons at all!? Why try so hard to visualise how they travel both back and forth between hot and cold? It is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand!
I’m not using “classical” thermodynamics. I’m using standard modern thermodynamics, which includes STATISTICAL thermodynamics (mechanics). All I’m discussing here regarding photons and net movement of energy is rooted in the latter subfield.
Styer 2003: What good is the thermodynamic limit?
http://materias.df.uba.ar/ft3a2014c2/files/2014/10/Styer-What-good-is-the-thermodynamic-limit-2004.pdf
These inline reply threads piss me off. I replied just above, Kristian.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270632
Kristian
GHG’s are increasing and as a result backradiation is increasing. That’s why it’s a hot topic in climate science.
You can add it to solar energy received, subtract it from surface energy emitted, or focus only on the result. Who gives a rip? Your argument is an inane diversion. AGW is real, like it or not.
Sir Isaac Snapleton
Maybe you can help me figure out Kristian’s ideas on microscopic vs macroscopic.
In my understanding of microscopic, and I will accept it might be wrong, it would be like you shrink down to the atomic level and observe events. If you were at that scale at a surface you would see some photons striking surface molecules and raising their vibrational energy. You would see other molecules emitting photons and losing some vibrational energy. At this level you could not infer any flow of energy as there is no specific pattern at the microscopic level.
With the real world. Emission and ABS(to prevent moderation) are two separate processes that are not connected and do not affect each other. The rate a surface emits is only based upon its temperature and emissivity and area if you want a flux. Since it is taking place among trillions and trillions of molecules on a surface the totality of emission is macroscopic flow of energy away from a surface. Meanwhile, molecules are also absorbing energy from external sources. The molecules that are absorbing are not the same as emitting. Distinct and separate processes. Like a tank of water with a drain at the bottom and hose at the top. The hose filling the tank and the drain are two separate processes though both can change the water level.
I see the energy that is absorbed by a surface as a macroscopic energy flow. I need help in understanding Kristian. I think barry knows what he is saying. I do not understand what he is thinking.
Textbooks describe real two-way energy fluxes of a surface and it is supported by the quantum understanding of molecules. I have not yet read a one way energy flux for radiant heat transfer. I am hoping barry might link me to one. I do like to learn but I am not going to accept Kristian’s opinion without strong backing evidence. A textbook on heat transfer that describes what Kristian states would help.
Norman
Your understanding of this issue comes from actual physicists. Kristian gets his views from Joseph Postma. Don’t sweat it if you don’t what the hell he’s blabbering about!
This is what I said to Barry upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/?replytocom=270724#respond
Sir Isaac Snapelton,
“You can add it to solar energy received, subtract it from surface energy emitted, or focus only on the result.”
No. Thermodynamics does not admit this Bullshit, it does not admit the confusion between heating and insulation. And then, a correct application of thermodynamics does not say that CO2 has no effect but just that we do not know how to calculate it.
phi
The difference between heating and insulation is not rocket science. Get over yourself.
Norman,
Qnet=AFSigma(T1^4 – T2^4)
Eq 1.32 Lienhard 2008, A Heat Transfer TextBook
It is the only thermodynamically acceptable form of the expression for the radiative flux.
phi
Thank you, I have used the same equation many times in posts.
The equation is the reduced form of the larger equation in which each term in the parenthesis is a individual flux. You get that in reading about the derivation of the equation you posted.
In the same textbook you site, the author states that the NET energy of a surface is the amount of energy it emits minus the amount of energy it is absorbing from the environment. This equation is the simplest of heat exchange processes. If you look at some of the examples where they have multiple objects the equations become much more involved.
The very nature of the equation you site demonstrates two separate energy flows that are not linked. The two energy flows that make up the NET energy flow are only based upon the temperature of each. The temperature of the surface (T1) will emit the same amount (loss of internal energy) regardless of the temperature of (T2). The NET is the energy lost by emission minus the energy gained by absorbing surrounding energy that can reach the surface.
You can get this by reading the material in Chapter 10 of your textbook. It states if clearly.
Sir Isaac Snapelton,
Nor is climatology rocket science. No tangible result to date.
Norman,
“The NET is the energy lost by emission minus the energy gained by absorbing surrounding energy that can reach the surface.”
If you explode the equation, you should always respect T1 ≥ T2, what do not do backradiations.
“If you explode the equation, you should always respect T1 ≥ T2, what do not do backradiations.”
Obviously phi means T1 for object 1 and T2 for object 2.
So phi, how to explain, then, Lienhard(s) writing a few sentences above eqn. 1.32: “All heat* leaving object 1 arrives at object 2 and all heat arriving at object 1 comes from object 2.”
I thought heat only flowed from hot to cold. Geez, is this an error? In a modern physics text? How could that possibly happen?
*Here the Lienhard’s heat is poured from object to object. In the Lienhard’s book opening paragraph, they explain they will reintroduce the long discarded caloric theory to a modern science text as “it will seldom be wrong”.
phi
The T2 is the backradiation. It is less than the emission but it is adding energy to the surface in a distinct and separate process other than the emitted energy.
T1=rate energy is lost from surface (lowering internal energy)
T2=rate energy is gained by the surface (increasing internal energy).
Rate of loss is greater than the rate of gain. Second Law of Thermodynamics is intact.
The greater T2 becomes the less internal energy is lost. If you have another source of energy (for Earth it is the Sun, for a plate it could be an electrical heater or flame) that is distinct and separate from T2 it will also add energy to the surface and with both combined you can reach a higher temperature.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
I read your response to barry. I do agree with your logic.
If Kristian gets his information from the goofball Postma, that is sad. It would explain why after numerous posts, Kristian will call me a moron but will never provide any supporting source for his ideas. Makes sense.
I think Postma is awful at physics but excellent at building a cult mentality. You see people on this blog thinking established science is wrong. Cults work buy making their followers feel special. The leader gives them secret knowledge that NO ONE else knows and all the experts are wrong (Postma knows enough physics to make his stupid ideas seem plausible to lazy minded people that will not read actual established physics). He makes them feel super smart with out needing to put out the effort to learn the material (which takes lots of work and effort).
One poster here is saying Tim Folkerts (one of the most knowledgeable posters on physics…I have not seen any of his posts go against any textbook physics I have read…If it is the same Tim Folkerts he may actually teach the material at University levels) is a paid sophist. That language is cult programming from Postma.
Norman
“If Kristian gets his information from the goofball Postma, that is sad.”
It’s not an “if”. He recites the arguments of Postma and pals almost verbatim. But Kristian is not alone. I scrolled down the comment section of one of Joe’s posts. Bart and Gallopingcamel were among the participants. No doubt Flynn, g*, and phi are among Postma’s deciples as well. You are spot on about the cult phenomenon.
Here’s some background on Postma:
https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/joseph-e-postma/amp/
Norman,
“Rate of loss is greater than the rate of gain. Second Law of Thermodynamics is intact.”
No. You manipulate an entity that does not respect the second principle. It matters when there are several types of flows at play, such as in our atmosphere.
In any thermodynamic system, an alteration of the structure causes a priori a modification of the gradient. In any thermodynamic system, a modification of the heat flow causes, a priori, a different alteration of the gradient. Except in the particular theory of the quantification of the greenhouse effect where the two causes are confounded because we fix the gradient and therefore we postulate an equivalence between backradiations and source of heat.
— Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
October 31, 2017 at 7:39 AM
Kristian
GHGs are increasing and as a result backradiation is increasing. Thats why its a hot topic in climate science. —
If backradiation is important, no doubt we have global backradiation measured so we know how much it’s increasing.
All humankind depends upon it, so obviously a very accurate record would have kept for many years.
Obviously it would criminal act [as in we get to hang them until they all dead- type of importance] for government employees paid to do service to the public to neglect doing this.
Isaac,
Kristian is not bothered by ‘backradiation’, only in how it is expressed. He thinks (incorrectly, I wager) that some here believe the atmosphere is a source of heat, like a second sun, instead of a modulator of energy. Did my best to unpack the differences to see what is agreed on to progress the conversation. Wasn’t too successful, though I noted which people were willing to break the loop and move forward.
You could almost condense Kristian’s argument down to g*e*r*a*n’s sarcastic comment: ‘So you think CO2 molecules are heat sources?’ Of course, no one does.
I visited Postma’s site and got banned pretty quickly. Don’t worry, I’m not impressed.
Barry
It’s true, people do get confused between insulation and a heat source, and you’ve done a good job of clarifying. Kristian has that much down, and at least acknowledges the existence of backradiation.
After that, he’s just one of Joseph Postma’s gullible followers.
phi
You will have to help me understand your post by clarifying what you mean by “gradient” in the context you are using it.
continuing, Joe says:
–This means that almost 50% of the cross-section of the
Earth is continuously being insolated with radiative
heating of +87.5 C!
Well I do this all the time. I draw from 45 degree latitude and longitude from point of Zenith, and with such area on has the most intense sunlight. And in regards to the ocean
its direct and indirect sunlight warming ocean.
One degree = about 111 km, 45 times 111 is 4995 km radius- call it 5000 km area of the sunlit hemisphere.
And he compare to disk rather than hemisphere.
Hemisphere is 20,000 km and disk is 12,756 km.–
5000 radius [though slight curve to it] is 77.8 million square km. And 12,756 km diameter disk is 127.79 million square km.
So that is not almost 50% of disk.
Hemisphere is 1/2 of 510, or 255 million square km and not 1/2 of that either.
So he must using somewhere around 40 degrees or something- and that *would* have more intense sunlight and be less curved. Let’s try 40- 4440 radius: 61.9 million square km or almost half.
Anyhow, I don’t disagree. Skip ahead to something interesting.
Nothing much, but nothing about the ocean- so it’s wrong.
“A small, recently discovered asteroid — or perhaps a comet — appears to have originated from outside the solar system, coming from somewhere else in our galaxy. If so, it would be the first “interstellar object” to be observed and confirmed by astronomers. This unusual object — for now designated A/2017 U1 — is less than a quarter-mile (400 meters) in diameter and is moving remarkably fast. Astronomers are urgently working to point telescopes around the world and in space at this notable object.”
http://www.nasawatch.com/
Orbital diagram:
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=A%2F2017%20U1;old=0;orb=1;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#orb
“The object approached our solar system from almost directly “above” the ecliptic, the approximate plane in space where the planets and most asteroids orbit the Sun, so it did not have any close encounters with the eight major planets during its plunge toward the Sun. On Sept. 2, the small body crossed under the ecliptic plane just inside of Mercury’s orbit and then made its closest approach to the Sun on Sept. 9. Pulled by the Sun’s gravity, the object made a hairpin turn under our solar system, passing under Earth’s orbit on Oct. 14 at a distance of about 15 million miles (24 million kilometers) — about 60 times the distance to the Moon. It has now shot back up above the plane of the planets and, travelling at 27 miles per second (44 kilometers per second)”
http://spaceref.com/asteroids/something-visited-our-solar-system-from-interstellar-space.html
At earth distance, sun escape is 42.1 km/sec:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
So it’s going about 3 km/sec faster than escape [or about 6696 mph faster than velocity needed to leave Sol. Or roughly speaking it entered Sol already going at 6696 mph- or not allowing for any kind of gravity assist from the Sun’s gravity- though it seems to me, there wouldn’t be a gravity assist.
Anyhow that rock flew really close to Earth- 24 million km may seem like far distance, but it ain’t. And from closest point to the sun [nearer than Mercury distance] it took from Sept 9 to Oct 11 to reach 1 AU from the sun. Or hohmann tranfer from Mercury distance to earth distance takes 105 days, and did it in about 30 days. Or from earth distance [1 AU to Mars distance 1.5 AU, it traveling this much distance in about 21 days
Play nice now boys and girls…
RW, we’ll do our very best.
— barry says:
October 30, 2017 at 5:40 AM
….
Can classical thermodynamics quantify the time it would take for two bodies of different temperature to come into equilibrium? —
So two cubes of copper which are an 1 meter cube.
Put them in L-3 of Saturn
Saturn distance from sun has range of 16.7 watts to 13.4 watts
per meter of sunlight. We could say that it’s 15 watts per square meter at the L-3 of Saturn- during whatever time period
needed.
The cubes will start at Cube A being 100 C and Cube B at 0 C.
And have them orbit the L-3 point and they will orbit each other and be tidal locked so one side of cube is faces the other side of cube. Or with dice: snake eyes faces snake eyes.
And they are 10 meters apart.
But perhaps you start with just one cube. If have single cube is 100 C, how long before it’s 0 C.
And if have single cube starting at 0 C, how long does it take to before it’s -100 C
[with one side constantly facing the sun]
Density of copper is 8.96 so each cube mass is 8960 kg
Specific heat of copper is 385 joules per K per kg
Heat conductivity of copper is 385.0 W/m K
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/thrcn.html
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html
Assume copper painted with flat black paint or candle soot.
Would it make easier if cubes where spheres?
I give a clue that cube will “essentially” become like a sphere, sort of sphere with 4 insulative pointy hats.
But you can sort ignore, that if too hard, and give a fairly close answer.
Oops, I should have said 8 pointy hats.
And it could be easier if increase the scale of cubes- and they would have some gravity or more noticeable gravity.
So can change it to 100 meter cubes. And lets still keep distance between two them 10 meters [which sort of brings them closer in terms of appearances and real effects].
And values of heat increase by 1 million- and provides more time, though this also reduces the thermal conductivity of the copper- or makes it less like ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
I would say it also allows the second cube “more of opportunity” [or noticeable effect] to “warm” the hotter cube, particularly of the four of 8 pointy hats.
Of course one make them 1000 meter cubes if you want.
How does classical thermodynamics deal with time in this setup?
How would Clausius work it out?
Exactly.
Non-answer.
I am restating your question:
barry says:
October 30, 2017 at 5:40 AM
.
Can classical thermodynamics quantify the time it would take for two bodies of different temperature to come into equilibrium?
If can’t do two, start with one, then maybe get closer doing to two.
We had all those people discussing blue plates etc [endlessly]. I also want to see the practicable application of theory.
While I wait for an answer, I going to doodle.
Say have 100 meter cube of copper [at Saturn’s Lagrange point 3] which was uniformly heated so it’s blackbody surface was uniformity kept at 0 C.
So it’s radiating 315 watts per square meter or it’s monitored so it’s always radiating 315 watts and energy added in right location to ensure it does so.
So got 6 sides each 10,000 square meter- 60,000 times 315 is
18.9 million watts. Or can need powerplant able to provide as much as 19 MW of thermal energy. Considering electrical powerplants are around 50% efficient. Or 1/2 energy is waste heat- and we want waste heat. So power plant able to provide about 10 MW of electrical power. Or a few large nuclear powerplants would be needed. Such powerplants could be quite simple and could be quite small- but amount energy used is the same. And varying amount of energy needed is the distance radioactive material is to each other [simple] and add some heat pipes.
Anyhow it’s a fair amount of energy.
If instead of cube it’s was a 100 meter diameter sphere:
50 meters squared times pi times 4 = 31415.9 square meters, times 315 is 9.896 million watts.
Or the 8 pointy hats would need a lot of extra heat to be kept warm. 18.9 – 9.896 = 9 MW
Nature unlike what humans can do, isn’t going to uniformly heat the 8 pointy hats. Or Nature will heat spherically.
Or if put nuclear powerplant in middle of cube and not try to unformity heat entire cube, the middle of the 6 sides will be warmer than 8 pointy hats region.
And the pointy hat will act as insulation and/or one can say they will colder and require less heat.
Or quite simply 100 meter cube will require less energy to have some part of surface 0 C [or warmer] as compared to sphere.
So if try to heat 100 meter cube and you roughly wanted the surface to mostly 0 C, one use less energy than what 100 meter sphere needs [which has to be fairly uniformly heated- nature will uniformly warm the surface].
Or bigger area cube can have more square meter be warmer and use less energy as compared to sphere. Or as said the 8 pointy regions are an insulative effect. And they are colder [emitting less energy] has compered to a sphere.
Though the expectation of needing more heating to heat the cube [as said above] was wrong [or I didn’t include the insulative effect. Or I assumed each square meter would need 315 watts.
So, how much exactly is it less?
You need to do the math, or build such a thing and then make the math work for it.
But “you all” claim the math is known- not only for such a simple thing, but the complex climate of Earth.
So, I am waiting.
Though probably do more doodling, later.
I will go over cooling of one cube and choose a 100 meter cube
at 0 C. Have cool to -100 C
8960 kg times million times 385 joules and times
100 K of cooling from 0 to -100 C. Will be the amount of
energy radiated.
8960 x million x 385 x 100 is the amount of joules of heat:
344,960,000 million joules: 3.449 x 10^14 joules
And question is how long does it take.
Now something generating 10 MW- 1.0 x 10^7 joules per second takes
3.4496 x 10^7 seconds to generate this much heat and year is
about 3.15 x 10^7
So the time involved looks like more than a year or want to know how many years.
And ultimate question is if 10 meters away from 100 meter cube
which 100 C how longer will it take to cool the cube which starts at 0 C.
Oh I got this backwards, we want to know while the O C cube is cooling, how much longer does it take to cool the 100 C cube due to the effect having the cool cube near it.
But I want to look at the 0 C cube cooling by itself and roughly it’s +1 years.
And as we went over, if it was 1 meter cube it would cool much quicker. Or it seems the bigger cube gives more “resolution” or stretches out the time involved. Or we or I tend to deal in seconds rather than nanoseconds.
So each square meter at 0 C radiates 315 watts.
And square mater of copper 1 mm thick is 8.96 kg of copper
with 385 joules per kg per K.
Or in first 10 seconds it stays at 0 K, and in first minute also stays at about 0 K. Or copper can conduct thru few mm really quickly. Though if measuring in terms 1/10th or 1/100th of degrees, the surface would cool.
Now other part of this is, that though copper conducts heat rapidly, it needs a temperature difference.
So rather than assume, we have do the math on how much heat copper can conduct if the difference is 1/100th of 1 C
385 x [0.01 /.002 ] = 1925 watts
So if difference 1/100th of C 1925 watts can conducted thru 2 mm of copper in 1 second
And if 4 mm of copper: 962.5 watts
10 mm of copper: 385 watts
12 mm of copper: 320 watts
So 12 mm of copper can conduct over 315 watts if difference is 1/100th of C
And 12 mm copper is 8.96 kg x 12 x 385 x .01 K = 413.95 joules.
Or in minute the surface cools less than 1/10th of C and more than 1/100th of C.
What can say about 1 hour of time? As guess surface cools less than 1 K
And we have 15 watts per square meter of sunlight, which is having very little effect upon a surface which is close to 0 C.
Newton’s Law of Cooling.
You Sir, have been schooled.
Gordon,
“RWAll they (photons) are doing is slowing down the upward IR cooling push and forcing the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to be emitting IR up a higher rates than the the whole combined surface/atmosphere is passing into space
RWthis makes no sense scientifically. Nothing will slow down IR from the surface, its rate of emission is determined by the temperature of the layer of air right next to the surface. If that layer of air was significantly warmer than the surface, IR emission would stop till the two layers equalized.”
The balance at the surface is the sum of a radiant and non-radiant flux where the additive superposition principle applies to the effects of energy flux on the surface temperature of a system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
To the extent that more radiation flux flows into the surface (from the atmosphere and Sun) than is emitted by the surface, it must be replacing non-radiant flux leaving the surface, but not flowing back into the surface (as non-radiant flux).
In short, not all of the DLR incident on the surface is actually added to the surface. Much of it is short-circuited, i.e. cancelled, by non-radiant flux leaving the surface, but not flowing back into the surface as non-radiant flux. In the steady-state, any and all flux in excess of the IR flux direcly radiated by the surface (about 390 W/m^2) must be net zero across the surface/atmosphere boundary. This is an immutable universal physical law.
The underlying physics driving the GHE are not really the total of DLR at the surface, but rather the large amount of DLR at the surface is the driven after effect of the underlying physics driving the GHE. It is this somewhat subtle, but crucial point, that eludes those such as yourself.
All that’s really happening is the upward IR push by the surface and atmosphere is being resisted, because absorbed up IR in the atmosphere is re-radiated both up and down, i.e. some back downwards towards (and not necessarily back to) the surface. The net effect of this radiative resistane to upward radiative cooling (to space) is to force the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to be emitting IR up a higher rates (higher than 240 W/m^2) in order for the whole combined surface and atmosphere to be ‘pushing back through’ the required 240 W/m^2 out the TOA in order to achieve balance.
This should have been stated as:
“In the steady-state, any and all flux flowing into and out of the surface in excess of the IR flux direcly radiated by the surface (about 390 W/m^2) must be net zero across the surface/atmosphere boundary.”
Some days ago I wrote about my layman understanding:
I repeat for the nth time on such threads: the only thing I understand is that if there were no trace gases like H2O, CO2 and the like, [100 % of] Earths radiation in answer to Suns would reach outer space, and fluxes measured at TOA would be equal to those measured at surface.
It seems to me when reading RW’s comment:
All thats really happening is the upward IR push by the surface and atmosphere is being resisted, because absorbed up IR in the atmosphere is re-radiated both up and down, i.e. some back downwards towards (and not necessarily back to) the surface. The net effect of this radiative resistance to upward radiative cooling (to space) is to force the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to be emitting IR up a higher rates (higher than 240 W/m^2) in order for the whole combined surface and atmosphere to be pushing back through the required 240 W/m^2 out the TOA in order to achieve balance.
that I was not quite wrong.
Why do so many people try to explain that downwelling IR ‘warms the surface’ ? I don’t understand their motivation.
It is perfectly sufficient to notice that as long as Earth is in radiative imbalance due to upwelling IR absorbed and randomly reemitted in all directions instead of completely reaching outer space, the planet will have warm a bit to reach radiative balance again.
Thanks to RW (and btw to others who explain the same mechanism but by using a somewhat differing verbiage).
Bindidon,
“Why do so many people try to explain that downwelling IR warms the surface ? I dont understand their motivation.”
This is what I tried to explain here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270285
@Bindidon
Merely because this statement is quite correct from a scientific point of view !!!!
Provided one adds or specifies that “warms the surface” means “increases the temperature of earth’s surface” as compared to the earth’s surface temperature one would observe in a situation without GHG’s in atmosphere
This increase in surface temperature is merely because earth surface necessarily absorbs both IR back radiation from atmosphere and the radiation from sun. Both add indeed and in spite of neither being a “heat flux” conservation of energy <b<applied to the earth surface only implies in steady regime (i. e. when energy in = energy out) that its temperature must increase with respect to a situation without GHG’s and thus back radiations.
Please note that the first law or conservation of energy is applied to the earth surface only as a thermodynamic system not to the whole planet earth !
The latter instead constitutes of course a quite different thermodynamic system that in all instances, namely with or without GHG’s, ever receives just radiation and energy from sun and thus from first law, in steady state, always must have the same temperature, as viewed from space, namely its effective temperature of 255 K.
It is essential to become aware of that the above point of view is just one way to describe the GHE ! It is quite equivalent in every respect to reasoning in terms of “insulation” of the earth’s surface by the GHG’s !
And, as to the motivation, please note that systematically looking at the same physical phenomenon in different ways is essential in physics or science and always highly instructive and fruitful.
Yet just another point so often emphasized and illustrated by Feynman in his work and teaching…
Moment of truth coming over the next several months for the climate.
I expect colder with global temperatures at or below 30 year means by next summer.
Why do you keep repeating yourself? We all know what you expect.
Do we?
What average temperature are going to get next summer.
Only the crazies expect that next summer must be significantly warmer than our last summer
Only the crazies expect that next summer must be significantly warmer than our last summer
No one has said that. So who is crazy?
Slavatore has predicted that the average anomaly for next NH summer will be zero or less (based on UAH TLT data).
If that doesn’t happen, he’s agreed that will put a significant dent in his views.
I think it’s a little crazy to predict the weather so far out, but I respect that he’s committed himself to this.
— barry says:
October 31, 2017 at 2:45 PM
Only the crazies expect that next summer must be significantly warmer than our last summer
No one has said that. So who is crazy?–
Well I could guess everyone who posts other than maybe Davie is not that crazy.
But I am only speaking strictly in regards to “expecting next summer will warmer than last summer”.
It possible for next summer to be warmer- I wouldn’t call that crazy. And it’s almost predictable that in the news, it will next summer be claimed to be the warmer.
–Slavatore has predicted that the average anomaly for next NH summer will be zero or less (based on UAH TLT data).
If that doesnt happen, hes agreed that will put a significant dent in his views.
I think its a little crazy to predict the weather so far out, but I respect that hes committed himself to this.–
I predict it will bouncing around next summer and people will arguing about what is the average anomaly.
Why don’t you ask the ridiculous Robertson troll why he does, by the way above all disturbing the entire thread with his endless nonsense blah blah and his repeated ‘idiot’ insults?
I prefer by far a harmless ‘expert in expectation’ like Salvatore to all those harmful experts in denial.
“… all those harmful experts in denial.”
I like that Bin! A little recognition for our work exposing the pseudoscience.
Not that it’s really that much work. ..
g*e*r*a*n
I was reading your hero’s webpage. Yup a crackpot. He did pat you on the head like an obedient puppy. That must have made you happy.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/22/incomplete-thermodynamics/#comment-31565
He understands even less physics than I had first thought. After reading his crap he seems more a cult leader and he has many faithful followers.
Yes you are right, following a cult leader does not require work and making up physics is really easy. That is why you do not do much work. You don’t want to read real physics and see the real Con-man exposed for what he is. A cult leader with zany lazy followers that believe all their dear leader tells them.
Poor Normie, there must have been a lot of dishes to wash today. Or, maybe his boss was watching so Normie couldn’t pound on his keyboard all day. And, of course, the worms in his head hurt.
Such a sad life, I shouldn’t laugh.
Oh, what the heck!
g*e*r*a*n
I am learning you are not very adept with physics concepts and you make up physics to support what you believe is correct.
Did you get a treat from Joe?
No Con-man, you are NOT learning. That’s why you still get confused on the units for “Q”. The worms in your head tell you that you understand physics, so you wrote a 300+ word rambling comment explaining that the units for Q were “Joules/sec”, not “Joules”!
It’s like you crave being WRONG!
That’s why you are so hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
On your Postma post you claim this:
“The common mistake here is trying to use equation 1, in this situation. Equation 1, often called the radiative heat transfer equation, fails in this case where a constant power source is involved. Thats why the solution ends up with the temperature of the sphere being a factor of the fourth root of 2 (1.189) higher than the temperature of the shell.
That violates both 1LoT and 2LoT!
The correct solution for Rsphere = Rshell, which does NOT violate the laws of thermo, is Tsphere = Tshell.
The steel greenhouse, correctly solved, is further evidence against the GHE.”
Why does this violate the 1LoT and the 2LoT? Why do you think the heat transfer equation fails with a constant power source? What are you basing your absurd notions upon?
You just make up physics and call it good. Find me a case where a constant power source fails the established heat transfer equation and why would you think it would. You do not have a clue how this equation works. You don’t even have a clue of any law of thermodynamics. You just make up your own physics and peddle it as fact.
I just lost the tiny respect I had for your humor. All things you call others are what you are. You are a con-man, a snake, a sniper and also a pretender. You don’t know physics and you never will.
Keep stalking me, Con-man. You might learn something.
Joe Postma’s phony physics at its finest:
“The climate alarmist replacement for a consideration of heat flow and thermodynamic equilibrium is to require that any secondary emission, no matter its source or the nature or characteristics of its source nor the nature of the emission, will add with the energy of the original power source and thus cause the original power source to rise in temperature. This would indeed conserve energy if the energy from the secondary emissions behaved and were conserved this way, and this is what leads to the climate alarmist RGHE solution.
However, if one incorporates into the model the equations for heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium and the formal statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy), then secondary emission from cooler objects which gained their thermal energy from the original power source does not add back with the power source to increase its temperature as this would violate the definition and directionality of heat flow, and it would also be inconsistent with the formal formulation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that an object can only increase in temperature if it receives heat. The climate alarmist solution treats all emission to function as heat, whereas the definition of heat flow and the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium states that emission can only act as heat if it is flowing from a more intense source to a less intense source, i.e. from warmer to cooler.”
He states: “which states that an object can only increase in temperature if it receives heat” Well duh, a powered object is constantly receiving heat. He can’t grasp that a powered object temperature is not some fixed value. It is dependent on how much energy the object can lose.
I have in the past shown the stupidity of his thought process but his zombie brain eating disciples are not awake enough to break free of the cult programming.
You can have a sphere with a 1 meter square surface area receive 100 Watts of continuous power. With no surrounding energy flows a blackbody sphere would reach an equilibrium temperature of 205 K. With the exact same power input a sphere with a surface area of 0.1 m^2 would reach an equilibrium temperature of 364 K. Not changing the input energy at all you can have a surface temperature increase of 159 K by just having less radiating surface area. It is real world with an tungsten light bulb filament. A power supply of 60 watts can raise the filament to thousands of degrees.
Lord have mercy!
The Con-man is obsessed with Joseph. That’s where he learned what a “sophist” was. Now, he has heard of a “paid sophist”, and wants to increase his income.
He’s certainly got the sophistry down.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I write a few posts showing how your hero is a fraud and cult leader and manipulating your ignorance of physics and you call that “obsession”. I was hoping some of his disciples that post here might wake up and quit the zombie chants of Postma’s horrible and misleading physics.
I am sure you will not read real physics and learn his many false ideas. You don’t have the motivation and like the easy life of fake physics. I am hoping others in the cult can be deprogrammed and become productive members of a larger scientific community.
Norm, your constant, rambling, erroneous, obsessed comments are hilarious.
More, please.
barry says:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270152
Skeptics try to argue that energy from a colder object cannot reach and effect the energy loss of a warmer object by conflating the MACRO hot > cold with the MICRO energy energy.
Heres a prime example:
This Wabbit experiment belongs with Elmer Fudd in cartoon strips if if it is meant to show that heat can pass from cold to hot (in defiance of 2LOT) or that it models the issue of back radiation in CAGW.
This one lumps the MACRO and the MICRO together.
Barry I am not sure what you are on about other than some nave adulation of Eli Rabbet.
I went to a lot of trouble explaining it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268016
Firstly note the conditional component “if” and I double emphasized it inadvertently. What is it that you don’t grasp that without compensation heat can never pass from “cold to hot?” It was explained and gave the fridge as an example of “compensation.” Where is your confusion when that is clearly a macro description as in Thermodynamics?
On the latter part “or that it models the issue of back radiation in CAGW.” Rabbet’s model is indeed a woeful illustration of CAGW where again I went to a lot of trouble explaining its absurdity. An analysis clearly shows that as the back radiation decreases then original plate’s T increases.
How much more of an absurd macro effect do you wish before you agree that it belongs to Elmer Fudd cartoons when it does the opposite of what CAGW is supposed to do?
Do you see any micro confusion there?
Bringing up a single photon in a Thermodynamic context is meaningless. Thermo is developed along two distinct macro routes viz: a classical deductive and statistical route. Both must agree. Neither looks to determine the fate of a single photon naturally released.
If you know differently then tell us the answer for the corollary of a single naturally released photon (without intensity information) then extends to multiple similar photons to defy Thermo Laws. Yeah right! Prove it!
“Imagine the host opened door #3, revealing a goat, before you chose any door.
Now, should you choose door number 1 or door number 2?
It doesn’t matter. Equal chances of winning.”
Hmm.
you had a chance of 33%, now you have a chance of 50% of winning the car.
It did matter.
Thank you host.
You have had your chances go from 33.3 to 50%, Coincidentally a 50% improvement.
Would you mind transferring this to your Monty Hall problem [closed] Ta.
I had not paid much attention to the Stephan-Boltzmann equation till recently. Yesterday I spent hours reading Planck’s work of 1912 which he described as a treatise on heat radiation. The more I read, the more bizarre he seemed to get.
Planck’s work was heavily influenced by Boltzmann and Boltzmann was influenced by Kircheoff. Between the three of them, they managed to steer thermodynamics away from the work of Clausius and into a Netherland of statistical theory.
Planck has redefined entropy in such a manner as to make the 2nd law of Clausius unrecognizable. In doing so, he has done more to obfuscate thermodynamics than to throw any illumination on the subject. Planck had no idea how heat is converted to EM for radiation although he did allow that his so-called heat radiation is a conversion from heat to radiation.
In his treatise on so-called heat-radiation he has taken his abortion of entropy and added probability theory to it. Planck has admitted that his theory cannot be visualized, a theme echoed by Stephan of Stephan-Boltzmann who admitted the S_B equation cannot be verified experimentally. That puts it in the class of modern unvalidated climate models.
Planck admitted that he blew it by ignoring the new science of electron theory. He used convoluted math to describe quantum theory. It seems he has done the same with his theory on heat, ignoring the electron theory which would have clarified his work.
Today, climate science is thoroughly confused about the simple relationship between electrons and heat. Rather, the convoluted theories of Planck and Boltzmann have been integrated incorrectly with the reality of heat. To make matters worse, modern theorists have gotten the S-B equation wrong, claiming a two-way transfer of heat between bodies radiating against each other.
Boltzmann is not about heat it’s a lame means of trying to establish the 2nd law using statistical theory. Boltzmann is about radiation density with an inference that the radiation is heat flowing through space. In other words, it’s physical nonsense.
Boltzmann, Kircheoff, and Planck knew little or nothing about electrons and their importance in atomic structure. This work needs to be scrapped and we need to go back and study heat properly, as a real, physical phenomenon, and not as a mathematical obfuscation.
We need to go back to the good work done by Clausius and continue from there.
Gordon admits: “I had not paid much attention to the Stephan-Boltzmann equation till recently.”
This has been painfully obvious in Gordon’s comments.
Perhaps Gordon missed Prof. Planck right up front informing the reader:
“The term “heat radiation,” then, will be applied to all physical phenomena of the same nature as light rays. Every light ray is simultaneously a heat ray.”
If it calms down Gordon, just substitute in light ray for “The Theory of Light Ray Radiation” where ever Gordon needs to for better understanding the text. Or as an alternative substitute in Clausius’ definition of heat.
No formula or test verifying that formula will change, only the text.
For lovers of backradiations,
We are approaching the cold season.
I propose for this winter to regulate your heating using the notions of backconductions and conductive forcing.
We will see next spring if you are still convinced by your junk thermodynamics.
Yes, I often recommend they bring in some blocks of ice to heat their rooms. Ice emits about 300 Watts/m^2, so only a few blocks should heat a small basement room nicely.
If not, just add a little more ice.
“I propose for this winter to regulate your heating using the notions of backconductions and conductive forcing.”
Sure as the outside winter temperature changes I could have the contractors come over and add more backconduction insulation or remove insulation for some conductive forcing on say an hourly basis to regulate my room temperature comfortably instead of my thermostat modulating my furnace all the time. The thermostat would just call the contractor on automatic setting. This would save on fuel for more backradiation when it is painfully cold, windy outside.
Fortunately also studying the field of economics helps guide my proper decision for maintaining room temperature comfortably this winter with the thermostat simply calling the furnace to add some backradiation on painfully cold, windy days.
No heat was misused in the making of this comment.
“I often recommend they bring in some blocks of ice to heat their rooms.”
Heat was intentionally & hilariously misused in the making of this comment. Call the authorities. More please.
Tricky has the added advantage of his “glow-in-the-dark” cabbages. He can heat his apartment with ice, and see at night with his cabbages.
No Ball4, you have not understood what I propose to do. It is not a question of modifying your insulation but just of regulating your heating according to a thermal calculation which uses the notions of backconduction and convective forcing.
I am actually happy to glance at this webpage posts which includes plenty
of valuable data, thanks for providing such data.
Its true, people do get confused between the insulation and a heat source, and youve done a good job of clarifying. Kristian has that much down, and at least acknowledges the existence of back radiation.
thanks a bunch
Appriciable article, We at Property Hunters shifted this service to a level much higher than the broker concept. you can see more details like this article Good location
What a fun read – I’ll be sharing with my wife. This is appreciated!